1998-2002
Westray Coal Mine
in Hansard
Pictou County, Nova Scotia
At 5:20am on 9 May 1992 the Westray coal mine exploded
killing 26 miners
1998
Ontario Legislature, Toronto
Hansard, 1998 April 28
http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/36-2/l003.htm
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre):
Today is the day we set aside in Ontario each year to honour the memory of all those who have died in workplace accidents or from occupational disease. Each year on April 28 workers take time to remind ourselves that it is important at all times to "Mourn the dead and fight for the living"...
It's always worth remembering why April 28 has been chosen as a day of mourning. This date commemorates April 28, 1914, when this Legislature passed Ontario's first Workmen's Compensation Act. That legislation embodied an historic compromise between workers and employers in which injured workers and their families were guaranteed fair compensation and employers were shielded from liability litigation...
Recently, the importance of the system we have here in Ontario was emphasized by the report of the inquiry into the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia. That inquiry cited the Ontario legislation, including mandatory joint health and safety committees, as a model that could have prevented the Westray disaster...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1998 May 8, 1105 (11:05am)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/102_1998-05-08/han102_1105-e.htm
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the Westray disaster. In 1991 the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy bestowed upon Clifford Frame, owner of Westray mine, the John T. Ryan award for mine safety. At 5:20 a.m. on May 9, 1992 the Westray mine exploded taking the lives of 26 miners. The Westray tragedy was not an accident and it was not a natural disaster. It was the end result of management that had no regard for safety and of governments that failed to ensure the well-being of workers. It was profit before people. The United Steelworkers of America provided support to the miners and families from Westray. Together they were the driving force behind the Westray inquiry. It was the United Steelworkers of America who questioned the awarding of the John T. Ryan award to Clifford Frame and Curragh Resources. After a lengthy campaign by the steelworkers, on April 9 of this year the award was rescinded. The Westray tragedy is a reminder of why we need unions to protect workers' rights and lives.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 May 22, page 57
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98may22.htm#[Page 57]
Resolution Number 19
Mr. Kevin Deveaux, (Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage):
I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas this week is Occupational Health and Safety Week in the Province of Nova Scotia; and
Whereas even today, more than six years after the Westray Mine blew up and killed 26 workers, there are far too many people hurt or killed in work-related accidents; and
Whereas according to the Mainland Building Trades Council five construction industry workers have died already this year and thousands of Nova Scotians continue to go to work each day under archaic safety regulations;
Therefore be it resolved that the members of this House demand this government stop its endless stalling and finally approve proposed new safety regulations so that Nova Scotians can finally begin to feel safe at work.
Mr. Speaker, I move waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
An Hon. Member:
Nay. (Interruptions)
Mr. Speaker:
There was no Nay when I asked for the waiver.
The motion is carried.
British Columbia Legislature, Victoria
Hansard, 1998 May 26, page 8128
http://www.legis.gov.bc.ca/1998%2D99/hansard/h0526pm.htm#8128
Hon. Dale Lovick (Nanaimo), Minister of Labour:
...I think at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I also ought to explain in a little detail why this new section is here. The reason the new section is here is essentially because recent history in this country has demonstrated that some people have indeed been able to hide behind the corporate veil, as the saying goes. And let me give you the paradigm illustration, and that's the Westray mine disaster. You recall what happened there. It was a matter of all of the principals involved, including governments, essentially going like this: "Look somewhere else. It wasn't me; it wasn't our fault." And at the end of the day the question was: does anybody own this tragedy; does anybody own this horrible, horrible thing that happened?
The Nova Scotia government, following the Westray inquiry and that horrible disaster, wrote to the federal minister responsible requesting changes to the Criminal Code of Canada — to the Criminal Code — to make corporate directors more accountable. Other jurisdictions are also looking at doing something, again to ensure that those kinds of tragedies won't happen and the guilty go free. I think that's a legitimate and necessary response to those kinds of disasters.
For example, the Ontario statute on occupational health and safety contains similar language to what we are proposing here. The difference, though, is that because the Ontario statute doesn't have a defence of due diligence built into the statute, it therefore uses language that "all reasonable care must be taken." I understand there have been cases in Ontario where corporate directors and officers have been charged with an offence. There haven't been prison sentences given, but individuals certainly have been personally fined. And so, in other jurisdictions, as I say, in looking at this problem about corporate responsibility and the directors' responsibility, that's the conclusion.
I also understand that the province of Nova Scotia is likely to move to similar language regarding occupational health and safety, precisely because of the Westray disaster. I think, then, that what we're doing here is defensible and appropriate. In order to prevent what occurred in Westray, the price we pay in perhaps an increased cost in terms of liability insurance is defensible and legitimate...
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 June 12, page 1283
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98jun12.htm#[Page 1283]
Resolution Number 649
Dr. John Hamm, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party:
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas six years is simply too long for the former unionized and non-unionized employees of the Westray Mine to still be blocked from receipt of the severance due them for loss of employment through no fault of their own; and
Whereas if, as the Premier has stated in a letter to the area Member of Parliament, that he has the "... utmost concern for the former Westray employees ...", he would have seen fit to it that this issue was put to rest for former employees, especially after the report by Justice Peter Richard concluded that company management had been derelict in its duty to operate the mine safely; and
Whereas these employees have been waiting for six years now and while the small severance expected will never compensate the workers for the distress they have been placed under for so long, it will provide some conclusion to the ordeal;
Therefore be it resolved that this Premier and this government do the right thing now and help close the book on the terrible tragedy of Westray by cutting through the legal complications the Premier is said to be stalled by and award severance to both the former union and non-union employees.
Mr. Speaker:
The notice is tabled.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 June 15, page 1318
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98jun15.htm#[Page 1318]
Resolution Number 681
Mr. Charles Parker, (Pictou West):
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas on December 30, 1997, the Labour Standards Tribunal awarded former employees of the Westray Mine 12 weeks pay in lieu of notice; and
Whereas the claim under the Labour Standards Code is a result of the tragic explosion of May 9, 1992, and was to consist of a payment of $1.2 million to 118 former Westray employees; and
Whereas the claim was to have been paid within two to three months from the sale of Westray assets but has not been forthcoming;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urge the government and its Westray point man, the Minister of Finance, to take whatever steps are necessary to pay immediately the claim established under the Labour Standards Code.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for waiver.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear several Noes.
The notice is tabled.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 October 20, page 2250
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98oct20.htm#[Page 2250]
Introduction of Bills
Bill No. 34...
Bill No. 35...
Bill No. 36...
Bill No. 37
Entitled an Act to Provide for the Immediate Payment of Benefits to Westray Workers.
(Mr. Charles Parker)
Mr. Speaker:
Ordered that these bills be read a second time on a future day.
Bill No. 37
Westray Payment of Benefits (1998) Act
Charlie Parker, Pictou West
First Reading: October 20, 1998
An Act to Provide for the
Immediate Payment of Benefits
to Westray Workers
Be it enacted by the Governor and Assembly as follows:
1 This Act may be cited as the Westray Payment of Benefits (1998) Act.
2 The Government shall, within fourteen days of the coming into force of this Act, pay to the employees of Curragh Resources employed on the date of the Westray Disaster, all benefits those employees are entitled to pursuant to the Labour Standards Code.
3 (1) The money to make the payments referred to in Section 2 shall, notwithstanding the Workers' Compensation Act, be taken from the Accident Fund established pursuant to that Act.
(2) The money taken from the Accident Fund pursuant to subsection (1) shall be repaid to the Fund by the government from money appropriated by the Legislature for that purpose.
4 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, benefits shall not be paid to a former employee of Curragh Resources who, in the opinion of the Minister of Labour, caused or contributed to the Westray Disaster.
(2) An opinion of the Minister of Labour pursuant to subsection (1) is not an expression of civil or criminal liability but is made only for the purpose of this Act.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/bills/57th_1st/1st_read/b037.htm
This bill never got beyond First Reading.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 October 27, page 2756
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98oct27.htm#[Page 2756]
Mr. Kevin Deveaux, (Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage):
Mr. Speaker, my question through you is to the Minister of Justice. I want to take the minister back to June 30, 1998, a day which I am sure he will recall, it is the day this House closed and it is also the day that the Westray prosecution was stayed. To the chagrin of many people that was done and it is probably a coincidence that it happened on the last day of the spring sitting. It has been widely reported that there is still a chance that the Westray case could be reopened. In fact, Justice Kaufman is reviewing the prosecution and may very well make that recommendation.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice. Will the minister now tell this House whether or not it is his understanding that there still remains a possibility that the Westray prosecution could be restarted?
Hon. James Smith, Minister of Justice:
Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member has mentioned, Justice Kaufman is conducting an inquiry. He has recently made the public statement that he would look into Westray and expand his inquiry into matters surrounding that. He has designated two lawyers to work on that particularly, and he will be making recommendations to that effect. In answer to the question, that would be one possibility, that Justice Kaufman could make that recommendation to extend an inquiry.
Mr. Deveaux:
Mr. Speaker, again through you to the Minister of Justice. Well, it has come to my attention that it is not possible for the Westray prosecution to be restarted. The Public Prosecution Service has given an irrevocable promise, called an undertaking, that the prosecution will never be started again. My question to this minister, why has this minister buried this undertaking and shut out the families of Westray to prevent justice in this case?
Dr. Smith:
Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service has made certain statements relative to this matter; that is correct. Those statements have made it difficult, perhaps, to open the case. I am not quite sure what the honourable member is quoting, that it cannot be opened. The matter will receive Justice Kaufman's report, and we will go from there. The statements have been made though, by learned people, that it is considered in light of the statements made by the Public Prosecution Service that any prosecution on the Westray matter would be difficult in a court of law.
Mr. Deveaux:
Mr. Speaker, again through you to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice has fumbled the ball on this prosecution from day one. In particular, he should know — and if he was a lawyer, he might very well know — that a verbal undertaking is as good as a written undertaking. (Interruptions)
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Question, please.
Mr. Deveaux:
My question to the Minister of Justice, will he table that undertaking in the House by this time tomorrow?
Dr. Smith:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House, and I make no apologies to the House or to that member or the people of Nova Scotia for the fact that I am not a lawyer. I have been a member of this House of Assembly since 1984. I take my job very seriously, and I will conduct my business in a thoughtful and caring manner, as well as I can do; that is all that any member of the House can do. As far as that type of comment, I am not standing here to defend my ability in that. (Applause)
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 October 27, page 2764
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98oct27.htm#[Page 2764]
Mr. Kevin Deveaux, (Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage):
Mr. Speaker, my question again through you is to the Minister of Justice. In June 1997, there was an application to the Public Prosecution Service with regard to certain reports from the Westray prosecution. On August 24, 1998, the Freedom of Information Review Officer reported that the Public Prosecution Service had stonewalled that application and failed to provide the information as required. Indeed, the information still has not been provided even though the review officer recommended that it be done immediately. My question is what is the minister doing to ensure that information about the Westray prosecution is made available as quickly as possible, as recommended by the independent review officer?
Hon. James Smith, Minister of Justice:
Mr. Speaker, the Public Prosecution Service is an independent service that directives may be issued from the Attorney General. What I have done in looking at the operation of that service is to order an inquiry by Justice Kaufman and that is being carried out as we speak. We are looking forward to an interim report perhaps toward the end of the year, then a further report and then his recommendations will be treated seriously.
Mr. Deveaux:
Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice, I don't recall Justice Kaufman's mandate including a review of this particular incident, but I want to say, in the same FOI report, the review officer said that the Public Prosecution Service had not been candid, it was highly technical in its response and that dealing with the Public Prosecution Service was frustrating for him. There is a clear implication in all of this, the Public Prosecution Service has something to hide on Westray. My question to the Minister of Justice is, quite simply, what is he hiding?
Dr. Smith:
Mr. Speaker, the function of the Public Prosecution Service is an independent body from government. It is designed to stop and prevent interference from elected public ministers and that is the process that I would follow. The freedom of information is an Act, there is a balance between the release of information and the protection of privacy. I will respect that process.
Mr. Deveaux:
Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Minister of Justice is responsible for the Public Prosecution Service, he is responsible for the freedom of information Act; particularly, it is one of the few things that is keeping this government honest, and the review officer is the glue that binds it. My question to the Minister of Justice is quite straightforward. When is this government going to stop hiding the truth and give us the freedom of information law which this province so sadly deserves?
