Debates of June 1st, 1999

Division No. 543

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from April 23 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Workplace Safety

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, knowing how I tend to speak I will take the four minutes instead of the three.

In my remarks I was indicating to the House the importance of the motion put forward by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I indicated how we in this party would be supporting it. We had introduced very similar legislation through a private member's bill by the leader of our party, the hon. member for Halifax.

I talked a little about those of us in mining communities, those of us who come from towns where we know the price paid when mine safety regulations are not adhered to. I was concluding by saying that what we need is not further study on this. That is the only criticism I have of the motion. What we need is action. That is exactly what the bill put forward by the New Democratic Party would do.

There are those who will wonder whether or not other nations have legislation. They do. I point out briefly in the short time I have that both Australia and Great Britain are taking steps to address the problem of illegal criminal actions by corporations that result in the deaths of their workers. The focus here is Westray but it could apply to many other industries and many other corporations.

The tragedy among many tragedies in Westray was that the victims' families sought to see justice done. They sought to see the major players in that corporation brought to court and tried for determination as to their guilt or their innocence. Unfortunately, the Canadian judicial system could not do that because there is no law that holds a corporation liable for the murder of its workers.

I have indicated that Australia and Great Britain are moving in that direction. The Australian criminal code of 1995 allows corporations to be held liable for criminal conduct if it can be proven that the practices or culture of the company encouraged or at least did not prohibit the alleged offence. Had we that piece of legislation in this country, then the corporate owners who in the finding of Justice Richards wilfully neglected the welfare of their workers, could have been brought to justice by Justice Richards.

The British Law Reform Commission in 1996 recommended to parliament in that country the creation of an offence of corporate killing where the behaviour of the corporation falls below that which would be expected of a corporation in the circumstances.

I urge members of the government when they are considering the changes to the Cape Breton Development Corporation that they bear in mind by divesting themselves of their responsibility, they move the mining legislation to the provincial legislation and the same accident can happen in Cape Breton that happened in Westray.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 455 regarding accountability for workplace safety.

The hon. member's motion raises an issue that is of interest to a great many of us in this House. I would like to thank him for bringing this matter before the House and for drawing attention to the question of safety in the workplace, an important issue for all Canadians.

I share the hon. member's concern and sadness for the Westray disaster. None of us can look back on that event, especially after hearing the results of the public inquiry that followed, and not want to do something to prevent a similar disaster from ever happening again.

I would like the hon. member to know that I share his desire to act and that I am in support of the spirit of this motion which has the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety. That said however, I cannot support Motion No. 455 because of its possible implications beyond federal jurisdiction.

In looking at ways to achieve safer and healthier workplaces, legislative change is one way to address the problem of accountability. Legislative change such as the hon. member opposite is proposing is quite complex and not easily achieved.

In Canada there are 14 different jurisdictions covering occupational safety and health. Legislation on these matters is covered by the federal, provincial and territorial governments which makes the situation very complex. For example, the North American agreement on labour co-operation, a labour side agreement to NAFTA, still has not been ratified by all of our provinces and territories even after several years. In other words, securing an agreement for legislative change at the federal level is one thing but implementation is a different matter entirely due to the issue of jurisdiction. This is not to say that occupational health and safety does not require our attention as members of parliament. Certainly not.

In 1997 on average one out of 18 Canadian workers was injured in the workplace meaning that a workplace accident occurred every nine seconds. There were a total of 800,000 injuries that year with 18 million working days lost, the equivalent of one year's work for 71,000 Canadians. Sadly, workers between the ages of 15 and 24 are most at risk for work related accidents.

In addition to the high human cost, there is also a significant impact on the economy. In 1997 workplace accidents resulted in $5 billion in direct compensation payments to victims and an additional $5 billion in indirect costs to the employer.

Numbers like these are cause for concern for all of us. Given the human and economic costs involved, we should explore the potential need for new legislative approaches to ensure health and safety in our workplace.

I want to assure the hon. member opposite that we are looking at the Westray tragedy specifically. My colleague the Minister of Justice has written to the Attorney General of Nova Scotia offering her commitment to study recommendation 73 of the Westray report. As well she is instructing federal officials to develop options for legislative reform. A number of stakeholders and experts will be consulted in this process.

The explosion in the Westray mine on May 9, 1992 killed 26 miners. A public inquiry clearly established that incompetence and mismanagement created the unsafe working environment that was the direct cause of this terrible tragedy. The inquiry's report also set out 74 recommendations for improving mine safety and preventing such a sad accident from ever happening again. The last two recommendations deal with corporate accountability.

Recommendation 74 suggested that the Government of Nova Scotia review its occupational health and safety legislation to ensure that corporations are held accountable for any failure to secure and maintain a safe workplace. This recommendation is outside the scope of today's debate but I mention it because it illustrates the role that provincial legislatures have to play in the area of workplace safety and corporate accountability.

Recommendation 73 states that the Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation, and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to the legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

As I have noted, this recommendation is being studied both in terms of the responsibility of the corporation itself and also the liability of the people it employs.

Legislation is not the only way to address the issue of workplace safety. We can also achieve great benefit by working proactively to promote a better understanding and awareness of its importance. Over the years, we have seen the correlation between increased education and awareness and an improved occupational health and safety record. By focusing more attention on training and education, we can and will reduce the incidence of accidents. There is no question that educating people, teaching them how to work safely, is a key component.

This is something that the government has already made a priority. In recent years, the labour program has worked closely with its partners in the public and private sectors to raise awareness about the rights and responsibilities for the health and safety in Canadian workplaces. The emphasis has been on the prevention of injury and illness. By seeking to increase awareness and understanding among employers and employees, as well as the public at large, we reinforce the message that individual actions can be just as important as legislation when it comes to improving workplace safety.

In my riding of Guelph—Wellington there are several examples of the effectiveness of using education and awareness to improve workplace safety. For example, Blount Canada continues to implement and expand its three year old ergonomic improvement process aimed at preventing injuries, not only by improving equipment but also by providing additional training opportunities to its employees. Blount has seen that even a small increase in awareness translates into a big improvement in safety.

On June 16, Genesta Manufacturing, also located in Guelph—Wellington, will celebrate three years without a single lost time accident. Its systemic health and safety system, combined with weekly staff safety meetings, monthly safety audits and monthly management reviews have made safety everybody's very first priority.

