Brent St. Denis

[Westray Mine, February 18th, 2000]

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.

[Veterans Health Care, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first that the sense of humour of the member for Dewdney—Alouette is almost as good as his hockey skills.

The government has always taken the issue of business taxes very seriously. In fact it was this government which set up a technical committee on business taxation, announced in the 1996 budget, because we were and are concerned about the impact of business taxes on jobs and growth.

However, we must not lose perspective concerning the problems we inherited when first elected in 1993. In fact we were left with quite a mess.

First, we had to deal with a $42 billion deficit. Nothing could take priority over wrestling that deficit to the ground. In fact, we have announced a string of surpluses which, to my understanding, is a record in the history of this country, and we are proud of that.

Second, Canada still faces a debt burden that is the second largest in the OECD. Five years ago 36 cents out of every dollar collected was used to pay interest on the debt. We have successfully brought it down to 27 cents on each dollar, and it is falling. This is clearly an important problem that needs further fixing.

Third, we have a personal income tax burden which is the highest we have had in our history, granted, and too high in relation to other developed nations. That is why this is our number one tax priority.

However, this is not to say that we will not act on business taxes. We will. The 1999 fall economic and fiscal update stated that this government is committed to ensuring that we have an internationally competitive business tax system.

I am confident that the upcoming budget will lay out a multi-year tax reduction plan which will respond responsibly to our commitment to split surpluses between tax and debt reduction on the one hand and social and economic investment on the other hand.

I remind the member across the way to be here on February 28 to hear the good news.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, February 16th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the House and to those who are listening to the debate on television that our friends in the opposition are confusing two very important elements with respect to Bill C-11.

Bill C-11 essentially authorizes the sale of the Devco assets so that the private sector can take those assets to create jobs and continue coal mining in Cape Breton.

I appreciate that the opposition would use this as a platform to talk about the human resources package, to talk about health care in Canada, to talk about any number of other issues some related and some not. But using this simple bill which will allow for the sale of Devco assets and the continuation of coal mining as a platform for other issues could create a delay, but hopefully would not, that may hurt that process. I do not think anyone wants to see that.

I simply want to make it clear that on the human resources side, which is very separate from this bill, the government has made a commitment of $111 million of severance and early retirement measures for the workers and $68 million for economic development. Add to that $12 million from the province. This has been made available to the communities so that they may redevelop their local economies to respond to the realities at Devco.

The member for Jonquière raised a number of very good points. I go back to my comments and questions to the opposition last November. Do we not believe that the best ideas for economic renewal come from the communities, their leaders and their citizens as opposed to Ottawa or elsewhere in the country? Should we not empower them to find the best solutions for the challenges they face?

I caution opposition members to focus on the need to get on with the future of Cape Breton. Focus on the need to make sure that a strong private sector buyer is able to create the jobs that we hope can be maintained. Do not confuse the human resources package with the need to move on with the private sector partner.

Does the member for Jonquière not agree that the very best solution for local communities is to allow local leaders and citizens to implement their ideas so that their economy best reflects their needs and the capacity of their citizens in this millennium?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. We congratulate him on his byelection win in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I will deal with the points he has raised and the general and severe challenges being faced by the farm sector.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the government clearly recognize the very serious nature of the financial situation many Canadian farmers are currently facing. Our government is taking the broadest possible approach to this situation.

The WTO agriculture negotiations are an important opportunity to seek greater disciplines in the use of production and trade distorting subsidies. Canada's initial position in these trade negotiations, which was developed through two years of extensive consultations with Canadians, makes it clear that we will seek the complete elimination of agricultural export subsidies and maximum reductions in production and trade distorting domestic support programs, including an overall limit of all sorts and all types of domestic support programs.

The close co-operation between the government and the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry that characterizes the development of Canada's initial agriculture negotiating position was also fully present at the Seattle WTO ministerial conference held at the beginning of December 1999. The continuation of this team Canada approach as the negotiations progress will ensure that Canada will achieve the very best results possible for farmers right across Canada. While I recognize that the negotiations will take time and they likely cannot make the situation better in the next year or two, they are the only way to solve the problem of subsidies distorting agricultural markets once and for all.