Dr. Smith:
Mr. Speaker, the freedom of information Act is one that is continually going to review and update. I feel that we have an Act that is working in this province. There are issues. People are sometimes dissatisfied, but as I say, there is a balance between the public right to know, and information released there, and the privacy of persons. I have respect for the Public Prosecution Service, and that is one that will be reviewed under the current review.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 November 27, page 3694
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98nov13.htm#[Page 3694]
Resolution Number 1805
Dr. John Hamm, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party:
Mr. Speaker, that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas many former Westray mine workers continue to suffer severe financial hardship since the tragic explosion almost six and one-half years ago; and
Whereas the Liberal Government has often made statements which have led Nova Scotians to believe that the former Westray employees would be receiving long-awaited and much-deserved severance packages; and
Whereas the latest promise was made in this House on October 22nd when the Premier stated that "...the Department of Labour is now contacting the workers and processing that paper to get the cheques into the mail", yet almost four weeks later, the promised cheques have not been received;
Therefore be it resolved that the Premier live up to the promises he made to the former workers of Westray and immediately ensure that these cheques are received by the individuals who need and deserve fair treatment.
Mr. Speaker:
The notice is tabled.
Alberta Legislature, Edmonton
Hansard, 1998 November 16
http://199.213.89.9:8080/ISYSquery/frame/IHT8044.c
Mrs. Nancy MacBeth, Leader of the Official Opposition:
Oh, Mr. Speaker, you know, if the Premier's not guilty of any inappropriate direction in this matter, why is he so afraid to call a public inquiry so that all Albertans can find out once and for all what happened?
Mr. Ralph Klein, Premier:
Mr. Speaker, first of all I'm not afraid of a public inquiry relative to this issue. I have said: let the Auditor General look at all the information. He's an officer of this Legislature, appointed in conjunction with the opposition party. He is the appropriate person to examine these facts. I have always said that if he comes to the conclusion that such an inquiry should be held, then we will give that recommendation consideration at that time, and if there are sound reasons, we would call a public inquiry. Mr. Speaker, there are reasons and there are legal reasons relative to why a public inquiry should not be held at this particular time, and I would ask the hon. Attorney General to supplement my answer.
Mr. Havelock, Government House Leader:
Mr. Speaker, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Premier. If there is a public inquiry, prosecution of charges subsequently laid may be affected. There are risks to the potential criminal prosecution that the government should weigh carefully. There are two primary risks. The publicity generated by a public inquiry could potentially compromise the ability of an accused to have a fair trial, and if a judge decided this was so, then the criminal charges would be stayed.
Secondly, at a public inquiry persons who are potential accused can be compelled to give evidence. If their testimony gives rise to subsequent discovery of further incriminating evidence, that evidence could be excluded by the criminal courts so that it would not be usable in evidence.
I'd like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to a case which generated significant publicity across the country, and that was the Westray case. The Supreme Court had this to say regarding the difficulties posed by a public inquiry where criminal charges are subsequently laid against a witness. What they said is as follows: in some circumstances proceeding with a public inquiry may so jeopardize the criminal trial of a witness called at the inquiry that it may be stayed or result in important evidence being held as inadmissible at the criminal trial; in those situations it is an executive branch of government that should make the decision whether to proceed with a public inquiry.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated publicly by the RCMP that they are investigating any activities which may be of a criminal nature with respect to this matter, and for a public inquiry to be called at this time may undermine that investigation and subsequent prosecution.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 November 27, page 4544
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98nov27.htm#[Page 4544]
Resolution Number 2186
Mr. Robert Chisholm, Leader of the Opposition:
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas the government intends to proceed with demolition of the twin silos at the former Westray Coal Mine today, November 27th; and
Whereas one reason for demolition is that the towers are a physical reminder of the neglect and disregard for workers' lives that resulted in the tragic loss of 26 men's lives in that mine; and
Whereas another painful reminder is that many months have gone by since the Westray families proposed a financial settlement with the province after the Westray prosecution was dropped;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urge the government to respond to the Westray families and conclude a settlement with them, just as it has moved to resolve the outstanding severance issues and to demolish the Westray Coal Mine towers.
Mr. Speaker, I would seek waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 1998 November 27, page 4589
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han57-1/h98nov27.htm#[Page 4589]
Hon. Russell MacLellan, Q.C. (The Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House that I have just been informed that the coal silos at the Westray Mine site have been successfully brought down. The demolition happened at approximately 11:00 a.m. Minister Huskilson was on the site this morning to witness the event and he just called to say that everything went well.
The government recognizes the symbolic significance of today's event. Many families and friends gathered near the site this morning to witness the moment. We hope that this helps to close another chapter in the grieving process for the loved ones of the 26 miners who lost their lives on May 9, 1992. Westray is a tragic event in Nova Scotia's history that will never be forgotten. We have paid the price for the lessons learned here.
On behalf of this Legislature and all Nova Scotians, I want those people to know that our thoughts and prayers are with them today as always. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable Leader of the Opposition.
M. Robert Chisholm, Leader of the Opposition:
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that in many ways, the towers were a physical reminder of the neglect and the disregard for workers' lives that resulted in that tragic loss of 26 men's lives in the mine. Undoubtedly it will bring some considerable comfort to many, that they are no longer there.
I would again remind the government and other members of this House that another painful reminder is that many months have gone by since the Westray families proposed a financial settlement with the province, after the Westray prosecution was dropped. I would urge the government, in order to properly address all of the components and facets of this tragedy and its memory, that they will respond, and respond in a positive way, to a proposal which I believe is extremely responsible and quite appropriate. Thank you. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Dr. John Hamm, Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party:
Mr. Speaker, when I come out the front door of my home, on the other side of the East River Valley, I can see those silos. Obviously, when I go home later tonight, that will no longer be the case. They dominated the landscape of that part of Pictou County and have been a constant reminder of what went on on May 9, 1992. For family members to see those silos go, I believe, as the Premier has indicated, will be a furthering of the closure process for those families.
Those of us in Pictou County who were in the county on May 9, 1992 will never forget that day, the days following or a week following when Pictonians demonstrated the ability to respond to a neighbour's distress. I personally will never forget receiving a telephone call at 5:58 p.m. (sic) on May 9, 1992 informing me that the mine had in fact blown up. It is one of those moments that will remain with me forever. Thank you. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member for Pictou East.
Mr. James DeWolfe, (Pictou East):
Mr. Speaker, the Westray silos were a grim reminder of a tragic situation. I have to say that when I opened the drapes in my office, they were in full view from my workplace. I am indeed pleased to see that this has finally been taken care of. I was very saddened when we were faced with still another obstacle earlier on in the demolition of these. It was the right thing to do.
Certainly I have to mention one family in particular that lives almost below the silos, the Doyles, who lost a son there. I know how pleased they will be that that has finally been taken care of. (Applause)
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member for Pictou West.
Mr. Charles Parker, (Pictou West):
Mr. Speaker, I too certainly am glad to see a chapter of this Westray saga come to a close. In Pictou County, I know it has deeply affected the lives of many people in our communities. I can certainly well recall the date of May 9, 1992, and how it really shocked and hurt many people within our community. It really spread from there, across the country and across the world. It was a major tragedy, and certainly a big news story at the time.
It is certainly nice to see that the silos have come down, and perhaps now people can get on with other things in their lives, although there is still the families of the Westray survivors and the people who are still looking for fairness and compensation from the system. We hope that can be resolved very shortly as well. Thank you. (Applause)
1999
Alberta Legislature, Edmonton
Hansard, 1999 March 18
http://199.213.89.9:8080/ISYSquery/frame/IHT8082.c
Mr. Smith, Edmonton-Glengarry, Minister of Labour:
Mr. Chairman, ... we were talking about alternate service delivery for mining inspections, which is now contracted. We know by the work that we've done and the analysis that was done that there's no chance of a Westray-type mine disaster ever occurring in Alberta. Training and education are different. We've seen the advent of safety associations, training by postsecondary institutions, and we have not reduced service or quality levels. In fact, the rate of workplace injuries has gone down since 1994...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1999 April 23
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/journals/
214_1999-04-23/214Votes-E.html
Private Members' Business M-455
At 12:15 p.m., by unanimous consent, the House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members' Business.
Mr. MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough), seconded by Mr. Casey (Cumberland-Colchester), 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. (Private Members' Business M-455)
Debate arose thereon.
Ms. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre), seconded by Mr. Fournier (Manicouagan), moved the following amendment, — That the motion be amended by adding after the word "amended" the following:
", following a study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,"
Debate arose thereon.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1999 April 23, 1245 (12:45pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/214_1999-04-23/han214_1245-e.htm
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Reform):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Motion No. 455. The potential exists in terms of corporate responsibility.
One of the most dramatic examples of negligence on the part of corporate Canada was the 1992 Westray explosion which killed 26 miners. It was a disaster that did not need to happen, but it did. My hon. colleague from the Conservative Party should be commended for putting this motion forward.
Motion No. 455 deals with some very hard questions. It states very clearly that corporate executives cannot hide behind their titles when they engage in behaviour that has proven to be negligent or harmful to the people working under them. We must also ensure that Motion No. 455 is not used as a cudgel to slam on the head of the executive world when it is not negligent and not responsible...
...I will summarize by saying that Motion No. 455 has some excellent points. I commend the member from the Conservative Party for putting it forward. We need to study this to ensure that those in corporate Canada do not hide behind their titles and abuse the people. The other side is to use this as a window for corporate Canada to engage in public good not only within our country but also abroad.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1999 April 23 1255 (12:55pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/214_1999-04-23/han214_1255-e.htm
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, Bloc Quebecois):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the first hour of debate on Motion M-455, moved by the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, which reads as follows:
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.
Let us first look at the facts surrounding the Westray mine tragedy and all the proceedings that led to the commission's report. On May 9, 1992, an explosion occurred at the Westray mine, killing 26 workers. On May 15 of that same year, the Government of Nova Scotia appointed Mr. Justice Peter Richard to head a commission of inquiry established under the Public Inquiries Act. Mr. Justice Richard was also appointed special investigator under the Coal Mining Regulation Act. The commission had a very broad mandate, so as to shed light on the explosion and all the related circumstances. In fact, Nova Scotia's premier at the time, Donald Cameron, was very clear about that mandate:
Mr. Justice Richard's inquiry will not be limited to the events of the early morning of May 9. Nothing and no person with any light to shed on this tragedy will escape the scrutiny of this inquiry.
The commission's work thus began immediately, to prepare for the public hearings set to begin on October 19, 1992.
Curragh Resources Inc. and Westray's management challenged the validity of the order in council establishing the commission of inquiry, and this, as members can imagine, led to numerous legal proceedings. Because of these delays, the Richard report was tabled only five years later, in November 1997. The report, entitled "The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster", contains 74 recommendations. It concluded in general that this tragedy could have been avoided if minimal occupational safety standards had been met...
Our main concern today is recommendation 73 of the report. It is addressed to the federal government and deals with Criminal Code amendments on the responsibility of directors for safety in the workplace.
The commissioner made this recommendation because of the criminal proceedings undertaken while Mr. Justice Richard's public inquiry was underway. On April 20, 1993, the RCMP announced that charges were being laid against Curragh Resources Inc., as well as Gerald Phillips and Roger Parry, two members of the mine's management. They were charged with criminal negligence and homicide under sections 220 and 222(5) of the Criminal Code.
Since the court found that those charges were too vague for the accused to be able to put up an appropriate defence, other charges were laid, based on infractions under provincial laws on occupational safety.
This is why Mr. Justice Richard made recommendation 73. If we are to understand clearly the meaning of the motion before the House, we should first have a look at recommendation 73 of the Westray mine public inquiry:
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, should institute a study of the 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.
The current effectiveness of the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with the accountability of corporate executives with regard to workplace safety is of concern to us. This is why we believe this issue should be looked at from a general perspective and not solely within the context of the Westray mine. In our view, criminal proceedings against Westray mine officers, which have proved fruitless so far, were affected by the climate created by the public enquiry. Therefore, the study should ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code complement the provisions in the various provincial statutes dealing with workplace safety.
