House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-20.

Topics

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by adding before line 1 on page 1 the following:

“Whereas when the Quebec people were consulted by a referendum in 1995, the winning choice was the one that obtained a majority of the votes declared valid, that is, fifty percent of the votes plus one vote;”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Caroline St-Hilaire Bloc Longueuil, QC

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 33 on page 2.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 1.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 1 with the following:

“Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has given an opinion that there is no right, under interna-”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 7 to 10 on page 1.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 15 on page 1.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 24 on page 1.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 16 and 17 on page 1 with the following:

“Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has given an opinion that the result of a referendum on”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 25 to 32 on page 1.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 7 on page 2.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Mercier Québec

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Blocfor Mrs. Pierrette Venne

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 30 on page 2.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Hélène Alarie Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me to speak today at report stage to Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.

It is particularly important to me to speak to Motion No. 4, which moves that Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 6 on page 1, in other words by omitting:

Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

The reason it is so important for me to speak today is that this bill, the so-called clarity bill, is not just nebulous, but undemocratic, and I will demonstrate why.

First of all, Bill C-20 gives the House of Commons the power to overturn an act of the National Assembly and the decision of the people of Quebec. It gives the House of Commons the power to consider the referendum question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether, in the House's view, the question is clear—I am referring to clause 1, first paragraph—or whether, again in the House's view, there has been a clear expression of a will by a clear majority of the population of that province to separate from Canada, as set out in clause 2, first paragraph.

Bill C-20 also gives the House of Commons the power to overturn a motion by the National Assembly to adopt a referendum question, as well as the power to overturn and to censure the result of a referendum that does not have a majority that is clear, again in the House's view.

By extending such authority to the House of Commons, Bill C-20 reactivates what is referred to by constitutional specialists as “the power of disallowance”, which fell into abeyance as recognised by the supreme court itself in its August 20, 1998 reference. Such an attempt is totally inconsistent with the independence of each level of government which represents one of the basic principles of federalism.

This power of disallowance is extended to a chamber of the Parliament of Canada where less than 25% of elected members are Quebecers—members should keep this percentage in mind—which gives to the rest of Canada a new form of veto on the political and constitutional future of Quebec.

The power of the House of Commons is strengthened by the obligation imposed on it by Bill C-20 to take into account the views of many political players from the rest of Canada, who can also jeopardise Quebec's freedom to choose its own destiny, while if French is spoken to them they will not understand a word of what is being said.

For this reason alone, Bill C-20 is undeniably undemocratic. It should be withdrawn before 60% of the members of the House of Commons coming from Quebec—at least 45 out of 75 members—vote against this measure and deprive it of any legitimacy.

That was my first point and I will now discuss a second point. Bill C-20 denies Quebec the freedom to choose its political destiny and among other things to include in a referendum question, if so it chooses, a offer of partnership with the rest of Canada. It is truly an attack on the freedom of choice of Quebecers, and God knows that we know what we want.

By rejecting the partnership, thus limiting the constitutional and political options for the future of Quebec, Bill C-20 purports to prevent Quebec from reaching out to the rest of Canada and propose a form of partnership that would be entirely compatible with the new status of a sovereign Quebec.

As numerous analysts indicated—and we have heard from a great many of them—this is a scheme, a trick to force Quebecers to chose between status quo and secession, to use the minister's pet word.

There is nothing in the supreme court opinion justifying the hard line taken by the minister and the government. For that reason also, I repeat that Bill C-20 is clearly undemocratic.

My third reason is that Bill C-20 denies the universal rule of the 50% plus one majority and the basic rule of the equality of votes.

By refusing to recognize the 50% plus one rule and by drafting a provision, namely clause (2)( b ), which is itself the opposite of clarity, the Liberal government ignores a rule which was very widely accepted by political actors in the 1980, 1992 and 1995 referendums, and which they still consider valid. The 50% plus one rule is a universally recognized rule, which has applied and continue to apply to all referendums held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Once again, the government relies on an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada to suggest that the 50% plus one rule is not valid, when in fact nothing in that opinion supports such a position, quite the contrary. The fact that the court made reference to a qualitative majority contradicts him and we will repeat this over and over again during the next few days.

