House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 43% of the vote.
Fisheries March 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, buying back fishing licences from non-natives has nothing to do with the treaty that we signed 200 years ago.
The minister also knows that the fishing season will be opening in only a few weeks. He also knows on top of that that there must be organization and regulation in the fishery that will not be sprung upon fishers at the last minute.
Can the minister tell us what existing regulations the federal negotiator has given up in order to get agreements in place for the new season?
Fisheries March 23rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, DFO is buying back licences which will then be given to aboriginal fishers. Traditionally fishers have entered the industry by purchasing their own licences and boats. Low interest loans could be made available to first nations.
Will the minister commit today to selling licences and boats to aboriginal fishers to make sure everyone enters the industry on an equal footing?
Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act March 23rd, 2000
That is exactly what it was.
Gasoline Pricing March 21st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, it seems the only people commending the industry minister's recent study are Liberal backbenchers. The Canadian Automobile Association, the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, the Canadian Trucking Alliance and others have all questioned the need for yet another gasoline pricing study.
Will the minister admit this study is simply a stall and delay tactic to ensure that he and his government will not have to take action and work at this question until after the next election?
Aboriginal Affairs March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister say that his department is accountable to the taxpayer of Canada. However, some of the bands do have accountability problems. It was only recently that the Eskasoni Band submitted its complete and full audit to this very minister.
Can the minister tell us if the rest of the bands in Atlantic Canada have submitted full and accountable audits to the minister?
Aboriginal Affairs March 20th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, the Eskasoni and Acadian bands in Nova Scotia have both been accused of not being accountable for their federal funding.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us how he knows this when his own department has been criticized for lack of accountability, deficient monitoring systems and no regional management performance reports?
Supply March 20th, 2000
Madam Speaker, specifically to the statement by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, obviously there are other areas in which the government has been deficient.
What I have been trying to deal with has strictly been HRDC. There is chaos in the department. There is a meltdown in the department. Someone needs to be responsible. That person is the department head, the minister and the Prime Minister.
Supply March 20th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's statement. However I can only speak to the motion that is before us. There is none of that in the motion which I read at the beginning of my speech. I will read it again:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.
That is a general statement. That is not a specific statement. I am specifically looking at HRDC. That is the $1.5 billion increase. There is no other $1.5 billion increase in the federal budget. It is specific to that department. It is not specific to certain elements of that department. It is specific to the general budget of that department.
The basis of my deliberations is that we have a department that is out of control. The department should have but apparently has not embarrassed the minister and the former minister responsible for it. There are 19 ongoing police investigations, three of which are in the Prime Minister's riding. We should not reward incompetence. We should slap incompetence down and say “Clean up your books and come back to us again. In the meantime we are going to cut your budget. We are not going to increase it”.
That is not saying that there are not good programs within HRDC. That is saying that we do not send good money after bad.
Supply March 20th, 2000
Madam Speaker, after that bit of dialogue I am really lost for words. I do not know how to follow it. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I also want to say that the PC Party supports this motion. I have heard a lot of comments from the NDP saying that it does not support the motion. I wonder why NDP members do not support the specifics of the motion put forward by the member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
The motion states:
That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada Health and Social Transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.
The reasoning behind that was because of the fiasco that is going on in HRDC.
I do not think any responsible member of parliament would say that the member for Calgary—Nose Hill or any other member who supports this motion is cherry picking from HRDC or any other area. This would be a general investment of $1.5 billion in the CHST, which is needed because of government cutbacks. The motion also proposes to hold back $1.5 billion from federal grants and contributions. As every member of the House knows, HRDC has proven that it is irresponsible and not able to control its budget.
It is important to understand that this is not pointing to HRDC offices in individual ridings. This is not saying that there is not a lot of good work being done by HRDC in individual ridings. The riding I represent, South Shore, has an HRDC office in Bridgewater and another one in Shelburne. Those offices do a lot of good work. They have excellent people working in them. They have put forward some good assistance to businesses in the South Shore riding and in the province of Nova Scotia in general. However, there has been a serious lack of leadership by the minister of HRDC, and the previous minister I should add. There are 19 police investigations ongoing, criminal investigations, and the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister decided when they brought the budget down that they would reward the minister of HRDC. It is mind-boggling. It is dumbfounding.