Huntsman Corporation, another example from my riding, involves all of its employees in its health and safety initiatives. Its joint health and safety committee meets three times more often than is required by law. Hunstman also has a safety recognition program for the employees who remain accident-free. This commitment to safety carries over into the community by working closely with the local fire and police departments and other municipal officials to develop emergency response plans in the event that an accident does occur.

The spirit of Motion No. 455 is commendable. The goal of creating a safer workplace is one we all share in all parties, whether we use legislation, education or, most effectively, a combination of the two. I wholeheartedly support the idea of working on the problem and know that the government will continue to address the issue of workplace safety.

In reality, safety is a concern to all of us. Education is one of the most important components and we will continue to investigate this area. We must.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite speaking about the motion and her idea that she could support the principle of the motion but not the motion itself. I think there is something wrong with that logic.

I also listened with interest to the member of the NDP who talked about a similar NDP motion and how they supported this motion in principle.

I think it should be made very clear to the members of the House and to all the people listening to this debate that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough filed this private member's bill during the first month of parliament. The New Democratic Party waited a full six months before it filed a similar bill. It is important to get that on the record.

I am pleased to rise for the second hour of debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to discuss Motion No. 455, a motion introduced by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I would like to explain what happened on that dreadful morning back in May 1992. It may help everyone in the House gain a better understanding of what provoked this motion. On May 9, 1992 at 5.20 a.m., a violent explosion ripped under the tiny community of Plymouth, just east of the town of Stellarton, Nova Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of the Westray coal mine, instantly killing the 26 miners working there at the time.

Motion No. 455 was introduced to ensure that something like this never happens again. Workplace safety must be the norm across the country no matter what profession one chooses. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe at work, and every corporate executive must take the initiative to ensure those standards are met. Motion No. 455 reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended in accordance with Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's Public Inquiry into the Westray disaster, specifically with the goal of ensuring that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Recommendation 73 in the report of the inquiry commissioner, Justice Peter Richard, reads as follows:

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

I see nothing in that proposed bill that would prevent any member of parliament from supporting this excellent piece of proposed legislation.

Recommendation 73 does not endorse any particular legislative action by parliament. However, I will proceed by stressing that Motion No. 455 wishes to address the concerns referred to by Justice Peter Richard in his report, with an emphasis on the personal liability of key corporate officials.

The proposal to create a new criminal offence for corporate officials for failing to maintain safe workplaces would, by definition, require adding new provisions to the Criminal Code. This could be done by adding new sections to the Criminal Code under sections 467.5 and 467.6. Section 467.6 would extend criminal liability for this corporate failure to every officer or director of the corporation who knew or ought to have known, based on their experience, qualifications and duties, about the unsafe conditions in question.

Another way to address the matter would be to amend the Criminal Code provisions which define criminal negligence, section 219, and culpable homicide, section 222, in a way which specifically addresses death or bodily harm caused by a failure to maintain workplace safety on the part of a director or an executive of a corporation.

The drawback to this approach, however, is that it does not deal with situations where death or injury do not result. As well, if one wished to strengthen the accountability of corporate officials for workplace safety violations of their corporations, one could amend section 149.2 of the Criminal Code to include additional circumstances in which their liability would be triggered.

I am sure members are aware that most corporate officials support and foster safe working conditions. However, others have a more cavalier attitude toward fair labour practices and workplace safety. This approach cannot be condoned in any capacity. As Canadians and as workers, we are entitled to wake up and go to our place of work, wherever that may take us, and know that our well-being as individuals is protected and our workplace safety is reinforced and upheld on a daily basis.

However, in many situations the almighty dollar overshadows the secure working environment to which we are all entitled. Of course, the bottom line of any business is to make a profit at the end of the day, and that is a very normal mindset for anyone who operates a business, large or small. If there is no profit at the end of the day there will be no business shortly thereafter. In short, profitability equals sustainability.

However, we must not let employers allow profits to take precedence over workplace safety. This mindset is precisely what sets the tone for workplace tragedies and creates unsafe working conditions. Businesses must ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and consistently updated on safe work practices. Sadly, in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained officials doing jobs they were not properly trained to perform.

It is essential that companies take the time to train employees so that additional risk is limited for that employee and those around them. Management must also ensure that their employees have an appreciation for any special dangers inherent at the job site.

In the case of the Westray coal mine specifically, many of the tradesmen were prone to perform unsafe tasks or to take dangerous shortcuts in their work. In many cases there was no question that management was well aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed.

As stated in Justice Richard's report:

—there was no question that Westray management knew that the levels of methane underground at the coal mine were hazardous. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, such conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from the affected area, and that is the primary reason, management in this instance chose to ignore the fact.

As a case in point, to make matters even worse, this same management purchased farm tractors to work underground in a potentially explosive environment. These same farm tractors went directly from the lot to the mine and were not explosion proof.

In this situation, as in all situations, the open door policy of management could have helped prevent the death of 26 coal miners that devastating morning. No employee ever wants to feel as if their safety concerns are falling on deaf ears. A collaborated effort between upper, middle and lower management must be invoked to create an environment that is hazardous free for every employee in Canada. Of course, accidents happen, but measures must be in place to minimize the risk of death and injury.

No single environment is 100% danger free but in most cases the risk of danger can be significantly less with a bit of common sense.

Referring to the Westray coal tragedy, the inquiry set out the following: the occurrence of the explosion that resulted in loss of life; whether the occurrence was preventable; whether any neglect caused or contributed to the explosion in any way; and finally, whether the mine was in compliance with the applicable statutes, regulations, orders, rules and directions.

These questions that were investigated at the time of the inquiry are many of the same questions that should be reviewed with business executives on a daily basis to ensure that they are operating a safe company. As well, it would be a good opportunity to ensure that businesses are in compliance with the current regulations.

As representatives of the federal government, we have to ensure that accountability is upheld in the country so that situations such as Westray and others do not repeat themselves.

The devastation of Westray will be felt for many years in the tiny community of Stellarton and indeed in all of Nova Scotia.

Today, on behalf of every individual affected by this horrible tragedy, I ask members to lend their assistance to this motion and give it their strongest consideration and support.

