36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 92
CONTENTS
Monday, May 8, 2000
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1110
| VOICE MAIL SERVICE
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Motion
|
1115
1120
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1125
| Mr. John Cannis |
1130
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1135
1140
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
1150
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1155
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1200
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1205
1245
(Division 1280)
| Motion agreed to
|
| Second reading
|
1250
1255
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1300
| Mr. Julian Reed |
1305
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1310
1315
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1320
1325
| Mr. David Chatters |
1330
1335
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1355
| Amendment to the amendment
|
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1400
| VICTORY IN EUROPE DAY
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE WEEK
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
| AUTOBUS AUGER INC.
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1405
| HÉLÈNE MARCHESSAULT
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| FRANCO-ACTION TELETHON
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| PRINCE GEORGE COUGARS
|
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
| HUMBER RIVER
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| NATIONAL CHILDREN'S AGENDA
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
1410
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| LEIGH MORRISON
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| SHIPBUILDING
|
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ATLANTIC CANADA
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1420
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
1430
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CIDA
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1440
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| HEALTH
|
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| LOBBYIST REGISTRATION ACT
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. John Manley |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Hon. John Manley |
1450
| NATURAL RESOURCES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1455
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| YOUTH
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1500
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Rights of Grandparents
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1505
| Naturopathic Practitioners
|
| Mr. Reed Elley |
| Marriage
|
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Air Traffic
|
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| Child Poverty
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Housing
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| World Trade Organization
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1525
1530
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1535
1540
| Mr. John McKay |
1545
1550
1555
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1600
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1605
1610
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1615
1620
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1625
1630
| Mr. David Chatters |
1635
1640
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1645
1650
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1655
1700
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1705
1710
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1715
1720
1725
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1730
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1735
1740
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1745
1750
1755
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1800
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1805
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1810
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1815
1845
(Division 1281)
| Amendment to amendment negatived
|
1855
(Division 1282)
| Amendment negatived
|
1900
(Division 1283)
| CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
|
| Bill C-19. Second reading
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1905
(Division 1284)
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Second reading
|
(Division 1285)
| CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
|
| Bill C-27. Second reading
|
(Division 1286)
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1910
| The Environment
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1915
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 92
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 8, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1110
[English]
VOICE MAIL SERVICE
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should
encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require
telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing
affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or
do not have access to telephone service.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be in the House
today to speak to my motion. The purpose of this motion is to
mandate phone accessibility and phone service for low income and
homeless Canadians who, as it stands today, have absolutely no
access to this very basic service that most of us take for
granted.
My motion before the House today was inspired by a project that
was initiated a couple of years ago by a very well known
community organization in Vancouver's downtown eastside, the
Downtown Eastside Residents Association, which started what was
called a community voice mailbox system.
In starting up this system, the organization found that many low
income and homeless people who had no access to phone service
were incredibly limited in terms of being able to find employment
or make contact with doctors offices or even family members. This
organization worked very hard. It was approached by a young man
who had developed a computer software program to create the
program. For a very modest amount of $1,500, it received the
computer and the software program, the voice mail service.
The organization found that many people, not just in the
downtown eastside but in other neighbourhoods in Vancouver and on
the lower mainland, desperately needed access to phone service.
As a result of providing this service over the last couple of
years, about 1,200 people are now registered. The use of the
service is increasing on a daily basis.
The statistics provided to me by the organization are quite
interesting. They show that approximately 79% of the users of
this service are single men and that 60% of the users have annual
incomes of less than $8,000. I would ask anyone in the House to
imagine what it would be like to live on less than $8,000. It
would mean no money for bus fare, no money for a phone and no
money for the basic necessities of life. It basically would mean
scraping by and surviving day by day.
What is most interesting is that more than half of the users of
this voice mail service have said that having a community voice
mail and having one's own phone number has given them a starting
point for having more control over their lives. I cannot
emphasize enough what that means to an individual. Imagine what
it would be like living on welfare and looking for work or maybe
living in a homeless shelter and looking for work.
I experienced this last year when I travelled across the country
and visited emergency shelters and spoke to homeless people and
front line service workers. I was told many times by people that
they felt humiliated when they did not have an address or a phone
number. If they wanted to apply for a job and the prospective
employer needed a phone number, they had to reply that they lived
in a homeless shelter. They had no chance of receiving a phone
call back from the employer.
Having a program that gave them access to their own phone number
and their own voice mail messages enabled them to provide a
possible employer with a phone number. When an employer called
that number it would be their voice recording on the phone asking
the caller to leave a message. They could then dial into that
from any location by hopefully using a free phone.
Having their own phone number or voice mail gives people a sense
of dignity, a sense of worth and a a starting point for them to
find employment and put their lives together. This is a very
basic but important thing.
The sad irony is that the federal government has many job
creation initiatives to help lower income Canadians. But it is
provided on a very spotty basis. Industry Canada has spent
millions of dollars getting Canadians on line. I know a lot of
agencies that have accessed funds from Industry Canada to help
set up Internet access for low income Canadians. That is
something I agree with.
1115
Is it not ironic that while on the one hand the government is
doing that and sees it as a priority, on the other hand we have
information from Statistics Canada which shows that 157,000
Canadians have no phone. That is a very conservative figure
because it does not include the homeless people who are not
listed in the census. Here we are in our modern society getting
people on line, but there are still hundreds of thousands of
people who do not have this basic access.
I was in the downtown east side in my riding on Friday and
visited the DERA service. I met with the folks who run it and
with people who use the service. It was really amazing to see
how this operates. They can walk into the office and for a
minimum cost of $3 a month, which is what it costs, with no
questions asked, they can sign up for their community mailbox.
In fact, I met a young man who had walked into my into my
constituency office on Main Street. He came from Saskatchewan
and moved into east Vancouver. He was looking for work. I said
he was welcome to use my office if he wanted to send a fax or
anything. He said he was really glad that at least he had a
phone number. I said it was great that he had a phone in his
place. He said “No, no, I have voice mail”. Sure enough it
was the DERA voice mail. He came to Vancouver looking for work
and had somehow managed to find out about it.
The reality is that this service is only available in Vancouver.
The Government of Manitoba has just announced a very good
initiative where, with the co-operation of the Royal Bank and
other private partners, it is setting up a province-wide
community voice mail service. Other than that there is really
nothing that exists. It seemed to me in bringing forward this
motion, and based on my travels and talking to homeless people or
people who have totally insecure or inadequate shelter, that to
have a program that is mandated through licensing through the
CRTC is something that could be easily done.
In this parliament we debate big issues. We debate things that
are very complex. Yet, here we have a tool, something very
straightforward that could help hundreds of thousands of low
income and homeless Canadians by simply saying to the CRTC that
we want to make sure that as part of the CRTC licensing the
telephone companies, it mandates that there be funds provided or
phone lines that are given over as access to local community
agencies to set up these projects across Canada.
The DERA community voice mail system has 12 phone lines. I
could actually see the information on the phone lines which were
in use as people were changing their greeting or accessing their
voice mail box or dialling in to retrieve messages. Just think
of what that would mean to Canadians from coast to coast who are
living in communities where they feel isolated and cut off
because they do not have that basic service.
The purpose of this motion is to say that here is an easy,
straightforward, simple, logical, reasonable way of ensuring that
Canadians have access to the most basic phone service that we all
take for granted in this country.
I want to say that this issue is very much linked to people who
are living in poverty. Because people are living way below the
poverty line, they cannot afford to have the basic phone service.
As I have mentioned, in many instances it is related to
employment and the need to get employment that they need that
phone number. Also, I have come across examples and instances
where it is a matter of personal health and security.
The DERA folks told me of one instance where one of its clients
was in hospital. The doctor phoned and said that he was ready to
be released, but he would need to have a phone by the his bed so
if he got into trouble there was somebody he could call. This
gentleman did not have a phone so he faced the prospect of
staying another six weeks in hospital until the doctor was
assured that he was completely better before he went home.
As it happened, the DERA advocacy office spent countless hours
dealing with the local welfare office trying to get this man a
telephone. I believe it was eventually successful, but how much
time and energy was spent to get one person a phone so he could
go home from the hospital which was costing thousands of dollars
a day.
The contradictions and the ironies in these are just simply
astounding. If it were not so serious it would be laughable.
1120
I want to encourage members to think about the motion and to see
the wisdom of supporting it as a way of doing something
straightforward and simple that will actually help people in a
real concrete way on a day to day basis.
In a few days time we will bear witness to the 10th anniversary
of the Liberal task force report on affordable housing that was
chaired by the now finance minister and then an opposition
Liberal member. Ten years ago the Liberals in opposition wrote a
darn good report with 25 recommendations talking about the needs
of Canadians in terms of housing. Here we are now 10 years later
and we know that during the period between 1984 and 1993 we lost
more than $2 billion in housing funds in the country. Then in
1993 the same member, who was the chair of that Liberal task
force on housing, at the finance committee wielded the axe and
ended the construction of social housing in the country.
It is because of that, because of increasing homelessness and
because more and more Canadians, something like two million
Canadians, are paying way more than 50% of their income for rent
that people do not have enough money to pay for a phone.
I draw that comparison because this issue of phone service is
very much related to the issue of the housing crisis in the
country and the shameful record of the government in abandoning a
national housing strategy and abandoning the construction of
desperately needed social housing.
I do not want to go to another shelter. I do not want to have
to talk to another person who says “I want a good place to live.
I want to go to work. I want to be employed. I want to have a
phone so that I can have some sense of dignity”.
That story is all too familiar for hundreds of thousands of
Canadians. I urge members of the House to put aside the partisan
politics. From time to time we come together and we say “Yes,
this is the right thing to do”. That is what we should do here.
We should say to the CRTC “Get on this. Make it a requirement
of licensing. Make sure that every telephone company across the
country ensures that they require some lines or some funds that
can be dedicated to a community organization to open up access to
phone service for low income and homeless Canadians”.
I ask for the support of members to do just that.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. M-361 that was just
outlined before us by the member for Vancouver East.
The member would like the CRTC to establish regulations that
would require telephone companies to provide voice mail services
to low income and homeless Canadians. My understanding is that
voice mail service is something like an add-on, like power
windows on a car. Basic telephone services is quite a different
matter.
I understand that the motion was inspired by a very worthwhile
project in the member's Vancouver East riding. The Downtown
Eastside Residents Association project to provide a secure voice
mail service for $40 a year is an innovative program. By
facilitating communication for low income residents and the
homeless, I have no doubt the Vancouver project has increased
their opportunities for employment as well as their access to
community and medical services. It is a good idea.
Unfortunately, Motion No. M-361 is another example of the NDP's
deep fondness for centralization and regulation as the answer to
every problem. The Canadian Alliance on the other hand believes
that the market is the best place to respond to the needs of
individuals for telephone service, not top down government
intervention from Ottawa.
If there is a need—and I understand in this case the member
certainly demonstrated that in her riding—to expand this type of
service in other communities, the Vancouver project can be a
model for other communities wishing to assist the homeless and
low income residents in their area. However, community groups,
municipal governments and in some cases provincial governments
are much closer to the people and are best positioned to tackle
these local issues, such as telecommunication services for low
income and homeless Canadians.
1125
I think she gave a good example of how the group in her riding
served a need that was out there. I think there are many methods
to address this concern. I would suggest that the one in her
riding of Vancouver East that was serviced by the Downtown
Eastside Residents Association is the best vehicle for this
service.
In my opinion, the real failing of Motion M-361 is that it is
not clear why another federal regulation governing the
telecommunications industry is necessary for communities to
launch similar projects. It can be done now. Therefore, I think
that is the better approach. This motion flies in the face of
the current trend in the telecommunications industry which is to
move toward less regulation and more competition and I would
endorse that.
In 1998 the CRTC's publication “Vision” stated that the agency
hoped to reinvent itself and rely more on market forces to permit
fair and sustainable competition and to move from detailed
regulation to broad parameters. That certainly is something we
in the Canadian Alliance support. From that perspective Motion
M-361 would be a step backward.
With respect to the CRTC, I would love to debate the
effectiveness and the necessity for much of the CRTC's mandate. I
certainly would not fall for the blunt regulatory tool of CRTC
intervention in this case, as in Motion M-361, for that purpose.
The Canadian Alliance would like to review the mandate of the
CRTC to see greater accountability and responsiveness in the
CRTC.
Much of the CRTC's mandate is out of date and new developments
in technology have made the CRTC irrelevant in many respects. My
colleague, who is the deputy industry critic from Calgary Centre
and who is our spokesman in this area, has pointed out on many
occasions that the CRTC's bureaucratic pace makes it ill-suited
to effectively respond to the needs of the fast moving
telecommunications industry.
The Canadian Alliance would like to take this opportunity to
call for a larger debate on the role of this agency into the 21st
century in Canada rather than remaining stuck in the old mindset
that more government regulation will solve every problem. I
suggest that community organizations are also great vehicles,
much closer to the people which can provide service that
government may not be able to provide with the same flexibility.
Therefore, I am not in support of this motion.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Motion No. 361 that the member from the NDP is bringing
forward requires the CRTC to mandate the provisions of subsidized
voice mail service to community agencies.
I would like to go a little more in depth and quote verbatim
what Motion No. 361 is all about. It says:
In the opinion of this House, the federal government should
encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require
telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing
affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or
do not have access to telephone service.
That is exactly what Motion No. 361 says.
I took the opportunity to quote Motion No. 361 for the purpose
of telling the House and through you, Madam Speaker, the country
as a whole that this type of motion that comes forward, which is
a non-votable motion, is not necessarily a step that has to take
place here in the House. It is great that it comes to the House
and is discussed, et cetera, but this government, previous
governments and future governments are not the instrument by
which this request should be put forward.
The commission could be asked by any individual, community, or
organization to look into the possibility of having these
services provided. As I have said in the past, this is an arm's
length relationship. The member would do well to work as
aggressively as I know she can and has in the past with the area,
with the community, to bring this issue to the attention of the
commission and indeed move positively forward to carry out the
hearings. As we know, and I want to point out, on some of these
avenues there has been public consultation on an ongoing basis to
look at specific areas, the types of needs, et cetera, so that
indeed if the commission and the findings are there, service can
be provided.
1130
I will not take up much more of the House's time but I wanted to
clarify this issue. Without going into the details, our
government will continue to make sure that each and every
Canadian no matter where they live has the tools needed to carry
on their daily lives. We will continue to address some of the
concerns that communities and individuals face, whether they are
health, community, business or personal issues.
I know that with Motion No. 361 the intentions of the member
from the NDP are honourable and good and I commend her for that.
However, there is a vehicle, a venue, and that is to bring this
request to the commission so that it can have more consultations.
As I said earlier, there has been a lot of consultation. If it
warrants, it shall be done.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Madam Speaker, I am very proud to participate in the
opening discussions on this Monday morning. We are debating the
important topic of providing basic phone services to those in our
society who probably need them the most in terms of their own
personal security but also in terms of providing them with a very
important vehicle to obtain employment opportunities.
For most of us in the House it is second nature to have a phone
stuck to our ear, whether it is a cellphone, a regular phone or a
headset. Most of us spend a good part of our waking day talking
on the telephone to our constituents or receiving calls from
people on various issues. We certainly know the importance of
telephones.
Phone companies and the telecommunications sector in general
have expanded greatly in the past number of years. As the
economy globalizes and as society becomes much more of a global
village, communication plays a crucial role in our everyday lives
now more than ever.
My hon. friend from Vancouver East made the point that people
now are online and have personal websites, e-mail and all sorts
of sophisticated telecommunications techniques to communicate
with others, but it is hard to believe that there are still
hundreds of thousands of Canadians who do not even have a simple
telephone in their homes. Why? Because they do not have the
money to pay for it. Many Canadians simply do not have the income
to afford basic telephone service.
For most of us in the House, it is hard to imagine a world
without a telephone. Our house has three telephones and they
seem to be busy most of the time. Of course anyone who has
children can forget it if there is only one telephone line,
because the chance of getting in touch with that household is
minimal. That household might have two or three telephones as
well.
At a time when society itself has appreciated the value and the
importance of communication, as my hon. friend from Vancouver
East has indicated, there are at least two million Canadians who
use more than half of their income to pay for their housing. A
good percentage of those households would not have additional
funds to access basic telephone service. Tens of thousands of
people who live on the streets do not even have homes. Obviously
those people who do not have homes do not have telephones, and if
they do not have telephones they are out of touch.
More important is when people apply for a job and make an effort
to find meaningful employment. An application form asks how to
get in touch with the applicant and if there is no way of doing
that, it poses a problem. Not only does it pose a problem, but
it is probably the end of the line. If a company cannot
communicate with a person to come to work, it will probably go to
the person who has a telephone number.
How can society level the playing field? A level playing field
is a very apt phrase these days.
This is fundamental New Democrat philosophy. We have always
wanted to level the playing field so that everyone in society has
an equal opportunity to be the kind of citizen they ought to be
and to have the same opportunities, whether they are education,
health care or employment.
1135
I congratulate the member for Vancouver East for putting the
motion on the record this morning. In this motion we are saying,
let us give all Canadians an equal opportunity, a level playing
field to access the job market. To do that these folks have to
have telephone access. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal government should
encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require
telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing
affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or
do not have access to telephone service.
Some may ask who does not have access to telephone service. They
are looking at a member of parliament who has a number of
constituents who do not have access to basic telephone service.
They live in relatively remote areas or areas where there is
simply no telephone line. It is hard to believe that in the most
wired country in the world there are still a lot of people who
live in areas that do not have access to a telephone line, but
that is a fact. They also do not have access to cellphones
because there is no cellphone service in these remote areas.
These people conduct businesses and they certainly live very
full lives, yet they have no access to a basic telephone. We
have to provide some assistance. The motion concerns just that
and thus today's debate in the House of Commons.
Has this been applied anywhere? My hon. friend from Vancouver
East has indicated that in her constituency, the Downtown
Eastside Residents Association has a program where people in that
area who cannot afford or are unable to access telephone service
can have access to voice mail. Imagine the difference that makes
in people's lives when others can get in touch with them. People
can leave a phone number and they can get back to them with a
message or important information. The association has found a
way to do it at the local level.
As hon. members probably know, the Government of Manitoba has
initiated a program over the past number of days which will
encourage similar opportunities to exist in Winnipeg and other
places throughout Manitoba.
The motion says that if it works well in Vancouver East and if
the Government of Manitoba thinks it is needed, why not make it a
national program? Will this be a major imposition on the
telephone companies? The answer is clearly no. This simply sets
aside a number of lines for community based organizations or
others. It makes the case that these services ought to be
provided by the various telephone companies across the country.
For example, I cannot imagine going to Telus, which is one of
the telephone companies based in British Columbia, and it would
not endorse this enthusiastically. It would be a great public
relations exercise. That is one thing we ought to consider as
well. This is something the telephone companies ought to be
offering people within their jurisdiction. I am sure the
telephone companies would fall over themselves to initiate these
kinds of programs, perhaps with a little encouragement by the
CRTC.
Today in accessing employment opportunities, we all appreciate
how important a telephone number is. The hon. member for
Vancouver East has come up with a very creative solution.
I know my friends in the Reform Party have some concerns about
the motion. My hon. friend who made the presentation on behalf
of that party spoke in favour of the concept, that this would be
useful for anybody, but that party has some concerns on the
mechanism. I wonder if my friends in the Reform Party would not
agree at least to this small measure that while we are debating
this motion today, perhaps even all of us, not only the Reform
Party—
An hon. member: The Canadian Alliance party.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Excuse me. It is the Canadian Alliance.
