Mark Muise

[Fisheries, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, spring has arrived yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has failed in his promise to negotiate a plan to regulate the Atlantic fishery.

Can the minister tell us how he intends to regulate a native food fishery so that we do not encounter the same abuses we have encountered in the past?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I think all of us in the House recognize the fact that the highway system is the responsibility of the provinces. However, let us face facts. The Liberal government has cut over the past seven years funding for health care and education and has downloaded the cost to the provincial governments to the point where they cannot function any more. The hon. member has the gall to stand in his place and say it is the provinces which neglected the highway system. The provinces neglected the highway system because the government cut, slashed and burned. It left the provinces high and dry.

Provinces such as Nova Scotia are in hard financial times. Our provincial finance minister is telling us this every day. We are anticipating a budget, which should come down very soon, but I do not particularly look forward to it.

It is partly the responsibility of the federal government, which has slashed at every opportunity, without care for our young people in schools who are the future of our country. The government has not thought about the elderly, the people which made this country great. The government has not thought about the sick. Government members ignore our future and turn their backs on those who made this country great.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to rise in response to my hon. colleague's comments.

I recognize and I think all Canadians recognize that there had to be some belt tightening and we had to get rid of the deficit. However, I heard the finance minister, in this year and in the year previous, brag that finally we had a zero deficit.

It does not take a rocket scientist—maybe it does if it is a Liberal member of parliament—to understand that the transportation system is one of the most vital systems in this country. It is what makes our economy work.

We can pay taxes in many ways. We can let the system fall to the point where we are saving today, but it will cost three times the amount of money to put it back to where it should have been had we been putting the money in to keep it where it should have been. It has been falling and falling. We pay taxes on the one hand, then we drive on roads that wreck our vehicles, and then we spend money to repair them and we get taxed again.

The money should be spent on the system so that our goods can get to market. That is what drives our economy. I cannot for the life of me understand why the government cannot see that as a priority. It is one of the main engines which drives our economy.

The hon. member said it. We have to consult. The government can consult until the cows come home. It is obvious to everyone that this infrastructure program needs to be put in place. It needs to be put together, maintained and improved. I do not understand where the member is coming from with his comments.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as I started to say a bit earlier, I certainly welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to speak on the Reform motion calling for the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system in the country.

However, I question the need for an integrated transportation system considering the tremendous increase in gas prices we have experienced in the last little while. If it continues no one will be able to go out. They will have to stay home and we might not need a transportation system.

On a more serious note, we have witnessed the plight of truck drivers who are basically struggling to survive in the face of rising costs. Most Canadians sense the urgency in the truckers' message as they watched the steady stream of truckers protesting across the country. These hard working Canadians are desperately trying to raise public awareness to the serious problems facing their industry. I think most Canadians now understand the situation.

Perhaps the only Canadians who were not moved by this public display are the members of the Liberal government who continue to turn a blind eye to their problems by refusing to provide them with any kind of tax relief.

In 1995 the minister of finance introduced a one and a half cent per litre tax on gasoline as a deficit reduction measure. The deficit, as we all know, is gone, thanks in large part to the GST and free trade, which by the way the government had promised to eliminate. The question remains. Why will the government not give our truckers a break and remove this unnecessary tax?

Trucking in Canada is a $30 billion industry that is characterized by many small family owned operations across the country. The trucking industry employs 400,000 people, 225,000 of whom are truck drivers, making it the top occupation in Canada according to the 1996 census. Our trucking industry can no longer afford to have the government ignore its serious problems. It needs action and it is needed now.

No one has to tell our truckers about the need for very significant improvements to our national highway system. With 90% of Canadian consumer goods being transported by truck, our truck drivers have seen for themselves the result of the government's total lack of commitment toward improving or even maintaining our national highway system.

Every day $1.5 billion in goods go back and forth between Canada and the U.S., 70% of which is transported by truck. Yet look at the state of our highways. Our largest trading partner, the U.S., has recognized the importance of highways. That government has made a commitment to the highway system. In 1998 the U.S. signed into law the transportation equity act for the 21st century. The act is a firm commitment to improving the nation's highway system.

It is estimated to be worth some $218 billion. That is $218 billion over six years authorizing highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs. Even the federal Liberal representatives from Atlantic Canada recognize the failure of their own government to maintain an adequate transportation infrastructure system. In their reported entitled “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”, they said:

Our basic transportation infrastructure needs improvement. This is an issue that must be addressed. Transportation infrastructure is inextricably bound up with the economic development of our region...To transport goods throughout the region, and to provide tourists with quality highways that will encourage travel to small communities, we must have a better road system than now exists.

Some 38% of our national highway system is considered substandard. Poor roads increase gas consumption, damage to vehicles and, even more serious, cause deadly accidents. We need only look at Highway 101 in Nova Scotia as a prime example. Since 1993, 50 people have been killed and countless others injured in motor vehicle accidents, and still the federal government fails to act. We are the only industrialized country at present without a national highways policy.

