In October 2009 a HRSDC/Labour Canada OSH official issued a Direction, or stop work order to the company in question regarding aircraft painting in the building. This long overdue action was very much appreciated by everyone concerned with chemical safety at this facility. However it also raises several questions, the first of which would be why did it take so long for this to take place?
The rules governing the daily operations of aviation and other federally regulated industries in Canada are in many ways similar to most others. But the procedures set forth to deal with these issues are vastly different. HRSDC/Labour Canada is the go to organization for safety concerns or accident/incident reporting such as in this case. Any and all safety violations or accident reports are required to be sent to this organization. They have the authority to investigate safety issues and if the issue is deemed serious the RCMP are called. In this case workplace safety is covered under Part II of the Canada Labour Code which is covered under The Criminal Code of Canada. Basically safety violations are criminal offences, so this is serious stuff, at least it is on paper.
The current word from Ottawa is that the reason it took HRSDC eight years to actually follow their mandate are: up until the fall of 2009 HRSDC/Labour Canada had only received a few anonymous complaints of safety issues. Well, let’s take a look at some of these anonymous complaints
According to a BC Ombudsman who investigated this situation, WorkSafe BC notified HRSDC/Labour Canada of several incidents within the allotted time frame. This was confirmed by documents recently acquired under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that show WorkSafe BC contacted the Vancouver HRSDC/Labour Canada office with legitimate complaints regarding the ventilation system as well as paint/chemical overexposures on or about:
2001-05-02, 2002-04-09, 2002-08-07 and 2007-03-29.
I have heard WorkSafe BC called a lot of names in the past few years, but I must say that anonymous is a new one.
WorkSafe BC report number 20021248000031 dated 2002-04-09, under Officer Remarks it states:
“This ls a federally Inspected workplace. Route sllp referred to Human Resources Development Canada OSH Inspectorate. See contact Record for fufther detalls,”
In March, August and September 2002 massive poisonous chemical exposure incidents took place at this worksite. Which resulted in multiple wage replacement claims by disabled employees. No response from HRSDC is noted.
I believe it is time to put all of this into perspective. Using estimated measurements obtained from the WorkSafe BC hygiene report as a result of the March 2002 incident and as sent to HRSDC http://tinyurl.com/yacjynd . One can estimate the atmosphere in the contaminated work area to be in excess of 4,000,000 cubic feet (a low estimate). This area contained a recorded level of eight times over the maximum allowable of one hazardous chemical product. Indicating just how massive these exposure incidents were. Unfortunately and even though they are mandated too, the Vancouver HRSDC/Labour Canada office did not respond to this on any known level in 2002 or any acceptable level thereafter until 2009.
In 2002 an employee wrote a hazardous observation letter to the upper management of the company which was forwarded to HRSDC that should have resulted in a mandatory work stoppage. No action was taken.
In the summer of 2003 I called the HRSDC office and made a complaint about the paint and ventilation system of this worksite, which as I understand now could be considered an anonymous complaint by HRSDC.
In 2003 after a written complaint by a now disabled employee. Three representatives from HRSDC visited the worksite to determine whether the building’s ventilation system was installed in accordance with the building’s blueprints and design specifications. No consideration was given to the WorkSafe BC hygiene report or its contents. The result of this visit is best summarized by the lead investigator’s comment that if not for the number of people it was said too, would be considered hearsay. “The company has an occupancy permit for the building, so it must be safe”
Further conversations with this lead investigator resulted in the following comment repeated over a number of years to multiple person’s disabled at this workplace; “We have regulations for a paint booth, but not a paint bay” Referring to the company’s designations of work areas as bays.
In replying to letters from at least three MP’s in 2006 on this issue. Then Federal Minister of Labour, R Hon Jean Pierre Blackburn Stated “the Labour Program is not the principle player”. One would have to ask: if the Labour Program is not the principle player in the Labour Program, who is?
This is the level of due diligence and competence this issue has received since 2001 from HRSDC/Labour Canada.
The direction issued in October 2009 to stop painting in the building was a result of political pressure, not due diligence.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Credibility, WorkSafe BC
WorkSafe BC is a Workers Compensation Board and an organization with a poor reputation, thankfully this is their problem, not ours. There is a common belief in Canada that Workers Compensation Boards represent injured workers. This is not true, WCB’s represent their stakeholders, the companies not you.
