Gerald Keddy

[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.

[Gasoline Prices, March 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Truckers are protesting in Ottawa today. Yesterday I stated that high diesel prices, along with high gas and fuel oil prices, are hurting Canadians.

What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that diesel, gasoline and fuel oil prices are lower for all Canadians.

[Department Of Indian Affairs And Northern Development, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that an internal audit of his department has been completed, and can he inform the House when it will be released?

[Department Of Indian Affairs And Northern Development, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Can the minister confirm that selected journalists have been or are being offered by a member of his department a briefing on an internal departmental audit?

[Fuel Prices, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are exorbitant and yesterday crude oil hit a record high of over $31 a barrel. The impact this is having on the trucking industry is beginning to affect all consumers as blockades are preventing supplies from getting to retailers. Truckers feel this is their only option to get the government's attention, but so far they have been ignored.

The federal government collects significant amounts of tax dollars from the excise tax on fuel. Unless there is some assistance provided to truckers, many of them who have contacted my office have suggested that they may be forced to sell their trucks and may even face bankruptcy.

Other people are dependent on fuel too. Seniors on fixed incomes are dependent on fuel. Students who travel to university are dependent on fuel. Everyday ordinary Canadians who travel to work are dependent on fuel. It is a federal and a provincial responsibility. So far the federal has been ignoring its responsibility.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 2nd, 2000]

What was the cost to the federal government of the Supreme Court of Canada R. v Marshall trial regarding treaty fishing rights?

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I was more than a bit interested to hear the hon. member talk about rural Canada to some extent. It was nice to hear but talk is terribly cheap. Unfortunately a lot more about the budget neglects the rural and remote areas of Canada rather than looks forward to helping rural Canada.

The Canadian Private Woodlot Owners Association has been asking for the last 10 years and has been very adamant for the last five years that the federal government find a way to incorporate sustainable development of woodlots and sustainable forestry practice into the Income Tax Act. There is nothing in the budget for sustainable woodlot management.

There is absolutely nothing in the budget for the mining communities in remote areas of Canada and in the rest of Canada in terms of flow through shares. There is no talk at all about flow through shares for exploration companies in the mining community.

There is absolutely nothing in the budget for real tax relief for farmers who need serious tax relief for over $500,000 of capital gains. There is very modest tax relief from 75% of capital gains down to 66 and two-thirds, and of that one can only claim 50%. I would say there is a lot more in the budget that does not help rural Canada than does.

She talked about infrastructure. For the first time in eons we mention wharves and infrastructure which the government decided to divest itself of. Wharves are mentioned but there is no mention of how the government plans to put money into wharves and put infrastructure money into the ports and harbours of Canada. There are a lot more unanswered questions about assistance to the rural and remote areas of Canada than questions that are answered in the budget.

[The Late Clarence Eugene Hank Snow, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 1999, after a long illness, Clarence Eugene Hank Snow died at the age of 85. Hank was one of the few remaining country music legends whose life's work helped define what country music means to millions of its fans.

Born in Brooklyn, Queens County, Nova Scotia, Hank, as a teenager, occasionally slept in Liverpool's historic CN Railway building, now the home of the most unique country music attraction northeast of Nashville.

In August 1997, I was fortunate to attend the grand opening of the Hank Snow Country Music Centre in Liverpool, which was established to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Hank. Each year a Hank Snow tribute is organized by the Friends of Hank Snow Society which features performers and a popular Sounds Like Hank contest.

The Hank Snow Country Music Centre and annual Hank Snow tribute will continue to celebrate one of country music's greatest legends even though Hank Snow is now “Movin' on”.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, February 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-222 introduced by the member for Wild Rose. This bill, the first nations ombudsman act, would establish the office of an ombudsman to investigate complaints of an administrative, financial or electoral nature concerning first nations people.

We have all read in the papers about mismanagement on first nations in Canada and how more than $4 billion provided to first nations in transfer payments did not always reach the intended recipients.

The problem with this is that it has given some people the false sense that all first nations are poorly managed, when in fact many first nations manage themselves extremely well. It is the examples of mismanagement and misconduct that make the news and malign the efforts of other first nations.

This does not mean however that an ombudsman's office is not a good idea. On the contrary, this suggestion has a great deal of merit.

The member for Provencher was stating that he did not think this was a good idea and that he did not believe the government would go along with this because somehow it would mysteriously change the way we do business. Yet our own government has an ombudsman's office and should have an ombudsman's office.

