Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2011, Publication: 100th ILC session (2011)

A Government representative recalled that the Committee of Experts had asked the Government to provide up-to-date information on measures taken to give effect to Articles 3(1), 3(2) and 10(b) of the Convention. Canada had been providing detailed reports on the implementation of the Convention since its ratification in 1988. Implementation of the Convention was the responsibility of the federal Government and of Canada’s ten provincial and three territorial governments. Each of these jurisdictions had adopted and enforced laws and regulations prescribing the measures to be taken for the prevention and control of, and the protection of workers against, health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos, as required by Article 3(1) of the Convention. Relevant laws and regulations were periodically reviewed in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Convention. For example, a review of the federal Hazardous Substances Regulations was ongoing and reviews had been concluded in Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Labrador and Ontario. Since Canada’s last report to the Committee, Alberta had revised its asbestos abatement guide which described the principles to be followed when selecting the most appropriate techniques for the safe abatement of asbestos-containing materials. Newfoundland and Labrador had revised its Occupational Safety and Health Regulations to allow the Minister to designate a workplace or classes of workplaces that required an occupational health surveillance programme. With regard to Article 10(b) of the Convention, manufactured products containing asbestos used in construction were very limited and were governed by the Hazardous Products Act, as well as by provincial building code regulations. Article 14 of the Convention was implemented by the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS), which was a national system that provided information on hazardous materials used in the workplace. In response to the comments of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) concerning application of Articles 4 and 22(1), which required consultations with organizations of employers and workers, the speaker indicated that there was a strong commitment to tripartite consultation and involvement of the social partners in all aspects of occupational safety and health in Canada. There were training requirements specific to asbestos. The speaker provided such examples in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Finally, the Committee of Experts had asked for further information on measures to ensure application of Article 17(2) which provided that the employer or contractor shall be required before starting demolition work to draw up a work plan specifying the measures to be taken, including providing necessary protection to the workers, limiting the release of asbestos dust in the air and providing for the disposal of waste containing asbestos. In this regard, renovations or demolition involving possible asbestos-containing material were highly regulated, as was the use of products containing asbestos. In many jurisdictions, work involving asbestos-containing material had to be conducted by a registered contractor who had been certified as a valid asbestos abatement contractor. This required demonstration that the workers had received the required training and the company had the specialized equipment necessary for asbestos abatement. In conclusion, the speaker recognized the dangers of exposure to asbestos in the workplace and recalled that the Government was committed to fully implementing the requirements of the Convention through measures for the prevention, control of, and protection of workers against health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos developed in consultation with workers’ and employers’ organizations and technical and professional experts.

The Worker members wished to make a number of preliminary remarks concerning the Convention, the application of which was not frequently examined by the Conference Committee. Even though knowledge of the harmful effects of asbestos, and particularly as to whether or not there was an exposure threshold, had evolved, the dangers of asbestos to human health have been known for a very long time. It was now known that prevention measures made it possible to avoid certain harmful effects, and particularly asbestosis. However, they were not able to eliminate other diseases, which were among the most harmful, such as cancer of the larynx and of the lungs, and mesothelioma, which have a long latency period, even following low levels of exposure, and could affect both workers and those close to them. Acceptable alternatives to asbestos now appeared to have been developed and mentalities had changed. It had to be recognized that the Convention reflected the state of knowledge, technical solutions and sensitivities which prevailed when it had been adopted, particularly in its distinction between two types of asbestos: blue asbestos, which was prohibited by Article 11, with exceptions; and white asbestos, which was not prohibited. The Worker members recalled the general obligations contained in Articles 3(1) and (2) and 10 of the Convention respecting the adoption of measures of prevention and control and of national legislation for the protection of workers’ health. They referred to the observations of the CLC on the application of the Convention, according to which technical progress and the development of scientific knowledge should lead to the revision of the legislation with a view to a total prohibition of asbestos, which was the sole measure that could prevent and control health risks (Article 3(1)), and its replacement by other materials (Article 10). According to the CLC, the legislation in force had not been the subject of consultation with the social partners, as envisaged in Articles 4 and 22 of the Convention. Canadian trade unions considered that taking into account the development of medical knowledge and technical progress, the only solution was the total prohibition of the use of all varieties of asbestos. Finally, the Worker members indicated that, in certain European countries, the use of asbestos was prohibited. They emphasized that in Europe, over recent years, the number of cases of diseases related to asbestos, such as mesothelioma, had been rising. With reference to Articles 3(3), 4 and 10 of the Convention, they strongly encouraged the Government to embark on dialogue with the social partners in view of the evolution of knowledge, techniques and sensitivities since the development of the Convention, in collaboration with the ILO, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

