House of Commons Hansard #52 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was citizenship.

Topics

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

February 18th, 2000 / 1:55 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to participate in this debate.

I have great respect for the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It is imperative that I read the motion followed by recommendation 73 from the Westray report which has precipitated the member's motion.

Motion No. 79 reads:

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

Recommendation 73 of the Westray inquiry reads:

The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study—

I emphasize the word study.

—of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of the corporation and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Recommendation 73 clearly calls upon the Government of Canada through the justice department to institute a study to ensure the accountability of corporate executives. I have no problem with this.

Let us take a closer look at this issue. Motion No. 79 calls for immediate amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada or other appropriate federal statutes without first studying the parameters of corporate responsibility. I say with the greatest respect for the member from Nova Scotia who I understand is very sincere in what he is trying to do that it is a bit premature. I want to get into the specifics and I offer this as a constructive criticism.

The ramifications of the criminal code changes are immense and in many cases final. My objection to the member's initiative in no way is meant to diminish what he is trying to do. We cannot diminish the extent of this tragedy and the loss of 26 lives.

We should follow the guidance of recommendation 73 before making that quantum leap to amend the criminal code.

The issue of corporate responsibility is a shifting paradigm. The composition of corporations and the roles of directors who sit on their boards are in constant evolution. I am uncertain how much empirical evidence and resources are at our disposal to adequately understand corporate responsibility, specifically the role of accountability which we assign to directors.

The law has some guidelines and statutory parameters regarding business organization. The corporate form of business organization is intended to protect shareholders from personal liability for civil debts of the corporation. Executives, directors or other officers and employees of the corporation enjoy no special immunity from either criminal or quasi-criminal liability. Such persons are legally accountable for their own personal wrongdoing and negligence. Corporations can be held criminally liable in their own right.

In the case of offences of absolute or strict liability, a corporation is subject to penal liability for unlawful acts or omissions of the corporation per se or for those employees and agents in the context of corporate duties. In the case of an actual criminal offence, corporations are liable for the acts and omissions of such persons who by reason of their relevant position or authority in the corporation may be said to constitute the “directing mind” of the corporation.

In the November 1997 report on the Westray disaster, Mr. Justice Peter Richard recommended that applicable federal and provincial laws should be reviewed and amended to ensure that corporate directors and executives are held properly accountable for workplace safety. I do not disagree on the magnitude of this disaster and the 26 lives that were lost. I do not want to diminish that, but it is important that when we make these changes we get them right.

The member's motion wants to go much further. It would ostensibly make it easier to fix criminal liability on corporations by calling for a new criminal offence. Mr. Justice Richard did not go that far. He wanted to proceed in steps. Justice Richard called for a study of corporate responsibility, recognizing the shifting and evolving nature of corporations, their composition and the role of directors.

Allow me to identify what I see as some of the real problems with this motion. Corporations would have a major problem attracting viable candidates who want to sit on a board with such criminal code penalties affixed to them as called for in Motion No. 79. I dare say no one would want the job but the implications for corporations without boards is obvious under commercial and corporate laws. Smaller or struggling companies would be at a greater disadvantage if such standards for accountability were applied to them.

I am not saying there should not be responsibility and I am not saying directors should be able to hide from their duties and social responsibilities. I do not want to see punitive and debilitating roadblocks to growth thrown in their path and consequently that of the corporation.

I for one believe that the majority of corporations serve a social purpose and are concerned with workplace safety. I say this with some credibility. I was a safety officer for a forestry company in British Columbia and I can attest that although accidents happen they were taken very seriously. I am sure they do not want to see accidents happen.

A blanket criminal code amendment would do little to foster economic growth and jobs. There must be a balance between making a profit and operating as an ethical and socially responsible enterprise. That balance can be precarious. The impacts criminal censure can have must be weighed carefully. Furthermore, I have to ask what the responsibilities and consequences would be for shop stewards on the floor. I am not suggesting by any means that we should be looking at imposing criminal sanctions on them, but they also play a very important role in workplace safety. This has to be evaluated at the same time.

I would further ask whether the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has given any thought to the responsibilities of federal and provincial labour inspectors. Motion No. 79 could have devastating consequences for doing business in Canada. It would have a serious impact on investment and would add dramatically to operating costs and consequently the profits and the motivation to expand. Employment levels in corporations would no doubt be reduced. The less people, the less chance for accidents. Would production levels not also be reduced?

It would be unreasonable to expect each and every director of every corporation to be cognizant of every aspect of health and safety within any given corporation. It is very important to have every director involved in day to day operations.

I appreciate in the example of Westray that obviously there was a massive problem. Twenty-six lives were lost and I do not want to minimize that. If every prospective member is expected to assume this type of responsibility there would be no candidates to sit on a board.