My apologies to my friends in the Canadian Alliance.
Rather than simply let this issue die today at the end of this
debate, which it will be destined to do, at least we should agree
that the member ought to write to the CRTC to ask if it would be
prepared to initiate further talks with the telephone companies
or to take this issue to another level as opposed to letting it
die here.
I have listened to all the political parties. We all agree with
the intent. We all agree with the idea. Everybody says it is
good. Let us face it. Who would not support providing telephone
access to someone from a low income family who is trying to get a
job or a homeless person who wants to get a job and needs a
telephone number in order to qualify? There are also the
personal security aspects my friend raised and health reasons and
so on.
1140
If we agree with this, I ask my colleagues in the House of
Commons at least to consider not referring this motion to the
committee as would be done normally, but that we encourage the
member for Vancouver East to write to the CRTC and ask if it
would consider this issue and find ways and means of resolving
it. Maybe her idea is not the best one but it is a good one.
Others have said there may be other ways but at least we should
not let this issue die because I think all of us would agree it
is an important initiative.
At the end of today's debate perhaps my colleague for Vancouver
East could ask for the unanimous consent of the House to do that.
All we are saying is that we would ask for permission of the
House of Commons for the member to write to the CRTC. We are not
endorsing anything.
An hon. member: What is stopping her?
Mr. Nelson Riis: It would be nice to have the voice from
the House of Commons. Let us get away from this mindless
partisan bickering where we fight each other for no particular
reason when there is a good idea. We could all share in this,
that the House of Commons has encouraged the member to write to
the CRTC. That is all we are asking.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Madam Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois is in favour of today's motion by the hon. member of
the NDP that the federal government should encourage the CRTC to
establish regulations that require telephone companies to assist
community agencies with providing affordable voice mail service
to Canadians who cannot afford or do not have access to
telephone service.
The Bloc Quebecois member responsible for this issue being on
official duties outside the country, I will merely offer my
support to this motion in his absence.
Access to the telecommunications system is not a luxury these
days, but a necessity. In fact, the Telecommunications Act
states clearly that access to telecommunications is in the
public interest.
In these times of technological revolution, it has become
indispensable for everyone to be connected to the world, in one
way or another, via the telecommunications system.
The CRTC has adopted certain measures, including those to enable
schools to have access to Internet services at lower cost. It
must see that all Canadians and all Quebecers have access to the
telecommunications system. Where community initiatives have
been developed, particularly those to connect the homeless and
the disadvantaged, these must be studied.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore open to the motion by the NDP.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I too
take pleasure in speaking to the private member's motion put
forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver East.
The initiative for this private member's motion comes from the
Downtown Eastside Residents Association of Vancouver. The member
represents her constituents in that area so well. It is a coming
together in support. The motion calls on the Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to assist with
providing voice mail for low income and homeless Canadians.
As the member for Vancouver East said in her opening remarks,
telephone companies should be required to provide community
service as part of their licensing. Providing access to
affordable voice mail for homeless people and low income
Canadians would be an invaluable community service.
The reference point for the private member's motion is the voice
mail project of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. It
allows anyone in the lower mainland to set up a secure telephone
mailbox that can be accessed from any phone.
1145
The basic cost is only $10 for three months, a mere pittance. It
benefits more than 1,000 users, mostly based in the downtown east
side. We are getting a tremendous potential return for a very
modest outlay of funds.
The hon. member is calling in her motion today for the CRTC to
act as a vehicle and a lobby toward the telephone industry, much
of which has been privatized in recent years, encouraging it to
come up with a voice mail project that would benefit people who
do not have access to telephones in order to help them to get on
their feet and to find employment.
It has made a tremendous difference in peoples lives in the
downtown eastside. The executive officer of the DERA Voicemail
project, Terry Hanley, has said:
Voice mail has made it easier for people to get in touch with
potential employers, with family members, and to access community
and medical services. It provides previously marginalized people
with a way to reconnect. That's not only good for them—it's
good for the community at large.
The benefits of voice mail should be expanded and made available
to low income and homeless Canadians across the country. While
governments and industry spend millions to get Canadians and
Canadian households on line, some people are without very basic
services in the 21st century.
We hear from the Minister of Industry and the Minister of
Finance that the goal for the country is to become the most wired
country in the world as quickly as possible. We on this side do
not object to that, but at the same time we do not want to leave
other people behind in this process. Folks who are without
homes, basic shelter and telephone service are the folks who are
most at risk. We see the disparities growing between the haves
and have nots. This is a very modest attempt to try to bring
those people along and get a minimal amount of service for people
who do not have access to telephones at the moment.
I want to pick up on the valuable point my colleague from
Kamloops made a few minutes ago. We in the House do not have the
greatest reputation in the world if one listens to Canadians who
sit in on Oral Question Period. They hear the bickering and the
back and forth that go on all the time. It would behove us to
pay some attention to doing the right thing. If that means
encouraging the CRTC to encourage the mostly privatized telephone
companies across the country to get involved and onside with a
project like this one, I think it would be a benefit to each and
every one of us. The motion before us states:
That in the opinion of this House, the federal government should
encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require
telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing
affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or
do not have access to telephone service.
I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support this very
important motion.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as the member for Vancouver Kingsway I wish to commend
my colleague from Vancouver East on her Motion No. 361 to
encourage the CRTC to provide affordable voice mail service to
Canadians. However, the CRTC is an independent federal agency
responsible for the supervision and regulation of
telecommunications in Canada.
The CRTC has a process by which such suggestions are heard. The
public consultation process is available to all Canadians,
including the hon. member. It is the best and most appropriate
way to address the relative benefits of providing voice mail
service to community agencies.
The CRTC has already run a number of hearings on this issue. In
October 1999, after an extensive consultation process involving
public interest advocacy groups, telecommunications companies and
the local community, the CRTC released its high cost service area
decision.
1150
In this decision the CRTC identified a basic level of telephone
service to which all Canadians should have access and took steps
to ensure that over time those few areas of the country that are
unserved or underserved would have access to the level of service
currently available to most Canadians.
The basic level of service is defined as individual line local
service with touch tone dialling; the capability to access the
Internet at a low speeds without incurring long distance charges;
enhanced calling features and services including privacy
protection features, access to emergency services and a voice
messaging relay board services for the hearing impaired; access
to operator and directory assistance services; access to the long
distance network; and a copy of a current telephone directory.
This decision will require significant investment by telephone
companies to upgrade networking in rural and remote areas. In
addition the CRTC has implemented a local service subsidy based
on contributions from long distance carriers along with other
measures to ensure the continued affordability of basic telephone
service. As well, the introduction of competition has benefited
Canadians at all income levels through lower prices for
telecommunication services, more innovation and more choice.
The member for Vancouver East has a good idea for use by low
income families, but I suggest that she should go through the
public consultation process like any other group of Canadians.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I will be brief today in full support of the
motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver. She has
brought it forward based on the bedrock principle of our party
that people in society should have, if not equality because we
know that is not a practical possibility, equality of
opportunity. We should do what we can to provide that for people
in whatever ways we can.
It is absolutely surprising and incredible as the hon. member
and other members have said that in a country which is probably
the most wired country in the world thousands of people do not
have even basic telephone service. We are not only talking basic
telephone service but about the ability of people, even if they
do not have a telephone. The member is not saying that everybody
has to, because that is a practical impossibility, but access to
voice mail which is becoming almost as basic a service for many
of us as telephones are. The member is asking that we look at a
creative and inventive way for people to have access to voice
mail service, even if they do not have a telephone. She has
given some examples in her city of Vancouver where a project like
this is under way.
I do not have to add a great deal to what other members have
said about the importance of staying in touch. Let us think how
important it is now to be able to access and use voice mail
service and how great a disadvantage it would create to anyone
who does not have that opportunity.
We are talking about equality and accessibility for people who
do not now have it. We are talking about their ability to make
improvements in their lives, which most people want to do. We
hear stories of people moving to cities where they are actually
working but the housing is so expensive that they cannot purchase
housing. Calgary is an example.
1155
There are people who are actually working but cannot afford
housing. From where will they get their telephone service? How
will they have the opportunity, if they are looking for new work,
to have messages left for them so that they might apply for that
work? How will they have the opportunity to stay in touch with
loved ones and take messages, if they have moved across the
country from Cape Breton to Calgary to work but do not have a
telephone?
My hon. colleague is trying to find a solution to this problem
in an inventive and compassionate way. There has been mention
this morning of various problems which might be associated with
this kind of idea. I urge members, rather than simply looking at
something and saying there are problems and asking how we can do
it, to spend more of their time on the how and begin to talk and
look at exactly how we might put something like this into place.
The motion as it reads is not prescriptive in that way. That
would come later once members of the House pass the motion, as we
hope they will. Then we can begin to work on approaches to the
CRTC and perhaps approaches to telephone providers to see how
such a concept might come into being.
Basically I find this to be a very exciting and inventive idea.
I offer my hon. colleague my full support. I urge other members
of the House to think about it again and to give that support as
well.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
thank hon. members of the various parties in the House for giving
their comments on the motion today.
By way of reply, when motions come forward it is easy for any
one of us to say this bit is wrong or that bit is wrong, or this
would not work and in effect shoot it down. The issue is whether
we understand that this is a very basic issue affecting low
income and homeless Canadians. I have heard all representatives
who spoke basically say that they understood there was a problem
in that hundreds of thousands Canadians do not have access to
basic phone service.
If we agree on that, the next question is whether it is a good
idea to do something about it. Various comments have been made
and some of the hon. members on the government side have said
that we should go to the CRTC. I certainly will do that. I
absolutely will follow it up.
As a member of parliament I want to get the support of my
colleagues. This is about generating debate and support for
ideas that are reasonable and sound and asking if we can work on
it together. In that regard I reply to the Alliance members who
say it is just another idea of centralization from the NDP. That
is not what it is about.
I agree with the Alliance members who said that the DERA model
is the way to go, but are we saying that small underfunded
community organizations dealing with huge demands in their local
communities should spend a year or two years trying to get a
small project like this under way? Let us be realistic about
it.
The issue of going to the CRTC and asking to make this part of
the licensing requirement is to say that it could be easily done.
Yes, we could go to a group in Saskatchewan, in Newfoundland or
in Ontario and say to go ahead and try to set it up, but the fact
is that the DERA organization is actually subsidizing the
project.
What is being requested in the motion is to suggest to the CRTC
that it should look for ways for these huge telephone companies
to provide some support to local communities, for example by
providing access lines.
The DERA project has 12 lines that are in constant use but it
has to pay for those lines through Telus communications, which
used to be B.C. Tel. It would be so easy for that telephone
company to say that it is on board and will support it.
The reason for bringing the motion forward was to look at a
creative way of asking whether it would be a good idea to ensure
easy access to Canadians. It has nothing to do with creating
regulations for regulation sake. It is about creating equity in
society. It is about creating justice. It is about saying to
organizations that we mandate, the CRTC, that part of its job is
to ensure there are basic levels of service in the country,
whether it is health care or education.
Here we happen to be talking about phone service.
1200
I urge all members of the House not to dismiss this issue but to
agree that it an idea that could be followed up with the support
of members. I will certainly follow it up because I am very
committed to doing so.
The suggestion by my hon. colleague from Kamloops is a very
good one and is something the House could do. I thank the member
who spoke from the Bloc who clearly understood what this issue
was about and is willing to support it. I think other members
obviously have some questions. Frankly, I was surprised to hear
the comments from the member for Vancouver Kingsway because there
are low income members in that particular riding who would love
to have this kind of phone access. To say that the CRTC is
already doing this is simply not the case.
I urge members not to let this go by the boards but to find a
way to support this motion. I ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to support me in writing to the CRTC asking it to give
this matter consideration.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
asking for the unanimous consent of the House to support her
writing to the CRTC. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There are about three
minutes left in the time for consideration of Private Members'
Business. Is there unanimous consent to see the time as 12.04
p.m. so we may proceed immediately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The period set aside for the
study of Private Members' Business is now over. Since the
motion has not been selected as a votable item, the item is
dropped from the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
BILL C-11—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I move:
That in relation to C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of
the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation
Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more
than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill and,
fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
government business on the day allotted to the consideration of
the second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings
before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the
purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for
the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration
shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate
or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
1205
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1245
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| McCormick
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
Pagtakhan
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wilfert – 109
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Casey
| Chatters
| Crête
|
Cummins
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Dockrill
| Doyle
| Duceppe
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Muise
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Solberg
|
Stinson
| Strahl
| Vautour
| Venne – 52
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to.
[Translation]
SECOND READING
The House resumed from February 16 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets
of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, it is with some sadness
that I address Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of
the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development
Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation
Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
1250
I will explain why I feel this sadness. On January 28, 1999, the
federal Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of
the Phalen coal mine and the privatization of the Prince mine,
both located on Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island and managed by
a crown corporation, Devco.
At the time, close to 1,700 miners were working for the crown
corporation. About 1,000 people find themselves out of work, in
a region where unemployment is already at 25%.
At the same time, the minister announced $110 million in
assistance to be used for severance pay and early retirement
programs for the miners, as well as $68 million for economic
development in the region. The Government of Nova Scotia
announced in the fall that it would be investing $12 million in
the long term economic development of Cape Breton.
It is important to understand that Devco workers are not pleased
with the severance package and with the proposed payments. For
well over a year now, since February 1999, they have been making
representations to the federal government, asking it to
reconsider its decisions and to improve its proposals.
In fact, on December 23, a committee made up of representatives
from all parties in the legislative House of Assembly of Nova
Scotia called on the federal government to improve its offers
and increase the amounts proposed to workers.
One million dollars is a lot of money, but when 1,000 people
find themselves without work, one million divided by 1,000 is
only $1,000 each. This will not pay the grocery bill for very
long, or the rent, and it will not put clothes on children's
backs for very long either; $1,000 will be gone very quickly.
These 1,000 employees are going to end up on social assistance
fairly quickly.
They are being offered more than $1,000, but nothing that will
really keep them going for much more than a year. These
families will be in a very shaky situation.
I would like to depart from my prepared text and share with the
House the conversations I had with those representing workers at
the time last year when I myself was the Bloc Quebecois' natural
resources critic.
I had occasion to meet with mothers who had travelled here to
Ottawa to make parliamentarians aware of the fate in store for
their husbands, their partners or their sons if the Devco mine
were to close. Let us look at the broader picture.
The Devco mine is basically a coal mine. Coal is less popular
than it used to be. It is a fairly polluting substance.
Therefore, planning to shut down a coal mine, when coal is less
in demand internationally, for the reasons I have just given, is
not, in itself, illogical. The problem is the approach being
taken.
For some time now, the Devco mine has been run for the federal
government.
When we are dealing with a region like Cape Breton and more than
1,000 people who are going to lose their jobs, this is
catastrophic in a community where there are not many employment
alternatives. In short, the federal government is, with its
good intentions of terminating operations for the extraction of
a raw material, coal, no longer in fashion in the world market,
committing the huge mistake of penalizing a region, with
catastrophic results.
Quite simply, once the people have exhausted their benefits,
their separation payments, the outcome will be despair and a
complete lack of job opportunities.
1255
They will then have two choices: taking their families and
settling elsewhere in Canada, in order to make a living, or
remaining where they are, in most cases dependent on welfare.
By using this bill to close the mine under the present
circumstances, the federal government is, to all intents and
purposes, thrusting a region of Nova Scotia into a disastrous
economic situation, one that will be very long term. This is
not something that will be remedied in six months or a year. It
will take decades to be rectified, if ever, because its very
clear consequences will be an exodus of families and increased
poverty in this region.
I mentioned earlier, I had the opportunity to meet the wives of
the miners and mine workers who are unemployed. The problem
could probably have been lessened in various ways, and the
unions made proposals—and it was not just the unions that made
proposals—that, for the most part, meant that many of the 1,000
workers could have faster access to their pension.
There were a number of ways to go about it. The pensions could
have been beefed up for those close to retirement, within two or
three years of it—and there were several hundred of them—other
workers could have been kept on working in the mine, while the
facilities were being shut down. From what I understand, the
facilities will be closed by an outside corporation, that may
perhaps hire these people for a short while, but will not
contribute to the pension fund they have already accumulated.
In short, there were solutions. They could really not have cost
more in the medium term. They could definitely cost less in the
long term. The government thinks it is only in the very short
term that savings will be made, and making a saving in human
terms in the very short term is really wasting human capital and
thus wasting resources in the medium and long term. This is
exactly the situation we are in with Bill C-11, to close the
Devco mine.
I do not know how the House could influence the minister to
change his decision. I have the impression that things are cast
in stone. It is really with great regret and sadness that I
realize that the representations made by the people of Cape
Breton who came to explain the situation, by the union
representatives and by the members of the House, have not had
the results we had hoped for.
Again, the short term saving made by the government will be
replaced by waste and numerous expenditures in the medium and
long terms, particularly for the Province of Nova Scotia, which
will have to support, through social assistance, families that
will find themselves in a precarious situation.
The Bloc Quebecois does not like this situation. The Bloc
Quebecois has a heart and it wants the government to also have a
heart. I will conclude by expressing my sympathy and wishing the
best of luck to those brave Devco workers, who, unfortunately,
are being mistreated by the Liberal federal government, which
has no heart.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments and I thank
his party for the positions it has put forward on behalf of the
working people in Cape Breton. It is one of the few friends,
other than the New Democratic Party, that the working people in
Cape Breton have found to voice their concerns in this debate.
I have a couple of questions for the member. First, he talked
about money. The government of course will say it is offering
$111 million as an incentive package for the miners who are
leaving. I point out that in 1996 our gross domestic product was
$820 billion, and it is more today. While $111 million may sound
like a great deal, in relative terms it is not.
I also point out that the government will say it has offered $68
million to Cape Breton for future economic development. I point
out that the Minister of Canadian Heritage recently announced $48
million to build the war heritage museum here in Ottawa.
For the entire island of Cape Breton and its future economic
growth, we get the value of about one building in Ottawa.
1300
More important though, I would ask the member to comment on the
following. This is not the first time crown corporations have
been shut down by the government. In each and every case there
were benefits offered to those employees as the government
extracted itself from whatever industry it was.
There are a number of areas we could compare, but let us just
take health care benefits. These people are miners for the most
part. They have gone underground. They have suffered injuries.
Let me just cite some comparisons.
When VIA Rail was shut down, the employees of the crown
corporation not entitled to retirement benefits were eligible for
100% pension contributions and full health benefits packages for
five years.
When CN was shut down, the employees were entitled to group
benefits and life insurance for a maximum of two years and the
company paid the full cost.
When AECL was shut down, there was an extension of benefit
packages with Blue Cross for health, dental and life insurance
costs which were covered by the company.
When Devco shuts down, which the government says is justified,
the employees who suffer from a number of ailments because of the
kind of career and work they did, there are no provisions in this
government package for extensions of health, dental or life
insurance benefits. Those who have sick children, those who
suffer from illnesses that they received in the mines, those who
suffer from lung cancer, those who suffer from black lung will
not be afforded the rights that were afforded other employees of
crown corporations when the government withdrew from those
corporations. That is just in health benefits. I could go on
and compare others. I would be interested to hear the member's
comments on those issues.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Madam Speaker, the hon. member just
mentioned a number of very real consequences relating to health.