The refusal to abide by the 50% plus one rule is outright discrimination against individuals and is contrary to the principle of equality of votes. In the end, the winning option is the one that has more weight than the other. For this very obvious reason, Bill C-20 is clearly undemocratic.

I strongly wish our institution, the House of Commons, would withdraw it because it goes against the imperative standard of the equality of all citizens.

Not only is Bill C-20 an unprecedented attack against Quebec democracy, but the government also now seems determined to use undemocratic methods to force its passage by the House of Commons: review by a legislative committee instead of a standing committee; hearings restricted to expert witnesses; refusal to consult the public; and finally, Motion No. 8, which is nothing more than a gag order.

The Prime Minister seems to want to show once again that his government lacks transparency. It is not by refusing an open and democratic debate on Bill C-20 that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will convince people that all he wants is truth and, above all, clarity.

At this point, I move:

That motion No. 5 be amended by adding, after the word “donné” in the French version, the following:

“un”.

And I sign the amendment, so as to prove that all is transparent with us.

Bill C-20, proposed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister to force on Quebecers referendum rules that are contrary to the most basic principles of democracy, is a departure from tradition and from respect for democratic rules.

I remind hon. members that the federal government, which took part in the 1992 and 1995 referendums, is now breaking with the democratic tradition of Quebec and Canada.

Basically, we are asking for the freedom to have a responsible government in Quebec, the freedom to make sure that the Government of Quebec is recognized as responsible and legitimate, the responsibility and the freedom to determine the referendum question and to not be tied up by an untenable status quo. This is called the freedom to have the country of our choice.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot said in the last little while about democracy in the House. There have been great protestations about what is taking place in the House, how the government is moving and the kinds of tactics that are being used in order to get the business of the House done.

There is a reason to be concerned. The House has not been a happy place in which to work or in which to have a legitimate debate for some time now. When considering that, we have to look at where that feeling arises from.

The government has spoken for a long time about the need to do something to clarify the rules for secession. The Prime Minister spoke about it during the 1995 referendum. I recall that he repeatedly stood in the House and said that 50 plus one was not enough. This did not come to the floor of the House this week or last week; it is a position that has been held by the government for a very long time. There was a discussion of this last summer leading up to the renewal of the session. In the Speech from the Throne there was an indication of the government's desire to do this.

Each step of the way one of the parties opposite, rather than seeing this as an opportunity to debate a fundamental question of fundamental importance to the country, has said that it does not matter what occurs in this Chamber. That party has said it does not matter what is put down by the Government of Canada, that its members will not involve themselves in the process and will do everything they can to stop it. That has been stated over and over again by members of the Bloc Quebecois.

At a certain point we are left to decide whether we want to let one party hijack the House. It is unfortunate that the tools one has to deal with are heavy handed. The tool to limit debate is not one which anybody in the House likes to see used but it is a necessary tool in the face of the activities, particularly in this place, of the Bloc Quebecois.

Let us look at this. If we are talking about democracy, if we are talking about legitimate debate on legitimate questions in front of the House, let us look at what we are debating today. We entering into debate on 411 amendments to Bill C-20. We are debating 12 of those amendments and now a subamendment to one of them. What are these earth shattering important amendments that we are going to take up the time of the country to debate?

Motion No. 1 is “That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting the title”. This is the quality of the debate the Bloc wants to put on the floor of the House. Motion No. 3 deletes lines 1 to 37 on page 1 and lines 1 to 33 on page 2 of the bill.

Let me read some of the lines that members of the Bloc would have us delete. “Whereas any proposal relating to the break-up of a democratic state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens”. That is what they want us to delete, but there is more. “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”. That is what they want us to delete.