It is incumbent upon every member of parliament in the House to look at the motion as it has been put forth. It is a very strong attempt to curb such an accident from ever happening again in Canada. I think the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough deserves our support and the support of the House for the motion.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing this motion to the attention of the House, and his efforts to bring up the motion so that members can reflect on its intent and the issues that it raises for all of us.

I know only peripherally the tragic circumstances that bring the motion forward, but the hon. member needs to be congratulated again for making that effort.

The motion is to amend the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal statutes to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety. I understand there is an amendment to the motion to include the phrase “following a study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights”. I understand that to be an amendment by a Bloc member.

The hon. member is an active member of the justice committee. I have spent quite a number of hours with him on the justice committee on a variety of issues. I know he is keenly engaged in justice issues. I also know his background as a crown attorney and I dare say a very good crown attorney.

In the work of a crown attorney the question comes up, if there is an incident, what will the charge be, what can we prove? The police come forward with their evidence and say that a particular charge needs to be laid. The crown will test the evidence to see whether it is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The question here is whether the circumstances as generated by the Westray disaster show some deficiency in the Criminal Code or in some federal statute. Were I a crown attorney or were he a crown attorney in those circumstances, the first question that would need to be asked is whether there is current legislation that adequately deals with the issue.

It needs to be brought out in the debate that the Canada Labour Code already provides for officer and director liability. The code provides that directors and officers of corporations found guilty of an offence are to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $100,000. In addition part II provides for the possibility of conviction on indictment for a fine not exceeding $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

We may quibble with whether those are adequate sanctions in circumstances such as the Westray disaster, but it is not as if the legislation in Canada is silent on the matter. It clearly provides for director liability. I wish to make a distinction here between director liability which is somewhat frequently removed from the incident itself and the tests that usually go on with criminal liability where the individual has to have actually done the action in order to be liable.

If the crown chose not to proceed by way of the Canada Labour Code for whatever reason, is there some basis for the charge under the code as it presently exists? Criminal negligence is defined in section 219 of the Criminal Code: “Everyone is criminally negligent who in doing anything or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. I will repeat for the purposes of emphasis “in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”.

I am not as familiar with the facts of the Westray disaster as is my hon. friend. However from what I do know of the Westray disaster, that appears to me to be the charge which a crown attorney might reasonably lay in the circumstances. If the facts established that the directors or officers showed a wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons and if the crown decided not proceed under the Canada Labour Code for whatever reason, I would have to question why we would want to amend the Criminal Code if that is present.

Section 220 concerns criminal negligence causing death: “Every person who by criminal negligence causes death of another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable”. In section 221: “Every person who by criminal negligence causes bodily harm to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years”.

I would submit there is adequate provision in the Criminal Code as it presently stands for liability of a director or an officer of a corporation who shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons. I am therefore in the situation of sympathizing with the issue that is raised by recommendation 73 in the inquiry, but I am hard pressed to know how the laws of Canada as they are presently written both in the Criminal Code and in the Canada Labour Code are inadequate to address the circumstances.

Failing the issue of being able to address how there is a deficiency, I cannot see how we could support the passage of this motion.

In summary may I say that I commend the hon. member for his response to a disaster in his community which has implications that are really only remotely understood by us. Having said that, I am at a loss to know how there is an inadequacy in the legislation, both in the Criminal Code and in the Canada Labour Code, which would not adequately respond to the issues.

Those are the issues I wanted to raise in response to the motion. I would find myself in difficulty in supporting the motion.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to speak to Private Member's Motion No. 455 which asks the government to amend the Criminal Code or other federal statutes to ensure that corporate executives and directors be held accountable for workplace safety.

This motion also asks the House to pay particular attention to recommendation 73 of the Nova Scotia Westray mine disaster inquiry. It calls on the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice to study the accountability of corporate executives and directors for wrongful or negligent acts. The recommendation asks for the amendment of legislation to be introduced as necessary to ensure the accountability of these executives and directors.

All Canadians know the solemn background to the introduction of this motion. The Westray mine disaster claimed the lives of 26 Canadian mine workers. These disasters are a devastating event for any mining community. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of the victims of the Westray disaster. It was a very sad event in our history.

We want to learn from this disaster and prevent or at least prepare for the next disaster. We want to establish lines of accountability. If we can prevent a tragedy, then we want to know who is responsible for not preventing one and what as a society we are going to do about it. That is the intent of the motion we are debating.

What is wrong with this motion is that it has deviated from the recommendation made by the Westray inquiry. The inquiry asked for the matter of accountability to be studied. The motion jumps to Criminal Code amendments. The NDP leader's Private Member's Bill C-468 is similar to what the present motion is asking us to do. This smacks of political opportunism to me.

The mistake in the motion is that it does not reflect what the commission of inquiry wanted and I think it is premature. Let us consider a few things that need to be examined and what this misdirected motion is missing.

We must consider the position of unions. What about union executive responsibility and accountability? What about shop stewards and their responsibility for on-site safety and health? What about the responsibility of federal and provincial labour inspectors? What about other government and ministerial responsibilities?

Would smaller companies be hindered or hurt if only the executives were held criminally accountable for an unsafe or hazardous worksite? On the other hand the government should protect our small businesses that are creating jobs and are the engines of our economy.

The crown in Nova Scotia currently has the power to prosecute negligent mine managers who are on-site and responsible. This is true across Canada. Yes we should study our laws and make them stronger if need be.

I contacted the B.C. Workers Compensation Board with respect to this motion. In British Columbia the Workers Compensation Act is being changed effective October 1, 1999. The changes include dealing with penalties for corporate directors whose companies are in violation of health and safety regulations. These changes come from recommendations made by the royal commission that studied the Workers Compensation Board in British Columbia. The commission recognized the need for personal responsibility under prescribed circumstances on the part of senior management in order to enhance workplace health and safety.

Recommendation No. 37 recommends that the province's occupational health and safety statute allow the occupational health and safety agency to apply to the courts to obtain an injunction. Until October 1, 1999 the Workers Compensation Act does not grant the board the authority to obtain an injunction when it feels that the health and safety of workers is not being looked after.

The power of getting such an injunction may be available through other legislation, but in British Columbia we felt it necessary to put the authority to get an injunction into the Workers Compensation Act.