In January 2009, CBC News ran a story about the situation we face and it was a fairly decent representation of what went on regarding a major chemical exposure incident in 2002. You can find the story here: http://tinyurl.com/7xewjx As we are talking about credibility, please take a close look at this report: http://tinyurl.com/yacjynd
Ok, in March 2002 two organizations were responsible for workplace safety issues in federally regulated industries in Canada. In this case it was WorkSafe BC and HRSDC/Labour Canada. It is not known if HRSDC/Labour Canada responded to this incident in 2002 in any form, the first I personally am aware of took place late in 2003, more on this later. WorkSafe BC however did send a hygiene official to investigate the situation. This is the person who wrote the previously mentioned report.
Exactly what happened with this report back at the WorkSafe BC office seems to be a bit of a mystery. The cover page for this legal document was removed intentionally or simply lost. According to the WorkSafe BC Communications Director in 2009, it is not their policy to remove pages or alter documents like this, however the cover page for this particular document is missing.
Why this report is important is that is establishes causation between the workplace and the disabling conditions many employees are presently dealing with. The removal of this page causes the document to become legally null and void.
Even though this report is in the condition it is, WorkSafe BC has made much from the fact it mentions high levels of Formic Acid in the building as it is unlikely, in their opinion that exposure to this chemical product could leave all of these people with the conditions they have. This is misdirection, WorkSafe BC focuses on Formic Acid as out of all the chemicals personnel have been exposed to at this workplace it is the “least” hazardous. The do not give consideration to the fact that the level of Formic Acid in this building was recorded EIGHT times higher than the maximum allowable.
Clean up from this incident did not begin until weeks after its occurrence. No consideration was/is given to the fact the personnel were exposed to this product as well as others produced by this incident for well over a month inside a building with a negative pressure differential. Forty hours a week for a minimum of four weeks, personnel from this company were exposed to this product and others above the maximum allowable exposure levels. This occurred without intervention from either of the two organizations responsible for workplace safety: WorkSafe BC or HRSDC/Labour Canada.
No consideration was/is given to the exposures of other chemical products mentioned in this report such as: Monoethanolamine or levels of benzyl alcohol which was recorded at its maximum allowable. Again these products were recorded at dangerously high levels inside a building with a negative pressure differential which by its very nature prolonged these exposures by weeks.
No consideration was/is given to personal exposure limits (PEL) which is usually given as a time-weighted average (TWA) to personnel working in these conditions. Many of the personnel now disabled worked 13 or 10 hour shifts while exposed to these chemical products.
No consideration was/is given to the fact the overexposure event described in this report was in fact only one of many chemical overexposure events. Other exposure events involved epoxy based paints containing isocyanates as well as a host of products containing volatile organic compounds.
More on this and circular responses from WorkSafe BC to follow
In January 2009, CBC News ran a story about the situation we face and it was a fairly decent representation of what went on regarding a major chemical exposure incident in 2002. You can find the story here: http://tinyurl.com/7xewjx As we are talking about credibility, please take a close look at this report: http://tinyurl.com/yacjynd
Ok, in March 2002 two organizations were responsible for workplace safety issues in federally regulated industries in Canada. In this case it was WorkSafe BC and HRSDC/Labour Canada. It is not known if HRSDC/Labour Canada responded to this incident in 2002 in any form, the first I personally am aware of took place late in 2003, more on this later. WorkSafe BC however did send a hygiene official to investigate the situation. This is the person who wrote the previously mentioned report.
Exactly what happened with this report back at the WorkSafe BC office seems to be a bit of a mystery. The cover page for this legal document was removed intentionally or simply lost. According to the WorkSafe BC Communications Director in 2009, it is not their policy to remove pages or alter documents like this, however the cover page for this particular document is missing.
Why this report is important is that is establishes causation between the workplace and the disabling conditions many employees are presently dealing with. The removal of this page causes the document to become legally null and void.
Even though this report is in the condition it is, WorkSafe BC has made much from the fact it mentions high levels of Formic Acid in the building as it is unlikely, in their opinion that exposure to this chemical product could leave all of these people with the conditions they have. This is misdirection, WorkSafe BC focuses on Formic Acid as out of all the chemicals personnel have been exposed to at this workplace it is the “least” hazardous. The do not give consideration to the fact that the level of Formic Acid in this building was recorded EIGHT times higher than the maximum allowable.
Clean up from this incident did not begin until weeks after its occurrence. No consideration was/is given to the fact the personnel were exposed to this product as well as others produced by this incident for well over a month inside a building with a negative pressure differential. Forty hours a week for a minimum of four weeks, personnel from this company were exposed to this product and others above the maximum allowable exposure levels. This occurred without intervention from either of the two organizations responsible for workplace safety: WorkSafe BC or HRSDC/Labour Canada.
No consideration was/is given to the exposures of other chemical products mentioned in this report such as: Monoethanolamine or levels of benzyl alcohol which was recorded at its maximum allowable. Again these products were recorded at dangerously high levels inside a building with a negative pressure differential which by its very nature prolonged these exposures by weeks.