At the same time we hear them arguing fiercely that the Government of Quebec has the right to ask any question that it wishes. When I read “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”, it seems to meet the test that the Bloc would have us consider. Yet Motion No. 3 calls upon us to delete that from the preamble of the bill.

Just in case people have not understood that, Motion No. 7 is a very narrowly drawn motion. Motion No. 7 says “That Bill C-20, in the preamble, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 15 on page 1”. What are lines 11 to 15 on page 1? “Whereas the government of any province of Canada is entitled to consult its population by referendum on any issue and is entitled to formulate the wording of its referendum question”.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Order, please. It seems to me that, if one side wants to be heard, it should also listen to what the other side has to say. We should agree to at least be able to hear what is said in debate.

Once again, during the debate on Bill C-20, I would like to hear what is being said in debate, as I am sure the vast majority of members in the House do.

Today's debate is now over.

As it is 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 18 consideration of the motion.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

On debate, with six minutes left, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to carry on with my speech regarding the private member's motion put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

The motion, as stated, calls for the government to undertake a study for the implementation of the recommendations of the Richard inquiry on the Westray mine. It is a very worthwhile and timely motion. We were very pleased when it was brought before the House because all Canadians were horrified when 26 miners were killed in the Westray mine through what I believe to be criminal negligence and through what the chief justice found to be criminal negligence.

Canadians were even more horrified when they realized that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia would have to drop or stay the charges against the Westray mine because under the current Criminal Code of Canada there was no way to make those charges stick. That certainly is what caught in the craw of most Canadians. There was no way to deal with the grief of the actual deaths of the 26 miners.

It was incredibly frustrating to see that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia did not have the tools to do the job to bring to justice the people who caused the deaths of the 26 miners through what I call criminal negligence, through what Justice Richard called criminal negligence, and I would go further, to what I call murder. I am not afraid to call death caused by criminal negligence murder. I am pleased to do so. It goes beyond manslaughter. In circumstances where those in control of an enterprise have been made aware over and over again that what is being done is dangerous, that workers' lives are being put at risk and yet they continue to do so until somebody dies is murder.

I am very pleased to join in the debate on the motion. I would hope that the government members would see fit to support the motion because it is worded and crafted in a way that is very easy to agree with even for those who do not feel as strongly about the subject as I do.

All the motion calls for is the government to begin to study how we could implement the recommendations of Judge Richard, specifically recommendation No. 73 which calls for amendments to Canadian legislation to contemplate the concept of corporate murder. That is essentially what it is calling for, the concept of corporate manslaughter and corporate murder and to make changes and amendments to any legislation, such as the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code of Canada, to ensure that people, from the CEO right down to the boards of directors, the foremen, the managers and the frontline workers, can all be held criminally accountable when they cause death due to criminal negligence. I think it is a very worthwhile motion. In fact, the leader of our party, the member for Halifax, has introduced a private member's bill that actually goes further than the private member's motion from the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It states exactly what changes to those pieces of legislation are necessary to make corporate accountability a reality in matters of workplace safety and health.

I come from the building trade, the construction industry. I am no stranger to seeing people injured and killed on job sites. It was my job, as the job steward, to pick up the tools of my fallen comrades and take them back to their families and wives and tell them the unhappy news that there had been an injury on the job. I picked up their tools so they would not lay in the mud.

I am all too familiar with it. I am familiar with it to the point where I can say right now that there is no production schedule in the world that justifies injuring, butchering, maiming, poisoning or killing Canadian workers. I feel very strongly about that. I think we have made that point clearly.

I would ask members on the other side that if they will not consider the obvious moral and ethical issues around clean, safe and healthy workplaces, to please consider the economics of clean, safe and healthy workplaces.

In the province that I come from, we lose approximately 50,000 person days a year due to strikes and lockouts and labour and work stoppages. In that same period of time, we lose 550,000 person days per year due to injuries and accidents.

