Debates of April 23rd, 1999

Petitions

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a consequence of death, separation or divorce, grandparents sometimes have difficulty having access to their grandchildren by the guardian.

Many jurisdictions have allowed provisions where grandparents could have access to their grandchildren without having to go to court.

The petitioners want parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision, as supported in Bill C-340, whereby grandparents do not have to go to court in order to have access to their grandchildren.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 166, 167 and 216. .[Text]

Question No. 166—

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

With respect to the fifteen Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Nunavut Territory, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) the structure of the environmental framework for cleanup; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

(a) The structure of the environmental framework for cleanup: The framework for the cleanup will be in accordance with the agreement between Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Her Majesty in the right of Canada as represented by the Minister of National Defence for the cleanup and restoration of Distant Early Warning sites within the Nunavut settlement area. This agreement was signed in Cambridge Bay on September 1, 1998 and details the environmental provisions to carry out the cleanup.

(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in Nunavut is $200 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $14.2 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project administration costs.

(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies carried out between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites are the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, zinc and cadmium are found in sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead is found in petroleum and oil spills. Although PCBs are detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, they are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. Leachate waters and soils near the base of some landfills contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfill. The remaining contamination is restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.

(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants into the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long term impact on human health and the environment.

(e) The list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Cape Hooper, FOX-4, was awarded to Qikiqtaaluk Corporation of Iqaluit and the value of the contract is $6.8 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded to Kitikmeot Corporation of Cambridge Bay and the value of the contract is $7.3 million. The contract value of $6.8 million for cleanup of Cape Hooper, FOX-4, has been spent. The contract for cleanup of Cambridge Bay, CAM-M, was awarded in late summer of 1998 and only several months of a projected two year cleanup have been completed.

(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: The contracts awarded in Nunavut were negotiated with regional aboriginal development corporations. This was done to build confidence in the cleanup standard and to develop the expertise of local business so it can compete for future DEW Line cleanup contracts. This practice is in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Nunavut land claims agreement. Future contracts will be conducted in a competitive manner if industry shows sufficient interest in the process by which this is carried out. Should industry not be interested, contracts will be negotiated with the designated Inuvialuit-Inuit firm in such a way as to arrive at a price satisfactory to all concerned parties. The department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting in a matter consistent with the land claim agreements and negotiated co-operation agreements with the aboriginal development corporations.

Question No. 167—

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

With respect to the six Distant Early Warning, DEW, Line radar sites in the Inuvialuit region in the Western Artic, could the Minister of National Defence provide: ( a ) a progress report on the cleanup of the sites which are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996; ( b ) the accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup; ( c ) the source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation; ( d ) the health hazards caused by the environmental contamination; ( e ) the list of companies which have received federal government contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts; and ( f ) the structure of the process used to award contracts?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

(a) A progress report on the cleanup of the sites that are covered under a separate co-operation agreement reached in February 1996: The cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and of Cape Parry, PIN-M, is substantially complete. The cleanup of a fuel farm and two landfills in the Tuktoyaktuk area is planned to begin in 1999. The cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, started in 1998 and will continue in 1999. The cleanup of Komakuk beach, BAR-1, is planned to begin in 1999. The progress of cleanup in the Inuvialuit settlement region has met the work start-up and completion dates shown in the co-operation agreement.

(b) The accumulated and estimated cost of cleanup: The estimated cost for the sites in the Inuvialuit settlement region is $73.4 million, a figure established in May 1997 which takes into account escalation according to the economic model established by the Department of National Defence, DND. The accumulated cost is $24.3 million, actual expenditures April 1, 1996 when the first site cleanup was started until September 30, 1998. The latter expenditures include project overhead and administration. They also include project management costs that are not part of the contract values listed at (e). For example, some of the major costs included in the accumulated cost total, and not in the contract values, are the scientific delineation of contaminated soil, engineering survey of upcoming sites and project adminstration costs.

(c) The source of environmental contaminants which have contributed to any environmental degradation: Scientific studies between 1989 and 1994 showed that the environmental contaminants at the sites were the result of waste disposal practices that followed the standards of the day. PCBs and inorganic elements such as copper, lead and zinc, are the contaminants of primary concern in soils and surface waters. Copper, cadmium and zinc have been generally confined to sewage outfalls and landfills. Lead has been found in petroleum, oil, and lubricant spills. PCB, although detectable in virtually every sample collected in the vicinity of the sites, are present at elevated concentrations primarily in outfalls and to a lesser degree in landfills and stained areas near pallet lines, storage areas, and site buildings. The source is transformer and hydraulic fluids. Leachate waters, and soils near the base of some landfills, contain detectable concentrations of contaminants, indicating drainage from a more concentrated source within the landfills. The remaining contamination appears to be restricted to isolated spills within the area of station operations.