Injunctions allow an agency to take prompt action to address potential or existing harm. They can be obtained quickly, often without advance notice. Injunctions allow us to rely on our courts for enforcement power. If the injunction is disobeyed, the breach can be converted into civil or criminal contempt proceedings. I believe this is what the current motion is trying to obtain.

Let us look closely at what prosecutions can be pursued. I quote from a document:

Prosecutions can occur when a recommendation for a more stringent sanction arises out of an accident rather than merely a hazardous situation.

Perhaps the greatest shortcoming with prosecution as an enforcement option has been the relatively high chance of acquittal.

Traditionally, the chances of an accused successfully defending an occupational health and safety prosecution and being acquitted have always been relatively good. Most prosecutions are against employers, and the low conviction rate reflects the fact that judges are not keen on convicting employers, except in cases where management has clearly been at fault ... (Fault) should not usually be the relevant legal criterion for deciding whether someone has breached an occupational health and safety statute. What sometimes happens in practice, however, is simply that the judges interpret the facts and the law in light of their own perceptions about the value of health and safety prosecutions.

Another disadvantage from a compliance perspective is that judges can choose to impose fines and/or imprisonment that falls short of the maximum a statute might permit. In addition, prosecutions do not provide a direct remedy for affected workers.

The strength of prosecution as an enforcement option is that a monetary penalty and/or a term of imprisonment can make a very strong impression on any offender, employer and worker alike, and send a strong message of deterrence. In addition, the stigma associated with prosecution can have a profound effect on a corporate or non-corporate employer concerned with its public image. This effect may extend beyond that realized by the financial penalty.

The Liberals did not listen to the Krever commission of inquiry into the tainted blood tragedy in Canada. The commission of inquiry on aboriginals in Canada is being ignored or toyed with by the Liberals. The Liberals stopped the Somalia inquiry dead in its tracks. There the people of Nova Scotia and all other Canadians know that the Liberals will not do anything about the recommendations of the Westray mine disaster inquiry.

In conclusion, I support the recommendations of the Westray mine disaster inquiry and I urge the government to conduct a study as recommended.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that the government is committed to promoting the fundamental right of Canadians to a safe and healthy work environment and to considering new ideas and suggestions which would help us to meet those commitments.

The motion being presented is certainly worthy of note and interesting to consider. I am therefore pleased to join this debate and to share some of my thoughts on the motion and the amendment before the House.

From the tone of the debate on this motion so far, it seems that members on all sides of the House share a concern for Canadian workers. We know that to be true. Certainly it is an important issue that we on the government side share. We also share a desire to see safer and healthier workplaces. We want to reduce the cost of workplace accidents and illness in both human and economic terms.

Every year approximately 800,000 workers are injured or contract illnesses while doing their jobs. Millions of work days are lost because of illness or injury. Accordingly the cost to the Canadian economy runs to an estimated $10 billion annually. There is no question in both human and economic terms these costs are too high and require our attention.

While we may be in accord on the desire for change, we need to look at possible solutions a little more carefully. For example, Motion No. 455 asks that we amend the appropriate federal statutes including the Criminal Code. This is easier said than done. Proposals to amend federal statutes relating to labour matters can have far-reaching implications and we need to look more carefully at them.

It is true that it is within federal power to create new offences under the Criminal Code, but we have to be cognizant of the fact that such changes could infringe on the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories to legislate in areas of workplace safety.

Members of the House are well aware of the sensitivity of federal-provincial concerns in areas of economic and social policy. I dare say we would not want to initiate any changes to federal legislation which would have an unattended impact. In this case, for example, while the intent of the motion is one thing, the impact of the changes it proposes is quite another.

Since amendments to the Criminal Code that have implications for provincial labour jurisdiction would require the support of the provinces and territories, we need to know how we to obtain that kind of support. We need to study this aspect very carefully.

To start with, we need to look at what legislation is already in place such as under the Canada Labour Code, for example. As hon. members will recall, legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the federal jurisdiction is part of the Canada Labour Code.

The code covers a broad range of industries under federal jurisdiction. The best examples are railways, highway transport, telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and television broadcasting, banks, and a few other areas. In addition, the code covers employees of the federal public service including employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code is of particular interest to us because it deals with occupational health and safety. It is under part II that we already have legislation in place to deal with workplace safety, at least in the federal jurisdiction. This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.

In other words, part II of the existing Canada Labour Code already includes provisions for standards for workplace safety as well as sanctions and penalties for those who are found to be in contravention of the code.

As we consider this issue it is very important to look at what is already in the Canada Labour Code, specifically part II of that code. Even if we eventually look to solutions beyond the Canada Labour Code, we will need to keep in mind the three principles set out in the code as fundamental rights of workers.

These are the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace, the right to participate in identifying and resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that a situation constitutes a danger to him or her or to another employee.

The code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees to follow. Part II of the labour code says that corporate executives and directors will be held accountable if these standards are not met. If company directors and officers are found guilty of an offence under the labour code, they will be liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. For a conviction on indictment the labour code calls for a fine of up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term of up to two years.

For the federal jurisdiction we already have sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in cases of negligence or wrongdoing. Although we have legislation in place under the Canada Labour Code, we must recognize that it does not cover the majority of workers in Canada. It only covers those who fall under federal jurisdiction.

It is fair to say that we have more work to do in the area of legislating workplace safety. Instead of referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights as proposed by the member, I would prefer to see the matter referred to the Minister of Justice for further study. In other words, I cannot support the Motion No. 455 as proposed and I think the majority of Canadians in reviewing this matter would agree with my position.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate a bit on something my colleague from South Shore alluded to earlier when he talked about the initiative we are discussing tonight. We are discussing a motion that was put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. With reference to the initiative by the New Democratic Party, I would like to declare that our initiative is of a legal nature. Although the motion will hopefully gain the willingness of the House, our initiative provides the legal means to do so.

When it comes to defining in one crystal clear example the principle which underlines this motion, the principle is clear in the Westray mine disaster of 1992. Seven years ago more than two dozen men went to work and died there. They died horrible deaths, deaths made more terrible because they were completely unnecessary and made more tragic because those men died, according to what some believe, to boost the company's profits.

