Roy Cullen

[Income Tax Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans on Bill C-502. I would, however, respectfully submit that this bill does not provide all that is needed.

I know the member opposite when he proposed this bill was concerned about the working people. I would offer the suggestion that if he has the interests of the workers at heart, he should be looking for more broadly based policies that would accomplish the same objectives.

One of these that I am pleased to point out is in the finance committee report that was tabled yesterday or the day before. It talks about the need for tax provisions such as employee stock option plans that enhance productivity by encouraging employees to share in the risks and profits of firms.

If we moved in that direction we would provide workers, employees, with a greater stake in the work they do. They would have a greater sense of participation and job satisfaction. At the same time the productivity of firms would be increased. This has been shown by studies in the United States and Canada. Productivity would be increased 20% to 32%. We would have an environment where a source of retirement income would be made available to employees because they had built up an equity in the firm.

While I respect what the member has proposed in a sense, I think what we need is a broader strategy, more broadly based answers and solutions to these sorts of problems. Deductions for tools for mechanics is not really ambitious enough. While I do respect the member for proposing it, we need much more broadly based solutions to deal with the questions of productivity, incentives, employee participation and employee job satisfaction.

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 455. The motion says that we should amend federal statutes, including the Criminal Code, in order to address the issue of accountability and liability for safety in the workplace in relation to recommendation 73 of the public inquiry of the province of Nova Scotia into the Westray disaster.

I doubt if anyone in the House would not share the member's concern for the victims and for the families of the victims, 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 and economically.

The cost of workplace accidents is high. It is estimated that on top of all human costs, the dollar costs to our economy are as much as $10 million a year. These costs are too high and we need to look at ways to bring them down.

I commend the member opposite for introducing the motion. It 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 ensure safe and healthy workplaces for Canadians.

The motion proposes that we need a new legislative approach to workplace safety. Legislation is clearly one option, but so is education. 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.

The national day of mourning was held last April, for example, and we asked Canadians to remember workers who were killed or injured as a result of occupational accidents or illnesses. The Canadian flag was flown at half-mast on Parliament Hill in memory of all those workers who lost their lives or who were injured on the job.

In addition, governments and organizations throughout North America annually co-operate to hold North American occupational safety and health week. This year North American occupational safety and health week was marked from May 17 to 23. As part of this occasion the Government of Canada joined 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 is distributed broadly to employers and employees. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Safety and Health has also created a very useful website that has gained an international reputation.

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.

As hon. members can see, there is a wide variety of initiatives under way under the leadership of Canada's Minister of Labour, initiatives that provide useful information and 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 promote workplace safety.

The second part of the approach, of course, is legislation. It was some 30 years ago that the federal government developed the occupational safety and health legislation to cover employees and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. Over the years federal legislation and regulations relating to occupational health and safety have been consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. As we consider the motion, we also need to consider what is in place under the Canada Labour Code, especially under Part II of the code. Part II of the code concerns 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. Third, the right to refuse dangerous work. The code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees.

Federal government inspectors visit workplaces, respond to complaints, conduct investigations, prohibit access to workplaces deemed hazardous and can impose fines for non-compliance. If company directors and officers are found guilty of an offence under the labour code, they will be liable on a summary conviction to a fine of up to $100,000. For a conviction on indictment, the labour code calls for a fine of up to $1 million and/or imprisonment for a term of up two years.

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 in Canada.

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 on workers' rights might not be viewed positively by those other levels of government. Amending the Criminal Code, for example, as the motion proposes, would clearly run into this roadblock.

We have to find an approach that would accommodate federal-provincial interests and that would also combine the educational and legislative approaches.

With respect to the question of studying the liability of corporate executives and directors, recommendation 73 of the province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray disaster specifically recommended that the federal government, through the Department of Justice, institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors. Although the member is well intended, the Westray report recommended that the Department of Justice review this.

I know this is a contentious area. I myself have a private member's bill which suggests that under the Canada Business Corporations Act directors be allowed the defence of due diligence in the conduct of their activities. Therefore, the issue does require further study, not by a parliamentary committee as proposed by the amendment to Motion No. 455, but instead by the Minister of Justice as recommended by the Westray inquiry report.

Thus, while I support the idea of a study I do not support the amendment.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for her interest in and commitment to this particular topic.

In her remarks the member talked about the issue of enforcement and implementation. There are roles here for the federal government obviously in the context of federal statutes and laws, but also for the provincial governments and the ministers of environment, particularly in Ontario. We have heard a lot of discussion and debate about the lack of commitment by the Ontario government in its cutbacks to the environment. With respect, we have had to do some cutting back in our own federal Department of the Environment.

