[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 16, 1995
.1530 
[English]
The Chairman: Good afternoon, everyone. This afternoon we are continuing with our review of the estimates for the Department of Human Resources Development, focusing on the labour program, HRDC.
In response to requests from our committee members, we asked this afternoon that senior officials from the Department of Human Resources Development responsible for labour come to answer questions pertaining to the labour branch of the department, in particular the Canada Labour Code.
We are pleased to welcome Mr. James Lahey, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour;Mr. Michael McDermott, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Legislative Review, Labour; Mr. Warren Edmondson, Director General, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Labour; Renée Godmer, Executive Coordinator, Operations, Labour.
Welcome to all of you. I've been told by the clerk that you have not come with prepared opening statements. Is that correct? If you have opening statements, you may begin with those now.
.1535
Mr. James Lahey (Assistant Deputy Minister, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): Madame Robillard had an opening statement last week, so we don't have one today.
The Chairman: In that case we will proceed with questions from committee members and begin in the usual fashion with the official opposition, Mrs. Lalonde, for about ten minutes and then we'll go around the table.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Chairman, I had expressed the wish to meet with senior officials of the Labour Department in order to ask them questions on the operations of their department. The Department of Human Resources Development is something else altogether. I'm going to ask a number of questions on the report you made.
I will start by a general question on the agreements relating to health and safety. As far as the application of Part II of the Canadian Labour Code is concerned, how much money do you turn over to the provinces and how much do you keep? I am a bit lost in this report. That's why I would like to know which amounts you transfer to the provinces and which amounts you keep. Then, I will ask you how things are going.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: In general, we don't delegate to the provinces in the area of health and safety. As you know, the federal jurisdiction is a very particular jurisdiction. It's described on page 3-10 of the French version of Part III. Part II of the Canada Labour Code is developed in consultation with business and labour and applied by our officials who are spread around the country.
There is a limited number of cases where we do have arrangements with the provinces. For example, I believe Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting, which is on the border between Manitoba and Saskatchewan...because it's on the border it is under federal jurisdiction. There is an agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan that they do the health and safety work for that mine.
In general, unless there are very particular circumstances such as I just described, we don't delegate to the provinces in the area of health and safety.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Even in the area of health and safety in the workplace?
Mr. Lahey: Yes, that's correct.
Mrs. Lalonde: Even compensation?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: In the case of workers' compensation -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Compensation is an important part.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Yes. We usually think of that as separate, so I wasn't thinking of that when you posed the question. In that case, you're quite right. The provincial workers' compensation boards do administer the benefits for federal workers who are injured in the course of their duties and we reimburse the workers' compensation boards for those costs.
Strictly speaking, we don't delegate to them; in effect, we're a client of theirs.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: When you say ``we compensate'', do you mean that the employers contribute to a fund? I'm quite interested by this question because there was recently a reform of contributions. I am quite familiar with the Commission de la santé et la sécurité du travail in Quebec. They establish a very strong correlation between prevention and contributions. They assume that if the cost is high enough for employers, they will be careful. Otherwise, they are not.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: There's a section on l'Indemnisation fédérale des accidentés starting on page46 and there's table 25 on page 47. In effect, the government self-insures. It doesn't pay premiums per se, as most employers in the private sector do; it reimburses the actual costs.
.1540
So, as this table shows, if we look at, say, 1993-94, which are actual figures, the total expenditure was slightly more than $103 million. We received or we recovered from crown corporations whose employees were beneficiaries almost $54 million. The remainder of approximately $50 million is paid for out of the voted moneys from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
In effect, we do recover, but only in the case of crown corporations. For regular government departments, it's in our estimates.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I want to be well understood. This concerns government employees.
Mr. Lahey: That's correct.
Mrs. Lalonde: What happens in the case of companies under federal jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Private employers deal directly with the workers' compensation boards in the provinces where they operate. We're not involved at all.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: That's correct.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: In effect, we administer -
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: So you delegate. That's what I'm asking you.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: No. The area of the private employers has never been an area in which the federal government has acted. In effect, we provide a service to the Treasury Board, which is the employer, on behalf of federal employees, either direct government employees or employees of crown corporations.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to ask another question because I don't really understand.
In Quebec, why were employees eligible for preventative withdrawal under a section of the Occupational Health and Safety Act deprived of that right after a decision taken a few years ago? How can companies be both subject to the act and not subject to it?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: I'm going to ask Madame Godmer, who worked on those amendments to Part III, to speak to that.
[Translation]
Ms Renée Godmer (Executive Co-ordinator of Operations, Labour Program Depart-ment of Human Resources Development): Mrs. Lalonde, it has to do with the amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code and with compensation during maternity leave.
The Supreme Court ruled on several occasions that there was a distinction to be made, under the health and safety plan for employers under federal jurisdiction, between the rights of the employees and the obligations of the employers under Part II of the Canada Labour Code and the benefits employees are entitled to with regards to compensation of injured workers.
In that case, if it is quite clear that the provincial rules apply. In Quebec, the CSST takes care of the two aspects. That's where the Supreme Court establishes a distinction between the responsibilities of the CSST, as regards compensation, and those governing occupational health and safety. When it comes to occupational health and safety, they say that the jurisdiction of the employer in the area of telecommunications for instance comes under Part II of the Canada Labour Code and that, in that case, the rights and privileges of the employees apply rather than the regulations of the CSST.
Mrs. Lalonde: You say somewhere that one of your priorities is to reduce workplace regulation in regards to occupational health and safety so that the employers can take on those responsibilities themselves. Can you tell me about this revision? It is on page 3-16. It is a conclusion, but there was a reference to it earlier.
.1545
[English]
Mr. Lahey: The Canada Labour Code, Part II - I don't have the exact words in front of me right now - basically says that employers are responsible to ensure the health and safety of workers in their workplaces. It also sets out responsibilities for employees to take appropriate precautions, to wear the right equipment, and so on, to ensure health and safety in the workplace. So the basic principle of the responsibility of the workplace parties to ensure health and safety is already enshrined in Part II.
Over time we have promoted what we call the internal responsibility system, whereby we have encouraged, for example, health and safety committees, which are also provided for under Part II of the Canada Labour Code, to be active in dealing with hazards that exist in particular workplaces.
What we're referring to here is that, as I think has been indicated previously, like all departments and all programs of government, we will be seeing our resources shrink over the next few years. We think it's important that we do this in a very responsible way. So we intend to and we are presently involved in discussions with both representatives of the employers and the employees in how to strengthen, for example, the role of health and safety committees in the workplace so that there will be more direct assurance by the workplace parties themselves of good working conditions.