In the aftermath of the disaster fingers were pointed by all sides, including the accusation that the men who died were found responsible for their deaths. The commission rejected that assertation, as well it should have, and pointed the finger of blame at a culture of greed which permeated the company. Ignoring the dangerous nature of the business, the owners tried to extract every cent they could from a workforce desperate for work, from a community where any job would receive 100 applications. I am providing these details because I believe they are critical to achieving an understanding of what truly occurred in May 1992.

I will always be the first to stand in support of good business, large or small, that treats its workers with dignity and respect. What I aim to do here is to expand the definition of a successful corporation to make it include the successful and safe guidance of any workforce through their working lives.

I believe this motion is based on one of the strongest foundations of our law which states that we are all responsible for our actions.

In recent years this basic rule of law has been stretched, twisted and manipulated. Some would say we must remember that those who stretch, twist and manipulate the law are individuals who make choices, who decide they will overlook flaws in their equipment, who will cut back on safety training, and who will knowingly send their workers into dangerous environments. Those individuals should be held accountable for those choices.

In the closing years of this millennium we have finally reached the stage of evolution in our civilization where we no longer allow the excuse of I was just following orders to stand as a valid defence for knowingly causing harm to others. When it comes to the behaviour of our military and our government officials, we now expect that every individual will make a moral decision based not on what they have been told but on what they know to be the difference between right and wrong.

We hope the motion will expand this welcome step forward and could possibly be a prelude to the legal initiative that has been put forth by the New Democratic Party, so that in the future it will not be possible for a mine manager to say that the company president forced him to order the alteration of safety reports or for his CEO to be protected from blame.

In addition to responsibility equality is a foundation stone of society. We may never achieve it but it remains a goal, an ideal toward which we all strive. By allowing one significant segment of our society to remain protected from our law is a flagrant violation of the principle of equality. Is a violation easily healed, a problem easily solved?

As I have said before, my party is not seeking a witch hunt as we have no desire to increase the cost of doing business. We all hope to achieve by the passage of the motion an increase in profitability as a small number of unscrupulous firms that keep their prices artificially low by exposing their workers to danger are forced from the market. That opens the way for responsible firms to increase their competitiveness and to increase not only their bottom lines but the standard of living of their workers, their communities and their country.

Whenever this measure is discussed or contemplated by anyone in the House, I hope the memory of those 26 men who died seven years ago in Nova Scotia will stay with them. There are those citizens and business people who can and do know what it takes to run a responsible and safe enterprise and who put those beliefs into practice every day.

As a parliament we have a responsibility to set the moral course for our government. When it comes to the motion before us I urge all members to support it for success and decency and to reject those who would cover their failures with the bodies of their workers.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 455. The motion says that we should amend federal statutes, including the Criminal Code, in order to address the issue of accountability and liability for safety in the workplace in relation to recommendation 73 of the public inquiry of the province of Nova Scotia into the Westray disaster.

I doubt if anyone in the House would not share the member's concern for the victims and for the families of the victims, those who were so tragically affected by the Westray disaster.

The Westray disaster was a tragedy that captured the attention of the whole nation. Although it happened some time ago it remains in our minds and underlines the need for all of us in public office to be sensitive to the concerns of workers and to the need to ensure safe and secure workplaces. Workers are the backbone of our economy. Fatalities, injuries and illnesses in the workplace cause them and their families to suffer both in human terms and economically.

The cost of workplace accidents is high. It is estimated that on top of all human costs, the dollar costs to our economy are as much as $10 million a year. These costs are too high and we need to look at ways to bring them down.

I commend the member opposite for introducing the motion. It provides us with an opportunity to look at the situation of workplace safety in Canada and to consider what needs to be done by the federal government to ensure safe and healthy workplaces for Canadians.

The motion proposes that we need a new legislative approach to workplace safety. Legislation is clearly one option, but so is education. There are many experts in the field of occupational health and safety who feel that prevention through education and training is every bit as important as intervention through legislation. These people understand the value of promoting education and training in order to reduce the incidence of illness and accidents in the workplace.

The national day of mourning was held last April, for example, and we asked Canadians to remember workers who were killed or injured as a result of occupational accidents or illnesses. The Canadian flag was flown at half-mast on Parliament Hill in memory of all those workers who lost their lives or who were injured on the job.

In addition, governments and organizations throughout North America annually co-operate to hold North American occupational safety and health week. This year North American occupational safety and health week was marked from May 17 to 23. As part of this occasion the Government of Canada joined with the governments of the United States and Mexico to promote awareness of workplace safety throughout North America.

In addition, Canadian organizations, such as the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health, are working in partnership with the federal government and others in Canadian society to promote safe work practices. These organizations produce excellent material to help labour, business, governments and others interested in occupational health and safety to learn about working together to identify and implement new approaches to promote workplace safety. The educational information is distributed broadly to employers and employees. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health has also created a very useful website that has gained an international reputation.

The labour program is very supportive of these activities. Indeed, for the last several years the labour program has played a leading role in emphasizing education and awareness as a means of promoting better workplace safety.

As hon. members can see, there is a wide variety of initiatives under way under the leadership of Canada's Minister of Labour, initiatives that provide useful information and focus the attention of employers, employees and the general public on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace through education and awareness. Although the motion does not talk about the use of information to create safer work environments, it is important to keep in mind that education and awareness are also important aspects of our existing approach to promote workplace safety.

The second part of the approach, of course, is legislation. It was some 30 years ago that the federal government developed the occupational safety and health legislation to cover employees and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Over the years federal legislation and regulations relating to occupational health and safety have been consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. As we consider the motion, we also need to consider what is in place under the Canada Labour Code, especially under Part II of the code. Part II of the code concerns occupational safety and health for employees working in organizations under federal jurisdiction.

The Canada Labour Code establishes three fundamental rights for workers. First, the right to know about unsafe conditions. Second, the right to participate in workplace decisions relating to safety. Third, the right to refuse dangerous work. The code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees.

Federal government inspectors visit workplaces, respond to complaints, conduct investigations, prohibit access to workplaces deemed hazardous and can impose fines for non-compliance. If company directors and officers are found guilty of an offence under the labour code, they will be liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. For a conviction on indictment, the labour code calls for a fine of up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term of up two years.

In other words, with the Canada Labour Code we already have a model in place to cover the enforcement of safety in the workplace. The problem is that the Canada Labour Code covers only those employees who are working in industries or organizations that are subject to federal legislation. That is only a small part of the working population in Canada.