Many organizations, including governments, make use of similar offices to provide people with an avenue by which they can lodge a complaint and feel that their concerns are being addressed.

As members of parliament, all of us have had occasions where we have either advised constituents of the presence of an ombudsman's office or, as a last resort, when a constituent feels that an ombudsman still has not responded satisfactorily to the problem, we have sent him or her to a higher office. Every member of parliament in the House, I am sure at one time or another, has used an ombudsman's office or has suggested that a constituent use an ombudsman's office.

The establishment of a similar office for first nations would be an effective and useful means of addressing concerns of aboriginal people, whether it be matters resulting from alleged unfair election practices or financial or administrative problems.

As the PC Party's critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I had heard from aboriginal people on numerous occasions who have expressed their frustration with the lack of options available to them when they question the procedures or processes of the band chief and council. An independent ombudsman's office would provide a possible solution and would be in a position to assess information and respond to complaints.

Furthermore, it would allow aboriginal people to air their grievances when they feel they have been ignored by the chief and council or are unwilling to discuss it in a more public format. In some cases ombudsman's offices will only investigate an issue if all other avenues have been explored. In the case of first nations, however, it would be more effective if the ombudsman's office could be contacted at any stage or whenever a problem arises. It is my understanding that this bill would not limit access to the ombudsman's office.

In addition, the bill would allow any member of a first nation community to avail himself or herself of this service whether they live on or off reserve.

Under the provisions of the bill, the ombudsman would be appointed for a term of five years with the governor in council making the appointment on the recommendation of the minister. First nations would be involved in this process by making representations to the committee that would then report to the minister. It is important to ensure the impartiality of the ombudsman and this process would distance the first nations from the appointment of that ombudsman, otherwise the effectiveness and objectiveness of this office would be jeopardized.

In places where there have been questions about the legality of election processes or allegations of inappropriate use of band funds, there is currently little opportunity for aboriginal people to lodge a complaint except with the people who are often implicated in that same complaint.

Obviously this is not an ideal situation and does little to alleviate the problem. The only other course of action available is to complain to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or to members of parliament, particularly those in the critic area or with in whose constituency the first nation falls.

The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to aboriginal people and has the obligation to work on behalf of aboriginal people to protect their rights. This is an onerous responsibility that is sometimes misunderstood. The bill would acknowledge that first nations people also have to rely upon themselves and their organizations and elected bodies to protect their rights and access to services. Instead of having to outline their complaints to the minister of Indian affairs, they would have an independent ombudsman's office that would address their concerns. With the input of first nations, this process has the potential to help first nations people assume greater responsibility and accountability for their actions.

In some cases band members are not able to access the information that would help them prove their allegations. The bill would provide an ombudsman with the power and authority to access such records. At the same time, it would be at the discretion of the ombudsman as to what constitutes reasonable grounds for an investigation.

As I said earlier, I feel the bill has a lot of merit. There are always misunderstandings or misdemeanours that can easily be addressed if the proper process is put in place. The establishment of an ombudsman's office is one solution that could help first nations better serve their communities and, in the long term, provide better service, more transparency and accountability.

These are objectives that all governments and institutions strive to achieve with varying degrees of success. It is always a good idea to explore new options and possibilities for improvement.

The bill is a worthy proposal. It is not without some problems but the idea of an ombudsman's office should be embraced by the government and by all members of parliament. It would seem only natural that there be someone to whom ordinary citizens of Canada could turn to when they have questions or when they feel they have not been treated fairly by the authorities. All other segments of Canadian society have an ombudsman's office somewhere that they can turn to. Why should we exclude the ombudsman's office from first nations communities?

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there are many relevant items that need to be debated. There is the Atlantic fishery. There are serious problems in our farming communities. Sixty thousand farmers in western Canada are facing bankruptcy. High diesel prices are forcing our truckers off the market and out of business, which will raise the cost of living and the cost of doing business in Canada. We have a 15% tax on diesel fuel. The government brings in nearly $4 billion a year and spends $150 million of that $4 billion on highways. Where has the rest of it gone? Who is it benefiting? Why do we have truckers going bankrupt in Canada? We cannot move goods and services.

There are a number of issues which need to be debated in the House. There are a a number of issues which need to be brought to parliament to be debated by all parties, by all members, but this is not one of them.