Of course, we still have a role to play in terms of educating, making people aware of what the law involves, and there are cases where, for example, there are refusals to work because it's alleged that there is a danger that would prevent safe working, where we have to get involved and make a ruling. So we're certainly not withdrawing from the field, but we see that theme that's built into the Canada Labour Code being strengthened, in particular through strengthening the health and safety committees and their role.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: What is the percentage of unionized workers?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: I don't have an exact number, but we've generally estimated that in the order of about half of the workers in the federal jurisdiction are unionized, according to our best estimates. That, as you know, is considerably higher than the percentage in the general population.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You said that the resources for inquiries and involvement are going to decrease. That is what we call the safety officers in the federal system. It is the same everywhere, but we see also that the work of the two parties in committee can go quite far and even very far when the employer agrees and when there is a labour union. When the employer does not agree, even if there is a labour union, external mediation is always necessary. When the employer does not agree and there is no union, the only guarantee is the external agent. I'm concerned when I see these things, especially when the general trend doesn't seem to indicate greater concern on the part of companies. We can see it in terms of economic costs but the social costs associated with the labour market are also important.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: We share your preoccupation with the health and safety of the workers. The only point on which I might quibble with you slightly is that there are some employers who don't have unionized employees, who do concern themselves with the health and safety of their workers, so it's not a black and white situation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: You will agree with me that when the employers don't want to be reasonable and when there is no union, then...
.1550
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Our job, in effect, is to audit how the employers and the employees apply the laws. In fact, in setting out our inspection program, we do what we call ``tiering'', which is based on our historical information and our current intelligence about various industries, various employers. We try to target our inspections where the greatest probability exists that a problem is there. Of course, we also get complaints, or there are accidents, which lead to our conducting investigations. By all of those means, we try to target our resources where the problems are greatest.
There is an educational process here, not only on the part of employers, but also in some cases employees and unions, about what exactly is involved, what the rules mean, how to apply them, and so on. If the workplace parties took more responsibility, there would be fewer problems, even if we have in the end somewhat fewer inspectors. But we will definitely put priority on dealing with the areas where we believe the greatest risk lies.
Mr. Johnston (Wetaskiwin): Good afternoon.
When we had Mr. Weatherill here last Thursday, he told us that the Canada Labour Relations Board was not consulted as part of the revision of part I of the Labour Code. Given that the board comprises a significant component of part I, what rationale could the department have for excluding those officials from the board in the review process?
Mr. Lahey: I'll call upon Michael McDermott to answer that. He has been responsible for the consultations on part I.
Mr. Michael McDermott (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Legislative Review, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I was informed that Mr. Weatherill actually indicated he had not been formally consulted but he had not been excluded from the process.
I've certainly had discussions with him, and he has been made aware of some of the issues that we've been discussing with the clients.
My formal consultations have been mainly with the parties, particularly with the labour and management organizations that represent workers under the federal jurisdiction. But certainlyMr. Weatherill was aware of what I was discussing with them and he knows about the exercise. As I say, I've met him on at least two occasions to talk about these matters.
Mr. Johnston: Did he have any input into the process?
Mr. McDermott: The CLRB is an arm's-length organization. It's independent of the department.
He has an opportunity to make observations. I think because he sits in a somewhat quasi-judicial capacity, he is not going to get deeply involved in comments. What he's aware of...he supports any measures we can develop that will increase the efficiency of the board and enable it to run its operations at less cost.
So, for example, he would be interested in having clarifications to the powers of the chair. He has made his views known on this in a number of places. So he has had an opportunity for input in that respect.
Mr. Johnston: Speaking of efficiencies and so forth, there would appear to be considerable overlap between the Canada Labour Relations Board and Industrial Relations and Mediation and Conciliation. One of them has a budget for 1995-96 of $9 million, and Industrial Relations, being the other one, has a budget of $14,633,000.
.1555
Of course, we're all looking for efficiencies. Is there any way that there could be more emphasis put on cost-effective or one-stop shopping in this area?
Mr. Lahey: I think the essential distinction between the role of the Canada Labour Relations Board and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is the CLRB deals with statutory or quasi-judicial-type responsibilities. It deals with applications for certification of unions. It deals with determining the size or the nature of the bargaining unit. It deals with complaints about bargaining in bad faith. It makes these kinds of quasi-judicial rulings.
In order to get to that stage, I believe it does do some of its own mediation on these questions through its regional offices. But it's strictly in relation to those quasi-judicial functions that are set out in part I for the CLRB.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service deals with conciliation in the process of what we call normal bargaining. The parties normally bargain on their own. At a certain stage, if they are not able to resolve their differences, they serve notice on the department, and we would normally assign a conciliation officer to work with the parties to try to resolve the dispute. If that's not successful, there is the possibility under the code for the minister to assign a conciliation commissioner.
The other thing the FMCS does is it works with the parties in order to try to improve the process in the longer term through, for example, training on preventive mediation, that kind of thing.
So the distinction is between the management of the normal bargaining process or assistance to the normal bargaining process, which is what FMCS does, and sometimes involves decisions by the minister on whether to appoint a commissioner or not, on which FMCS provides advice to the minister.
The CLRB does generically similar work but in a different context - the context of those quasi-judicial judgments that it's called upon to make.
So obviously there's a lot of information sharing between the groups, but we don't actually trip over each other on a day-to-day basis.
Mr. Johnston: Just to clarify, you don't see any duplication there that could be eliminated?
Mr. Lahey: You certainly could organize things differently.
In British Columbia, for example, the board has two branches. One branch deals with conciliation, the stuff that FMCS does at the federal level; another branch deals with adjudication, the stuff the CLRB does. There is that other model that exists. So perhaps there could be some savings on the administrative level.
But they're very careful in that setting to separate and keep distinct these two functions, because you don't want to, so to speak, poison or compromise the quasi-judicial work with the more ``roll up your sleeves, work with the parties to settle the disputes'' sort of a role. So that kind of distinction, even where they're formally under the same board, is kept quite distinct.
Mr. Johnston: Is there any cost recovery to either of these? In the case of the quasi-judicial CLRB, is there any cost recovery there from the parties involved?
Mr. Lahey: There may be some registering fees or things like that, but I think the practice normally in Canada is for quasi-judicial bodies not to charge. It's a little bit like a court. You don't pay in order to go to the court. You might pay your lawyer, but you don't pay the judge, other than maybe a fee to register a document or whatever.
Mr. Johnston: What about Industrial Relations and Mediation and Conciliation? Is there any cost recovery there? Does that $14,600,000 come out of general revenue?
Mr. Warren Edmondson (Director General, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Labour, Department of Human Resources Development): No, there is not any cost recovery.
You have to keep in mind that the process of conciliation, effectively as defined in the Canada Labour Code, is generally a compulsory process. In order to require the right to strike or lock out, before anybody can acquire that right they must go through the process of conciliation; that is, they must serve a notice of dispute to the Minister of Labour. In 99% of the cases, an officer is appointed to assist the parties in attempting to resolve that dispute.