Indeed, this is what I pointed out earlier in my speech.
There seems to be a will to save federal dollars in the short
term. Incidentally, these dollars come from the taxpayers'
pockets. There is no Santa Claus in Ottawa that prints money.
These dollars come from the pockets of those who pay taxes.
The government wants to save that money, but in 12, 24, 36
months and more, there will be families having a hard time
putting food on the table and buying clothes for their children,
with the result that these children may not do as well as they
should in school. The federal government is sacrificing a whole
generation to save a few dollars, primarily because of a lack of
vision.
This is not just a dollars and cents issue. It is also a matter
of heart. One must have a vision that comes from the heart but,
unfortunately, the government opposite does not seem to have
such a vision, a vision that would ensure that families can
continue to live, grow and thrive on Cape Breton Island.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there has
been a lot of debate about Bill C-11 that did not focus on Bill
C-11, but on the fairness of the $111 million human resource
package that was announced in January 1999.
This funding was announced for a workforce adjustment program to
deal with the loss of jobs associated with the closure of the
failing mine. Unfortunately, the failing mine closed last
September, about one year earlier than planned.
I think it is important that the House understand the status of
this issue so that we can move on to deal with the issues
surrounding Bill C-11 and the sale of Devco's assets.
In January 2000 Devco and its four unions agreed to form a joint
planning committee, as per part III of the Canada Labour Code.
Devco and the unions are continuing to follow the process as
outlined in the labour code for resolving the workforce
adjustment issues.
1305
Recently this process led to the appointment of an arbitrator.
Devco and its unions have agreed to a process to deal with the
labour issues. The decision of the arbitrator will be final and
binding on all parties. There is a process to deal with the
labour issue.
Through a lot of effort, interest has been identified in Devco's
assets. We are now at a stage where we should move forward with
the process of considering Bill C-11. Now is the time to move
the bill to the committee stage so that it can be examined in
more detail.
The sales process announced by the government in January 1999
and initiated by the Cape Breton Development Corporation is at a
stage where the private sector has come forward with definitive
proposals for Devco's assets. Devco has a real opportunity to
move its operations to the private sector and the step that is
required by the House is to move forward with Bill C-11.
During this debate I have heard a lot of support for
privatization from both sides of the House. It is important that
we seize the opportunity to enable a private sector operator to
acquire Devco's mining assets so that jobs can be maintained in
coal mining. With the progress that Devco has made and the
investments that prospective purchasers have made in carrying out
their due diligence, time has now become of the essence in terms
of moving forward with this bill.
The sale process will involve substantially all of Devco's
assets. Subsection 90, part II of the Financial Administration
Act stipulates that no crown corporation shall sell or otherwise
dispose of all or substantially all of its assets unless
authorized by an act of parliament. That is the reason for Bill
C-11.
In addition to obtaining the authority to sell substantially all
of Devco's assets, the bill will provide for the winding up of
the affairs of the corporation and its eventual dissolution;
provide for legal proceedings against Devco to be brought against
the crown; maintain the general advantage of the Canada clause of
the existing Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, thereby
ensuring that the Canada Labour Code will apply to a private
sector purchaser, and amend the Cape Breton Development
Corporation Act to remove provisions that are no longer
applicable.
This is a relatively simple straightforward bill. The first
five clauses of the bill are the divestiture and dissolution
authorization. Most of these clauses are standard for this type
of legislation.
Next is a series of amendments to the Cape Breton Development
Corporation Act that are of a housekeeping nature that reduces
the number of directors on the board. Finally, there are
consequential amendments to other acts.
It is now time to study these aspects of the bill in committee.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before recognizing
the last speaker, I should have told the House that from this
point on we are getting into 10 minute speeches with no questions
or comments.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-11. The issue
of Devco and that of the whole coal mining industry in Cape
Breton is one that has been grappled with by successive
governments, particularly over the last 30 years when government
involvement in Cape Breton coal mining reached a greater level in
the late 1960s and Devco was formed as a crown corporation.
It has been a very difficult period in recent years with the
decline in the coal industry and the resulting impact on Cape
Bretoners, particularly in industrial Cape Breton.
We all recognize that we are in the midst of a transitional
economy, from a resource based traditional industrial economy
into, and we are well into it, a knowledge based economy where
most of the opportunities in the 21st century will come not from
bricks but more likely from clicks.
1310
If we really look at some of what is happening in the global
environment, we have to ensure that while we are preparing new
generations to participate in the global knowledge based economy,
we are not denying them the ability to take care of themselves
and their families during a very difficult time.
There are several concerns about Bill C-11. We in the
Progressive Conservative Party are supportive of the direction
that the government is taking in a general sense in addressing
the issue of the Devco situation. There are some significant
problems with the compensation packages and some real fairness
issues that have not been addressed in this legislation. If we
compare the treatment of one coal miner to another depending on
the length of time the miner has worked and the age of the miner,
the formula seems to be in need of a significant amount of work.
The fairness issue within the network of people who will be
receiving benefits is clearly inadequate and wrong headed.
I have also heard some other members speak today of the
comparative disadvantages of the pay out packages compared to
similar situations with other precedents that have been set by
government or crown agencies in the past. Again, as a member of
parliament, I would hope, expect and demand that Cape Breton coal
miners be dealt with fairly at this very difficult time.
I would also urge the government to do more work with the
knowledge based economic players, whether it is the incubators
like the University College of Cape Breton and Dr. Jacquelyn
Thayer-Scott who is working with the University College of Cape
Breton to create a greater level of economic opportunity in the
new economy there. I would hope that the government recognizes
the value of that very important incubation infrastructure for
the new economy and continues to increase levels of support for
it.
I would also hope that the government would look at ways to
obtain a more competitive or advantageous tax structure. Tax
advantage zones can be created within Canada in places like Cape
Breton. Many people compare Canada with Ireland and the
tremendous growth that has been seen there in recent years.
Ireland has had a 92% growth in GDP per capita over a 10 year
period. This is not really a very good comparison.
If we compare Ireland to pockets in Atlantic Canada,
particularly Cape Breton, and consider Ireland's relationship
with the EU in the context of Cape Breton's relationship with
other parts of Canada through the equalization system, I think we
can quite quickly see a parallel of opportunities. If the
government were to develop some type of tax advantage for
companies to locate in places like Cape Breton, a similarly
advantageous tax structure to what has been accomplished with
Ireland's economy using some of the funding from the EU could be
created. These are the types of things we should be looking at.
The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the Atlantic
Institute for Market Studies have done some very credible work on
some of these areas and alternatives in the new economy.
There are some significant flaws in the fairness issue related
to Bill C-11.
1315
I urge all members of the House to be vigilant in not putting on
any logical blinders when dealing with these kinds of issues. It
is a difficult time for the coal miners of Cape Breton who are
losing their jobs. We must ensure that they are dealt with as
fairly as those in previous situations in other precedents in
Canada with crown agencies.
I further urge that we continue working toward creating an
economic environment for Cape Breton and all Canada where people
can find greater levels of economic opportunities and prosperity
within some of the new emerging industries as we begin the 21st
Century.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
rise today in the House with the same sense of outrage and
frustration that has been expressed by other members. We are
debating a bill that is of vital importance to the people of Cape
Breton, to the people who have worked in the Devco mines and to
the people who live in the communities that have supported those
mines, and, I think for the 66th time in this parliament, we are
facing closure on yet another bill. This will cut off debate and
the life line that those miners have to voice their expressions
of concern in this parliament about what is happening to them and
their communities.
We are here in parliament to defend and uphold democracy.
Whenever we have closure on debate and whenever debate is cut off
and opposition members are cut off from holding the government
accountable for the legislation it brings in, it is a sad day not
just in this parliament but for all Canadians and something to
which we should pay attention.
We are debating Bill C-11, the bill that means the death and
dissolution of Devco, a program of this government to carry out
policies that will have a very dramatic impact on the people of
Cape Breton.
My colleagues in the federal NDP from Nova Scotia but
particularly from Cape Breton, the member for Sydney—Victoria
and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, have stood up in
parliament and in the community in solidarity with the people of
Cape Breton to fight this closure.
I will deal with two issues in my comments. One is the myth
that surrounds the mining operations and what has taken place
over many generations. Second, I will talk about the impact that
this closure will have.
It is a myth that this mining operation is somehow a losing
proposition and the government had no alternative but to step in
and shut it down. The reality is that for over 300 years mining
has been a part of this community. For over 300 years mining has
sustained good paying union jobs for which miners in many cases
have fought and died, for health and safety, for better wages and
for better working conditions. In many instances they have given
their lives to that community by working in these mines.
Over the years these mines have also provided great economic
benefit. I am not from Cape Breton. I am from Vancouver East. I
am from the other coast, the west coast. Yet the story that I
see in Cape Breton is a story that is all too familiar across the
country. In my own community of East Vancouver we have seen the
government set up the proposition that somehow a community
economic development operation that is getting a government
subsidy, it is too late, it is too bad, we have to take the
subsidy away and we have to somehow make it profitable.
The fact is that over the past 30 years the government has
invested about $1.7 billion into the Devco mines. What has been
put back into that local economy from spin-offs and the support
that it has created in local communities has been more than $5
billion.
I know from watching the news reports on television and
listening to my colleagues from Cape Breton that in the local
community they know the truth.
They know this mine could continue to be profitable and that the
decision by the government to withdraw from this operation,
devastating the lives of the local communities, is one of the
worst things that has happened in this parliament.
1320
In terms of the impact, I have to ask myself what would happen
to a local community where there is an employment environment,
whether it is a mine, or a fishery, or the woodworking industry
in British Columbia, if that was suddenly withdrawn. I think
last Christmas we saw an inkling of what that impact would be.
Many of us were back in our ridings. I was paying attention to
issues that were going on in Vancouver East and dealing with many
important things. Every day I watched the national news and
watched the miners who, in desperation, were trying to draw the
attention of the government to their plight and what would happen
as a result of these mine closures. It was really awful to
watch.
The miners wanted to be home with their families. They wanted
to get ready for Christmas, to buy Christmas presents and to
celebrate with their families and friends. What were they doing?
They were holding sit-ins and taking desperate measures because
they felt like they were at the end of the line and had no
options left.
I am proud to say that our members in Nova Scotia and Cape
Breton were there standing in solidarity with those miners. They
understood what was going on.
A lot of times in the House we debate issues around poverty,
child poverty and the 1989 resolution to eliminate child poverty
that was passed unanimously in the House. It seems that on
occasion there is a sense of goodwill from the House that this is
an important Canadian priority. We do not want to see children
go hungry. We do not want to see children living in communities
where there is economic and social devastation. However, with
this bill, through deliberate conscious public policy, the
government has created that kind of social and economic
devastation. There will be more poor children in Cape Breton, a
community that is already suffering.
My colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton told me that to even
come close to the level of what is happening on the mainland,
Cape Breton will need another 13,000 to 14,000 jobs. Why would
this mine closure make any sense? Why would this bill make any
sense? Even the terms of the closure are disastrous in terms of
not involving the miners and not developing compensation
packages.
A few minutes ago we heard from our colleague from
Sydney—Victoria who said that the miners, who have worked there
for decades and who have literally given their working lives to
this industry, will not be compensated, recognized or
acknowledged in terms of their own health. They will leave this
industry with no job, no protection for them or their families in
terms of health care, no dental plan and no ongoing training.
What a catastrophe. What does it say about the priorities of the
government?
In terms of the impact on this community, I am sure there will
be increasing anxiety not only about the closures but about what
will happen at this point. We have already heard speculation and
rumours that one of the mines might be up for sale and that it
might be bought by a multinational corporation. It is insane that
we have a government that is not willing to sit down in good
faith with the local community, with those workers, their
families, community leaders and the local members of parliament
to find a way for this operation to continue. The miners were
greatly interested in getting together and forming co-operatives
and associations that would have allowed the mine to continue.
They wanted to ensure that there was local control.
We talk a lot about community economic development. Here was an
instance where the people in the community were committed, had
the knowledge and the expertise. Did anyone else have more
expertise than those coal miners to know how the operation should
run and how it could be profitable? They were completely
ignored by the federal government.
We are here today debating the dissolution of these operations
under an order of closure to cut off debate with speculation
about a multinational corporation moving in.
1325
The federal NDP wants to know what the federal government is
doing to investigate potential buyers who may be there and come
forward. We understand that there are multinational corporations
looking at this particular operation and may want to put in a
purchase offer. One of the rumours we have heard is that one
such corporation buys its coal from Colombia. What we need to
know is who will be mining that coal. Will child labour be used?
Has the government done any investigation to assure the local
community that whatever buyers are there are actually
organizations and corporations that have legitimacy, credibility,
a track record and are not using child labour in other countries
or violating environmental standards?
The worst part is that we should not even be considering foreign
buyers. We should be investing in this local community. We
should be saying that these jobs have value and meaning and that
the people of this local community have a right to come together
to determine their own economic future. That is what we stand
for in this party.
I want to move the following amendment:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the words “Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations” and
inserting the words “Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities”
following the words “subject matter”.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point, I will
reserve my ruling on the amendment as there may be a question of
wording that may not be receivable. I will get back to the hon.
member.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to again stand in the House to debate Bill
C-11.
Since I last spoke to the bill on November 15, 1999, I have
had an opportunity to visit Cape Breton and talk to the
stakeholders in this issue. I met with union representatives, as
well as two local bidders whose bids were rejected by Nesbitt
Burns Inc. I also visited the mine sites, the coal wash
plant and the old Sydney steel mill site. The visits certainly
gave me a more indepth understanding of the issues surrounding
the sale of Devco and how it will affect Cape Bretoners.
Despite the government's stated commitment to a speedy process
for this bill, Bill C-11 seems to have totally dropped off the
government's legislative radar until today. Everything else seems
to be a priority for the government except for a bill that has
so far-reaching and drastic effects on the lives of Cape
Bretoners.
1330
We might also suppose that a bill of such importance would be
given due process and time, but no, yet again the government has
decided to wait until the last moment before invoking time
allocation to run the bill through the House of Commons as fast
as it possibly can. After all, the government does not care to
allow all members the opportunity to rise in the House and speak
their concerns, or more important, the concerns of Canadians.
I can only wonder why the government is suddenly in such a hurry
to speed Bill C-11 through the House. After all, it has always
been acknowledged that before the sale of Devco could proceed,
this bill had to be passed.
It makes me wonder if the rumoured American buyers are getting
impatient to claim their prize. We know how chummy the Prime
Minister likes to be with anyone south of the border. What else
would motivate the government to suddenly move so quickly?
Certainly it could not be the interests of Cape Bretoners and
Canadians.
I am fully aware that Devco was created as a vote getting
measure, despite the fact that as far back as 1957 it was
recognized that the coal industry alone simply would not be
sufficiently viable to sustain the entire economy of Cape Breton
on a long term basis.
In 1966 the government announced a $55 million package to phase
out coal mining in Cape Breton over 15 years, yet in the very
next year massive expansion occurred within the region with the
creation of Devco. Even as Devco was being created it was obvious
that the coal mining industry in Cape Breton would not be viable
if Devco had to accept the full liability of past generations of
Dominion Steel and Coal Company employees who were abandoned when
these ventures went into receivership. So began the government's
involvement, what I would call interference, into the economy and
viability of Cape Breton.
For the next 30 years the government continued to support Devco
through a variety of subsidies and grants until finally in
January 1999 the government announced that it was putting Devco
and all its assets up for sale. That is 30 years of families
coming to rely on the industry they believed would support them
as they had supported Devco.
We are not just talking about a nine to five job that the miners
can walk away from without any costs. A well known fact is the
toll that coal miners pay with their health to work in coal
mines.
Despite the costs, the miners went ahead and did their jobs
believing they would have jobs in the industry which is all many
of them have ever known. Yet the entire time the government has
known differently.
Over the years through different governments which have come and
gone, one thing has not changed regarding Devco. It simply was
not working.
To sustain the economy, one could suggest to flow votes from
Cape Breton to the government, the government continually sunk
more and more money into Devco with the expressed intention of
making the industry work. At the same time, an examination of
the annual reports of Devco indicated that the government was
intentionally manipulating the shutdown of Devco.
Because of that manipulation, Devco families have faced numerous
shutdowns, failures to meet production targets, and stunning
financial losses. It is those families in the Cape Breton
community as a whole who are suffering from devious management
manipulation.
When I first rose in the House to speak to Bill C-11, I raised a
number of concerns regarding the accountability measures included
within the bill. As I have just mentioned, governments over the
years have done little to ensure that Devco was not used as a
patronage plum. I would hope that in the final days of Devco,
the government could at the very least assure Canadians that
their hard earned money was not going to waste in some Liberal
crony's pocket.
On March 20 a committee established to suggest ways to spend the
$80 million set aside to cushion the collapse of Cape Breton's
coal industry released a report which stated the following:
Cape Breton Island has experienced poor economic conditions many
times...but none can compare to the present day. People are
showing a lack of confidence in the future. Immediate action is
required to both illustrate government's understanding of the
problem and its potential to help.
I would like to remind everyone that such a situation is exactly
what was predicted back in 1957. Here we are on May 8, 2000 and
we are still looking at second reading of this bill, albeit in a
rather drastic hurry.
The report was released almost a month and a half ago and the
government is just now realizing it had better hurry up and do
something about the situation in Cape Breton. After all, the
Prime Minister has promised an election within the next year. I
question the timeline of the government and its dedication to
providing due process and consideration for the miners and Devco
employees affected by the sale of Devco.
1335
Speaking of the sale of Devco, I have a few questions regarding
exactly how the sale is taking place. Let me provide a bit of
background.
Clause 2(2) calls for subsections 99(2) to (5) of the Financial
Administration Act not to apply to the disposal or sale of Devco
assets. Back in November when I originally spoke to the bill I
voiced my concerns as to why the FAA needs to be suspended for
this sale to go through. More important, what will replace those
controls? The FAA ensures that a sale such as this happens in an
open, accountable manner. If these restrictions are removed, what
will control such issues as who gets the successful bid, was a
reasonable amount paid for the assets, was the transaction made
in the best value for money interests and will the money return
to the public coffers?
Another concern I raised in November was that only bidders and
cabinet will have access to the bidding process. No one else can
get information about how much the assets are worth. How will we
know if the final price truly reflects the value of the assets?
The reality is that whoever takes over the assets will not just
get non-viable leftovers. After having invested millions of
dollars over the last 30 years and thanks to governments never
seeing any kind of return on investment, Canadians at least
deserve to know the terms and conditions of the sale.
I am sorry to state that I believe many of my fears regarding
the process of the sale of Devco are being realized. Mr. Joe
Shannon, currently on the Devco board of directors, was first
appointed by cabinet on July 4, 1995 to be the chairman of the
Devco board for a three year term. On July 26, 1995 cabinet
authorized the board's decision to have Joe Shannon act as
president of Devco. Mr. Shannon was reappointed to the board of
directors for another three year term on August 26, 1998.
Mr. Shannon has obviously done fairly well through his
appointments. At the same time he was leading Devco he was also
president, director and chief executive officer of Seaboard
Transport. While Joe Shannon was head of both companies, Seaboard
Transport received a multimillion dollar contract to transport
coal from the mines to the Nova Scotia power plants and the wash
plant, a clear conflict of interest.