We support the member's motion. An in-depth and thorough review of the issue must take place before any legislative changes are introduced. Recommendation 73 clearly proposes that a study take place prior to making any such changes. We believe, and I hope my colleague who is sponsoring this motion will agree with me, it would be more appropriate for the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to undertake this study...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1999 April 23, 1305 (1:05pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/214_1999-04-23/han214_1305-e.htm
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney-Victoria, NDP):
Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the motion of my colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough. It is also my pleasure to indicate that he will have, as he knows, my support on the motion. He will have the support of our party as well.
His motion calls for the government to act upon recommendation No. 73 of the public inquiry of the province of Nova Scotia into the Westray disaster and to amend the Criminal Code accordingly. It mirrors very much a bill that was introduced by the leader of our party in relation to the Westray disaster in January 1999. Our bill details the specific changes to the Criminal Code required to address the concerns of corporate liability and workplace safety as indicated in the Westray report.
I began by saying the hon. member knows he will have my support. I come from the same province. I come from a coal mining community. I remember well the Westray disaster because that day I was not in Nova Scotia. My wife and I had taken some time and were outside the province. When we called home and spoke to the caregiver who was looking after our children we did not talk about the weather. We did not talk a whole lot. The first thing we were apprised of was the situation in Westray.
It is perhaps difficult for those who do not live in mining communities to understand the impact of that news. Coming from Cape Breton we knew that it would be our friends and colleagues who would volunteer to go into those mines to find the bodies of the 26 coal miners who were killed, and they did.
For those who live in communities where there are coal mines, for those who live in industrial communities, it is difficult to describe how ingrained and how we know that disaster lurks around the corner. When a whistle blows, when there is the sound of an explosion from the blast furnace, when we look at the changing colour of the sky and the fishermen are out on the water, we know that there will be disaster. We live with that reality every day...
We live with the frustrating knowledge that corporations which exploit workers in areas of high unemployment in dangerous settings literally get away with murder. It is that reality which the motion and the New Democratic Party's bill seek to address.
I say this having listened to the speaker on the government side. I will not dwell on it, but one of the real concerns we have as the government dismantles the Cape Breton Development Corporation is that it will move to a private mine without a union under provincial jurisdiction, without the protections we now have, which were the very circumstances that led to the disaster at Westray. I urge the government to bear that in mind.
There are ways to prevent this. One way is to accept the motion and the New Democratic Party's bill. I will read from the wording of Justice Richard in the Westray report:
The Westray Story is a complex mosaic of actions, omissions, mistakes, incompetence, apathy, cynicism, stupidity, neglect — Viewed in context, these seemingly isolated incidents constitute a mindset or operating philosophy that appears to favour expediency over intelligent planning and that trivializes safety concerns. Indeed, management at Westray displayed a certain disdain for safety and appeared to regard safety conscious workers as the wimps in the organization. To its discredit, the management at Westray, through either incompetence or ignorance, lost sight of the basic tenet of coal mining that safe mining is good business.
The tale that unfolds in the Westray report is a story of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency and of cynical indifference. It is a tragic story with the inevitable moments of pathos and heroism. The Westray story concerns an event that in all good common sense ought not to have occurred. It did occur and that is our unfortunate legacy. It is in fact our unfortunate tragedy.
There are ways to stop this. There are ways to stop criminal murder by corporations of their workers. That is what our bill will seek to address and that is what the motion seeks to address. There are ways it can be done by amending the Criminal Code.
In that report Justice Richard pointed out those ways. He suggested that there be a new criminal offence that would impose criminal liability on directors or others responsible for failing to ensure their corporation maintains an appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the workplace, a criminal offence of corporate killing.
Justice Richard said "in the context of Westray these deserve consideration". They deserve more than consideration; they demand action. Recommendation No. 73 states that the Government of Canada through the Department of Justice should institute a study of the accountability of corporate executives and directors for the wrongful or negligent acts of corporations and should introduce in the Parliament of Canada such amendments to legislation as are necessary to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for workplace safety...
Prince Edward Island Legislature, Charlottetown
Hansard, 1999 May 4, page 2126
http://www.gov.pe.ca/leg/hansard/1999spring/1999-05-04-hansard.pdf
Robert Morrissey (Tignish-DeBlois, Liberal):
Mr. Speaker, ...I want to put before the House Mr. Minister, possibly if the Opposition in Newfoundland had questioned more the Sprung greenhouse deal. Possibly if the Opposition in New Brunswick had...
Jim Bagnall (Montague-Kilmuir, PC):
Question?
Robert Morrissey:
...questioned the Bricklyn deal when it was going through. Mr. Speaker, but most importantly...
Jim Bagnall:
Does he have a question?
Robert Morrissey:
...if the Opposition in Nova Scotia had questioned...(UPROAR)
An Honourable Member:
Relax!
Robert Morrissey:
...the Westray mine deal Mr. Speaker...
Jim Bagnall:
(INDISTINCT) another speech, Mr. Speaker.
Robert Morrissey:
...because see, the government of the day defended the same projects based on jobs Mr. Speaker. (UPROAR) And if the Opposition had of been doing their work (UPROAR) possibly those failures wouldn't be around...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 1999 November 15, 1735 (5:35pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/020_1999-11-15/han020_1735-e.htm
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Reform):
Mr. Speaker...
One might say I have coal dust in my veins since it was the coal mines that brought my grandfather to Canada. Without coal I would not be standing before the House today. It is amazing how one can step back into history through people who are not long gone.
My grandfather was born in 1866 and by 1880, at the age of 14, he was working in a coal mine in Scotland. Later he operated a coal mine in China until the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the century. He was on the docks in Shanghai when Europeans were being killed.
After returning to Scotland from China my grandfather, James, along with his two brothers, Ninian and Tom, came to North America to work in the coal mines of West Virginia. The three brothers continued to work together and moved to British Columbia where they worked in the coal mines. My grandfather worked at the Coal Creek mine near Fernie, British Columbia.
On May 22, 1902, there were 128 miners killed in the Coal Creek disaster. My grandfather was on the rescue team after this mine disaster and this traumatising event certainly affected him for the rest of his days.
I grew up in the coal mining town of Natal close to the B.C.-Alberta border in the Rocky Mountains adjacent to the slag piles and the coke ovens, adjacent to what was then the Trans-Canada Highway that went through the Crow's Nest Pass. It has since been moved from Crow's Nest to Rogers Pass...
I understand the strong emotional attachments and the strong affinity to the coal mining industry expressed by the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. I have been to Glace Bay, Sydney, Pictou County, the site of the Westray mine and the memorial. We cannot just wash this all away. Coal is in their veins...
Newfoundland Legislature, St. John's
Hansard, 1999 December 2
http://www.gov.nf.ca/hoa/business/99-12-02.htm
Mr. Harris (Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi):
Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Premier, concerning the vital question of safety in the offshore. The death of Shawn Hatcher of Burgeo last April on the Nordic Apollo was investigated by the Nova Scotia Department of Labor who wanted to prosecute for violation of safety regulations but could not because the jurisdiction of the Atlantic Accord is in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, who have a policy of no prosecution, even in fatalities, and operate with draft regulations...
Mr. Speaker, there are two issues here. One, as determined by the Westray inquiry, the agency which licences a project ought not to have the responsibility for safety of projects as well. That was one of their conclusions.
The second issue is this: Will this government support the position taken by the Nova Scotia government in a letter to Prime Minister Chretien on November 25 in which they say, based on their legal advice, that the provisions of the Atlantic Accord undermine their ability to provide an enforceable regulatory regime comparable to that found both in the Canada Labour Code and the provincial level for other industries. They are expressing grave concerns about the ability to have an enforceable regime in the offshore of Nova Scotia. Does this also apply to Newfoundland?...
2000
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2000 March 3, 1330 (1:30pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/062_2000-03-03/han062_1330-e.htm
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to carry on with my speech regarding the private member's motion put forward by the member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough.
The motion, as stated, calls for the government to undertake a study for the implementation of the recommendations of the Richard inquiry on the Westray mine. It is a very worthwhile and timely motion. We were very pleased when it was brought before the House because all Canadians were horrified when 26 miners were killed in the Westray mine through what I believe to be criminal negligence and through what the chief justice found to be criminal negligence.
Canadians were even more horrified when they realized that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia would have to drop or stay the charges against the Westray mine because under the current Criminal Code of Canada there was no way to make those charges stick. That certainly is what caught in the craw of most Canadians. There was no way to deal with the grief of the actual deaths of the 26 miners.
It was incredibly frustrating to see that the crown prosecutors of Nova Scotia did not have the tools to do the job to bring to justice the people who caused the deaths of the 26 miners through what I call criminal negligence, through what Justice Richard called criminal negligence, and I would go further...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2000 March 3, 1335 (1:35pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/062_2000-03-03/han062_1335-e.htm
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC):
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...
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...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2000 March 13
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/063_2000-03-13/han063_1105-e.htm
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester, PC):
Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to talk about this issue which stems from an awful disaster that happened in 1992 in Nova Scotia not too far from my riding. I remember it well. I was the member of parliament for Cumberland-Colchester at the time. I represent an area that has a large number of coal mines and we have seen our share of coal mine disasters in Springhill, River Hebert, Joggins and all those places that thrived on coal in the early years. This motion is very dear to my heart.
The father of the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough who initiated this motion was the member of parliament for that area. I remember going to the scene of the disaster and the Hon. Elmer MacKay was there virtually 24 hours a day until it was determined that there was no more hope for the 26 miners lost. He worked with the people hand in hand and was always present to help them.
I want to congratulate my colleague from Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough for working so hard to ensure that workplace safety is a top priority of the Government of Canada as well as the business community.
We will be voting on this motion. It will be interesting to see which members are in favour of amending the criminal code to protect workers in Canada from coast to coast. I am confident this motion will gain the support of the entire House or at least one would certainly hope so considering the ramifications.
This morning on the airplane coming to Ottawa I happened to open the Globe and Mail and there was a story that reminded me of the Westray incident. The article stated: "Ashen-faced relatives stood in silence watching rescuers coated in coal dust drag up the bodies of the people killed in the Ukrainian mine disaster". That just happened hours ago and it sounds exactly like what happened in Westray. The draegermen were bringing up the bodies. It was such a sad thing and to think it could have been avoided.
I would like to take a moment this morning to read the motion. It is important that we remember what we are talking about. I will read the motion into the record so that everybody is clear about what we are dealing with. Motion No. 79 states:
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.
What could make more sense than that? The awful thing is that the study to which the hon. member refers was started in 1992 and was just tabled in 1997. His motion stems from that study.
The need for a rational standard of business behaviour goes without saying. However it is every bit as important that once the laws are established, provisions are created to ensure that bureaucrats do not tokenize the enforcement of those laws. There can be no double standards...
A small number of executives still escape liability because their lawyers show them how to hide behind jurisdictional boundaries. Even if convicted of violating the occupational health and safety statutes, existing provincial penalties are minimal compared to the rewards generated by their violation. This motion would require total accountability of executives with no loopholes.
Unfortunately we have seen many examples of occupational safety in the workplace taking second spot behind the bottom line, especially in the mining industry where the very nature of the work involves a great deal of risk. It is the duty of company officers to ensure the work is done in the safest possible conditions.
I again refer to the newspaper article about the Ukrainian explosion which so mirrors the Westray explosion. The article said "a preliminary investigation suggested that Saturday's accident was a methane explosion caused by a violation of safety standards". That is exactly what happened at Westray.
Ukraine's energy minister also said that safety violations were likely at fault. The miners usually blame accidents on the unwillingness of officials to spend money on maintaining or upgrading safety equipment. History certainly has repeated itself there.
Often corporate executives sometimes seem less interested in the merits of workplace safety in pursuit of the bottom line. This is a very dangerous scenario. We must be mindful of it and do everything we can to prevent it.
In the case of the Westray tragedy, labour safety standards, in particular minimal safety standards, were not adhered to to the extent they should have been, much like we have read about regarding the Ukrainian explosion.
Looking at this issue in the larger context, there must also be recognition of the role of government to ensure proper standards are met, not only set but met. It stands to reason that when weighing business goals versus those of safety, sometimes businesses find themselves pulled in many ways. They have to meet production deadlines, outperform competitors, increase bottom lines, et cetera. That is where the human element and the safety issue must be exercised.
Far too often businesses and indeed heads of corporations are obsessed with financial gain leaving the safety of their workers neglected. That type of short term gain often results in long term pain, as was the case at Westray.
