Debates of April 25th, 1996

Budget Implementation Act, 1996

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

You see, Mr. Speaker, I guess good news hurts. I continue with more good news on the budget. Our balanced and fair approach has to be recognized, a far cry from what we have been hearing over there of let us get that budget down to zero, and the sooner the better.

I have asked the member for Wild Rose what he would cut. What social programs would have to suffer as a result of their mad desire to reduce deficit and thereby the national debt to zero? Canadians from coast to coast would endure pain never felt before if those

kind of programs were implemented to reduce the deficit in an unfair and callous way. There is no question about that.

What else does the budget do? What did the member for Hamilton West and the majority of members on this side of the House vote for in the budget? How about no tax increases of any kind? What about a secure, stable, growing system of federal support for medicare? Medicare, I say to the hon. member opposite.

The provinces will receive post-secondary education and social assistance through the Canada health and social transfers. There will be no further cuts in transfers to the provinces. We have announced a firm funding commitment for a five-year period beginning 1998-99.

Do colleagues on this side remember when we were in opposition how the Tory government would make its promises and then make adjustments in the following budget and in the budget after that? There could be no opportunity for future planning for any of these organizations because they did not know what the federal budget would look like from year to year.

We will change that. That is a promise we made. They will have the opportunity to see a commitment for stable and firm funding for a five-year period, which will enable them to make their plans. For the first two years of the CHST it will remain constant at $25.1 billion. For the next three years it will increase.

What about restoring confidence in the old age security system by creating a seniors benefit designed to help those most in need? That was a government promise. That is another reason the member for Hamilton West voted for the budget. As promised, seniors will continue to receive the benefits they now receive, despite the crude and scaremongering remarks made by members of the third party during question period on this day.

I voted for jobs and growth. We have allocated money for new investment in three priority areas, one of which is youth, I remind the hon. member for Wild Rose. He was up on his feet saying: "We are not doing anything for youth. I am not sure what we are not doing, but we are not doing anything". We are doing things for youth.

Areas critical to future jobs and growth are technology and trade. The hon. member for Wild Rose was complaining about that, but it is there in the budget.

What about the provision of an additional $165 million over three years to help students and families with increased costs of education?

It is unfortunate the hon. member opposite says government members are doing this in a pompous fashion. Maybe our chests are sticking out a bit because we are proud of what we are doing on this side. We are actually accomplishing things and meeting goals we promised we would meet when we ran in the 1993 election. With a book in hand we said this is what we promise to do. The majority of those promises will be met. We will be able to go door to door in an election campaign and say this is what we promised to do.

I know the media will be out there. It will not outline our accomplishments, maybe comparing the accomplishments of this government with the last. It will not say this is how much the government has done. The media will see the glass not as half full but as half empty. It will recognize the 10 per cent or less the government did not do. That is a crying shame.

Canadians are winning. It is a Team Canada approach. It will happen. It will happen now. We are proud of that and we are proud of the budget.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk briefly if I may about our institutions and democracy as well, which have just become much less credible.

All these government members did when in opposition was condemn the GST. They coined words, lashed out against it, but not only did they not scrap it, they are now harmonizing it and creating inequities between the provinces in the process.

I had prepared a long speech. Unfortunately, I have only two minutes left. Let me just tell you that I find the attitude taken by the government in this debate most regrettable. It will do considerable harm to ours institutions' and our democracy's credibility.

Mr. Speaker, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word "That" the following:

"as promised before and after the October 1993 federal election".

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The amendment to the amendment is in order. When we resume debate, we will proceed to the next stage and consider the amendment to the amendment, as moved by the hon. member for Longueuil.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Day Of Mourning

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for those killed in the workplace, a policy that is permitted under paragraph 13(d) of the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present for debate Motion No. 73 which calls on the House to express its will in support of flying the flag on Parliament Hill at half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate a national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace.

I point out that this important day, April 28, is only three days away. I cannot think of a better opportunity for parliamentarians to see immediate and direct results of our work here in this Chamber. Should we agree today that the flag should be flown at half mast then this weekend it is possible that our will shall be done.

I do not have to tell any member of the House that this is a very serious issue. Deaths in Canada from traumatic injury in the workplace are approximately 1,000 every year. If the number of deaths which occur from industrial diseases are added in, which by the way are not measured by Statistics Canada or Labour Canada, then the number of deaths jump to between 6,000 and 10,000 a year.