Even hon. members of the NDP who spoke to this motion must find it rather ludicrous that there is a department in turmoil and yet its budget has been increased. The government said “Yes, we know it is in trouble. We are going to give it more money to waste”.
Let us be honest. It is not the regional offices; it is the management, the top brass at HRDC. Those are the people who allowed this to happen. Fifteen per cent of the 459 audited grants did not even include an application form. Eleven per cent did not include a budget proposal. Eleven per cent did not contain any expected results. Twenty-five per cent did not say for which type of activity the money would be used.
That money came out of our pockets and the pockets of our constituents. That money came from the taxpayers of Canada and we have an obligation, both as opposition members of parliament and as government members, to make sure this money is spent wisely.
I think we should be responsible. I think we should be understanding. I think we should realize that everyone is not perfect, that all departments are not perfect and that individuals make mistakes, but we should also have a system of checks and balances in place so that when those mistakes are made they are corrected.
To add $1.5 billion to a $13 billion budget as a reward for incompetence is inconceivable. It is an insult to the taxpayers of Canada.
At the same time, the PC Party supports the existence of programs designed to help young Canadians get their first job and to help less fortunate people such as the handicapped enter the job market. The TJF was put in place to help areas of high unemployment in the regions that were hit very hard by reforms made to employment insurance in 1996 by this government.
We support sensible programming. We support programs which are formulated in such a way as to hit areas of high unemployment, the people and the groups in society that are less fortunate and those who have a more difficult time entering the job market.
This is not about standing and saying that everything in HRDC is bad. It is not about saying that all HRDC regional offices are bad. This is about understanding what has gone on in HRDC and asking why, when we have a health care crisis and an education crisis in this country, we would take $1.5 billion extra and put it in HRDC when we need it desperately in the Canada health and social transfer.
This is not a complex issue. Let us look at the Liberals' reaction to it. The Prime Minister tried to minimize this huge fiasco by saying in the House on February 9, 2000 that only $251.50 caused problems. That is a direct quote from the Prime Minister. I am still waiting for the translation because I know I lost something in the translation. I still have not figured it out, but this is what the Prime Minister said and all the Liberal members on the government side were nodding and agreeing that $251.51 caused problems. It is just amazing.
We are now aware that there are at least 19 police investigations including three in the Prime Minister's own riding. It is unforgivable that the Prime Minister and his cabinet can stand and defend this type of government, this type of policy, in a country where taxpayer dollars are being spent.
Last week the president of Canada Employment and Immigration unionized employees of HRDC held a press conference on Parliament Hill. He said that the governing party and the cuts of over 5,000 jobs at HRDC were to blame for the mess, and that political influence caused expediency in the approval of the process of grants and contributions.
For instance, the department accepted to talk to an unregistered lobbyist, Mr. René Fugère, a good friend of the Prime Minister, already under investigation by the RCMP. Grants were awarded to the riding of the HRDC minister, even if her riding did not qualify for the benefit grants under the TJF criteria.
Allegations are made of slush funds. We know several companies that received grants gave large donations to the governing party. Surely Canadians deserve the truth in all these allegations. Surely even the government has to recognize the fact that this is not its money, that this is the money of Canadians.
When Canadians have a question they deserve an answer. No government in the history of the country has had 19 ongoing criminal investigations at once. It has never happened before. It has never happened before that we have had three criminal investigations in the riding of the Prime Minister of Canada. It is time that we got some solid answers. It is time that we saw some responsibility.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi. Obviously he will go into more detail on the Canada health and social transfer aspect of the issue. Before I sit down I would like some reaction from the government benches that they accept responsibility for this fiasco, that they are the government, and that the Prime Minister will stand some day to clear the issue in the House of Commons.
Westray Mine March 3rd, 2000
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.