Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just heard Mr. Armstrong say some things that I did not hear from the officials who appeared before us earlier. He said that, according to the data, 80% of the cases involved no danger. However, we were told earlier that it was impossible to know whether directions had been issued to improve the situation, since a danger was nevertheless identified. That piece of data is probably the reason the legislative amendment proposed by the government is weakened.
Let's say that I am accepting that 80% figure in good faith, even though it seems to have been pulled out of a hat. This would mean that, in 20% of cases, the employee's refusal to work would be considered justified. Do you think that legitimate refusal cases, where workers' health and safety are threatened, may now be brushed aside, while they would have been accepted before? I just want individuals who are in a dangerous situation to be protected.