The economics are clear. If we are concerned about Canadian productivity, the onus should be on all of us to clean up the workplaces and minimize lost time due to injuries and accidents. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough certainly raises that issue for us when he asks us to debate the very important issue he raises with his motion on the Westray mines.

When I said earlier that some people call it murder when a death is caused due to criminal negligence, I asked the House to consider what happens when someone drinks a bottle of whiskey, hops in a car, runs someone over and kills them. That is criminal. That is murder. That is not just a traffic violation. The person is guilty of murder if he or she is convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada. It is not just a workplace safety and health issue when someone is killed due to criminal negligence on the job, it is murder.

In my own riding, I am sad to say, a couple of months ago the owner of a scrapyard hired a 17 year old kid. He gave him a cutting torch and told him to cut an oil drum in half. The kid blew himself to kingdom come. That guy murdered the 17 year old kid and we will fight for legislation which will contemplate the concept of corporate murder and corporate accountability.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must protest. The member is abusing the rights and privileges he enjoys in the House by using the word murder in the context of a terrible tragedy, in which indeed there may have been negligence, but it is before various tribunals. If he really has the courage to use that term, then he should use it outside the House not inside the House because he has protection, Mr. Speaker.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington has had the opportunity to put his thoughts on this on the record. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is of course afforded the same privilege.

Whether we agree with either the tone or context of any member's debate is what debate is all about.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for the second hour of debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to discuss Motion No. 79, a motion introduced by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

I would like to explain what happened on that dreadful morning in May 1992. It may help members gain a better understanding of what provoked the motion.

On May 9, 1992, at 5.20 a.m., a violent explosion ripped under the tiny community of Plymouth, just east of the town of Stellarton, Nova Scotia. The explosion occurred in the depths of the Westray coal mines, instantly killing the 26 miners working there at the time.

Motion No. 79, formerly Motion No. 455, was introduced by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough to ensure that something like this never happens again. Workplace safety must be the norm across the country, no matter what profession one chooses, whether working in a coal mine, a fish plant or on an assembly line. Every Canadian has the right to feel safe at work and every corporate executive must take the initiative to ensure those standards are met.

Motion No. 79 reads as follows:

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

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

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

Recommendation 73 does not endorse any particular legislative action by parliament. However, I will proceed by stressing that Motion No. 79 wishes to address the concerns referred to by Justice Peter Richard in his report, with an emphasis on the personal liability of key corporate officials.

The proposal to create a new criminal offence for corporate officials for failing to maintain safe workplaces would, by definition, require adding new provisions to the criminal code. This could be done by adding new sections to the criminal code under subsection 467.5 and 467.6.

Subsection 467.6 would extend personal criminal liability for the corporate failure to every officer or director of the corporation who knew or ought to have known, based on their experience, qualifications and duties, about the unsafe conditions in question.

Another way to address the matter would be to amend the criminal code provisions which define criminal negligence, section 219, and culpable homicide, section 222, in a way which specifically addresses death or bodily harm caused by a failure to maintain workplace safety on the part of a director or executive of a corporation. The drawback to this approach is that it does not deal with situations where death or injuries do not result. As well, if one wished to strengthen the accountability of officials for workplace safety violations of their corporations, one could amend subsection 149.2 of the criminal code to include additional circumstances in which their liability could be triggered.

As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, many corporate officials in today's marketplace have developed a cavalier attitude toward fair labour practices and workplace safety. This approach cannot be condoned in any capacity. As Canadians, we are all entitled to wake up and go to our place of work, wherever that may take us, and know that our well-being as individuals is protected and that workplace safety is reinforced and upheld on a daily basis. However, in many situations the almighty dollar overshadows the secure working environment to which we are all entitled.

Of course the bottom line of any business is to make a profit. At the end of the day that is a very normal mindset for anyone who operates a business large or small. If there is no profit at the end of the day, there will be no business shortly thereafter. In short, profitability equals sustainability.

