[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 11, 1995
.1014 
[English]
The Chairman: I believe we have sufficient members to hear our witnesses this morning. They've been patient with us until now. I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to order, and I'd like to introduce our witnesses for this morning.
As the members know, we are reviewing the Estimates of the department and the agencies that are responsible to the department. Yesterday we had the Minister of Labour and her officials here to discuss the labour component of human resources development. To pursue that component of the department's activities, we have before us today three of the agencies that report to the Minister of Labour.
.1015
We have the Canada Labour Relations Board, with Mr. Weatherill, the chairman; andMr. James Callon, the director general of program management and administrative services. From the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, we have Mr. Arthur St-Aubin, the president and chief executive officer. From the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, we have Madame Marie-P. Poulin,
[Translation]
the chair, as well as Mr. Michel Lamoureux, executive director, research and policy, and Elizabeth MacPherson, consulting lawyer and secretary of the tribunal.
[English]
We will begin with opening statements from the representatives of the three agencies and then we will invite the members to ask questions. We are starting at about 10:17 a.m. I'm prepared, if the members are willing, to go to 11:30 a.m. or 11:45 a.m. unless the questions run out before then. I'm sure they won't.
Without any further ado, let me begin with the Canada Labour Relations Board. Mr. Weatherill, I presume you will have an opening statement.
[Translation]
Mr. J.F.W. Weatherill (Chairman, Canada Labour Relations Board): As I said last year, the Canada Labour Relations Board is an autonomous and independent quasi-judicial tribunal, as expected of the case for this kind of organization. Its decisions are subject to review by the Federal Court of Appeal, but on a highly restricted basis, thanks to a very rigorous privative clause.
Given the independence that I mentioned, with respect to the practical side of its operations, the Canada Labour Relations Board is constituted as a distinct service of government, although it is a special case in that it reports to Parliament through the appropriate minister, namely the Minister of Labour.
As in previous years, I'm here today to provide you, insofar as possible, with the explanations you require about the operation of the service and in particular on certain details set out in Part III of the Estimates.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I'm assisted in this by Mr. Callon Director General of Program Management and Administrative Services, and Mr. Gérard Legault, Director General, Operations and Registrar. I may need him to answer certain questions.
[English]
If I may briefly present some of the high points of the past year at the board, on the operations side the number of applications received by the board has fallen somewhat from the previous year and has fallen considerably from the time a few years ago when the number of applications reached historic and almost impossible heights, owing to a flood of applications of various sorts made in respect of the fusion of bargaining units created by the board at the Canada Post Corporation. As anyone would have anticipated, that fusion led to considerable stress. It was a profound change not only in the collective negotiations but also in the social employment relationships amongst employees themselves and as between employees and the employer.
.1020
It generated a great many applications to the board, of various sorts, some of them applications by the union, or some of the remaining unions, against the employer, many of them applications by employees against the trade union now representing them, arising out of incidents or alleged incidents or perceived incidents relating to the fusion at the bargaining units and the taking over of what had become a very large bargaining unit indeed by a bargaining agent a fair proportion of the employees had not wanted. Nevertheless, the majority ruled and the new bargaining agent took over.
There were also, I may say, a fairly large number of applications before the board during those same years resulting from Canada Post's franchising operations. They were applications in the nature of sale-of-business applications, maintaining in general that the franchisee was in fact the same employer or a successor employer to Canada Post and the franchisees' employees would be covered by one or another of the collective agreements that had been entered into between Canada Post and one or another of the trade unions as bargaining agent for those employees.
In all of these cases the number of applications now before the board has been substantially reduced. A number of the franchise applications were dealt with following public hearings and decisions by the board. A pattern of decision, I think it can be said, was set. As a result of that the parties reading those decisions and understanding the juridical theory or interpretive theory incorporated in them came to some conclusions about the future of many of the other applications, of which there were over a hundred, and most of those have now been either dealt with or withdrawn. So our caseload in that has been reduced.
As well, and perhaps more importantly, a large number of cases, and in particular complaints by employees against the trade union that is the current principal bargaining agent, have either been settled or withdrawn, with the result that the backlog of cases before the board, which a couple of years ago was in the area of 2,800, is now in the area of 600 cases.
[Translation]
I would just like to briefly explain what is meant by a backlog. The term ``backlog'' has a somewhat negative connotation. We are not talking here about cases where nothing is being done. Generally they are cases that are left unresolved at the request of the parties. There may be between 200 and 600 such cases. The board is fully aware of this and is waiting for the two parties to show a willingness to resolve the matter. When either one or the other of the two parties asks us to reopen the file, we will deal with it as quickly as we possibly can.
For the time being, there are approximately 200 cases pending: either the parties are awaiting a decision to clarify their own position, or they are currently negotiating something among themselves, which is even better.
.1025
As for the other 400 cases, when we talk about a ``backlog'', what we mean is that these are cases regarding which no decision has yet been made. They may be under investigation; they are probably in the process of being reviewed by a tribunal that has already held hearings and will soon be making a ruling. There can be a number of different reasons.
The fact is, only in relatively few of these 400 cases has there been a lengthy delay. As is the case with any tribunal, there can be delays at times, although the public doesn't waste any time making its displeasure known to us when a decision is delayed. The fact is, however, that very few are. We do our outmost to avoid delay and are trying to put monitoring systems in place to ensure that once a case has been heard, a ruling is made as quickly as possible. The issues the board must rule on require serious thought. There are cases where some delay is unavoidable.
[English]
In the year just ended, there were some 733 applications received. Compared with the trend of the past eight to ten years, that is not a very high figure. The long-term historical trend has been for more and more applications to be made to the board. There was the immense glitch with the Canada Post cases, but the total number of cases being filed is controllable.
[Translation]
Once again, I think it's important that I explain what we mean by the term ``case''. A case may be just about anything. There are all kinds of applications that can be made before the board. Some are relatively simple, take little time to deal with and do not require - and I would say this applies to the majority of them - public hearings.
On the other hand, some applications may seem simple but are actually highly complex and require a number of days and even years of public hearings, investigation, research and consideration.
We have been asked to rule on about 20 such cases in recent years. They are cases of considerable significance, because they have to do with the definition of a barganing unit. The establishment of bargaining units is in fact one of our primary and most fundamental duties.
[English]
Determination of the constituency that a bargaining agent will represent is a difficult and vital problem. The nature of the constituency and the nature of an employer's relationship with it has varied with time. Certainly in recent years, as everyone knows, there have been vast technological changes. Employers, and particularly the large federal employers such as railways, airlines, telephone companies and other major employers, have changed their way of doing business. They have changed their ways of conducting their operations, and they have felt a requirement to have trade union relationships that have differed from those of the past. I think we have dealt with those with considerable success.
The hearings in the railway cases have virtually been entirely completed. There remain a few ends to be tied up but the major decisions have been made. New bargaining structures have been created and are in operation, and it is those new bargaining structures, of course, that are now at work with the mediation/arbitration commissions. Those commissions are at work - already with some success, I'm told - bringing about new collective agreements in the railway industry. They are doing so on the basis of the new bargaining units that have been created, and there are others. The number of cases, therefore, has been brought down considerably.