I concur with the member in his genuine concern for the welfare of the miners and in his hopes that such a tragedy will never be repeated. However, despite the honourable intentions of this motion I fear he has not taken the full picture into account. Without question Westray was a reprehensible disaster. No one can diminish the human tragedy that descended upon that community and its people.

However, it is important to recognize that the crown currently has powers under the criminal code to charge negligent mine managers who were on site and who were responsible. Let us follow the direction contained in recommendation 73 of the Westray inquiry and review the responsibilities of directors before we move to criminal code amendments.

In short, I am saying let us not make that quantum leap. Let us do a very comprehensive study because it will have a serious impact on corporations across the country. Let us make sure what we are doing is absolutely right. There are provisions right now for the people in the day to day management positions.

I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing the motion forward. It is a very important one, but we want to make sure we get it watertight and we get it right because it could have some very negative consequences on the corporate and business communities of Canada. This seems to be the direction in which the member for Erie—Lincoln was going as well.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

2:05 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand here today as a coal miner's daughter and as a coal miner's granddaughter to speak to this private member's motion. It is a subject that is very close to my heart. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I support the motion in principle.

The hon. member for Halifax has a bill on the order paper, Bill C-259. Its intent and purpose are the same as those of the motion before us today. However it is more legal in nature and takes the intent of this motion one step further to legislate changes. We in the NDP have long been involved in the process and in lobbying for that step.

We would like to see the criminal code amended to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety. We in the NDP caucus have been actively involved with the United Steelworkers of America in its lobbying for accountability in workplace health and safety issues. The impetus for the work we have been doing with the steelworkers union was the tragedy at the Westray coal mine in 1992 that killed 26 miners.

The tragedy at Westray was caused by a spark from a continuous mining machine that ignited methane gas, which then caused a coal dust explosion. Following this tragedy we in the NDP, our sisters and brothers in the United Steelworkers of America and the families of the miners killed in that explosion have worked to make the law clear and prevent deaths and injuries. We have to send a message to decision makers that they will be held accountable for their decisions.

I made very clear when I stood before the House to address this motion before, and I will make it perfectly clear again, that we have reached a stage of evolution in society. We will no longer allow people to use the excuse that we were just following orders as a defence for knowingly and willingly causing harm of any kind to others. We as a parliament must take our responsibility to ensure that we live up to the most basic foundation of law and order that people are responsible for their own actions.

After the disaster at Westray a public inquiry was established through the efforts of United Steelworkers of America. The inquiry was given a simple mandate to probe whether or not the explosion was preventable. After 76 days of testimony over a 14 month period the Westray inquiry, headed by Mr. Justice Richard of the Nova Scotia supreme court, released its report.

The report cannot be called anything less than a condemnation of the way in which Westray executives operated the mine prior to the explosion. Mr. Richard was very clear in his report that the actions and attitudes of the management at Westray sent the message that worker safety was not a priority. The miners at Westray, including those who were killed in the explosion in 1992, were expected to produce coal at the expense of worker safety.

This motion is in essence to adopt recommendation No. 73 of the Westray report. I would like to take the opportunity to read the recommendation to the House:

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

The intent of Mr. Richard and the commission is clear. As federal parliamentarians we must take the initiative and introduce changes to the criminal code to ensure corporate accountability in the workplace.

The motion allows us to try to rise above the daily hullabaloo of partisan politics of late. If the motion is passed or adopted by the House, it would be the first step on the road to ensuring that those firms, mining or other, which run their businesses in a responsible way are rewarded. Their reward would come from the punishment of those firms that run their businesses in unsafe ways in their shameful attempt to cut prices. Those businesses that put their workers in danger would not be allowed to operate.

We in Cape Breton know only too well about these kinds of unscrupulous businesses. We do not have to look much further than at the coal industry to provide what should be enough examples to give all my hon. colleagues in the House enough reason to adopt the motion and then go the next step and change the criminal code.

Let me be perfectly clear. This is not about bashing business but about legislating responsible business practice. Responsible business practice means that employers, especially those who run businesses that involve elements of physical or mental risk to their employees, must be accountable if things go wrong. That is precisely what Justice Richard, the families of the miners who died at Westray, the steelworkers and we in the NDP caucus have been trying to do: legislate a framework for responsible business practices as it relates to health and safety of workers.

We as members of parliament must take the lead on this issue, which is why I commend my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on his efforts to have this important motion brought before the House. If we could then see our way to legislating the recommendation of Justice Richard's report, we could help prevent disasters like the one we saw at Westray from ever happening again. It would also not just be in cases of such catastrophic events. This type of legislation would help in creating safer and healthier working environments on a daily basis.

