Mr. Chair, when an attempt is made to oversimplify things, sometimes the door is opened to too many interpretations. When we look at the changes made to the definition and see that the notion of exposure has been completely removed, that may as well be taking away the protection of certain types of workers.
I will give you an example. Let's say exposure to asbestos is discovered in a workplace. We know perfectly well that exposure to asbestos does not have an impact overnight; it happens over the long term. However, if asbestos is not listed as a dangerous substance that may have an effect on the workers, how will they defend their case? For instance, an employee could end up with pulmonary complications. How will that employee, who has become more fragile, be able to defend their case?
The restriction does include the term “serious”, which is to be defined by the employer. The interpretation of that term may vary from one employer to another.