Peter MacKay

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 10th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to discuss Bill C-68 once again. The motion before the House proposed by the Bloc Quebecois looks at the possibility of in essence striking the entire bill and sending it back for further discussion.

Although we in the Conservative Party have great difficulty with some of the initiatives, and perhaps more so with the perception of what the bill will actually accomplish, I think it would be a giant step backward to completely throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to youth justice. That will not accomplish what we in this place hope to accomplish, which is to fix a existing fundamental problem when it comes to youth crime.

One major problem with the Young Offenders Act since its introduction over 15 years ago has been the impression the act has given young people that they will not be held accountable for criminal behaviour. Right or wrong, that is the impression out there and that is what is drastically undermining public confidence in our youth justice system and our justice system in general.

An attempt has been made by the government to address some of the problems. I will be very straightforward in pointing out some of the steps that are improvements on what we have seen. Obviously the ability to bring parents into our justice system is something that has to occur. However what will occur in this instance is not the full package.

What will happen now is that the parents of young offenders who have been apprehended and are in the process of going through court and potentially being released back into the community will now be forced to come forward, sign, and essentially make a contract with the province and the attorney general's department that they will ensure the conditions deemed appropriate by a court will be followed. They will be brought to court themselves and charged if those conditions are not adhered to. That is what will be accomplished and that is a laudable attempt to fix some of the problem.

However, what we do not see happening is parents being brought forward to answer for where they were in the first instance when a child was involved in a criminal act. Why is it that a young person was out breaking into a neighbour's house or stealing their car at 2 o'clock in the morning? That accountability we have not yet achieved and sadly we will not through this piece of legislation.

There has been much ado, much discussion, much debate and acrimony about the age of accountability. Again I think the key word in all of this is accountability. The Liberals have countered attempts by the opposition to debate this issue by saying “Look at this overreaction on the part of neo-Conservatives who want to somehow throw 10 and 11 year olds in jail for criminal acts”. That is not the case at all. That is certainly not the position that has been taken by the Conservative Party.

What we want to see happen, obviously, is that if by some misdirection or some misdeed a 10 or 11 year old finds himself or herself involved particularly in a violent criminal act, there will be some mechanism by which to bring that young person to account, not necessarily through the full hammer of criminal sanctions in a courtroom, but at least there should be the ability to trigger a response.

As it currently stands, that does not exist in our Criminal Code. It exists in other countries. It once existed in our Criminal Code under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act.

As I said at the outset, the issue is accountability. The issue is the state, the province, the police and our social services having a mechanism by which to bring to account and to bring forward some recourse for a young person at that tender age.

Certainly the whole principle behind the Young Offenders Act and the principle behind the new youth criminal justice act is to recognize that there is obviously a difference in the level of accountability that will be levelled upon a person under the age of 18. We are saying that it should be taken one step further. Drop it down a bit further so that we can at least start the process of rehabilitation, bringing that person into a system, be it the criminal justice system or be it a diversion into the social welfare net. There has to be something to start the process.

We know that when violent crime is involved the response has to be quick. The criminal justice system, I suggest, is best suited and best equipped to make that intervention and then to follow through. After the fact, when an arrest has been made, when the justice system has been given the tools to act, then we can decide what the long term recourse will be.

To accomplish all of this the provinces will have to receive greater funding. This has been the crux of the issue with respect to the provinces and their responses, both positive and negative, when one starts to look at the overall strategy as to what is to be accomplished in our youth justice system.

The Progressive Conservative government has to take some fault in this as well because when the justice system was first set up to encompass the Young Offenders Act we never saw the 50% share of the funding that has to be shouldered by the federal government. That has never occurred. The Progressive Conservatives froze that funding. The Liberals then went further to cut it to the point where, in some provinces, it is below 30%.

The irony in all of this and the reason for giving some background is to recognize the fact that much of what is sought by this youth justice system, that is, earlier intervention, preventive measures, a proactive approach taken to justice, which are all wonderful buzzwords and laudable goals, cannot be accomplished unless we have the opportunity to put into the hands of the provinces the proper funding to administer it. We know that the drastic cuts that have been handed out by this federal government have had an absolutely deteriorating effect on social services throughout the provinces.

The brunt of this legislation and the administration thereof will fall on the provinces once again. The 50% funding that should be coming from this government to accomplish all of the goals, as laudable as they are, simply will not happen without that resource allocation.