That is not the end of the story of Mr. Shannon. He is
currently participating with Nesbitt Burns assessing bids for the
sale and divestiture of Devco assets. Mr. Shannon clearly has a
vested interest in ensuring his own interests are considered by
whoever takes over. Judging by his lack of qualms in sitting on
both the Devco and Seaboard Transport boards, I am doubtful that
Mr. Shannon will suddenly find himself a conscience and act on
what is truly in the best interests of Devco, Cape Bretoners and
Canadian taxpayers.
Not only do I have concerns regarding the goings on in the
boardroom, I have serious doubts regarding the bidding process
for Devco and how decisions are being made as to who is seriously
considered. In the March 20, 2000 edition of the Cape Breton
Post a letter from Kevin Murphy, vice-president of the Cape
Breton Miners Development Co-operative Limited, stated the
concern of many Cape Bretoners that the bidding process for Devco
is freezing out local bids. Mr. Murphy stated the following:
We feel that handing off the Nova Scotia Power Inc. supply
contract to foreign suppliers is an unacceptable situation and we
decided back in May to do something about it by forming a workers
co-op and subsequently submitting a bid for the Devco assets
through the Nesbitt Burns process.
Our bid was rejected, as was a bid put forward by Donkin
Resources Limited, which is determined to press on with opening
the Donkin mine with the support of the community and groups such
as our co-op, which is ready to invest in the project to ensure
that at least some of the NSPI coal is supplied by Cape
Bretoners.
Mr. Murphy went on to question why the federal government would
rather hand over a lucrative contract to a foreign company when
the coal could be supplied locally. He concluded that “there is
money to be made in the industry and that it should be reinvested
here for the future of our people”.
I quoted extensively from Mr. Murphy because I do not think it
could be said any better. Cape Bretoners are ready, prepared and
anxious to rebuild their economy—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I must
interrupt the hon. member. Ten minutes has elapsed,
unfortunately.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a great honour to speak to this very important
bill, Bill C-11. It deals with Devco, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation divestiture authorization and dissolution
act.
1340
It is important to put this matter into some context in the
sense that subsection 90(2) of the Financial Administration Act
stipulates that we need to go through this process in order to
meet the requirements under that act. It is very important that
we proceed accordingly.
I was somewhat heartened by the member for Kings—Hants. He
spoke in very reasoned tones and appropriately so. It was
important that he went on record as indicating that the party
opposite was in agreement with how the government was acting. It
certainly made a great deal of sense to me. It is important that
we proceed accordingly.
I was a little disappointed with the Canadian Alliance member,
the member for Athabasca, who talked in terms of the Americans
and how they interact with Canada. If anyone should be looking
in the mirror when it comes to the Americans it is the alliance
party. That party is in favour of a two tier American style
health system. Members of the Canadian Alliance should be the
last people in the House to talk about Canada's interface with
the Americans.
The member for Athabasca seemed to drag a few people and the
process through the mud today. I take exception to that. It is
inappropriate and not very beneficial to the debate. Quite
frankly it is typical of those alliance members in what they do,
how they say it, and the kind of actions they seem to take
delight in making.
Having said that, I have been to Cape Breton a number of times,
at least three times and most recently twice. It is very
important to meet with the people there. I have met with people
in the area, union people, local officials, families. It is
important that we on the government side listen carefully.
I was astounded by the NDP member for Vancouver East and the
outrageous things she said about bringing in the end to this
debate and proceeding forward. She knows full well, as do all the
NDP members opposite, that we have had a number of hours of
debate in the House on this very important bill. Instead the
member said that we are somehow abusing the system when in fact
it is the contrary. What we are doing is bringing closure to
this very important bill.
Instead the member talked about poor children. She talked about
child labour in other countries. She talked about rumours that
she had heard. Imagine, in this great parliament of ours members
opposite, especially the NDP who should know better, getting up
and dealing in rumour and innuendo. Is that not typical of the
NDP members who always are delighted in throwing tons of money at
everything. Instead of taking a reasoned, natural and good
rational approach to things, they always throw money at them,
which is a typical NDP philosophy.
Instead we on this side of the House are putting a process in
place for the benefit not only of the good people of Cape Breton,
of Devco and those people who are in need but by extension for
all Canadians. That is important to note. It underscores the
commitment of the Government of Canada in this all important
area.
The NDP members in this debate have been twisting this fact and
I find it reprehensible that they would do it. I want to point
out that on October 1, 1999 the Cape Breton Development
Corporation advised the federal Minister of Labour that it would
be terminating the employment of approximately 600 employees due
to the closure of the Phalen colliery.
On January 13 the company and the four unions representing Devco
employees agreed to form a joint planning committee as per part
III of the Canada Labour Code. The committee met in an attempt to
reach agreement on the terms of an adjustment program that was
unsuccessful, which was unfortunate.
The employee representatives on that committee notified the
Minister of Labour of their inability to reach agreement with the
company. On March 14 the Minister of Labour appointed a person as
mediator to assist in the negotiations and failing agreement, to
advise her on the matters appropriate for arbitration pursuant to
section 224 of part III of the Canada Labour Code.
1345
We are now at that point and into binding arbitration. As most
members of the House know, it will be binding not only on the
company but on the members and the employees involved, as well as
on the Government of Canada. We expect that report some time in
the very near future and some talk as early as the end of May. We
need to proceed in that fashion. It is important and it makes a
great deal of sense.
It astounded me when I heard the Alliance member, the hon.
member for Athabasca, talk in terms of little or no consultation.
That really is an out and out falsehood.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Members from the NDP know that as well.
Listen to them caterwauling instead of listening to the speech.
They are caterwauling and trying to stir things up. They should
listen. What I am about to say is worth listening to.
The minister met with all kinds of officials in that part of the
country. He met with management. He met with unions. He met
with business and community leaders. He met with local clergy,
for that matter. He met with representatives of the provincial
government. He has gone out of his way as have other members of
the government, instead of stirring things up, trying to
undermine the process and trying to act on rumours, innuendo,
falsehoods and myths like members of the NDP. Instead of doing
that, we on the government side got our facts and listened to the
people to ensure that we were involved in great consultation by
way of process and how best to deal with the good folks in that
part of Canada.
At the end of the day, is it perfect? I do not think so.
However at the end of the day we have put in place a great
process which makes sense ultimately. It will assist that part
of Atlantic Canada and, more to the point, Cape Breton. It will
do so in a manner consistent with the values of people in not
only that part of our country but Canadians wherever they live in
our great land.
It is important that we have done it in a methodical, wise and
reasoned way, instead of operating as some members of the
opposition have, that is by way of falsehoods, stirring things up
and making mischief, quite simply, which I think is absolutely
inappropriate.
The plan is in place in a way that Devco has now received
definitive proposals for its assets. The corporation is at a
stage of evaluating and clarifying one of the proposals with a
view to finalizing the broad terms and conditions of the sale.
Hopefully that will be done in the very near future, and again
there is talk of as early as June. Negotiations concerning a
final detailed purchase and sale agreement would follow
accordingly, as would be the normal course of events.
This is following what the minister, the officials and
government have seen as appropriate in terms of this important
issue which strikes to the heart of a great many people in that
part of Canada. We understand that. We respect it and we have
tried to deal with it in a sensitive and reasoned way.
The prospects for transferring the assets of Devco to the
private sector and for maintaining coal mining jobs in a private
sector commercial operation are very real. That has been a goal
of the government from the outset. Instead of trying to create
mischief and doing those kinds of things, with a steady hand the
government is trying to ensure that we can carry on with
employment in an area that requires our assistance. We as a
government have always tried to do the right thing, which is to
assist people.
Unlike others in the House who might try in a Darwinian economic
sense to let people hang out to dry, we have never done that, not
through history and certainly not now. We will do the right
thing to ensure that the transition from the jobs of the past to
the new economy will take place in a way consistent with the
values that are appropriate to Canadian society. So it is that
we proceed in this important area.
I have great friends in Cape Breton with whom I have talked
repeatedly. I have visited there on a number of occasions. It
is important that we deal with the matter in a way consistent
with not only what those people want, because obviously they are
important in this equation, but in the best interest of the
country as a whole. It is with great honour that I say we will
now bring the bill forward, vote on it and get on with the
business at hand. Why do we do that?
We do it because it is ultimately not only in the best interest
of the people of Cape Breton and specifically the employees of
Devco, but it is in the best interest of Canada as a whole.
1350
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point I would
like to advise the House and the member for Vancouver East that
the amendment to the amendment she proposed earlier is not in order
because it would render the amendment unintelligible.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate on Devco. I wanted,
especially after the last speaker, to put before the House and
others who may be listening what is at stake.
We are talking about the direct loss of close to 1,500 well
paying jobs. We are talking about the loss of almost $80 million
per year in wages and salaries to that region. We are talking
about the loss of $28 million a year in Canada pension,
employment insurance and income tax. We are talking about a
total estimated annual economic loss, direct and indirect, as
high as $300 million for the region of Cape Breton.
The previous speaker would have everybody think that this is a
very minor bill that will through and what is the problem. As I
understand it this is the 65th time the government has introduced
time allocation or closure, as most Canadians know it. Not
everybody, but most of us know that 65 is the age of compulsory
retirement for humans in Canada. We think it is time to retire
this kind of time allocation and allow debates to be held in the
House on a timely basis.
In February we on this side of the House endeavoured to have an
emergency debate to discuss the matter, and of course it was
denied. Here we are two and a half months later and we have time
allocation.
Leading up to the debate in February there were newspaper
stories that Canada Steamship Lines had expressed interest in
purchasing the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and we know
who heads Canada Steamship Lines today. The story in the
newspapers is that Canada Steamship Lines is now purchasing new
ocean freighters from a low wage Chinese shipyard. This is just
days after a ship was launched in Saint John, New Brunswick. Many
workers there feel it is the last ship that will ever be built at
those docks.
What we are talking about and what members opposite do not want
to talk about is almost certainly the imminent sale of Devco.
They say they have to get on with it, but they are not saying who
is the prospective buyer. We know almost with certainty that it
will be a foreign buyer, almost certainly an American one.
I want to spend a few minutes telling the House what has been
happening in the last few years in Canada with regard to foreign
ownership. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively
stable number of years, several years, the inflow of foreign
ownership into this country roughly matched the amount of
Canadian investment overseas.
However, in 1998, foreign ownership in this country jumped
fourfold to $24 billion. In 1999, according to Statistics
Canada, the figure was $36 billion or six times what it had been
three or four years earlier. We are seeing the selling off of
the country, the takeover, the buying out of our low dollar that
has now dropped below 66 cents. This, coupled with the surging
American economy, has made Canada a haven for buyouts.
We will see it again with Devco. We see the figures indicating
that it has been losing money in the last number of years. Where
did we hear that kind of story before? Canadian National was
losing money on paper until it was taken over. Now 75% or 80% of
it is owned by Americans and, wonder of wonders, it has turned
the corner and is making a handsome profit. We will see
absolutely the same scenario with the Devco operation.
1355
The most telling of points for Canadians would be the very
graphic television images of people who went underground to
protest what was happening around Christmastime last year in Cape
Breton Island. They stayed there until we thought a deal could
be sorted out. These are the images regarding this issue that
will stay with Canadians for a long time.
A number of other costs cannot be calculated. They include an
increase in out migration from Cape Breton, a region that over
the past decade and a half has seen a population decline of over
7% and a drop in employment opportunities resulting in the
closure of Devco. The $68 million that have been committed by
the government to encourage sound, long term economic development
in Cape Breton is far less than the close to $300 million
generated in the Nova Scotia economy annually by Devco.
The federal government's commitment to work closely with the
province and the community to identify strategic investments for
the $68 million is a farce. After more than nine months of
silence and inaction, the few weeks of public consultations is an
absolute insult to the community.
The government has repeatedly stated that no decision on the
future of Devco would be made without prior consultation with the
stakeholders and the community. Yet no meaningful consultation
has taken place to date. That is what we have been after. That
is what my colleagues, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and
the member for Sydney—Victoria, were demanding when they asked
for an emergency debate in the middle of February that was denied
by government members.
It is correct to say that the federal government has put more
than $1.7 billion into Devco over the past 30 years, but Devco
has generated over $5 billion in return into the economy. It has
been a very happy and convenient arrangement for the people of
Cape Breton. Before I sit down I move:
That the amendment before us be amended by deleting the words,
“Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations” and inserting the words, “Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities”.
The Speaker: I find the amendment to the amendment to be
in order. We will take up the debate after question period.
This theme encapsulates the guiding principle of all Red Cross
work which is the rehabilitation of people suffering the
consequences of war, violence, natural disaster and malnutrition.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to inform the House that today, May
8, is World Red Cross/Red Crescent Day.
This day celebrates the humanitarian work of millions of Red
Cross/Red Crescent volunteers worldwide.
The Red Cross provides assistance to countless victims of
conflict and disaster.
Last year alone, the Canadian Red Cross Society helped victims
of earthquakes in Turkey, Taiwan and, just recently, in
Mazambique.
[English]
In honour of the millennium, the international family of the Red
Cross is celebrating the theme, power of humanity.
This theme encapsulates the guiding principle of all Red Cross
work which is the rehabilitation of people suffering the
consequences of war, violence, natural disaster and malnutrition.
1400
Please join me in recognizing the Canadian Red Cross Society for
its work and in wishing a very successful World Red Cross/Red
Crescent Day.
* * *
VICTORY IN EUROPE DAY
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, on this anniversary of Victory in Europe Day we reflect
on the courage of our war veterans who fought so that we could be
free. It is also necessary to acknowledge some veterans who were
abused and forgotten.
For years, some military personnel were used as guinea pigs by
the Department of National Defence for mustard gas experiments.
This is a source of national shame, a tragic example of
bureaucratic immorality and a story of human suffering. Yet the
government has never apologized to those it deemed fodder for
chemical warfare tests.
The government finally acknowledged the assault that was
committed on the lives of these men in a Suffield ceremony on May
5, 2000, but many are still battling for some form of
compensation. This is outrageous. Not only should these
experiments never have happened, but the victims should not have
to fight veterans affairs today. Surely they have suffered
enough indignity, personal loss and injustice.
* * *
NATIONAL PALLIATIVE CARE WEEK
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the members of the House and all Canadians
that May 8 to May 14 is National Palliative Care Week.
Hospice palliative care is aimed at relief of suffering and
improving the quality of life for persons who are living with or
dying with advanced illness. This type of care includes the
person and his or her family in planning treatment and care so
that they can make choices based on knowledge and understanding.
This kind of care offers social, emotional and spiritual support
to the person as well as their family by members of a very
diverse team.
The Canadian Palliative Care Association is a national
association which provides leadership in hospice palliative care
in Canada through collaboration and representation, development
of national standards of practice, support in theory, advocacy
for improved policy, research allocation and support for
caregivers.
It is very important that we join them in commending the
dedicated professionals, caregivers and volunteers who provide
palliative care and to the Canadian Palliative Care Association
and its affiliates for the good work they do.
* * *
[Translation]
AUTOBUS AUGER INC.
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
since 1992, retired unionized employees of local 512 of the
northwest division of Autobus Auger Inc. have been having
trouble with their pension plan.
The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has
had the file on the claims of retired employees for several
months now.
I get the feeling that Investissements Richard Auger of
Châteauguay is cooking the books with respect to the financial
situation of retired workers for Industrielle Alliance and for
William M. Mercer, to the advantage of Autobus Auger Inc.
There is one unacceptable practice in this pension plan. The
employer, Autobus Auger, and Investissements Richard Auger did
not have certain expenditures of this employee pension plan
approved. Where are the surpluses? They should comply with the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL NURSING WEEK
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to remind the members of the House and all Canadians that
May 8 to May 14 is National Nursing Week. This year the Canadian
Nurses Association has partnered with Health Canada to organize
activities in support of Canada's physical activity and health
strategy.
As members know, the federal, provincial and territorial
governments have joined in setting a goal to reduce the number of
inactive Canadians by 10% by the year 2003. Today there are
255,000 registered nurses in Canada who help patients and clients
with information, advice and support on how to improve their
health by including physical activity in their daily lives.
The theme of National Nursing Week 2000 is “Challenge Yourself-Get
Active”. Please join me in recognizing the important
contributions of the nursing profession in Canada.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure today to give recognition to two very
special Canadians.
On May 3 Joey Hache received an honorary recognition for his
continuing fight in an effort to bring equal compensation to all
victims of Hepatitis C. Joey was recognized at the Third Annual
Spirit of the Capital Youth Awards.
Hon. members will remember Joey and his cycle of conscience.
After the government refused to offer compensation for all
victims of Hep C, Joey told the Prime Minister that he would be
his conscience. In June 1998 he started a bike ride across
Canada with the goal of raising awareness about those who suffer
from Hep C. Joey has worked long and hard to achieve this goal.
1405
On Monday, May 1 of this year the first annual Hepatitis C
candlelight vigil was held across Canada and into the United
States. It began with the dream of one person, a very special
lady in my own riding, Sue White. Sue has Hepatitis C and wanted
to recognize the many victims who have died since this tragic
disease has spread across this land. The purpose of the ceremony
was to create awareness, provide education and promote the
prevention of Hep C.
I salute these two special people who face personal challenges
far greater than any of us.
* * *
[Translation]
HÉLÈNE MARCHESSAULT
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on April 26, a
young woman from my riding, Hélène Marchessault, of
Saint-Guillaume, was awarded a bursary of $500 by the Quebec
Department of Education in its “Chapeau les filles” competition.
The purpose of this program is to recognize the efforts of
dynamic young women who dare to follow non-traditional career
paths.
Hélène certainly qualifies as such, as she studied swine
production and worked for one of Quebec's biggest swine
producers, and is now returning to school to study animal
husbandry, another non-traditional field.
Hats off to you, Hélène, from all the people of Drummond riding,
myself included.
* * *
[English]
HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, according to the Heart and Stroke
Foundation, heart-related diseases kill more than 77,000
Canadians every year. The Heart and Stroke Foundation estimates
that one in every four Canadians has either some sort of heart
condition or a disease of the blood vessels such as high blood
pressure or stroke-related illness.
From May 7 to May 10, the foundation is holding an event called
“Big Bike for Stroke” in my riding of
Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.
I wish to join my colleagues in the House in encouraging all
Canadians to reduce the risk of heart trouble by having a healthy
diet and being physically active.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCO-ACTION TELETHON
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the second edition of the Franco-Action telethon was held
yesterday afternoon on Rogers community television, in the
Ottawa region.
The organizers of this event exceeded their objective,
collecting close to $105,000. These funds will be going to the
Montfort Hospital Foundation, the Fondation Pauline-Charron to
benefit seniors, and the Ottawa District Boy Scouts.
On behalf of all of my colleagues in the House of Commons, I
wish to congratulate the organizers of this telethon and all
those who participated in it, and to express particular thanks
to all those who pledged a donation to the Franco-Ontarian
community.
* * *
[English]
PRINCE GEORGE COUGARS
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, you just had to be there to
experience the excitement, the electricity, the fever pitch, as
night after night the Prince George Cougars took to the ice in
Prince George during this last hockey season. You had to be
there to see the roof come off the Multiplex as our young Cougars
played their hearts out before 6,000 fans every single game this
season, game after game.
I want to pay tribute and give thanks to owner Rick Brodsky, the
management, the staff, the coach, Ed Dempsey and most of all the
Cougars players for such a fantastic season and making the finals
of the WHL western division playoffs.