One thing that really struck me was the name of the study. The report that was done on the Westray mine disaster was entitled "A Predictable Path to Disaster". That is a sad commentary on safety in the mining industry and the executives involved in that industry. A predictable path; they could have predicted that the disaster was going to happen, yet it still did.
Safety regulations, management and government all failed in their duties to those miners. Tough economic times which 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 that company. The employees, management, board of directors and anyone associated with that business are going to feel a negative impact if there has to be an operational shutdown as a result of a potential breach of safety.
That is the cost of doing business and we have to do everything to ensure that those safety practices are followed. In the case of Westray they were almost trivial things which were overlooked: sensors shut down, alarms disconnected, comments from the miners disregarded, and things like that.
Companies must ensure the avoidance of hazardous or illegal practices such as those which cannot be condoned in any capacity. If companies have not already done so, they should do everything within their power to implement safe and ethical work practices. Ethics such as these should be studied and followed everywhere in places of employment, especially in upper management. If this is not the case, action must be taken to demonstrate the importance and seriousness of the issue. Business executives must promote and nurture safe work ethics and have an open and approachable attitude toward all employees.
As Nova Scotia experienced with the Westray disaster, senior bureaucrats within the provincial workplace and enforcement agencies became compromised by regional politics and vested interests. This practice is suspected to be occurring in other provinces even today, almost eight years after that explosion...
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Madam Speaker ... As the previous member who spoke indicated, one cannot be unmindful of the chilling news of the death of 80 miners in Ukraine which has occurred in the last few days. Let us not be so smug in the House as to think that the same kind of unsafe conditions, the same kind of neglect by employers and governments cannot repeat itself in Canada. Until we take serious legislative measures to put in place the protections that are necessary, including an enactment in legislation of the sentiment of this motion, this situation can and indeed will occur again...
At issue in this motion is recommendation No. 73 of the exhaustive Westray report. That recommendation would establish criminal responsibility for decision makers who knowingly put their workers at undue risk. It is the basis for this motion and the basis for my private member's Bill C-259. Supporting the motion which is before us would tell Canadian workers that their representatives will stand for them. Supporting Bill C-259 would show Canadian workers that their representatives will stand for them...
I think the clincher comes from the Prime Minister's office:
I share your concerns about the Westray Mine explosion...that is why the government has a comprehensive range of programs to promote workplace safety.
The translation of that statement is "Despite everything that the Westray inquiry documented, despite the recommendations coming out of the Westray inquiry, despite the fact that workers continue to be put in unsafe working conditions, there is no real problem. The existing regime does the job".
If the existing regime did the job, then there would not have been 26 miners' lives lost in the Westray explosion...
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings-Hants, PC):
Madam Speaker ... The Westray disaster of May 9, 1992 continues to resonate as a beacon of what should be done to improve worker safety, not just in Canada but around the world.
Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester speak of the recent mine disaster in Ukraine. Canada can play a role in introducing changes to our criminal code that would be world leading in terms of their impact on occupational health and safety issues and corporate accountability, not just in Canada but around the world.
I remember the time of the disaster in 1992. I was on business in New York when I heard the news. It was one of the few times I listened to national public radio in New York. I was running in Central Park when I heard the news. It was one of the few times that I ever heard about Nova Scotia in the U.S. national media. It was a sad moment because, of all the positive things that we understand about Nova Scotia and Canada, it is often this kind of disaster that captures the U.S. media. The sadness continues to affect those families, whose lives have been forever changed by the disaster...
The chilling message that came from the Westray disaster was that even today, in this day and age, occupational health and safety issues continually are ignored by companies, particularly, it would seem, in the coal mining industry, but in other sectors as well.
Increasingly executives are compensated based on stock options. While that can be very positive in terms of creating a synergistic relationship between the goals of the executive from a compensatory perspective and the goals of the shareholders by encouraging executives to maximize shareholder value, it can also focus the efforts of executives on very short term results which can often have a negative impact on the long term results of a company, whether it is corporate and financial, or in this case the safety of workers...
I encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 79. I commend the member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough for proposing very sound legislation in the motion. We need to ensure that occupational health and safety issues are dealt with in the same way that environmental issues are dealt with strongly by the criminal code.
Corporate executives must be responsible not just to their shareholders but to Canadians at large, to the workers who toil in the mines, to the wildlife that depend on a clean environment. We need to ensure that environmental standards, health and safety and occupational health issues are dealt with appropriately.
The only way to deal with these issues in the economically driven and globally competitive society we live in today is through strong changes to the criminal code to ensure that all workers are safe in their workplace. All corporate executives must do everything they can to ensure that Canada has the highest standards in occupational health and safety in the world.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills-Grasslands, Reform):
Madam Speaker ... I am a mining engineer by profession and I have worked many years underground in many parts of the world. I would like to give the House my particular take on this disaster.
The last member who spoke made specific reference to the negligence of the regulatory system. He did not use those words but I will use them. I believe that the heart of the problem at Westray was that there was such enormous political pressure to open this mine in the first place, when there was good advice from mining experts that it was not a viable operation, that the shaft should never have been sunk, that they had had methane problems in that area historically every time they tried to mine there. There was definitely a recommendation that the mine not be developed. However, because of provincial and federal pressures and the huge amounts of government money put forward to get this thing going, there was also pressure on the regulatory system. As I understand it, and I stand to be corrected, I believe the mine inspector was under considerable pressure not to shut that operation down.
When I was working in the mines, I never ever encountered a situation where line management was anything but safety conscious. Line managers would do whatever was necessary to keep a mine safe. They had the advantage of having the mine inspectors behind them. In other words, even if management in Toronto said they had to get production up, line management could still do whatever was necessary to keep the mine safe. They had the full weight and force of the mine inspector behind them because the mine inspector could shut them down. They had that power.
We are perhaps shooting at the wrong target here. The problem at Westray was not governance. The problem at Westray was safety enforcement. Perhaps we might say that line management was guilty but the mine inspection system failed. Any mine inspector should have been able to spot the violations which have been described here which took place in that mine.
Because there was this one particular disaster, let us not talk about revamping a law which has served us well over the years. That is the law which exempts directors. I am not talking about executives or line management; I am talking about directors. Who in the devil would want to be the director of a company if he or she was going to be held responsible for things that are happening out in the field? The directors do not make managerial decisions. They have nothing to do with it.
A man would have to be insane to accept a directorial position for which he is paid a very small amount of money with most companies. There are directors of multinational companies who are well paid, but the directors of most companies work for an honorarium. They get paid so much a meeting and that is it. Who would take on a position like that? Not me, not if I were going to be held responsible for something that happened 2,000 or 3,000 miles away that I did not know anything about and had no input into.
The problem here is government, government, government. The government failed. The civil servants failed. A group of miners was unnecessarily killed because the inspection system did not work. The inspection system did not do its job. We rely on regulators in industry in this country to keep everyone honest and they did not do it...
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore, NDP):
Madam Speaker ... What happened at Westray did not have to happen. Miners and their families are very concerned about their loved ones who go underground on a daily basis to earn their bread, and to pay their taxes so that we in the House of Commons can put forth legislation to protect them. For us to ignore their demands and wishes is a dereliction of our responsibilities and our duties. We simply cannot allow this to happen any longer.
There was an exhaustive Westray report which made some very serious and admirable recommendations, but that report is now three years old. What has the government done? Absolutely nothing. I wonder if it is waiting for the next mine disaster before doing something...
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2000 March 27, page 2634
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han58-1/h00mar27.htm#[Page 2634]
Resolution Number 782
Dr. John Hamm, the Premier:
Mr. Speaker, I have the permission of the House Leaders opposite to have four whereases in this resolution which is not the custom of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Recommendation 73 of the Province of Nova Scotia's public inquiry into the Westray Mine disaster called on the federal government to hold corporate executives and directors accountable for workplace safety, through amendments to the Criminal Code or other appropriate federal Statutes; and
Whereas for over two years Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough MP Peter MacKay has pressed Ottawa to act on Recommendation 73 becoming the first Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia to sponsor a private member's initiative to that effect; and
Whereas last week the House of Commons voted 216 to 15 in support of Mr. MacKay's motion and referred it to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration; and
Whereas federal NDP Leader Alexa McDonough has sponsored her own private member's bill on Recommendation 73;
Therefore be it resolved that this House urge the Government of Canada to act decisively to implement Recommendation No. 73 of the Westray Report, through amendments to the Criminal Code or other appropriate Statutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would request waiver.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2000 June 5
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/107_2000-06-05/han107_2055-e.htm
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):
Mr. Speaker ...
If it is too much to ask government members to go back and look at what happened in the province of Nova Scotia when coal mining was in the hands of the private sector, maybe some of the members opposite could take a moment to think about what went on in the hands of a private corporation in Nova Scotia more recently. There is no one opposite, particularly this week, who can pretend they do not know the history of what happened under the private corporation, the Westray mine, Curragh Resources.
I have to say that in my twenty years in politics, without a doubt, the most horrifying experience that I have ever endured was to spend an evening, as I recall of four or five hours, with the coal miners who had survived the Westray disaster and with the widows and families of the victims of the Westray disaster a day or two after the lives of those 26 miners were lost. If there was one thing that became clear to me, it was the difference it made to coal mining in Cape Breton and in fact much more dangerous coal mining taking place in Cape Breton. Let us be clear that it was much more challenging, with very deep mines way out under the ocean floor. There is no question that it was very dangerous work and very vulnerable to any number of horrifying kinds of disasters.
Does anyone know what the difference was? There was a genuine sense that the public interest had to be protected, that the lives and the livelihoods of the miners had to be protected and that this was a resource, this was an asset to the whole of the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia economy. What a contrast between the experience of workers employed by Devco, a crown corporation in Nova Scotia over the last several decades, and the horrors of what happened under the private coal mining company of Curragh Resources at Westray.
When I contemplate the kind of private industry start-up that apparently the government is very enthusiastic about, at least in concept, I do not think we are fully convinced that the government is serious about coal mining continuing under private auspices. In fact there is every reason to be suspicious that this really is the government saying "Let us wrap up the coal mining in Cape Breton and let us just move on". There is every reason to be concerned about what this is really about. Even if we took the government at its word and it was enthusiastic about coal mining under private auspices, we have to wonder if it has really learned anything from the lesson of Westray.
If there was any member opposite who did not fully understand what that lesson was before last week, there is no excuse now for saying that they do not understand it. The United Steelworkers of America that represent the surviving miners from Westray have been here on the Hill for the last eight days to make sure that there is no person in this Chamber, no one representing workers anywhere in the 301 ridings in the country who does not understand what it meant for coal mining to take place under the auspices of a private company and where there was no assurance whatsoever of there being a union. That is the other part of it, the health and safety laws of this country mean nothing in the context of a union free mine setting. I have to say in conclusion that the backdrop for this is very alarming, as is the failure of the government to learn the lessons of history...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2000 October 5
http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/127_2000-10-05/han127-e.htm
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney-Victoria, NDP) moved that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on Wednesday, June 7, 2000, be concurred in.
Mr. Mancini said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to move concurrence in that report and by way of background to indicate exactly why I am doing that. I have very real concerns. I know those concerns would be shared by other members of the justice committee, and certainly by other members of my party.
In June of this year the justice committee met to discuss a private member's bill dealing with the Westray mine disaster. The justice committee considered that bill. A motion was moved by me. A great deal of work was done by the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough. There has been a great deal of work done on this bill by the leader of my party, the hon. member for Halifax, and by the hon. member for Churchill in Manitoba. This issue is not just an Atlantic issue. It crosses all lines. There has also been a great deal of work done by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, our justice critic.
At the justice committee there was a rare and I think unique feeling when the committee determined that the justice department should bring back to the committee a bill giving substance to the spirit of the report filed after the Westray disaster.
There are rules that determine when the minister can respond to that motion from the justice committee. There is no requirement for an election for another year and a half. I am concerned, and I know my concern would be shared by other members of the House, that if an election were called and the House did not proceed to its full mandate this most important issue would die on the order paper. We would have to begin all over again in a new parliament, seeking to give life and legislation to the spirit of the report of Justice Richard and to bring justice to the families of those involved in the Westray mine disaster.
I do not need to repeat the history of that unfortunate day in Nova Scotia and, indeed, that unfortunate day in Canada. I will for the record indicate the brief facts.