While we have an effective model in the Canada Labour Code, it does not cover the whole population of workers, most of whom are under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

The difficulty with the idea of extending the federal model to include workers outside the federal jurisdiction is that constitutionally workplace safety is also a provincial concern. Any moves at the federal level to encroach on provincial or territorial legislative turf on workers' rights might not be viewed positively by those other levels of government. Amending the Criminal Code, for example, as the motion proposes, would clearly run into this roadblock.

We have to find an approach that would accommodate federal-provincial interests and that would also combine the educational and legislative approaches.

With respect to the question of studying the liability of corporate executives and directors, recommendation 73 of the province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray disaster specifically recommended that the federal government, through the Department of Justice, institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors. Although the member is well intended, the Westray report recommended that the Department of Justice review this.

I know this is a contentious area. I myself have a private member's bill which suggests that under the Canada Business Corporations Act directors be allowed the defence of due diligence in the conduct of their activities. Therefore, the issue does require further study, not by a parliamentary committee as proposed by the amendment to Motion No. 455, but instead by the Minister of Justice as recommended by the Westray inquiry report.

Thus, while I support the idea of a study I do not support the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that should distress every single Canadian, especially those in British Columbia and those affected by the fishing industry.

Last week I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the Pacific salmon treaty and, with the secret negotiations that he has ongoing with the Alaskans and the Americans, will it be in the best interest of British Columbians. His answer was, “Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely”.

Indications are that the minister is not coming fully clean on this particular treaty, and here are the reasons.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is negotiating a secret deal on the Pacific salmon treaty without consulting the major stakeholders in British Columbia, without the advice of the Government of British Columbia, without the advice of the Coastal Communities Network, without the advice of the UFAWU, without the advice of the environmental groups which have spent so much time and effort in conserving and protecting these very precious stocks.

The fact that this minister is in secret negotiations tells a lot of Canadians, especially British Columbians, that they should be very nervous. Not one single member of parliament on the Liberal government side or on the opposition side has been consulted on this treaty whatsoever.

The Coastal Communities Network has asked time and time again that before any treaty process is settled or signed there be open and transparent hearings, at least in committee, as to exactly what should be in the treaty.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated to a Times columnist in Victoria on May 29, just a few days ago: “I asked Dennis Streifel”, who is the Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia, “for the provincial position back in January. I repeated that request 10 days ago and I am still waiting for it”.

The Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia, Mr. Streifel, did indeed send the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans his response months ago and back on May 3 the Minister of Fisheries for British Columbia sent the federal fisheries minister copies and indications of exactly what the Government of British Columbia wants to see in this particular treaty. Again the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans turned another blank eye and another deaf ear to the request.

The Coastal Communities Network has sent pages and pages of requests, documents and information that the government could use in its negotiations, which has been ignored and probably not even read.

It is an absolute outrage that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada can turn around and make a secret deal that is so very vital to British Columbians and all Canadians. Salmon stocks on the west coast are a common property resource.

It is true that the federal government, along with the provincial government and many other stakeholders, have worked tirelessly over the last few years to preserve and protect those stocks. They certainly cannot stand around and allow the federal government to give away fish for fish.

One of the most important principles of previous treaties signed with the Americans, with Strangway and Ruckelshaus and all of those other deals, is the fact that British Columbian spawned fish belong first to British Columbia. When they come back they belong to British Columbia.

We seem to have a deal where the minister apparently will trade off one for one on the fish. That means the Alaskans will obtain more fish than British Columbians. That goes against the three treaties that were signed. It goes against the principle of equity. I ask the parliamentary secretary how he can stand in the House to defend that position when the minister is indicating that he will give away our fish stocks. I cannot wait for his answer.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked at the beginning of his remarks about distress. What is distressing is the kind of games that the B.C. government has been playing over this particular issue.

It is interesting that the member opposite talks about secrecy, yet he elaborates constantly on unfounded rumours. The time for rhetoric is past. That is why the minister is negotiating so intently. The time for rhetoric is past and the time for getting the job done is now. It is time to settle. It is time to negotiate a Pacific salmon treaty that builds for the future, in the interests of the fishery, the coastal communities, the province of B.C. and all of Canada.

Let us turn to the facts for a moment. The lack of agreement under the Pacific salmon treaty has been a concern for all those who care about salmon. We did not reach an agreement last year with Alaska. However, interim agreements with the state of Washington in 1998 resulted in a 75% reduction of their harvest of our threatened Thompson River coho. Clearly, co-operation with the United States is a crucial issue to ensure a future for the salmon resource.

Canada's goal has been to take our domestic approach to put the fish first and translate it into new arrangements under the Pacific salmon treaty.

The minister is encouraged to report that the talks are proceeding well. They are being conducted on a government-to-government basis, as recommended by the special advisers. In these discussions we have been guided by three objectives. First, to adopt more effective conservation regimes that put the needs of fish first. Second, to restrict the interception of Canadian bound salmon and move fish to Canada. Three, to secure improved bilateral co-operation on science and salmon management.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to address again an issue that should come as a real shock to most Canadians.

The Liberal government, through Canada's Corrections and Conditional Release Act, through the CSC, has this insidious plan that it wants to release 50% of the inmate population by the year 2000.

We have been looking at this issue at the justice committee. We had the privilege of having the CSC commissioner, Ole Ingstrup, bless us with his presence the other day. He still denies that this is even a fact.

This is absolutely shocking. This is a malodorous plan that was hoisted upon an unsuspecting public some time ago. If this is allowed to happen, once again the Canadian public will be affected by this. It will be an absolute disgrace if this is allowed to happen.

We know that there have been internal memos circulated by CSC officials setting out specifically that there are targets. The unfortunate language used was that there are numerical goals, balanced distribution, a reintegration agenda, plan or process, achievable numbers, release objectives, equalization between institution and community population, and agreed upon goals. They are very careful never to use the word quotas, though, but we do know that a quota is a quota is a quota.

Nowhere in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act does it ever talk about numerical goals, targets or redistribution. Yet this is the type of language that very clearly sets out this insidious plan.

The commissioner was very reluctant to admit that this has happened. Yet it is very clear that there was a plan to open the doors of the jails and let 50% of the inmate population back out on to the street without following the proper process that is put in place to determine the criteria as to whether inmates should be released.