On behalf of all the Cougar fans, myself and the Cougars'
biggest fan in all the world, my son Mike, I want to thank the
Cougars for all the excitement and the enjoyment they gave us
this season.
* * *
HUMBER RIVER
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last September the Minister of Canadian Heritage
designated the Humber River as a Canadian heritage river. On
Sunday, May 7, I had the great pleasure of attending Humber
Heritage Day in Etienne Brulé Park and participating in the
unveiling of the permanent heritage monument.
The Humber River has shaped people's lives for hundreds of years
and continues to define our landscape today. This river
watershed system provides recreational and educational
opportunities as well as a spiritual retreat for thousands of
people of many different cultures.
It is because of its importance that governments, communities
and watershed residents have worked in partnership to ensure a
continued protection and enhancement for the enjoyment and
benefit of future generations. The Humber Watershed Project
which received a $400,800 contribution through the Canada
millennium partnership program will be working to improve the
area along the river through planting and clean-up events, the
construction of new trails and the upgrading of existing ones.
The Humber River system is truly a priceless gift which must be
preserved for future generations.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILDREN'S AGENDA
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today marks the first anniversary of the National Children's
Agenda. Unfortunately, Canadian kids and their parents have
absolutely nothing to celebrate. No national child care plan, no
new housing initiatives, no new money for education but a lot of
hype about a so-called children's budget that turned out to be a
big bust for kids.
1410
Instead, the children's agenda has amounted to a few glossy
brochures, a few high priced consultants and some invitation-only
consultations that have so far led nowhere.
The situation for far too many Canadian kids and families
demands attention. It is time for action. Almost one million
Canadian children are on social assistance, 40% of food bank
users are children and the fastest growing homeless populations
are families and youth under 18.
It is time for the federal government to take the lead, to come
to the federal-provincial social union table with meaningful
proposals like a national early child care and education fund
that puts child care centre stage. It is time for the federal
government to come to the table with funding commitments—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
afternoon, a group of Newswatch supporters gathered in Montreal
to prevent the cancellation of the CBC's English news in Quebec.
Newswatch is a program watched by thousands of Quebecers. It is
important for these people to have access to local news in
English.
I put four questions in the House on these closures. The
Minister of Canadian Heritage said she was not aware of plans to
cancel Newswatch.
Then she said certain options were on the table.
[English]
The government has been scared to make a commitment to saving
Montreal's local English newscast. The minister has emphasized
the arm's length relationship between the government and the CBC.
I respect that relationship, but it is the government that
provides the funding and it has cut the CBC's budget by more than
$400 million in the last five years.
Will the minister stop trying to pass the blame on to the
executive and guarantee funding so that the CBC can truly reflect
Canadian society?
* * *
NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate Nortel
Networks on its celebration last week of independence day.
On May 1 Nortel Networks Corporation emerged as a widely held
independent company as BCE Inc. released a plan to distribute
virtually all of its ownership interest in the company.
Nortel is a global company with deep roots in Canada and in
particular in my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean where it had its
beginning decades ago as Northern Electric. The Ottawa region
has the largest concentration of Nortel employees in the world
and is the focal point for advanced research in all its business
lines. It is the largest private sector employer in the national
capital region.
In just the first four months of this year Nortel added more
than 2,500 new employees and has now announced a new investment
to create space for another 2,500 R and D staff in the national
capital region.
I wish Nortel Networks continuing success as an independent,
widely held global powerhouse.
* * *
LEIGH MORRISON
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of this week I am going
to be in New Brunswick to attend the preliminary hearing of Leigh
Morrison.
The House will recall that Leigh Morrison was one of the New
Brunswick lobster fishermen whose truck was burned at the Burnt
Church wharf. Later that day the large shed where he kept his
boat and fishing gear was vandalized by hooligans.
Mrs. Morrison had received death threats that day and had sought
police protection. The police refused to protect the family.
For doing the work of the RCMP of protecting his family and
property, police charged Leigh with three counts of assault.
Those who threatened the Morrison family were charged with break
and enter and intent to commit an indictable crime. Their
sentence, a conditional discharge and order to pay $1,200, was in
my view insufficient.
This violence against the Morrison family was fueled by a flawed
supreme court decision and the government's refusal to seek an
immediate stay and rehearing. This government, and not Leigh
Morrison, a fine and honourable man, should be on trial for
mishandling this critical issue.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
while the Canadian shipbuilding industry has been dying for the
past several years, we discover today in the National Post that
one of the Minister of Finance's companies is having two new
ships built in China at a total cost of $90 million.
This generous contract will expand the fleet of the Minister of
Finance, which already has in it a number of ships built outside
the country.
As if this were not enough, a number of ships belonging to the
Minister of Finance are registered abroad, a loophole enabling
the minister's companies to avoid income tax and payroll taxes.
A fine example set by a man who would be Prime Minister.
1415
One thing is sure: in the next elections, Quebec and Canadian
taxpayers will remember this Minister of Finance who taxes the
most disadvantaged and then saves several million dollars thanks
to a fleet of ships flying foreign flags.
Sail on, he who amasses millions of dollars. Sail on, until the
next election.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ATLANTIC CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister meets with
the Atlantic premiers today perhaps he could explain to them why
he is killing jobs in their provinces.
The Clarenville regional sportsplex was a $1.2 million election
time windfall in a Liberal member's riding in Newfoundland. The
ACOA grant was supposed to create 40 full time long term jobs.
Guess what? In two short years the centre drove a competing
restaurant right out of operation. It angered most of the other
business people in town. Now it is closed due to “mechanical
problems”, whatever that means.
Why are taxpayers on the hook for another Liberal boondoggle?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, why is the hon. member attacking the three Conservative
premiers in the Atlantic provinces? They are the ones who
invited the Prime Minister to take part in the trip to promote
trade with the Atlantic provinces. They said they were delighted
to have the Prime Minister go with them. They feel he is a real
plus.
I do not know why the hon. member is asking this question. That
is no way to get support for the alliance in the Atlantic
provinces, by attacking Conservative premiers.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, meanwhile back at Clarenville,
remember that the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister
responsible for ACOA were two guys who voted against ACOA when it
was brought in by the Tories. I am sure they had visions of this
sportsplex or something like it in mind when they did.
Bren Powers was the mastermind behind this particular scheme.
His longtime Liberal connections clearly paid off again; $1.2
million for a facility even though it drove competitors right out
of business and ended up crashing itself less then two years
after it opened.
Why is it that taxpayers should finance these boondoggles when
they help nobody but Liberals?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the official opposition does not
understand exactly what ACOA does. Since the Liberals took over
in 1993, ACOA only gives out loans and not grants in its core
funding. It is not the same.
This is what the official opposition said last time I mentioned
this. It said that a grant is like a loan. It is not. If it
were then we would have no national debt. We could just say all
those loans were grants. Maybe that is why they call themselves
the alliance party, the al-li-ance party.
The Speaker: Please be very judicious in our choice of
words, my colleagues.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for ACOA can
chuckle it up all he likes but he knows he was the very member
who called it the Atlantic Canada overblown agency. I would like
to know why he is defending it so much now. In fact, he forgot
to mention also in his discussion a few moments ago that it is
not a loan, it is a non-repayable loan. That to me equals a
grant in my thesaurus.
I again ask the minister, why is it when there is a Liberal in
need to win an election, we just cut the cheque when an election
is going on? Who cares if it drives another business out? Who
cares if the project will fail anyway? Why is it so important
for this government to pay bucks for ballots?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, that was an exact quote from
what I did say when I was in the opposition and the Tories ran
the ship. When the Liberals took over, the program was
completely revised.
There is a byelection going on in Newfoundland. That is why
there are these questions today. Imagine running being opposed
to ACOA, being opposed to direct transfers, being opposed to
everything and wanting to cut money from senior citizens grants.
What planks in a platform; in Newfoundland they are just plain
rotten.
1420
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, first it was the Tories and now it is the Liberals.
Nothing has really changed.
The government House leader, the heritage minister, the minister
of public works and the Deputy Prime Minister all voted against
the creation of ACOA. Even the minister who is now responsible
for that program mocked it when he was in opposition. Yet after
seven years in government, they are still writing ACOA cheques.
The minister claims that the program no longer hands out grants,
just non-repayable loans. In fact, ACOA handed out 123 grants
totalling more than $12 million in the past three years alone.
Maybe the minister can explain why taxpayers' money goes to job
killing projects.
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, when the Liberals
took over we changed the grants to loans. That was the first
thing we did. Why? Because the auditor general had pointed out
that was exactly what we should do. The second thing we did was
we put a limit on those loans. The limit today is $500,000. That
is why ACOA has a better record in Atlantic Canada in its program
than the chartered banks.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, of course the minister forgot to mention that there was
a 1997 election to win in the process.
This is not about creating jobs. In fact, the Clarenville
sportsplex killed lots of jobs. And it is not like the Liberals
believed in ACOA. They tried to stop its very creation. Even the
minister responsible for Shakespearian responses cannot hide the
fact that he himself condemned ACOA when in opposition.
Why can the Liberals not resist the siren song of patronage at
election time?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, regarding the so-called blip that the
official opposition refers to and the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation I think refers to which goes up in 1996 and 1997, the
figures for ACOA core funding actually went down. The blip was
caused by the TAGS program from the previous year.
The alliance party should align itself with some chartered
accountants.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Wednesday, the RCMP officer responsible for the criminal
investigation into the CINAR affair said that, if co-operation
between the RCMP and the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency did
not improve, his investigation would be compromised.
How can the Minister of National Revenue justify his
department's absence of co-operation, which will allow people who
may be guilty of fraud to get off scot-free?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, at the risk of
repeating myself, because this question is becoming a bit
redundant and I have told the House this several times, when a
question concerns a specific file, as the minister responsible
for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency I am unable to
comment.
As for the co-operation between the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency and the RCMP, I have always told the House that
co-operation between the two organizations was exceptional in all
files and that this co-operation must take place within the
framework of the Income Tax Act, which protects confidentiality.
Finally, I wish to draw to my colleague's attention the press
release—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw the House's attention to the statements of
the investigator in the CINAR affair. This person had the
courage to appear on television and say everything he did about
the absence of co-operation, despite the possibility of
reprisals.
I ask the minister how it is that there were memoranda of
understanding between the RCMP and Revenue Canada for certain
investigations but not in the case of CINAR?
Why are there no such MOUs in the case of CINAR? Who do they
want to protect? Who is hiding behind this whole business? Who
is the minister helping?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a bit sad to see the
opposition trying to make political hay of such important
matters as the confidentiality rules of the Income Tax Act.
I repeat: there is still good co-operation between the Canada
Customs and Revenue Agency and the RCMP.
Also, and this is important, the Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency has general authority for tax investigations in Canada
and only rarely do we turn to outside agencies.
1425
Finally, I would again like to draw the House's attention to the
press release issued by the RCMP last week, which speaks for
itself.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, according to RCMP Staff Sergeant Carrier, the best way
to ensure that the copyright fraud investigation can continue is
to make Revenue Canada a full partner with the RCMP in the CINAR
investigation.
How can the Minister of Revenue tell us that he is co-operating
with the RCMP, while at the same time refusing to enter into an
agreement with it, which would allow access to Revenue Canada
records?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my response will no doubt sound
redundant, but it is really the question that is, rather than
the response.
I cannot comment on a specific case, because of a fundamental
rule, the rule of confidentiality, which the government will
always protect and which all Canadian taxpayers wish to see
protected as well.
Second, in relation to this question, I have the impression that
those on the other side have not looked at the RCMP press release
of May 4, 2000. This press release states that there is a strong
collaborative relationship between the two organizations, that
the CCRA is co-operating with RCMP investigations according to
the provisions allowed by the law, and that the RCMP is following
the parameters—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister telling us that Canada's tax cheats are
protected from police investigations under the pretext of
confidentiality imposed by the Income Tax Act?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two elements
here.
What I explained to this House, and to all of the Canadian
public, is that there are two elements to this. The first is
that, on the one hand, we must protect the principle of
confidentiality.
The second is that, when there are problems relating to
taxation, investigations are carried out, very competently, by
CCRA officials. This is very simple.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is in Boston. The Atlantic premiers want to talk
health care but the Prime Minister wants to talk trade. So let us
talk trade, because it is the trade agreement signed by the
government that is triggered by Alberta's bill 11. The bill is
now in its final form, the government has had seven months to
study it and Canadians want an answer from the government. Will
the government finally acknowledge that bill 11 triggers NAFTA?
Yes or no?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have assured the House time and again that we will do what is
necessary to protect Canada's health care system. If and when
bill 11 is adopted and implemented by the Government of Alberta,
we will be vigilant to ensure as the Prime Minister has said that
the principles of the Canada Health Act are respected. As the
Minister for International Trade said last week in the House, we
will ensure that Canada's health care system remains its own
regardless of international agreements.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, back to
NAFTA, the health minister says that he has raised NAFTA concerns
with the province of Alberta. The trade minister says that there
are no NAFTA concerns to raise.
It is the federal government that is responsible for NAFTA, yet
it still appears to have no position. We are now days perhaps
hours away from the passage of bill 11. Why has the minister not
prepared a NAFTA response? When will the government come clean
on NAFTA?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister said last week clearly that NAFTA provides the
opportunity to Canada to protect its own health care system.
Indeed that is what we are doing.
In terms of the Canada Health Act the principles are there to be
respected. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if and when
the bill is adopted and implemented, we will monitor to ensure
that there is no threat to the principles of the Canada Health
Act.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, a report
obtained under the Access to Information Act confirms that the
chief of the defence staff visited Canadian troops in East Timor
and he had to be flown around in an Australian helicopter because
our Sea Kings were not safe enough to fly him. This is despite
the fact that the same helicopters have been used in theatre and
despite the minister's repeated assurances to the House that the
Sea Kings are safe.
Can the minister explain why the Sea Kings are safe for the
lower ranks but not for generals, not for ministers nor the Prime
Minister?
1430
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question.
I would point out, as the minister has mentioned on a number of
occasions, that the maritime helicopters project remains our top
priority in terms of materiel.
We are developing an appropriate
procurement strategy that will allow us to buy materiel that
meets our needs and to get the best value for money for
Canadians.
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
Thursday in the House the Minister of National Defence told the
House “We have a timeframe for replacement of the Sea King
helicopters”. He is talking about five more years down the
road, and we have already had people who have been flying those
helicopters and losing their lives.
On what date specifically along the minister's timeframe will
the government make a final announcement and call for industry
bids? Is it today, tomorrow or next week? When?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the
hon. member that we have—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Speaker: Order, please. We want to hear the hon.
parliamentary secretary's response.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: I want to tell the hon. member that, since
last year, an additional $50 million was provided, precisely to
deal with the Sea King helicopters.
As I mentioned in my first reply, we are making good progress
and things should be finalized very soon.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, completely contrary to the human
resources minister's claim of transparency, we keep finding
examples of her hiding information critical of her department.
The latest example is that six pages of an audit by a respected
accounting firm pointing to gross negligence by HRDC were
censored, taken right out before the report was released. How
can Canadians trust a minister who has been repeatedly discovered
hiding evidence of her failures?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the question of trust I would just
like to refer back to questions that were asked over and over in
the House by that party with regard to our six point plan last
week. I was perplexed at how they got all their facts so wrong,
but I discovered they had never even read the full and complete
action plan.
It was on Friday of last week that a senior researcher from that
party called and asked for a copy of the final report. They had
never read it. They had not listened to me in committee as early
as February 10. I must ask that party over there how the
Canadian public can have any confidence in the questions they
ask.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, considering that the entire report
was released to the HRDC committee weeks ago, I am not quite sure
why the minister thinks we have not read it. We have had it for
weeks and we have read it.
Here is what the minister tried to hide in the six pages that
she censored: HRDC paid claims without proper verification; its
contracts are vague and ambiguous; cash balances and expenses are
not monitored; financial statements are not reviewed regularly;
and, most serious of all, the law of the land, the Financial
Administration Act, was not upheld by the minister's department.
Is the minister surprised that she has a $1 billion boondoggle on
her hands?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in this particular regard the hon. member
is making reference to an audit of the Business Advisory Centre
of Hamilton-Wentworth.
It was the Department of Human Resources Canada, along with its
provincial and municipal partners, that decided to do the audit
of this sponsor. It is the department that discovered an
overpayment. It is also the department that got the money repaid
to the government. What more does the hon. member want?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, there is yet another case in the long list of
scandals at the Department of Human Resources Development.
A grant of over $700,000 was paid to a business, Modes Conili, to
create 160 jobs.
However, it appears that most of the jobs were simply
transferred from an existing business to Modes Conili.
1435
How can the minister justify the payment of a grant of over
$700,000 from the transitional jobs fund, when jobs were merely
transferred from one company to another?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that as a result of the
undertakings of the internal audit the department is looking at
all its grants and contributions.
It is clear that this department is taking very seriously our
role in ensuring that Canadians get the benefit of Canadian tax
dollars to make new jobs and to ensure that Canadians who need
help with literacy and young people to find employment get it. In
this particular case, if the hon. member wants to bring forward
details I will look at them.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, here are some details for the minister.
The contract signed between the department and Modes Conili
provides that no payment will be made for employees recruited
from another company for an equivalent position.
Can the minister explain why the contract was not respected?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into the
details of the particular case.
* * *
CIDA
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, according to a May 3 CSIS report the Federation of
Associations of Canadian Tamils is one of the more active
umbrella fronts for the Sri Lankan terrorist group, the Tamil
Tigers. Just three days after that report was released, the
finance minister and the minister for CIDA sat down for dinner
with this group.
Could the minister explain why she and the finance minister
attended a dinner last weekend for an organization which both the
U.S. state department and her own security agency have labelled a
terrorist front?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the ministers attended a cultural
event to celebrate the Tamil new year and to celebrate the
contributions of Canadians of Tamil origin to Canadian life, and
there are over 150,000 Canadians of Tamil origin.
Also attending that dinner were cabinet ministers from the
Harris government, Toronto city councillors, the mayor of
Mississauga and the managing editor of the Toronto Sun.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, that is nice but it is irrelevant. The point is that
the Prime Minister is on record as saying that those people who—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has
said on record that those who raise funds for these terrorist
groups are just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.
CSIS claims that Tamil Tigers are funded in part by supporters
in Canada who collect money by fundraising drives, front
businesses and criminal activity like extortion, drug smuggling,
and immigration and passport fraud. CSIS says that this
federation is a front for the Tamil Tigers. Why were the finance
minister and the minister for CIDA breaking bread—
The Speaker: The hon. minister responsible for CIDA.
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find this very offensive. I had dinner
with 600 law-abiding citizens and residents of Toronto. In my
speech that evening I said that I supported the Government of Sri
Lanka in negotiating a peaceful resolution to the conflict. I
said that I supported the Norway attempt at finding a peaceful
resolution, and I got a standing ovation.
The people who were in that room want peace to be negotiated in
their homeland. They were not there for any other reason.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the Modes
Conili file, Human Resources Development Canada continues to
collapse under its poor administration.
We are a long way from the few files and the $500 the Prime
Minister referred to in summarizing the scandal at Human
Resources Development Canada.
1440
I ask the minister: since she is carrying out audits in her
department on the Modes Conili file, would she not like to tell
us at the same time why her department paid out two grants, one
in 1997 and one in 1998, knowing full well that jobs were being
transferred from one company to another and not created?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): In fact, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that is not the
case. I am pleased to say that there were an expected 160
employees that were to be able to find work as a result of this
transitional jobs fund, and there are actually 162.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
got off to a better start earlier, was a bit more cautious,
saying “I will look into the details”. I would not want her to
answer today because she would put her foot in it again.