In Westray's case, only two of the executives of the corporation ever appeared before the inquiry. The other executives did not want to give evidence of their crime and resisted all attempts to get them to appear as witnesses. Criminal proceedings against some of the executives had to be dropped because the lawyers concluded that there was no reasonable chance that a conviction could result.

It was not that the lawyers found nothing criminal about their activities. No, the truth was that the evidence was there but the laws were not. There were no laws to prevent the deaths and injuries of the miners at Westray. There were no laws to make the people who caused those deaths accountable to their families.

May I say on a personal note that I am one of those family members who have lost a relative in the mines. It is a sad state of affairs when we have our family members killed in industrial accidents, but may I say that what is more tragic in these deaths at Westray, and as was with my uncle's, is that he was sealed as some of the men at Westray were and will forever remain under the Atlantic Ocean. We have the opportunity to change all of that for miners' families, and today can be the beginning of that process.

I would like to once again return to recommendation 73 of the Westray report. Mr. Justice Richard was very clear in his intent when he wrote:

—in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for workplace safety.

Recent events have shown that even in this House of Commons, where we sit to represent our constituents, it is difficult to achieve accountability and responsibility for one's actions. If it is difficult here, we cannot just expect it from private companies. We must use this motion as the first step to legislating corporate responsibility so that we can prevent further deaths and injuries so tragically revealed by the Westray disaster, and we must do it now.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Algoma—Manitoulin Ontario

Liberal

Brent St. Denis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 79. I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his comments as well as the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton for her thoughtful remarks.

The motion states that we should amend federal statutes, including the criminal code, to address the issues of accountability and liability for safety in the workplace in relation to recommendation 73 of the province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray disaster. There would not be anyone in the House who would not share the member's concern for the victims and for the families of the victims of those who were so tragically affected by the Westray disaster.

The Westray disaster was a tragedy that captured the attention of the whole nation. Although it happened some time ago, it remains in our minds and underlines the need for all of us in public office to be sensitive to the concerns of workers and to the need to ensure safe and secure workplaces.

Workers are the backbone of our economy. Fatalities, injuries and illnesses in the workplace cause them and their families to suffer both in human terms as well as in economic terms. It is estimated that on top of the terrific human cost the dollar cost to our economy is as much as $10 million a year. These costs are too high and we need to look at ways to bring them down.

This motion provides us with an opportunity to look at the situation of workplace safety in Canada and to consider what needs to be done by the federal government to provide safe and healthy workplaces for Canadians. The motion before us proposes that we need a new legislative approach to workplace safety. Legislation is clearly one option, but so is education.

Having worked in factories and on a railway, I know how important it is that workers be secure in their knowledge of what are the best practices in the workplace as well as management. There are many experts in the field of occupational health and safety who feel that prevention through education and training is every bit as important as intervention through legislation. These people understand the value of promoting education and training in order to reduce the incidence of illness and accidents in the workplace.

A national day of mourning was held on April 28 last year and will be held again this year. I am proud to say that in my town of Elliot Lake, in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin, we honour our lost workers on this very special day each year.

We have asked Canadians to remember workers who were killed or injured as a result of occupational accidents or illness. The Canadian flag was flown at half-mast on Parliament Hill in memory of those workers who lost their lives or who were injured on the job.

Also each year organizations throughout North America co-operate to hold North American Occupational Safety and Health Week. This past year the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week was held from May 17 to 23, and I expect it will be again this year.

As part of this occasion the Government of Canada joins with the governments of the United States and Mexico to promote awareness of workplace safety throughout North America.

In addition, Canadian organizations such as the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health are working in partnership with the federal government and others in Canadian society to promote safe work practices.

These organizations produce excellent material to help labour, business, governments and others interested in occupational health and safety to learn about working together to identify and implement new approaches to promote workplace safety.

The educational information they produce is distributed broadly to employers and employees, and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health has created a very useful website that has gained an international reputation. It is important to underline the importance of education as it relates to workplace safety.

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

Thus there is a wide variety of initiatives under way, under the leadership of Canada's Minister of Labour, with the help of her parliamentary secretary, the member for Whitby—Ajax, which provide useful information to focus the attention of employers, employees and the general public on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace through education and awareness.

Although the motion does not talk about the use of information to create safer work environments, it is important to keep in mind that education and awareness are also important aspects of our existing approach to promoting workplace safety.

The second part of the approach, of course, is legislative.

It was some 30 years ago that the federal government developed the first occupational safety and health legislation to cover employees and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Over the years federal legislation and regulations relating to occupational safety and health have been consolidated under the Canada Labour Code.

As we consider the motion, we need also to consider what is in place under the Canada Labour Code, especially under part II of the code, because it is part II of the code which governs occupational safety and health for employees working in organizations under federal jurisdiction.