.1600
I have a comment on the $14 million. If you look at the breakdown on page 3-18, you get a better feel for how that $14.6 million breaks down. In effect, the conciliation and mediation activity - that is, the involvement of our field officers in actually sitting down as conciliators and mediators across Canada in a variety of disputes, including national interest disputes like railways and grain handling - really amounts to $2.6 million, which I don't think is an enormous amount of money considering the kinds of disputes that we get involved in and the role we play.
In addition, part of that money goes towards, as Jim explained, the program of preventive mediation that we are presently engaged in, in a large way. That program, of course, is designed to improve relationships between labour and management, to try as best we can to get labour and management working together to avoid the kinds of disruptions that are costly to both sides.
When you look, for example, at Industrial Relations Services and the Bureau of Labour Information, these are services that are provided to the private sector, in effect our clientele and in some cases beyond. Again, this is to assist them in obtaining the kind of information they need in order to bargain and to conduct their business effectively. There are also some partnership programs there that we promote and for which we offer funding on a cost-shared basis to labour and management again where we believe they are working together to try to improve their relationship.
A lot of this money, in effect, is preventive in the sense that, given the high cost of work stoppages to both workers and companies in the country, we try to spend as much money as we can in promoting the kinds of relationships that would avoid costly disruptions.
Mr. Lahey: I would like to add two other points that would perhaps be of interest.
Warren referred to Industrial Relations Services, which is the largest single amount. If you look at the table on page 3-5, you will see that for 1995-96, $5.5 million of that is in fact for contributions. That covers both the labour education program and the labour management partnerships program. Those are not costs of public servants.
On the question of cost recovery, there is one area where there is some cost recovery. This is the Bureau of Labour Information. They do charge for some of their publications. There's some information on page 3-24. It's not a large amount that's recovered. It's cited here as $130,000, but there are charges for the publications they make available.
Mr. Johnston: Maybe you could clarify something. In section 57 of part I of the Canada Labour Code, under subsection 57(1), it says:
- Every collective agreement shall contain a provision for final settlement without stoppage of
work, by arbitration or otherwise,
- Where any difference arises between parties to a collective agreement that does not contain a
provision for final settlement
- To me, that is very contradictory. You can't have a situation where ``all shall'' and then have an
exception. Would you mind explaining that? Those are contradictory.
.1605
Subsection 57(2) simply provides that, where the parties are in effect unable to agree on the selection of an arbitrator, the minister has the authority to appoint an arbitrator. Quite frequently, many collective agreements...for example, I can recall in the longshore agreements on the west coast and in Canada Post, many of the agreements actually contained, by agreement - which is negotiated between the parties - a list of arbitrators that they both agree should be the list from which they will either rotate or select somebody. They would pick out of a hat a name that they both understand to be competent and capable people to whom to refer these kinds of disputes.
From time to time, we will receive a request pursuant to this section of the code for the minister to appoint an arbitrator simply because the parties either have not defined in their collective agreement and have been unable to agree between them on who that arbitrator should be. They will then come to the minister, who in turn makes the appointment. We keep a roster of qualified, certified arbitrators with whom we are familiar, and we would make the appointment of an arbitrator to that kind of a dispute.
Mr. Johnston: Can I have a clarification of that, Mr. Chairman.
My point was that subsection (1) says ``Every collective agreement shall'', and in subsection (2) it says where collective agreements that do not contain that provision.... You still haven't explained that to my satisfaction.
Mr. Lahey: The simplest way to explain it would be that the first part says what's supposed to happen and the second part says what happens when that doesn't happen.
Mrs. Lalonde: It's labour relations. They do and they don't abide by what you say.
Mr. McDermott: There's a legislative drafting term that might fit. It's simply ``for greater certainty''.
Mrs. Lalonde: You don't take any chances.
The Chairman: Now that that's been totally clarified to your satisfaction....
Mr. Johnston: I hope, Mr. Chairman, I've managed to confuse someone else and not just myself.
The Chairman: I'm sure your confusion will dissipate as the afternoon continues.
I'm going to turn the questioning over to the Liberals, beginning with Mr. McCormick.
Mr. McCormick (Hastings - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a general question. Again, it's about the safety of the employees. I did find it interesting because of the cut-backs that are happening across Canada, and other colleagues are supporting us in those cut-backs. I want to put on the record that one of the reasons the cut-backs are as severe as they are today - this month and continuing this year - is because of my colleague opposite, who is responsible for many of these cut-backs and is responsible for the interest rates in this country being much higher than what they would be. Every study and everyone agrees.
It's wonderful to be a hero and to be worried about the people on the street, but the people on the street are being hurt in Quebec, in Ontario, and all across this great country. I just wanted to put that on the record, because I can't understand how somebody can cut their own friends' throats like that - not as an individual, but as a party.
Mrs. Lalonde: I will respond to that.
The Chairman: Try to keep this....
Mr. McCormick: My concern is this. Major companies are always able to look after themselves.
I come from a small business background. We have the most modern tire plant in the world in my riding: Goodyear. There is no union. Everybody is happy in eastern Ontario with Goodyear. Tomorrow we have another announcement, and things are looking good in our area. Yet I'm worried about the small companies. I'm worried about the employees of the small companies.
When these cut-backs do happen.... We shouldn't judge, but we see conditions where the workers are...if they don't work where they're asked to work, they're gone. I'm not sure about bureaucrats being in touch with the reality of the workplace. I'm worried that our government cut-backs are going to affect the safety of the workers. They're my friends, my neighbours, my colleagues, my constituents.
Mr. Lahey: As I said to Madame Lalonde, we share the concern you have. We certainly place the highest priority in our resource allocation on health and safety.
.1610
In the federal jurisdiction, on average, the employers are large, although in certain industries like trucking, many times they are smaller. It's because of the kind of problem that you identify that there are provisions in the code, for example, regarding refusal to work and protections around the exercise of that right. Obviously, inspectors can't be in every plant or on the premises all the time. That's why those protections are in the code.
Mr. McCormick: I appreciate that, sir, and I appreciate the fact that you are doing a good job. In the real world out there it doesn't always work that way, this refusal to work bit. So ``I refuse to work''...but then the stories are cooked up. I've known of cases where people have lost their jobs. It just doesn't work that way, sir, with small companies.
Mr. Lahey: There is another kind of protection that we do offer. It's not a health and safety protection, but another kind of problem that sometimes afflicts smaller employers more than large ones is what's called unjust dismissal. There is a provision under our legislation - Mr. McDermott says best in the country, and I'll quote him on that - whereby if an employee believes he or she has been unjustly dismissed, there is a provision for arbitration to be carried out to resolve that dispute.
None of this is for the purpose of disagreeing with your main point. I understand what you're saying.