On the job injuries recorded by provincial workers compensation boards run between 80,000 to 100,000 a year. Of course the numbers do fluctuate from year to year. They are probably dropping right now, not because the workplace is any safer but rather because of the general drop in employment.

For all intents and purposes, on average one Canadian worker out of every thirteen is injured at work. Unfortunately, close to 17,000 workers between the ages of 15 and 19 are injured each year. Young people within our economy who we expect so much of in the future are finding themselves injured in the workplace due to circumstances beyond their control.

We have to understand that worker health and safety means money to the economy and our communities. Time lost injuries rose 1.4 per cent from 1993 to 1994. At the same time, Canadian workers were increasing the number of hours they were on the job. Experts tell us that longer hours lead directly to deteriorating safety standards.

This even is noticeable on the farm where many farm safety programs are run every year to alert people to the fact that long hours during seeding and harvest can sometimes lead to injuries in that workplace. Obviously the experience there carries over into the industrial workplace as well.

In 1993, workers compensation boards in Canada paid out $5.2 billion in benefits. That shows this means money. With the addition of indirect costs, such as training replacement workers when a worker has been killed or injured on the job, loss of productivity, damage to equipment and materials and lowered morale, the annual total cost of occupation injuries to the Canadian economy could be closer to $10.5 billion every year.

Members should recall that April 28 is already the national day of mourning. Royal assent of this act of Parliament took place in February 1991. Members will realize that I am not asking for April 28 to be declared a national day of mourning. It has already been declared a national day of mourning by Parliament. I am simply asking that in recognition of the day that the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half mast on April 28.

For the last six years there have been some attempts to have the flag on this building lowered to half mast to ensure that there is a visual representation of this important day. Over the years there has been a small problem in achieving that goal and that is why this motion is before us today.

Just to back up for a moment, we should thank a former NDP member of Parliament, Mr. Rod Murphy of Manitoba, whose private member's bill did lead us to this official declaration of a day of mourning. Mr. Murphy worked very hard to get this legislation passed in 1991. Now that it has been passed, we have the responsibility and obligation to take the inevitable next step.

I also want to mention that April 28 was chosen as the day of remembrance because it was the day that third reading took place for the first comprehensive workers compensation act in Canada. That first workers compensation act was proclaimed in Ontario on April 28, 1914.

The movement toward the official national declaration began in 1984 when on behalf of all Canadian workers, the Canadian Labour Congress executive council formalized the matter and began to work toward the national declaration which was finally achieved in 1991.

The aim of the day of mourning is to remember our commitment to fight for those in the workplace, as well as to mourn for those who have died.

It should be noted that the reason for this motion today is that despite the intention of Parliament to recognize the importance of the day, those who interpret the rules or protocol for flying the flag tell us that it cannot be flown at half mast unless we specifically ask for it.

I researched the issue and studied it closely. I have looked at the official protocol for flying the flag and discovered that according to the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada, the flag can be lowered to half mast if we collectively ask for it to be done.

Let me just read from the protocol rules so that all members of the Chamber and the public watching will know exactly what I mean. Originally published by the Department of the Secretary of State, the document is called "General Rules for Flying and Displaying the Canadian Flag and other Flags in Canada" .With regard to half masting, section 13(a) of the protocol reads in part: "subject to (c) and (e) or special instructions listed under (d)"-which I will come to in a moment-"the flag on the Peace Tower of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa is flown at half mast on the death of-". The protocol goes on to list a number of individuals for whom the flag can be flown at half mast, for example, the death of the sovereign or a member of the royal family, the Governor General, a member of the Senate or a member of the House of Commons, et cetera.

However, section 13(d) of the protocol says: "Flags flown at federal buildings and other locations are also half masted subject to special instructions on the death of-some other person whom it is desired to honour". That is the specific section I refer to in the motion before us.

The key words are the flag can be flown at half mast "on the death of some other person whom it is desired to honour". We in this Chamber would be proclaiming that "some other person" could refer to those who were killed in the workplace.

Therefore, I ask that Parliament recognize this important distinction. If the Parliament of today agrees, we would have a declaration which would result in a visible illustration of our feelings.