The Canada Labour Code establishes three fundamental rights for workers: first, the right to know about unsafe conditions; second, the right to participate in workplace decisions relating to safety; and third, the right to refuse dangerous work.

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

Federal government inspectors visit workplaces, respond to complaints, conduct investigations, prohibit access to workplaces deemed hazardous and can impose fines for non-compliance. In other words, with the Canada Labour Code we already have a model in place to cover the enforcement of safety in the workplace.

The problem is that the Canada Labour Code covers only those employees who are working in industries or organizations that are subject to federal legislation. That is only a small part of the working population of Canada. Therefore, while we have an effective model in the Canada Labour Code, it does not cover the whole population of workers, most of whom are under provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

The difficulty with the idea of extending the federal model to include workers outside the federal jurisdiction is that, constitutionally, workplace safety is also a provincial concern. Any moves at the federal level to encroach on provincial or territorial legislative turf, so to speak, on workers' rights may not be viewed positively by those other levels of government.

We have to find an approach that would accommodate federal-provincial interests and would also combine the educational and legislative approaches. This issue requires further study by the Minister of Justice, as recommended by the Westray inquiry report.

I would like to emphasize a point made by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, that corporate criminal liability is part of the larger goal of improving workplace safety. Bill C-12, now before the House, amends part II of the Canada Labour Code to reinforce the obligations of employers and the rights of employees in respect of safety in federally regulated workplaces.

Although the emphasis is on preventive measures, various remedies, including penalties, are provided for in the labour code for violations of standards. Bill C-12 deserves the early attention of the House, while the government continues to examine potential legislative amendments to address corporate criminal liability.

This motion, while extremely well intentioned, merely calls upon the House to support the idea of amending the criminal code, but does not specify what kind of amendment is needed. As such, the motion does not advance significantly the study of the complex issue of corporate criminal liability.

We on this side of the House support the idea of a study. I believe that the member who proposed this motion, having done so with the best of intentions, fails to recognize the important jurisdiction the provinces have when it comes to workplace health and safety. I encourage him to co-operate with the government. I am sure that the outcome of a study would be the best possible for workers from coast to coast. We know that federal workers are well protected. We would hope that our provincial counterparts will see the wisdom of participating in any kind of study to make things better for workers across the country.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. member from the government say that it is not interested in supporting this recommendation is disappointing. It has thrown me off my remarks. I really thought there would be broad interest and support for such a good motion and for the type of language that was put together.

I can tell members that Canadians were absolutely horrified when 26 miners were killed at the Westray mine, but they were even more horrified when they discovered that the crown prosecutor for Nova Scotia had to stay the charges because, under the current criminal code of Canada, in spite of overwhelming evidence of gross negligence, he could not make those charges stick. That is what Canadians were seriously horrified about.

That is what led to Judge Richard making recommendations in the Westray report. Recommendation 73 specifically called for the criminal code and other legislation to be amended to introduce the concept of corporate manslaughter or corporate murder. Now corporations can be charged with a violation of the Canada Labour Code if workers' lives are put at risk through gross negligence, but they cannot be charged with manslaughter or murder because the current criminal code does not contemplate that. That is what recommendation 73 called for. That is what the motion from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough calls for. That is what the private member's bill introduced by our leader, the member for Halifax, called for in a very specific way.

We would be able to criminally charge company owners, CEOs, members of boards of directors of any enterprise who knowingly risk workers' lives in the same way that we would be able to charge someone with criminal negligence who drank a full bottle of whiskey and then drove a car and killed somebody. That person could be charged under the Motor Vehicles Act, but also under the criminal code because a person's life was put at risk through criminal negligence. The same should apply to workplaces. Nobody should be injured, butchered or maimed on behalf of some arbitrary production schedule. Canadians have matured far beyond that point.

We still have startling statistics though. Three Canadian workers a day are killed at work. One thousand Canadians a year are killed on the job and hundreds of thousands of others suffer lost time due to injuries.

We have looked at the moral and ethical reasons why we have to stop this. Let us now look at the financial reasons.

Every year in my home province of Manitoba 50,000 person days are lost due to strikes and lockouts, and the right wing of the chamber of commerce screams bloody murder that unions are causing a lack of productivity. In the same period of time, 500,000 person days are lost due to injuries, accidents, lost time, sickness due to injury, et cetera. If we are serious about productivity, if we are serious about workers or profits due to productivity, the first place to clean up is the workplace.

There are all kinds of good reasons why this particular motion should get unanimous support from the House. Under the guidance of the motion we would go on to pass the private member's bill dealing with Westray, get it into the criminal code and amend part II of the Canada Labour Code. No one should be injured, butchered or maimed on behalf of an arbitrary production schedule in this country.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

When the motion next comes before the House the member for Winnipeg Centre will have six minutes for debate.

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

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)