In response to an industry request on January 13 of this year, the Government of Canada made a new commitment of up to $1 billion for the next two years to design a new disaster program to assist those producers most in need. Also a new spring advance payment program will provide assistance quickly before spring crops are planted. Individual farmers will be able to access up to $20,000 in interest free loans to help get their crops in the ground. Applications should be available in the coming weeks.

[Candu Reactor, December 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that Canadian nuclear technology is the best in the world. If approval is given for the sale of a Canadian reactor to Turkey, it will be located in a safe location, a long way from any of the difficult locations where there have been earthquakes. I am very confident that the very best results will take place.

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues as we bring to a conclusion the debate on this very important bill which is long overdue. As I listened to the opposition, it appeared to me that it would not matter how many more days or weeks we debated this bill, I do not think the official opposition could be convinced of the importance and value of passing this legislation. I agree with my minister, with my colleagues on this side of the House and the other parties that this must be done. Bill C-9 must become a law of the land.

My riding is in northern Ontario. Possibly after the minister himself who also represents a northern Ontario riding, I believe my riding has the second greatest number of first nations communities, approximately 25. This does not make me any expert on first nations affairs but it does give me some insight into representing first nations communities with regard to the importance of taking this very important step forward.

In Ontario, as in most provinces, we have treaties with our first nations which provide some framework for negotiating issues of concern in relationships between the federal government, in some cases the provincial government, and our first nations communities. Unfortunately this is not the case in British Columbia for different and valid historical reasons, but that does not mean we cannot find the basis for a treaty today.

As we struggle to interpret treaties of 100 or 150 years ago in today's context, this treaty itself will not be the silver bullet to answer all future problems. Like the treaties in the rest of Canada, it will provide an important framework and foundation upon which to allow our first nations communities to move forward.

I would like to address the allegation being made by the Reform Party that the Nisga'a treaty will form a template for all other agreements in British Columbia. The Nisga'a treaty was not carelessly negotiated and it bears no resemblance to the hodgepodge of poorly conceived and often counterproductive amendments which the Reform Party has put before the House today for our consideration.

The Nisga'a treaty is the result of more than 20 years of intensely adversarial negotiations. The treaty represents a delicate balance of interests and reflects the compromises and trade offs made by all parties through years of these difficult negotiations.

Canadians can be proud of the hardworking individuals who gave their hearts and souls to hammer out the Nisga'a treaty. Negotiators representing the governments of Canada, British Columbia and the Nisga'a Tribal Council deserve enormous praise for their patience and perseverance during the long years of negotiations. Their determination to find a just and lasting solution to the Nisga'a claim has resulted in a landmark settlement that stands as an example of reconciliation and equity.

Much has been learned from this treaty. We have wrestled with some of the most contentious issues surrounding aboriginal self-government and implementation of the inherent right. We have found ways to finally do away with the antiquated Indian Act, replacing its provisions with progressive measures that enable the Nisga'a people to manage their own affairs. Perhaps equally important, we have come to a new understanding of how aboriginal and other governments in Canada can co-exist and bring benefits to all residents living on and adjacent to first nations lands.

This treaty stands as a symbol of how Canadians work things out in a collaborative and honourable manner. It further proves that Canadians can act as peacemakers around the world because they can indeed act as peacemakers at home.

We must acknowledge however that the Nisga'a treaty represents only one step in a much larger process. While this treaty finally and fully addresses the longstanding claims of the Nisga'a first nation, it cannot serve as the standard form to be used in drafting all other treaties.

There has been an assumption on the part of some that the Nisga'a treaty somehow serves as a template for the more than 50 others being negotiated in British Columbia and as a template for other treaty negotiations in Canada. It is important for Canadians to understand that this is simply not possible and for a number of fairly obvious reasons.

First among them is the fact that a one size fits all model could never work. Individual first nations are just that, individual. The James Bay Cree of northern Quebec are as distinct from the Inuit of Nunavut, as they are from the Nisga'a in the Nass Valley. Each first nation has its own unique history, culture and customs, geography, language and political structures.

An equally crucial consideration is location. The issues that must be negotiated in a rural setting are often very different from those in an urban area. Hunting or forestry issues may not be especially relevant to a suburban setting while matters such as ensuring a harmonious relationship with other local governments will deserve greater emphasis.