There are many examples throughout the country of how worker health and safety has been overlooked or abused. It is very important that as members of Parliament we express the feeling both verbally and visually that lack of worker health and safety protocol can no longer be condoned.

In this regard I have also followed the public inquiry into the the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia. With every news report of that inquiry, my resolve to deal with this issue increased. The Westray story shows us in a most unfortunate but dramatic way that everything the deregulators and the right wing in this country tell us about business can result in loss of life.

When an industry is deregulated and the people responsible do not take these matters seriously and do not act quickly on health and safety issues, people in this country can die. In fact, they have died. As those numbers at the beginning of my presentation today indicate, too many workers in Canada lose their lives in the workplace doing the jobs that we want to have done because they increase the productivity of our economy.

I look at other news and view the world around me with this in mind. I cannot help but notice a lot of other things that affect this issue. I see in the quest for deficit reduction and in reaching international trade agreements, a constant move toward less government regulation, less involvement of government inspectors within workplaces and less enforcement.

Many workers, hammered by the constant threat of job loss through plant closures, privatization, restructuring and layoffs, are reluctant to speak out against unsafe working conditions simply because they are afraid of losing their job or losing the jobs of all of the people they work with. We must ensure those people feel comfortable with saying this is an unsafe workplace, we have to do something about it. Government has to be prepared within a more regulated system to step in and say: "This has to be improved. We cannot afford to allow these unsafe conditions to continue".

In this regard, Canadians need to continue to work together to gain better protection in the law. We have to be better informed about what presently exists. I want to quote briefly from Rod Murphy's comments in the House of Commons in October 1990 when he first introduced the motion that made April 28 the national day of mourning. Mr. Murphy argued that economic progress in Canada could not be achieved at the expense of the health and safety of workers and that by recognizing the day of mourning we were reminding ourselves of that fact regularly.

Mr. Murphy said: "I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that we are no longer in the era of the beginning of the industrial revolution. We no longer accept sweatshops. We no longer accept child labour and we can no longer accept unsafe working conditions for our citizens. We must all take the steps we can to promote safer working environments. We believe that the health and welfare of our people matters a great deal to all of us. Let us ensure that on April 28 every year we prove that".

As members can see, it is not a day of celebration. It is a day to look around to see what we can do to ensure that those who have died or who have been injured in the workplace have taught us the appropriate lessons. What can we be doing to reduce the number of people who die or are injured in the workplace? What can we do to ensure that our workplaces are safer? We can answer those questions as we look at the workplace with those questions in mind.

If we know that April 28 is the day of mourning, we can think about it. If we do not know the significance of April 28, if we or our friends in the media notice that the flag on the Peace Tower is flying at half mast, we may ask why. By answering the question as to why the flag is flying at half mast, more people will understand and perhaps will be motivated by the purpose of the day of

mourning. That is why it is not only important but also useful to fly the flag at half mast this Sunday and on every April 28 thereafter.

In this regard and in concluding my remarks today, I ask members to give their complete attention to this issue and to support it if they can. Perhaps at the end of the allotted hour today we could by unanimous consent pass this motion as presented.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take part in the debate on the hon. member's motion calling on the government to lower the flag to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace. I say to the hon. member that the Government of Canada very much respects his views on this matter and fully acknowledges that workplace deaths and injuries are a senseless tragedy. I personally congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

Having said that, the government shows considerable compassion and concern for the health and safety of Canadian workers. There is considerable evidence to that effect. Our federal occupational safety and health regulations and those of our provincial and territorial colleagues are among some of the very best in the world.

Because of those regulations, Canada is highly regarded in the international community. Other nations have drawn on our expertise to develop their own safety and health regimes. We can attribute a good deal of this success to our approach, which is based upon the internal responsibility system. It is a regulatory framework similar to provisions contained in the International Labour Organization convention 155 which deals with OSH regulations.

This system recognizes that an employer has the right to manage his or her enterprise in an effective manner. At the same the employer has the responsibility to protect the safety and health of his or her workers. The internal responsibility system also recognizes three fundamental rights of workers. They are the right to participate, the right to know, and the right to refuse dangerous work. These longstanding concepts are the foundation upon which the occupational safety and health system is built.

It is not only the employers who have the responsibilities. Under the internal responsibility system Canadian employees have a responsibility. The responsibility is to follow safe work practices, to use personal protective equipment when required, and to report unsafe working conditions to their employers.