I would ask her simply is she could not at the same time check
in her department whether the person serving as intermediary
between her department and Modes Conili was not the same person
serving as intermediary in the file in which a business was
transferred from the riding of Rosemont to the riding of the
Prime Minister, a man working for a business called Golf and
Grants, in French, Golf et—
The Speaker: Minister of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have been advised in this case that
indeed there was a third party representation and jobs may have
been moved. An internal investigation was undertaken and this
was not confirmed. As such, the project has continued, and I say
again that 162 men and women are employed.
I would also remind the hon. member, as I always do, that in
this project it is not just the federal government that is a
partner but also the province of Quebec which supported this
project.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, 20 year old David Trott, described by
his stepfather as a dangerous loose cannon, a drug user with a
history of violent rampages including guns, stabbings, stealing
cars, police chases, assault and uttering threats, was released
on probation by Judge Susan Antifaev.
Pratt is now the prime suspect in the slaying of nine year old
Jessica Russell just two days after his irresponsible release
from jail.
Given the judge was made aware of Trott's psychological and
psychiatric background, will the Minister of Justice intercede
with the Attorney General of British Columbia and have Judge
Antifaev suspended pending an investigation of the judge's
irresponsible decision?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very
tragic and sad situation. It is also a matter that I think is
better taken up by the Attorney General of British Columbia. If
the Attorney General of British Columbia wishes to speak to me
about this or any other matter, I am happy to do so.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Attorney General of
British Columbia would like to see some leadership from the
Minister of Justice for Canada.
This is a very serious issue. Nothing will bring Jessica
Russell back, but the minister should show leadership by speaking
to the Attorney General of British Columbia and letting him know
that people in the Parliament of Canada are very upset with this
terrible crime. We cannot have judges treating criminals as more
important than common people in society. This judge messed up
and the provincial government—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever
that the Attorney General of British Columbia is as concerned
about this matter as all Canadians.
As I have said already, I think that if the Attorney General of
British Columbia for any reason wants to speak to me about this
situation or any other I will be happy to speak to him.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the Placeteco affair, the minister's entire defence relies on
the existence of the supposed invoices.
My question is a very simple one. Where are the invoices? We
want to see them.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc has made an
access to information request in this regard. I think we would
all agree that the responsible approach when we are dealing with
individual information on Canadians or Canadian companies is to
use that process.
I am glad to see that they have made the request, and I am sure
all information that can be made public will be made public.
* * *
1445
HEALTH
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
year Health Canada released a research plan for marijuana for
medicinal purposes. It made clear that a made in Canada policy
for the medicinal use of marijuana would require the
establishment of a domestic source of quality, research grade
marijuana.
Could the Minister of Health advise the House what is going
forward with this plan and how far we have come?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member for London West has been among the most outspoken in
the change of government policy which has led to making medical
marijuana available on a compassionate basis for those who are
very ill.
I am pleased to announce that last Friday there was a request
for a proposal for quality research grade, affordable, medical
marijuana, a safe and lawful source for those with exemptions and
a real help with the clinical research we will be undertaking.
* * *
LOBBYIST REGISTRATION ACT
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
It seems that a Liberal lobbyist has found the road to his own
personal gold mine in the minister's riding. Rick Smit, the
former president of the minister's riding association, has been
lobbying outside the law to get the government to pay for a $3.5
million mining road in the minister's riding.
Mr. Smit has failed to register as a lobbyist as required by
law. This is not the first time that laws have been bent or
broken in the minister's riding.
Why do federal laws apply to all Canadians except friends and
insiders of this Liberal government?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Lobbyists Registration Act applies to to all
Canadians. The matter has been raised and it will be
investigated by the ethics counsellor.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
that was a good non-answer.
It is really interesting to note that in the minister's riding
alone, 18 companies and businessmen, who were the recipients of
millions of dollars in HRDC grants, donated more than $16,000 to
the minister's personal re-election campaign in 1997.
How much money will Mr. Smit donate to the minister's next
election campaign? Does—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question is out of order.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime
Minister who will be aware that last week Statistics Canada
released a study revealing a significant increase in foreign
ownership and foreign control of our economy over the past 10
years. He will also recognize that the trend continues and,
with our low dollar, it is in fact accelerating.
Canada now has one of the highest levels of foreign ownership in
the OECD. As research and development and top executives
transfer to corporate headquarters in United States, at what
point will the government intervene and say that enough is enough
and call for a national debate on this very crucial issue?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we can have a national debate at any time. The real
point is that what we see in those numbers is a continuing global
trend. Not only are there more international acquisitions of
Canadian companies but more than ever Canadians are acquiring
interests abroad.
For the last several years, as a real measure of its maturity as
an economy, Canada has been an exporter rather than an importer
of capital as more Canadian investment has flowed out than
foreign investment has flowed in. That is an example of the fact
that Canada is very much in the forefront of globalizing trends.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is a small difference. When
Canadian investment goes into the United States it is like a
pebble going into a pond. When American investments come into
Canada it is like an avalanche of boulders coming into our
country.
The difference today is that now CEOs of major corporations are
indicating their concerns. Peter Lougheed, the CEO of Manulife,
Willard Estey and many others are now saying that this has
reached significant proportions and some action is now required.
Will the Minister of Industry at least join with his corporate
colleagues and say that enough is enough and initiate a national
debate on this very crucial issue?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sure the member from Kamloops is glad to have found
something upon which he agrees with those individuals he
mentioned.
In the meantime, let us think about some of the things that have
happened over the last few years. Nortel acquired Bay Networks.
Now, there is a pebble. As a result, in the last few weeks a
Canadian company was named by a British research organization as
the world's top multinational corporation.
That is what Canada can benefit from. Yes, there are reasons for
us to be concerned but it also provides an amazing opportunity
for Canada to succeed.
* * *
1450
NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
I recently had the opportunity to view some federal documents
obtained under the Access to Information Act. In these documents
the federal government is estimating that between now and the
year 2020, Newfoundland's electrical needs will only grow by
seven-tenths of 1% per year.
Is the minister saying that the federal government has written
off the possibility of a smelter being built in Newfoundland at
Argentia, a smelter to process ore from the Voisey's Bay nickel
mine?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member would know, matters relating to the
ownership and management of resources, such as this one, are
matters that are entirely within the prerogative of the
provincial government. It is up to the province as the owner of
the resource to work out the appropriate arrangements with the
developers of the resource.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
these are federal forecasts. These are documents obtained under
access to information from the federal government.
The minister knows that a nickel smelter would be a heavy
consumer of electricity and that should figure prominently in
electrical demand forecasts.
Is the minister saying that the ore from Voisey's Bay would best
be smelted at facilities already located on the mainland of
Canada?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again, the hon. gentleman is inviting the federal
government to intervene in a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
It is entirely within the prerogative of a provincial government
as the owner of the resource to work out the arrangements with
the potential developers of the resource. The Government of
Canada cannot intervene in that situation.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
There are reports today of demonstrators being killed and
wounded in the streets of Freetown, Sierra Leone while hundreds
of UN peacekeepers are being held hostage by RUF rebels.
Can the minister tell the House what the government is doing in
response to this very serious deterioration in the security
situation of this West African country?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to report that for Canadians in Sierra
Leone we have made co-operative consul arrangements to ensure
their safety and security.
On the broader issue, just having been in that country a week
ago, I can report that valiant efforts were being made to secure
the situation, to help children and to move toward elections but
these efforts were wilfully being broken by rebel units.
Canada is now working actively at the Security Council and in
other fora directly with other countries to see how we can
provide serious options to ensure that the UN mandate to keep the
peace and protect the people is maintained.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I can appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is unable to find
the words that would reflect the government's inaction regarding
the replacement of Sea King helicopters.
We heard again today empty assurances that the defence minister
will replace the ageing Sea Kings. There are no deadlines and no
timelines. It has been seven years.
How much longer will Canadian military personnel have to bum
rides from our allies to get the job done?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I assure my hon.
colleague that the minister has stood in the House and said that
we would have replacements for the helicopters by the year 2005.
I want to go back to why the CDS had to take another helicopter.
It had nothing to do with mechanical problems on the Sea King
helicopters. It was purely weather and operational
considerations. I hope the member takes that into consideration.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the plans
for reorganization of the federal Department of Health, released
this past April 17, there are no specific provisions
guaranteeing the safety of genetically modified foods?
Despite the crying lack for expertise relating to GMOs, the
Deputy Minister of Health has announced federal government plans
to approve 500 new GMOs over the next five years.
1455
How can the Minister of Health plan to approve more than 500 new
genetically modified products when his own department does not
have the capacity to guarantee the safety of GMOs?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
genetically modified foods must be submitted to Health Canada
for evaluation and determination of whether they are as safe as
other foods available in Canada.
As well, Health Canada has struck a committee of experts to
examine Health Canada regulations in order to ensure that we are
acting in an appropriate manner.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the government has moved closure on Bill C-11 denying many mining
communities in Cape Breton hope, but there is another group of
Cape Bretoners looking for a hopeful sign from the government.
On Friday, Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians and
Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club launched their book,
Frederick Street: Living and Dying on Canada's Love Canal.
It is a condemnation of government inaction on this national
environmental disgrace.
Will the Minister of the Environment show some leadership here?
Will he explain where this is on his list of priorities and what
he might do in the future?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as the member should be aware, but apparently is
not, there is a citizens' group of the local residents that is
working to put together the plan for dealing with the Sydney tar
ponds problem. The problem is very serious. There are health
risks. It is perhaps the most polluted single site in Canada.
However, I do not think it is appropriate for me to step in and
overrule the work being done by the citizens' group. We tried
before to interfere and impose a solution, first in Ottawa, then
in Halifax and then both together. None of those efforts worked
despite the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars.
This time we want the local people to agree that they have the
right solution.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The minister is aware that certain rural areas, such as the
counties of Albert, Petitcodiac, Hillsborough and Salisbury, are
part of an urban economic zone, when they are in fact rural
communities with high rates of unemployment.
Will the minister tell the House when she is going to begin the
process of consulting members with a view to redefining economic
zones? I remind the minister that workers need an answer before
next fall.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that by
statute every five years the Employment Insurance Commission must
review the economic zones, the data from which are used to
establish employment insurance benefits. This process is
underway.
I am hopeful that in the very near future the proposals of the
Employment Insurance Commission will be made public so that the
MPs can review them and other Canadians can comment on them.
* * *
YOUTH
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
past weekend marked the beginning of International Youth Week.
What is the Minister of Human Resources Development doing to help
Canada's youth get the experience necessary so they can find
decent and meaningful jobs.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to tell all
members of parliament that this is indeed International Youth
Week. We should thank the youth action network for preparing
opportunities for all of us to celebrate our very important human
resource, our Canadian youth.
What is also interesting is that for the 32nd year in a row
Human Resources Development Canada will, in this timeframe, be
opening the centres for Canadian youth. This is where we have
youth advisers working with their counterparts, young people, to
find very often that very important first job. They connect
employers with employees.
We anticipate over 400,000 young people to go through these
centres. I would also note that as a result of our Canada youth
strategy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it seems every time the minister is asked about the Sea
King replacements he says that the decision is coming soon. Those
words are beginning to ring hollow. In fact they have been
ringing hollow for seven years now and with this particular
minister three years and we still do not have any Sea King
replacements.
The truth of the matter is that this government has politicized
the procurement process and has paid no attention to the needs of
the military.
How much more embarrassment and unnecessary danger must our
armed forces endure before the government acts to replace the Sea
King helicopters?
1500
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I told the member
earlier, the file is proceeding very well. However, we must look
at the whole picture.
[English]
We have bought new equipment for our Canadian armed forces. We
have got new Cormorant helicopters for search and rescue. We
have got submarines. We have got the Coyote reconnaissance
vehicle.
I would like to add as a final comment that this is the party
that was going to cut $1 billion from the defence budget.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 41
petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present this petition from numerous people in Peterborough and
elsewhere who point out that family life is becoming more
complex, that the breakdown of marriage is producing more complex
family arrangements, that the role of grandparents is becoming
more, not less, important in modern times, and that whereas some
parents are moving to strengthen the legal position of
grandparents, some other grandparents are denied access to
grandchildren due to death or divorce.
Therefore, these petitioners call upon parliament to grant
through legislation visitation rights to grandparents and use its
power and influence to strengthen the position of grandparents so
that they can help children in need.
1505
NATUROPATHIC PRACTITIONERS
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today
and present on behalf of 275 constituents both in my riding and
across Vancouver Island a petition which says that many people
receive health benefits from naturopathic practitioners and
medicines. The petitioners believe these people are basically
discriminated against and while they save the government a lot of
money, these people must also be financially responsible for
their own medical expenses.
The petitioners request that parliament pass some kind of
legislation recognizing naturopathic practitioners as equal to
members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. It is
my pleasure to present this petition on the petitioners' behalf.
[Translation]
MARRIAGE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to table a petition from
the residents of my riding on the retention of the definition of
marriage and recognition of the unique status of the institution
of marriage.
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and indeed an honour to
stand pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a huge petition on
behalf of the residents of Blue River, Vavenby, Little Fort,
Birch Island, Avola, Clearwater, Barriére, Knouff Lake, Paul
Lake, Pinantan, Valemount, Whitecroft and many of the smaller
communities of the North Thompson Valley as well. The petition
contains literally thousands and thousands of signatures.
The petitioners point out their concern about the Canadian tax
system, feel it is unjust and unfair. The petitioners feel that
it is biased and discriminatory and ask for a complete overhaul
of our tax system. There is much more in this petition but I
will not read some of the finer details.
[Translation]
AIR TRAFFIC
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the residents of Notre-Dame-de-l'Île-Perrot in my riding,
I would like to present a petition.
These people are complaining about all the planes that fly over
their houses, some times at about one in the morning, and others
after six in the morning. The petitioners would like these
planes to change their flight path so as not to disturb the
peace of the residents of this municipality.
[English]
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to present petitions from Canadians who are
very concerned about the fact that one in five Canadian children
lives in poverty. The petitioners want to draw attention to the
fact and remind us that in 1989 the House of Commons passed a
unanimous resolution to eliminate child poverty. The petitioners
urge parliament to fulfill its promise and to end child poverty
in this coming budget.
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
also pleased to present petitions from people who are very
concerned about homelessness and the lack of adequate, safe,
affordable housing in this country. These are petitioners from
right across the country who support the campaign for 1% for
housing and call on the government to commit an additional 1% of
the federal budget to meet the most basic human need in Canada.
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
also have petitions that I would like to table from Canadians who
are very concerned about the World Trade Organization, what it is
doing to our sovereignty and the fact that it is giving more and
more power to multinational corporations. The petitioners call
on parliament to ensure that there are binding and enforceable
rules to protect human rights, core labour standards and cultural
diversity, our education and our environment.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Nos. Q-91 and Q-98.
.[Text]
Question No. 91—Mr. Svend J. Robinson:
With respect to the APEC summit of 1997 in Vancouver: (a) did
the Prime Minister discuss security arrangements with then
director od operations Jean Carle either prior to or during the
summit; and (b) was the Prime Minister aware of Mr. Carle's
plans to displace security barriers in order to avoid
embarrassment to visiting heads of state?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Commissioner Hughes made it very clear in a written
ruling on whether to call the Prime Minister to appear as a
witness before the APEC inquiry that “the simple fact of the
matter is that evidence produced to date regarding the alleged
involvement of the Prime Minister in the RCMP security operations
does not indicate that his testimony is `requisite to the full
investigation and consideration' of the matters currently before
me”.
The commissioner also wrote in this ruling, after hearing more
that 130 days of evidence, including from two senior officials
from the Prime Minister's Office and a number of senior RCMP
officers, that he “cannot see that the voluminous evidence
produced to date points to or suggests that the Prime Minister
may have given improper orders or directions to RCMP members
respecting security at the APEC conference.
Any further comment on matters before Commissioner Hughes would
be inappropriate. A responsible process is in place and should be
allowed to complete its work.
Question No. 98—Ms. Pauline Picard:
With regard to the former program for older worker adjustment,
could the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate: (a)
which measures or actions were taken between 1996 and 1998
inclusively to establish a strategy for older workers; (b) what
are the parameters of this type of pilot project and the
eligibility criteria; (c) what projects are currently part of
these pilot projects and what are their parameters; (d) what
are the passive measures, such as income support measures,
currently under study and are these measures eligible through the
pilot projects announced in 1999; (e) what type of pilot
project could be eligible in the case of Celanese employees,
including income support measures; (f) what are the procedures
to propose the said project?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): (a) The Government of Canada is aware of the special
difficulties experienced by older workers in the labour market.
The Government of Canada takes seriously its responsibilities
toward older workers and is taking action on several fronts.
(1) First, concern for older workers has been frequently raised
in the federal-provincial arena. At the 1998 annual premiers
conference, premiers agreed that “the situation of older workers
should be addressed”.
The Forum of Labour Market Ministers, FLMM, established an ad
hoc working group on older workers composed of representatives
from the Government of Canada and from provinces and territories
in December 1998. Quebec and Canada co-chair the ad hoc working
group.
This ad hoc working group on older workers is responsible for
developing a diagnostic of labour market adjustment issues faced
by older workers, including issues specific to each
province-territory. The ad hoc working group also co-ordinates
pilot projects.
(2) Second, the Governnent of Canada underscored its commitment
to assist older workers who lose their jobs and have a difficult
time finding new employment by announcing the older worker pilot
project initiative on June 18, 1999.
The Government of Canada committed $30 million over two fiscal
years, 1999-2000 and 2000-01, to held older Canadians who want
to stay in the workforce but who are facing difficulties. This
money has subsequently been reprofiled to accommodate
provincial-territorial starting dates.
At the Forum of Labour Market Ministers meeting on September 30,
1999, ministers agreed to put in place pilot projects to assist
older workers to get back into the labour force.
The older worker pilot project initiative is a partnership
approach between the Government of Canada and the
provinces-territories in searching for innovative approaches to
assist older workers.
(b)The parameters and key features of the older worker pilot
projects initiative include the following: test innovative
measures designed to reintegrate displaced older workers aged 55
to 64 who have an attachment to the labour force or older workers
threatend with displacement into sustainable employment; focus on
active measures; a variety of approaches designed to meet older
workers specific labour market needs, to be tested: awareness,
promotion, prevention, adjustment, and labour force
participation; and that all pilots will be evaluated.
Pilot projects will be developed and implemented by provinces
and territories expressing interest in participating in the
initiative. Participating provinces and territories will also
commit resources to the pilots. Projects will not duplicate or
overlap existing federal or provincial employment programming.
(c) Currently, as of April 14, 2000, several jurisdictions have
entered into negotiations with the federal government. However,
jurisdictions vary widely in terms of where they are at with
developing their pilot projects. Some provinces are still
fleshing out ideas they have for pilots. Some provinces have
developed their proposals and have submitted them for review,
while still others are close to finalizing their agreements. It
is anticipated that jurisdictions close to finalizing their
agreements will be able to undertake their pilots in the near
future.
The parameters of all proposals are to fall within the
guidelines described in the key features. See answer to part (b).
(d) The Government of Canada is not currently studying passive
measures such as income support measures.
