Evidence of meeting #5 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Dr. Lippel, is that you're understanding too? Am I accurate in saying that is part of the code?
4:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
That's correct.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
There is protection for women who are nursing or who are pregnant under the code in another section. That's there in black and white.
Is that accurate?
4:25 p.m.
Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
It's accurate.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Okay, just let me ask a question—
4:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
I want to clarify that.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Well, I'll come back.
I do have a question now for Mr. Aylward. Your president has been out in the media creating a lot of confusion with misleading information about new amendments that are in this legislation, particularly ones relating to pregnant or nursing mothers. She has said they will lose their right to refuse work, so I find this extremely troubling when there's a section 132, which clearly states that they can refuse work if they are nursing or pregnant, if they believe there's a threat to the fetus or the child, or themselves.
Can you explain to me why your president is out saying those things, when there's clearly protection in the Canada Labour Code under section 132?
4:25 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I'll share my time with Mr. Kingston.
November 21st, 2013 / 4:25 p.m.
National President, Agriculture Union
First of all, our president referred to protection not only for pregnant and nursing women but also for young workers trying to start a family.
In terms of the implications of the changes here and how they would affect a pregnant woman under these certain circumstances, is in the definition of danger. When you remove the part about long-term consequences, even aside from the part about reproductive organs, and you put the word “imminent” in, it means short term. It means immediate. The problem with a refusal under section 132 is that it requires a medical evaluation, following which the protection ends.
The determination by the medical professionals, by people in the workplace, in terms of finding alternative work, will be affected by the definition of danger that emerges and the procedures around it, and those things are changing.
When you combine that with the threat that a person who puts up their hand can now end up getting fired, if in fact there is an investigation.... That never actually proceeds, because the minister declares it frivolous or vexatious—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
That's the end of this round. Sorry, but I'm going to have to end this part of our meeting.
I want to thank all the witnesses for taking time to be here today and to answer the questions as presented.
The committee will break for a couple of minutes.
[Proceedings continue in camera]