Mr. McCormick: I'd like to pass one other comment on to you from my neighbours and the taxpayers. As we make these cuts, which we're responsible for - and I believe everyone is trying to do it in the best way they can - people are coming up to me on the street and in the town hall meetings and saying, ``The problem with the cuts that we the taxpayers...we're the ones who are going to suffer because the bureaucrats are not going to make the cuts where the cuts could be made to save them money''. We hear this over and over for years, and now we're hearing it more everyday because of the situation we are in in this country, which is real. We're going to cut the people out there delivering services and inspecting and all that, which could affect the safety of someone. Yet16 layers down, will the people be affected? The budget seemed to stay more constant there.
I want you to reassure me that you and your department are trying to make sure the money is spent in the right places.
Mr. Lahey: One thing I could mention in that regard is last Thursday I met with all of the managers in the labour program and with all of the employees in headquarters in the labour program to tell them that we would be reducing the number of what we call, EX, which is executive positions, in the program from something in the low 20s to 14 over the next month. That's not because I take any pleasure in reducing the number of management or executive positions in the program. It's not because the people haven't been making an excellent contribution over the years, some of them for 10 or 20 years. But the fact remains that if we are going to have to make these reductions, it seems to me the responsible thing is to start at the top. This is a substantial 30% or 40% reduction of the senior management. This is in order to minimize the impact we'll have to have at the front line.
The only other comment I might make is it's true that we inhabitants of Ottawa-Hull may not be at the front line on a day-to-day basis, but our inspectors are, and we are in contact with our inspectors. By meeting with them and talking to them, we're in a position to have a feel for what the issues are at the front line with the clients.
Again, I take your point. We're trying to take steps to make the cuts where they'll be least painful - not least painful, but having the least disruptive effect on the front-line delivery of service.
Mr. McCormick: Thank you.
As I pass this back to the chair in just a moment, I want to tell you that I've certainly heard from within the walls here and on the Hill that the human resources department is making good attempts at doing this. I appreciate how you're doing it. I just want to hear that to put it on the record. The public doesn't hear this, so it's our responsibility, my responsibility, and the responsibility of others to share this.
Thank you very much, sir.
.1615
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I must respond to Mr. McCormick.
He insisted that his comments be recorded, and I insist on saying for the record that the major part of our economic problems related to the current interest rates are the result of the debt accumulated in large part when the interest rates were so high after the Québécois voted no to the referendum in 1980.
If the problem is that Quebec exists, what do you want to do about it? It exists and we are a people and a nation. The sooner Canada recognizes it, the sooner we'll be able to define better ways of living together, the better it will be for everybody.
At page 3-29, you say that the total number of complaints about safety and security at work is still high because employees are much more aware of security and health issues in their work place. I find it difficult to accept this conclusion.
I don't think there is any basis for such a conclusion because we don't have any means of verifying that. There are complaints because there are problems. I wanted to state that.
I have questions about other sections. Let's go back to page 3-16. The implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement will have important consequences in the long term. As members of Parliament, what type of information can we have on that subject other than the very general comments which appear on that page? Is there a report on that subject?
You say at page 3-40: ``International Affairs develops Canada's positions on the various issues dealt with by the ILO through close ongoing consultations with the provinces and territories. Canada collaborates with other ILO members in examining ways to streamline procedures.''
When Canada takes a stand on the North American Free Trade Agreement and within international labour organizations, is it the department itself that defines that position? Did you prepare reports? How can one keep up with what's happening?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: I have to distinguish between the two cases of the International Labour Organization and the North American agreement on labour cooperation. In the case of the International Labour Organization, the annual convention is attended by delegates from the labour movement, from the Canadian Employers Association, and from the government side. Normally the government delegation is comprised of people from our department as well as at least one member from one of the provincial governments.
.1620
This year, I think there will be a person from the Department of Employment and Labour Relations of Newfoundland, and the Government of Quebec is sending a representative at its own expense.
As you know, the process with the ILO is not a speedy one. If there is a desire to consider a convention on a particular subject, usually there is a step where countries are asked to provide information about the situation, the laws and so on, in their countries in regard to that. When we're asked to do that, we write to our provincial counterparts, we gather that information and send it to Geneva. It's consolidated with the information from all of the other countries. Then there is usually two years of discussion on a particular convention. We usually develop an analysis, from a government point of view, as to the suitability of the proposed convention.
Again, we communicate with our provincial colleagues and seek their opinion. There are meetings every year in May of a thing called the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation. It's a long and boring title, but basically it's made up of the deputy ministers responsible for labour across the country, and there's usually an item on the agenda to confirm or raise any issues about Canada's position.
Then, after all of this, if the convention is in fact adopted by the ILO, before it would be ratified by Canada there is consultation with all of the provinces and in fact there is a formal written agreement by the Prime Minister or the premier of each of the provinces before Canada ratifies, unless it's purely in the federal jurisdiction, in which case we decide on our own.
So there's a very long, elaborate, developed process for consultation with our provincial colleagues in the context of the ILO.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: My question was about information. All of this is done by governments?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Yes. In the case of the North American agreement on labour legislation, which, as you know, is a new thing, at the time when the so-called side agreement on labour was being negotiated there were regular meetings with provincial labour counterparts to discuss what was developing. Obviously, Canada was not in a position to dictate the terms of the agreement, being one of only three countries, and the provinces didn't always agree on what Canada's position ought to be, so we did have to take a decision as to what position we would adopt. But I think in general it would be fair to say that most provinces who participated were pretty happy with the outcome.
We also developed a federal-provincial agreement that sets out formally how we would coordinate our activities in the context of this agreement. I was informed a couple of days ago - I guess it was last Thursday - that Alberta has formally taken a decision to sign on. I understand that Quebec has legislation before the National Assembly, which, among other things, would permit the Government of Quebec to associate itself with this agreement. So those governments that formally associate themselves with the agreement will become part of the formal process. Even so, we're quite active in keeping all of the provinces informed; we copy them on all of the documents.
Some provinces have been involved in sponsoring or participating in conferences and projects. For example, Alberta hosted a conference on health and safety in the petrochemical industry on which we collaborated.
So in the area of labour, quite frankly, there's a long and well-developed tradition of close collaboration between the jurisdictions. I think this is because the jurisdictions are very similar in size. Everyone is experiencing resource reductions and we need to share our efforts as much as possible. That's the approach we use in this area, as well as in others.
.1625
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Given the fact that the law defines quite precisely what those jurisdictions are and that there are third parties who interpret those jurisdictions, do you think that each government has to keep within its own jurisdiction?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: I think we do find it pretty easy to co-operate with each other. There are some grey areas in jurisdiction, and as it says just above that particular section, sometimes the Supreme Court surprises us with new areas of jurisdiction for the federal government. But in general, the lines are fairly clear, and cooperation is what characterizes our relations.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: One can say that without the Privy Council in London, labour relations would be under federal jurisdiction.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: That's possible.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: The Supreme Court always leans on the same side, like the Tower in Pisa.