No consideration was/is given to personal exposure limits (PEL) which is usually given as a time-weighted average (TWA) to personnel working in these conditions. Many of the personnel now disabled worked 13 or 10 hour shifts while exposed to these chemical products.
No consideration was/is given to the fact the overexposure event described in this report was in fact only one of many chemical overexposure events. Other exposure events involved epoxy based paints containing isocyanates as well as a host of products containing volatile organic compounds.
More on this and circular responses from WorkSafe BC to follow
Credibility
Aviation is a cyclical industry, meaning that should the economy tank, the industry is one of the first to be hit. It’s always been like this and probably always will be. Companies come and go but the people remain. This is one of many reasons that the personal reputation and credibility of people in the industry is so important, and is taken seriously by those who have been around for any length of time.
However if something should happen and you are injured at work, then place your name on a WCB claim all the credibility you’ve worked for is gone in an instant. Regardless of any accomplishment you may have achieved, you become labelled, like us as deadbeats looking for a free ride and that title remains until you are told otherwise, it is the way the Canadian safety net system works.
In this mess there isn’t one of us who were poisoned at this jobsite who have the slightest problem in comparing our credibility and reputations with our accuser, judge and jury, WorkSafe BC. Or anyone else for that matter. So what I’m going to do in the next few posts is lay out information here for you to form your own opinions. It serves no purpose to attempt to distort any of this, it is what it is.
Reputations do not come freely, good or bad they are earned.
However if something should happen and you are injured at work, then place your name on a WCB claim all the credibility you’ve worked for is gone in an instant. Regardless of any accomplishment you may have achieved, you become labelled, like us as deadbeats looking for a free ride and that title remains until you are told otherwise, it is the way the Canadian safety net system works.
In this mess there isn’t one of us who were poisoned at this jobsite who have the slightest problem in comparing our credibility and reputations with our accuser, judge and jury, WorkSafe BC. Or anyone else for that matter. So what I’m going to do in the next few posts is lay out information here for you to form your own opinions. It serves no purpose to attempt to distort any of this, it is what it is.
Reputations do not come freely, good or bad they are earned.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Full disclosure
For the record this is my blog and yes I am one of the people who was left disabled because of these chemical exposure incidents. I am a second generation Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and literally grew up in the aviation industry in Canada.
Everything written in this blog is based on actual events and portions are written in accordance with the employee’s Right to Know covered under The Canada Labour Code. The majority of the information referenced in the posts was/is obtained from public sources such as news reports, press releases, published scientific reports etc. Information has been obtained by use of the Access to Information Act and is considered public knowledge. Essentially everything written in these blog posts is based on legally obtained reference material.
Rob Neis
Everything written in this blog is based on actual events and portions are written in accordance with the employee’s Right to Know covered under The Canada Labour Code. The majority of the information referenced in the posts was/is obtained from public sources such as news reports, press releases, published scientific reports etc. Information has been obtained by use of the Access to Information Act and is considered public knowledge. Essentially everything written in these blog posts is based on legally obtained reference material.
Rob Neis
Friday, April 9, 2010
Comments from the forums
Over the years there have been a few discussions of the situation these people are in and I would like to address some of the valid points and questions people have made. This post is for mainly for people in the aviation industry but I’m sure most anyone can understand what went on.
The employees we are talking about and who are now disabled due to chemical poisoning, worked in various trades within aircraft maintenance. Yes it is part of the job to be working with chemicals almost every day, everyone in the business knows or should know this. The company where these people were working at had MSDS sheets for around 650 products at the time.
Yes, personal protection is your responsibility, no one has ever disputed that. If you are working with MEK, you wear a mask and safety gear. Again it’s just part of the job and now it’s law, more on that later.
No one has ever disputed that an individual’s previous personal chemical exposures could or may be a factor in this mess. These are all common sense issues that are being used to delay a resolution to this crisis, and yes it is a crisis as no one who should be, is dealing with it.
Yes the painters at the company did the best they could under the circumstances with tenting, venting and warning signs etc. Most of the large paint work took place on weekends and graveyards. You should be aware that about half the people who worked these shifts in 2002 are now either sick to some degree or permanently disabled.
Now the reality check. The Cascade Aerospace hanger is a pressurized building and under a constant negative pressure at all times. Even with the tenting and venting done by the painters; all the fumes, dust and crud could not be physically moved out of the building without generating a hurricane force airflow. It is simple grade eight physics.