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

It is essential that companies take the time to train employees so that additional risk is limited for employees and those around them who are in the workplace doing their everyday job.

Management must also ensure that their employees have an appreciation of any special dangers inherent at the job site. In the case of the Westray coal mine, many of the tradesmen were prone to perform unsafe tasks or to take dangerous shortcuts in their work, never once being told any different by management. In fact, in many cases there is no question that management was well aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed.

As stated in Chief Justice Richard's report:

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

In this situation, as in all situations, the open door policy of management could have helped prevent the deaths of the 26 coal miners that devastating morning.

No employee ever wants to feel as if his or her safety concerns are falling on deaf ears. A collaborative effort among upper, middle and lower management must be invoked to create an environment that is hazardous free for every employee across the country. Of course, accidents happen, but measures must be in place to minimize the risk of death or injury. No single environment is 100% danger free, but in most cases the risk of danger can be significantly less with a bit of common sense.

Referring to the Westray coal mine tragedy, the inquiry was set out to investigate the following: the occurrence of the explosion that resulted in the loss of life; was the occurrence preventable; whether any neglect caused or contributed to the explosion in any way; and was the mine in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, orders, rules or directions. These questions which were investigated at the time of the inquiry are many of the same questions that should be reviewed with business executives on a daily basis to ensure that they are operating a safe company. As well, it would be a good opportunity to ensure that businesses are in compliance with current regulations.

As representatives of the federal government we have to ensure that accountability is upheld in this country so that situations such as Westray and others do not ever again repeat themselves. The devastation of the Westray explosion will be felt for many, many years in the tiny community of Stellarton and, indeed, all of Nova Scotia.

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

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, which is adjacent to Hamilton, there is a bronze sculpture that was created a few years ago which caused a lot of controversy in my riding. It is to commemorate those who have died in the workplace. What it is comprised of is a huge slab. A workman is holding on to the edge of the slab backward and he is headless. It is very, very dramatic. Many people in the Hamilton community were almost offended by this piece of sculpture, and yet it makes its point enormously eloquently.

I should say that Hamilton is an industrial town. It has two major steel corporations and a number of heavy industries. I hate to say it, but industrial accidents are not an infrequent occurrence. Fortunately they are much rarer than they used to be 20, 30 or 40 years ago, but they still occur.

The problem with industrial accidents is that it is very difficult to determine if negligence occurred. Sometimes it may not be negligence at all. It may be that the firm has done everything it thought was correct, but still the accidents occur. The problem is, where do we draw the line between no negligence, negligence and wilful negligence. This motion is directed toward the idea of wilful negligence.

For a number of years during my youth I was a police reporter at the local newspaper. I had the occasion to be on the scene of a number of industrial accidents. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more horrible than to see somebody who has been absolutely crushed to a pulp by some sort of machine, or has been pulled into a machine, or some young person who suffocated as a result of going into a chamber in which the air was exhausted. These things do occur and they are dreadful tragedies. When one has any kind of experience with that one can certainly appreciate and sympathize with the very strong feelings of the relatives of those at Westray who lost their lives.

The difficulty I have with the motion is twofold. One is this concept of where one draws the line between criminal negligence as already defined in the criminal code and some other area of wilful negligence that is not defined in the code. I am not certain you can do that very easily, Mr. Speaker. I am just not certain at all.

The other point I would like to make is the problem that the motion also uses the words “corporate executives”. The motion is directed against this idea that corporations, in their haste to make profit, are the ones that are most likely to be negligent to the point of risking their workers in a criminal way.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Right on. You have it.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

That may be where the frustration occurs with the Westray instance, but I have to point out to the member opposite who is remarking that it would be more precise to use the word businessman or entrepreneur because, in my experience as a police reporter covering industrial accidents, I can tell the member opposite that I saw more death associated with small business than I did with large corporations. The reality is that the large corporations, by and large, have the means to make sure that workplace safety provisions are in place. But the small entrepreneurs often fail in this regard.