The Chairman: Or on the other for the Privy Council of London, to restore balance.
Mrs. Lalonde: The strike in the railway sector led me to ask the following question over and again. If the government or somebody else thinks that the Canadian economy cannot survive with the Canada Labour Code, somebody will have to do something somewhere but until that happens, we, the official Opposition will insist on applying the Labour Code.
We see as well that a very small fraction, less than 1% of all the work-days lost is attributable to work stoppages.
You have started a revision of the Code. Do you have guidelines or will you hold broader consultations than the almost informal meetings that you seem to have right now?
Mr. McDermott: I have held a number of consultations with employer associations under the Code and with the unions. I have also met with a number of more diverse organizations and with industry associations who represent employers who are under provincial laws.
Up to now, we have discussed three subjects: the structure of the CLRB, the question of the second stage of conciliation, that is the conciliation boards and third, the question of replacement workers.
I asked everybody: Are there any other subjects that should be examined? The issue of essential services has sometimes been raised. We have noticed ourselves at the Department that the scope of the Code had recently been broadened. Mr. Lahey alluded to some decisions, especially one by the Supreme Court, and now the workers in the nuclear energy sector are covered under the Code. Thus, Ontario Hydro, does not come under provincial law.
We're starting to have a good number of people with us, under the Code, who work in essential industries. For example, we now have the firemen in the airports who formerly came under the Public Service Employment Act, but with the privatization, they are covered by the Code.
It is obviously a question that deserves to be examined. I'm almost ready to report to the Minister on the consultations that we've had so far. I think for that matter that the Minister alluded to that the last time she was here.
.1630
Once she examines my report, I think she will make a decision on the next stages, to wit the process and future consultations.
Mrs. Lalonde: Then the issue of the strike as such has not been mentioned?
Mr. McDermott: I'm not the one who raised the question of the strike. It is clear that not only essential industries come under the Code but public interest industries as well. I'm convinced that we will discuss that during the next round of consultations.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Johnston had asked the minister if the mandate of the board of inquiry on Vancouver Harbour would cover the whole issue of transportation and she had answered - this struck me at the time - that railways were not included.
This therefore means that...
Mr. McDermott: I will ask Mr. Lahey to answer that question but I think she said that because an adjudication process is ongoing in that industry.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Just to supplement what Michael is saying, in effect we have two processes that will come together, I presume, before amendments would be proposed in regard to part I of the Canada Labour Code. One is the industrial inquiry commission, which is focusing specifically on issues relating to the B.C. ports. It does not include the railways, which of course are of national significance. Obviously it can affect the ports, but the issues of the railways are broader.
So the kinds of issues you're referring to that were highlighted by the recent rail strikes, asMr. McDermott just said, I'm sure will be looked at and discussed in the context of the broader review of part I.
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): I just want to follow up on some questions we had posed last week just before the bells rang and we were off.
This has to do with the Donner report and the work-time questions. I don't recall specifically, but I'm sure the minister when she appeared referred in her statement to consultations being done around the recommendations of the report and so on. So I'm interested in what elements of the report or what specific recommendations are being pursued, the process employed in that exercise, and any projected timing.
As I recall, in the statement there was something to the effect that perhaps parts I and II were taking priority or something. It's vague, but I think perhaps she said that.
There was also some reference to some pilots or some exercises in innovation in her statement.
Could you clarify?
Mr. Lahey: Yes. I would say there are three tracks of following up on the Donner report. I believe the minister did comment on this, so I hope I'm repeating what she said.
First of all, there are some recommendations that, if they were to be implemented, would require legislative action. For example, the report suggested that employees might have a right to refuse overtime after a standard work week of 40 hours. They suggested there might be a maximum amount of overtime, set at 100 hours annually. They suggested there might be a right to five days of unpaid family leave per year, which is the current standard in the labour code in Quebec. There are some other examples like this.
So these items, if they were to be acted on, would require the federal government in regard to its jurisdiction, or other provinces if they wished to pursue it, to enact legislative or regulatory changes.
We have a process whereby we work with our business and labour clients to look at changes to Part III of the Canada Labour Code, which is the part that would be affected by these areas. There were amendments to Part III in 1993, and a subsequent process now, a review of Part III, is under way.
.1635
So these questions have been referred to our consultative committee, and I guess we'll have to see what is its view as to the desirability and feasibility of implementing these things.
I would just say, though, in relation to Part III, that we usually try to work by consensus. Sometimes it takes some discussion to achieve a consensus. I wouldn't want to predict what the outcome of that process would be, but that's first track.
The second track is what you might call trying to encourage public discussion about these issues. A number of people, as soon as they hear the idea that you might put limits on overtime or change the work week or whatever, react and say, no, that's impossible, because it will undermine the competitiveness of the Canadian economy and so on and so forth. They may be right. It's a legitimate point of view.
But another point of view is that if we're going to have substantial unemployment, and job creation is increasingly difficult with technological change and so on, just as 100 years ago the work week was, say, 60 hours a week and now it's 40 hours, well, maybe 20 or 50 years from now it will be 20 hours a week. That will be what's considered normal. So maybe it is time to look at some innovation, some different approaches.
We therefore think this is the type of issue that deserves more public discussion. In fact, we're starting to see articles in the paper and various books that have been published that raise these questions. We will be sponsoring some seminars, discussion papers and so on to try to encourage that public discussion.
The third area is that the federal government is a significant employer in its own right. Even after the downsizing, it's still going to be one of the biggest employers in Canada, if not the biggest employer. If we're going to take these kinds of issues seriously, it's in the context of the downsizing that we, as employers, have to consider that maybe we have to change how we see things.
There may be a tendency for managers to think either your employee is there or they're not there. Of course, we know there are people who work part time, and so on, but it's more than a suspicion - because I've talked to employees - that there are many people who would be quite happy, in fact, to work fewer hours if they could be sure they'd keep their jobs.
In fact, the Treasury Board, in its recent setting out of the rules for the downsizing, included a provision whereby employees could take leave without pay for between five and 13 weeks, I think, in the course of the year. Their pay would be prorated across the whole year. In addition, the employer would cover the costs of their pensions and their benefits as if they had worked 12 months.
So I think this will be attractive to a number of employees, but it will require some imagination on the part of managers to adjust the work to accommodate this. If you have, say, five people who are working three days a week, that's more people than if you had three people working five days a week.
Those are the three tracks I see for following up on the Donner report.
Mr. Scott: I have just one quick question. What's the level of standard work week now, across jurisdictions? I know one of the recommendations was to simply begin to show leadership in trying to cause there to be a standardization of a 40-hour week. Do you know offhand how close to that we are?