The Government of Canada has been adopting active employment
measures in assisting Canadians. The older worker pilot project
initiative is designed to assist older workers experiencing a
difficult time to find new employment. This initiative is intended
to actively assist older workers back into the labour force. See
answer to part (b) for details. Passive income supports are not
featured in the older worker pilot projects.
(e) Pilot projects will be developed and implemented by provinces
and territories. Projects that are proposed by the Quebec
government, once approved that they adhere to the key features
developed by all jurisdictions, would be available to older
workers in Quebec that are interested in participating. Potential
candidates could express their interest to the appropriate
representative in their jurisdiction.
(f) The province is responsible for proposing and seeing the
pilots implemented. The procedures to propose the projects have
been described above. See answer to part (b).
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, an
act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to
dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee; of the amendment and of the amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-11 which relates to the
sale and dissolution of assets of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
1510
I wish today that I could say that it was my pleasure to rise to
speak on this motion, but it is really not so. This motion
really sounds the death knell for the jobs of many people in the
community of Sydney in Cape Breton. It is never a pleasure to
talk about that. Also, today the government introduced closure
on this debate. It is never a pleasure to rise to talk about
that and to talk in circumstances where the government has put us
under the gun for the 65th time in this parliament.
My colleagues in the NDP caucus have detailed the situation in
Cape Breton. I am not going into that in much detail. They
talked about the history of mining there. They talked about the
importance of mining to the local economy and to the provincial
economy. They talked in some detail about the sordid history of
how the government conducted itself in putting these mines and
assets up for sale. On one hand the government wants to walk
away from its responsibility of many years and sell off these
mines to the private sector. On the other hand the government
wants to do so in a way which does not fairly compensate the
people who have worked in those mines for many years.
As a member for a constituency in Saskatchewan in the prairies
and parklands area, I have not followed this debate perhaps as
closely as I might have if it were grain transportation or the
wheat board. I have left much of the heavy lifting to my
colleagues in the NDP caucus, particularly those from Cape
Breton. They have done a fine job of bringing the situation to
light, holding the government's feet to the fire and standing
shoulder to shoulder with the workers in the mines in Cape
Breton.
Upon closer examination recently, I was actually shocked at what
the government has done and what we often call the process. The
process is often as important as the results.
Let us talk a bit about what happened. One of my colleagues has
described what the government announced in January 1999 as a
drive-by announcement, saying it was getting out of the coal
business and closing the Phalen mine by the end of 2000 and
beginning a process to sell the Prince mine as well.
My colleague from Sydney—Victoria made a convincing argument
that the federal government already knew what it was going to do
in 1995. It might well have delayed its announcement because of
an impending election in 1997, but it knew what it was going to
do. It had all sorts of time to consult with the community rather
than engage in what my colleague called a drive-by announcement
which pretty well took everybody by surprise.
Clearly, the government's severance and training support package
is inadequate. The economic development package that came along
with it which is in some way supposed to make up for the loss is
inadequate. It was put together without consultation with the
stakeholders despite the fact that the government said after the
fact that it was going to do that. In fact, it appeared that the
Minister of Natural Resources was not interested in meeting with
the miners or with people in the community.
Let me briefly review, after about a year of frustration, what
happened so that things could finally start to move a little.
Last December there was a shutdown of the Phalen colliery. This
resulted in a protest. A little later on in January there were
wildcat strikes. The miners had finally had enough. They
stopped operations and blocked coal shipments to Nova Scotia
Power.
On January 8 several miners went underground and stayed there.
It took that for the Minister of Natural Resources to start
meeting with these people and getting serious about negotiations.
That was more than a year after the announcement that the mine
was going to be sold. We can imagine and understand why people
in Cape Breton were so frustrated. It was that kind of heroic
action that finally forced the minister to begin negotiating a
pension settlement and agree to go to binding arbitration in the
case of conflicts. It was said across the floor this morning
that they had gone to binding arbitration. Yes, they did after
the miners sat in, stayed in the mines and said they were not
coming out.
I want to move on to something that I find particularly
disturbing. I am going to focus my remarks for the last few
minutes on this. Late in January this year reports surfaced that
Canada Steamship Lines was hauling coal from Colombia and the
United States to Cape Breton and that it was interested in
Devco's assets. People in the House and in the country will be
familiar with the owner of that company, a rather high ranking
person in the House.
1515
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Ask the Minister of Finance why.
Mr. Dennis Gruending: That is true.
I want to talk a bit about the fact that coal from Colombia is
coming into Cape Breton. If we are importing coal, what about
the mine in Cape Breton which has not yet been mined out and
could produce a lot of coal, the Donkin mine which is shut in?
Canada Steamship Lines is delivering coal to Nova Scotia Power
from Colombia. I have two things to say about that. Let us talk
about the Colombian side of it first.
Last weekend the leader of a miners union in Colombia, Francisco
Ramirez Cuellar, the president of Sindicato de Trabajadores de la
Empresa Nacional Minera, was in Canada meeting with our party and
the labour movement. He told us about the coal coming in from
Colombia. He told us that coal miners in Colombia earn wages as
low as one-tenth of what coal miners in Canada earn. He talked
about Colombia's environmental protection laws which if they
exist at all are not enforced in the coal mining industry. He
talked about the labour which is used. The equipment is very old
so people have to work very hard under very unsafe working
conditions, which many of us simply could not think of working
under. We take safety for granted.
As a result of all this, Colombia can sell coal at about half
the price of what it is produced for in Canada. That is one
thing. The conditions under which coal is mined in Colombia
would make it rather attractive for a company which is going to
buy the Devco assets but which would not mine the coal nor
produce jobs in Cape Breton, to import the coal mined by people
who earn effectively starvation wages. It gets worse. We were
told that 80% of the union leaders assassinated in the world each
year are Colombian union leaders. Government sponsored
paramilitary squads frequently displace workers who continue to
express an interest in organizing.
The situation here is that the Devco assets are up for sale by
the government. There may be a company which is going to
purchase those assets, but there is no guarantee that hole is
going to be mined in Cape Breton. We may well see a further
devastation of the coal mining industry in that province. Why?
So that a private company which buys the assets from the
government can simply purchase coal offshore to supply Nova
Scotia Power.
This is the kind of thing which has not received the attention
it deserves because the government has not been interested in
having a full scale inquiry into what is happening. Rather, it
has tried to write very circumscribed legislation and push it
through the House as quickly as possible into committee where we
would look at the legislation it has written but not at the wider
context of what has happened and what is happening in Cape
Breton. When I talk about the wider context, an example is what
I have just been speaking about, Colombia.
It has been the contention of our caucus, ably represented by
the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria and others in Cape Breton
and Nova Scotia, that we should have a real inquiry and a real
look at this industry. We are extremely disappointed that has
not happened. We are even more disappointed that the government,
rather than have this issue debated fully, has moved closure for
the 65th time in this parliament.
The coal mining industry has had a long and illustrious history
in Cape Breton. There is a lot at stake here, people's jobs,
their lives, their dignity, the health of their communities. The
government has not consulted with them although it said it would.
It has manipulated people and the process aimed at dissolution
and divestiture.
This is why the NDP caucus is so opposed to closure and to what
the government is doing. That is why we feel so strongly that
the situation has to be studied. This goes beyond the rather
narrow confines of the bill as the government has outlined it.
1520
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned 65 times for closure in
regard to different bills is getting beyond the point of being
ridiculous. Anyhow we are here to discuss Bill C-11 and the
impact it will have on the eastern part of Canada.
This is the government's latest attempt to ruin the economy of
Canada's east coast, especially Cape Breton. Let it be clear
that I am not in favour of government running much of anything,
especially a mining company. This has been proven time after
time after time by the utter failure in results when government
gets involved in things.
The Prime Minister's latest so-called success story is to travel
there to announce the creation of a new call centre. Does he
seriously believe it makes good use of the talents and skills of
Canadians and of the natural resource of coal to ask the miners
of Cape Breton to become telephone operators? Or should the
miners sit at home and let their wives earn the family bread and
butter? These are some of the questions that are being asked down
there.
Since I first came here in 1993 when the constituents of
Okanagan—Shuswap sent me to Ottawa, delegations from Cape Breton
have been asking parliament to do something to save the coal
mining industry. Studies show there is plenty of coal in the
ground. The location and facilities on hand for export are
great. Skilled workers are on hand. There is a long tradition
of mining coal and a fully developed community infrastructure.
The only thing B.C. had for its northeast coal was the coal
itself hundreds of miles from the coast, but B.C. has been
exporting to Japan. It built the infrastructure from scratch and
had to convince workers and families to move there. Cape Breton
had all of that but government has done such a poor job of
managing the mines that the taxpayers have been on the hook.
I want to talk about that just for a second. Let us look at the
money that has been poured into Devco. The miners have not seen
any result of that. The mine is being shut down. Taxpayers and
members in the House of Commons would like to know what happened
to all of the funds and what is happening to all of the assets.
Let us have a public inquiry. Let us see where the money has been
going. Let us see who has really benefited. Let us find out to
whom they are related. Let us find out what has been going on at
Devco because for sure the miners have not been getting it.
The Senate has held hearings and studies have been done but the
government has ignored the most basic thing, running the business
well. Even excellent businessmen have a tough time with today's
high payroll taxes and red tape business climate in Canada.
The government decided to appoint its own mismanagement team and
had that team send one year plans and five year plans to Ottawa
for approval. In some of its decisions, despite building great
port facilities and having a unique location beside the ocean, it
chose to abandon all foreign markets. Let us look at it. We
spend years to develop foreign markets for customers. When a
conscious decision is made, as the people the government
appointed to run Devco made, to let the foreign markets go, to
let those markets slide and not care, the markets turn away. When
we go back to them, those markets have already found other
countries that will supply the coal that we denied them. Try to
get those markets back. That is not the fault of the miners; it
is the fault of those the government put in charge.
For example, union representatives went along with management to
visit Mexico. The united mine workers promised there would be no
work stoppage if Mexico would buy Cape Breton coal. Mexico
signed on but the government team signed off. Union workers even
agreed to take significantly less than standard coal mining
wages. It is a tough, dirty, dangerous job but they agreed to
take lower wages to ensure our coal could compete and the
community could keep the jobs.
With regard to Devco, I have never seen management-labour
relations so bad. In fact, they are the worst I have seen.
Devco even refused to show the union its books to work out
acceptable contracts.
1525
I have to admit on some grounds the work was tough. They had
problems in some spots, particularly in the hanging wall, the
roof of the tunnel. They kept shutting down time and again. It
was run so badly they finally had to eliminate all customers
except Nova Scotia Power.
The supply of coal got so low that Devco agreed to allow
American coal to be imported directly by Nova Scotia Power. It
was raised already in the House, but I really have to wonder when
we have the coal and can supply the coal but somebody makes the
decision that we have to import the coal, we have to look at who
is involved and how much money is involved in the transportation
of the coal. We know it is not from people in Canada. We know
the coal is coming in from offshore so we have to stop and think
who would haul that coal for Canada.
An hon. member: The NHL?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: No, it is a shipping firm.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Is it CSL?
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yeah, it would be CSL. That is held
by, what is his name?
An hon. member: The finance minister of the Liberal
government.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes, the finance minister of the
Liberal government.
Naturally, being nice, honest and hardworking people, I have to
wonder when we talk about job creation and helping out the miners
just exactly what the government has been doing. I would say
that it certainly gave the miners the shaft while it closed the
mine down. That would be my way of looking at it. I do not
think I am wrong but I am willing to accept that maybe I am.
Meanwhile out in Alberta, to comply with the government's
promises made at Kyoto, Japan without adequate consultation with
business and industry here at home, at least some great
experiments are being done to reduce carbon dioxide from burning
fossil fuels. In Alberta technology has been invented that can
actually bury carbon dioxide in the coal seams so that for every
molecule of carbon dioxide taken out in order to clean up our
air, we get back two molecules of usable methane gas. Experts
predict this will allow Alberta to bury, they call it sequester,
all carbon dioxide from all the coal they export and expect to
burn in their coal fired power plants in the next 500 years and
make money while doing it.
Where is the new technology for coal back east? Instead of
technology it brings in call centres. I go back to what I
originally said. The government is trying to force the miners of
Cape Breton to become telephone operators. I have to wonder
exactly where the government got the brilliant idea to go this
route.
Eventually the government got the brilliant idea to privatize
the coal mining operations. Would we not expect the
privatization to be completed before it did a shutdown, before
the workers left because they lost hope of making a future for
themselves and their families in that part of Canada, before they
gave up their foreign markets? That was so tough to get in the
first place but the government gave it away lock, stock and
barrel. Here we are today looking at Bill C-11 which is trying to
get the government off the hook after so many years of
mismanaging one of the country's greatest natural resources, the
coal of Cape Breton.
Men who went down to the mines as teenagers still do not have
enough years of service combined with their ages to qualify for
any pension under the plan because they are still too young.
These men are supposed to be retrained. Maybe they will become
telephone operators at the Prime Minister's new call centre but I
doubt it.
Maybe the Liberals will move in some other centre, like New
Brunswick's role as the registration centre for all Canadian
firearms, and the Prime Minister can turn Cape Breton coal miners
into federal bureaucrats. Maybe that is the game plan, I do not
know.
1530
Before I close I would like to quote Mr. Murphy:
We feel that handing off of the Nova Scotia Power Inc. supply
contract to foreign suppliers is an unacceptable situation. We
decided back in May to do something about it by forming a
worker's co-op and submitting the bid for the Devco assets
through the Nesbitt Burns process. Our bid was rejected, as was
a bid put forward by Donkin Resource Limited, which is determined
to press on with opening the Donkin Mine with the support of the
community and groups such as our co-op, which is ready to invest
in the project to ensure that at least some of NFPI coal is
supplied by Cape Bretoners.
Mr. Murphy also goes on to question why the federal government
would rather hand over a lucrative contract to a foreign company
when the coal could be supplied locally. That is the question.
Why would the government do it, unless there is something for
somebody else's pocket?
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11. When I spoke to
the bill originally I said that it was a day of shame in the
House, that the Liberal government should be ashamed because it
had betrayed the legacy of Lester Pearson. I say today that
Lester Pearson would be shamed again, as the government closes
down debate on the issue and forces it through the House of
Commons without appropriate debate.
It is a legacy. The Liberals who are watching the debate today
and those who will be reading Hansard should write to their
members of parliament and to their party presidents to ask what
happened to what was once a democratic party.
Let me talk a bit about the agreement because that is the
substance of the debate. Why should this matter not be voted
upon but go to a special committee or to the human resources
committee? Let me begin by explaining what the negotiation
process was.
I would like to explain the process, but first I suggest that I
do not think we have quorum in the House. I would ask you, Mr.
Speaker, to call in a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I am surprised the minister
responsible for ACOA did not rush to his seat to hear what I have
to say when he saw me on the television screen,
Let us look at the agreement. Members on the other side of the
House will say that is there is a fair and final settlement for
the workers at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. There is
a history of some fair settlements for crown corporation workers
as crown corporations have been folded by the government. Let us
look at what happened in some of those cases and compare them to
the workers at the Cape Breton Development Corporation to see if
in fact it is a fair agreement.
Let us start with how this crown corporation was wound down. The
Minister of Natural Resources came to Cape Breton in January. He
walked into the Delta Hotel and basically said that it was the
end of the process, that they were getting out of the coal
industry and would have some consultations that would last for
about a week or two.
When Marine Atlantic was folded as a crown corporation there was
a special workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between
the unions and Marine Atlantic. When portions of CN were folded
as a crown corporation there was a special workforce
restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions and CN.
When VIA Rail was folded as a crown corporation there was special
workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions
and VIA Rail. When Transport Canada's work was taken over by Nav
Canada there was a special workforce restructuring agreement
negotiated between the unions and the corporation.
Why not for the Cape Breton Development Corporation? Why not
for the miners of Cape Breton? Why was the same negotiation
process not used for those workers when there is a precedent?
Let us look at some of the other comparisons. I have already
mentioned in my questions today the extension of medical benefits
and what was provided to other employees of crown corporations
and has been denied the miners of Cape Breton.
1535
Let us look at the education allowance. In many situations when
crown corporations were shut down the employees were entitled to
an education allowance. For VIA Rail the corporation paid up to
$4,000 in tuition to a recognized institution. The employees
could receive up to 90% of their salary and full benefits for 24
months. They also received a relocation allowance.
The miners in Cape Breton will get $8,000 if they do not get a
pension. That is both their relocation amount and their training
amount, $8,000 to go and find a place to live in another part of
the country if they are lucky enough to get a job mining or to go
back to school. I do not know what kind of retraining that will
pay for in this economy, but I can indicate to the House that it
will not be retraining that will provide a job.
In the early retirement plans again there was discrimination
against the people who worked in the mines in Cape Breton. At
VIA Rail there was a transition retirement for eligible employees
with five years early retirement. The employees were eligible
for benefits of between 90% and 70% of wages. There is no such
consideration for Devco.
Home purchase plans were provided to employees of other crown
corporations, not provided to the miners in Cape Breton. Special
termination incentives were provide to other crown corporation
employees, not provided in Cape Breton. The list goes on and on.
Those are some of the reasons we think that if the government
were fair, and that is all we are asking, it would look at what
it has done in other situations. It would look at precedent. One
of my colleagues across the way who is a lawyer and knows about
precedent should know that there is nothing wrong with looking at
other crown corporation agreements and applying them in the same
case. He knows that from his law school days.
Let us look at why the government is in such a rush to push this
matter through. We have until December 2000 before the
government withdraws. I will tell the House why it is in such a
rush. I think it is because it has a foreign buyer. I am not a
young man. I am in my forties.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Peter Mancini: That comes as a great shock to members
in the House, but when I was a young man the Liberal Party
actually talked about things like Canadian ownership. Let me
tell the House what we are facing on Cape Breton Island today.
The government has plans to sell the Cape Breton Development
Corporation and its most useful asset, a contract with Nova
Scotia Power. The government is to sell it to a foreign company.
Do we know what that will mean? It will mean that ships will
come into Sydney harbour with foreign coal while there is a
reserve worth a billion dollars at the Donkin coal mine. Cape
Bretoners will not mine that coal. That foreign coal will feed
the contract with Nova Scotia Power. The provincial government
is looking at selling the steel corporation to foreign ownership.
While we were happy to have EDS locate in Cape Breton and bring
some jobs, it too is a foreign corporation.
Again we talk about betrayal. I remember when the Liberal Party
once believed that Canada should belong to Canadians. Here we
see a complete reversal, a sell off of assets so that foreigners
and foreign companies will once again control the economy of Cape
Breton. The miners and steelworkers in Cape Breton died fighting
foreign ownership. For 30 years we made some progress. In the
stroke of a pen and by bringing in closure the government is
undoing that.
There are some very other important issues. For example, there
is the pre-existing pension plan. There is money now. Many
retired miners are receiving their pension. Who administers that
pension? One might ask the Liberal members of parliament if they
know that since they are so anxious to vote on closure. I
challenge them. If they do not know the answer to that question,
I challenge them tonight to vote against closure.
If they do not know the details of who administers the ongoing
existing pension fund, if they do not know the details of who is
the buyer, if they do not know where this corporation will be at
the end of the day, I challenge them to vote against closure, to
be responsible members of parliament and to ask the hard
question. I do not think they will do that.
1540
An hon. member: Right.