.1030
There will be further requests in other industries, I anticipate, for bargaining unit reviews. There is a continuing problem or set of problems with respect to certification cases.
I have one last point before I stop these perhaps too long remarks, Mr. Chairman. It's an interesting observation, at least in my personal opinion, that I make with respect to some of the provincial legislation that we have seen in the last while - legislation that has generally made it easier for trade unions to obtain at least initial certification as bargaining agents.
It's my view that generally speaking, the federal legislation - and this is strictly a personal opinion - as we now have it is already at the same level as almost all of the provincial legislation. If a trade union can demonstrate to us that it represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit, it is relatively easy for that trade union to obtain a certificate. This has been the case for many years, and I think that in some respects the provincial legislation has caught up with the federal legislation. In that respect at least, however, it has not surpassed it.
The problem the board has with respect to that is one created by geography.
[Translation]
We cannot hold hearings for every case of certification, unlike most provincial boards. We therefore have to carry out an inquiry and we do so as quickly as possible. Generally speaking, we try to complete that within 30 days. It often takes longer, but not much. We work efficiently with our agents and regional directors, and sometimes the certification can be awarded fairly quickly.
There are too many situations where, perhaps because of our inefficiency - and we are trying to correct that - or perhaps because of manoeuvres by some employers, the time taken is far too long. As it says throughout the documents you read, in labour relations, delays are fatal. You must do your utmost to avoid them and that is what we are doing.
Right now, of course, we're here to answer your questions. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Weatherill.
We will now move on to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety,Mr. St-Aubin.
Mr. J. Arthur St-Aubin (President and Director, Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety): I am the person canonized.
The Chairman: Canonized!
[English]
Mr. St-Aubin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
I do not have any opening statement for you, since I assumed you would have read the strategic overview of Part III of the Estimates. However, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St-Aubin.
.1035
We will now move on to the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. Mrs. Poulin will make a presentation.
Ms Marie-P. Poulin (President, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I am happy to be with you today to discuss the 1995-96 main estimates of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. As you know, this is my first opportunity to appear before you as chairperson and CEO of the tribunal.
I have with me today Maître Elizabeth MacPherson, my senior legal counsel and tribunal secretary; and Mr. Michel Lamoureux, executive director of research and policy.
[Translation]
The Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal is a young organisation created by Parliament, but it has a long and vibrant past. Let me quickly go over how we arrived at our current status. I will explain to you the background of the Tribunal.
I would then like to tell you about the Tribunal's current status by explaining the mandate it has under the legislation governing the Status of Artists.
I will conclude by telling you a little bit about our future, to give you a better understanding the relevance of the tribunal as new trends emerge.
At the end of the seventies, several representatives from the Canadian cultural sector launched the idea of a labour relations system for independent workers. They considered that it was time to look at the socio-economic realities of those responsible for our country's artistic productions.
In 1980, in Belgrade, Canada ratified a key UNESCO recommendation recognizing the status of the artist and artist's rights of association.
In 1982, the Applebaum-Hébert Commission, in charge of reviewing Canada's cultural policy, highlighted the precarious financial situation of Canadian artists.
In 1986, another major task force, chaired by Mr. Paul Siren and Mr. Gratien Gélinas, drew the government's attention to the difficult conditions of those who opt for a career in arts. The task force raised the issue of collective bargaining rights.
In 1988, Quebec passed it own law to provide for a legal framework for occupational relations between artists and producers. Under that legislation, the Commission de reconnaissance des associations d'artistes was created.
Also in 1988, the Advisory Committee on the Status of the Artist presented the federal Communications Minister with a Canadian artists code, which proposed procedures for implementing an occupational relations plan at the federal level. The entire system, in fact, is based on the Quebec program.
In 1989, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture recommended in its report that an independent organization be set up to implement a new legal system for independent artists. That report was endorsed unanimously by the three parties at the time.
.1040
Then came Bill C-7 on the status of the artist, establishing the Tribunal, which was drafted, tabled in the House and passed. Subsequently, enabling legislation was passed to allow the tribunal to begin operations.
[English]
As founding chairperson and CEO of this tribunal, Mr. Chairman, I was truly struck from the outset by two apparently differing imperatives - on the one hand, the scope of the legacy that led to the creation of this agency; and on the other hand, the financial context in which the tribunal would have to fulfil its legislative mandate.
There were and are two key factors that I keep in mind at all times. The tribunal has to be capable of meeting the needs and expectations of the community it has been created to serve; and secondly, the tribunal must be operated in an effective and frugal manner.
I rely, Mr. Chairman, on my twenty years at the CBC, ten of them as vice-president responsible for different areas at different times, as well as my experience as deputy secretary at the Privy Council Office. I hope this experience has prepared me for the job at hand.
One of my objectives as CEO is to apply to this organization the principles of what may be termed ``the new governance''. By that, I mean a management style that applies sound values, that maximizes the use of resources, and that strengthens the trust of users and the general public in their federal institutions.
I won't bore you with all the dos and don'ts of setting up an agency from ground zero, but I think you would be interested in knowing at least the key steps that were taken to meet the challenge. There were many choices that had to be made. I would like to share with you some of the thinking that went into them.
I required a core team to assist me in shaping the organization. As you will see and as you have seen in the main estimates, the team is and will remain small. This means a lot of care has to be exercised in recruiting people who are highly specialized yet multi-skilled, focused yet flexible, and creative in their approaches yet rigorous.
It was necessary to secure adequate funding for the tribunal. This entailed a careful analysis of the financial requirements to effectively discharge the agency's legislative mandate. For example, we made a business case that the tribunal should be located at the same building as the Canada Labour Relations Board. This location was expressly chosen in order to achieve savings on administrative costs through the sharing of existing facilities and services in the building.
For the purposes of fitting up office space for the tribunal, $100,000 had been allocated. I chose to accept the space as it had been left by the previous tenant and was thus able to reduce the fit-up cost to $15,000. Moreover, our offices have for the most part been furnished with used furniture obtained from other organizations.
For many other services, particularly in the administrative area, I negotiated partnerships and strategic alliances with other departments and agencies. As a result, for amounts far below the cost of in-house staff, I have secured human resource, finance and informatics support services from neighbouring departments.
[Translation]
Obviously, as we were building the office, in this case with ideas and materials, we also had to think of building cooperation. By that I mean cooperating with colleagues from other departments and agencies who had played a major or minor role in the project as well as with cultural groups across the country who had worked consistently for 15 years to set up the Tribunal and whom we consulted throughout the establishment process.
.1045
I emphasize the fact that the Tribunal is first and foremost a public service, mandated by Parliament, and as such, it must foster constructive professional relations and help improve Canada's cultural community. That is our relevance and our value, as a crown corporation.
In accordance with the Act, the Tribunal tries to ensure proper professional relations between independent workers in cultural sectors, on the one hand, and federal producers, including broadcasters, on the other.