(d) The health hazards caused by the environmental contamination: The cleanup strategy places special emphasis on preventing the movement of chemical contaminants from sources at the DEW Line sites into other parts of the Arctic ecosystem. There are no immediate health risks. The cleanup is designed to prevent migration of contaminants in to the arctic food chain and is therefore more stringent than normal protocols in the south. The work will prevent any potential chronic or long-term impact on human health and the environment.

(e) The list of companies which have received federal governement contracts for cleanup, and for what amounts: Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $2.8 million. Cape Parry, PIN-M, has been cleaned up by Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated of Inuvik. The value of the contract is $6.2 million. In 1998 the cleanup of Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, was awarded to Inuvialuit Projects Incorporated and the present value of the contract is $9.5 million. The contract value of $2.8 million for cleanup of Tuktoyaktuk, BAR-3, and the contract value of $6.2 for Cape Parry, PIN-M, have been spent. The contract total of $9.5 million for cleanup of the Nicholson peninsula, BAR-4, has not been completely spent as another year of cleanup through 1999 remains.

(f) The structure of the process used to award contracts: All of the contracts have been publicly tendered through MERX, formerly the open bidding system. Economic provisions form part of the co-operation agreement for the project and are included as part of the contracts. Within the terms of the Inuvialuit final agreement and the co-operation agreement for the project the department will strive for openness, fairness and best value in contracting.

Question No. 216—

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

With regard to Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, passed in the 35th Parliament, how much has been paid for each of the last 11 years by the government of Canada to those who have claimed: ( a ) retroactive benefits for estate taxes paid in the United States; ( b ) tax deductions for contributions to United States postsecondary institutions; and ( c ) tax deductions to United States-based charitable institutions?

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

The Department of National Revenue does not record income tax data in ways that would provide the information requested. Foreign tax credits, tuition and charitable donation non-refundable amounts claimed by clients are not segregated by jurisdictions, educational institutions or specific charitable organizations.

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-64, an act to establish an indemnification program for travelling exhibitions, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Travelling Exhibitions Indemnification Act

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying prior to question period, museums are more than just an historical account of a time and place within Canadian history. Museums contribute enormously to our local economies.

According to Mr. Robert Janes, president and chief executive officer of Glenbow Museum in Calgary, museums in Canada contribute $1 billion annually to the gross domestic product which includes 35,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, as well as $650 million in labour income. These figures suggest that this particular cultural industry is a very significant contributor to Canada's economy.

The Canada travelling exhibitions indemnification act could be a very effective tool in helping Canadian museums bring in more attractive exhibitions enticing a greater participation from both Canadian and foreign audiences.

Already, current statistics indicate over 55 million visitors a year enter Canada's approximately 2,000 museums. This is a very impressive number of visitors. The credit for this success belongs to our dedicated museum staff along with the 50,000 volunteers who devote their time and energy toward helping maintain an important element of Canadian history.

As I mentioned previously, the bill responds to a certain need within our museum industry. However, much more needs to be done. I am encouraged by this government initiative. I believe it is a step in the right direction. I therefore support sending the bill to committee for further review.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I think that if you would seek it, you would find that the House is prepared to call it 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House prepared to call the clock as being 1.30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It being 12.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Workplace Safety

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

moved:

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, my neighbouring member of parliament, for his seconding of this motion.

Motion M-455 pertains particularly to one terrible moment in time, almost seven years ago in the small community of Plymouth in Pictou county, Nova Scotia when a terrible explosion ripped through the Westray coal mine. I will reiterate the motion:

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.

I would like to take a brief moment to thank the draggermen who were involved very much in the marvellous and incredible efforts that were made to attempt to locate the 26 men who lost their lives underground that tragic day on May 9, 1992. Many of those draggermen came from Cape Breton. Surely Cape Breton is a place unlike any other in this country. It has had more than its share of tragedy.

The overriding attempt behind this motion would be to remind government and in fact all parliamentarians that we in this place and in provincial legislatures throughout the country must do everything in our power to ensure that there is a safe workplace for those who are engaged in labour activity. I speak not only of mines. I speak of fish plants. I speak of fishermen, of course, fisherpersons on the water. I speak of any factory and any situation where workers might find themselves encountering danger.