Mr. Lahey: I think the range currently is between 40 and 48 hours a week. These are maximums, not necessarily how long people actually work. This is the period of work before which you'd be entitled to overtime.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions from the Liberal side?
.1640
Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do you have a specific percentage of staff reductions in terms of the shrinking resources you talk about? In what particular areas, and what percentages in particular areas? Can you elaborate on that a little more for us? What effect will that have on program implementation, specifically the Department of Labour?
Mr. Lahey: As you know, the labour program is part of Human Resources Development Canada. We currently have about 750 employees in the headquarters and the regions who deal with the labour program. That's out of a total in the department of something like 27,000 employees. That's just putting it in perspective. Small but mighty: that's how we see ourselves.
In any case, you know the process, led by Minister Massé, of program review. Most federal departments were the object of this program review last year, including the labour program. The outcome of that review was that we were being looked at for a reduction of approximately100 employees, out of this approximately 750, by the end of three years. So the reduction would be around 15%.
Meanwhile, the Department of Human Resources Development became the object of program review shortly before the budget. It has a reduction target, which you've seen in the paper, of around 5,000.
Mr. O'Reilly: It depends on what paper you read.
Mr. Lahey: Yes. But that's the number I've seen.
It's quite likely, in fact, that the labour program will have to absorb some further reductions beyond the 100 as part of the 5,000, but that won't be determined until the summer.
In general, I think it's understood and accepted that regulatory-type programs are generally at the lower end of the reductions than, say, more discretionary-type programs, policy oriented or that type of thing.
So I can't give you the exact number we'll end up with. That won't be decided for some months yet.
Mr. O'Reilly: Okay.
What effect does the appointment of the Minister of Labour have on your administration? Is there a cost involved from that change in department from the Human Resources Development portfolio?
Mr. Lahey: The only cost I would be able to identify is the normal cost of a minister's office. If you have another minister, you have the cost of a minister's office. It's the standard, whatever that standard is for ministers.
Mr. O'Reilly: Millions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. O'Reilly: This was a serious question, though.
Mr. Lahey: That's the only cost implication I'm aware of. In any case, it's being absorbed from within the overall budget of the department. Our department's budget is not increased in order to pay for this.
Administratively, we have services in the department to prepare briefing notes for parliamentary questions and speeches by ministers and so on. These services do serve Madam Robillard, as well as Mr. Axworthy, the Secretary of State and Senator Fairbairn.
So we're using the same services as already exist in the department.
Mr. O'Reilly: Why was the Program for Older Worker Adjustment taken from labour to the employment and insurance program? Can you explain that to me?
Mr. Lahey: Yes. After Human Resources Development was set up in June 1993, the preoccupation in the first instance was just to create a unified department. But in a few months, after we got over that stage, we started looking around and saying that maybe some of the pieces would fit better in a different place.
The Program for Older Worker Adjustment is a program that provides financial assistance to older workers who are the victims of involuntary lay-offs and who have no other alternatives. It was felt this kind of program was more similar to the kind of programs that are administered by the employment program. It was also thought, in thinking about the future of the program, that it would be better to think about it in the context of employment. So that's why it was shifted there.
.1645
Conversely, the Employment Equity Program was in the employment program, which is in large measure partly a regulatory program, partly an administrative program that is directed significantly at a similar federal employers and employees base that is the labour program. It's focused on what goes on in the workplace, so it was felt to have a greater affinity to the labour program.
Basically, there was a switch. The Program for Older Worker Adjustment went to employment; Employment Equity went to labour. Personally, I am of the view that the switch did make sense in terms of lining up things that are closely related.
Mr. O'Reilly: One last point of clarification to Mr. Johnston's or maybe Madam Lalonde's question: How many agreements are in place between the federal department and the provincial departments besides the...?
You talked about the border one that was different, and you touched on a couple of others. Were there more? Is there a large number of them?
Mr. Lahey: I do recall what you mean.
Mr. O'Reilly: I didn't know if that came to an end, or whether it was just touched on.
Mr. Lahey: There is not a large number. There is the one relating to Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting. There's one we are discussing with Ontario Hydro. I think there's one we're discussing relating to an uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan.
There isn't a large number. They tend to be special cases.
Mr. O'Reilly: Are there any in the territories?
Mr. Lahey: For labour-relations purposes, the territories are all under the federal jurisdiction. That hasn't been transferred to the territorial governments.
The Chairman: I now turn to Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston: Moving back to the much-clarified section 57, could you tell us how many disputes are settled in that manner per year? In the last year, on average, how many disputes were settled in the manner as laid out in subsection 57(1)?
Mr. Edmondson: We couldn't possibly tell you, because most of those disputes are settled between the parties directly.
The only time we would know about that kind of a dispute is where, fundamentally, they come to the minister asking the minister to appoint. That would be in the order of about 70 cases a year. In those cases, the parties actually pay. All we do is appoint. The parties pay.
Mr. Johnston: So there is some cost recovery.
Mr. Lahey: Cost avoidance.
Mr. Edmondson: The recoverer is the arbitrator.
Mr. Johnston: The railway strike and the associated work stoppages and walkouts that went along with it this spring cost $1 billion, by some estimates. Others estimated it to be $3 billion. Why couldn't something along this line have been used to avert that very costly work stoppage?
Mr. Lahey: These provisions apply during the life of a collective agreement.
Mr. Johnston: Once the agreement has expired, then this also expires.
Mr. Lahey: Yes.
The way the system works is that once strike and lockout rights are acquired, the collective agreements expire. They can still be applied if the parties want, but quite often they're not, or only in part. So this particular section wouldn't apply.
Mr. Johnston: There is a Deloitte & Touche study on the western grain elevator industry. It was supposedly ready last September. When will we be able to see that?
Mr. Edmondson: That Human Resources study was contracted by a working group that was represented by the industry. Three labour and three management people represented us on that working group, which drove that study with our assistance. I actually chaired that committee. That report is ready to be released.
Today, in fact, I have drafted a letter to the CEOs of the industry. I would like to sit down and meet with the CEOs sometime in the next few weeks to try to talk about the next steps. But I would expect that the release of the report will be within the next few weeks.
.1650
Mr. Johnston: I'll look forward to that.
That's all for now, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Johnston.
I'd like to change not necessarily the tone but the approach a little bit, and bring us back to the reason we're here, which is to review the estimates. Under the labour program, which is what we're considering today - and I'm referring to Part II of the estimates - we have four categories, two of which are statutory and two of which are votable estimates.
As I understand it, votable estimates are the discretionary portion of federal spending. They are the portion of federal spending that governments have discretion over, and parliaments, in reviewing the estimates, have the discretion to authorize the government to make those expenditures.