Why has the government not sat down with the provinces to negotiate such a program? What does it take to get the government to respond to the very serious crises such as we have had on Highway 101? How many more Nova Scotians must we lose to accidents before the Liberal government deems it sufficient and finally takes measures to improve this treacherous stretch of highway?

After all, it did not take the government years to construct a new road to the Prime Minister's cottage in Grand-Mère. It was so anxious it did not even take the time to put it to tender, opting instead to give it to one of the Prime Minister's friends.

We do not want to wait any longer for the government to decide that highway 101 in Nova Scotia is dangerous. Unfortunately, statistics are here to prove it.

The country has more than 9,000 kilometres of public roads, yet the recent budget only provides $2.65 billion for our entire infrastructure program over four years.

The Commons transportation committee suggested that restoring Canada's highway system would cost at least $18 billion which would be funded at a rate of $1.2 billion over 15 years. According to the finance minister's budget the Liberal government is only prepared to fund $150 million per year in his six year projection for highways commencing in three years. This falls far short in its attempt to address Canada's crumbling highway system.

Over the past 10 years, the Department of Transport has collected over $38 billion in fuel tax. Currently, it has a surplus exceeding $3 billion.

The federal government collects $4 billion in fuel tax a year. As my colleague said earlier, only 4% of that is actually returned to the highways. If a higher percentage of fuel taxes were returned to the highways, for example 15%, and this were matched by the province, it would create a substantial amount of financial support for our highways.

I suggest the government should consider following the advice of my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester and work together with the provinces in order to invest maybe 15% of the fuel tax to upgrade the road system in Canada.

There is no question that Highway 101 needs to be twinned and no doubt that the section between Digby and Weymouth should be completed as soon as possible. The province of Nova Scotia cannot go it alone. It needs the federal government to enter into a partnership so that the citizens using this highway can do it in relative security.

Transportation affects every aspect of our lives. It is an integral necessity in every industry and business across the country, yet the government does not seem to be aware of it. The motion before us is a simple and straightforward request for leadership, a normal quality in a government or one that we would expect; co-operation with other levels of government and local transportation authorities; a long term vision and plan for our infrastructure system; and a commitment to realistic funding. In many areas the government has lacked direction and leadership.

The government had better get involved in helping the shipbuilding industry, especially in Atlantic Canada, which has a long history of building quality vessels. It has the manpower, the knowledge and the ability to build world-class vessels far superior to any others because of the heavy seas we experience in Atlantic Canada. These ships can literally go anywhere, are very strong and last a long time. The government had better get involved in our shipbuilding industry or the expertise we worked long and hard to develop will soon be gone forever.

Shipbuilding is one of Canada's long-standing industries. For instance, in my riding, A.F. Thériault Shipbuilding Limited has been building boats for over 50 years. It is highly respected for the quality of its products. One of the reasons for its success is the skill of its workers. Several of them have been working in this shipyard for over 20 years. They have developed a level of expertise one cannot achieve in school.

Our passenger rail service is another prime example of the government failing to have a vision for the future. What is the future for VIA Rail? Does anyone know?. Does the government intend to keep throwing money at it? Does it intend to privatize it? Has it thought about it?

What about the Canadian National-Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Corporation merger proposal? Has it explained its official position on this issue which has the potential to completely alter the North American rail industry? The United States Surface Board has already held its hearings and released a decision. It realized the magnitude of this proposal and needs additional time to look at the current rail merger rules to ensure they reflect the desired future of the rail industry. Yet our government holds fast to the motto “Let us wait and see”.

What about the airline crisis of last August? The government was fully aware of the difficulties facing the airline industry and refused to take action until there was apparently an extraordinary disruption to effective and continued operation of the national transportation system.

The indecision of the government about the type of role it would play in finding a solution to the airline situation did nothing to help any of the parties involved. Suddenly the Competition Act was suspended and the government adopted a wait and see policy.

Obviously the government does not see transportation as a priority. When will the government accept the responsibility of leadership? The government needs to work in conjunction with other governments to develop viable plans to strengthen all aspects of our transportation infrastructure. We need commitment, we need funding and we need action. We realize that it cannot be done all at once, but we ask the government to do something now while we still have an infrastructure program and a transportation system to salvage.

[Act Of Incorporation Of The Board Of Elders Of The Canadian District Of The Moravian Church In America, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yes I thought we were debating something else.

[Act Of Incorporation Of The Board Of Elders Of The Canadian District Of The Moravian Church In America, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to debate the Reform motion calling on the federal government to provide Canadians with the necessary means to develop a first rate transportation system. However I question the need for an integrated transportation system, considering the tremendous increases in gas prices we have been experiencing lately and I feel that if this continues, the majority of Canadians will have to stay at home.

Already we have witnessed the serious plight of our truck drivers who are struggling to survive in the face of these rising costs.

[National Parks, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Mr. Jacques Gérin will be releasing a scathing report on the state of our national parks. Is the timing of the release orchestrated to justify the government's economic development restrictions contained in Bill C-27?