Its main responsibilities are the following:
- identify sectors deemed appropriate for bargaining;
- certify the most representative artists' associations in those sectors;
- rule on complaints about unfair practices;
- order corrective action, if required.
The tribunal will move from its implementation phase to its operational phase in 1995-96. Initially, that means it can hear applications from groups seeking certification. In order to be able to respond to those requests, the Tribunal must have defined the sectors that could represent those groups.
Every attempt is being made to encourage user access and to react promptly to their applications. That part of the program may require occasional briefing sessions with those wishing to become more familiar with the impact of this new legislation.
We would also like to emphasize training we give to members so that they can properly carry out their duties as described in the Act. We continue opportunities for cooperation, which would help us save operating expenses in the long run.
[English]
Although the agency I chair is one of the smallest in terms of size, the challenges facing it are unprecedented in many ways. The tribunal will have to take into account that the circumstances in which self-employed persons live and work are considerably different from those that apply to people in an employer-employee relationship.
To understand how the tribunal fits in the scheme of things to come, one need only look at the new figures regarding the labour market. The number of self-employed workers increased by 89% between 1975 and 1993. This compares to a 33% increase in employment generally. In 1993 alone, the number of self-employed workers in Canada grew by 5.8%. This growth is even more obvious in the cultural sector. In 1991 alone, self-employed workers accounted for almost one-quarter of that work force.
StatsCan census figures reveal that the percentage of self-employed persons in the cultural sector rose from 13.8% in 1971 to 24.3% in 1991. Employment in the cultural sector has also grown rapidly. Between 1971 and 1991 there was a 122% increase, in comparison with a 58% increase in general employment during the same period.
Despite such an outstanding performance in the sector itself, the economic status of those who create the product we all enjoy remains precarious. In the cultural sector, 60% of workers earn less than the national average income. It is in recognition of this fact and of the contribution that artists make to cultural, social and economic life in Canada that the tribunal was established and will carry out its mandate.
.1050
Beyond these facts and figures, technological change and the need to reduce production costs are resulting in a major, and apparently irreversible, restructuring of the labour market. Alternative forms of work, such as self-employment, will continue to increase.
Broadcasting, a major component of the tribunal's jurisdiction, is expected to resort more and more to self-employed professionals as the need to reduce production and distribution costs continues. This, coupled with the advent of more specialty channels, will in all likelihood cause the trend toward self-employment to continue.
Mr. Chairman, Canada is the first country in the world to have accorded rights of collective bargaining to self-employed workers. As chairperson of the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal, I do believe we have before us a unique opportunity to contribute to the development of professional, constructive relations in our cultural industries.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Poulin. As is our custom, we will begin with questions by members of the official opposition. Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Thank you. We are very fortunate to have you here this morning.Ms Poulin, I'm sure that many people are pleased that finally - At another time and place, we could discuss the conditions that finally led to the formation of your tribunal.
I would like to get some idea of the request that you anticipate receiving in 1995-96. First, do you think you have sufficient resources to follow up on these requests? I would first of all like to know if you have any specific idea of the percentage of requests coming from Quebec.
I will then have questions for Mr. Weatherill and for Mr. ``Sanctified-Aubin''. Should I put all my questions now or later on to each individual person?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Lalonde: I also have supplementary questions. I would ask Mr. St-Aubin andMr. Weatherill whether they know how many women in the industry request reassignment because they are pregnant, since under Part II they are not entitled to paid preventative withdrawal. However, they are entitled to job reassignment. How many such requests have there been? Do you know? Have there been any disputes in this regard? I would also like to have statistics for Quebec, if possible.
If you don't have the answer here today, I would like to receive it later.
Mr. Weatherill, I would like to know how many requests relate to Part II and Part III of the Canada Labour Code. I would also like to know if you've been consulted about the reform of the code. Since you are the ones applying it, you certainly have something to say about the three main topics that Mrs. Robillard said that Mr. McDermott had determined as the three major consultation themes.
Ms Poulin: I thank you for your question, Mrs. Lalonde, and especially for using the word ``finally''. Indeed, when we had consultations during the implementation phase, we heard many groups use that word quite often.
As you may have guessed, it is very difficult for us right now to anticipate how many cases we will receive during the first year. We did have to forecast a figure, because we had to determine the resources we would need. Therefore, we estimated our resources based on certain premisses.
.1055
According to these premisses, we can expect to receive approximately 20 accreditation requests in the course of the first year. We expect that the first requests for accreditation will enable the tribunal to identify sectors that would be appropriate for bargaining.
Although the Tribunal has not been in active operation in the past few months, we have received many requests for information that continue to arrive. Satisfactory and speedy responses to these requests from individuals, associations and producers who've already contacted us naturally require research and staff.
For the time being, that's about all I can tell you about the data on which we based ourselves.
Mrs. Lalonde: Do you anticipate opposition and major implementation difficulties?
Ms Poulin: Right now, it is difficult to anticipate what kind of difficulties might arise. According to our experience over the past year, the areas in which I anticipated the most difficulties did not really arise. However, there are some areas in which we had not anticipated any problems but did find some.
Therefore, I think we will have to gather experience over a full year. That's why earlier I talked about the importance of cohesion on the team and among members of the tribunal, so that we can confront these difficulties in a cautious, discerning and professional manner.
Mrs. Lalonde: What proportion of the anticipated demand will come from Quebec, in your opinion?
Ms Poulin: It's very difficult to anticipate. We met with many groups. We have not yet received any official requests, but it's only been 24 hours.
Mrs. Lalonde: That's quite recent. You said that you received many inquiries.
Ms Poulin: We got inquiries from every province, Mrs. Lalonde. It would be very difficult for me to say how many we received from Quebec. We did not break this figure down by province.
Mrs. Lalonde: How many inquiries did you receive?
Ms Poulin: Approximately 150 up until now.
Mrs. Lalonde: One hundred and fifty inquiries of all types. Thank you.
Mr. St-Aubin: Mr. Chairman, the question that has been asked is not really within the scope of our responsibilities. This may be a question for Statistics Canada but there again, I doubt it, because it's a matter of human resource management within corporations and departments. One can suppose that this would be possible, but it would require a wide-ranging investigation.
Nevertheless, I will risk an answer, albeit an incomplete one. Our information service receives few questions similar to yours. However, we do receive a good number dealing with computer workstations, manual labour, etc. But that's far from being the subject of most of the questions.
We are asked more questions about chemicals, ergonomics, repetitive motion injuries. We could provide the committee with the number of inquiries received on this issue in particular, but it would be difficult to provide a complete answer. If it was possible to do so, it would be through Statistics Canada.
Mrs. Lalonde: Do you provide information on the rights of pregnant women under the Canada Labour Code?
Mr. St-Aubin: No, Mr. Chairman. We produce a great deal of information, but we do not work intensively in the area of labour relations. Our field is occupational health and safety.
