receiving a fair trial, if they were ever charged. Nova Scotia Chief Justice Constance Glube ruled, on November 13, that the inquiry was unconstitutional, because she viewed it as a criminal investigation that would force deponents to incriminate themselves. Her decision was appealed, and a Nova Scotia Court of Appeals Tribunal ruled on January 19, 1993, that the inquiry was constitutional, but could only continue once all charges went through the court system, to preserve the employees' right to a fair trial. When the inquiry resumed in 1995, Clifford Frame, the founder, principal shareholder, developer and chairman and CEO of Curragh Inc., the company whose subsidiary operated the mine, refused to take the stand and testify. Another powerful Curragh Inc. manager, Marvin Pelley, the former president of Westray, also refused to testify. The report was released on December 1, 1997, and recommended a sweeping overhaul of all provincial labour and mining laws and departments. Most of the report's recommendations were implemented. Legislation As a result of the failure to successfully prosecute the mine's owners and managers, the Canadian Labour Congress and some of its affiliates initiated an intense lobbying campaign in the mid-1990s to amend the Criminal Code of Canada in order to hold criminally liable managers and directors of corporations that failed to take steps to protect the lives of their employees. Using the tactic of having a private member's bill introduced, typically by an MP from the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois, this agenda was advanced. Each time that the House of Commons was prorogued, the private members bill would die on the order paper, and the process would start again in the next session of Parliament. On about the fifth attempt, in late 2003, the federal government enacted Bill C-45 (sometimes referred to as the "Westray Bill") in direct response to the Westray Mine disaster. The new law came into effect March 31, 2004. The bill provided a new regime outlining the framework of corporate liability in Canada. It also provided a new punishment scheme to allow the Courts not simply to fine corporations, but also to put them on probation to ensure that the offences were not repeated. However, some observers believed Bill C-45 was largely seen as an exercise of political posturing by the federal government, as it is doubtful that the new provisions would have had any effect on the legal implications