I wonder if the member could comment on how well we are positioned in Ontario and in Canada to enforce the laws and regulations that we do promulgate.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore speaks very earnestly about the environment. We all care about the environment. I for one am concerned about air quality in Toronto where I live. I also know the member opposite is a very practical person because I have had the pleasure of participating with him in extracurricular activities outside the House.

I have a hypothetical question for him. Let us say that the hon. member is chairman of a company. His chief executive officer or president makes a presentation to the board of directors on a project which, after all the analyses, will cost $600 million and involve 1,000 jobs.

As chairman he would go over all the analyses and ask about the toxic chemicals being produced, whether they are satisfied with the level of toxicity and whether they have done all they can to ensure a clean environment in the factory site. Then the president would answer that they are down to .0001, that they have the best available processes in place, and that they are following all the rules.

What if someone came up with a new measuring device which found something in there that was .000005? Could they shut them down? Could they stop them from operating? Could they force them to find the solution when the solution may not be there? How would the member feel if he could not be given that assurance? What would you say then?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for the hard work she and others have done in contributing to the debate on Bill C-32.

I suppose there are some of us in the House who have supported the bill. I would point out that in terms of an industrial barrage of lobbying, I know that I have seen in my time here lobbying that was much more intense, for example, the lobbying over the bank mergers, and yet our government decided to disallow bank mergers at this time.

We have lobbyists and we have lobbyists. I am sure there are lobbyists on the environmental protection side of the issue. Therefore, to say that this bill is the result of an intense industrial lobby is perhaps somewhat unfair.

In my experience in the forest products industry we had a number of concerns with legislation that was introduced by the Ontario government during the NDP period which concerned the use of the best available technology. What that legislation did was to say that, notwithstanding the cost, if there was technology in place that would allow the removal or elimination of certain pollutants, then the law required that the best available technology be implemented. For example, if emissions could be reduced by .000 and it cost $1 billion, to use a ridiculous example, the legislation said that would have to be implemented.

I know there are differences of opinion on this issue in the House, but on the concept of virtual elimination I think there was a legitimate concern by industry that we were going to be chasing molecules or those pollutants that are not measurable by any reasonable standard and investing millions of dollars of capital to reduce pollutants which are really having no significant impact at all.

[National Mining Week, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Mining Week, a time when we recognize the major contributions of Canada's minerals and metals industry to our quality of life.

With its some 1,500 mining and exploration companies in over 100 countries, Canada is a recognized world leader in the sustainable production of metals and minerals.

We rank among the world's top five producers for some 16 major mineral commodities. Canada's industry is environmentally friendly, socially responsible and a major user of high tech products and services.

The mining industry currently offers highly specialized jobs to women and men throughout Canada, especially in its remote and rural regions.

Last year the Canadian minerals and metals industry contributed over $26 billion to our economy, employed more than 360,000 Canadians and generated some $45 billion in export earnings for Canada.

I invite hon. members to join with me in celebrating the accomplishments of this important sector and to salute the men and women who have helped to make the Canadian mining industry a world leader.

LÉGENDES FANTASTIQUES

[Petitions, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition with over 2,500 signatures which highlights the contribution that immigrants make to our great country of Canada and the desire by many to sponsor their families.

The petitioners mention the high landing fee and processing fee per application and they ask our government to combine the processing fee and landing fee into one, thereby reducing the total cost per application to $500.

[Committees Of The House, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

In accordance with its order of reference of Monday, April 26, 1999, your committee has considered Bill C-78, the public sector pension investment board act, and agreed on Thursday, May 6, 1999, to report it with amendments.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-71, the budget implementation act, 1999. I am pleased to enter the debate because what I hear from the opposite side is not really reflective of what the 1999 budget is all about.

The Bloc Quebecois continue to whine about the per capita adjustment in the budget. Let me go over some of the history of the equalization payments and the CHST transfer.

Over the last number of years there has been a cap on the transfers from the federal government to the provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia to deal with health care, secondary education and welfare. That cap was there because of the economic prosperity in those provinces.

Now that we have returned to a point where we have some fiscal responsibility and have eliminated the deficit, it makes absolute sense to go now to an equal per capita payment on the CHST. It means that we are returning to equity.

A member of the Bloc Quebecois said that he would not support the aspect of the budget which dealt with bringing the budget back to a fair and equitable arrangement under the CHST. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be put on an equal footing with the other provinces. They have not been over the last many years. His argument seems to be totally illogical, but we all know the motivation of Bloc Quebecois members. They want to create an impression that Canada is not working and is unfair. Their agenda is to promote the single minded issues of Quebec.

