Evidence of meeting #5 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 changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
The other side of that is whether it will make it more dangerous, and the answer is no to that.
National President, Agriculture Union
It absolutely will make it more dangerous.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Absolutely.
Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
More dangerous.
Jeff Bennie Health and Safety Committee Member, Canadian Labour Congress
Yes, it's going to make it more dangerous.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Let me ask another question. I'm going to aim this at Katherine, if you don't mind. I'm going to talk about the reproductive issues you mentioned. What are the potential impacts of these changes on women of child-bearing years, as well as on men during their reproductive years?
Canada Research Chair in Occupational Health and Safety Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
I don't want to get into a legal definition of the protective reassignment provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which are a lot weaker already than the ones that exist in Quebec. I don't want to get into the details of that.
What's clear is that if the hazard is in relation to a pregnancy and the worker has the right to ask for reassignment under the legislation, is that worker going to get more easily reassigned with a more difficult definition of danger? I don't think so. For men, it's manifest that they're no longer covered, right? It's really easy to see that reproductive hazards for men would no longer be covered under this definition of danger. For women, there are provisions for requesting reassignment without pay. They're not necessarily very....
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
The other thing is that when I look at the flow chart that has been drawn here and the information that was given to us yesterday, it seems that the employer is the only person who gets to make a report to the minister, and the employee has no say in that at all. Once again—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Yes, it does, and we're over on the time.
On to Ms. McLeod from the Conservative Party.
November 21st, 2013 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I have a couple of comments and then certainly I want to get into my questions. As you indicate, five minutes goes by very quickly.
I do understand, contrary to what was presented here, that there are further avenues to appeal. The avenues, as the person continues to have the right to refuse work, actually go right up to the Federal Court of Appeal, so I understand there are many steps.
Because we started to talk about the chart, what I want to get into.... I was actually stunned to find out that there were no requirements for any kind of written process. Everyone must have written checks and balances in terms of how they deal with things.
Perhaps, Mr. Beckett, you could walk us through the chart. I know that our government doesn't want to add a lot of red tape and bureaucracy, but I was stunned to find out that there was previously no requirement for documentation.
Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
The chart you have in front of you is laid out in basically the old process versus the proposed new process. The old process is essentially in black. It starts off the same, regardless. The employee believes there is a danger to a machine, a condition, or an activity. They talk to the employer, and usually that's their supervisor. The employer investigates it with the employee. If the employer agrees that there is a danger, things are fixed and people go back to work.
If there is no agreement, then there is a referral to the safety committee, or there is safety committee involvement in the investigation at that point. Obviously, if there is an agreement that there is a danger, then that is fixed. If there is still disagreement, then it's the employer who calls the labour affairs officer. Employees never had the right to phone the labour affairs officer directly; it was always the employer who had to make the referral.
Under the new process, basically four steps have been added to enhance or improve the internal responsibility system or the rigour in the process, and it also improves the engagement with health and safety committees. At the first step something has to be given in writing to the employee on the first decision by the employer if they say there is no danger. The committee employer and employee rep must be engaged and they must write a report to the employer. The employer has an opportunity to give new information, if it's available. At the end of that process, the employer then writes to the employee. If there is still no agreement, the employer writes to the employee saying that there is no agreement, and then the employer would phone the labour affairs officers.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Great, thank you.
Does this reduce the protection for workers?
Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
It doesn't.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
The employee has the right to refuse work throughout this process.
Chairman, Occupational Health and Safety Committee, Vice-President, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications (FETCO)
Nothing has changed on the employee's rights or obligations.