As many members who have followed this debate will know and as many members who have led and allowed their names to stand as movers and supporters of this bill will know, it was on May 9, 1992 that the Westray mine exploded, killing 26 miners. The coal mine in Pictou was officially opened eight months earlier. Federal financial assistance was approved which permitted the project to proceed. There were very real questions surrounding the operation of that mine.
After the explosion on December 1, 1997, and after five and a half years of work, a four volume report was produced from the Westray mine public inquiry, entitled "The Westray Story: A Predictable Path to Disaster". The report was scathing. Comments have been made by myself and by other members who have spoken in support of some kind of legislation that would prevent the same kind of thing from happening again.
I will quote, as I have before, from the words of Mr. Justice K. Peter Richard. He said "the Westray story is a story of incompetence, of mismanagement, of bureaucratic bungling, of deceit, of ruthlessness, of cover-up, of apathy, of expediency and of cynical indifference".
The fundamental and basic responsibility for the safe operation of an underground coal mine, and indeed of any industrial undertaking, rests clearly with management. In this disaster there is no question that these labourers went underground into a situation where they ought not to have gone and they paid with their lives. There is no question that if this act had been done by an individual there would have been a charge of homicide. Because it is a corporation and because of all kinds of legal implications coming from that, justice has never been achieved.
In his report, Justice Richard recommended very clearly that there be a new criminal offence that would impose criminal liabilities on directors and other responsible corporate agents for failing to ensure that their corporation maintained an appropriate standard of occupational health and safety in the workplace; that there be a criminal offence of corporate killing.
We know the statistics. We know that almost 10,000 workers die every year as a result of their work and possibly because of corporate negligence. We know that three workers are injured every day on the job site. From the time the justice committee met in June until today, how many months, how many lives how much corporate irresponsibility have taken place? No mechanism exists in the criminal code for the courts to deal with this in the way that Justice Richard envisioned as a result of the Westray mine disaster.
I know that members from the United Steelworkers were at the justice committee hearing. They have done a tremendous amount of work on this bill. They have provided background notes. They have had legal counsel work on the bill. Everyone who was in the room the day the justice committee met was impressed with the spirit of co-operation from all parties that asked the Minister of Justice to bring forward legislation. It was a most amazing day. This crossed party lines. The member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough worked very closely with us on this issue. The chair of the justice committee was moved by the testimony he heard from families who had been affected by the Westray mine disaster. Coming out of this was a moment when partisanship was put aside in the name of justice.
We face the prospect of losing, if not today perhaps in the next week or two, the momentum and the opportunity to have legislation brought forward if parliament prorogues and an election is called.
Today I am rising to remind the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour and members of the House of the importance of this legislation. It has been literally years in the making. It has taken the blood, the sweat and the tears of the families of the Westray miners to bring it this far. It has taken the perseverance of the United Steelworkers. It has taken the putting aside of partisanship by members of parliament.
I would like to hear from the minister, either tomorrow or when the House resumes on October 16, some indication that before an election is called-and I have indicated that there is no need for an election call-the legislation will be brought forward immediately to be given passage in the House in whatever form it takes to get it on the books and into the criminal code so we do not lose this opportunity.
I have concerns about that from a number of perspectives. As a lawyer who has dealt with the criminal code and as someone who has been interested in justice for a long time, I have a very real concern that when we have a report that makes a strong recommendation and it is not acted on, then the administration of justice falls into disrepute. Respect for the justice system is a cornerstone of any civilized society.
We now have a situation that cries out for justice. We have done the studies and have finished the report. We have agreement from the parties. We have to give life to that if the public, and especially the workers of this country, is to have respect for the justice system.
I also have concerns about it because I come from a coal mining community. The member who seconded my opportunity to speak today, the member for Bras d'Or-Cape Breton, comes from a coal mining community. In fact, it was the coal miners in our community who went into the Westray mine to retrieve some of the bodies of the workers and who put their own lives at risk for their brothers in the mine. Those people have contacted me and the member for Bras d'Or-Cape Breton and have asked whether there is going to be legislation. They wanted to know if we were going to give life to this legislation so that workers who go down into the mines and workers who put their lives at risk in terms of labour every day would be protected.
Will there be some accounting at the end that says the corporation can be held liable for gross mismanagement, for negligence or, and this is where we take a further step, for malice aforethought, for deliberate actions, knowing that they can result in the loss of life?
I and other members have heard from our constituents and from people across the country who want this legislation passed. I do not think I exaggerate the urgency of bringing this legislation forward in the name of justice, in the name of the Canadian people, in the name of the workers of the Westray mine who lost their lives, and in the name of those people who came before the committee and testified in the most moving way.
I remember when the brother of one of the miners who was killed sat at the table and told his story of his quiet, dignified search for justice. It moved everyone in the committee to the point where we could put aside partisan differences and say that something needed to be done.
What we need to do is amend the criminal code so that corporate executives and directors are held accountable for workplace safety. This is not something foreign. This has been done in other jurisdictions. Such legislation exists in Great Britain and Australia, and there is a movement in the United States to review it. It is not something that is unfathomable or that has never been done in another jurisdiction. It exists.
There is an opportunity to examine other pieces of legislation. We have done that. I can cite chapter and verse of other legislation in other countries that makes it an offence for corporations to knowingly put the lives of their workers at risk in order to maximize profit, open a mine or make sure that the last shipment of goods gets on the train.
What price do workers in the year 2000 have to pay for corporate profits, and not even for corporate profits sometimes, but just to make sure that the order book is full and the work gets out?
In the Westray mine disaster, the corporation knew there were faults in the mine and knew that the equipment was not working safely, but it put great pressure on the non-unionized workers to go into the mines every day, and the workers went.
Some people have said that the workers had a choice and that they did not have to go. When I hear that I think about all the workers who go out to work every day in order to feed and clothe their children, pay their mortgage and be courageous citizens. That is their priority. They put their lives and safety at risk in order to work. To say that they have a choice, especially in the part of the country that I come from where the unemployment rate is high and the opportunity for work is minimal, is not so easy. To choose not to work is not so easy.
On the Atlantic coast, whether it is in fishing, mining, forestry or farming, we have a history of that kind of dangerous work. The first time I spoke to this bill I talked about what it was like growing up in those communities. What we know from growing up in Nova Scotia is the sound of the whistle when there is a disaster in the mine. We know what it means for the men and women on the fishing boats in the north Atlantic when we look out at the horizon and the storm clouds gather. We know what it is like in the steel mill when there is a catastrophe. We grew up knowing these things.
Accidents can happen as a matter of chance, but when they happen because a corporation has determined that the lives of its workers are not a factor in determining the balance sheet, then it is time for us to say that it is a crime. It is time for us to say that when a corporation knowingly determines to send men and women possibly to their deaths and it has the means to prevent that and does not, it is time for us to say that it is a crime.
I rise today on this motion because we said that in the justice committee. We sent it to the minister and asked for a bill to be brought back that would make it a crime for those directors and corporations to kill their workers.
We know we will hear it again today in question period and there will be some banter back and forth about when there will be an election. The Prime Minister may say that we will be in our seats on the 16th, 17th or 18th, but there may be an election call after that. Everybody has his or her own reasons for an election call. I am not afraid of it and am prepared to fight it. However, when we have important pieces of legislation in the making let us not put those pieces of legislation at risk.
I urge the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour to issue a public statement.
They do not have to because they have a few days before they have to report back to the justice committee. However, in the name of decency, in the names of the members of the justice committee who brought forward a unanimous report and of the witnesses who testified, I ask them to indicate within the next two days whether they will bring forward to the House legislation giving life to the commitment made by the justice committee, by the steelworkers and by the families of the miners who went underground and lost their lives. Anything less is negligence and arrogance on the part of the government.
We know this legislation is needed. That is not contested. We know this legislation is important. That is not contested. We know the legislation can be brought into effect. That is not contested. Why wait? Let us do it. We will have other legislation pushed through the House before an election call. The government has no hesitation about pushing through its EI changes. The government may have no hesitation to put through its health accord. In the name of decency, let us bring forward a bill that we can all agree needs to be enacted and give life to the Westray legislation.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Musquodoboit Valley-Eastern Shore, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, again my hon. colleague from Sydney-Victoria on the beautiful island of Cape Breton has given one of the more eloquent speeches the House has ever heard in the history of parliament.
The hon. member comes from the coal mining area of Cape Breton. If people across the country, especially the government and the official opposition, listen to what he said about decency and the protection of workers, by the time 5 p.m. today there is a good chance that three more Canadians will be killed on the job. That is most unfortunate and is an alarming statistic.
Bill S-20 is coming from the Senate on tobacco legislation and Imperial Tobacco seems to be 100% behind it. However, we have not heard anything about what corporations or multinationals think about this particular bill. Could the hon. member speak on the multinationals who support the Liberal Party and the Canadian Alliance? Does he suggest that they may be against the bill in order to account for themselves when it comes to this type of action?
Mr. Peter Mancini:
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question and I am thankful for the compliment.
I have not heard a response from corporations or the multinationals with regard to the Westray legislation nor do I think any other member of the justice committee has heard one. If they have, I have not been apprised of that.
They are silent because there is a recognition that this may change the way corporations do business to some extent. I do not want to use a broad brush to paint every corporation. There are some corporations that take the safety of their employees very seriously. They are to be applauded. They have nothing to fear from this legislation. There are some employers and corporations that work with the unions to negotiate collective agreements and health and safety standards. They have nothing to fear from this legislation and they should be congratulated for that.
It is corporations like the owners of the mine in Westray who, if there were any question about the owners' culpability in this, not only sent these men to their deaths but evaded the justice system. They refused to testify at a public inquiry. They hid behind jurisdictional questions of warrants to demand their appearance. The managers of that mine did everything possible not just to evade responsibility but to refuse to testify to help shed light on how the tragedy happened.
Those are the corporations, the managers and the directors who have something to fear from this legislation, as well they should. I think many of the corporations have been silent in that regard because that may be the kind of management they want. It would be most helpful, and I suppose it would help the corporate image, if those companies that believe in workers' safety came forward and said they were prepared to support the legislation. However, we have not heard that yet. I issue the challenge to every chamber of commerce in the country to read the proposed Westray bill and indicate their support and their citizen obligation.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I very much support and attach myself to the comments made by the member for Sydney-Victoria. I know that he has a very innate personal interest in this, as was apparent by his remarks.
This is a matter which unfortunately could be put on the slate as more unfinished business on the part of the government. We have seen many indications that the coming days and weeks may result in an election call. This is an election call that I think a growing number of Canadians are looking at with a great deal of cynicism. They are viewing this as merely opportunistic, something that is being driven by polls rather than by public commitment and a commitment to complete very important pieces of legislation.
This is but one among many. We know that there is a health accord which was ratified by the provinces and is supposed to in some small measure address the crisis in our health care system. That legislation is a postdated cheque which will never be cashed if the House is dissolved for a general election.
There is important legislation pertaining to the criminal code, the youth criminal justice act, which is badly in need of fixing or replacing. We know the government gave a commitment over seven years ago to do something about that legislation. However, we are on the possible eve of an election and it has not been done. That promise has not been kept or fulfilled.
There are numerous pieces of important legislation regarding the environment, health care, justice and taxation. There are important legislative initiatives which do receive support from the opposition. They will simply die on the order paper. Canadians need to understand that. The initiatives will go to the Senate, if they pass through the House, and will be gassed. They will not see the light of day. These are hollow promises. If the government is to point to this legislation as something which has been fulfilled, it is dead wrong.
This particular debate that was brought about by the hon. member for Sydney-Victoria deals with Motion No. 79, which was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party. It called upon the government to respond to the recommendations of the Westray report by Mr. Justice Peter Richard on the tragic event in Plymouth, Nova Scotia when the Westray mine exploded killing 26 men.
That poignant moment resulted in the renewed discussion about workplace safety, the renewed focus on how we could try to prevent such disasters and how, through legislation, we could bring about greater accountability and responsibility.
Not all disasters are preventable. Arguably and quite rightly, this is one that most agree could have been avoided by taking proper steps to ensure the safety of those workers who went down into the mine was protected and that all the necessary steps had been taken by the management and the province, which oversaw the safety of the workplace environment. It could have been avoided if those parties had taken real cautions to ensure that a dangerous workplace environment did not exist. Sadly, that did not happen.