At the same time, the foundation upon which the system functions can be seen in the roles of federal, provincial and territorial authorities. It is their responsibility to help ensure compliance, to monitor and to audit how both parties fulfil their responsibilities and to address matters of non-compliance. In other words our occupational safety and health system has three partners: employers, employees and government. All three have rights as well as legal responsibilities to ensure a safe and healthy work environment.

Here is one fine example of what can be achieved when partners with a vested interest work together. Hon. members are likely familiar with the workplace hazardous materials information system, more commonly known as WHMIS. WHMIS is the result of collaboration between federal, provincial and territorial governments. It is the result of these governments consulting over several years with industry and labour and what a result it is.

I mentioned a moment ago that we are world leaders in occupational health and safety. WHMIS is the most advanced information system of its kind in the world. WHMIS has enabled us to establish a uniform identification system for dangerous ingredients in the workplace. It ensures that hazardous materials are adequately labelled by suppliers who must use standard criteria. That is not all. Through the communications component of WHMIS, workers learn how to handle hazardous materials safely and employers are given the information they need to train their workers in the proper use of hazardous materials.

For employees to participate effectively in developing clean and safe work environments, they must recognize what is going on, understand changes that occur and grasp a plethora of information. WHMIS plays an important role in achieving these objectives. It is an information system Canadians should be very proud of.

Nevertheless, just because we have developed a dependable occupational safety and health system, that does not mean we are resting on our laurels. Not at all. In its own way the government is fully supporting the noble intent of this worthy motion brought forward by the hon. member from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

We are currently reviewing the Canada Labour Code including part II which contains the federal occupational safety and health requirements. This comprehensive review began in 1993. A tripartite committee comprised of knowledgeable individuals from labour, management and government is considering more than 200 proposed changes brought forward by representatives from these three groups.

The overall aim of the review is to modernize the code and ensure its continuing efficiency. The context in which the review has been carried out reflects the changing role of government, that is, less intervention and more emphasis on the responsibility of employers and employees to manage safety and health measures in the workplace.

Again, the theme of productive partnerships runs through the review. Proposed changes will facilitate greater co-operation among partners in the workplace to resolve occupational safety and health issues. I am pleased to inform hon. members that the review is proceeding on schedule.

In summing up, I would like to outline for my hon. colleagues the strategic directions in which the federal government is now embarking with regard to occupational safety and health.

We are striving for greater co-operation among federal, provincial and territorial governments with regard to occupational safety and health.

On compliance, we are strengthening the internal responsibility system by promoting greater employer responsibility for occupational safety and health and ensuring that workers and their representatives are able to become more actively involved in protecting their safety and health.

On information, sound decisions can only be based on a clear understanding of the issues. We are supporting effective ways of providing OSH information, education and training to employers and employees. We are promoting greater awareness of occupational safety and health across the country.

It is important to monitor effectiveness so we are developing performance indicators to assess the outcome of implementing occupational safety and health standards nationwide. We are actively participating in improving the standardized framework to collect, to code and to classify information on workplace injuries and illnesses.

On partnerships, productive collaboration is the key to sound results. To that end we are striving to maximize the effective involvement of everyone concerned with occupational safety and health decision making. That includes the most efficient use of limited resources and valuable expertise.

I empathize completely with the tragedy of workers who have been killed or injured on the job. I commend the hon. member for bringing safety and health concerns to the attention of the House and the general public. I can think of no issue that rates greater concern than the safety and health of Canadian workers.

The federal government is committed to preventing occupational accidents and injuries and to strengthening internal responsibility within workplaces. I assure the hon. member that the federal government will continue to move in that direction.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the speech of our friend, the parliamentary secretary to the minister. I also want to make it clear that the Bloc Quebecois supports the hon. member's motion. It is not enough to wish to review the Canada Labour Code, as the government pledged to do. As a society, we must strive to achieve a balance between legislation and symbols.

The NDP member is asking us to remember that people who were working in a workplace that was not as safe as it should have been lost their lives.

Let me tell you about a personal experience. Before becoming an MP, I was executive assistant to the current Quebec minister of employment and consultation. Barely one week into my new job-and still very much excited about it-I met a mother whom I will never forget. I had never seen her before. She was in her early forties. A single mother, she told me that her 18 year old son-he could have been your son or the parliamentary secretary's son-was dead.