Once again we have seen the government speaking grandly, giving a grandiose plan as to what it would like to accomplish. There has been a great deal of absolutely wonderful press conferences and announcements that have been made time and time again at the press gallery instead of here in the House of Commons. That was all done in the run-up, in the raised expectations of the new youth criminal justice act. However, those goals, those accomplishments that the government has put forward, will not be achieved unless the provinces are given the money.

There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber as well about the approach that has been taken by the Quebec provincial government and there are statistics to back it up. La belle province de Québec c'est la première province pour la justice when it comes to the treatment of youth. The difficulty with this legislation is that once more we see a very cynical position put forward by the government. Not only could it have borrowed from what Quebec has done, it has said “If you do not do it our way you can opt out and not receive the money”. Not only is the money not sufficient, the provinces can decide not to do it the federal government's way and they will not get the money.

We see an approach that time and time again has left Canadians feeling very cynical, feeling almost despondent about the way we accomplish these goals. They are common goals. We in the House should certainly be able to put partisanship aside when it comes to accomplishments in our youth justice system. However, every time we get into these issues emotion and partisanship prevails and we get bogged down in debates, casting aspersions on who did what last. The Tories did this. The Liberals did that. It is the Reform Party. It is the Bloc. It is the NDP. That is not going to accomplish these goals.

There are issues in health, taxation and justice that we should be trying to work toward in a very positive fashion instead of continually dredging up the past. We could go back to John A. Macdonald, if we want to do that. We see it and we live it every day in this place.

If the government is serious about accomplishing these things and if it is serious about aiding the provinces in the administration of this new youth justice act, it should not simply spout figures like the $206 million that is going to be handed to the provinces in the next three years, it should live up to the commitment that was originally intended and that was that the federal government would pick up 50% of the tab when it came to the administration of justice and the administration of this new youth criminal justice act.

I, like other members of the House, look forward to participating at the committee level, proposing changes, working with my colleagues, both in opposition and on the government side, to achieve these laudable goals.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1999]

With regard to the preparation of the budget presented on February 16, 1999: ( a ) what expenses were incurred by the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance for outside media advice, speech writing, and promotional and strategic services; and ( b ) what steps were taken to ensure that outside consultants were not able to use budget information for commercial purposes?

[St. Francis Xavier University Graduates, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to extend congratulations to the graduates of St. Francis Xavier University in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

St. FX was founded in 1853 by Bishop Colin MacKinnon in Arichat, Cape Breton and in 1855 it was relocated to the beautiful community of Antigonish.

St. FX defined its true mission and purpose in the 1920s and 1930s with the creation of the Antigonish Movement and the Extension Department. It took direct action to help communities take control of their economic and social destiny gaining international recognition.

This is the same university that is world renowned for its famous “X”, the official symbol of the university. It is also the university of one of Canada's former prime ministers, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

On May 2 degrees and diplomas were conferred on St. FX's graduates. This is a significant milestone that these talented young men and women have achieved. Graduation is a special time and an opportunity for students to celebrate their achievements with family and friends. Many of St. FX's new graduates will be entering the workforce to embark on their chosen careers and to begin a new and exciting phase in their lives. On behalf of the PC Party I congratulate the new St. FX's graduates and all 1999 graduates.

[Trade, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will thumb his nose at the Canadian voters again when he accepts an honorary degree from Michigan State University.

The university is using this occasion to celebrate the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In 1988, members will recall, in bitter debates across the country, the Liberals demonized the Conservative free trade initiative. Canadians will recall that the Liberals promised to tear up the agreement when elected.

In 1993 the Liberals insisted in their red book that they would renegotiate the NAFTA and scrap it if unsuccessful, something they conveniently forgot when elected, much like their shifty stance on GST, helicopters and the Pearson airport.

The Prime Minister himself repeatedly said “It is not a good deal”.

Tonight, when the Prime Minister delivers his commencement address to the assembled university graduates, it will be interesting to know if he tells the truth about his disregard for the Canadian electorate. Will he remind them that he, along with the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Canadian Heritage, International Trade and other serving Liberal cabinet ministers used the NAFTA issue to cynically exploit the concerns of Canadians? Will he tell the graduates that winning is everything? Will he tell them that it is not necessary to keep promises? Or, will he suddenly see the light and tell the graduates the truth?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that we would get such a lame answer from the parliamentary secretary.

As the B.C. attorney general and others plead with the solicitor general and the RCMP for financial aid, the government proudly states that it has allotted $115 million. Yet, according to internal RCMP documents, the CPIC needs over $283 million to be effective. Apparently the staff shortages in the RCMP show that even this is insufficient, given these meagre tolls.