There has already been much discussion on Motion No. 79 in this place which was a carry-over from a previous parliament before prorogation. It gave members of the House the opportunity to put forward their positions and their party's position. Initially, members of the government were very reluctant to embrace even the idea of bringing this matter to the public debate. They were very reluctant to discuss it. They did not want this matter to go to the justice committee, where it eventually did aspire. When it got there, as was alluded to by the member for Sydney-Victoria, there was an incredible catharsis. There was suddenly a change on the part of the government in its willingness to discuss this issue. It was very heartening and encouraging to see that happen because it washed away some of the partisanship and politics involved in workplace safety and in this type of issue.
Let us make no mistake about this. This is a human issue. This is an issue that touches lives and potentially takes lives if we do not act. The indication that we heard from many of the witnesses was that shocking numbers of people are killed and injured in the workplace every day. Not all of that is preventable and we would be naive to suggest otherwise. However, the reality is that much of it is preventable. Much of what has to change and evolve as a result of initiatives from this place is the attitude and the thinking on the part of corporations and people who have the final say over the setting of rules and regulations within the workplace.
How do we do that? Part of the solution lies in changes to the criminal code which will bring about a sense of accountability and will in instances where there is neglect and obvious situations being ignored, bring about some form of accountability, deterrence and denunciation. All of this is in the name of public protection and in the name of prevention.
This is a mother's milk type of issue and one that everyone can agree on. Yet we do not seem to have the inner fortitude or the ability to mobilize to get this matter moving in terms of legislation. We had that unique opportunity at the justice committee as was referred to. There was a very real significant move in the room. I was in that justice committee and felt it as well. There was a genuine intent that we would move forward. Sadly, that seems to be lost. Like many of the other initiatives we have seen, it stands there on the precipice ready to take that leap yet, cynically, all of that is cast aside.
We have an opportunity to salvage that. We can ask for and rightly so expect that the government will now take the initiative and bring about legislation. The justice department should have been clearly instructed. The intent was there. The intent of parliament was what led this motion to get to the justice committee. Then it continued, it snowballed and we did hear testimony from the United Steelworkers.
We heard the testimony of Howard Sim and Vernon Theriault. Mr. Theriault was part of the heroic effort by draggermen from Cape Breton, Pictou county and surrounding areas who went down into the mine with the hope that some life had survived the tragic and massive explosion in Plymouth. That is the sort of human spirit that should inspire us to keep the dream alive of somehow bringing about improved laws and legislation. It is not the total answer by any means but it certainly moves the yardsticks and takes us forward in a futuristic way.
We hear the rhetoric. We hear constant references that we have to do this and that this is the underpinning of parliamentary democracy. We hear some party members, the Liberal Party members in particular, very cynically indicating that they are the only ones who speak out for Canadians. That is not the case. It is completely cynical to suggest that this party, this natural governing party as it likes to refer to itself, is the only one speaking out for the interests of Canadians.
We are faced with an issue of complete moral duty when we talk about protecting lives and workplace safety. It is something so fundamental. When people get up in the morning and go out the door to their workplace, whether it is into a factory or on a trawler or in the woods or into a mine or an office building, it is not too much for them to expect or hope that they will be able to return to their homes safely that evening to be with their loved ones. Surely that is not something which should be too much for any Canadian to expect. Yet we are tasked in this place with trying to ensure that is just what happens.
Obviously there are workplaces that are more dangerous than others, but there are natural consequences that can flow from putting oneself in harm's way. I think particularly of firemen and police officers for whom it is implicit in their job descriptions that they may find themselves in danger. We should be looking constantly for ways to improve safety and protection of human life. We can do that through legislation to a large extent.
That is all. That is the simple, fundamental goal we are seeking, all members of parliament across party lines, across the floor, and we hope not too many more will cross the floor. This is something that is most serious and most timely. The easy thing to do would be to do nothing. The easy thing to do would be to simply bump along.
It is an aberration when we see bold moves from the Liberal government. It has inherited a healthy economy, or at least an economy that has stabilized, much as a result of a prior government's economic planning, plans and legislative initiatives, bold and unpopular as they were. When I say unpopular, members of the same Liberal government while in opposition chastised and absolutely railed against those initiatives. However, through the glass ceiling of hypocrisy we have seen that attitude change. They have embraced and called their own the same legislative initiatives they railed against.
Not to digress on that record, to look at this issue with anything other than a humanistic, impartial eye is a derogation of our responsibility. We must encourage the Minister of Justice and her department. I would suggest it is broader than just looking at criminal code amendments. The issue goes beyond simply suggesting that changing one provision or one section of the criminal code will provide the answers. We have to look at labour laws. We have to look at occupational health and safety. We have to include the provinces to ensure that there is the same standard.
When I talk of standards I talk of the health care issue we will be debating at some point in the very near future. Again, it is spurred very much in its timing because of a looming election. Health care is not fixed. Let us be clear about that. The government is putting back a portion of the money removed since it took office. It is putting back a small portion that in many ways pales by comparison to what was removed. It reminds me of Freddy Krueger offering a band-aid to one of his victims after he slashed them.
Canadians are tired of that type of cynicism. They want to see action. They want to see real action, not just the perception of action and talk of action. The government has not lived up to its commitment in that regard.
It has talked a great talk. It has given very much the perception and feeling to Canadians that health care is fixed, that the criminal code has been fixed and that taxation is under control. That is not the case. One only has to visit a local hospital, to talk to individuals who are struggling to get by, to talk to a student who is saddled with a huge student loan and debt and has to leave the country to find work, or to talk to individuals who are doing their very best as single parents to get by on seasonal employment and face horrendous cuts to seasonal unemployment insurance.
With all this coming to fruition and with people struggling out there, the government says that it will help. By the way, since Canadians will be going to the polls very soon, the government wants to remind them that it is helping them. It asks them to forget about the fact that it is the one who put them in the situation. It is now ready to throw a rope and pull them ashore. It sees that they are drowning and it will now throw a rope. They are only being pulled halfway ashore.
What Canadians want to ask themselves is whom do they trust to be on the other end of the rope. Which national leader do they want to be pulling them in as they are drowning? Do they trust the person on the other end of that rope? I would suggest there is only one leader in this place that should earn and has deservedly earned the trust of Canadians, and that is the Right Hon. Joe Clark. He has always done what he said he would do. When we talk about trust in government—
The Deputy Speaker:
I know the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough meant the right hon. member for Kings-Hants. I know he would want to be sure to use the name of his riding. Perhaps he has forgotten the right hon. member is now a member of the House and must be referred to by his proper title.
Mr. Peter MacKay:
In my enthusiasm I may have misspoken. When we say Joe who, we all know who now. The right hon. member for Kings-Hants has a long record of public service and a long record of honesty and integrity which I think is recognized and acknowledged by all members in this place.
This issue is one that will not go away. Whether it dies in this legislative attempt by members of the opposition, or whether it is embraced and rallied forward by the government, it is not an issue that will go away any time soon, nor will the problems in health or the problems in our economy.
Canadians expect that members of parliament, and in particular the Prime Minister, are here to lead. We heard a great deal about leaders and leadership in the past number of days. To be a leader one needs vision. That seems to be what is lacking in this place and in this current government.
There is no vision. The government bumps along and reacts to crisis. When the wheels are off it offers some support, some comfort. To prevent future problems, to somehow lay out a plan that will address problems before they happen, is the particular issue we are focused on in this debate. In terms of workplace safety, how do we put in place legislation that will save lives and prevent injury?
Let us look at the full equation. When these types of things happen there is a huge economic impact as well. Not to be callous or take away from the human impact, but when companies are forced to shut down, when persons are out of the workplace and compensation is due and deserved, when lives are lost and families are then faced with the horrible hardships that result from that type of situation, there is economic impact, that is something that is borne by all Canadians. We are lucky to have a social system that reacts, sometimes inadequately, but it is there to help.
If we can prevent these tragedies, if we can prevent this type of lasting harm to humans, the human impact and the economic impact that results, why would we not do that? We have lots of time. We do not need to go headlong rushing into an election. We have plenty of time to react. We have unfinished work, unfinished business before the House. Let us take the time. Let us sit on the weekend if we have to. Let us get legislation done. Let us get the work done that people have entrusted us to do.
The motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative Party did get to the justice committee. It did bring about a raised awareness and a consciousness on the part of people in this place and people across the country toward the issue. There was a willingness to act at that point.
The only thing that is preventing that now, the only impediment, is the government's timetable and, I would add to that, its priorities which seem to be very much out of sync with the priorities of others in the opposition and most Canadians.
The Westray mine sits silent. The assets are being liquidated. Yet that memory is still very poignant in Pictou county, in the province of Nova Scotia and around the country. The Westray mine has become a symbol of the tragedy and the horror that can take place when unsafe work conditions exist. It has become a symbol for every type of work. Let us not let that tragedy repeat itself. Let us not let those lives that were lost be in vain. Let us not let the heroic efforts that were made in the wake of the Westray mine disaster go unnoticed and unsubstantiated by efforts to prevent. We do have a chance to do that now.
My friend spoke of the legal implications, the malice aforethought, the callous approach and the grindings of the justice system that resulted in the aftermath of Westray. Civil implications were pursued. What was particularly striking, which doubled and exacerbated and made worse the Westray disaster, was the disaster which occurred in the legal system and the wranglings that took place. We have to try to cut through that.
Why would we not try to streamline efforts in our justice system to address issues quickly and in a timely fashion so that justice is done, seen to be done and truly done? That was one of the many lessons that came from Westray.
We have a chance now to act as my friend indicated. We urge the government and the Minister of Justice and her department to respond quickly. Let us not rush headlong into an election. Let us do the important work we are elected to do. Westray will always be a reminder. Let us learn from those mistakes and move forward.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I found the hon. member's statement very interesting. I read the motion in some detail as the member was speaking and I would like him to clarify something for me.
The motion states that in the opinion of the House the criminal code or other appropriate federal statutes should be amended. That is a pretty broad request. It does not specify whether it is the criminal code that is to be amended or whether it is to be some other corporate legislation or some other justice legislation.
I was particularly impressed by his reference that we must make sure that justice is done. I could not agree more. Justice is what we want in Canada, and in particular the liability of directors. There is a provision today in legislation about the liability of directors who do not do their job and things of this sort.
Is it really amendments to the criminal code that should be studied or other legislation? Could the hon. member give some clarification as to exactly what he intends?
Mr. Peter MacKay:
Mr. Speaker, the member has made an important point that deserves clarification. The criminal code as indicated is but one aspect. It is about liability. It is about the use of the civil code to pierce the corporate veil.
If the chain of evidence is unbroken and if there is clear indication that safety provisions have been ignored and a person has been placed in a situation where there is real danger that was avoidable, directors and those in managerial positions should face a degree of accountability. If a stream of evidence pointed directly to knowledge that was ignored, if a dangerous situation could have been remedied and a decision very often for financial reasons led the person to inaction, there should definitely be a degree of accountability. All these evidentiary matters would be examined by a court with the benefit of the presumption of innocence and all the protections that exist.
What other types of legislative initiatives can we look at? We could look at coal mine regulations which are within federal purview. Occupational health and safety is another area that we could look at. Other federal labour codes that exist in the country could be looked at. The difficulty with much of this is provincial standards and the provincial approach to safety in the workplace. It is very much in the hands of the provinces to regulate.
We need federal statutes and legislation that encourage accountability, that encourage liability, and that will bring about a sense that there will be an accounting and deterrence and denunciation of irresponsible behaviour by those who not only in the practical sense may have created a dangerous situation but those who knew of it.
That is what I mean when I talk about attitudes changing. For years it has been assumed that those in the upper echelon in the business world, those who in many instances drive businesses to move ahead at breakneck pace, will not be held accountable, that they will somehow be able to step back and say "I just make business decisions". Business decisions affect lives, and business decisions, if they are driven only by profit, certainly create danger. That is what we learned at Westray, just as political decisions can very much create danger.
If this is truly to be about accountability and justice, that means many things to many people. Justice very much talks about fairness. It talks about accountability. It talks about openness. That is what we should all be striving for. That is what we can do by changing things in the legislative scheme in parliament.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or-Cape Breton, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this Chamber today and talk about the motion put forward by my colleague from Sydney-Victoria.
It is fitting that we are having this discussion today. Over the last seven days, day after day, minute after minute, Canadians have talked about what former Prime Minister Trudeau left Canadians. They talked about his legacy. They talked about his love for all Canadians and his belief in justice for all Canadians.
