Credibility, HRSDC/Labour Canada

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.