The method to do this is through enactment of legislation. As we are all aware, that is sometimes a very daunting prospect to put somehow into law provisions that will encourage those in the industry to abide by these legislative initiatives to ensure safety.

I suggest quite strongly that knowing criminal sanctions or other disciplinary acts of retribution exist is the most direct way to ensure that those with the implicit responsibility for ensuring safety will abide. This would lead to a higher level of accountability among executives, CEOs and management in companies that directly benefit from what might be phrased expediency over safety in the workplace.

This motion is based upon a recommendation, historically for reference purposes, that came from the Westray mine public inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Justice Peter Richard, a very prominent judge in the province of Nova Scotia. It was tabled in 1997 after a very lengthy public inquiry into the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.

It is also important to note that for a partial period of time simultaneous to this public inquiry, a criminal prosecution was proceeding through the courts at various levels and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The prosecutors in this case had a very difficult time presenting evidence. There was much procedural interference, one might suggest, in terms of the presentation of evidence to the courts.

I knew many of the prosecutors who were involved in that case. Peter Rosinski, Herman Felderholf, Andrew MacDonald and others worked extremely hard, very diligently to present the evidence on behalf of the crown. Similarly, I acknowledge the work of the defence counsel who, in fairness, were presenting evidence to the contrary and certainly doing their very best to defend their clients, as is their lot.

However, one might suggest because of the interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, particularly those that refer to criminal negligence and manslaughter, these are provisions of the code that anyone having practised law will be quick to acknowledge are sometimes very blurry in terms of the evidentiary proof that is required to obtain a conviction.

I am not at all suggesting the Criminal Code provisions are the only provisions that should be examined in the context of improving these situations for workers in the workplace. However, this is certainly the starting point and one would suggest it is in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Richard.

Section 220 of the Criminal Code refers specifically to criminal negligence causing death; similarly section 234 refers to manslaughter. There may be the need as well to introduce amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of culpability, or perhaps even go so far as to make specific reference to executives, directors, persons in management positions, persons who, one could draw the inference, are in a position of trust when it comes to the supervision of a workplace.

I brought this motion forward with the hope that the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth will not be forgotten. I can assure the House and Canadians generally that those in Pictou county and in all of Nova Scotia certainly recall with horror that period of time in May 1992 when this terrible tragedy occurred.

More important I think at this time the recommendations of the inquiry themselves should not be forgotten so that this tragedy would not have been in vain. It is in the hope that we in this place would learn lessons from what occurred at the Westray mine and we might somehow go forward from this point in attempting to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Surely when it comes to the criminal law, in fact when it comes to the passing of legislation, one of the first and foremost obligations that should be in the minds of legislators is that of prevention and that of improving the quality of life of those affected.

The devastation of that Mother's Day nearly seven years ago has left a long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners in the province of Nova Scotia. The explosion at the Westray coal mine sent a very chilling message to persons. The message was that haste and sometimes political expediency and sometimes the pursuit of financial gain can often put persons in danger when it comes to this type of enterprise.

The death of the 26 coal miners was so foreign and unexpected to a peaceful community like Plymouth that from the very second that those fathers, brothers and sons were taken away from their families, people were left immediately thinking of ways that such a tragedy could have been prevented.

I can only add to that the feelings the recent shooting in Colorado conjured up for me and others, the harsh reality of how quickly an entire community can be affected in such a way. I am sure the people of Littleton, Colorado are feeling some of the same emotions, although on a different level and certainly a different level of criminal act. However, I would suggest the immediacy and the sudden impact is similar to what was felt in the community of Plymouth.

It alarms us all to no end that such tragedies can occur and that no change results. The circumstances of the Westray mine cannot be forgotten and the lessons learned. To take it one extension further, the efforts made with respect to the tabling of the Westray inquiry only to sit idle on a shelf and to not be adopted or at least examined further, taken that one step further by the Department of Labour, is again an abdication of a responsibility that exists within the federal parliament. It is painful and I would suggest puzzling to suggest that we will do nothing further at this time.

Westray was the only operating underground coal mine in Pictou county at the time of the explosion. Although Pictou county itself has a long and rich tradition of coal mining, this Pictou coalfield had been mined for nearly 200 years. The elements of the disaster that rest in the nature of coal mining with thick and gassy seams is something that Pictonians have become very familiar with.

The Foord seam itself, which was being mined by the Westray corporation or Curragh Inc., has hosted at least eight mines. The Allan shaft, the most productive and the one that lay just northwest of the Westray workings, finally closed in the 1950s. During its 40 year lifetime it experienced no less than eight methane explosions which on many occasions it is suggested were the result of unsafe working conditions.