There is a variable percentage of makeup air introduced to the hanger. However, the intake and exhaust vents for the fresh air are both located close together near the peak of the roof. Back to grade eight physics, with a system like this the only place in the hanger that can get fresh air is at the roof beam level, sixty-seventy feet above the heads of everyone on the floor. The majority the fumes and toxic crud used in that hanger, stay in that hanger.
When talking about this mess most conversations only mention the painting. The fact is, it is only one part of the problem. That hanger is a pressure vessel, so for example if you or buddy use MEK or any other toxic treat, the fumes once again, cannot leave the building. Now you have to think about the dozen other people doing the same thing on the same project, then multiply this by eight aircraft in the hanger. You get the idea, throw in a paint job and it turns into an immune system overload for the employees, which many never recovered from.
More to come.
The employees we are talking about and who are now disabled due to chemical poisoning, worked in various trades within aircraft maintenance. Yes it is part of the job to be working with chemicals almost every day, everyone in the business knows or should know this. The company where these people were working at had MSDS sheets for around 650 products at the time.
Yes, personal protection is your responsibility, no one has ever disputed that. If you are working with MEK, you wear a mask and safety gear. Again it’s just part of the job and now it’s law, more on that later.
No one has ever disputed that an individual’s previous personal chemical exposures could or may be a factor in this mess. These are all common sense issues that are being used to delay a resolution to this crisis, and yes it is a crisis as no one who should be, is dealing with it.
Yes the painters at the company did the best they could under the circumstances with tenting, venting and warning signs etc. Most of the large paint work took place on weekends and graveyards. You should be aware that about half the people who worked these shifts in 2002 are now either sick to some degree or permanently disabled.
Now the reality check. The Cascade Aerospace hanger is a pressurized building and under a constant negative pressure at all times. Even with the tenting and venting done by the painters; all the fumes, dust and crud could not be physically moved out of the building without generating a hurricane force airflow. It is simple grade eight physics.
There is a variable percentage of makeup air introduced to the hanger. However, the intake and exhaust vents for the fresh air are both located close together near the peak of the roof. Back to grade eight physics, with a system like this the only place in the hanger that can get fresh air is at the roof beam level, sixty-seventy feet above the heads of everyone on the floor. The majority the fumes and toxic crud used in that hanger, stay in that hanger.
When talking about this mess most conversations only mention the painting. The fact is, it is only one part of the problem. That hanger is a pressure vessel, so for example if you or buddy use MEK or any other toxic treat, the fumes once again, cannot leave the building. Now you have to think about the dozen other people doing the same thing on the same project, then multiply this by eight aircraft in the hanger. You get the idea, throw in a paint job and it turns into an immune system overload for the employees, which many never recovered from.
More to come.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The latest long letter
Over the years since the first group of employees were poisoned at this jobsite. A great many letters have been sent off to the regulatory bodies involved as well as MP’s and MLA’s. Most were unfortunately dismissed as irrelevant. What that allowed was a bad situation to turn into a national disaster.
If you the reader work in the aviation industry, it is important that you examine closely everything in the letter as well as every word on this blog for the next few months. HRSDC in conjunction with Transport Canada’s SMS have created a new set of rights and responsibilities governing you. These are those same rights and responsibilities in action here, more on that later. You must understand that every aspect of the mess now affects you personally and professionally.
This letter is long as it has to be. When writing the government it is important to note who you have previously spoken with or your letter will be dismissed because you haven’t done this, or spoken to such and such department. Aviation is a multijurisdictional industry and unfortunately in Canada there is no person or no Department/Ministry in which you have access too, that deals with multijurisdictional issues. What that means is every concern you mention, WILL be dismissed with a “Not my department” reply, if you even get that.
The letter:
I am writing to inform you of a significant, unresolved situation regarding what could be the largest mass poisoning of personnel in a federally regulated industry in Canadian history, which has and will impact thousands of individual Canadians for generations.
This case involves the Air transport industry. As you are aware this federally regulated industry falls under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada and HRSDC. The company involved is currently a contractor with the Department of National Defense. Workplace wage replacement benefits are in this case provided by a Workers Compensation Board which falls under provincial jurisdiction.
A massive chemical poisoning incident occurred in March 2002 which left five employees permanently disabled. Following outlined procedures injured and non injured workers submitted written and verbal complaints to the local HRSDC/Labour Canada office. For reasons yet to be determined the representative from the office who was assigned to investigate these complaints, missed the opportunity to initiate appropriate enforcement action as outlined under Part II of the Federal Labour Code.
Poisonous chemical exposure incidents continued at this employer’s facility on a regular basis until the fall of 2009. When after examining the situation a second official representing HRSDC/Labour Canada issued a Direction pursuant to Part II of the Federal Labour Code. The company, a major Canadian Defense Ministry Contractor is by all indications following the issued Direction.