What have we become as a country when we are unwilling to place a value on human lives? That is what we are talking about. We are talking about individuals day in and day out whose very lives are put in jeopardy because of corporations' race to the bottom.
What are we asking for? We are asking for the recognition for responsible corporations. But as I have heard the hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough say, what is the rush? Is there an election? This is about morality. This is about us as parliamentarians and our responsibility. I believe we have a responsibility to the workers in this country to recognize the value of their lives. All we are asking is that corporations be held accountable and responsible.
I come from a part of the country that has been known on a number of occasions to have deaths occur specifically in the coal mines. While some are workplace related, they are due to the very essence of the job. When people sit and read the Westray story as I have a number of times, it should send shivers through the spine of every Canadian. Those 26 lives should have been protected. Their deaths could have been prevented in the wonderful race to the bottom.
We have become a society that looks upon its citizens as mere vehicles and not human beings. As Canadians have clearly said with respect to the legislation, we have a responsibility. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to say that we want corporations to be accountable and we want them to be responsible if they play a role in the deaths of their workers.
That is exactly how simple this is. It is not complicated. Contrary to what the government would like Canadians to believe, that is exactly what this is about. It is about saying to companies across the country that they have a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of their workers.
As the member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough said, I believe it is our responsibility as parliamentarians and Canadians to make sure that the deaths of those 26 men were not in vain, not only for us as Canadians but for their children. We must show their children that their dads did not die in vain, that we as parliamentarians and Canadians have learned a valuable lesson because of those deaths, and that we remain committed to doing everything we possibly can to make sure that deaths like those are not repeated again. If they are, then those who are responsible have to be held accountable. That is our job.
I go back to my first comment, for all of us in the House to take a minute today and ask ourselves what are we really doing here when we are not willing to stand and say as Canadians and as a government that we value our workers. That is what this is about. It is about values. Let us show some values as they relate to Canadians. Let the government show how it values workers.
The Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members:
Question.
The Deputy Speaker:
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members:
Agreed.
Some hon. members:
On division.
(Motion agreed to)
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2000 November 10, page 8600
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/han58-1/h00nov10.htm#[Page 8600]
Second Reading, Bill No. 68 — Occupational Health and Safety Act
Mr. Robert Chisholm, (Halifax Atlantic):
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on Bill No. 68. Bill No. 68, pertains to the whole question of a sunset clause for regulations made pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I don't remember hearing what the minister had to say when he introduced this bill at second reading, but I expect he might have said something like, it is housekeeping, it is in order to try to keep control of regulations, this sort of thing but frankly, I am aghast at what it is that this bill is designed to do. I would just bring to your attention, in Clause 2(1) where the sunset clause is set for, "The Temporary Workplace Traffic Control Regulations, the First Aid Regulations, the Disclosure of Information Regulations and the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System Regulations...", that four years after this bill comes into force, those regulations will be — I don't know what you would call it — null and void, they will no longer exist...
...That is seven years it has taken, a seven year process, in order to develop regulations, Mr. Speaker, and many of them still haven't been brought into place. The regulations on occupational health, the regulations on violence in the workplace, regulations on indoor air quality, regulations on underground mining. My concern is that, according to Bill No. 68, once these regulations are repealed, how long is it going to take us to get a new set of regulations?...
Other members before me have raised their concerns about this issue, particularly as it relates to some important occupational health and safety events or some important events that have happened over the past decade as it relates to occupational health and safety, some very serious workplace accidents where fatalities have resulted that have brought incredible attention to bear on the whole issue of occupational health and safety rules and regulations.
They referred to the Westray explosion on May 9, 1992, Mr. Speaker, where 26 miners lost their lives. As you know, there have been some very significant investigations that have followed from that event. Yesterday, I went back to Justice Richard's commissioned report, Report of the Westray Mine Public Inquiry by Justice K. Peter Richard, Commissioner, where he spent some considerable time and effort in examining the events around the disaster at Westray.
One of the major concerns that was raised was around the role of the Department of Labour and the Department of Natural Resources as it pertained to not only responding to the legislation in terms of the mines Act, which related to permitting and so on, but also the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mines Regulation Act as it pertained to the government's responsibility at ensuring that permits were granted in a way that ensured the mining that was carried out was done so in a responsible and proper manner, that a safety regime was put in place so that the lives of the people who worked there were protected.
What the investigation showed, was that all the way down the line there was some very serious abdication of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, and a real gap between what the legislation said, the regulations demanded, and what was actually done by public servants and politicians. That gap is not going to be closed by getting rid of regulations. In fact, the report talks over and over again, when it comes to responsibility, it talks about how important it is that the Department of Labour ensures any company complies with the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It talks about how important it is that in the Department of Labour, for example, that those officials are properly trained, because it raised real concerns that the people who were left to enforce those Acts were not adequately trained, did not properly understand their responsibilities, were not being held accountable and that this led to the problem.
One of the ways to deal with that was to properly train, to ensure that there was greater clarity in the roles and responsibilities of departmental staff, and ensure, Mr. Speaker, that there were additional resources brought to the administration of this particular legislation to ensure compliance both by staff, who had to enforce it, and by staff who had to work with other employers or employees, or both, to ensure that the rules were followed...
When I was thinking about this issue yesterday and listening to some of the debates, I was taken back to that time in May 1992, and subsequently the fallout from this disaster. Mr. Speaker, that was my first time in the House. I was elected in August 1991, and the first session that was held since then that I attended this House was in the spring of 1992. I was the Labour Critic, and I had to respond in this House through questions and through debate on the matter with respect to the Westray disaster. I can tell you that I remember trying to sort through all the regulations. I remember getting in my office, getting in my hands — inches, I was going to say — or pounds of paper that dealt with how this whole question was handled, the development of the Westray Mine, the involvement of the government with Curragh Resources and the role the departmental staff played in enforcing the regulations in the Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act...
Mr. Frank Corbett, (Cape Breton Centre):
Mr. Speaker ... it is hard in the Province of Nova Scotia not to use the Westray disaster as the benchmark for worker safety. It was certainly a folly, to say the least, of the employer in conjunction with a government that wanted to create jobs that caused that disaster. Mr. Speaker, I am sure I don't have to tell you that the former Premier, Donald Cameron, got on the witness stand during Justice Richard's inquiry ... we saw what a piece of bubblegum can do at Westray...
Hon. Angus MacIsaac, Minister of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations:
Mr. Speaker ... the intent of the government with this legislation is not to bring Nova Scotians to the point where regulations would fall off the table and there would be no regulations in place to either replace them or to get regulations that were updated. That is not at all the intent of the government. The intent is that we be forced to deal with regulations and to keep them, as I said in the beginning of second reading of the debate, make them living documents, documents that are current, up to date, and much has been said about us shrinking the regulations or expanding regulations. If we take into account the impact of technology on our society, it could well be that the requirement for regulations may shrink in some capacity in some areas. In other areas because of new technologies, new ways of doing business, it may be that we need to come up with other regulations or additional regulations that we have not yet thought of. One thing is certain, regulations need to be reviewed because they need to be kept up to date. All honourable members know there were references in the regulations that were replaced that were totally irrelevant to today's society and today's workplace and it is appropriate that they be gotten rid of...
Mr. Speaker:
The motion is for second reading of Bill No. 68. Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Ordered that this bill be referred to the Committee on Law Amendments.
2001
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 February 2, 1105 (11:05am)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/005_2001-02-02/han005_1105-e.htm
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the tenth anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, where 26 miners were killed due to gross negligence and a wilful blindness to workplace safety and health. Last spring the justice committee unanimously agreed that the government should table legislation to amend the criminal code to include corporate accountability in the case of gross negligence causing death in the workplace. Today we are reminded again of the need for a Westray bill. Nova Scotia courts have just found a company guilty of a workplace accident causing death. It was fined a paltry $50,000. This is pin money for a large corporation. I call it murder when a worker is killed at work through gross negligence. If an employer is found guilty he should not just be fined under the workplace safety and health act. He should be charged with murder under the Criminal Code of Canada. That is what the committee directed parliament to do, to table that legislation, and we are anxiously looking forward to the opportunity to debate that bill.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 February 7 1505 (3:05pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/008_2001-02-07/han008_1505-e.htm
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)
Ms. McDonough moved for leave to introduce Bill C-242, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of corporations, directors and officers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this bill, seconded by my colleague from Acadie-Bathurst, to amend the criminal code, establishing criminal liability of corporations and of their executives and officers with respect to health and safety practices, of which they were aware or should have been aware, that put their workers at risk. Workplace deaths and injuries in Canada are at epidemic proportions. Following the horrifying deaths in Nova Scotia in a mine disaster at Westray, which resulted in the preventable deaths of 26 workers, there was a public commission that recommended such changes to the criminal code. In the spring the justice committee unanimously recommended that the government bring forward such changes to the criminal code. It is very much hoped that this continuing pressure on the government will result in long overdue action. The immediate demand on the government to come forward with such a bill dissolved with the dissolution of parliament but the problem has not gone away.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 February 26, 1510 (3:10pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/021_2001-02-26/han021_1510-e.htm
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)
Mrs. Desjarlais moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences by corporations, directors and officers).
Mrs. Desjarlais said: Mr. Speaker, prior to the last election and just prior to the summer break, the House and all parliamentarians supported the move for the government to introduce legislation to address the issue of corporate manslaughter. Very few Canadians are not aware of the situation that took place in Westray a number of years ago in which 26 miners were killed when there was no question whatsoever that it was through the negligence and disregard of their managers, corporation and workplace inspectors as well as governments in general to ensure that there was a safe workplace. Safe practices were not followed. Justice Richard at that time said that the government needed to bring forth legislation to hold those corporations accountable for criminal negligence. He also said that the corporations and corporation management should be charged and held accountable in a criminal court of law. The bill would do what the government has neglected to do. The Liberals made a promise before the election and assured us that this would happen, but the minister has given no indication that she intends to address this issue now. Therefore, this private member's bill will once again give parliamentarians the option of voting on the bill.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 March 20
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/hansard/comm/r/r010320.htm
Standing Committee on Resources
Mr. Terry Daniels, Executive Director, Chamber of Mineral Resources:
...I think it is important that we take this opportunity to talk about the significance of the (mining) industry to Nova Scotia. The value of production over the past decade continues to exceed $300 million, that is in constant U.S. dollars. If you convert that to current dollars, of course, it is much higher. During the past decade, employment in the industry has been up and down but has stayed between 3,800 and 5,600 people, that is directly employed in the industry. The average weekly wage for the mining sector continues to be the highest for any provincial economic sector. A recent report by Statistics Canada noted that the average salary was $792 for the mining sector compared with $627 for transportation and communications and $641 for manufacturing and those are weekly wages. Those, again, are expressed in constant 1992 dollars. So if you were to think of the current wage, it would be higher. It is furthermore significant to note that the majority of these high-paying jobs are located in rural areas of the province where they are much needed.
Nova Scotia has had a rich mining history that goes back over 300 years. The first gypsum mine in North America was near Windsor. Salt was mined near Malagash and French engineers first mined coal near Sydney in 1685. Sandstone from the quarries at Wallace was used to build the Parliament buildings in Ottawa. Barite was mined as early as 1865 and from 1904 to 1920 the majority of the barite produced in Canada came from this province. The mine in Walton was recognized as world-class during its years of operation. Between 1860 and 1939, gold production was 1.8 million ounces. At today's prices, that would be a value in excess of U.S. $468 million.
In 1998, Nova Scotia produced 7 million tons of gypsum, that is 80 per cent of product produced in Canada and 7 per cent of the world production, and 1 million tons of salt which is equal to 7 per cent of Canadian production. The province can boast of several large aggregate producers. Martin Marietta located in Auld's Cove is the seventh largest in Canada with an annual production of 2 million tons. We also produce significant quantities of coal, limestone, dolomite, barite, dimension stone and peat. Equally important is the amount of value-added processing of minerals that takes place. These include cement manufacturing; clay products, bricks; pharmaceutical barite; wallboard; salt products; sand; crushed stone; and dimension stone...
...Underground mining regulations in Nova Scotia have been subject to extensive review and consultation. It is time to proceed to enact the changes that have been discussed without creating a discriminatory legislative process targetted at a single industry. A key element of this legislation has to be a recognition that coal mining requires a set of regulations that are separate and apart from other types of underground mining.
