Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Minister Beaulieu, if you’d be kind enough to introduce your witnesses to the House this evening.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my immediate right is deputy minister of Transportation, Russell Neudorf. To my far right is director of airports, Delia Chesworth; and to my left, legislative counsel, Thomas Druyan.
Thank you, Minister Beaulieu. Mr. Druyan, Mr. Neudorf and Ms. Chesworth, thank you for joining us this evening in the House. Committee, we’ll open up Bill 61 to general comments. Is committee prepared to go to detail?
Agreed.
Committee, we’ve got 13 clauses here, so we’ll do them one at a time and then we’ll defer the Bill title to the end. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 13 inclusive agreed
To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Is committee agreed that Bill 61, An Act to Amend the Public Airports Act, is ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 61 is now ready for third reading. I’d like to thank the Minister this evening here, and Mr. Druyan, Mr. Neudorf and Ms. Chesworth for joining us. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses out.
Thank you, committee. Does committee agree we’re starting Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Safety Act? First I’ll go to the Minister responsible, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to introduce Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Safety Act. Bill 65 proposes several amendments to the Safety Act. The objective of those consultations and this bill is to improve occupational health and safety.
The reasons for the amendments set out in Bill 65 are generally new occupational health and safety regulations have been developed jointly by the Northwest Territories and Nunavut for recommendation to their respective Commissioners where there are insufficient authority in the Safety Act for a small portion of proposed new regulations.
As well, Canada has enacted new Workplace Hazardous Information System legislation, called WHMIS, and amendments to the Safety Act are needed to allow harmonization with the federal legislation.
The treatment of the subject matter in this bill was the focus of extensive consultation over a period of September 2010 to March 2011 between representatives of industry; labour and public in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were engaged in consultation aimed at reforming the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
Mr. Chair, these regulations apply to workplaces other than mines and some aspects of oil and gas operations. The consultation resulted in a report in excess of 1,000 pages and three volumes.
I’m pleased to answer any questions that Members may have pertaining to Bill 65. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. I’ll ask the chairman responsible for the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure held its public review of Bill 65, An Act to Amend the Safety Act, on September 17, 2015. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
Bill 65 amends the Safety Act to harmonize with the new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, including regulation-making power and authority for three sections and with the new federal Workplace Hazardous Information System legislation.
The committee recognizes that extensive consultation informed the draft of the new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. However, no specific consultation was undertaken in the drafting of Bill 65. The committee encourages the undertaking of specific consultation for any future legislative proposals specifically respecting the Safety Act.
During the public hearing, the committee initiated two amendments of Bill 65 with the Minister’s concurrence. The first corrects an inconsistency in the translation in the French version of Clause 4 to align with the remainder of the Safety Act. The second clarifies the language regarding the exemption of privileged information under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act in clause 5.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 65 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole as amended and reprinted.
This certainly concludes the committee’s general comments of Bill 65. Individual Members may have additional questions and comments as they arise. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Lafferty, do you have witnesses to bring into the Chamber?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Minister Lafferty, would you please introduce your witnesses.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. To my left I have Mr. Dave Grundy. He’s the CEO of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission. To my immediate right is Judy Kainz, director of prevention services and safety officer. To my far right is Ms. Emerald Murphy, legal counsel. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Committee, general comments to Bill 65. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and the department here this evening for I think a very important bill. One in which that I think drew a little bit of controversy and a little bit of concern when we did the clause-by-clause. I think it came down to the level of consultation that was undertaken to prepare the bill that we see today. As you heard this evening in the Minister’s comments, extensive consultations – his words – occurred September 2010 to March 2011, and to our knowledge, very little consultation took place in the drafting of this bill to match current regulations under the occupational health and safety matter.
So, first and foremost, as I indicated back in our clause by clause, I was going to give the Minister and his delegation appropriate time and energy to go and consult after the clause by clause and so at this time I will be asking the Minister or his designate whether or not they did get concurrence and approval from such areas as the Governance Council of the Workers’ Compensation Division, the Chamber of Commerce, both territorial and in Yellowknife, the Chamber of Mines and others that we talked about.
So, again, I will ask the Minister or designate, has this been fully consulted with these groups and have they been blessed to support the Safety Act? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Grundy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I stated before, the Governance Council is fully aware of the changes we are doing. These changes to the Safety Act are not only non-substantive changes to line everything up, we did not go to either chamber or any other consultation. We have on the books right now a rewrite of the Safety Act, which will involve a lot of consultation like we did with the regulations over a long period of time to ensure that everybody is aware of what our plans are and what the plans or suggestions to the government will be in improving the Safety Act.
I appreciate Mr. Grundy’s reply to the question. Why didn’t we go and consult our stakeholders in preparation for today’s amendments and bill? What was the impetus for not reaching out? Like I say, it has been a number of years since we took it upon ourselves to do this. What was the reason for not consulting these various stakeholders to which it will have an immediate and direct impact to small businesses throughout the Northwest Territories?
The consultation that we did was in direct relation to the regulations and not the act. We felt that the regulations were well represented by the public, by employers of the Northwest Territories, and these changes were only non-substantive to make them line up. Like I said, the big consultation will be when we are actually doing things that will have direct impact. So, all these changes have is to align everything up so that we can move forward with the regulations as they are.