There is a chilling foreshadow that existed in this community. One would draw the conclusion that proper research conducted into those dangerous conditions might in some way have entered into the preventative efforts that should have been made. It is easy to look back on it and to perhaps have 20/20 vision in hindsight.

I reiterate that the gist of this motion is to not let lie that report to gather dust on some shelf somewhere in this precinct when we can gain knowledge and insight into what hopefully could be prevented in the future.

The fundamental and basic responsibilities for the safe operation of an underground coal mine and indeed any industrial undertaking rests very much with owners and managers. Westray management, starting with the CEO, was required by law and certainly by good business practices and good conscience to design and operate a mine safely. Westray management after the fact certainly came under attack for shirking that responsibility.

The significance of that failure cannot be overstated or mitigated. Simply because others were also abdicating their responsibilities is not an answer. Shared responsibility can be said to be implicit in the recommendations that came from Mr. Justice Richard's report.

As in the criminal context, in the civil context as well we are certainly aware that shared responsibility is something that can be encompassed by the law. There was plenty of blame to go around in the Westray report. That statement itself is reflective of the findings of Mr. Justice Richard.

Not only in the mining industry but in any business venture, corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety and simply in the pursuit of profit. This is a very dangerous situation that can exist. We must be mindful of this. This mindset itself is precisely what sets a dangerous tone in a workplace where tragedies and the creation of unsafe working conditions may exist.

Business executives and corporate executives should be prepared to seek input from front line workers and allow them as employees to be part of the management scheme to a degree when it comes to safety. They should be relied upon to lend their knowledge to create the maintenance of a safe work environment. That is something that was also acknowledged in the report.

It is not a politically popular thing to say, but there was an element of culpability and responsibility on the workers themselves. This has to be taken into the entire context of what should occur as far as legislative initiatives to ensure accountability and responsibility is held by all.

Businesses must also ensure that they have sufficiently trained employees in that area. This is where the top down and bottom up approaches must be encompassed in any legislative initiative aimed at workplace safety. I suggest and emphasize that particularly when it comes to the operation of a traditionally dangerous work environment where equipment, often heavy equipment, is being utilized in the operation of that enterprise.

Businesses must also ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and constantly updated on safe work practices. Part and parcel of that of the companies, the executives and the workers, there is also a strong need for bureaucratic responsibility and bureaucratic supervision.

Mine and labour safety standards were ignored, sadly, in the case of Westray, or at least not adhered to to the extent they should have been. Looking at this issue in the larger context there must also be attachment of responsibility to government officials who are negligent in the performance of their duties that result in such horrific outcomes.

Sadly in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained individuals on the job where proper training had perhaps not been offered that sometimes resulted in injury or loss of life. Not only is that practice bad for business but it has the incalculable human consequence. It is also unsafe for people on the job where they are operating equipment. They are not only endangering themselves but also their fellow workers are at risk if the person is not properly trained.

In the overall context, this goes right to the top and is something that management has to be made aware of, constantly reminded of. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this point. There have been efforts made in the past but this is a continuing process that will have to be revisited. We hope it can be revisited or that this motion may in some small part help in the impetus of looking for ways to legislate safety in the workplace.

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

In the case of the Westray coal mine, many tradespersons were prone to perform unsafe tasks or take dangerous shortcuts in their work, never once being told differently by management of the huge potential that did exist in a mine as gassy and as potentially explosive as the Foord seam. In many cases there was no question that management may have been aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed by the workers.

As stated in Mr. Justice Richard's report, there was a strong indication that Westray management was aware that levels of methane underground to which the coal miners were exposed were very hazardous and potentially explosive. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act such conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from affected areas, and that of course is what one must presume prevented management from acting quickly.

It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They have to make production deadlines. They have to produce and shutting an operation down obviously has huge financial consequences. That is where the human element and the safe discretion must be exercised.

If we need to remind executives and management and CEOs of this through legislation, I say we do it. It is implicit upon us that we act. Far too often businesses, and indeed heads of corporations, may be tempted by that financial gain and therefore put the safety of workers second. That type of short term gain could be for long term pain as we saw in the case of Westray. Of course I speak of the injury or death that can result. It is a very sad scenario.

Tough economic times that exist in the country put further pressure on workers. That is why this is so timely. The economic impact of having to shut down a corporation affects everyone in the company. The employees, the management, the board of directors, anyone associated with that business is going to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety. But that is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure that those safe practices will be followed.

Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity. In some instances they are acts of omission that can result in the greatest harm as opposed to acts of commission. Companies, if they have not already done so, should do everything within their power to implement safe, ethical work practices.

Ethics such as this should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance and the seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the effects we felt in Plymouth with the Westray mine.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I appreciate the attention and the support this motion should receive from all members of parliament.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say this.

I can certainly relate to the victims of Westray. My father and my uncle once worked in mines in the United States. Fortunately, they were never victims of a tragedy.

My father-in-law was a mineworker in Belgium and he survived the two worst disasters—explosions—that ever struck Belgian mines. In the early fifties, he was decorated by the Belgian government for his acts of heroism. He had saved victims of explosion in one mine. I am only too aware of what a tragedy this is.

The motion brought forward in the House deals with the safety of Canadian workers. Since this government has always been concerned with the safety and welfare of workers, I am happy, as a government member, to have this opportunity to comment on the motion.

First I want to tell the member who moved the motion that I share his concerns about safety in the workplace. The Westray tragedy, which the motion refers to, brought back to the attention of Canadians the issue of occupational safety. This is a very important issue that our government is taking very seriously.

We are very much aware of the high costs of work accidents, in terms of human suffering in particular, as well as financial hardship, because of the substantial expenses incurred as a result of accidents and occupational diseases.

Every year, many workers die in work related accidents and thousands of others suffer from work related injuries and sickness.

Every year, millions of workdays are lost. The human cost is extremely high. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $10 billion a year. The human and economic costs are way too high and something must be done soon.

I commend the member for bringing this issue before the House. He has identified an issue that should be of concern to all members. Although I do commend the member for raising his concerns with respect to workplace safety, I want to look a little more critically at the recommendations for legislative change that the motion includes.

Motion No. 455 asks that the House amend appropriate federal statutes, including the Criminal Code. These are far reaching recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we look at them more carefully.

First of all, while the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, which can amend it to make sure it applies to the responsibility for occupational safety, the provinces and territories consider that this type or amendment would erode their right to legislate on occupational safety.

We all know very well that the issue of federal and provincial jurisdiction in many other areas of economic and social policy is very delicate. We do not want to open up a whole new can of worms. I certainly do not.

In other words, while the intent of the motion is very laudable, the proposed changes could have constitutional implications, which, though not intentional, could be very unfortunate.

Moreover, the Canada Labour Code already provides for occupational safety and imposes fines and sanctions against those who are convicted of an offence under the code.

As anyone who follows labour legislation in Canada knows, legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the federal jurisdiction is consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. The code has jurisdiction over a broad range of industries under federal jurisdiction, but only those which operate under federal jurisdiction.

What are these industries? Typically these are businesses whose operations are interprovincial or international in nature. Some examples that I can cite are railways, highway transport, telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and TV broadcasting, banks, and other areas which I will not name. In addition the occupational safety and health provisions of the code cover employees of the federal public service including employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.

As we debate the motion, it is very important to look at where we are starting from with respect to the Canada Labour Code and specifically with respect to part II of that code.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code is the legislation that is already in place to govern occupational health and safety in federal works, undertakings and businesses. This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.

The legislation is based on three fundamental rights for all workers who come under federal jurisdiction. These fundamental rights 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 himself, to herself or to another employee.

This code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees to follow.

If these standards are not met, by virtue of part II of the code, senior managers and directors of federally regulated companies can be held responsible. If found guilty of a code offence, senior managers and directors are liable on summary conviction of a maximum fine of up to $100,000.

Under the code, an individual found guilty by way of indictment is liable to a maximum fine of $1 million and a maximum prison term of two years.

Next Wednesday, April 28, to mark the National Day of Mourning, the Canadian flag will be flown at half mast on Parliament Hill in memory of all those who where killed or injured at work.

The purpose of this special day is to heighten our awareness of our tremendous responsibilities regarding health and security in the workplace. Moreover, the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, which will be held in May, will help raise awareness of this issue among Canadians.

In Canada, partners of the annual awareness campaign include the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, which co-operate with the labour program.

In the federal jurisdiction we already have a set of standards and sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in case of negligence or wrongdoing.

However, it is fair to say we still have a problem in the case of all those workers who are outside federal jurisdiction and who therefore are not covered by the Canada Labour Code. It is this question we must examine.

We must also examine the part of the motion which concerns recommendation no. 73 that the province of Nova Scotia made following the public enquiry. It requests—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member. Her time has expired.