However it must be considered that during this time frame the number of employees who received poisonous chemical exposures and became disabled increased from five in 2002 to approximately seventy. This approximate number does not include employee’s children born with birth defects. Or the small but significant number of employees diagnosed with various forms of cancer. Well over eleven hundred employees of this company received well documented poisonous chemical overexposures for over seven years without intervention by the regulatory body responsible for oversight.
Formally submitted complaints with applicable reference material alleging multiple serious contraventions of Part II of the Code, naming the company as well as the company’s insurer and representative WorkSafe BC have been made since 2002.
The lack of response from HRSDC/Labour Canada has been a major contributing factor in this issue evolving into the crisis it is today. It should be considered that this lack of response has caused these employees to be denied the fundamental right to what is known in the industry as a Bill C-45 Hearing, or more appropriately known as Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code. In taking seven and a half years to initiate a Direction since first receiving complaints that a “danger existed” at this workplace. HRSDC has allowed the statute of limitations to expire on several important issues. The ability to prosecute the company as well as its insurance provider has been severely compromised.
It should be noted that this lack of an issuance of a Direction when first notified a “danger existed” at this workplace, allowed the companies’ representative and insurer WorkSafe BC to legally circumvent its responsibilities as wage replacement benefit provider by stating; “a lack of causation existed” between the workplace and the employee’s disabling health & medical conditions.
The exact number of employees who have become disabled due to these poisonous chemical exposures is not accurately recorded, however is estimated to be approximately seventy. After viewing the eight yearlong battle for wage replacement benefits by several employees. Current employees of this company are simply not applying for wage replacement benefits as they are not financially, mentally or emotionally fit to enter into combat with the company’s representative and insurer WorkSafe BC, an organization well known for human rights violations. As the outcome of these claims is predetermined, employees in this federally regulated workplace are aware they will be denied disability benefits regardless of all efforts. The sheer volume of previously denied claims has not gone without notice and is in itself generating considerable public interest.
The right of employees to receive wage replacement benefits was also blocked by HRSDC failing to prosecute the company’s representative, WorkSafe BC for acts of non-disclosure under Part II of the Code, which are criminal offences. Again no employee disabled at this company by poisonous chemical exposures has received wage replacement benefits.
The following quote was taken from a January 2009 CBC News report on the situation; “After a tour with company safety representatives, Melinda Lum of HRDC concluded "there are no violations in the regulation or code." indicating the level of competence as well as performance of Due Diligence applied in this matter by HRSDC.
Enquiries and complaints regarding this HRSDC employee to her supervisor were dismissed with a standard “you need to work this out with her” response. Indicating a clear lack of quality control or checks and balances to prevent a single individual’s failure in job performance to initiate a crisis as it has in this case. It has not gone unnoticed that the only individual to receive the benefit of protection by Part II of the Code is this single HRSDC employee. The appearance that this HRSDC employee is also shielded from Section 221 of the Criminal Code has now become a matter of public interest.
Enquiries identifying criminal activity allegations of WorkSafe BC, supplied with reference material to subsequent BC Provincial Labour Minister’s offices since 2002. Have consistently resulted in the following cookie cutter, not my department reply: “I am advised that the company in question, Cascade Aerospace, falls under federal jurisdiction for occupational health and safety issues”
In October 2009 then Federal Minister of Labour, R Hon Rona Ambrose responded to a letter from R Hon Maria Minna, Opposition Labour Critic inquiring as to the status of the situation. Her response in writing was that there is an ongoing investigation and as such she could not comment. However, six months into this alleged investigation, no representative from HRSDC/Labour Board has contacted any individual or organization involved in this crisis. Which when examining everything as a whole, unfortunately calls into question the integrity of not only the Ministry but the Minister as well.
Given the overall size, impact, to serve public interest as well as the public interest generated, and the allegations which indicate HRSDC is a major contributing factor in this crisis. The mere perception of HRSDC investigating itself in this situation gives the appearance of being unethical.
In response to a request by Opposition Ethics Critic, R Hon Marlene Jennings under The Access to information Act for information related to this crisis. HRSDC applied a time limit extension of up to 90 days in accordance with paragraph 9(1) (a) of the Act which states:
9. (1) The head of a government institution may extend the time limit set out in section 7 or subsection 8(1) in respect of a request under this Act for a reasonable period of time, having regard to the circumstances, if
(a) the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution,
The utilization of this reference again highlights the perception of an unethical self-investigation of HRSDC’s role in this crisis. Also the utilization of this reference infers one should question the conduct of HRSDC personnel as well as the Minister involved as it raises two important points:
A) If the amount of records pertaining to this company and this situation are in substantial of size as to require up to 120 days to compile, is not an explanation of why it took an HRSDC representative seven and a half years to issue a Direction is past due?