The Employer members stated that the Conference Committee examined the application of the Convention by Canada for the first time. This Convention was a very comprehensive and technical instrument, aimed at securing the safety and health of workers working or having worked in the production of asbestos or related products. The Committee of Experts had taken note of numerous positive developments in terms of improvement of the relevant legislation in various Canadian provinces and territories. The remaining comments of the Committee of Experts related to the observations of the CLC, which, with reference to Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 10(b) of the Convention, called for the prohibition of asbestos and the discontinuation of asbestos exports. On the basis of this plea of the CLC, the Committee of Experts requested the Government to provide further detailed and up-to-date information on measures taken to give effect to Articles 3(1) and (2) and 10(b), taking into account, in particular, technological progress and advances in scientific knowledge. The Employer members observed that it remained unclear whether the Committee of Experts shared the view of the CLC that there was an obligation to prohibit asbestos and products containing asbestos. They stressed that the general prohibition of chrysotile asbestos (also called white asbestos) could not be construed from the relevant provisions of the Convention, which distinguished between the various types of asbestos and required in its Article 11(1) only the general prohibition of crocidolite asbestos (also called blue asbestos). The Employer members concluded that chrysotile asbestos and its processing should only be prohibited if the necessary health protection could not be guaranteed, which had not been asserted by the CLC. The Government could therefore merely be requested to provide information regarding the manner in which health protection was guaranteed on the basis of the existing legislative provisions and the current technological progress, and to supply statistics concerning, for example, asbestos-related occupational diseases, the occurrence of which had not been mentioned by the Committee of Experts. As regards the alleged recent lack of consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers in accordance with Articles 4 and 22(1) of the Convention, this observation contravened the statement made by the Government representative according to which the social partners participated in the work of the Federal Regulatory Review Committee on the revision of Part X (Hazardous Substances) Regulations. Finally, the CLC stated, with reference to Article 17(2) of the Convention, that asbestos should not be used in construction materials because of the impossibility of protecting construction workers. Again, the wording of the Convention did not allow such a conclusion. In the Employer members’ view, no direct breach of the Convention could be inferred from the comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Worker member of Canada stated that Canada had failed to review national laws and regulations governing exposure to asbestos and to take into account the advances in technology and scientific knowledge as called for in Article 3 of the Convention. By failing to consult the social partners on the impact of new information and technology, on the elimination of asbestos and on education and dissemination of information regarding asbestos-related hazards, and by pursuing a policy which ignored the findings of the world’s most competent authorities on cancer, the Government had not fully applied Articles 2, 3 and 22 of the Convention. It ignored the advice of the WHO, the IARC and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a joint programme of WHO, ILO and the United Nations Environment Programme, all of which echoed the same findings that chrysotile asbestos was a cause of mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis. Making reference to a WHO publication and to a resolution adopted by the International Labour Conference in 2006, both calling for the elimination of the use of asbestos, he recalled that 50 countries had taken that decision. The Canadian Government continued to base itself on unreliable data despite the fact that a ban of the production of asbestos was supported by leading medical and public health agencies in the country. The speaker denounced the long history of manipulation of scientific data by the Canadian asbestos mining industry to generate convenient results, with the effect of corrupting the medical literature on which the Government relied. He condemned the attitude of the Government, which had practically banned the use of asbestos within its territory but continued to export it to developing countries. An asbestos-related epidemic was to be feared in the years to come. The Government should engage in proper consultations with the social partners in order to promote the use of replacement products and alternative technology substitutes and adopt a national programme based on the ILO–WHO National Programme for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases (NPEAD), and the ILO should assist it in moving towards a total prohibition of the production and use of asbestos. The reply to the Committee of Experts’ comments later this year would be an opportunity to delineate a positive way forward, through a tripartite process based on reliable knowledge and technology.