Another very disturbing point about it is that it is completely contrary to law. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever that it is even happening, although in fact this documentation clearly shows that there has been directions given to corrections and conditional release officials. There is obviously a disincentive for wardens not to follow the directives which have come from deputy commissioners such as Brendan Reynolds in Ontario.

There are even specific numbers referenced for the province of Ontario: 660 inmates are to be released by December 31, 1999. It is absolutely unbelievable that this could be going on at a time when our law enforcement community is working harder and harder with less resources, at a time when the public confidence is perhaps at an all time low in our justice system. Yet this plan is hatched in a very secretive way.

When confronted with irrefutable evidence that these statistics are referenced in internal documents, the commissioner simply says unfortunate language was used. There is a complete denial on behalf of the solicitor general's department that it was even happening.

Although their knuckles have been rapped and this has been exposed for what it was, which is an absolute sham, the government is now saying it never happened and that it was not in place at all. I suspect the government will slink away with its tail between its legs and simply proceed in perhaps some other fashion.

This is an extremely dangerous initiative. What has taken place should come as a great shock to anybody who is working currently in corrections.

There is absolutely no doubt that this plan was afoot. The parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general will rise shortly and tell us that it was not happening. We know it was happening. Thankfully, through the diligence of the opposition, we have exposed it. Through the diligence of Ontario victims services, it has been exposed for what it was. We hope it will be changed. We do not want to see it proceeding any further.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague referred to things that he called distressing.

What I found particularly distressing is seeing that my colleague, who got the answers he was seeking from all those he put the questions to, is back in the House today putting the same questions, because what interests him is not the content of the response, but rather the show he wants to put on in the House.

He has put his question to the current solicitor general and his predecessor. He has put his question to the commissioner of correctional services and to me as parliamentary secretary. Everyone gave him the same answer.

Everyone tried to explain to him, and I will do so again, not for him, because he does not need it, but for the public—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

—if he allows me to speak.

For the public, I would explain just what is happening.

At the moment, considerable effort, and this is recognized by the auditor general in his report, is going into improving the way inmates to be paroled will be reintegrated into society. All this effort is based on very solid programs, which are science based. The programs are not extemporaneous.

The commissioner of correctional services referred to 16 criteria that ought to be used to evaluate the way inmates will be paroled and so on.

There are no quotas. There have never been quotas. There will never be quotas. All that for one very simple reason: what counts first and foremost is not the quota figures, but public safety. He does not have exclusive prerogative on public safety.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 23, the day after Earth Day, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment a question about government initiatives to keep the earth a healthy place for all to live.

Over 100 years ago the idea of protecting the environment simply did not exist. Technology was advancing rapidly and North American factories were booming. We did not know to what extent we were harming the environment, the ozone layers, the water and the wildlife. We now know that such careless activity can ruin our beautiful planet.

Our thinking patterns have evolved considerably in the last century in various fields including the environment, but we still need to go further. With the new millennium around the corner we must continue to think seriously about this important issue. This is obviously very important for future generations.

Canadians think this is an important issue. I do as well. I think all members do. As the Minister of the Environment indicated in an interview recently, polls suggested over 90% of Canadians are concerned enough about the environment to do something economically to change it or to change their lifestyles to better the situation.

The environment is still a top of the mind issue for Canadians. I would argue that it is or should be top of the mind around the world. Canadians and other global citizens want, need and expect a strong commitment to environmental protection.

Many studies have shown that our health is directly linked to the quality of our water, our soil and our air. We must work hard to ensure that these resources stay clean for all humans. Canada already has a great reputation for being a leading country when it comes to the environment. We are known across the world as producers of safe, healthy and nutritious food. Our collective care about the safety of our food has made Canada among the safest producers in the world. We must continue to improve and modernize the methods we use.

Furthermore, Canada has a large portion of the world's freshwater. We work hard to keep this water clean, but once again we must continue to advance these efforts to ensure that our lakes and rivers can continue to be used by our children and generations to follow.

Government must take action in this area. We know the environment is very precious to all. It is a necessity for human life. Too many species now reach extinction every day. Too much air, water and soil is being polluted. Although Canada is one of the world's leaders in this area we need to continue to work hard at saving and protecting the environment.

Furthermore, our government must work to involve other countries in the struggle to save the earth. The world sees Canada as a protector of human rights and a leader in finding solutions to problems affecting other lives. We need to use this kind of approach in the environmental area again.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to take this opportunity to explain to all of us what the government is doing to ensure that the earth's environment is being protected, especially as it relates to water. What is Canada doing and what will we continue to do to make sure the earth will remain a beautiful, clean and healthy place for all of us to live?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, freshwater is an essential element of the planet's life support system and one that we cannot take for granted.

The member for Waterloo—Wellington and all Canadians are concerned about the long term security of freshwater. They want governments to act, to conserve and to protect this precious resource. As the member knows, the government is acting to protect this precious resource.

On February 10 the government announced its strategy to prohibit bulk removals of freshwater, including removals for the purpose of export from all major drainage basins in Canada.

The strategy respects the primary responsibility of the provinces for freshwater management and the ecological integrity of drainage basins. It is consistent with our international trade obligations. The strategy lays the groundwork for Canada-wide protection of its freshwater resources. Progress on that federal strategy has been significant.

Canadians can be reassured that the federal Minister of the Environment is working diligently with her provincial and territorial colleagues to achieve a Canada-wide prohibition of bulk water removals from the major drainage basins in Canada.

As the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington noted, ground water is a very important issue for Canadians and the government. Provinces are responsible for the management and protection of ground water. The federal government is committed to working with all provinces and territories to protect all waters in a comprehensive way.

In addition, I inform the hon. member that the federal government continues to focus its efforts on contamination research and pollution mitigation.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked the Minister for International Trade what he would be doing to consult Canadians concerning the upcoming World Trade Organization negotiations that will be taking place in Seattle some time in November of this year.

At that time he responded that he would be asking the foreign affairs and international trade committee to conduct a study in Canada to report to parliament concerning this and to report to him so that he would be in a better position to prepare Canada's negotiating position in respect of these important negotiations.

These negotiations will be important. Canada is a very open economy. It is a trading nation unlike many others. Something like 40% of our GDP is dependent on exports and something like over 30% is dependent upon imports. In some ways we are 70% dependent on trade in one way or another. Canadians are very knowledgeable in this area.

