Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank you, Lana and Sari, for your presentations.

I have a series of questions and I'll go at them fairly quickly.

First, very simply, will this bill make Canadians safer?

[Sari Sairanen]

The workplaces right now are not as safe as they should be, so how is this bill going to be enhancing that safety of workers? I don't see the changes that will enhance what we currently have. Instead, as I said in my presentation, this will be taking us back.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

Was Unifor consulted about the changes to the Canada Labour Code?

[Lana Payne]

No.

[Sari Sairanen]

No.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Can you talk about how changes to the right to refuse will affect the safety of workers? I know you touched on it in your presentation, but if you could just expand on that, I would appreciate it.

[Sari Sairanen]

Currently, we don't understand the government's position that 80% of work refusals are frivolous or vexatious. We don't experience that in our workplaces.

Work refusals are the last resort workers use to have their safety concerns addressed by the employer. They have gone through all of the other processes in their workplace. I'm talking about organized workplaces.

In unorganized workplaces, there is a lot more fear of losing employment or experiencing a reprisal. The changes proposed in this bill put a lot more obstacles in front of workers whether they are organized or not. There are lots of reports that need to be written, which was not there. Presumably, it will prolong the process.

When you are exercising your right to refuse, there is danger. You are doing that to bring attention to your situation, because everything else has failed to bring that notice to the employer. So when you're putting more obstacles in front of the workers, it makes the system a lot more onerous, it makes it a lot more cumbersome, and it certainly does not make it a worker-friendly or a health-and-safety-friendly amendment.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

When the staff came to talk to us on Bill C-4, they talked about 80% being frivolous, and yet we know that there is no data available for voluntary compliance, and that a lot of those issues do occur. And my experience—I agree with you—in my previous life has been that normally people will carry on working in places where there could be danger. It takes a lot of education, and a lot of courage to take that next step.

Changes to the definition of the word “danger” are puzzling to me. We're saying it's not really going to change anything. I usually think if it isn't going to change anything...

[Lana Payne]

Why change it?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Right, it's only going to save six or seven words on a piece of paper.

The new wording cuts out the following passage:

[Danger that] includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system.

The question I have is, will reducing the wording of the definition make workers safer?

[Sari Sairanen]

We don't see that. By taking words out, what are you accomplishing with the definition? The current definition was a collaborative effort that came out of the 2000 consultation process. A lot of effort went into it from all the parties involved. This new definition has not received a consultative lens. It has not had the participatory lens, so we're not quite sure what the objective is.

I heard the previous witnesses, but, as I said earlier, words matter. So if the words are changed, there is going to be a change in the definition.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Really, it's beginning to bother me that there was no consultation with representatives of workers. One of the key things I know about health and safety is this: if you really want to have an actively engaged workforce, you need to engage people in the changes you're bringing about. Any change should make things more explicit. But taking away words allows people to think they don't have rights they actually have.

Under the new code, could an employee refuse the right to work if he or she believed a condition might cause no imminent threat but might chronically impact his or her health in the long term? This is from your reading of it.

[Sari Sairanen]

What does that mean to an average worker? What's the education going to be to the average worker? What does that mean?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Do you think they could refuse work under these circumstances?

[Sari Sairanen]

Well, if they don't know what it means, how are they going to be able...? If they're not educated on it, how are they going to be able to exercise their right to refuse, and then start writing the report that needs to be done according to the new changes?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you. That's the point I was trying to make.

You said something else that was interesting, which was that by the time things get to the minister—and I notice it's only the employer who makes the report; the employee is totally out of the picture, and this changes the balance totally.

The other scary fact I heard you mention is that there is no appeal once things get to the minister. Is that so?

[Sari Sairanen]

That's correct.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you very much.

Chair, how much longer do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

You have thirty seconds.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Well, I'm going to take those thirty seconds to say that this change alone, this lack of appeal, and the fact that only the employer will get to decide and submit a report should be raising major alarm bells for everybody who is sitting around this table.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to Mr. Armstrong for seven minutes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank our witnesses for being here.

Ms. Sairanen, your president, Mr. Dias, has previously been quoted in an article indicating that the proposed amendments would weaken health and safety laws. But we also just heard from labour officials on the amendments and they've indicated they would have absolutely no negative effect on the health and safety of workers. In fact, they've said that they had the potential to improve overall health and safety by giving officers the resources they require to do more proactive interventions in the workplace. They testified on that earlier today.

Do you agree that increasing the number of proactive interventions in the federally regulated workplace is a good thing?

[Sari Sairanen]

Prevention is always a good thing. However, the changes proposed here do not address the participation of all of the workplace parties. A lot of the participatory nature, the internal responsibility system in the workplace, the balance of power, so to speak, is being recrafted. So when you look at how you make changes in the workplace, it's through the workplace parties. But if only one individual of those parties is dictating the outcome and that individual is not listening to the workers themselves, the ones in the line of fire, the ones facing the danger.... It's not the employer, who may be sitting in the office, who is not on the assembly line or in the work process itself. I have a vested interest in ensuring that I'm safe.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I come from a background that is more provincially regulated, and when I look at the changes in this legislation, it's going to be more effective, more like what we see provincially. Would you agree with that?

[Sari Sairanen]

No.