I know that there are still some concerns out there about the regulations, but the regulations can be changed any time. The Minister’s Safety Committee looks at that once a year, takes recommendations from business, takes recommendations from employers and discusses them and will be giving that to the Minister for consideration.
I appreciate the response; however, the department is very aware that regulations on the floor of the House here are something to which we, as legislators, have absolutely zero impact on. We can talk about them in the House; we can make inferences; we can make suggestions; but we have no control over regulations. We do, however, have control over legislation. So, when legislation is brought before the House, it is deemed appropriate that proper consultation pursue. That proper consultation was reached out to all stakeholders.
Clearly, what we are hearing today is still that we are trying to match an act to regulations that are out of our control and we are somehow supposed to understand and agree to these changes to the act in the absence of full consultation, which makes it very problematic in context. So it is very difficult for me to move forward with this act as a Member because we are kind of doing things a little backwards. We are matching legislation to regulations and in the absence of consultation, in the absence of not having all stakeholders provide input, these changes to the act will affect small businesses. In fact, those businesses of less than 20 are going to be affected greatly in terms of extra costs to maintain certain occupational health and safety standards, and those costs will affect the businesses that affect Northerners that affect their way of life.
What has the department done to evaluate what is the financial impact of this act on small businesses of less than 20 people?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Kainz.
That was part of the consultation with the regulations because the changes were made, and in fact, we expanded the OH&S Committee. Under the old regulations you had to have a committee if you had fewer than 10 workers. It is now 20 workers, so that, in fact, helps with small businesses in that they don’t have to have a committee if they are fewer than 20. That change was made as a direct result of the consultation.
Thank you, Ms. Kainz. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t want to continue with questioning too much longer here. I think we have heard loud and clear my concern the way this act has come about. It is unfortunate that I don’t have enough support from my colleagues here, otherwise I would have a motion to not pass this bill as written, for the very reasons of lack of consultation. However, since I don’t have enough support to do so, I am not going to belittle this process any further. I just hope that this serves as a deep reminder to the department, to Ministers, to make sure that you bring full consultation to this House, otherwise, as Members, we will remind you each and every time. You have to consult. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. I will take that as a general comment. Committee, we are on general comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions. I haven’t been party to the consideration of this bill, but in listening to the comments in the last few minutes, I heard Mr. Grundy say that there is a comprehensive review of the Safety Act being undertaken.
So, my first question is: Why do we have these amendments before us when the Safety Act is being reviewed, apparently now and in the near future? What is so urgent about these amendments that it couldn’t wait until the comprehensive review of the act? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Grundy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The urgency on these two amendments is to line up the act with the regulations. When we do our review and we start our review of the Safety Act and other acts that we regulated, that is a long process of probably about a few years in the making, so we couldn’t wait. We needed these regulations that have been enacted already to line up with the Safety Act, hence two amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Grundy. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to Mr. Grundy for the explanation. My other two questions have to do with Section 4 in the act, but it states or uses the term “work site” and I don’t see that defined, certainly in this act. It may be defined elsewhere but it is not defined in these amendments.
To the concern that Mr. Dolynny expressed about small businesses being impacted, could I get a definition of what a work site is? I don’t know if it is in regulations already or if the department knows what they intend a work site to be. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Kainz.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Work site is a defined term in the act. It means a location where a worker is or is likely to be engaged in work or a thing at, in, on, or near which a worker is or is likely to be engaged in work.
So, I guess that would then mean that any place where anyone is working, no matter what the size. I will take that, then, as a definition.
So the other part, I am looking at Section 4 again, and it says, “an Occupational Health and Safety Program or a work site as required by the regulations,” so can I get a confirmation? I heard you say these programs, these officers are required for businesses of more than 20 employees, so is that what is referenced here in number 7, that the regulations will make that statement so any work site that has less than 20 employees is not required to have an occupational health and safety committee, I guess, and a designated safety representative?
It’s been repealed and replaced. If I’m understanding your question about the committee size of less than 20 workers, they don’t have to have a safety program but they still have other obligations, and those are under the regulations. …(inaudible)…establish the occupational health and safety committee or a designate, a safety rep. If you have less than 20 workers, you have to have a safety rep. If you have greater than 20 workers, you have to have the committee.
I think you got my question. What are the duties, I guess, of the safety representative in this small business of less than 20 employees? Mr. Dolynny is suggesting that it’s quite onerous. What is expected of this person? What’s in regulations that I, as a safety rep, am going to have to do at my workplace?
Those are in the regulations and in the act. A safety representative is part of the investigation into a refusal to work, along with the supervisor. They also participate in any investigations or are made aware of investigations of accidents of a serious nature or accidents of serious bodily injury or dangerous occurrence. The terms are all spelled out clearly in the regulations.
Thank you, Ms. Kainz. Committee, we’re on general comments for Bill 65. Does committee agree to go clause by clause?
Agreed.
We’ll defer bill number and title until were completed. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved
The bill as a whole.
Agreed.