Why is the minister standing idly by while the government destroys our national police force through these harsh budget cuts?

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP desperately needs proper funding to fight organized crime and sex offenders. This requires greater staffing at forensic laboratories and the inclusion of a DNA databank in the CPIC. This databank addition will cost up to $38 million in the first five years. Our police forces need this technology, yet the government refuses to commit sufficient money to accomplish the necessary upgrades.

Given the public interest and the necessity to provide the RCMP with the proper tools and technology it needs, why will the minister not commit to the proper funding of the CPIC and the DNA databank?

[Access To Information Act, May 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I similarly am pleased to add but a few remarks to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Red Deer.

It is truly not a new debate certainly in this House. I submit that it is a very admirable attempt to address an issue that has become of increasing concern to parliament. I know that my hon. colleague personally has been very persevering on this issue.

The motion before us is whether to make parliament and crown agencies subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act itself and the laws are built around the basic principle “that government information ought to be publicly available whenever possible”. This comes from the secretary of state in 1977 on the issue when the Freedom of Information Act was first enacted.

This legislation is aimed at helping to keep government itself honest and certainly to bring about greater accountability. I think we can all agree that this should be entrenched and wherever possible there should be transparency. It is something I believe that the public is now expecting and further to that, demanding of parliamentarians. There is a growing degree of frustration among members of parliament in this session and certainly the public as well that this is not the case. The current legislation is not achieving that end.

Private sector restructuring has affected current freedom of information laws. Currently the freedom of information laws do give citizens, including obviously members of this House and both provincial and federal members, the right to obtain government held records, except in certain cases where it is in the public interest to maintain some secrecy.

The federal government's freedom of information law is known as the Access to Information Act. However, there are times when that information is not accessible, so there is a bit of an anomaly there.

This is consistent I suppose with the back and forth debate that went on when this type of legislation was first enacted, the balance that had to be struck, and it is a proper word to be used. It was used by the parliamentary secretary in her remarks. There is obviously a need to balance the right to protect an individual's privacy or a business's privacy in some instances versus the general public's right to know.

I would submit that cutbacks to the public service have caused an increasing delay in government processing of freedom of information requests. The federal information commissioner has made remarks along these lines calling this a festering silent scandal.

I would submit that further to that, this is consistent with some of the results that we have seen coming from the government, that there is a delay. Delay can be the deadliest form of denial when there is a need for information. A certain policy approach is developing that seems to grind citizens down and perhaps grind even individual members of parliament down in their attempts to find out information from the government.

The government has obviously taken the position that it has to be accountable fiscally. No one denies that and certainly the attempt to achieve this result is going to result in cuts. I think these cuts account for much of the delay that happens within the federal government. However, experimenting with new methods of delivering public services, privatization of former government controlled agencies, has been a necessary means to the desired end of that fiscal responsibility, but there is a risk of efficiency and risk of delay in taking this approach.

All governments are constantly searching for ways to transfer functions out of government departments and back into the private sector. Contracting out on the delivery of public services has obvious problems as it relates to freedom of information requests. I suggest that there is also a creation of mistrust if the contracting out to these private sector companies results in the government's ability to say that it can no longer give this information because it is out of the government's hands.

Activities that are being delegated to industry run organizations that then become exempt from freedom of information laws are of a real concern. One example is Nav Canada which provides traffic control services. Like politics, private industries are very competitive and there are occasions when they will fiercely guard certain trade secrets. Bids for government contracts would be a perfect example.

Crown corporations, single purpose agencies that are still wholly owned by the government have been created to allow for these formerly government controlled industries to operate. In some cases they operate free from access to information requests even when technically they are covered by the freedom of information laws, the thought being that compliance could decline as the traditional public service is fragmented. This would leave them free, one would suppose, from government influence yet they are still being funded by the Canadian taxpayer. That element of taxpayer support should outweigh the government's ability to hide behind the supposed arm's length relationship they have with the government.

There we are on the horns of the dilemma. There is a need for the public to know, certainly on most occasions, but the government has obviously distanced itself from this obligation by saying it is a private sector company. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation are other examples of where the government has moved toward privatization of a formerly publicly run agency.

Government services are run like private industries on many occasions. Efficiency has improved as a result when the private sector enters in. Still there is this competing issue of the bottom line fiscally versus the need to be accountable in the public sector. This is the case in private industry as well. There are occasions when the government has to step in and demand information. When there are issues of environmental concern and certainly when there are potential Criminal Code violations, then the government has to actively pursue even private sector companies.