In the discretionary categories, votes 15 and 20, concerning the labour program, are, one, operations for which 1995-96 estimates are to some $44,135,000, which is a slight decrease over last year. Under the grants and contributions, which is vote 20, we have an estimate of $7,429,000, a substantial reduction over last year, which was $59,078,000 in that category.
Since the purpose of estimates is to justify those discretionary portions of federal spending, I would like to invite you to tell me and the committee what are the most important things that would happen or would not happen if those two votable items were not voted on.
This is a very basic question. What disaster would ensue in Canada if those two items, vote15 and 20, were denied the government?
Mr. Lahey: As you know, this is set out at some length in chapter 3 of this book -
The Chairman: Absolutely. I know it is. But I'm asking you to boil down chapter 3 into a really simple, straightforward, persuasive rationale, for this committee and Parliament, of those amounts.
Mr. Lahey: The essential services the program provides with this funding has to do with the promotion of stable industrial relations in the federal jurisdiction. I think the experience of parliamentarians in the last few months has drawn attention to the problems that arise when solutions are not found through the normal bargaining process. It affects the whole economy and the whole society.
Second, the basic protections that workers who are under federal jurisdiction have a right to expect in terms of Canadian practice and international obligations are: health and safety in the workplace; protection of minimum standards in the workplace; being able to get access to workers' compensation for federal employees; and protection against fire and so on in federal buildings. None of these services would be available.
I would argue that all of these I've mentioned so far are basically fundamental to the infrastructure of the country.
In addition to that, we have other activities that are more discretionary, if I could put it that way. For example, we do collect, develop and disseminate information to encourage and support effective collective bargaining. I'm thinking, for example, of the Bureau of Labour Information.
.1655
It's been the view, going back to Mackenzie King, who was the founder of the Department of Labour, that timely and accurate information about the real conditions of wage increases, conditions of work and so on would help the parties come to reasonable solutions and avoid conflict. It would be my argument that in the absence of that kind of information we would encounter more conflict.
Those are the types of activities we're engaged in. I think you would notice within a matter of days the absence of these services.
The Chairman: This is a theoretical or hypothetical exercise I'm inviting you to participate in, but if we were able to reallocate funds from elsewhere into your department, what would you propose that we reallocate funds into your program for?
Mr. Lahey: How much are you offering?
The Chairman: I'm asking what are your unmet priorities.
Mr. Lahey: I'm teasing.
I would say we probably wouldn't seek very much additional funding. If we did have access to some funding we'd probably like to not have reductions in the resources available for our inspectorate services and so on. We think we would be better able to ensure safe workplaces and protect labour standards if we didn't have to make those reductions, perhaps with some small increases in a few areas.
The other area where perhaps some further investment could be worth while is in that area of what I call ``workplace information''. We hear about globalization and international competition and productivity - all these words. One of the most important factors in Canadian industry and Canadian business being competitive is the quality of relationships in the workplace. Technology and so on is important, but technology is only as effective as the people who use the technology. There's inadequate availability of information to employers and unions as to what are the best practices, both in our country and abroad, to make those workplace relationships effective.
So I personally would argue for some small investments in assembling and making available this information. I think it would pay dividends. But I would probably try to do that in partnership. I would probably not try to do it unilaterally by the federal government. We know the provinces have important jurisdiction here, and I would probably want to reach out and do it jointly with them.
Those are the two areas I would highlight.
The labour program has never been one that has had a large budget. It's not a spending program in the way some of our brother and sister programs in HRDC are. I don't think large extra dollars would make a huge difference, but some small avoidance of reductions or some small increases probably could make us more effective.
The Chairman: Obviously, what you're saying is that the $44 million or so that is spent by taxpayers, net of whatever revenues you bring in, is buying to a certain extent those good things you mentioned earlier - a better labour relations climate, health and safety and all the other services you provide. As well, those benefits accrue to those who are involved in the workplace in Canada. Those benefits are sufficiently disbursed that those who benefit would need to have this involvement by you in order to have these services available.
Mr. Lahey: You may wish to call the unions and employers who deal in the federal jurisdiction and ask them whether or not they consider our services to be essential. As we say in French, ``j'ose dire''. I dare say they would confirm what I've said in terms of the role we play.
The Chairman: Oh, I'm sure they would. I just think it's important for us to step back and ask ourselves what we're really doing, and how important it is. Who benefits and how much do those people appreciate the services you provide? That's the nature of my inquiry.
.1700
Mr. Lahey: I understand.
The Chairman: Do your colleagues agree with your assessment of the priorities?
Ms Godmer: Yes, I certainly do.
The Chairman: Do we have unanimity at the table?
Mr. Edmondson: Yes, I think so. The federal jurisdiction is quite unique when you look at the fact that the clientele is essentially from coast to coast. We deal with some extremely complex industries. We talked about railways, longshoring, or ``major infrastructure industries'', as Michael likes to call them.
Quite frankly, the job we have is quite enormous. Collective bargaining has become extremely complex. The issues are much more complex, the workplace is much more complex and the job of trying to bring the parties together has become much more complex. We continue to direct as many resources as possible into the preventive mode, trying to prevent disputes, trying to build partnerships, because as somebody suggested, the cost of some of these disruptions is enormous.
I think it would be foolish not to put as much resources as possible into building the kind of relationships necessary to establish the collective bargaining environment that's going to be good for everybody.
The Chairman: Would additional resources, from where we are at the moment, buy many more benefits in terms of labour peace or better standards, or are we at the optimum with where we are?
Mr. Edmondson: If I were negotiating with Jim, I would probably be looking for as much as I could possibly get to move into this preventive mode. We will always be the firefighters in the business of collective bargaining. We will always be out there trying to put out labour disputes. That's our regulatory role. That's what we're there for. But with our existing budgets, we are trying to go beyond, trying to offer additional services.
It's important to recognize that because of the high cost, generally speaking, of these kinds of services privately, usually only one side is able to afford them, and it's usually the company side. It often means these services are not acceptable to the unions, because they're not perceived as being neutral.
In mediation services, for example, not only in the federal jurisdiction but also in the provinces, with which we work very closely, because I think we're generally regarded as neutrals, I think we're in the position to offer those kinds of services in a very meaningful and acceptable way.
So we keep trying to drive as much of our resources as possible in that area - in the mediation service, in any event. Any additional resources we could get, probably in the mediation service, we would try to direct in that area.
Mr. McDermott: Speaking as a veteran of the department, I think the one area where I'd like to see more, if there was more available, would be in either basic research within the department or a better ability to direct some of the research into labour issues done in the universities and so on.
Thirty years ago we used to have a very large research department. It was slowly whittled away. I think it was too large, but I think it probably was whittled down too far. Some of the basic information we collect, the basic statistics and data, we could probably do a lot more work on to turn it into useful stuff for labour and management. It could be done directly within the department, or additional resources could be used to encourage universities and other research institutes to do some of the stuff that's very much needed.