I will give an example. Not very long ago we had a fatal accident with a student employee in a bakery who was operating a machine that kneads dough. If I understand this motion correctly, it is that the person who is in charge of that small bakery should be subject to some sort of criminal code provision, rather than the Ontario labour code provisions that are already applicable.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you could reduce it even further. You could take this problem of industrial safety to the farm.

I live in a small community in Ontario in the countryside and we have had several accidents within my memory where people have been drawn into a combine or where people have climbed down into a silo and have died as a result of the gases that are heavier than air and form a pool at the bottom of the silo. Should these farmers be subject to criminal code provisions because they allowed an accident to occur on their farm, which may indeed have actually happened to their very family? It might have been a son who died or a farmhand who died.

While I have enormous sympathy for the frustration felt by the people who lost loved ones at Westray, it seems to me that the proper direction of the anger and the reform should be to bring in better provincial laws regarding workplace safety. It is perfectly possible to have provincial laws that have severe penalties if employers do not provide adequate safety for the workers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point to all members who are interested in this issue that you cannot make a distinction between corporate Canada and then leave out every other type of employer. Mr. Speaker, if you are going to apply the criminal code or any other law you must apply it universally.

I see a member opposite nodding. I see some sympathy there. Yes, by all means, if we can improve the law federally, perhaps not through the criminal code, so that it enforces cross-Canada standards of workplace safety, whether it is on the farm, whether it is in a small enterprise or in a large corporation, I would say yes, absolutely, and amend the motion to that effect, except there is one reality check here and that is the problem that unfortunately workplace safety is primarily a provincial responsibility. Certainly we who are MPs from Ontario find that it is almost impossible to make any kind of meaningful dialogue with the provincial government on any issue. I certainly do not think the provincial government would accept any kind of standards brought in by the national government on workplace safety, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, if it were possible I would dearly love to do it.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

1:55 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about an important subject that is dear to my heart. I will try to easy, since it is a question that is very dear to many hearts.

The reason all of this is so dear to my heart goes back to the accident at the Westray Mine on May 9, 1922. We lost friends in this tragedy, 26 miners. Talking about this here in the House is a very emotional thing for me, because I myself am a former miner.

I worked for more than 15 years in the depths of a mine, I remember that, in 1976, in the mine where I was working, we buried six miners in 18 months. It is really not easy to accept the death of a colleague in one's workplace.

For example, one of those guys drove to work with me every day. One morning we came in together and by nighttime, he was gone.

I would like to congratulate the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for introducing this bill in the House. It reminds me of another bill, introduced by the leader of the NDP, which has not been drawn yet and which is intended to show Canadians that it is absolutely unacceptable in Canada that a corporation, whether small, medium or large, would not have a license to hire workers and then be found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of a worker.

This is what Motion No. 79 is asking members to support. We need a bill to forbid an employer to obtain a licence to hire workers and then do what it pleases.

If I recall correctly what happened in the Westray disaster, the federal government should assume its responsibilities, because it is partly to be blamed for what happened. I will explain.

If my memory serves me right, workers from the Westray mine went to the employment insurance office and asked if they would be penalized if they quit their job. They were told that if they quit their job, it would not be justified. The same thing happened in others mines in my riding.

Last year, a fellow named Stéphane quit his job because it was unsafe, but the employment insurance commission denied him benefits. He appealed and lost his appeal. He then had to appear before an adjudicator and won at long last.

Another similar case occurred when a worker refused to perform an unsafe task with a truck. The truck had faulty brakes, and when he quit his job the federal government turned down his application for employment insurance benefits, stating that safety was not sufficient grounds to quit one's job. He appealed to the employment insurance commission in Bathurst, and the commission denied him benefits. He then appeared before an adjudicator and won his case. The same thing happened at the Westray mine.