As governments attempt to find new non-tax revenues, they may also undermine access rights. An example is that several governments may sell information and this information would then be exempt from freedom of information laws regardless of the price. Information protected for a price undermines equal access to government information.

Presently the Access to Information Act appears to be something the government itself is prepared to look at in terms of possible amendments. There is certainly a great deal of merit in doing that when there is increasing demand from the public that we as parliamentarians be more accountable and more open in that regard.

There is a quotation that knowledge is power, but further to that, a little bit of knowledge is sometimes dangerous. When it comes to making an important decision, not having the full picture is something the public and members of parliament sometimes wrestle with when it comes to an access demand. The balance that must be struck is something we must constantly strive for.

Should parliament itself be subject to the scrutiny of access to information? Obviously it is public money that is paying the salaries of individual members of parliament and I would suggest there is already a great deal of public scrutiny toward members of parliament. I would also suggest there is a higher degree of accountability on the part of the government to meet that obligation. There is a higher degree of accountability when it comes to disclosing decisions that not all members of parliament have participated in.

With access to information, I would suggest the Canadian public do have a certain degree of a right to know. There are obviously occasions which have been mentioned previously, national security, trade secrets, the concerns that individual constituents might have about access to information requests that would affect them, those considerations are always going to be kept in mind by the information commissioner himself.

The information commissioner should have the authority to review reasonableness for fee schedules for freedom of information requests. There should also be a release if that price continues to be unreasonable. There should be a release of records where citizens' complaints are justified. Monitoring of the system as a whole is something I believe would be a very worthwhile exercise.

I personally support the initiative of the hon. member. I believe there is a huge public appetite for this type of exercise to occur. If it happens in some small way, we might contribute to the restoration of a degree of public confidence in parliament and politics generally as an honourable profession.

[Workplace Safety, April 23rd, 1999]

moved:

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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, my neighbouring member of parliament, for his seconding of this motion.

Motion M-455 pertains particularly to one terrible moment in time, almost seven years ago in the small community of Plymouth in Pictou county, Nova Scotia when a terrible explosion ripped through the Westray coal mine. I will reiterate the motion:

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.

I would like to take a brief moment to thank the draggermen who were involved very much in the marvellous and incredible efforts that were made to attempt to locate the 26 men who lost their lives underground that tragic day on May 9, 1992. Many of those draggermen came from Cape Breton. Surely Cape Breton is a place unlike any other in this country. It has had more than its share of tragedy.

The overriding attempt behind this motion would be to remind government and in fact all parliamentarians that we in this place and in provincial legislatures throughout the country must do everything in our power to ensure that there is a safe workplace for those who are engaged in labour activity. I speak not only of mines. I speak of fish plants. I speak of fishermen, of course, fisherpersons on the water. I speak of any factory and any situation where workers might find themselves encountering danger.

The method to do this is through enactment of legislation. As we are all aware, that is sometimes a very daunting prospect to put somehow into law provisions that will encourage those in the industry to abide by these legislative initiatives to ensure safety.

I suggest quite strongly that knowing criminal sanctions or other disciplinary acts of retribution exist is the most direct way to ensure that those with the implicit responsibility for ensuring safety will abide. This would lead to a higher level of accountability among executives, CEOs and management in companies that directly benefit from what might be phrased expediency over safety in the workplace.

This motion is based upon a recommendation, historically for reference purposes, that came from the Westray mine public inquiry which was conducted by Mr. Justice Peter Richard, a very prominent judge in the province of Nova Scotia. It was tabled in 1997 after a very lengthy public inquiry into the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth, Nova Scotia.

It is also important to note that for a partial period of time simultaneous to this public inquiry, a criminal prosecution was proceeding through the courts at various levels and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The prosecutors in this case had a very difficult time presenting evidence. There was much procedural interference, one might suggest, in terms of the presentation of evidence to the courts.

I knew many of the prosecutors who were involved in that case. Peter Rosinski, Herman Felderholf, Andrew MacDonald and others worked extremely hard, very diligently to present the evidence on behalf of the crown. Similarly, I acknowledge the work of the defence counsel who, in fairness, were presenting evidence to the contrary and certainly doing their very best to defend their clients, as is their lot.

However, one might suggest because of the interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, particularly those that refer to criminal negligence and manslaughter, these are provisions of the code that anyone having practised law will be quick to acknowledge are sometimes very blurry in terms of the evidentiary proof that is required to obtain a conviction.