I was desperately searching for a quote that was in my mind about the importance of labour, and it finally came to me: Capital is only the fruit of labour, for without labour in the first place there would not be any capital. That's not quite a verbatim quote, but it was given south of the border a very long time ago by Abraham Lincoln in his first congressional address. To me, it underscores the importance of the area.
Ms Godmer: From the point of view of the inspectorate, and following on Mr. McCormick's interest and Madam Lalonde's concern around what happens at the workplace from the point of view of where reductions would be made, there's no doubt that if we were not coping with economies of scale we would certainly appreciate having more inspectors.
.1705
That being said, had we more inspectors, we would still be pursuing, with our clients - representatives from both labour and employers - a legislative base that was based on the internal responsibilities system, because even if we had triple or quadruple the number of inspectors, there's no way we could be in every single workplace every day. The workers and the employers are there, and they know faster than anybody else if the workplace is safe.
Consequently, we have tried to tailor our legislation to put the responsibilities on the party. We continue to work with them and to elaborate on that. It would be nice, until we had a framework that we considered the best in the world, to have a larger number of inspectors to give us that security blanket until we get there. But that ultimately would be our end goal.
The Chairman: I'm glad to know you have all thought quite clearly about the role you play and the value of the services you provide. I notice that Mrs. Lalonde agreed with all of that. Before we wrap up, I will give her another opportunity to ask a few brief questions, as I will anyone else who has not asked questions today.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: About the women's issue, I had understood, and I think I was mistaken, that matters regarding equity had been taken away from the Department. Is the Department still responsible for these matters?
[English]
Mr. Lahey: In HRDC there was something called the women's program. This program mainly provided core funding, and I guess project funding, for women's groups. That program did move to the Secretary of State for the Status of Women.
There still are at least two elements with the department. One is what's called the Women's Bureau, which has for 41 years been part of the Department of Labour, now the labour program, which concerns itself mostly with research on workplace issues of particular concern to women, promotion of public discussion, and consideration of these issues. That program remains in the department. Of course, employment equity concerns itself with, among other things, the place of women in the workplace. That's still also part of the program.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Bill C-64 was tabled in December 1994. About employment equity, you say that employees work on two programs. That's on page 328: ``The personnel in this sub-activity is implementing two mandatory programs with a view to promote employment equity in specific work places.'' I suppose this was written before Bill C-64 was presented. But there is already a statute.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: That's right. The new law proposed in Bill C-64 will make changes to the Employment Equity Act, but the two basic areas of activity would remain the same: one, the regulated program to promote participation of designated groups among federal employers; and two, the federal contractors program, whereby we encourage those employers who enter into contracts of a value of $200,000 or more with the federal government to similarly promote participation of designated groups.
So those two activity areas remain the same, but the details of the law, of course, are being adjusted.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: Will the minister let us know her intentions about Bill C-64? This bill was tabled in December by Mr. Axworthy and we have heard nothing of it after that.
[English]
Mr. Lahey: Actually, it was referred after first reading to the parliamentary committee on human rights and the status of disabled persons. They held public hearings for quite a number of weeks. They are now in the process of of drafting a report to Parliament. I believe tomorrow they'll be starting a clause-by-clause consideration of the bill that was tabled at first reading.
.1710
So you probably will see tabled in the House sometime in the next few weeks the report of that committee.
[Translation]
Mrs. Lalonde: I would like to talk about the preventative withdrawal of work for pregnant women. Have you considered, in your consultations or in your research, including in the Canadian Labour Code the preventative withdrawal of work?
I know that preventative withdrawal exists right now but without compensation. If the pregnant worker manages to be reassigned, everything is fine, but if she can't get that, she leaves and applies for unemployment insurance. If she has to withdraw on the third month, she, in fact, pays for her own maternity leave.
Ms Godmer: During the consultation with our clients on Part III of the Code, this subject has not been mentioned and no one said it should be reviewed, neither the members representing the unions, nor the employers' representatives.
Mrs. Lalonde: There can't be too many women among them.
Ms Godmer: You'd be surprised, Mrs. Lalonde.
Mrs. Lalonde: Well, tell me.
Ms Godmer: There is a good number of women. First, as you know, this was only added to Part III of the Code in June 1993. It had been discussed for two years with the clients before the bill was drafted.
Since June 1994, since the coming into force of the legislation, we have only received nine complaints from women about their rights given under the Code, and of those nine complaints, seven have been resolved to the satisfaction of the parties.
Mrs. Lalonde: If women do not have access to preventative withdrawal, then surely, they will not ask for it. I was trying to find out if there was something in the works and you said no.
Ms Godmer: But they do have access to preventative withdrawal.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, without compensation. That's what I am saying.
Ms Godmer: Without compensation, only if the employer does not want to reassign the pregnant worker.
Mrs. Lalonde: That's right. We won't expand on that, but surely you understand the kind of pressure the worker is under. If she doesn't want to lose her income and if she can't be reassigned, she has to choose between endangering the health of her baby or losing her income. You may say nobody asked about that, but when one looks at what goes on, these are pretty dramatic situations.
In Quebec, everything which has to do with Part III, falls under the Commission des normes. The commission prepares very exhaustive reports on the number of members, on the results, etc.
I remember seeing a number of studies showing that even when somebody was rehired after a complaint, most of the times, that person could not stay in the same job for reasons easy to understand.
By checking the way the legislation is applied, it is then possible to amend that very legislation. Does the fact that the Department is responsible of enforcing the act, rather than a separate agency, create a problem?
I would ask the same question about health and safety at work. With the CSST, you have a separate entity that is unionized and enjoys a measure of independence. The Department is, in some ways, a party because it is the Department which develops the legislation and which enforces it.
.1715
[English]
Mr. Lahey: In relation to the last part of your question about potential conflict between the department as an enforcer of the health and safety laws and its existence as an employer of people, this is a dimension we've been sensitive to from the time of the creation of HRDC. Prior to that, the Department of Labour was a very small department, which in many respects was a quasi-independent agency, although formally a department.
After its merger with HRDC, this was something particularly the front-line staff was concerned about, to be sure that they were authorized and would be permitted to carry out their work in a way that would not be compromised by their participation in the department. They've been assured that they're not answerable to their immediate superiors, in a line sense, in terms of the exercise of their functions. They're answerable, as may be required, either to me or to the minister.
So if there was a case where one of the inspectors felt they were being put under undue pressure, they would be completely within their rights to come directly to me, or to the minister, to have this matter dealt with.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mrs. Lalonde, we don't have any more time. I would like the Committee to sit in camera for five minutes. I would like to thank our witnesses.
[English]
Thank you very much for your testimony and your answers to our questions.
That will conclude the labour portion of our consideration of the estimates.
I'd like to ask the members to stay behind for a very short in camera session for future business purposes.
The meeting is adjourned.