Most important is the fact that the treaty process revolves around fair negotiation, not unilateral imposition. By their very nature treaties involve give and take. Every fair agreement must strike a reasonable balance between diverse and competing interests in accordance with local circumstances.

Having said that, there is clearly a case to be made for learning from Nisga'a treaty experience. One of the most valuable lessons is that treaties provide a reasonable way to resolve our differences peacefully and productively by working together for the common good.

In British Columbia the absence of treaties has historically resulted in confrontation and lost economic opportunities for aboriginal people and other citizens. This treaty proves that we can resolve those problems through negotiation rather than litigation.

There are also practical reasons to apply lessons learned to the Nisga'a negotiation process. Few people other than the negotiators themselves can fully appreciate the incredibly long hours and years of work that went into drafting the careful, detailed and precise language in this agreement. Much of the time was spent by each of the parties developing their respective positions. From Canada's perspective this entailed extensive third party consultations as well as careful legal and policy analysis. Having gone through this time consuming and costly exercise and having achieved a sound understanding of the issues being addressed, it makes sense for us to build on this knowledge in future negotiations.

There are also advantages to adopting elements from one treaty when they are applicable province-wide. One of the most significant is consistency.

Of particular significance within that framework is the benefit of certainty over land and resource ownership and use, which is critical to providing stability for the business community. This in turn encourages investments that lead to increased job opportunities for all people living in and around the affected areas.

Perhaps the most convincing reason to borrow best practices is that it makes sense. It speeds up the treaty making process. My hon. colleagues need to appreciate that it can take years to reach a final settlement. This painfully slow process comes at a significant cost for the first nations directly affected and prolongs economic uncertainty within the entire region.

I emphasize that this treaty is not a template, but it will serve as a useful example for other negotiations.

Ratifying the Nisga'a final agreement will enable us to achieve all of the objectives that are good for the country, good for the province and good for the first nation community itself. Bill C-9 is clearly legislation that the House should support and the Nisga'a treaty is clearly the right agreement for the Nisga'a people and for the residents of northwestern British Columbia.

I urge all members, including those in the loyal opposition who might consider changing their minds, to support this legislation.

[Columbia River Treaty, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada for the year ending September 30, 1997.

[The Great Lakes, December 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, much of my riding borders on the beautiful Great Lakes of Huron and Superior, world famous, as hon. members will know. Many of my constituents enjoy sport fishing, commercial fishing, swimming and recreational boating in these waters. We are lucky to have this resource in our midst.

However, some of my constituents have expressed concern about the possible damage bulk water removal would cause the environment should it be allowed.

Our government has acted to address these concerns. Very recently the foreign affairs minister introduced amendments to the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act to prohibit bulk exports of water from Canadian boundary waters, including the Great Lakes.

I am pleased to see that our government is committed to ensuring that our freshwater resources, especially the Great Lakes, are there for future generations.

[Mining Industry, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mining industry is a leader in using high technology products and services. This government will continue to work with industry to harness technology in order to maintain our pace-setting achievements in productivity.

An excellent example is a new project currently under way which will explore the replacement of diesel fuel by hydrogen fuel technology in underground mining operations. This would eliminate underground diesel emissions, improve the underground environment for workers, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and decrease mine ventilation costs. If successful, we stand poised to capture world markets in this technology.

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the changes the government has introduced to the AIDA program will benefit many producers across the country.

We will now be covering negative margins. Negative margins occur when a farm has a particularly bad year and the operation has insufficient revenues to cover variable costs like fuel, machinery repair and chemicals. These due dollars will go to those farm families that need help to cover their variable costs.

What will also help farmers to get through these tough times is that they now have the option to make a one-time choice in 1999 of the reference period on which the payment calculation for AIDA is based. They will be able to choose either the previous three years or three of the previous five years where the high and low income years are not counted.

This will be a real help to farmers as they will not need to count a low income year they may have had due to flooding, drought, or some other occurrence beyond their control. This will provide better stability and more effective support to those farmers who find themselves in this type of situation.

As well, we are committed to having all processing of the AIDA claims completed by Christmas in provinces where the federal government delivers the program, as is the case in Manitoba.

As of today, November 25, the total value of AIDA payments in Manitoba is $33.7 million. These program changes and the total amount of money to be paid out by Christmas will help the farmers get through the tough times the hon. member referred to.