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

Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162) - Canada (Ratification: 1988)

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.]