Human Resources committee  That's correct.

Human Resources committee  I want to clarify that.

Human Resources committee  I will answer you briefly, since you only have 30 seconds left. The text is so ambiguous that we don't know the answer. That is the problem. If people don't know, they are not going to exercise their right to refuse.

Human Resources committee  Yes. Well, it depends; 80% of what? There were contradictory things in the testimony, but it's either of appeals or of inspections and appeals. In any case, the majority of these cases, as I believe FETCO has said, are settled before the inspectors get there; therefore, all those success stories don't get counted.

Human Resources committee  Very briefly, if I were a labour inspector, I would be very careful before I found that a worker was justified in refusing, if my job depended on whether I found something that was going to displease the minister.

Human Resources committee  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?

Human Resources committee  More dangerous.

Human Resources committee  Thank you for the invitation. I'm very pleased to be here. I found out yesterday afternoon, so I will not read a text, but I have five points I want to make that do take seven minutes. First, to introduce myself, I hold the Canada research chair in occupational health and safety law at the University of Ottawa, which means that I've been recognized as an international expert in the field of occupational health and safety law.