I am not at all suggesting the Criminal Code provisions are the only provisions that should be examined in the context of improving these situations for workers in the workplace. However, this is certainly the starting point and one would suggest it is in keeping with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Richard.

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 reference to executives, directors, persons in management positions, persons who, one could draw the inference, are in a position of trust when it comes to the supervision of a workplace.

I brought this motion forward with the hope that the explosion at the Westray mine in Plymouth will not be forgotten. I can assure the House and Canadians generally that those in Pictou county and in all of Nova Scotia certainly recall with horror that period of time in May 1992 when this terrible tragedy occurred.

More important I think at this time the recommendations of the inquiry themselves should not be forgotten so that this tragedy would not have been in vain. It is in the hope that we in this place would learn lessons from what occurred at the Westray mine and we might somehow go forward from this point in attempting to prevent something like this from ever happening again. Surely when it comes to the criminal law, in fact when it comes to the passing of legislation, one of the first and foremost obligations that should be in the minds of legislators is that of prevention and that of improving the quality of life of those affected.

The devastation of that Mother's Day nearly seven 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 persons. The message was that haste and sometimes political expediency and sometimes the pursuit of financial gain can often put persons in danger when it comes to this type of enterprise.

The death of the 26 coal miners was so foreign and unexpected to a peaceful community like Plymouth that from the very second that those fathers, brothers and sons were taken away from their families, people were left immediately thinking of ways that such a tragedy could have been prevented.

I can only add to that the feelings the recent shooting in Colorado conjured up for me and others, the harsh reality of how quickly an entire community can be affected in such a way. I am sure the people of Littleton, Colorado are feeling some of the same emotions, although on a different level and certainly a different level of criminal act. However, I would suggest the immediacy and the sudden impact is similar to what was felt in the community of Plymouth.

It alarms us all to no end that such tragedies can occur and that no change results. The circumstances of the Westray mine cannot be forgotten and the lessons learned. To take it one extension further, the efforts made with respect to the tabling of the Westray inquiry only to sit idle on a shelf and to not be adopted or at least examined further, taken that one step further by the Department of Labour, is again an abdication of a responsibility that exists within the federal parliament. It is painful and I would suggest puzzling to suggest that we will do nothing further at this time.

Westray was the only operating underground coal mine in Pictou county at the time of the explosion. Although Pictou county itself has a long and rich tradition of coal mining, this Pictou coalfield had been mined for nearly 200 years. The elements of the disaster that rest in the nature of coal mining with thick and gassy seams is something that Pictonians have become very familiar with.

The Foord seam itself, which was being mined by the Westray corporation or Curragh Inc., has hosted at least eight mines. The Allan shaft, the most productive and the one that lay just northwest of the Westray workings, finally closed in the 1950s. During its 40 year lifetime it experienced no less than eight methane explosions which on many occasions it is suggested were the result of unsafe working conditions.

There is a chilling foreshadow that existed in this community. One would draw the conclusion that proper research conducted into those dangerous conditions might in some way have entered into the preventative efforts that should have been made. It is easy to look back on it and to perhaps have 20/20 vision in hindsight.

I reiterate that the gist of this motion is to not let lie that report to gather dust on some shelf somewhere in this precinct when we can gain knowledge and insight into what hopefully could be prevented in the future.

The fundamental and basic responsibilities for the safe operation of an underground coal mine and indeed any industrial undertaking rests very much with 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. Westray management after the fact certainly came under attack for shirking that responsibility.

The significance of that failure cannot be overstated or mitigated. 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.

As in the criminal context, in the civil context as well we are certainly aware that shared responsibility is something that can be encompassed by the law. There was plenty of blame to go around in the Westray report. That statement itself is reflective of the findings of Mr. Justice Richard.

Not only in the mining industry but in any business venture, corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety and simply in the pursuit of profit. This is a very dangerous situation that can exist. We must be mindful of this. This mindset itself is precisely what sets a dangerous tone in a workplace where tragedies and the creation of unsafe working conditions may exist.

Business executives and corporate executives should be prepared to seek input from front line workers and allow them as employees to be part of the management scheme to a degree when it comes to safety. They should be relied upon to lend their knowledge to create the maintenance of a safe work environment. That is something that was also acknowledged in the report.

It is not a politically popular thing to say, but there was an element of culpability and responsibility on the workers themselves. This has to be taken into the entire context of what should occur as far as legislative initiatives to ensure accountability and responsibility is held by all.