Provincial employees need to have the cloud of regulatory liability cleared so that they can effectively administer the law that you, the legislators, have put into effect to protect the interests of citizens. The government's response to the Westray Inquiry report needs to be reviewed to ensure that the recommendations and findings are practical, enforceable and meet the test of actually affording additional protection to workers' health and safety. Concern over liability has forced Civil Service employees to take a very conservative, narrow approach to interpreting legislation as a result of the Westray Inquiry report that was prepared by Justice Richard...
Mr. Russell MacKinnon, MLA Cape Breton West:
...It is my understanding that there are still some issues that haven't been resolved with the federal government. I guess a lot of the mining, particularly coal mining, was a federal responsibility and I think the Westray Inquiry report, a lot of the responsibility for mining was transferred from the Department of Natural Resources over to the regulatory, the inspection process in particular, to the Department of Labour because of the potential conflicts within. As far as the Department of Mines, we know who eliminated the Department of Mines in a previous life, but that's yesterday...
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 April 27, 1145 (11:45am)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/050_2001-04-27/han050_1145-e.htm
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Justice Richard in his report on the Westray inquiry called on the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to hold corporate executives and directors criminally accountable for knowingly risking the lives of workers. On October 5, 2000, the House concurred with the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights which supported introducing such legislation. Will the Minister of Justice act on the recommendation? When will she introduce this legislation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by the justice and human rights committee in relation to the important issue of corporate criminal liability. This is a very important issue for corporate law in the country and that is why my colleague the Minister of Industry and I have decided that we need to look at this matter together. Perhaps it would be useful to have the justice committee and the industry committee hear from a wider range of witnesses, because I do believe at the committee that no witnesses were heard. Since this is such an important change or potential change in relation to corporate liability, I think we would be well served by further work by the industry and justice committees.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 May 8, 1405 (2:05pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/057_2001-05-08/han057_1405-e.htm
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, May 9 marks the tenth anniversary of the Westray mine disaster, where 26 miners lost their lives due to gross negligence and a wilful blindness to workplace safety. It has been almost a year since the justice committee unanimously endorsed a motion directing parliament to amend the criminal code to make directors of businesses truly accountable for the working conditions in any enterprise under their direction. Now the minister says she wants to consult further with business and industry before she takes any action. The best way for industry to have its say on this issue is to table a draft bill and let industry make its representations to the standing committee. The Canadian people want parliament to amend the criminal code so that when corporate greed leads to corporate murder, there will be a corresponding corporate accountability and corporate responsibility. Ten years is long enough. The government should implement the recommendations of the Westray inquiry and should do it in this session of parliament without delay.
These references, by Mr. Martin (next above) and Mr. Blaikie (next below), to the "tenth anniversary" of the Westray mine disaster, are mistaken. May 9th, 2001, was the ninth anniversary of this tragic event.
House of Commons, Ottawa
Hansard, 2001 May 9, 1440 (2:40pm)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/
debates/058_2001-05-09/han058_1440-e.htm
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Transcona, NDP)
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister will know that today is the tenth anniversary of the terrible tragedy at the Westray mine. It is some time since the justice committee recommended that the criminal code be amended so as to make sure that the kinds of people who are responsible for these kinds of events do not literally get away with murder, as is sometimes the case ... Has the Minister of Justice had discussions with the Minister of Industry and other members of her cabinet? I have raised it with the House leader. What is the government's plan for bringing to fruition the recommendation of the justice committee so finally there will be amendments to the criminal code?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very serious and important question on this, the very sad and tragic anniversary of the Westray mine disaster. As I indicated before in the House, the justice committee issued a report in relation to possible changes around corporate criminal liability. Unfortunately the justice committee did not hear witnesses from the corporate community or from labour, as was pointed out to me by the hon. leader of the New Democrats last week. In discussions with my colleague, the Minister of Industry and the chair of the industry committee, we would like to move forward on this important matter and hold hearings that would ensure the interests of the corporate community, labour and others—
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 May 9, page 2911
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/han58-2/h01may09.htm#[Page 2911]
Resolution Number 993
Hon. James Muir, Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the honourable Premier, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas on this date nine years ago, 26 men — husbands, fathers, sons and brothers — lost their lives in an underground explosion at the Westray Coal Mine in Plymouth, Pictou County; and
Whereas nearly 200 brave people risked their own lives to make every possible effort to try to save those who were trapped below in the mine; and
Whereas the Westray tragedy will forever be one of the darker days in the history of this province;
Therefore be it resolved that all members of this House today honour the memory of the 26 men who lost their lives on May 9, 1992, and extend our condolences to the family and friends they left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
The honourable member for Cape Breton West.
Mr. Russell MacKinnon:
Mr. Speaker, on that particular notice of motion, I would ask if the minister would be willing for one minute of silence in respect to the miners who were killed.
Mr. Speaker:
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
The House will rise for one minute of silence.
[One minute of silence was observed.]
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, please be seated.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 May 9 page 2914
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/han58-2/h01may09.htm#[Page 2914]
Resolution Number 996
Mr. Darrell Dexter, The honourable Leader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas nine years ago today 26 men lost their lives in the Westray Mine disaster; and
Whereas ever since the Westray tragedy, the families of those killed, the miners with whom they worked, their brothers and sisters in the union movement, and many other Nova Scotians and Canadians have struggled to ensure that such an event will never happen again; and
Whereas in honour of those fallen miners a memorial service will be held this evening at the site of the monument built in respect of their memory;
Therefore be it resolved that on this, the 9th Anniversary of the Westray Mine disaster, this House pauses to remember the 26 men who lost their lives nine years ago, as well as their families, and reaffirms its commitment to vigilant enforcement of workplace safety legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 May 9, page 2917
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard//han58-2/h01may09.htm#[Page 2917]
Resolution Number 999
Mr. Kevin Deveaux, Cole Harbour-Eastern Passage
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Curragh Mining were the owners and developers of the Westray Mine and Curragh's Clifford Frame skilfully gained public funds and government backing for his various mining ventures; and
Whereas one of Clifford Frame's closest associates in Curragh Mining was...
(see the online Hansard)
Therefore be it resolved that this House notes with dismay the possibility that a senior executive who shared responsibility for the Westray Mine tragedy could enter the Government of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
I hear a No.
The notice is tabled.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 May 9, page 2933
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard//han58-2/h01may09.htm#[Page 2933]
Oral Question
Mr. Darrell Dexter, The honourable Leader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, all members in this House are aware of the tragedy that befell this province nine years ago. I think all members of the House are or should be familiar with Justice Richard's inquiry and the recommendations following his examination of that tragic event. One of the key recommendations he made was to ensure corporate responsibility for occupational health and safety. My question for the Premier is, why have you failed to follow Justice Richard's recommendation and improve corporate accountability measures in the Occupational Health and Safety Act?
Dr. John Hamm, The Premier
Mr. Speaker, perhaps, of all of the members in this House, there was no one who remembers that event any more clearly than I do, having been at the site of the accident less than an hour after it happened. As resolutions earlier today have indicated, it was a dark day in the history of the Province of Nova Scotia, and one that will not be allowed to be repeated. Having said that, the recommendations, many of those have gone forward. There will never be a resolution of that particular accident to the satisfaction of everyone. On the other hand, what government must be prepared to do is to provide the framework that will prevent an accident such as that in the future, and we are prepared to do that.
Mr. Darrell Dexter
Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. The current provisions for corporate accountability were introduced five years ago by Guy Brown. He never claimed that provisions were a satisfactory response to the recommendations. No wonder, the provision only holds corporate directors and officers responsible if they are directly involved in a violation of the Act. There is no provision to make executives responsible for maintaining a safe workplace. I ask the Premier, knowing the existing legislation does not satisfy Justice Richard's recommendation, why will you not act immediately to establish corporate responsibility for occupational health and safety in this province?
Dr. John Hamm
Mr. Speaker, the issue that the member brings to the House is a very complicated one. One that obviously all of us think about on a not infrequent basis. On the other hand, I am not sure if, in fact, that particular piece of legislation would have prevented what had happened in Westray, so many years ago now. On the other hand, if that becomes obvious that that is what government should do, that is what government will do. But it does take some analysis.
Mr. Darrell Dexter
Mr. Speaker, well the irony is that last year this Premier moved a resolution congratulating Alexa McDonough and Peter MacKay for pursuing the matter of corporate responsibility in the federal Criminal Code, which was also a recommendation of Justice Richard. So my question is to the Premier and it is this, instead of cheering others from the sidelines, why don't you do the right thing since you are in a position to do so?
Dr. John Hamm
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is far more learned in the law than I am, so surely he must realize that the responsibility for the Criminal Code of Canada does not lie in Halifax, it lies in Ottawa. That is the initiative that we supported at the time and I think it was a strong one.
Nova Scotia Legislature, Halifax
Hansard, 2001 May 14, page 3355
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/hansard/han58-2/h01may14.htm#[Page 3355]
Resolution Number 1114
Mr. Frank Corbett, (Cape Breton Centre):
Mr. Speaker, I hereby give notice that on a future day I shall move the adoption of the following resolution:
Whereas Nova Scotia lost one of its most prominent social and labour activists, Alex MacDonald, who died at his home in Port Hawkesbury this past Friday; and
Whereas Alex dedicated his life to fairness for people in the workplace and he served with distinction in various roles with the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour and in the federal and Nova Scotia NDP; and
Whereas Alex's work with the Nova Scotia Voluntary Planning Board, the Topshee Council, the Westray Disaster Memorial Education Fund and in countless other endeavours will be remembered by all who knew him;
Therefore be it resolved that this House express its deep sorrow on the passing of a social and labour activist, Alex MacDonald of Port Hawkesbury, and offer its condolences to his family, friends and associates.
Mr. Speaker, I request waiver of notice.
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for waiver.
Is it agreed?
It is agreed.
Would all those in favour of the motion please say Aye. Contrary minded, Nay.
The motion is carried.
An Hon. Member:
Could we have a moment of silence?
Mr. Speaker:
There has been a request for a moment of silence. Would all members please rise.
[One minute of silence was observed.]
Mr. Speaker:
Please be seated.
2002
Saskatchewan Legislature, Regina
Hansard, 1997 March 18 page 1016
http://beauchesne.legassembly.sk.ca/hansard/24L3S/020426Hansard.pdf
Mr. Randy Weekes (Saskatchewan Party, Redberry Lake):
Mr. Speaker:
...It's interesting to know that Canada was the country responsible for initiating the Day of Mourning back in 1914. Nearly a century later, April 28 has become an international day of remembrance. Nearly one hundred countries worldwide recognize the Day of Mourning. It is a day observed by unions, labour bodies, and councils and all levels of government.
For Canadians, 2002's Day of Mourning marks the tenth-year anniversary of the Westray Mine disaster in Nova Scotia that killed 26 miners. For North Americans, the Day of Mourning is also an excellent opportunity to remember the hundreds who perished trying to save the lives of others during the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center...
This electronic version of this document is presented here
for your information and convenience only. Care has been
taken to transcribe the data accurately, but it is not intended
to be relied on as an authoritative reference.
The official version is the authoritative source.
|
Wayback Machine
Wayback Machine
http://web.archive.org/index.html
"Use the Wayback Machine to view web sites from the past."
Archive of This Document:
Westray Mine in Hansard, 1998-2002
The Wayback Machine has archived early copies of this webpage:
2001 June 22
http://web.archive.org/web/20010622231946/http://www.alts.net/ns1625/westrayhansard2.html
2002 August 16
http://web.archive.org/web/20020816082611/http://www.alts.net/ns1625/westrayhansard2.html
2003 July 06
http://web.archive.org/web/20030706031528/http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/nova_scotias_electronic_attic/07-04-09/www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625westrayhansard2.html
2003 December 31
http://web.archive.org/web/20031231091854/http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/westrayhansard2.html
|
Go To: Westray in Hansard, 1987-1997
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/nova_scotias_electronic_attic/07-04-09/www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625westrayhansard1.html
Go To: main Westray Mine Disaster page
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/nova_scotias_electronic_attic/07-04-09/www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625wraymenu.html
Go To: Home Page
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/205/300/nova_scotias_electronic_attic/07-04-09/www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625index.html
W3C HTML Validation Service
http://validator.w3.org/
W3C CSS Validation Service
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Latest update: 2006 October 21