[Fisheries, March 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last fall the minister of fisheries promised that he would have a plan in place by the spring to regulate the Atlantic fishery.

Today, the first day of spring, what is the plan? Does it enforce one season for all fishermen and does it address the controversial food fishery?

[Westray Mine, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure this afternoon to participate in this debate. I will take this opportunity to congratulate and thank my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing this motion forward and for working so hard to make this Westray motion votable.

My colleague continues to shed light on the important matter of workplace safety as a result of the Westray mine disaster in May 1992. I and indeed the entire caucus of the PC party support the motion fully.

I wish to read Motion No. 79 to the House. It states:

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.

As well, I think that it is important for me to read Recommendation 73 of the Westray inquiry. It reads:

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 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 on the Government of Canada through the justice department to institute a study to ensure the accountability of corporate executives. The criminal code must be amended to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety.

Let me inform members of the House what brought this motion to life. On May 9, 1992, an explosion occurred at the Westray mine killing 26 workers. It was a horrible tragedy, one that was felt throughout the province of Nova Scotia and indeed the country. Many Nova Scotians acted in heroic fashion that deadly day back in May 1992.

The devastation on that Mother's Day nearly eight years ago has left a long and painful memory in the hearts and minds of miners in the province of Nova Scotia. The explosion at the Westray coal mine sent a very chilling message to the people. The message was that haste and financial gain often put people's lives in danger.

The death of the 26 coal miners was foreign and unexpected to a peaceful community like Plymouth. The families of these miners were left having to come to grips with how such a tragedy could have occurred. That is why it is incumbent upon us as legislators to ensure that there is a safe working environment for all workers engaged in labour activity.

Days after the Westray mine explosion, on May 15, the Government of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to head a commission of inquiry established under the Public Inquiries Act. The commission had a very broad mandate so as to shed light on the explosion and all related circumstances. The commission's work thus began immediately to prepare the public hearings set to begin on October 19, 1992.

The final tabling of this report occurred five years later in November 1997. The report entitled The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster contained 74 recommendations. It concluded that this tragedy could have been avoided if minimal occupational safety standards had been met. Allow me to take a moment to read from Justice Richard's report:

The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions, omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity, neglect—viewed in context, these seemingly isolated incidents constitute a mindset or operating philosophy that appears to favour expediency over intelligent planning and that trivializes safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety conscious workers as the wimps in the organization. To its discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that safe mining is good business.

There are ways to prevent such tragedies. There are ways to eliminate criminal actions by corporations, and this is what the motion seeks to address. There are ways it can be done by amending the criminal code, some of which were proposed by Justice Richard. One proposal would be to create a new criminal offence that would impose criminal liability on directors or others responsible for failing to ensure that corporations maintain an appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the workplace. This is precisely what this motion would address.

In Nova Scotia mining is regulated by three pieces of legislation: the mineral resources act, the occupational health and safety act, and the coal mines regulation act. Mr. Justice Richard reviewed all these provincial acts and concluded that their main purpose was to ensure the safety of all workers.

Unfortunately we have seen many examples of occupational safety in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line, especially in the mining industry where the very nature of the work involves a great deal of risk. It is the duty of company officers to ensure that the work is done in the safest possible conditions.

We want to ensure that individuals inside and outside corporate Canada are dealt with equally and fairly under the law. Executives will not be able to hide behind their job titles in the commission of their duties.

Corporate Canada understandably has two related functions: to make a profit and to create jobs. Profit is a good thing but a balance has to be struck between making a profit and the cost that is sometimes incurred by the behaviour of some companies. There must be a balance between making a profit and the means by which to get there.

Section 220 of the criminal code refers specifically to criminal negligence causing death. Similarly section 234 refers to manslaughter. There may be the need as well to introduce amendments to these sections that would broaden the scope of culpability, or perhaps even go so far as to make specific references to executives, directors or persons in management positions.

It is my hope that the devastation of the Westray disaster will not be forgotten. Just as important, the recommendations of the inquiry cannot be forgotten either. The fundamental and basic responsibilities for the safe operation of an underground coal mine, and indeed any industrial undertaking, rest very much with the owners and managers.

Westray management starting with the CEO was required by law, and certainly by good business practices and good conscience, to design and operate a mine safely. The significance of that failure cannot be overstated. Simply because others were also abdicating their responsibilities is not an answer. Shared responsibility can be said to be implicit in the recommendations that came from Mr. Justice Richard's report.

Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity. If companies have not already done so, they should do everything within their power to implement safe, ethical work practices. Ethics such as these should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not the case, actions must be taken to demonstrate the importance and the seriousness of the issue.

Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open, approachable attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the effects that were felt in Plymouth with the Westray mine.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion and thank my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government will spend $160 million over two years to help the natives integrate into the fishery.

Can the minister of fisheries tell us how much money it will cost to fully integrate natives into the fishery? Does the department have a detailed outline of the strategy and can he provide us with a copy? Does this strategy address the serious issue of the summer food fishery?