Or:
B) As it is HRSDC/Labour Canada’s mandate is to be responsible for Part II of the Canada Labour Code and Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. And with the current investigation being conducted in name only: How is it possible that poisonous chemical overexposures of over one thousand employees of a single company could unreasonably interfere with the operations of this government institution when its mandate is to protect these same employees?
As the company which is the center of this investigation has received DND contracts valued in excess of one half billion dollars of taxpayer money, the information formally requested under The Act, is of significant public interest.
Current and newly appointed Minister of Labour R Hon Lisa Raitt or personnel from her office have as of yet to respond to multiple written and verbal enquiries.
This crisis has not gone unnoticed by the company. After receiving multimillion dollar loans and contracts from both the British Columbia and the Government of Canada: Cascade Aerospace the company at the center of this crisis has recently divested itself of its facility in British Columbia Canada. Restructured its corporate entity and distanced itself from its former parent company Conair Group.
While laying off hundreds of employees in Canada the company has invested heavily in new facilities in Washington State USA. And also has moved specialty tooling along with aircraft parts out of Canada to this new facility. The company is essentially a shell of what it was when this crisis began. Other than ten year old office furniture the company has little to no assets in Canada.
This crisis reinforces criticism from the US Department of Defense of flaws in the Canadian DND contractor procurement processes. As the DND has awarded this company which is a leader in a consortium, two additional multimillion dollar contracts on top of the existing 450 million dollar maintenance contract after this crisis became public knowledge.
This has now become a national unity issue as jobs were lost in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec by DND’s decision to grant these contracts to a company with a known and abysmal safety record, and as documented questionable ethics.
The treatment of these disabled employees by the company, the Province of British Columbia and Canadian Governments; has contravened even the lowest of constitutional and human rights standards in Canada. As the company is in an exporter of goods and services and has not been charged under the applicable regulations. It therefore has received an unfair advantage by the Provence of British Columbia and the Canadian Government over its competitors in foreign countries which has resulted in job losses, clearly indicates the spirit of Canada’s commitment to NAFTA, The World and other free trade agreements.
This crisis combined with Transport Canada’s efforts to implement aspects of an SMS program without parliamentary approval. Demonstrates an unacceptable reliance on the complacency of traveling Canadians to assume they are safe on a Canadian registered aircraft when this is no longer true.
If you the reader work in the aviation industry, it is important that you examine closely everything in the letter as well as every word on this blog for the next few months. HRSDC in conjunction with Transport Canada’s SMS have created a new set of rights and responsibilities governing you. These are those same rights and responsibilities in action here, more on that later. You must understand that every aspect of the mess now affects you personally and professionally.
This letter is long as it has to be. When writing the government it is important to note who you have previously spoken with or your letter will be dismissed because you haven’t done this, or spoken to such and such department. Aviation is a multijurisdictional industry and unfortunately in Canada there is no person or no Department/Ministry in which you have access too, that deals with multijurisdictional issues. What that means is every concern you mention, WILL be dismissed with a “Not my department” reply, if you even get that.
The letter:
I am writing to inform you of a significant, unresolved situation regarding what could be the largest mass poisoning of personnel in a federally regulated industry in Canadian history, which has and will impact thousands of individual Canadians for generations.
This case involves the Air transport industry. As you are aware this federally regulated industry falls under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada and HRSDC. The company involved is currently a contractor with the Department of National Defense. Workplace wage replacement benefits are in this case provided by a Workers Compensation Board which falls under provincial jurisdiction.
A massive chemical poisoning incident occurred in March 2002 which left five employees permanently disabled. Following outlined procedures injured and non injured workers submitted written and verbal complaints to the local HRSDC/Labour Canada office. For reasons yet to be determined the representative from the office who was assigned to investigate these complaints, missed the opportunity to initiate appropriate enforcement action as outlined under Part II of the Federal Labour Code.
Poisonous chemical exposure incidents continued at this employer’s facility on a regular basis until the fall of 2009. When after examining the situation a second official representing HRSDC/Labour Canada issued a Direction pursuant to Part II of the Federal Labour Code. The company, a major Canadian Defense Ministry Contractor is by all indications following the issued Direction.
However it must be considered that during this time frame the number of employees who received poisonous chemical exposures and became disabled increased from five in 2002 to approximately seventy. This approximate number does not include employee’s children born with birth defects. Or the small but significant number of employees diagnosed with various forms of cancer. Well over eleven hundred employees of this company received well documented poisonous chemical overexposures for over seven years without intervention by the regulatory body responsible for oversight.