Businesses must also ensure that they have sufficiently trained employees in that area. This is where the top down and bottom up approaches must be encompassed in any legislative initiative aimed at workplace safety. I suggest and emphasize that particularly when it comes to the operation of a traditionally dangerous work environment where equipment, often heavy equipment, is being utilized in the operation of that enterprise.

Businesses must also ensure that their employees are adequately supervised and constantly updated on safe work practices. Part and parcel of that of the companies, the executives and the workers, there is also a strong need for bureaucratic responsibility and bureaucratic supervision.

Mine and labour safety standards were ignored, sadly, in the case of Westray, or at least not adhered to to the extent they should have been. Looking at this issue in the larger context there must also be attachment of responsibility to government officials who are negligent in the performance of their duties that result in such horrific outcomes.

Sadly in the past we have all witnessed poorly trained individuals on the job where proper training had perhaps not been offered that sometimes resulted in injury or loss of life. Not only is that practice bad for business but it has the incalculable human consequence. It is also unsafe for people on the job where they are operating equipment. They are not only endangering themselves but also their fellow workers are at risk if the person is not properly trained.

In the overall context, this goes right to the top and is something that management has to be made aware of, constantly reminded of. I look forward to hearing from the minister on this point. There have been efforts made in the past but this is a continuing process that will have to be revisited. We hope it can be revisited or that this motion may in some small part help in the impetus of looking for ways to legislate safety in the workplace.

It is essential that companies take the time to train employees so that additional risk is limited for employees and those around them. Management must ensure that the employees have an appreciation for any special dangers that may be inherent on a job site.

In the case of the Westray coal mine, many tradespersons were prone to perform unsafe tasks or take dangerous shortcuts in their work, never once being told differently by management of the huge potential that did exist in a mine as gassy and as potentially explosive as the Foord seam. In many cases there was no question that management may have been aware, or ought to have been aware, that safe mining practices were not being performed by the workers.

As stated in Mr. Justice Richard's report, there was a strong indication that Westray management was aware that levels of methane underground to which the coal miners were exposed were very hazardous and potentially explosive. Under section 72 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act such conditions mandated the withdrawal of workers from affected areas, and that of course is what one must presume prevented management from acting quickly.

It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They have to make production deadlines. They have to produce and shutting an operation down obviously has huge financial consequences. That is where the human element and the safe discretion must be exercised.

If we need to remind executives and management and CEOs of this through legislation, I say we do it. It is implicit upon us that we act. Far too often businesses, and indeed heads of corporations, may be tempted by that financial gain and therefore put the safety of workers second. That type of short term gain could be for long term pain as we saw in the case of Westray. Of course I speak of the injury or death that can result. It is a very sad scenario.

Tough economic times that exist in the country put further pressure on workers. That is why this is so timely. The economic impact of having to shut down a corporation affects everyone in the company. The employees, the management, the board of directors, anyone associated with that business is going to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety. But that is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure that those safe practices will be followed.

Companies must ensure that to avoid practising hazardous or illegal practices these acts cannot be condoned in any capacity. In some instances they are acts of omission that can result in the greatest harm as opposed to acts of commission. Companies, if they have not already done so, should do everything within their power to implement safe, ethical work practices.

Ethics such as this should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, even in upper management. If this is not the case, action 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 and approachable attitude toward their employees. No one ever wants to feel the effects we felt in Plymouth with the Westray mine.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I appreciate the attention and the support this motion should receive from all members of parliament.

[Correctional Service Canada, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the response is that we take the good with the bad.

Employment programs are crucial to the reintegration of offenders into society. According to the auditor general, Corrections Canada is not offering proper employment opportunities that will achieve that goal. In fact CSC cannot even manage its own finances. It receives $18 million annually yet continues to be a money losing venture.

What steps are the solicitor general's office taking to alleviate this and other glaring problems outlined in this scathing report from the auditor general?

[Correctional Service Canada, April 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals' 50/50 release plan for prisoners rolling along and a plan to release more prisoners this year than ever before, Tuesday's auditor general's report made startling revelations of lengthy delays in processing, senior corrections officers who are not performing their case management and offenders programming failing to meet expectations. With public safety at risk this is disgraceful.

It appears that Corrections Canada has cut corners in its haste to meet this 50/50 quota deadline. If rehabilitation is the priority, will the solicitor general please explain why Corrections Canada has received a failing grade?