Marlene Jennings

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, recently in the House we have had a couple of great progress reports on aboriginal self-government negotiations in western Canada. There are quite a few aboriginal communities and nations in the province of Quebec. I would like the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to tell us what if any negotiations are going on for aboriginal self-government in my province of Quebec.

[Petitions, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this petition calls on parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application known.

[Petitions, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the first petition I present today calls upon parliament to advocate the adoption of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade report regarding reducing the political value of nuclear weapons for the 21st century. The petition also calls upon the Government of Canada to adopt the report as official policy, to implement all of the recommendations fully and promptly and to harmonize existing government positions and programs with the spirit and the intent of the report.

[Team Canada, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, next September, the Prime Minister will leave on a trade mission with Team Canada to promote Canada's economic interests in Australia and Japan.

The mission will focus on seven sectors identified as priorities by our government: aerospace, energy and natural resources, agriculture and food biotechnology, health care, telecommunications and information technologies and, finally, education and the environment.

This fourth trip to the Asia-Pacific region speaks to Team Canada's interest in developing trade ties in the area.

It is one specific way in which the government can promote the professionalism and know-how of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Pierre Petel, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that we learned the passing of one of the fathers of Radio-Canada, Pierre Petel, who died at the age of 79, after a long illness.

Born in the Montreal neighbourhood of Hochelaga, Pierre Petel studied at the school of furniture designing. He was a student of Paul-Émile Borduas and a fellow of painter Jean-Paul Riopelle. He was one of the first francophone filmmakers at the National Film Board, where he worked from 1945 to 1950.

At the very beginning of national television, in September 1952, Pierre Petel was the author and producer of Radio-Canada's first teleplay, Le Seigneur de Brinqueville . Mr. Petel's death is particularly sad since we are celebrating the NFB's 60th anniversary this week.

I extend my most sincere condolences to the relatives and friends of this Radio-Canada giant, and I say thank you Pierre Petel for your lifelong work.

[Jacques Parizeau, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Jacques Parizeau, the new Bloc Quebecois researcher, announced this morning the holding of a Bloc forum on globalization.

By still toeing the line of promoting Quebec separation, the Bloc Quebecois has not in any way grasped the advantages for Quebec of belonging to the Canadian federation.

As far as the globalization of modern economies is concerned, it is in the best interests of Canada to be united in order to retain its margin of action and economic strength on the international scene.

What the new Bloc Quebecois researcher is recommending is nothing more and nothing less than the weakening of Quebec in the face of the new realities which are reducing economic barriers.

Globalization places great importance on Canadian identity and strength, for joint and co-operative efforts by all governments protect—

[Workplace Safety, April 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to say this.

I can certainly relate to the victims of Westray. My father and my uncle once worked in mines in the United States. Fortunately, they were never victims of a tragedy.

My father-in-law was a mineworker in Belgium and he survived the two worst disasters—explosions—that ever struck Belgian mines. In the early fifties, he was decorated by the Belgian government for his acts of heroism. He had saved victims of explosion in one mine. I am only too aware of what a tragedy this is.

The motion brought forward in the House deals with the safety of Canadian workers. Since this government has always been concerned with the safety and welfare of workers, I am happy, as a government member, to have this opportunity to comment on the motion.

First I want to tell the member who moved the motion that I share his concerns about safety in the workplace. The Westray tragedy, which the motion refers to, brought back to the attention of Canadians the issue of occupational safety. This is a very important issue that our government is taking very seriously.

We are very much aware of the high costs of work accidents, in terms of human suffering in particular, as well as financial hardship, because of the substantial expenses incurred as a result of accidents and occupational diseases.

Every year, many workers die in work related accidents and thousands of others suffer from work related injuries and sickness.

Every year, millions of workdays are lost. The human cost is extremely high. The cost to the Canadian economy is about $10 billion a year. The human and economic costs are way too high and something must be done soon.

I commend the member for bringing this issue before the House. He has identified an issue that should be of concern to all members. Although I do commend the member for raising his concerns with respect to workplace safety, I want to look a little more critically at the recommendations for legislative change that the motion includes.

Motion No. 455 asks that the House amend appropriate federal statutes, including the Criminal Code. These are far reaching recommendations. I think it is appropriate that we look at them more carefully.

First of all, while the Criminal Code is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, which can amend it to make sure it applies to the responsibility for occupational safety, the provinces and territories consider that this type or amendment would erode their right to legislate on occupational safety.

We all know very well that the issue of federal and provincial jurisdiction in many other areas of economic and social policy is very delicate. We do not want to open up a whole new can of worms. I certainly do not.