He had died at work. I clearly remember that he worked on Notre-Dame street, for a company that builds frames for paintings. He was driving a lift truck. This was in January. On the way to the shipping department, the lift truck tipped and the worker was killed.

This is not a rare occurrence. I got interested in this issue because, in Quebec, we asked for a coroner's inquest. An inquest was held and we realized that the whole issue of handling and driving lift trucks in the workplace needed to be regulated. If these regulations had been in place earlier, working conditions would have been safer and Mrs. Poulin's son would probably still be with us.

The parliamentary secretary says that the government will proceed with a review of the Labour Code. This is fine and we are looking forward to participating in this exercise. How should a potential revision of the Labour Code prevent us from making a highly symbolic gesture and expressing in very practical terms our solidarity with workers who have been killed on the job?

I think some effort must be made, mathematically, to try to understand this phenomenon, because, once again, it is not exceptional. It is all very well to be in a society with labour laws. It is all very well to be in a society with occupational health and safety committees. It is all very well to have part II of the Labour Code, which governs the whole area of occupational health and safety. The figures remain very disturbing indeed.

I looked for a more in-depth analysis of the type of accident and of the sort of people at risk or who lose their life at the workplace, and I came up with the following figures. Every five working days, in other words every week, in areas of federal jurisdiction, because this is what we are talking about, a worker dies. So, in this particular week, there is a statistical chance a worker who got up this morning and went to work will die, because he is in an unsafe workplace or because of a whole lot of other factors. However, the

fact remains that, in Canada, in 1996, once a week a worker will lose his life at the workplace.

Every two minutes, again in Canada, in federal jurisdiction, a worker is injured. Obviously the extent of the injury varies, but the fact remains that, every two minutes, in Canada, in businesses under federal jurisdiction, a worker is injured. As a result, 57,000 workers are injured or killed in accidents every year.

Is it too much to ask ourselves as members of Parliament to make a gesture, to remind ourselves that we, as parliamentarians, have not made every effort, taken every step so that we can rise today and say that there are no work accidents in Canada, that no one has died because of a disregard for safety in the workplace.

As the hon. member from the NDP pointed out, it is not only a matter of life-although it is, of course, our first concern. Work accidents also have an impact on a country's economic health.

According to the Department of Labour, which is headed by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, a total of $100 million-which is a substantial amount of money; it is not an epiphenomenon or marginal reality-is paid in compensation to workers who cannot earn a salary as a result of an accident. We must do something about this.

There is another figure I find interesting: reducing by one day the average amount of time lost per accident in an area of federal jurisdiction-this should be of interest to the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance-could save $2.6 million a year in compensation costs.

Of course, one of the merits of the motion tabled by the member from the NDP is that it makes us realize we still have some way to go to make the workplace totally safe.

It also reminds us that people lose their lives while trying to earn a living and that, as a society, we cannot tolerate such a situation. One of the means suggested to us for showing that we will not tolerate it to keep it fresh in our minds.

One of the means of keeping it in our fresh in our minds is, of course, through some visible sign. It has great significance for a country-as you know, in this country there are many nations-it really means something to have a flag at half mast. Flying a flag at half mast means that, instead of an isolated action, we are inviting people collectively to remember.

And what we have to remember is that still in Canada-although in the past too there were people who lost their lives while trying to earn a living, even before the days of industrialization-still in 1996, not a week goes by, according to the Department of Labour-not the NDP member, not the Bloc, not the CSN, not the FTQ, but the Department of Labour, under the direction of the hon. member for Saint-Léonard-not a single week goes by without a workplace death.

There are financial repercussions to all this. The estimated amount of payments to injured workers, not unemployed workers, is $100 million. This reality of work related accidents and fatalities affects the private sector particularly, yes, but it also affects crown corporations and the various federal departments.

I have a few figures to submit to you concerning the reality in the federal workplace. According to the Department of Labour, every 50 working days, one worker in a crown corporation or a federal department dies. Every nine minutes, one worker in a crown corporation or a federal department is injured. This means an annual total of 12,800 workers involved in accidents, sometimes fatal ones. This amounts to $23 million.