Let us talk about equalization. If we look at transfers from the federal government to the province of Quebec, not only do we have the CHST which deals with health care, secondary education, post-secondary education and welfare, but we have equalization payments. The equalization payments for the province of Quebec in this budget are around $5 billion. They are more than 50% of total equalization payments given to all provinces and territories in Canada.

What a shame. What a disgrace. The province of Quebec was strong; it was an economic powerhouse before the separatists became engaged in Quebec. What a tragedy that Quebec, because it is a have not province now, has to participate in the lion's share of equalization payments from the federal government. Why? It is a poor province. Why is that?

Unfortunately, Quebec is a poor province because of the policies the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are implementing there. It is unfortunate. It is a tragedy.

I would like to talk about some of the positive aspects of the budget because members opposite totally ignore them. The member for Wild Rose spoke about the model he sees in budget building. In other words, a budget should reflect the priorities of the Canadian people.

Perhaps the member for Wild Rose did not read the last budget. It had $11.5 billion directed into health care, one of the largest single transfers under the CHST in modern history. Of that $11.5 billion, $3.5 billion goes to the province of Ontario. The people of Ontario were saying very loudly that we need to deal with health care. We have hospitals that are crowded. We have waiting lists.

The delivery of health care is a provincial responsibility, but we provide funding to the provinces through the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer. I will try to clarify some points around that.

Although the member for Wild Rose is from Alberta, he postulated that the reason health care was threatened in Ontario and other provinces was that the transfers from the federal government had been reduced. What a neat little theory. I hear it in Ontario from time to time, more often than I would like, and I would like to correct the record on it.

If we look at the reduced transfers under the CHST to the province of Ontario since 1993, they amount to less than $1 billion per year. In contrast I will outline what the Government of Ontario has done. It implemented tax cuts, which is great. We have been implementing tax cuts. We would like to implement more tax cuts.

In the last budget we had to redirect more money to health care because the Government of Ontario said explicitly and implicitly that it values tax cuts five times more than topping up federal transfer reductions. The 30% tax cuts in Ontario, and I gather Mr. Harris will announce more today, are great.

We will be announcing more tax cuts, but we have to keep topping up health care and education because the Ontario government keeps gutting those programs. One day, hopefully in the next budget or the budget beyond, the federal government will get into massive tax reductions.

We have already provided for $16.5 billion over the next three years but we need to do a lot more. When the Government of Ontario says it will reduce income tax by 30%, it costs the federal treasury about $5.5 billion a year. Our reductions in federal transfers to the Government of Ontario were less than a billion a year. That says tax cuts are five times more important than topping up the federal transfer reductions to the Government of Ontario.

It is very simple. When the member for Wild Rose talks about priorities, the Government of Ontario is reflecting those priorities. In the next month or so the people of Ontario will have their chance to express their view on whether that was the right set of priorities.

In the gallery are some school children, young adults from my riding of Etobicoke North. They attend Mississauga Private School. I would like to give them an insight into what the government is doing about youth employment.

The 1999 budget builds on the Canadian opportunities strategy announced in 1998. It makes available an additional $455 million over three years for the youth employment strategy used to create employment opportunities for young Canadians. That money is providing youth internships and summer jobs. In my riding of Etobicoke North right now I am signing off a Human Resources Development Canada program that will create 170 summer jobs.

We have also shown some leniency with respect to student loans. We allowed tax deductibility of interest on student loans in the 1998 budget. We allowed for deferral of repayment of student loans. We made tax provisions so that Canadian families could put more money into their registered education savings plans which are tax deductible, put together a little nest egg to help educate their children.

In the last budget the Prime Minister and our government announced the Canada millennium scholarship program of $1.3 billion or $2 billion. It is a huge amount that will be used to help students who have good academic records but maybe not the means to go through university or college. Our government is responding to youth.

I have seen youth internship work in my riding of Etobicoke North at Humber College which trains students to work in the tool and die industry. Our government subsidizes the company which hires them so that they can be trained on the job. They take classroom instruction and go to the tool and die company. Some 95% of those students get jobs. I have been at some of the ceremonies where students receive awards.

This budget is a good news budget. While the Bloc Quebecois keeps whining, if I can use that term, about the transfers, the province of Quebec is a net beneficiary and the province of Ontario is back to a fair and equitable transfer of funds under the CHST.

[National Defence, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The opposition continues to question the military equipment that is being sent by Canada to the area of the former Yugoslavia. However yesterday at the display of this equipment only one member of the official opposition, as I understand it, was able to attend.

With that in mind, would the Minister of National Defence please describe the equipment that is being sent to this area?