Mrs. Lalonde: And yet I'm talking about Part II of the Canada Labour Code which entitles a pregant woman to be reassigned
Mr. St-Aubin: I'm not evading the question, but we are in the area of scientific information rather than labour relations or human resources management. More specifically, this would come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour.
.1100
We focus on the production of scientific databases and information in all areas that deal with occupational health and safety, but not necessarily the interpretation of one particular case.
Mrs. Lalonde: No, but you could provide scientific information on the dangers of leaving women in high-risk environments.
Mr. St-Aubin: That's what we do.
Mrs. Lalonde: You deal with the problems of pregnant women?
Mr. St-Aubin: That's what we do.
Mrs. Lalonde: Please send me that data.
Mr. St-Aubin: Agreed.
Mrs. Lalonde: What is your general assessment of the application of Part II in companies under federal jurisdiction?
Mr. St-Aubin: Once again, I don't want to avoid the question, but strictly speaking, that's not within the scope of our responsibilities. We are not the ones who receive reports and information; it's the department.
I would hesitate to give you an answer because I certainly don't have complete information.
Mrs. Lalonde: Well then I will ask you a question concerning information. Do you have any way to determine whether your information is effective?
Mr. St-Aubin: We conducted a validation of the information we provide to workplaces, and the rate was approximately 42%.
That validation was done in 1987. I can see the next question: of course, we will have to do another validation. We are working in a self-financing regime and we would be quite prepared to do this if we could afford it, but that's not the case right now.
Mrs. Lalonde: That answer disturbs me because we know that occupational health and safety prevention that is not done now leads to much higher costs later on. But that's not your fault.
Mr. St-Aubin: I would like to make an additional comment. We provide information. It is not our task to implement that information. So this is an indirect validation. If there was any follow up to be done, it would be in the area of departments who have executive power or monitoring power, which we do not have.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Weatherill, you must know how many cases end up before you.
Mr. Weatherill: With regard to Part II, we receive about 40 requests that deal, for instance, with the complaint of an employee alleging that he was disciplined for having exercised his rights. That may represent one third of these 40 cases. The others involve decision made by a security officer who says there is no danger. We conduct investigations in those cases. In this group of cases, there's almost invariably a public hearing, unless the person affected does not want to continue, but generally there is a hearing. I don't have any figures regarding the results.
With regard to the substance of these cases, I don't recall a recent case that dealt with the problems of a pregnant woman. It is possible there may danger for people in some situations.
Mrs. Lalonde: Or for the baby.
Mr. Weatherill: We have not had any cases of this type recently.
With regard to the other part of your question, we were consulted by Mr. McDermott's team regarding the changes to Part II. This was a consultation aimed at gleaning our views on certain subjects. We did not present any specific requests for any changes to be made. We are prepared to hear what Parliament deems appropriate to give us.
Mrs. Lalonde: Were you consulted regarding Part I?
Mr. Weatherill: Yes, in a general way. I would say we were informed.
Mrs. Lalonde: You were not consulted about Part I?
Mr. Weatherill: I would say we were informed.
Mrs. Lalonde: Informed that Mr. McDermott was conducting a consultation?
Mr. Weatherill: I have no indication that we would not eventually have a chance to express our views.
.1105
We not excluded from this consultation, but there has been no formal consultation up until now.
Mrs. Lalonde: Do you intend to prepare a brief on this issue? You have some expertise, after all.
Mr. Weatherill: It depends on the nature of possible changes. In some areas, we will prepare something to warn the government of any dangers we may see, as we did in the case of the Federal Court Act a few years ago. We saw a particular danger there and we prepared a presentation to that effect for the parliamentary committee.
For the time being, these are matters of government policy and we do not try to exert influence about that.
Mrs. Lalonde: You didn't complain, but at the end of your presentation you did note that you had a geographical problem that sometime prevented you from making rulings regarding accreditation within the desireable deadline. Do you have any plans to remedy this?
Mr. Weatherill: When I mentioned the problem, I did state that is was nothing new. This is a problem inherent in the geography of our country.
Mrs. Lalonde: That's what I meant.
Mr. Weatherill: We have regional agencies with a small team of labour relations officers who investigate on site, who meet with the parties involved, and who in some cases, negotiate friendly dispute settlements, who investigate matters of union cards, etc.
I know that you're very familiar with this type of work. In order to reduce the delays inherent in the system, we increased the capacity of our computer system. In addition, we try to improve the performance of our officers who, it must be said, do very good work. They are very devoted and hardworking.
This is an ongoing process. Apart from our current focus on computers, we are currently implementing a national network through which we may have more or less instant access, more quickly than by telephone, to documents and even our clientele. That's the only immediate measure. The rest is ongoing.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you. Page 3 refers to the labour program review. It says:
- The main recommendations that have an impact on resources are the following, among others:
- The second is this:
- reduce and re-orient the following two contribution programs: the Labour Management
Partnership Program and the Labour Education Program;
Mr. Weatherill: It's a departmental program.
Mrs. Lalonde: You are an independent organization. You can have ideas.
Mr. Weatherill: We don't touch that and we don't exert pressure either.
Mrs. Lalonde: So you're not as independent as you claim?
Mr. Weatherill: We are not the spokesperson for anyone in the department.
.1110
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.
[English]
I will now turn to Mr. Johnston. You have approximately 17 minutes.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Welcome.
I notice that the occupational health and therapy has a 24-hour a day, 7-day a week phone help line. I'm wondering if it's manned all the time, if it's an answering service or some of both.
Mr. St-Aubin: The answer is in two parts. It is manned 7 days a week, 24 hours a day by four inquiries officers who deal with inquiries on occupational health and safety as such. It's a 1-800 line. There is also the information technology help line, or user help line for our subscribers, which operates on the same basis in both official languages. The calls are recorded if they come in during the weekend or during hours when the business is closed and they're answered within 24 hours.
Mr. Johnston: How much, if any, of the cost of this service is defrayed by cost recovery? Is there a cost recovery program here? Are there any user fees or anything?
Mr. St-Aubin: There is a fee-for-service business, as well as the inquiry service. The fee-for-service business is considerably larger. The inquiry service is financially supported by all but one of the provinces, the territories, and in part by the federal government indirectly. The fee-for-service business, as the word implies, is a straightforward business and produces CD-ROMs, tapes for mainframes, contract work, consulting work and so on.
Does that answer the question?
Mr. Johnston: I was just wondering what percentage of it is defrayed in that way.
Mr. St-Aubin: The inquiry service is entirely defrayed by financial support from provinces, territories and the federal government. Federal government support is very transient and in fact it's just for this year. In a way the centre carries the indirect and overhead costs for the inquiry service. We're talking about a total of 10 people, but obviously for those 10 people you have to maintain the data banks, the responses to inquiries and the questionnaires. So there's an infrastructure, obviously, that supports those inquiries officers, plus scientists, of course, for the questions that haven't already been dealt with.