The Worker member of Australia, speaking also on behalf of the Worker members of Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Uruguay – all countries where asbestos was currently banned, stated that unions in these countries would welcome any effort by Canada to move towards the complete banning of asbestos and reiterated a call by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in 2005 for a global ban of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos. The abovementioned countries had all banned asbestos because it was a dangerous substance that killed and injured workers and family members and affected entire communities. These countries were currently engaged in different degrees of transition towards an asbestos-free environment knowing that a just transition for jobs and social impact was both necessary and achievable. Countries having banned asbestos should encourage all ILO member States to work towards a complete and global banning of asbestos. As far as Australia was concerned, the Worker member stated that for several decades his country had had the highest per capita use of asbestos in the world. Asbestos had had devastating effects on Australian workers (miners, carpenters, construction workers, etc.) and their families, with many losses of life due to exposure to asbestos in the workplace or exposure to asbestos brought home from the workplace. The expected peak of asbestos-related deaths was between 2020 and 2030, and up to 18,000 Australians were expected to die of mesothelioma. Despite the previously high usage rate, the 2003 ban on importation, production and use of asbestos had not had any adverse effects on employment and industry. There had been no net job losses due to transitional measures, strict regulation governing the removal and disposal of asbestos and the use of alternative materials. In light of the above, the speaker believed that his country had the responsibility of warning others of the danger and sharing its experiences. He stressed the need to move quickly towards an asbestos-free world.

The Worker member of Argentina, speaking also on behalf of Building and Wood Workers’ International, referred to the growing number of deaths from mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases in Canada, the increase in recognized cases of occupational diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos, the deaths from mesothelioma and the growing number of new cases affecting construction workers, and concluded that prevention and protection measures had been inadequate. She inquired about the measures that had been implemented by Canada, in view of the hazards connected with its status as a large-scale producer and exporter of the substance. The INSPQ (national public health institute of Quebec) had published a report concerning the excessive number of deaths in the mining village of Thetford Mines, with risk levels 17 times higher than in the rest of Canada and concentrations of asbestos fibres between four and 232 times higher than comparable measurements in the United States. The data indicated a failure in terms of prevention and control of serious exposure risks. Canada did not meet the requirements of the Convention with regard to risk prevention. The Government of Canada funded the Chrysotile Institute, a body that disseminated propaganda in favour of the supposedly controlled use of asbestos. The speaker cited the intervention of the National Director of Public Health with regard to the need to control asbestos risks, both in Quebec and in countries that purchased Canadian chrysotile asbestos. Finally, the Government did not label asbestos containers properly, since it did not use international terminology or symbols indicating the risk of cancer and prevention measures.

The Worker member of the United States shared the experience of workers in his country as regards asbestos. He stated that the use of asbestos had caused the greatest occupational health epidemic in the world’s history. Even strict standards were not sufficient to protect workers. But it was not only workers who were at risk: spouses and children had been affected by mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases due to asbestos brought home on workers’ clothes and the public had had to face community and environmental exposures. He stated that asbestos could not be used safely: once introduced into commerce, it posed a risk for decades. The only way to limit asbestos exposure was to ban its use.

The Worker member of Colombia, speaking also on behalf of the Worker member of Brazil, recalled the content of Article 10 of the Convention respecting the adoption of the necessary measures for the replacement or the total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos. He reaffirmed that the State’s obligation was to progressively achieve the total prohibition of the use of asbestos. In that regard, the economic benefits could not be used as a justification for endangering the life and health of workers and of the population. All forms of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, had been classified by the IARC and the IPSC as human carcinogens. It had been demonstrated that the use and exposure to asbestos, even in minimal quantities, generated a high probability of causing many lethal diseases, such as lung cancer and mesothelioma. At the global level, over 100,000 workers had already died as a result of their exposure to asbestos, and it had been scientifically proven that there was no controlled use of asbestos that was absolutely safe for workers or the population in general. In that regard, the reduction of the authorized level of fibres per cubic centimetre announced by the Canadian Government was still insufficient. Indeed, Canada was increasing its investment in enterprises in Colombia and Brazil which extracted and used asbestos, without any intervention by the Federal Regulatory Review Committee. Nevertheless, even in developing economies such as those of Brazil and Colombia, there existed examples that demonstrated the possibility of the total replacement of asbestos. He emphasized that the Government of Canada had not replied to the observations of the CLC examined by the Committee of Experts, which demonstrated the violation of a crucial element of the Convention, i.e. the obligation of consultation. In conclusion, he stressed that it was essential for the Government of Canada to accept ILO technical assistance with a view to taking immediate measures leading to the definitive prohibition of the use of asbestos.