Formally submitted complaints with applicable reference material alleging multiple serious contraventions of Part II of the Code, naming the company as well as the company’s insurer and representative WorkSafe BC have been made since 2002.
The lack of response from HRSDC/Labour Canada has been a major contributing factor in this issue evolving into the crisis it is today. It should be considered that this lack of response has caused these employees to be denied the fundamental right to what is known in the industry as a Bill C-45 Hearing, or more appropriately known as Section 217.1 of the Criminal Code. In taking seven and a half years to initiate a Direction since first receiving complaints that a “danger existed” at this workplace. HRSDC has allowed the statute of limitations to expire on several important issues. The ability to prosecute the company as well as its insurance provider has been severely compromised.
It should be noted that this lack of an issuance of a Direction when first notified a “danger existed” at this workplace, allowed the companies’ representative and insurer WorkSafe BC to legally circumvent its responsibilities as wage replacement benefit provider by stating; “a lack of causation existed” between the workplace and the employee’s disabling health & medical conditions.
The exact number of employees who have become disabled due to these poisonous chemical exposures is not accurately recorded, however is estimated to be approximately seventy. After viewing the eight yearlong battle for wage replacement benefits by several employees. Current employees of this company are simply not applying for wage replacement benefits as they are not financially, mentally or emotionally fit to enter into combat with the company’s representative and insurer WorkSafe BC, an organization well known for human rights violations. As the outcome of these claims is predetermined, employees in this federally regulated workplace are aware they will be denied disability benefits regardless of all efforts. The sheer volume of previously denied claims has not gone without notice and is in itself generating considerable public interest.
The right of employees to receive wage replacement benefits was also blocked by HRSDC failing to prosecute the company’s representative, WorkSafe BC for acts of non-disclosure under Part II of the Code, which are criminal offences. Again no employee disabled at this company by poisonous chemical exposures has received wage replacement benefits.
The following quote was taken from a January 2009 CBC News report on the situation; “After a tour with company safety representatives, Melinda Lum of HRDC concluded "there are no violations in the regulation or code." indicating the level of competence as well as performance of Due Diligence applied in this matter by HRSDC.
Enquiries and complaints regarding this HRSDC employee to her supervisor were dismissed with a standard “you need to work this out with her” response. Indicating a clear lack of quality control or checks and balances to prevent a single individual’s failure in job performance to initiate a crisis as it has in this case. It has not gone unnoticed that the only individual to receive the benefit of protection by Part II of the Code is this single HRSDC employee. The appearance that this HRSDC employee is also shielded from Section 221 of the Criminal Code has now become a matter of public interest.
Enquiries identifying criminal activity allegations of WorkSafe BC, supplied with reference material to subsequent BC Provincial Labour Minister’s offices since 2002. Have consistently resulted in the following cookie cutter, not my department reply: “I am advised that the company in question, Cascade Aerospace, falls under federal jurisdiction for occupational health and safety issues”
In October 2009 then Federal Minister of Labour, R Hon Rona Ambrose responded to a letter from R Hon Maria Minna, Opposition Labour Critic inquiring as to the status of the situation. Her response in writing was that there is an ongoing investigation and as such she could not comment. However, six months into this alleged investigation, no representative from HRSDC/Labour Board has contacted any individual or organization involved in this crisis. Which when examining everything as a whole, unfortunately calls into question the integrity of not only the Ministry but the Minister as well.
Given the overall size, impact, to serve public interest as well as the public interest generated, and the allegations which indicate HRSDC is a major contributing factor in this crisis. The mere perception of HRSDC investigating itself in this situation gives the appearance of being unethical.
In response to a request by Opposition Ethics Critic, R Hon Marlene Jennings under The Access to information Act for information related to this crisis. HRSDC applied a time limit extension of up to 90 days in accordance with paragraph 9(1) (a) of the Act which states:
9. (1) The head of a government institution may extend the time limit set out in section 7 or subsection 8(1) in respect of a request under this Act for a reasonable period of time, having regard to the circumstances, if
(a) the request is for a large number of records or necessitates a search through a large number of records and meeting the original time limit would unreasonably interfere with the operations of the government institution,
The utilization of this reference again highlights the perception of an unethical self-investigation of HRSDC’s role in this crisis. Also the utilization of this reference infers one should question the conduct of HRSDC personnel as well as the Minister involved as it raises two important points:
A) If the amount of records pertaining to this company and this situation are in substantial of size as to require up to 120 days to compile, is not an explanation of why it took an HRSDC representative seven and a half years to issue a Direction is past due?