In the course of its travels across the country the committee had the opportunity to consult Canadians from all walks of life in such diverse areas as agriculture and the agri-food business with all its complexities and differences from different products that are sold and now manufactured into important exports, to the issue of tariffs and industry access in other countries and how we deal with our trading partners, to the new agenda that is there in trade and the problems in intellectual property. We have found in the course of those consultations that there is an extraordinary degree of expertise because Canadians are deeply involved in this area.

In addition, Canadians shared with us and with the committee their concerns about what is happening in the world trading situation. They shared with us their concerns that if trade is allowed to continue in a way where issues involving the environment, human rights, labour standards, or the guarantees of the diversity of culture are not addressed, there would be a real problem in the world. We would not be able to have a responsive trading system which would meet the needs of Canadians. As I said, they are aware of these issues. They are also aware that in many areas they are able to make a real contribution to these negotiations.

The minister is determined to consult Canadians, either through the committee process, through the SAGIT or through the important consultations with the provinces. I encourage the ministry to continue in this area to make information available, whether through the Internet or through traditional means, and to encourage the import of knowledgeable Canadians.

I appreciate if the parliamentary secretary would inform the House tonight on any other additional initiatives the minister intends to put into place to ensure that when we go into the negotiations in Seattle at the end of this year our negotiators are fully apprised of the rich diversity and important opinion we have available in the country.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the remarks of the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale. He can be assured that the minister in his capacity as chairman will be creating a considerable amount of work for the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.

I congratulate the member on his committee's work in the past. He has done his utmost to involve Canadians and to seek their advice. The minister certainly wants to encourage his continuing to do that in the future.

On March 12 it was stated in the House that the Government of Canada placed the utmost importance on public consultations. In Seattle later this year the 135 members of the World Trade Organization will launch another round of trade negotiations. At a minimum it will address the agriculture and service sectors. These are sectors are very important to the Canadian economy.

To prepare for this round, the government believes it is important to hear from civil society: Canadians, non-government organizations, business and industry groups as well as the provinces.

Consultations are well underway. Two of our standing committees are involved. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has held consultations with agricultural groups. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has received many submissions and has held cross-country hearings.

On February 8 the Minister for International Trade launched the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade consultations. A notice was published in the Canada Gazette calling for submissions from Canadians. The department's website, www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca, also provides information on the next round of negotiations.

In addition, on February 17—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry but time has expired.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on May 11 I asked the environment minister to explain why the Canadian Environment Protection Act amendments proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development were being stripped.

I asked the minister to explain why the strong CEPA was being rejected by the Liberal cabinet after one of the lengthiest parliamentary reviews in history, a review that provided a rare opportunity to improve the environmental standards that protect the Canadian public and our environment.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Bill C-32, provides the cornerstone for environmental protection in Canada. The legislation covers toxic substances, air and water pollution, biotechnology, ocean dumping, hazardous wastes, fuel standards, public participation, regulatory enforcement and other environmental matters.

The link between the environment and human health are well proven. The chemical contamination of our air, water and lands are the legacy from the past century. This parliamentary review was a chance to learn from the mistakes of this century and begin the next century with an improved protection law for Canadians.

Throughout the committee proceedings, environment and health groups presented irrefutable evidence and testimony that the legislation offered little, if any, protection for the environment and health of the country.

Point by point and clause by clause, improvements were made to the legislation. Committee members from the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Progressive Conservatives and some Liberal members initiated a comprehensive non-partisan effort to strengthen the environmental standards in Canada.

The bill, as amended by committee, presented an improvement in standards for our children and future generations. It is unfortunate that these democratic recommendations have been rejected by the Liberal cabinet and the Reform Party.

Under intense pressure from the industry lobbyists many improvements made to improve the Canadian Environmental Protection Act were reversed. A series of motions endorsed by industry lobbyists and proposed by the Liberal Party and the Reform Party removed virtually every committee improvement to the original legislation, including the following points that could have ensured environmental protection for this and future generations.

The first point was the loss of the phase-out consideration. A motion endorsed by the committee called for the phase out, the total elimination of the most persistent and bioaccumulative substances known to man. As of today, the total elimination of these chemicals will not be required in Canada. Only the virtual elimination of toxics substances is offered.

On Monday, I asked the Prime Minister why he, like environmental protection, was becoming a virtual Prime Minister. Virtual is not appreciated.

The second point was that Canadians had lost the basic essence of the precautionary principle. Before measures to protect the environment or human health can be taken, they must be proven to be cost effective. Strings are attached. For example, it was not cost effective to move sick children from living beside a toxic site in Sydney, Nova Scotia until toxic ooze entered their homes. It is not cost effective to clean up millions of tonnes of radioactive waste from leaking into Canada's fourth largest freshwater lake, the Great Bear Lake.

As the Liberal government promises Canadians that water quality is important, its actions say otherwise. It has watered down the environmental standards in Canada.

At a time when Canadians are increasingly concerned about biotechnology and asking for more information and transparency, the Liberal government has passed into law that decisions on biotechnology environment and health risks must be decided by the Liberal cabinet behind closed doors.

As I asked the environment minister, why does the industry wish list come first before children's health?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the industry wish list does not come first. Children's health comes first. Let us get some facts straight about what Bill C-32 really does.

Bill C-32 is on the leading edge of environmental protection legislation worldwide. It focuses on pollution prevention, which is the most effective means of protecting our environment and the health of Canadians including our children.

Bill C-32 strengthens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It enhances our authority to take action to protect the environment and human health. Our ability to go after polluters will be strengthened. The bill puts the environment and the health of Canadians first by requiring that we follow the precautionary principle.

Bill C-32 demands that the government examine all 23,000 substances in Canada to assess the risks they pose to the environment and to the health of Canadians including children. The bill places new deadlines for taking action where we identify concerns. It provides us with the authority to virtually eliminate the most dangerous toxic substances.

The member is aware that hormone disrupting substances are an emerging concern for the health of Canadians. Bill C-32 is the only legislation in the world that requires that research be done on those substances. This research will provide the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health with the information needed to take action to protect our children.

Bill C-32 is a win for the environment, a win for the Canadian public and a win for the health of Canadians including our children. The member opposite should be applauding this leading legislation.