Official opposition is categorical: Bill 59 of the Minister of Labor, Jean Bouillet, must be fully amended to garner his support.
Thus the Liberal Party (PLQ) demands a rigorous scientific study called Gender analysis (ADS)
In order to prove that this reform will not punish women.
According to Moncef Darraji, a spokesman for liberal action, this reform is correct Sexist and despises science
Several unions and labor groups also expressed their regret during the consultations last week.
The massive 118-page legislation aims to modernize the existing law dating back 40 years.
The consensus on the bill
There was consensus or near unanimity on the bill [durant les consultations]
Mr. Darraji noted in an interview with the Canadian press that aired on Sunday. Why did the minister choose only a few agreed upon points?
Under this reform, many female-dominated employment sectors will not be subject to the current prevention mechanisms. For example, hospitals can be considered to have a low risk of accidents, while a large number of injuries are reported there each year.
To say that the level of risk is low in the area of health, it is [le gouvernement] He did not consult the workers, denounced the liberal MP. Does the bill take into account the effects of the epidemic?
According to the PLQ, it is now up to the minister and the Caquista government to prove, with serious studies, backing up the scientific evidence, that the bill will not punish female workers. a Gender analysis
It is allowed to take into account gender differences when planning and providing care and services.
Missing scientific data
As a legislator, I do not want to begin studying the draft law without having the correct picture of its effects on women at work, as Mr. Darraji ruled. The minister must confirm that his bill will not affect women’s work injuries cases.
The current law provides for four main preventive mechanisms: the Health and Safety Committee, the facility’s health program, the prevention program, and the prevention representative.
Under the reform, employers would preferably be divided according to their size and between low, medium and high risk levels, with protective mechanisms designed for each.
However, to determine the level of risk, we will rely on compensation data from the Committee on Standards, Handling Security, Safety and Security (CNESST), and not on scientific studies that have been condemned by many of the speakers.
Where is the scientific data? Why don’t we focus on science?
Additionally, under the law, physicians specializing in public health departments (DSPs) will not be able to intervene in the workplace unless contacted by the employer.
Is it normal after all we have lived that we go back and separate the expertise of public health doctors?
The Liberals’ spokesperson was indignant.
Mr. Darraji wonders if it was not the officials or the explicit prime minister’s office who led the preparation of this law and not the minister, Who still has a reputation for doing things right
.
Everyone agrees to update the law, but no one says that is the way the update should be done
He completed.
Bill 59 aims to reduce compensation costs for victims of work accidents.
The National Center for Economic and Social Sciences (CNESST) paid benefits totaling $ 2.22 billion in 2018. Then it accepted 103,406 occupational injuries and recorded 226 deaths. 251 workers have an accident every day.
According to data from the National Center for Social Sciences, psychological injuries have increased 67% over the past 10 years.