Evidence of meeting #4 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 officers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
It's not more in line with what we see in the provinces, with the strengthening of the workplace occupational health and safety committee, and with the number of interventions? Does that not reflect what we see at the provincial level? It does.
To me, it's more reflective of where I used to work in Nova Scotia under the provincial regulations.
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
Well, I don't see how putting more obstacles in the form of having to write reports to proceed from one stage of the work refusal to the next gives more powers to a committee. To me that puts a lot of hindrance on workers, and we also have to think of the makeup—
November 19th, 2013 / 4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
But I want to ask the question. I have only a little bit of time—
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
When you're looking at the makeup of the workplace parties, they're not just unilingual or bilingual. You have a lot of newcomers to Canada who will have to be writing reports.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you. I don't mean to be rude. I have only a few minutes.
I know that a strengthening of the interventions and having a stronger workplace occupational health and safety committee is what the provincial governments tend to do. You're saying this legislation is rolling the dice with workplace safety. Since it is more aligned with what we do provincially, are you saying that the provincial governments across Canada, including those in Manitoba and Nova Scotia, are rolling the dice with worker safety? From my experience, they're not. Is that what you're saying when you testify today?
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
That's not what I'm saying.
Director, Atlantic Regional, Unifor
Also, I think you missed the point of prevention. There's nothing wrong with enhancing prevention, but I don't believe it should be done at the expense of taking the resources out of dealing with hazards and dangerous work. We can do both, and many provincial jurisdictions try to achieve this. In fact, one piece of legislation before the House of Commons at the moment is amendments to the Atlantic accord, which deals with offshore safety. Two provinces and the federal government came together around these amendments to improve safety for offshore workers, and the language around the right to refuse is completely different from what the Department of Labour is proposing here. It actually is a stronger piece of legislation reflecting what's in place in Newfoundland and Labrador, I would argue.
So I think we can enhance prevention but not at the expense of these workplace rights for workers.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
I'm going to move on.
Do you accept the fact that the right of the worker to refuse dangerous work—imminent, serious, or long-term—would not be affected by this legislation? That's what we heard from the officials when they came and testified about the legislation.
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
If the current definition and the new definition are supposed to afford the same protections, why are we making the changes? Why are we going through this process?
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Well, the reason, I think—and I think we asked the officials that—is that the current definition has led to 80% of the work refusals being dismissed as being no danger at all. So obviously there is some sort of confusion with the current definition, which is leading, in part, to some of these refusals that in the end are going through and not being accepted.
By clarifying the definition, don't you think we're going to further reduce the number of refusals that are not supported?
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
I don't believe so, because we don't know what's behind the 80%. We have not had a clarification of the numbers or the statistical information it is based on, so I can't answer that question with all legitimacy.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
We also heard from the officials that the number of refusals we're seeing across the country has dropped in recent years by up to 22%. So obviously the work the officials are doing as they travel and investigate workplaces—the health and safety officers—in part or working with a more educated workforce and a more educated employer force, is leading to fewer and fewer refusals to work. Would you accept that? Looking at the data, that seems to be the case.
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
I have difficulty accepting that as well when I look at our membership and their feedback to us on exercising their right to refuse, and how few and far between they are, because of fear of reprisal in the workplace and any measures that employers have taken of disciplining workers who do bring health and safety issues forward. I have difficulty accepting that.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Do you accept, then, that employers, after this legislation passes, will still be responsible for ensuring their workplaces are safe and will be required to take action if they are not? You're going to have officers come in to investigate, and if there are problems in that workplace, the employer will still be required to take action.
Would you agree with that?
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
Well, according to the new changes, all of that responsibility will be left with the minister, so is the minister then going to be responsible for that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Thank you for the response.
That's the end of your seven minutes.
Now we'll go on to five minutes, and because Mr. Cuzner is not here, we'll go to Mr. Boulerice.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
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.
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
I didn't understand the question. Can you repeat it?
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Yes. I was too long.
Will the definition changes mean that certain cases where the worker's right to refuse would previously have been accepted could now be rejected?
Director, Health, Safety and Environment, Unifor
Well, certainly when you look at chronic illnesses, including cancers, what about hazardous substances, including mutagenic and other substances? We don't see that in that new definition.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
You think that this is not a definition that provides workers with greater protection. It is more likely to make workplaces regress in terms of health and safety.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Okay.
Do you have any examples of your members being victims of threats or reprisals? Did you hear any stories from other workers who, owing to the fact that they wanted to assert their rights in health and safety, jeopardized either their promotion, work schedule, position on the call-back list or permanent status? In real life, this is part of the games played in a workplace, and it's unfortunate when this is done at the expense of health and safety.