The Worker member of Brazil, with reference to the statement made by the CLC before the Conference Committee, indicated that other Canadian trade union confederations did not share these views, as they supported the safe use of chrysotile asbestos. She asked whether that information had been brought to the attention of the Conference Committee and whether the position of the CLC had been duly discussed with the other workers directly linked to the sector in Canada.

The Government representative reiterated that all Canadian provincial and territorial governments strictly regulated and strictly enforced high standards aimed at protecting workers from health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos and that there had been extensive consultations with employers, workers and experts in developing and applying the legislation. She noted that some presentations made had gone beyond the application of the provisions of the Convention. The speaker recalled that there were divergent views on the issue among Canadian trade unions. The Canadian Worker member attending the International Labour Conference in 2006 had not supported the resolution adopted that year on asbestos, and the trade unions representing asbestos workers in the province of Quebec not only supported the continuation of mining but an increase in investments in this industry. She assured the Conference Committee that Canada would continue to provide the Committee of Experts with complete and detailed reports on its implementation of the Convention.

The Employer members took due note of the information provided by the Government representative concerning the diverging positions of Canadian trade unions on the subject. While acknowledging that countries having banned asbestos might have had good reasons to do so, no violation by Canada of the requirements of the Convention could be deduced from the wording of this instrument. The Conference Committee was not a law-making body and could not call for a prohibition if the relevant Convention did not foresee one. In the Employer members’ view, the Committee of Experts could therefore only request the Government to report on the manner in which health protection was guaranteed, and to supply statistical information concerning asbestos-related occupational diseases.

The Worker members recalled that the Canadian trade union organizations considered that the only solution was the total prohibition of the use of all types of asbestos, in view of the evolution of medical knowledge and technical progress. While they were aware of the limits of the Convention, they called on the Conference Committee to ask the Government to begin consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations, in accordance with Articles 3(3), 4 and 10 of the Convention. These consultations, which could be held in collaboration with the ILO and with other international bodies such as the WHO or the IARC, needed to take into account the evolution of knowledge, techniques and sensitivities since the adoption of the Convention. The Government needed to provide information on the concrete measures taken for the holding of these consultations and statistics on the cases of occupational diseases, for their examination by the Committee of Experts at its next session.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Further to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. Definitions. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government which indicates definitions of the relevant terms to the Convention under the New Brunswick Asbestos Regulation 92-106, and information concerning the establishment of a Technical (Stakeholder) Committee to review and recommend changes to this Regulation. The Committee also notes the response regarding the conformity of asbestos regulations in Ontario with the definitions of the relevant terms to the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full application, across all provinces and territories in Canada, of the definitions in Article 2 of the Convention.

Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the application of the Convention in practice across all provinces and territories, including the provision of asbestos abatement training to workers in Alberta, and the development of guidelines/resources on this subject; the development, by WorkSafe British Colombia, of a proposal to implement a harmful substances exposure registry, which would document any exposure to harmful substances (including asbestos); the development of various guidelines/resources concerning asbestos developed by the Workplace Safety and Health Division in Manitoba; the launch, by the Ministry of Labour in Ontario in July 2008, of an inspection blitz on demolition and renovation projects in the construction industry which among other hazards focused on asbestosis; and the commitment by the Workplace Health and Safety Committee in Quebec since 2006 on the importance of prevention interventions concerning safe work practices in the presence of asbestos. The Committee further notes the statistical information provided by the Government, obtained from the Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC), who administer the National Work Injuries Statistics Program (NWISP), the primary purpose of which is to collect data from the provincial/territorial jurisdictions and maintain a national database of occupational injury and disease statistics, including data for the federal jurisdiction because the provincial/territorial workers’ compensation authorities administer workers’ compensation claims for the federal jurisdiction as well. The Government indicates that the number of asbestos-related occupational disease and occupational fatality claims accepted for compensation by a workers’ compensation authority came to a total of 164 in 2005, 177 in 2006, 164 in 2007 and 176 in 2008; that during 2000–08, 6 per cent of work-related fatalities accepted by the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba were caused by asbestosis; that the number of asbestos-related lung cancers and mesothelioma claims accepted by the Newfoundland and Labrador Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission during the period of this report were 21 lung cancers and 2 mesotheliomas; and that there were 16 accepted claims at WorkSafe New Brunswick between 2006 and 2010 with the source of injury being asbestos. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report, including information concerning the application of the Convention, in law and practice, in a number of the provinces and territories. It also notes the statistical information on the application of the Convention, which has been dealt with in a request addressed directly to the Government. As regards legislative and other measures undertaken, the Committee welcomes the information indicating that representatives of the Canadian employers’ and workers’ organizations are participating in the Federal Regulatory Review Committee on the revision of Part X (Hazardous Substances) Regulations, and that this Committee has proposed lowering the occupational exposure limit on asbestos from 1 to 0.1 fibre/cubic centimetre, as well as new provisions that would specify requirements for an asbestos management programme for asbestos removal from any building/facility in federal jurisdiction. The Committee notes that following extensive consultation with industry, labour and technical experts, comprehensive new Workplace Safety and Health Regulations, which include new requirements to address asbestos hazards, took effect on 1 February 2007 in Manitoba. The Committee also notes the revised Occupational Health and Safety Regulations of 1 September 2009 in Newfoundland and Labrador; and the replacement in Ontario of Regulation 837 Respecting Asbestos by the O. Reg. 490/09 Designated Substances (effective 1 July 2010), which maintains worker protections while easing compliance for employers. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the legislative measures undertaken concerning the Convention.

The Committee also notes the comments by the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), concerning the application of the Convention which were transmitted to the Office together with the Government’s report, but which were not specifically addressed by the Government in its report.

Article 3(1) and (2) of the Convention. Measures to be taken for the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos; periodical review in the light of technical progress and scientific knowledge. Article 10(b). Total or partial prohibition of the use of asbestos. The Committee notes that according to the CLC there is a compelling body of evidence showing that the most efficient way to eliminate asbestos-related disease is to stop producing and using it. The CLC indicates that the views of the ILO, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in this matter must be respected as the main legitimate source of information. With reference to the Ninth International Conference on Occupational Respiratory Diseases in Kyoto in 1997 (Kyoto Conference) the CLC states that chrysotile is contaminated by tremolite and other amphibole group fibres and that these cannot be separated which is reason enough to justify a prohibition of all forms of asbestos. The Committee also notes that the CLC states that, in their view, the Canadian Government should introduce a total prohibition of the use of asbestos or products containing asbestos in work processes within the country, and for the phasing out of asbestos exports. The CLC refers to the “National Programme for the Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases” (NPEAD) – a programme specifically designed by the ILO and WHO for countries that use chrysotile asbestos but wish to eliminate asbestos-related diseases – and states that NPEAD is designed as a national institutional framework for strategic preventative strategies for the regional to the enterprise levels to take account of health, economic and social aspects of the problem, including indirect costs such as loss of potential income and the number of jobs offset by any changes. The CLC also indicates that if planned properly, job losses can be effectively offset by developing a positive employment transition process that is linked to the prohibition of asbestos and the promotion of alternative technology. The CLC also refers to the ILO Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122), ratified by Canada, and its accompanying Recommendation, together with the ILO Resolution on Social and Economic Consequences of Preventive Action at the 59th Session (June 1974) of the International Labour Conference, as important guideposts for establishing and implementing such an employment policy. The CLC also notes that NPEAD envisages the replacement of asbestos by other materials or products or the use of alternative technology. In the light of these comments by the CLC, the Committee requests the Government to provide further detailed and up-to-date information on measures taken to give effect to Articles 3(1) and (2) and 10(b), taking into account, in particular, technological progress and advances in scientific knowledge.