The cost for that for the upcoming year will be $758,000. The cost for the remainder of the business is shown in the part IIIs. We're looking at revenues of somewhere around $4.8 million for a total cost of about $6.4 million, with the reference level around $2.026 million for this year, decreasing by $400,000 a year. There is a correlation between our increases in revenues on the one hand of $400,000 a year and the decrease in federal support by $400,000 a year. That's been going on since 1992-93.
Mr. Johnston: I have some questions about the Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal as well. According to the notes in the introduction of these estimates, the substantive section of the act will be brought into force as soon as sufficient numbers of Governor in Council appointments have been made. Since the remaining portion of the act was just proclaimed on Tuesday, can you tell us how many Governor in Council appointments have been made to this point?
Ms Poulin: The law permits one chair; one vice-chair, either part-time or full-time; and two to four members, full-time or part-time. At this time we have a full-time chair, a part-time vice-chair and two part-time members, one from Manitoba and one from New Brunswick.
.1115
Mr. Johnston: That document also indicates the average salary is $90,000. How many of these Governor in Council appointees will be receiving that salary?
Ms Poulin: As you probably know, the salary ranges for the salary levels of the Governor in Council appointments are made by the Privy Council Office. At this time the chairperson is at a GIC 9 level. The vice-chair is paid between $260 and $325 per day. Since they are part-time, vice-chairs are paid on a per diem basis and not on a salaried basis. Members are paid $260 to $325 per day.
Mr. Johnston: So some of these are full-time positions and some are part-time.
Ms Poulin: No, they are all part-time positions. Only the chairperson is a full-time position.
Mr. Johnston: Will the Governor in Council appointments be coming by this committee?
The Chairman: If they are under the mandate of the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Human Resources Development they would come by this committee. I presume that's the case.
Ms Poulin: Yes, it is.
Mr. Johnston: They would be under one or the other, that's for sure.
Will you advise us as to what activities the foreign service component of the administration section will undertake?
Ms Poulin: I'm sorry if I burst out laughing, because it's a component everybody wants in their agency, but it's a component we don't have. This is simply a category that is used by the Public Service Commission in terms of the way the employees are categorized. We do not have anybody in our employ who is a foreign service agent.
Mr. Johnston: Okay. It's strange to put it in there. It shouldn't be there. It's really confusing and misleading.
There are days when it doesn't take much to confuse me, but it left me rather confused when you talked about all the self-employed people in Canada. Were you referring specifically to artists? Maybe you can clarify that. Are you talking about artists, as in actors?
Ms Poulin: In the first part when I spoke of self-employment I was comparing the self-employed in all of Canada. I began by saying that the number of self-employed workers increased by 89% between 1975 and 1993, and this compares to a 33% increase in employment generally. We were referring to the self-employed in the cultural industries in general in the labour market.
Mr. Johnston: You also said - and I don't remember the percentage - a large percentage of them did not earn the national average income. What is the national average income? It seems to vary from place to place.
.1120
Ms Poulin: I don't have the amount with me, but we based it on the Statistics Canada average income, which at this time I believe is $15,200. I'm not sure. I don't have it with me today. I can send it to you, if you wish. That is what it is based on. I don't have the latest figure used by Statistics Canada, this year's.
Mr. Michel Lamoureux (Executive Director, Research and Policy, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): I believe it's closer to $20,000-something.
Ms Poulin: We'll send it to you.
Mr. Johnston: Is that gross -
Ms Poulin: Gross revenue.
Mr. Johnston: Gross income. I think that's close enough, but I would appreciate the specifics at some point.
The Chairman: I now turn to the Liberals, beginning with Mr. Cauchon.
[Translation]
Mr. Cauchon (Outremont): I wish to thank all of you for this presentation.
My first question is for Mr. Weatherill. You mentioned in your brief that there was a problem with delays in your quasi-judicial tribunal. Having practised law myself for years, it seems to me that the problems with delays has become chronic, not only for quasi-judicial tribunals but in the courts as well. The courts are congested.
Yet, in many places, in other countries and even within Canada, people are starting to seriously examine alternative methods. Is your quasi-judicial tribunal starting to examine the possibility of encouraging people to use alternative dispute settlement mechanisms, such as mediation and out of court settlements, in order to reduce the backlog of the tribunal?
Mr. Weatherill: The only possible method would be mediation. We use it a great deal. In the investigation of complaints for unfair practices or lack of representation by a union, our officers' task is to try and settle the conflict first. They do succeed in a large proportion of the cases. In other situations, when there are public hearings, we are open to suggestions by the parties and sometimes we suggest the possibility of mediation. We offer our officers' services for this purpose. Generally speaking, the hearing takes place like any other quasi-judicial hearing.
When I mentioned the problem of delays, I didn't mean that this was a particularly serious problem for us. There are occassions where a file drags on a bit too long and we have to do something to settle the problem, something systematic to reduce delays to a minimum.
Other alternative methods really aren't possible right now. In a way, we already are an alternative method.
Mr. Cauchon: Concerning delays, you said that some cases dragged on. Why is that? You mentioned geographical reasons, but what else?
Mr. Weatherill: It has nothing to do with geography in particular. There may be cases where a labour relations officer has some difficulty obtaining the necessary information. I don't want to blame anyone, but it often happens that a reluctant employer just doesn't want a union and doesn't want to provide the information. That leads to delays. We have to confront those and do our best to obtain the information and conduct the necessary investigation.
In other cases, certain labour unions - it's rare, and I would even say extremely rare - are not as well organized as others. They do not respond as quickly as they should.
And lastly, it must be said, that sometimes - this is rare and once again I don't want to point a finger at anyone - too much time is taken to draft a ruling.
.1125
As in any court or tribunal, it's something difficult to draft a ruling.
Mr. Cauchon: You've just said that you yourselves are an alternative method. That means that your purpose is to reduce congestion among other judicial bodies. I find it somewhat strange that your rules of procedure don't really have teeth to require people to meet deadlines for the production of documents or as regards handing down judicial rulings. A normal court of law has those rules. I think you would be more effective if you did, don't you think so?
Mr. Weatherill: We already have deadlines in our regulations, if I've understood your question correctly. If they are not respected, we proceed. We are effective in that sense.
Are you saying that the legislation should be amended so that the Board's rulings might be produced within a certain deadline?
Mr. Cauchon: You said earlier that one of your problems was that the parties took a great deal of time in producing documents and that some members were slow at handing down their rulings.
Mr. Weatherill: We have sufficient powers to deal with cases where parties do not produce their documents. With regard to members' activities, as with the activity of any judge: No! This is a broader issue, one of professional ethics, really. These are moral suasions that we have to exercise together. It is effective.
Mr. Cauchon: Thank you. My second question is for Ms Poulin. Here, I need to be educated. I think your tribunal is a very interesting one. I would like to know the real scope and ramifications of your mandate. I understand that you deal with artists and producers. Upon reading this, I understood that we're talking about federal producers. Could you explain the scope of your mandate?
Ms Poulin: I could refer to sections 16 and 17 of the Act which explain the exact scope and a precise definition of all our powers. Section 16 stipulates all the regulatory responsibilities of the Tribunal. Section 17 is very interesting and the legislation was so well written that it very clearly explains the scope of our powers.