Twenty-three million dollars is exactly the amount of the deficit in the government's current operating account. Twenty-three million dollars are paid out in benefits to replace lost income as the result of accidents. In total, this represents 239,000 working days lost due to accidents.

Have you ever considered that, in Canada, the greatest cause of days lost at work or of lack of productivity at the workplace is not strikes. It is in fact accidents on the job that, once again, in too many cases mean people lose their lives.

We support this motion. This does not prevent us from mentioning for the benefit of our listeners that we are not starting from scratch. Part II of the Labour Code sets out employers' obligations. It provides very clearly that employers must ensure the health and safety of their employees.

It also provides that employees are not to handle dangerous products and are to advise their immediate superiors of any situation that might compromise workers' safety.

We must remember, nevertheless, despite these clear provisions in part II of the Canada Labour Code that-and we must not forget this; I cannot say it often or long enough-every week in Canada a worker dies as the result of an accident on the job. The costs are very high in economic terms, and we as parliamentarians must do everything in our power to put a stop to this situation.

One particular way, as the member is proposing, is to remember. One way to remember is to lower the flag to half mast-a very powerful symbol.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today calls for the flag on Parliament Hill to be

lowered to half mast on April 28 of each year the commemorate a national day of mourning for people killed in the workplace.

I am pleased to speak in support of this initiative. I commend the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for bringing it forth today.

There probably is not anyone in the House who has not known someone who has been killed on the job. While driving through my constituency a few weeks back I came across a procession of people who had gathered at the site of where a friend of theirs, a taxi driver, had been killed. While on a call he was struck by another vehicle. The road conditions were icy at the time. Those people put up a large cross at the site of the accident. They covered the cross with flowers and left it there. As far as I know it is still there.

I suppose they did this for various reasons. One was to commemorate this person who was simply doing his job and who met with a very untimely and costly accident. Another reason would be to remind other motorists who travel along that route that they have to be ever vigilant.

I am sure that is what the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake is trying to accomplish today. I commend him for that.

Before being elected to the House in 1993 I was a farmer. As a matter of fact, I still am. Generally I suppose people would assume farming is a very placid way of life, a laid back lifestyle with not much danger involved. However, farming is the most hazardous occupation in Canada.

From information provided to me by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture based on a survey done by the United States and adjusted to the Canadian agricultural population, the average death rate among industries is something like 11 per 100,000, but the farm death rate is five times higher. It is 55 deaths per 100,000. That surpasses mining with around 50 deaths per 100,000. Construction is in the neighbourhood of 37 per 100,000.

Between 1990 and 1994 in my home province of Alberta there were 82 farm fatalities. Farming also has the dubious honour of topping the list with the highest incidence of disabling injuries of all industries in Canada with 58 per 100,000.

In my youth I spent some years trucking. It may not be well known, but truckers will take evasive action to avoid collision with other vehicles to the point that they put life and limb on the line, so to speak, to avoid collision with other vehicles. In so doing, truckers have often avoided a vehicle full of people but they have paid very dearly. They have driven off the road, upset their vehicles or collided with approaching vehicles and paid with their lives.

When we are asked to reflect on the loss of life in the workplace we automatically think back about four years to May 9, 1992 when Canadians from coast to coast watched heroic attempts to rescue 26 trapped coal miners from the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia. Twenty-six Canadians lost their lives in one of the worst workplace disasters in recent memory.

The conditions at the Westray mine that led to the explosion are currently the subject of an inquiry. One of the questions being asked is whether or not health and safety laws had been enforced.

I take exception to my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who suggests that private enterprise makes conditions unfavourable or unsafe for workers. If we look at the more socialized countries, their workplace death rates are nothing to brag about either. While I agree with the general thrust of the member's bill, I admonish him for dragging that kind of politics into it.

The federal government is on the right track in some areas. It has put these jurisdictions under provincial control. I believe that is a move in the right direction. There is probably unnecessary duplication and overlap by provincial and federal jurisdictions. I would encourage this government to divest itself of areas in which it is not needed and to turn these areas over to the provinces where they may be administered better than they are now.

Workers in federally regulated industries are bound by the provisions of Part III of the labour code. Provinces have their own laws for occupational health and safety which differ from place to place. As I said, the federal government should take the initiative and divest itself of those areas.