Articles 4 and 22(1). Consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes the allegations by the CLC that, to their knowledge, consultations as required under these provisions of the Convention have not taken place in the recent past. The Committee asks the Government to respond to this comment by the CLC and to provide further information on measures taken to ensure a full application of these provisions of the Convention.

Article 17(2). Protection of workers and limiting the release of asbestos dust in the context of demolition work. The Committee notes that in its comments the CLC also refers to the WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), which in their view makes it clear that asbestos should not be used in construction materials because of the impossibility of protecting construction workers, their families and building occupants. The Committee requests the Government respond to the comment by the CLC and to provide further information on the measures taken to ensure a full application of this provision of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information in the Government’s report and the attached statistical information.

2. Article 2. Harmonization of definitions relevant for the application of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments regarding the application of this Article of the Convention, the Committee notes that the Government’s report is silent on this issue. The Committee reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on measures taken and envisaged to harmonize the legislation in the country in accordance with the definitions set forth in this Article and to provide further information on the efforts of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Law in this respect.

3. Part V of the report form. Appreciation of the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that national detailed occupational injury and diseases statistics are compiled through the National Work Injuries Statistics Program (NWISP), which is administered by the Association of Workers’ Compensations Boards of Canada (AWCBC). It notes that the primary purpose of NWISP is to collect data from all Canadian jurisdictions and maintain a national database of occupational injury and disease statistics, and that the data collection is administrative in nature, meaning that all cases are documented in the statistics and these statistics are harmonized by AWCBC which converts data submitted under different coding structures into a standard coding structure. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the submitted statistical tables for the period 1998-2004 for accepted claims for asbestos-related injuries, the number of cases caused by mesothelioma have doubled (from 29 to 58 in 2004) while the number of cases of injuries related to asbestosis have remained relatively stable. As regards fatalities, the number of mesothelioma-related fatalities have also doubled, while the number of fatalities caused by asbestosis for the same period increased from 30 to 55. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide relevant statistical information as well as information on further measures planned or envisaged to curb what seems to be a significant increase of asbestos-related injuries and fatalities.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes, with interest, the information in the Government’s report and the information on legislative amendments including amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada providing for criminal sanctions for disregard of duties to protect employees and public safety (Bill C-45 November 2003); the 2002 amendment to Part II (Occupational Health and Safety) of the Canada Labour Code providing for increased responsibilities relating to occupational health and safety for employers and workers respectively, for safety and health committees in workplaces with more than 20 workers, an increased emphasis on prevention, the right of a worker to call for a monitoring of the working environment and to appeal decisions related thereto; the amendments to Part X of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations providing for risk assessments as well as relevant legislative changes in the different provinces. Furthermore, it notes the decision rendered by the Canada Appeals Office in Occupational Health and Safety reaffirming the health and safety committee’s right to participate in a hazard investigation and to be consulted prior to the qualified person preparing their written report to the employer.

2. Article 2 of the Convention. Harmonization of definitions relevant for the application of the Convention. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comments on this issue, the Government refers to the activities of the Occupational Health and Safety Committee of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Law, which meets on a regular basis to discuss issues of consistency in OSH legislation and enforcement thereof. The Committee notes, however, that the information provided from the different provinces indicates that there is still no uniform definition of the terms "asbestos", "asbestos dust", "airborne asbestos dust", "respirable asbestos fibres" and "exposure to asbestos" in the legislation of the different provinces. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on the measures taken and envisaged to harmonize the legislation in order to ensure uniform interpretation of these terms, in accordance to the definitions set forth in this Article of the Convention.