Now with regard to federal producers, this refers to all producers in the federally regulated cultural community. The best examples are the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the National Film Board. They are not responsible for film production right now, since their mandate is under review. You never know: they may have to become producers.
Right now, in terms of figures, we've identified 6,000 broadcasters and 130 federal institutions that are regulated in some way by the federal government.
We've come to realize that the jurisdiction will be established as the tribunal progresses, since this is a completely new area of jurisprudence and a completely new jurisdiction.
Mr. Cauchon: Doesn't your mandate overlap with that of other tribunals?
Ms Poulin: No. There is no other federal agency that regulates the labour relations of independent workers in this country.
Mr. Cauchon: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cauchon.
[English]
Maria Minna, would you like to continue?
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start with Mr. St-Aubin if I may. I just wanted to talk about some aspects of health and safety.
One of them has to do with workers' compensation and injured workers. I'm not sure whether you keep data for injured workers who are covered by the federal government. I know the federal government basically purchases services from the provincial workers' compensation boards with respect to retraining and the like.
.1130
In the estimates at 3-9 and 3-8 it shows that the cost has gone down ever so slightly under workers' compensation. I wondered if you have a breakdown of the types of injuries that are occurring within the federal jurisdiction and whether they've gone up or down. I'm just interested to see whether it can be compared to, say, any other private industry, if we do that comparison as well.
Mr. St-Aubin: Mr. Chairman, to provide a definitive answer to that question, once again, we are not mandated, nor can we mandate people, to table the information with us. It is more properly the domain of the labour affairs component of HRD or the provincial level, where of course the primary responsibility for labour exists.
Ms Minna: No, it wouldn't be the provincial level in this case because -
Mr. St-Aubin: Well, if you're talking about federally regulated workers, it would be tabled with the labour affairs component of HRD rather than with us. We have no mandate; therefore, to provide figures would be on my part less than accurate in terms of giving you a precise figure. It's more properly in the labour affairs mandate.
Ms Minna: Okay. So you don't have anything with respect to the type of injury, when you're looking at health and safety, as to the areas you need to be concentrating on in terms of education and what have you. That's another part of it.
Mr. St-Aubin: We obviously keep track of and in contact with the labour affairs component of HRD, but I think we go much farther than that. Those injuries that come out, particularly for the federally regulated area, come out about two years after the fact, so to speak, by the time they're audited and they come out.
One might argue that we keep track of it in a more current pragmatic way, obviously through the inquiry service, because we get about 22,000 calls a year. So that gives you a pretty good idea, from health and safety committees, from individual employees, from corporations, from government, of what the areas of concern are. That goes back to an earlier question, of course: are we getting a lot of questions on, for example, pregnancy in the workplace and the inherent dangers by virtue of the type of work? I'm saying no, that is not one of the major concerns at this point.
The major concern is chemophobia, so to speak. In other words, there are serious concerns about chemicals in the workplace, but it may be that people are worried mostly because of the lack of knowledge, and therefore the fear, rather than what exactly could occur or does occur.
We keep track through the inquiry service. We obviously keep track, because I visited all of the professional associations; I'm talking about associations in the commercial field, such as manufacturers and food producers. We go to a number of trade exhibitions every year, whether it's the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exhibition, or OSH'95, which is going to occur this fall in Toronto.
What we do is we keep a finger on the pulse, so to speak, in the workplace. It is therefore there. By far the concern is still vastly more on the safety side; that is, the rate of injuries is vastly more on the safety side, even though the interest is entirely on the chemical side. Now, it can be because it's an occupational health concern and because of the latency of a chemical illness. There's a much longer lapse time if you think of asbestosis or that type of thing.
I don't mean to make light of it, but if you're falling from the 21st storey, the fact that you have latent asbestosis is rather academic. The safety side is a concern and that's where we're putting a considerable amount of emphasis.
We have international contacts, so we work very closely with the French, the Americans, and so on. At the moment I'm trying to elicit interest on the part of associations as well as the unionized representation of the workers. I'm really thinking of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union: cashiers, meat cutters, warehousing, manutention, and that type of thing, where there are a lot of back injuries. Repetitive motion injury is an enormous concern, and of course there's still an enormous amount of debate as to what causes it.
I've written to just about every terminal producer in Canada, and I must admit there's been a very limited amount of interest. In fact, only three have even bothered to respond. I try to suggest to them that we should include information in the boxes that contain terminals as to the proper use and safeguards of using a computer terminal. The position seems to be taken by the producers that the terminal itself does not cause the injury, and of course we have two recent judgments for IBM in the United States, where the courts found in their favour.
.1135
I have written back to the manufacturers, pointing out that depending on how you phrase that, the outcome might be different. In other words, there's potentially a liability, and it's the responsibility of the manufacturer to give some instruction on the correct use of a terminal. At this point only Apple Canada does that. I'm trying to interest others in doing the same thing.
It's a very lengthy answer, but I'm saying while we don't keep the data as such, we do know what the primary concerns out there are, because we actually deal with the workplace on a day-to-day basis.
Ms Minna: I'm glad you went into the rest of it, because my next question had to do with the shifting of the work base from manufacturing to other types of work, and the new diseases and types of injuries, which are not easily accepted by workers' compensation boards. I have quite a bit of background in the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario. I know the battle in trying to get acknowledged. The preventive measures, the safety aspect of this whole area, are far behind the times.
It's an area I gather you're working at very hard, trying to develop safety standards. But you're telling me that's difficult because the private sector isn't cooperating. These companies are not necessarily accepting that the injuries are caused by their machines.
Mr. St-Aubin: In part, yes. Certainly I had a long session with one in particular, NEC. That's part of the problem. There's a reluctance to admit any kind of liability, and you have two recent cases, of course, that have found in favour of the manufacturer. That's an unresolved area.
The second big area, if we're talking about repetitive motion injuries within office work, is when you're dealing with the corporations in Canada. With most of them, of course, the parents are foreign based, so every time you start making headway, they say they have to consult with Tokyo, or they have to consult with California, they have to consult with Florida. It's a big deal, because all their experts are offshore, so to speak.
The other thing I must be quite candid about as well is when we talk about repetitive motion injury, we could talk about in the grocery field. The French have done a very extensive study through their INRS, or Institut national de la recherche. I've been working for a year to try...and they've had the problem in Quebec, if I recall, with Provigo. I remember dealing with Provigo back in 1990, trying to get the ball rolling. Eventually somebody else got it rolling for them.
The issue there is, of course, there is a reluctance on the part of the private sector, certainly, I would say, groceries and restaurants, particularly in Ontario, and it's tied up with worker certification. Of course they see that as something bothersome. If you read the trade journals, you'll know what I'm talking about.
In the restaurants they see the GST as something that is damaging their business. Then you add to that worker certification. They're saying these are very large costs that have been imposed on a business that is just making it. Therefore when you walk in the door talking about health and safety, regardless of what level of government you're coming from, your reception is somewhat less than warm - polite, but less than warm.
I think there's a combination out there. A variety of factors are at play at this time. That doesn't mean we're giving up, not for a moment. As I say, I've tried to approach it now through the health and safety committees, because I've been relatively unsuccessful through the professional associations. They've very nice to me - good morning, good afternoon, can I show you out. But nothing really happens.
So I'm trying by one means or another to make a little headway, because my real concern, for example, is in the grocery field. If you take a cashier in the grocery field and one of your colleagues...Ms Paddy Torsney and I had a long exchange because at one time when she was going to college she went through that. So did my daughter. The conditions are pretty rough on cashiers, for example, and workers in the grocery field.
We're trying to work cooperatively with the employers on the one hand and the representatives on the other, because we feel a number of solutions are relatively inexpensive. They're not expensive at all. It's just a question of reorganizing the work in a somewhat different way that would make a colossal amount of difference, and there would be significantly less wear and tear on the employee.
Curiously enough, it is not repetitive motion injuries that hurt them, it's the psychological stress and strain of dealing with clients at a very high pace and doing it for a very extensive period. They may work only thirty hours a week, but of course the bottom line to that is they're doing it in two days.
.1140
Ms Minna: And they're standing the whole time.
Mr. St-Aubin: They're standing, and of course the electronic cash is too high, and so on.
Curiously enough, the French found in their studies that wasn't the worst. It was the wear and tear. The very worst position was the check-out counter for express items, with surly, irritable people who wanted to get through and get the show on the road.
For example, just for the sake of a little anecdotal evidence, a very simple solution is to rotate these people and let them work in various parts of the supermarket so they know all of the prices. One of the great irritants is not knowing the prices and having to call for the supervisor. It could be eliminated and relieve the psychological and physical stress on the employee at the same time.
That's where we're putting a lot of our emphasis, because 60% of the labour force is now working in the service sector. You can go on with shoe stores. Take your pick. That's where we're making a lot of effort, because that's where we see it. We rely less on Statistics Canada and labour statistics that are usually two years old. We deal with the day-to-day events.
Ms Minna: Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. Chairman, we might ask the department to provide the data we couldn't get in terms of the numbers of injuries and types and breakdown. I would very much like to see the data on how the government rates with respect to injuries and how they occur.
The Chairman: Okay, fair enough.
Ms Minna: If I could have one final question, it would be for Madame Poulin. I'm very familiar with the program and such, so I'm not going to ask about it. I have one simple question. Do you at this stage - it's early in your mandate - see this concept or something at all similar to this being extended to self-employed people in other jurisdictions beyond the cultural industry? As you know, it's an area that's increasing everywhere in Canada, and not just in the -
Ms Poulin: It's interesting that you raise that point. Because of the growth of the self-employed in the labour market in general - as both your colleagues were asking about before - in the requests for information that we did receive we received quite a few questions from individuals who are working in the union movement. They feel, through their own research, that this concept could probably be applied in other sectors of Canadian industry in later years. I think they're watching us very closely.
Ms Minna: Good. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That's certainly an interesting subject to raise. We may have to deal with it at another time.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde: I'd like to begin by saying that I would like us to meet with Mrs. Robillard or the deputy ministers from the Department of Labour once again because we didn't discuss Part II and Part III of the Code at all.
At present, even though we would like to have alternative settlement mechanisms, the bottom line is that the workforce, that is employees, enjoy a certain balance of power with employers. Unfortunately, the trend may not be generally in that direction, with globalization and its effects. I think that more than ever before, government has a very large responsibility, even if pressure is being placed on it.
Quickly, I'd like to say that I'm pleased that this tribunal finally exists. I've been involved in the arts scene for many years, because of the father of my children. He helped with the first collective agreement that was ever signed with the first film producer in Quebec who ever agreed to a collective agreement.
The arts scene and the construction industry are quite similar. Not just because artists are independent entrepreneurs, but also because contracts usually are for a set period of time. A carpenter may be needed on a work site only for a certain period of time, just like a person may be needed for a film production only for a certain period of time. That's what makes it difficult to negotiate collective agreements.
So I'm very pleased that something has finally been done. This concept could be extended to other sectors later, and we will have to look at this possibility. I have a very specific, very particular question for Mr. Weatherill. I thought that Mr. Johnston was going to ask it.
.1145
I noticed that on page 21 of the Estimates for the CLRB - I'm talking about the Estimates because that is the subject of our discussion here - the amount for professional and special services went from an actual expenditure of $474,000 in 1993-94 to a forecast amount of $755,000 for 1994-95, while the estimate for 1995-96 is $911,000.
Were there any layoffs at the same time? Are we looking at a phenomenon that's being seen in many places, namely that the number of permanent employees is being decreased, and then high-priced professionals are being brought in to replace them? Is this what we're seeing here? This is a large increase.
Mr. Weatherill: I suppose that it's due to what we could call a change in accounting methods that Treasury Board asked for. The per diems paid to former board members and vice-chairs of the board who continue to work on files that had been assigned to them before the end of their term, which is provided for in the code, are not included under ``Salaries and Wages,'' but under the heading ``Professional and Special Services.''
The amount in the Estimates for 1993-94 was $400,000, but this was reduced to $295,000 for 1994-95. Other minor items are also now included under ``Professional and Special Services''. For example, $148,000 is budgetted for translation, because the Secretary of State passed on this responsibility to us.
There are other small changes. Personnel services are no longer included under salaries and wages because we gave Industry Canada a contract to provide most of our personnel services.
Mrs. Lalonde: Thank you for that information. I do note that these changes were made subsequent to a request by Treasury Board, but if we add the two figures for 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, we don't see any substantial decrease in salaries and wages. That's not what's going on here. If we add the $474,000 to the $6,379,000, we can see that the figures are pretty consistent.
Perhaps you should have an explanatory note somewhere, unless I missed it. If you want to be transparent, it would be better to say so, because in reality this means that salaries and wages haven't changed since 1993-94.
Mr. Weatherill: Salaries have not changed very much.
Mrs. Lalonde: They have dropped.
Mr. Weatherill: Yes, they have dropped, but as you pointed out, not by very much.
Mrs. Lalonde: No, but if you don't add the two figures, it appears to be more of a drop.
Mr. Weatherill: The amount for per diems is lower, but the previous year that amount had increased quite a bit. That is to say, many former members and vice-chairs were still handling certain files. They were taking care of them.
Mrs. Lalonde: I suppose that that sort of thing was always done from year to year. It's not out of the ordinary.
Mr. Weatherill: For those years, it was rather exceptional. It's true that that sort of thing always happens. There was a small increase, but now that item has dropped.
.1150
Mrs. Lalonde: I have a short question for Ms Poulin.
Under the Act, the power you have is to decide whether a group can be accredited. Consequently, you're going to have to develop an entire procedure to establish who is a member.
Ms Poulin: You mean, who is an artist.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, that's right. You'll decide who is a member of the group to be recognized, who is an artist under the Act.
Ms Poulin: That's why I was trying to define four main steps in the plans.
First of all, the areas appropriate for negotiations have to be identified, because that has not been done so far. Secondly, we will have to determine which associations are most representative of these artists. After that comes certification. We have prepared a draft of the process, which the associations will follow.
Mrs. Lalonde: You are going to come up against the problem that they had on construction sites. I'm quite familiar with Quebec's legislation, but I'm unfamiliar with that of the other provinces. Let's assume we're talking about a film. It doesn't take much time to make a film. By the time we've gone through all the procedures, the producer may find himself in a situation...
Ms Poulin: There will be a transition period. The commission in Quebec went through this. The associations will have to take the time to go through these stages in order to get certified. Yes, you've guessed it: the groups are very impatient. We are going to make every possible effort to be efficient and to make our procedures as clear, as simple and even as judicious as possible.
Mrs. Lalonde: You're not the person who drafted the Act, but have you thought of having a system that would be more like - I didn't say «identical» - the system for the construction industry? When the contracts end, people have a terrible problem.
Ms Poulin: You're right about the environment that the self-employed work in. A self-employed person may work with one producer or 100 producers over the course of the same year. So you're quite right.
The good thing is that the Act does not just allow for the accreditation of artists. It also provides for the accreditation of producers. I have the impression that there may be a producer's group that will make this task easier.
Mrs. Lalonde: That would be good.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Johnston, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Johnston: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. This has to do with the Canadian Labour Relations Board.
In the departmental overview, on page 2 under External, mention is made of the end of subsidies to Cape Breton Development Corporation, Marine Atlantic and VIA Rail. I don't understand what impact this will have on your board. Would you mind explaining that to me, please?
Mr. Weatherill: What is described on page 2 is not the actual work of the board, but rather the environment within which the board works. We don't pay any subsidies to anybody, of course.
We've simply given some indication of where there has been recently, or is liable to be in the future, a number of applications to the board generated for one reason or another, whether because of growth or merger, or shrinkage within an industry. Both those sorts of activities lead to labour relations consequences of one sort or another, some of which will come our way.
Mr. Johnston: So it's just anticipation.
Mr. Weatherill: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnston: Thank you. Also, in that same document, the Canada Labour Relations Board financial forecast, you have under salaries.... I'm assuming; it doesn't say here anywhere, but I have to assume that these figures are in thousands of dollars.
Mr. Weatherill: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnston: Salaries will be reduced in 1996-97 from 1995-96 levels, but then in 1997-98, for some unexplained reason, they're increased by $16,000, which will not hire another person. Perhaps there's an assumption that the wage freeze will come off by that time, or -
.1155
Mr. Weatherill: It's not an assumption about the wage freeze, but about the statutory freeze on salary benefits and others. That does not anticipate that anyone's basic salary is going to go up at all - we wouldn't make that sort of guess - nor does it anticipate any hirings. It is, however, that we do anticipate that at the end of the statutory freeze on benefits they will increase for our employees. That is the basis of that.
Mrs. Lalonde: The benefits for the per diem. You said that.
Mr. Weatherill: Well, of course, that's no longer in the salary section.
Mrs. Lalonde: That is why there should be an asterisk.
[Translation]
Mr. Weatherill: We try to control that aspect, but it is sometimes difficult to do so. In a way, that issue is beyond our control.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that enough?
Mr. Johnston: I have one more quick question concerning the artist tribunal.
Ms Poulin: I thought you had forgotten me.
Mr. Johnston: What efforts are being made in this area to prevent the situation not winding up where they closed shop in this particular area?
Ms Poulin: What do you mean by a closed shop?
Mr. Johnston: As it would apply to any union, those people who are not union members would not be eligible to work in this area. Is membership compulsory?
Ms Poulin: The law already contains a protection so that in the accreditation process we will have the responsibility as a tribunal to review the association that is best representative of a sector that would be accredited with the responsibility of representing these members with the producers.
Mr. Johnston: Is that in support, or otherwise, of a closed-shop situation?
Ms Poulin: I'm asking Liz here to bring me to the legislation.
Ms Elizabeth MacPherson (Senior Legal Counsel and Tribunal Secretary, Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal): The law does permit the producers and the artists associations that have been certified to negotiate the type of scale agreement they will have and the provisions that will be in that. So there is a potential that they could negotiate some kind of an arrangement that would be equal to a closed shop or a union shop. But the law, as the quid pro quo for that, does contain protections so that an individual is protected against any kind of discrimination in his right or in his ability to work. So when the law was drafted, they put in the two sides of it.
Mrs. Lalonde: What section is it?
Mr. Johnston: Good question.
Ms MacPherson: It would be section 23. The entire provision sets out that the association has to adopt certain provisions in its bylaws, and particularly may not discriminate against artists.
The Chairman: I want to finish by asking Mr. Weatherill if he could provide us with a brief update on the actions that have been taken to implement the recommendations from the Price Waterhouse study.
Mr. Weatherill: Since we last met, Mr. Chairman, there has been, I think, following - The changes that were described to you before have been implemented. There have been no further major changes in organization; that is, there remains some of the Price Waterhouse recommendations that have not yet been put in place. That is due partly to our seeking to learn from the experience we have had with the ones that have been implemented. That seems to have been a good experience.
On the adjudicative side, the duty panel system has worked generally very well and has reduced, relative to the long-term historical times, the length of time it has taken to deal with a certification application, or any other kind of representation application of a straightforward nature. That has been very effective.
.1200
The administrative changes have been effective. We have reassigned some 20% of our resources from administration to actual board operations, thus allowing us to handle the budget cuts that were imposed - that and some other things I mentioned, such as the contracting out of personnel services.
We use other government facilities to a large extent. We have reduced a great deal the rental of hotel hearing room facilities across the country. We now are able to use, for the most part, other federal facilities and occasionally provincial facilities. Very often the federal courtrooms are available to us, and they've been very good.
We are still in the course of perfecting the technology we've been introducing, and it has not yet reached the regions. That's an expensive proposition. We hope to achieve that fairly soon, and it's certainly a priority with me. There has been some improvement in the coordination of travel matters, which is of significant expense to the board.
I think some additional improvements may be possible, but nothing dramatic has incurred; nothing of any particular substantial nature has occurred with respect to those of the Price Waterhouse recommendations that may not have been put into effect. Most of them have been, and most of them have worked. Others are being thought about, and there will be a consultation process before any action is taken on those.
The Chairman: Thank you. Finally I'd like to ask Madame Poulin whether you expect - This is sort of a hypothetical question; let me put it this way.
It has to do with the notion of neighbouring rights, which is being considered as a possible inclusion in revisions to the Copyright Act, whether that concept would be part of your responsibilities if that were to be put in place.
[Translation]
Ms Poulin: Neighbouring rights are the responsibility of the Copyright Board. We have very close ties with them, not because of the Act, but because of our clients. We work with the same groups, the same associations, the same people who have the same objectives and the same problems. The Copyright Board will probably be given responsibility for this issue.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank all our witnesses for the co-operation they've given the committee today.
The meeting is adjourned.