The Canada Gazette of April 17, 1996 outlines the government's plan to extricate itself from setting the minimum wage rate which is a step in the right direction. More effort is needed to harmonize federal-provincial labour regulations.

For the past year a review of Part I of the labour code has been under way and amendments are expected this fall. I hope a review of Part II and Part III will soon follow. Yesterday we debated the possibility of severance pay for older workers, an issue brought forward by my colleague from the Reform Party. The debate indicated that Part III could use some review. As a result of my colleague's efforts, the subject matter has been referred to a committee. I am sure we will make some headway in that area.

Preliminary statistics for 1994, which is the last year available, show that there were 709 workplace related fatalities in that year. Seventy-four of those occurred in my province of Alberta. Whether workplace fatalities claim one life or twenty-six, they are devastating not only to family and friends of the deceased but to their co-workers and employers as well.

Workers make this country productive. We have to do our utmost to ensure that workplace health and safety standards are not compromised. Lowering the flag is not only a symbolic gesture. I am sure, as I said at the beginning, that what the hon. member intends to accomplish is to provoke thought and to bring about prevention.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend my friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for his initiative in putting down this resolution. It is a very good one. I am pleased to rise, as did my colleague from Hillsborough earlier and others in the House, including my friend from Wetaskiwin, to give support to this motion.

In the riding of Burin-St. George's, which I have the honour to represent, there is a very picturesque community by the name of St. Lawrence. It takes its name from the fact that it sits at the very mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

That town has a sculpture, which serves as a monument to two or three sets of events. It is a marvellous sculpture done by the Bulgarian sculptor, Luben Boykov, three or four years ago. It stands in the town square.

For those of us who understand biblical references, though never described this way, it is in effect the good Samaritan sculpture. There is a person reaching out for help at the bottom of the slab, which represents a steep incline, and there is somebody offering help.

I do not do justice in describing the sculpture but basically, physically, that is what it is. It commemorates a couple of sets of events: one has to do with wartime. That in itself is a very moving set of events in which many American servicemen were rescued by miners at St. Lawrence and the nearby town of Lawn in 1942.

The sculpture was placed there not only for that reason, but for a second important reason. It has to do with mining. The sculpture known as "Echoes of Valour" casts in time the mining disaster, of which many Newfoundlanders, indeed many Canadians, will be aware.

Let me read an excerpt from a description of the "Echoes of Valour" sculpture as it relates to mining. It makes reference, first of all, to mining beginning in this community around 1870. It has gone on in the 100 years since then.

Here is a description:

Drilling was done with a dry hammer, which meant that dust was forever present, clogging a miner's nostrils, eyes and mouth. The dust and smoke was so thick that one could not see another miner until you walked right up to him. The air was so thin in certain parts of the mine that a cigarette could not be lit because fire, which requires oxygen, would immediately go out as attempts were made to light the match. Many miners were getting sick, having great difficulty breathing. Some were hospitalized at St. John's with tuberculosis.

In the 1950s, miners started dying at a very young age. Dr. Cyril Walsh detected a high rate of lung cancer and brought it to the attention of the provincial Department of Health. This spirited a national concern, but it was already too late for hundreds of miners who had been exposed too much, too long to the radon gas, which causes lung cancer.

St. Lawrence today has lost a generation of men from mining, leaving a town void of grandfathers. This sculpture stands as a tribute and a memorial to their hard work and dedication as they sacrificed their own lives to ensure a comfortable lifestyle for their wives and children.

That tragedy, which went on for many years, is, in Newfoundland folklore, the epitome of what can happen when things go wrong on the work site, when the bottom line becomes more important than the lives of the people producing the product.

If I had the time today I could take members through a long litany of how the company knew for years what it was inflicting on those men and turned a blind eye, looked the other way.

Today when people go to that town in St. Lawrence not only will they see the sculpture but they will meet dozens and dozens of widows whose husbands are prematurely in the graveyard because of company policy and a complete disregard for worker safety.

Today that sculpture, as a result of a decision a couple of years ago, is the official symbol for the industrial safety organization across Newfoundland. On this coming Sunday afternoon I am pleased to say I will be in St. Lawrence, standing beside that sculpture with people from all across the province as we once again mark the day of mourning for the people who have lost their lives at the work site.

Nowhere in the country is the impact of lost workers felt more deeply, more emotionally and more profoundly than in that town of St. Lawrence, that picturesque settlement on the south coast of Newfoundland on the Burin Peninsula.

Today that is why I, on behalf of my constituents, can rise with a heart and a half and give support to the resolution from my friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. We have not done enough for these people. We cannot bring them back but we can at least signal the contribution they made. We can at least once again flag the tragedy that is really ours because of the lack of attention to worker safety over the years.

In flying that flag at half mast let it be a reminder of the lives that were lost and a standard and a beacon for us to resolve as a society that we will not let again happen what happened to people like those miners in St. Lawrence.

If we had time we could talk about Westray. I know the inquiry is ongoing and so we should not be prejudicing anything that goes on there, but I do not think one needs to be Einstein to figure out the bottom line there was also more important than worker safety in too many cases.

We must see to it that kind of thing does not repeat itself. If we are worth our salt in the Chamber we will not only go out and exhort people to put flags at half mast on Sunday in memory of those people but we will use that as a reminder that we have to do even more in symbolic terms and in tangible terms.

If we can resolve as a society to do that, these people will not have died completely in vain if they can, through the effort and inspiration they give us, improve the lot of others who go to work sites which are not as safe as they ought to be.

I am delighted to support the resolution.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed with the amount of support members have given to this motion. It begs me to ask, now that the debate is closing, that you may find it in order to seek unanimous consent that the question be put so that the members who have spoken in support of the motion have the opportunity to express that support in a vote. Then perhaps we will be able to see the flag flying at half mast three days from now in illustration of our will in support of these individuals.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion from the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provoded for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

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

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on page 64 of the red book of the Liberal Party published in 1993 we find the following promise:

Our first task will be to conduct a comprehensive baseline study of federal taxes, grants, and subsidies, in order to identify barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practices.

Last December when we reported to the House, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development did hold hearings in keeping this promise and made numerous recommendations to the government for the 1996 budget.

One positive result was that the budget contains measures for beginning the process of putting renewable and non-renewable energy sources on equal footing. That is a good step in the right direction.

At the time of the committee's hearings experts in the field of sustainable development told us one year would be sufficient for completion of such a study and warned against stretching it over a longer time.

Another reason for the year timeframe is that soon we will have in place a commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the auditor general's department. In 1998 the job of this person will be to review each department's sustainable development strategy.

If this baseline work is done now departments would be able to incorporate the relevant findings into their sustainable development strategies. In addition, this work would provide a benchmark to judge progress toward sustainable development objectives in individual departments.

The environment committee recommended the finance minister appoint a small group of outside experts, supported by senior federal officials taken from the departments of the environment, finance, natural resources, agriculture and transport, among others. This working group would be chaired by a recognized and credible expert in sustainable development matters charged with the authority to make definitive recommendations on behalf of the working group. This approach to the baseline work would provide substantive proposals plus transparency and legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

I ask the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance if the government will launch the comprehensive baseline study now so as to be completed by September of this year, as recommended by the environment committee, or will it be the turn of the century before we see any results?

[Barry Campbell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Davenport who is held in such high regard by many in the House, given his interest and expertise in areas concerning the environment.

As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26, the government initiated work on a baseline study of taxes, grants and subsidies in 1994. At that time the government established the task force on economic instruments and disincentives to sound environmental practices which made recommendations.

The 1994 budget announced measures to encourage energy conservation and encourage contributions to mine reclamation funds. The 1995 budget announced measures to encourage charitable donations of ecologically sensitive land. The 1996 budget announced tax changes which establish an essentially level playing field between certain renewable and non-renewable energy investments.

The 1996 budget also indicated the government's intention to consult on tax and other measures to improve the treatment of energy efficiency investments and on the feasibility of extending the tax treatment of mine reclamation trust funds to other sectors such as waste disposal sites and reforestation.

In addition, Technology Partnerships Canada, launched in the recent budget, will encourage the development and commercialization of environmental technologies in partnership with the private sector.

As the Minister of Finance indicated to the House on March 26, the government is actively reviewing the proposals of the standingcommittee concerning further work on the baseline study and will be reporting shortly on how it intends to continue the important work which has been initiated

The government also appreciates the work of the standing committee, its chairman and all members of the House on this important matter.

On a personal note, I hope this will be before the year 2000.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)