2. Part V of the report form. Appreciation of the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes that in reply to the Committee’s previously expressed concerns about the increase of the number of workers who have contracted asbestos-related diseases in the last decade, the Government states that this "apparent" increase might reflect the long latency period for the manifestation of asbestos-related diseases and that the diagnosis of such diseases occurs only decades after exposure thereto and that it might also be an indication of improved reporting of occupational diseases. The Committee also notes that the Government reports that the provisions of Part II of the Canada Labour Code, regulate occupational health and safety in 45,506 workplaces across Canada, that at these work sites 15,215 employers are responsible for 1,373,410 workers and that for the period 1 July 1999 to 31 May 2005 a computer research revealed no occupational diseases reported as a result of exposure to asbestos. The Committee notes that no additional statistical information was included in the report. The Committee requests the Government to clarify which records were examined in this computer search, and in particular to indicate whether this computer search also covered statistics related to compensation claims. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further statistical information, also regarding the evaluation of compensation claims, as well as information regarding the reporting methods applied and an appreciation whether available statistics, at the federal as well as the provincial levels, adequately reflect the incidence of asbestos-related diseases in the country.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2006.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s last report. It notes with interest the Government’s reply to its previous comment concerning the application of Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention. It also notes the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations of the different provinces, adopted in application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1996, which, inter alia, address specifically asbestos-related issues. It further notes the various training activities for workers carried out in the provinces, the manuals issued to this effect as well as the guidelines issued to ensure the safe use of asbestos. However, the Committee notes from the statistics available that, in spite of the above measures, the overall number of workers who have contracted asbestos diseases has increased in the last decade. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to improve the protection of workers exposed to asbestos in the course of their work.

Article 2 of the Convention. Definition. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes again that there is no uniform definition of the terms "asbestos", "asbestos dust", "airborne asbestos dust", "respirable asbestos fibres" and "exposure to asbestos" in the legislation of different provinces. It accordingly requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to harmonize the legislation in order to ensure uniform interpretation of these terms, in accordance with the definitions set forth in this Article of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the measures taken or envisaged at federal and provincial levels to ensure an effective application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

I. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided by the Government in its first and second reports. It notes the indication in the Government's second report that the province of Newfoundland adopted the Asbestos Abatement Code of Practice, Regulation 194/91 on 4 October 1991 and that the Northwest Territories have adopted the Asbestos Safety Regulations on 27 March 1992. The Government is invited to furnish copies of these texts with its next report.

II. Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government's indication that, at the federal level, the definitions set forth in this provision are not specifically laid down in the legislation but that the existing legislation is in conformity with the intentions of these definitions. It notes, furthermore, that Saskatchewan legislation has only defined "airborne asbestos dust", "respirable asbestos fibres", "exposure to asbestos", and "workers' representatives", and Ontario has specific definitions in its legislation only for the terms "asbestos" and "asbestos fibres". Newfoundland and Yukon do not appear to have any specific definitions in their legislation for the terms set forth in this Article of the Convention. The Government is requested to keep the Office informed of any steps taken or envisaged to harmonize the legislation in order to ensure uniform interpretation of these terms in accordance with the definitions set forth in this Article.

Article 11. The Committee notes that Annexes I and II of the Hazardous Products Act prohibit the sale or importation of crocidolite (a substance not produced in Canada). Section 5 of the Hazardous Products Act, however, permits the Governor in Council to make regulations authorizing the advertising, sale or importation of any restricted product and prescribing the circumstances and conditions under which and the persons by whom the restricted product may be advertised, sold or imported. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned are consulted with respect to any derogation made by virtue of section 5 and to keep the Office informed of any exceptions made concerning the use of crocidolite either at the federal or the provincial level.

Article 12. The Government has indicated that section 40 of Part I of Schedule I of the Hazardous Products Act prohibits the spraying of all forms of asbestos except in the case of "a mixture of asbestos fibres and bituminous or resinous-based binding materials where the fibres are encapsulated with the binder during spraying and the resulting materials are not friable after drying". The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned were consulted concerning this exception and to keep the Office informed of any other derogations made with respect to the spraying of asbestos either at the federal level or in the provinces.

III. Point III of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the judgement of the Quebec Superior Court concerning the prohibition of the use of crocidolite annexed to the Government's second report. The Government is requested to continue to provide the Office with any other court or tribunal judgements rendered involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention.