Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to discuss an issue which, as the hon. member for Manicouagan pointed out, was raised in the House on October 22, 1997.
The hon. member expressed concern about management of the maximum security penitentiary at Port-Cartier, Quebec, and asked the government to institute a public inquiry.
On August 28, 1997 staff from the day shift at Port-Cartier institution in the Quebec region refused to relieve the night staff from their posts, citing dangerous working conditions. Later that morning staff invoked Part II of the Canada Labour Code.
During the evening, Labour Canada issued an interim ruling ordering evening shift employees to perform their duties. It also asked employees to put in writing their reasons for invoking part II of the Canada Labour Code. Labour Canada officials were at the Port-Cartier institution on the morning of August 29 to conduct their inquiry.
I should also point out that, on August 30, the situation at the institution had gone back to normal. On September 2, at the end of its independent inquiry, Labour Canada issued its final ruling, confirming that the immediate safety of the staff was not at risk.
It should also be known that Labour Canada is an independent body which addresses the health and safety concerns of all employees involved in any federal work within the legislative authority of parliament. As I have just stated, it acted very promptly.
The principle of prevention is integrated into the Canada Labour Code, which gives a number of basic rights to workers in the federal administration, so as to ensure their safety in the workplace.
There have been instances where the employees availed themselves of their right to refuse to work, and where the inquiry conducted by Labour Canada concluded that their health and safety were not at risk, or that the danger was hypothetical rather than actual. Such was the case regarding the events of August 29, 1997.
Since the right to refuse to work can often result in an immediate lockdown, which in turn results in increased tension within the inmate population, it is extremely important that this right be used for resolving genuine safety and health concerns.
On October 23 during Oral Question Period our hon. colleague, the member for Manicouagan, asked the Solicitor General why he refused to order a public inquiry. As my colleague knows very well, the solicitor general answered the question a number of times. He explained his reasons, once again, in a letter to the member for Charlesbourg October 2.
The solicitor general said it was not necessary at that point to call a public inquiry, because Labour Canada had already investigated employees' concerns.
It is also worthwhile to mention that the hon. member for Manicouagan submitted an application for access to information at the Correctional Service of Canada on September 9 to view and hear the recordings of the events that occurred at Port-Cartier institution on August 28.
On December 16 the member visited Port-Cartier to view and listen to the recordings. He watched the video cassettes first and decided not to listen to the audio cassettes.
He did not raise any specific problem. He did, however, indicate to the director of the institution that he had met a number of employees, that things seemed to be going well and that progress had been made since August. In the light of these observations, the Solicitor General of Canada and the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada considered the matter closed.
I thank my hon. colleague for expressing his concerns on the matter.