Or:
B) As it is HRSDC/Labour Canada’s mandate is to be responsible for Part II of the Canada Labour Code and Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. And with the current investigation being conducted in name only: How is it possible that poisonous chemical overexposures of over one thousand employees of a single company could unreasonably interfere with the operations of this government institution when its mandate is to protect these same employees?
As the company which is the center of this investigation has received DND contracts valued in excess of one half billion dollars of taxpayer money, the information formally requested under The Act, is of significant public interest.
Current and newly appointed Minister of Labour R Hon Lisa Raitt or personnel from her office have as of yet to respond to multiple written and verbal enquiries.
This crisis has not gone unnoticed by the company. After receiving multimillion dollar loans and contracts from both the British Columbia and the Government of Canada: Cascade Aerospace the company at the center of this crisis has recently divested itself of its facility in British Columbia Canada. Restructured its corporate entity and distanced itself from its former parent company Conair Group.
While laying off hundreds of employees in Canada the company has invested heavily in new facilities in Washington State USA. And also has moved specialty tooling along with aircraft parts out of Canada to this new facility. The company is essentially a shell of what it was when this crisis began. Other than ten year old office furniture the company has little to no assets in Canada.
This crisis reinforces criticism from the US Department of Defense of flaws in the Canadian DND contractor procurement processes. As the DND has awarded this company which is a leader in a consortium, two additional multimillion dollar contracts on top of the existing 450 million dollar maintenance contract after this crisis became public knowledge.
This has now become a national unity issue as jobs were lost in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec by DND’s decision to grant these contracts to a company with a known and abysmal safety record, and as documented questionable ethics.
The treatment of these disabled employees by the company, the Province of British Columbia and Canadian Governments; has contravened even the lowest of constitutional and human rights standards in Canada. As the company is in an exporter of goods and services and has not been charged under the applicable regulations. It therefore has received an unfair advantage by the Provence of British Columbia and the Canadian Government over its competitors in foreign countries which has resulted in job losses, clearly indicates the spirit of Canada’s commitment to NAFTA, The World and other free trade agreements.
This crisis combined with Transport Canada’s efforts to implement aspects of an SMS program without parliamentary approval. Demonstrates an unacceptable reliance on the complacency of traveling Canadians to assume they are safe on a Canadian registered aircraft when this is no longer true.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
There are times
There are times when you really have to wonder what the people who run the once great and respected nation of Canada are thinking when they do the things they do. I’m not talking about some controversial legislation but am focusing on the “Do as I say, not as I do” mentality coming from the bureaucrats’ in Ottawa.
First and foremost I hope everyone who reads this, realizes it is not just another case of government bashing, that simply isn’t true. All the victims of the story we’re going to talk about here firmly believe in governments’ role in society to provide rules, regulations or law and order in other words. There are highly educated, very intelligent people working within the federal government in this country. I know this for a fact as I’ve personally spoken with both of them. Ok, ok, that was a bad joke, couldn’t help myself.
As in all large groups of professionals, there are unfortunately less than capable employees mixed with the good ones. Occasionally it seems the good ones are vastly outnumbered, at least this is often the perception. This perception is reinforced by the system of government now in operation in Canada, which is a significant contributing factor in an ongoing crisis in this country’s Air Transport sector.
This blog is dedicated to the men and women of a single Canadian company who have become disabled while on the job. There are misconceptions of the procedures, rights and responsibilities of injured and non-injured workers in federally regulated industries, such as the Air Transport sector in Canada.
It is long past time everyone become aware of what their individual rights truly are and what an individual has to go through to defend those rights in present day Canada.
First and foremost I hope everyone who reads this, realizes it is not just another case of government bashing, that simply isn’t true. All the victims of the story we’re going to talk about here firmly believe in governments’ role in society to provide rules, regulations or law and order in other words. There are highly educated, very intelligent people working within the federal government in this country. I know this for a fact as I’ve personally spoken with both of them. Ok, ok, that was a bad joke, couldn’t help myself.
As in all large groups of professionals, there are unfortunately less than capable employees mixed with the good ones. Occasionally it seems the good ones are vastly outnumbered, at least this is often the perception. This perception is reinforced by the system of government now in operation in Canada, which is a significant contributing factor in an ongoing crisis in this country’s Air Transport sector.
This blog is dedicated to the men and women of a single Canadian company who have become disabled while on the job. There are misconceptions of the procedures, rights and responsibilities of injured and non-injured workers in federally regulated industries, such as the Air Transport sector in Canada.
It is long past time everyone become aware of what their individual rights truly are and what an individual has to go through to defend those rights in present day Canada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)