In other words, while the intent of the motion is very laudable, the proposed changes could have constitutional implications, which, though not intentional, could be very unfortunate.

Moreover, the Canada Labour Code already provides for occupational safety and imposes fines and sanctions against those who are convicted of an offence under the code.

As anyone who follows labour legislation in Canada knows, legislation concerning occupational safety and health in the federal jurisdiction is consolidated under the Canada Labour Code. The code has jurisdiction over a broad range of industries under federal jurisdiction, but only those which operate under federal jurisdiction.

What are these industries? Typically these are businesses whose operations are interprovincial or international in nature. Some examples that I can cite are railways, highway transport, telecommunications, pipelines, shipping, radio and TV broadcasting, banks, and other areas which I will not name. In addition the occupational safety and health provisions of the code cover employees of the federal public service including employees of some 40 crown corporations and agencies.

As we debate the motion, it is very important to look at where we are starting from with respect to the Canada Labour Code and specifically with respect to part II of that code.

Part II of the Canada Labour Code is the legislation that is already in place to govern occupational health and safety in federal works, undertakings and businesses. This legislation is intended to prevent accidents and injuries arising out of, linked with, or occurring in the course of employment which is subject to federal jurisdiction.

The legislation is based on three fundamental rights for all workers who come under federal jurisdiction. These fundamental rights are: the right to know about known or foreseeable hazards in the workplace; the right to participate in identifying and resolving job related safety and health problems; and the right to refuse dangerous work if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that a situation constitutes a danger to himself, to herself or to another employee.

This code also includes a set of occupational safety and health regulations that prescribe standards and procedures for both employers and employees to follow.

If these standards are not met, by virtue of part II of the code, senior managers and directors of federally regulated companies can be held responsible. If found guilty of a code offence, senior managers and directors are liable on summary conviction of a maximum fine of up to $100,000.

Under the code, an individual found guilty by way of indictment is liable to a maximum fine of $1 million and a maximum prison term of two years.

Next Wednesday, April 28, to mark the National Day of Mourning, the Canadian flag will be flown at half mast on Parliament Hill in memory of all those who where killed or injured at work.

The purpose of this special day is to heighten our awareness of our tremendous responsibilities regarding health and security in the workplace. Moreover, the North American Occupational Safety and Health Week, which will be held in May, will help raise awareness of this issue among Canadians.

In Canada, partners of the annual awareness campaign include the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, which co-operate with the labour program.

In the federal jurisdiction we already have a set of standards and sanctions in place which govern workplace safety issues and hold corporate officers and directors liable for their actions in case of negligence or wrongdoing.

However, it is fair to say we still have a problem in the case of all those workers who are outside federal jurisdiction and who therefore are not covered by the Canada Labour Code. It is this question we must examine.

We must also examine the part of the motion which concerns recommendation no. 73 that the province of Nova Scotia made following the public enquiry. It requests—

[Bloc Quebecois, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Leader of the Bloc entered into the fray on the issue of a step-by-step referendum process, by taking position against this trick of Guy Bouthillier and Denis Monière with respect to the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

Indeed, there was enough for everyone last weekend. The Bloc Leader joined the hardline separatists by opposing a scenario of asking Quebeckers to vote on a special status for Quebec.

The Bloc takes a radical stand on the future of Quebec. It advocates the independence of Quebec, which was rejected twice by Quebeckers: first in 1980 and again in 1995.

While those academic discussions are going on, our Liberal government opted for a practical solution and is dealing with one issue at a time to improve Canadian federalism.

Vive le Canada.

[Quebec, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the head of the Saint-Jean Baptiste society, Guy Bouthillier, and a former active separatist, Denis Minière, proposed to the Premier of Quebec that he start a new round of constitutional negotiations with the federal government.

They are looking for ways to get people to swallow the pill of Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada, an option twice rejected by a majority of Quebeckers. The separatists have understood that Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada will not go down easily. And the year 2000 is approaching rapidly. They are getting restless. We wonder whether there is not a separatist agenda hidden away somewhere in the boxes of Parti Quebecois organizers.

The separatist movement is a thing of the past. It is a concept that will lead to division, scorn and the loss of real benefits for Quebec in economic, cultural and social terms.

[Canada Post, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

We have heard about a message circulating on the Internet suggesting that Canada Post and the government want to impose a 5¢ tax on every message sent electronically in this country.

We in this House know that bill 602P does not exist. However, I would like to know if the government is contemplating policy changes which could impose levies like that.