Human Resources Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Sari Sairanen]

As we've stated before, if this bill is not creating any changes in a workplace, why are we having these discussions?

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I think I can answer that.

I hope you were listening to the officials, because they said that 80% of all of the claims for unsafe workplaces were found to be incorrect. They were not. The reason the definition is being changed is to make sure, one, it's a modern 2013 definition, and, two, that it mirrors what the 10 provinces are currently doing in their definitions.

I haven't heard anybody today suggest that the provinces don't have adequate protection in their labour codes for workers. I haven't heard one person say that. We're developing standards that are going to mirror exactly what the provinces are doing.

You're a very large union. You operate in all the provinces and territories. You represent workers in all of that. These are the governments of all three political parties that represent the people in their respective provinces. We're going to have a common set of rules and definitions across the whole country. I would think that's a positive aspect of the changes to this bill.

Why would that not be positive, if the federal government is following the same rules and definitions and the same general practices and procedures as the 10 provinces?

[Lana Payne]

They're not, and all 10 provinces are not the same either.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Well, I beg to differ.

[Lana Payne]

You should get out the codes and have a look and compare all the language. I would suggest that everybody do that.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I beg to differ.

[Lana Payne]

Second, on the issue of practically putting in a work refusal, you have to put yourself in that place. Something dangerous is happening in your workplace, in your opinion. With the process now—the paper process that you have to go through—it could mean an extended period of time before the danger is actually addressed. The dangerous activity could be continuing in the workplace until we work through these seven or eight paper processes.

This is not how you deal with safety in a workplace, by writing a letter.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

One of the things that isn't going to change is that right now all companies of 20 employees or greater that are federally regulated businesses must have joint health and safety committees. That is not changing. The first step, I would think, for an employee who believes they're working in an unsafe condition is to report it to the joint health and safety committee. By the way, companies of 20 employees or fewer still have to have a health and safety officer. There still has to be one person within that organization to whom the employee should be reporting the unsafe conditions first. There is nothing in this bill that changes that.

Would you not agree that the first step for an employee who believes they're working in an unsafe condition is to go with credible background and evidence to the health and safety committee or the health officer and make the complaint? Is that not the first right step for an employee?

[Sari Sairanen]

For anyone to refuse work, it is a “reasonable cause to believe”. That's what it is. It's for me to believe, not for me to come to you with a litany of facts of what could potentially happen. It's me who reasonably believes what's going to happen.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Right, and none of that's changed under this bill.

[Sari Sairanen]

No, it does not change that. However, what happens—

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

You can still refuse to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you. That's the end of that round.

We'll move on to the last round.

Mr. Tremblay.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for participating in the study of the bill.

Before being elected, I also worked in factories, in the wood processing and construction sectors. So I know about worker safety.

A worker may be concerned about the danger involved in their position—the danger their job may pose to their health over the long term. They may be working in an environment where ambient air is unhealthy due to the presence of dust or other substances. All the required testing may have been done without finding any elements known to be dangerous, but without adequate studies, some elements may be a source of concern. You may think of cases related to asbestos, and more recently, those involving crystalline silica.

With these amendments, does an employee still have the right to refuse to work? If so, is the assertion of that right more complicated? Do these amendments improve workplace safety, decrease it or change nothing at all?

[Sari Sairanen]

We certainly don't believe that these changes will be an enhancement to worker health and safety in the workplace. Looking at the changes in the definition of danger, we've certainly heard that it is being streamlined and modified. The definition we have today is working, despite claims that 80% of all work refusals are not justified. We don't understand that 80%. When we hear from our members that they are not confident coming forward in refusing dangerous work because of the fear of reprisal, because of the atmosphere that's in the workplace, because there is a lot of judgment that goes into bringing health and safety issues forward and it is about ensuring production, it is about ensuring that the profit is at the forefront instead of looking at the safety culture in the workplace, we don't believe that any of these amendments will be an enhancement.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Let's use a concrete example. A mason-bricklayer may be manually sawing a stone and releasing into the air crystalline silica, a substance that plays a role similar to that of asbestos, which is now recognized as a dangerous substance. If a worker came into contact with a similar element that is the subject of a study, but has not yet been recognized as dangerous, would that employee have the same right to refuse to work as in the past? Would they have the same right to ask their employer to implement the necessary protective measures?

[Sari Sairanen]

Certainly with the exposures to a number of different substances in the workplace, the definition that is being proposed will, in our opinion, be limiting that. If you have a worker such as a mason who has dust exposure, it may be that the employer will believe that it is not dangerous, and you will need to have a lot of “proof” to show that it is dangerous, whereas the current definition will have that sort of longer-term application to it, to look at the long term, because there is a latency period in certain exposures to chemicals. That may not happen overnight. It will take a number of years for it to become known as a health effect in your system and to manifest itself in various health conditions.

The current definition certainly takes that into account, but we believe the changes to the definition will be limiting workers' ability to bring forward those kinds of circumstances. That will limit their ability to enforce this or to utilize the right to refuse in their knowledge that there is a potential down the road in terms of a health condition and health effects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you for that.

Thank you for your responses, and thank you for coming today and witnessing here at this committee on this particular bill.

The meeting is adjourned.