Workers from the Westray mine appeared before the employment insurance commission, asking to quit their jobs because of safety concerns. I want to inform the House that the steelworkers' union had been approached to establish a local union at the Westray mine because it was unsafe.

Today the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington is changing his mind to protect companies, to protect the big bosses.

I think he does not represent Canadians or workers of this country. Today, if I get behind the wheel of my car after I had three or four drinks and I kill someone, I would be guilty and I would go to jail.

When a corporate executive can blackmail his employees by telling them “If you do not work, you will lose your jobs” and when the federal government condones that by refusing to pay employment insurance benefits to those who want to leave their jobs, I say that those who made those decisions and the ministers who decided to impose such restrictions on workers should go to jail too.

It is too bad we have to plead with the government to pass a law that any person in charge of a company should not have a licence to run an industry unsafely and jeopardize the lives of workers in a mine or any workplace. That is what happened at Westray mine. Those people claimed it was an unsafe workplace. When they wanted to take the president of the company to court to be put in front of a judge, they were refused because there was no law to do it. We are asking the Government of Canada to set an example and show every province that no one will have a licence to have a place of work which jeopardizes the safety of the workers because it is totally unacceptable.

I worked underground for 15 years. In 1976 within a period of 18 months, we buried six workers. We buried one after the other for 18 months. It was no fun having to bury our friends and colleagues. Remember how members of the House reacted when we lost one of our colleagues a few years ago and another colleague last year. Hon. members know how they felt. The member who flew on a jet to Windsor knows how he felt. I can tell him how I felt when we lost our miners underground at Brunswick mine.

I know how the people at Westray felt when they lost 26 of their miners. I know how hurt they were. The government can help them by putting a law in place so that a court of law will judge whether or not the person was negligent. We are asking for that basic principle, that those who are negligent are judged in a court of law.

Why is the culprit, the vice-president of the company, getting away with all of this? It is totally unacceptable and it should never be tolerated in Canada. That is why I am asking the government to rethink what is going on, to rethink its position on the motion by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. Let us put a committee together to look at some rules and regulations that will take care of this.

If a miner or a worker is negligent and does something to kill somebody else, he will go in front of a judge. Why do the people in charge of a company have the licence to get away with that?

We are not asking for something that is out of the ordinary. We are asking for justice. We are asking for justice for our workers, the women and men who are forced by negligent people to work in an unsafe place. We see it every day. We cannot hide behind facts when culprits get people to work in unsafe places. We cannot hide behind facts. The culprits should go before a court and be judged like any other Canadian.

Westray MinePrivate Members' Business

2 p.m.

Reform

Dale Johnston Reform Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to spend a few minutes on the private member's motion that is before us today. The motion is that that this House should be called upon to amend the criminal code or other appropriate federal statutes to be in accordance with recommendation no. 73 of the province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray mine disaster.

This motion is certainly supportable because of the aspect of accountability for negligence. It makes good sense that people should not be asked to work in obviously unsafe conditions. If there is a requirement to work in an unsafe area, then the employee should have the right to refuse that work. If an employee is injured or killed in an unsafe work area and the employer could be shown to be negligent, I agree that he or she should be held accountable.

We have been waiting for some time for amendments to part II of the labour code which would deal with health and safety. I believe there will be provisions in that code which will come very close to achieving these ends. We have indicated that we will be supporting that legislation when it comes to the House.

The spirit and intent of the motion is to hold employers accountable for providing a safe workplace. I know that Mr. Speaker has been an employer for a good many years and has always striven to provide a safe workplace for his employees. No doubt his employees are his number one consideration. This is only reasonable.

We have to be very cautious and strike a balance. It is up to the employer to provide a safe workplace. There also should be a recommendation or at least an onus on the employee not to use the clause frivolously and only to protest about bona fide unsafe working conditions.

I have appreciated the opportunity to say a few words to the motion. I am certain that when Bill C-12, the amendments to the Canada Labour Code, comes before the House we will have a lot more to say.