Mr. Peter Mancini: I know I am right. I have one minute
left and I have much to say. Maybe I will move another amendment
to the amendment so that we can move on with it. Let me just say
it is a sad day for Canada. There is a future in Cape Breton and
we can build on it, but we cannot build when we are discriminated
against by the government in the way we have been discriminated
against. If anybody wants the proof, as I have said, they need
only look at the other crown corporation agreements and compare
them to this one. It is not fair.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
look forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate.
Essentially the point I want to bring before the House is that
enough is enough.
I want to engage hon. members in the summary of the bill which
says that this is an act to provide for the disposition of
substantially all the assets of the corporation and for the
dissolution and the winding up of its affairs. The purpose is to
enable the private sector to acquire the mining assets so that
the government can exit from the coal mining business; to provide
for the continuation of existing jurisdiction with respect to
labour relations, occupational health and safety, et cetera; and
to permit legal actions to be brought against the crown, which is
no small matter.
The most relevant clauses are clause 2 which provides for the
sale or otherwise disposition of all or substantially all of its
assets and to do everything necessary for and incidental to the
closing out of the affairs. Clause 3 has to do with the
continuing liability of the crown for outstanding issues relating
to the corporation.
I am rather hoping that National Post is not listening to
the debate, because those who say the issue is that the
government has no business in these kinds of enterprises may well
have a case with respect to the particular enterprise. I am not
one who simply says that we walk away from all our social
responsibilities to communities, but there are points at which we
say enough is enough. Surely we have come to a point in our
history where government cannot or should not continue to support
businesses that are no longer viable. Surely enough is enough.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find that we do not have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1545
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: There being a quorum, the debate
shall continue.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
intervention of the member opposite who has now produced an
audience for us.
My essential point was the question as to when is enough enough?
To listen to members opposite, one questions whether enough is
ever enough.
In the course of the last 30 years, the Government of Canada has
put $1.6 billion into this enterprise. In addition, the
Government of Canada has put in an additional $44 million in the
fiscal year 1998-99, another $86 million has been allocated for
the year 1999-2000 and an anticipated $86 million is set aside
for the fiscal year ending in the year 2001.
The Canadian taxpayer has a legitimate question: When is enough
enough? When should the government get out of this business?
When are the good people of Cape Breton, the capable people of
Cape Breton, going to recognize that this is no longer a viable
enterprise, recognize that there is a new economy, that they can
participate in the new economy and enjoy the prosperity seen in
many other parts of Canada?
The point of the bill is to organize the affairs of Devco so
that it can be sold. The member opposite is concerned about the
issue of whether it will be sold to a foreign buyer. I suppose
if this was such a viable enterprise, there presumably are
Canadian buyers available to purchase the assets.
The hon. member also mentioned the fact that there is $1 billion
worth of coal. There may well be $1 billion worth of coal—I do
not dispute his figure—but if it costs $2 billion to get to $1
billion of coal, then it does not make a lot of sense.
In order to make this as viable a transition as possible, the
government engaged the services of Nesbitt Burns Inc. to sell the
saleable assets. The assets include the Prince and Phalen
collieries, the Donkin mine site, the corporation's coal pier and
railway, its coal preparation plant and related mine
infrastructure. Hopefully the purchase of these assets will
occur sooner rather than later.
In order to make this a viable sale, the government has
acknowledged that Devco has liabilities and is transferring the
liabilities unto itself. There is something in the order of an
expectation of $100 million environmental cleanup. No purchaser
is going to purchase this mine with that liability. The
government has taken on that liability.
In addition, the government has set aside something in the
neighbourhood of $100 million for workmen's compensation claims.
Again, no purchaser, whether Canadian or foreign, whether there
is $1 billion in the ground or not, is going to take on that kind
of liability.
Also, the government has set aside something in the order of
$200 million plus for future pension liabilities. Again, no
purchaser is going to take on these kinds of liabilities.
1550
The numbers get to be a little staggering after a while. We
talk about $1.6 billion over 30 years, then add in another $44
million in 1998-99, another $86 million in 1999-2000 and another
$86 million in 2000-01. We set aside another $400 million or
$500 million for liabilities which may arise by virtue of
environment or workmen's compensation or future pension
liability, but apparently enough is still not enough.
In addition to what the government directly takes on, there are
additional issues that the government takes on in an indirect way
through such organizations as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency, or ACOA as it known so well by members opposite.
Since 1987 ACOA has put $249 million into the riding. It is
anticipated that it will put another $39 million into the island
over the course of the next four years. Again, it is a
considerable sum of money to adjust the living conditions of
those who will be affected by this closing.
Then we have the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, or ECBC. In
the past 10 years ECBC has put $97 million into the island. It is
anticipated that it will put a further $36 million into the
island over the course of the next four years. Again, what is
enough? Apparently to members opposite it is never enough. There
is never enough.
I thought that in the last election and in subsequent polling
the taxpayers were pretty darn clear with the government that
these kinds of things cannot continue.
We are quite prepared to be responsible with assistance. We are
prepared to be responsible with assistance so that people can
enter into the new economy, but this will not continue to be a
continuous gravy train and a continuous drain on the resources of
the government and the taxpayers' generosity. I would submit
that in fact the taxpayer has been extremely generous with this
situation for some arguably legitimate reasons, but there are
times when one has to bring things to a close.
I was kind of perplexed when one of the previous speakers from
the Canadian Alliance said that that the moneys which were
recently put in, something like $12 million recently announced
for a call centre, was a total waste of money, yet the member for
Sydney—Victoria who spoke immediately prior to me was quite
praiseworthy of the government's initiative in his riding to put
that call centre there.
While a call centre may not be the leading edge of high
technology, it is, however, a significant response to people who
are needful of jobs. It may even be arguable that people who
have been in coal mines for 20 or 25 years may or may not be
suited to working in a call centre, but I suspect and I submit
that not all people are coal miners and that the people of Cape
Breton, in particular the children of the coal miners, might like
the alternative of working at a call centre or the spinoff
industries which result from the existence of a call centre in
the area.
In conclusion, the Government of Canada has been most generous
in this area. May I say that that has spanned a period of 30
years, that has been Liberal governments and Conservative
governments, and that substantial commitment to the area has been
an effort to make this kind of industry viable.
1555
However, I submit that there are points at which one has to say
enough is enough and $1.6 billion over 30 years is, in my
submission, enough; $44 million in the fiscal year 1998-99 is
enough; $86 million in the year 1999-2000 is enough; $86 million
in 2000-01 is enough; $39 million for the Cape Breton Development
Corporation is enough; and $36 million for ECBC over the next
four years is enough. Those moneys are substantial. They
reflect an enormous commitment on the part of the Government of
Canada and in my view this bill deserves support from all members
of the House.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this debate
sadly is faced with closure and that really has been eating at me
because democracy is about talking. It is about working through
issues. It is about taking the time. Every time the government
invokes closures, it is like being told “Sit down and be
quiet”. It is really tiring. There have been so many debates
in which I have not been able to participate because the
government has invoked closure. That is not what democracy is.
There are times when one can understand that possibly a debate
should be closed, but not after two hours, not after two days,
not after two weeks. We are here, elected to represent the
people who put their faith in us and every time we want to say
something we are cut off. I had the good fortune to be able to
make it in on this debate, but on so many others I have not been
able to.
This afternoon in Oral Question Period I listened to the
Minister of Industry talk about all the benefits of globalization
and how Canadians should be so thankful for globalization and the
fact that foreign investment is at an all time high in this
country. What the people in Cape Breton are facing is
globalization. Their mine is going to be sold and the people who
live in that community, who wanted to put together a co-operative
approach to buying out the coal mine and using it for their own
benefit to benefit their community, are not even being
considered. We do not know who is being considered, but it is
certainly not the people of Cape Breton Island.
The Atlantic provinces and Cape Breton have a long history of
driving their people out, of having no place for their children
to stay to work and live.
My father was born in Cape Breton and had to leave. He came
from a big family of 21 children. There was nothing for him to
stay for in his home province. He had to leave and go to the
Yukon where he lived out the rest of his life, but his heart was
always in his home. It was always in Cape Breton and it was a
place he saw only once again after the end of the second world
war in which he served.
I do not believe our country should be doing that to its
citizens, making efforts to drive them out rather than keeping
opportunities within the places where they were born. This is a
huge country and it is very culturally diverse. People from Cape
Breton are very different from people in the Yukon. The people
of the eastern Arctic are completely different culturally from
those people in the prairie provinces.
We have mobility in this country but it still does not make it
easy to be able to afford to move. It does not make it easy to
be humiliated and driven out of one's own province to seek work
elsewhere, probably with barely a penny in one's pocket.
What we are facing is a possibility of Colombian buyers
purchasing this mine. What would that mean for the people of
Cape Breton? Certainly not putting their own people to work in
these mines, if the mine even stays open.
So far the Canadian government has spent about $1.6 billion or
$1.7 billion on the mine. That is not a small amount. It is a
very significant amount and it has meant that people from that
area had a chance to work and live. But the mine gave back as
well. Up to $6 billion over those years went back into the
community, back into people's lives, funding schools, health care
and post-secondary education.
Should we have before us a bill that will shut down the mine and
deal with the assets? How is it dealing with the employees, the
people who have put their lives, blood and health into the coal
mining industry which has a very proud and long tradition, not
only in Cape Breton but through the Yukon and the north of
Canada?
Miners have a tradition. They know that when they go down into
the ground, their lives are at stake and they do that often not
for extraordinary wages but to put food on the table for their
families. These people who have worked and lived and put their
souls into this industry are not going to get the same benefits
as other Canadian agencies that have been sold off.
1600
VIA employees will get a five year deal of 100% of their pension
and health benefits for their families, but why are the Devco
employees not getting those same benefits? Is this returning to
the whole idea of globalization just to get away with whatever we
can, to give our citizens, our employees the least that we
possibly can so that those who would benefit from globalization,
the very rich, get everything and the very poor get a few scraps
that come from the table?
The people of Cape Breton, the men in those mines, have had to
stand up over and over again to demand even basic courtesy for
the work they have done. They have had to go underground in
protest and say that they will not come out until they get
fairness. They have had to go on illegal strikes to even have
ministers listen to them. It took ages and ages for even the
basic courtesy of a meeting to go ahead.
These decisions were made in 1995. It was only made public 1999
that these families, the people of Cape Breton, would be facing
the loss of their jobs and again an out-migration from their
communities. They would have to watch their children and
grandchildren leave and not stay to build their communities.
In summary, I want to stress that I am really upset that the
government has again invoked closure. It is becoming a routine
practice. At one time it was considered absolutely extraordinary
for closure to be invoked on a debate. I am tired of being told
to sit down and be quiet, that I have said enough and that they
do not want to hear from me.
I was elected to come here and to be a part of a democracy.
Whether the government wants listen to me or not, I have the
right to have a say, which is what democracy is about. However,
it is being taken away from us over and over again because the
government does not want to listen. It does not want to hear. It
does have the power to say sit down and be quiet but that goes
against our tradition of democracy and a fair hearing.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the
debate. I find it a very tough issue.
When I decided to become a member of parliament 13 years ago,
one of the things I said I would try to do as a member of
parliament from downtown Toronto was not just to talk about
issues or concerns that were specific to my community or my
region, but to attempt, from time to time, where it was
appropriate, to speak on issues that concerned every region of
the country and especially speak on issues where people's voices
really needed to be heard.
I think that is the essence of this Chamber. We respect, we
admire and we do not want to hold back those in our community who
are advantaged. Ultimately we are here in this Chamber to speak
out for those men and women in our country who are experiencing a
moment when they are truly disadvantaged. That is why I am in
this Chamber. I am here for no other reason.
We have in front of us today a situation where we have 1,500
families whose voices need to be heard. I applaud and I want to
let the member for Yukon and other members know that we on this
side of the House have a duty and a responsibility, even though
we are in government, to listen and to care about what is
happening to those 1,500 families.
We should let Canadians know that after the debate in the House
today this bill will go to a committee of the House of Commons.
We all know that in committee the government has the opportunity
to amend, alter or change legislation if constructive and
creative ideas are put forward that can meet not only the local
interests but also the national interests. It is important for
us today to let Canadians know that when we go into committee
that some of those creative and constructive options can be
explored.
1605
I want to put on the floor of the House of Commons two ideas
today that could be explored in committee and which the
government might consider the possibility of accepting. The
first idea has to do with the board of directors that will be
managing the pension fund for those 1,500 miners, those 1,500
families that are involved in this.
I come from downtown Toronto where pension boards and pension
situations are constantly being upgraded and renewed in this day
and age. I do not think it is an unreasonable request, an
unreasonable consideration that we have a representative from the
coal miners on that board. If that is an instrument by which we
can create hope, transparency and some feelings for those
families, then we should debate and explore that idea in
committee.
The other idea that I believe needs consideration has to do with
the tar ponds, the environmental disaster with the toxic pool
that exists in that community. There is a real environmental
opportunity that might exist in this disastrous situation that we
are facing. Why could we not consider the idea of giving many of
those miners, those who want to be involved in environmental
renewal and environmental change, the opportunity of working on
the tar ponds disaster?
We will have to deal with this crisis sooner or later. Why could
we not begin considering using some of that highly productive and
useful workforce from that island? Why could we not employ them
as part of an environmental force?
Quite frankly, when that disaster is ultimately cleared up, it
could give them a capacity to work not just in their own
community but it would give us an expertise that we could use in
other regions, not only of Canada but other regions of the world.
In other words, we could use that environmental disaster as a
test case where once we do clean it up, the men, the women, all
the environmental engineers and so on who were focused on dealing
with that problem could be an export possibility in terms of the
human capital.
By the way, some of these ideas are not my ideas. They are
thoughts and ideas that have come from members of parliament who
have served that community and served that region.
In the three minutes I have left I want to tell a story about an
author I have grown to love over my years as an MP. His name is
John Howard Griffin. He wrote a book entitled Black Like
Me.
He was a white author from southern Texas who wrote in the
mid-forties. He specialized in discrimination and racism. One
day some of his black neighbours and friends said to him “You
will never understand what black is about until you are inside
our skin”.
1610
John Howard moved to New Orleans where he had his skin
pigmented. He lived and worked in a very tough situation. Six
months later he went back to his own community where he used to
do the Sunday mass collections. His own best friend rejected him
because he did not recognize him.
We in the House have to understand the difficulties faced by
those 1,500 families in Cape Breton. We have to use the House
and the committee of the House to come up with constructive and
creative opportunities so we can continue as a nation to always
be there for the people who really need a voice when they are up
against difficulties.
When we take this bill to committee, I appeal to members to
design some constructive and doable ideas so that the people in
Cape Breton will feel as proud, as excited and as hopeful about
their community as any other community in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I speak on
this issue with a degree of knowledge, since I was the Bloc
Quebecois critic for natural resources for a while, in fact, at
the time the government decided to shut down Devco's operations.
I listened carefully to the Liberal Party member, who hopes that
the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government
Operations, or perhaps it will be the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development, will review this bill and propose
amendments.
A major problem here is that a committee, and I say this with
all due respect for committees, will sometimes come to certain
conclusions. However, if cabinet and the Prime Minister do not
agree, the committee will unfortunately have to forget about its
good recommendations and go in the direction shown by cabinet.
Therefore, since money is involved—the amounts are important
but not exorbitant; on the contrary, they are too small—I am
afraid that the minister's directives will be rather strict and
the committee will have little leeway.
The Liberal Party member suggests, among other things, that the
miners could be represented on the board, perhaps by a union
representative.
We all know that a single representative on a board may be
listened to but, no matter how well informed the representative
from the mining sector may be, he can never convince the board
to overstep its mandate, which will be defined in the
legislation, since the act specifies the amounts involved. It
cannot increase the moneys that would otherwise be available to
the miners who are being laid off in this sad episode.
1615
There are already some lessons to be learned from this
situation. For years the federal government has been meddling in
regional development. As early as 1960, it was recommended to
diversify the economy of Cape Breton, which was essentially
based on coal mining.
Unfortunately, these recommendations were never implemented and
the federal government kept on pouring money into coal mining.
Hundreds, thousands of jobs were created this way, but strictly
in coal mining.
Today, as the government is getting ready to stop supporting
this industry, which sadly has not been profitable for years, we
can see the economy collapsing in the area because the
diversification announced and expected 40 years ago did not take
place.
This is by no means the only misguided example of the federal
government's interference in regional development. A case in
point is Atlantic groundfish. There is no more cod. Sadly, it
was over-fished while the federal government was responsible for
ensuring the sustainability of the stocks.
In many cases, the federal government may not be the best actor,
it may not be in the best position to know what is important for
a particular region. Here in Ottawa, everything is fine, of
course.
We look around us. The economy is relatively prosperous; the
number of research centres is increasing. Just because things
are going well in this bubble all around Parliament Hill does
not mean the same is true everywhere. The Gaspé is another place
with a number of problems which have made the headlines in
recent weeks. Today, we are talking about Cape Breton.
There are not just the laid-off workers to think about. These
1,000 workers have families. If we look at the impact of the
economic collapse resulting from the Devco shutdown, we are
talking about approximately 6,000 people—men, women and
children—who will suffer the consequences. This is tragic in an
area where Devco held up the whole economy.
Earlier, the Liberal Party member mentioned that these employees
could perhaps be put to work cleaning up the ecological
aftermath. This labour force could indeed be used, but this is
to lose sight of what should have been done and what the unions
suggested at the time.
Devco employees have vested rights. For one thing, they have
been paying into a pension. Some of these employees are a few
years away from retirement; others have much longer to go. If
Devco itself had made an effort to do something about these
clean-up operations, Devco employees would have been assigned to
these duties as part of their regular duties. Their pension
would have continued to grow and at some point these people
could have retired.
At the time, the union had done some fairly specific
calculations showing that retirements would be staggered out
over the period between now, when the mine is being closed, and
the time the clean-up was complete. The work force could thus be
gradually reduced to a minimum. All these employees could have
retired with a reasonable pension, with families looked after,
with children who could have continued to grow up in their
community.
1620
By abruptly pulling the floor out from under these workers, the
security they have accumulated has just disappeared. Even if
they are given jobs, they will not have the assurance of a
decent retirement on a reasonable retirement income, no matter
how hard they work.
If the committee could manage to convince the minister that he
needs to sweeten his offer so that the workers can remain with
Devco, this would be a considerable improvement, and the
ecological cleanup referred to by the Liberal member could be
carried out.
I trust that the committee will manage to do so, but I sometimes
lose hope when I see the best ideas and the best initiatives
running headlong into a wall of misunderstanding, for reasons
that we do not know and cannot understand. The plan may seem to
make some economic sense in the short term, but in the medium
and long term it will result in personal disasters on an
unacceptable scale.
I see I do not have much time left. Hon. members will have
understood by now that Bill C-11 is unacceptable to the Bloc
Quebecois, both from the legal point of view—and we will be
coming back to that—and from the human point of view. This bill
is, first and foremost, unacceptable in the way it treats human
beings.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too
would like to begin my remarks by commenting on the terrible
state of affairs in the House of Commons when the idea of time
allocation and closure is entered into so lightly and so
frequently. Instead of being the exception to the rule, it has
become the norm, at least in the short period of time I have been
in the House of Commons.
I cannot tell the number of times I have had to stand here and
criticize the government for abusing the idea of free and open
debate in the House of Commons by invoking closure and time
allocation anytime it is convenient for the government to do so
or anytime it is worried about being politically embarrassed by
the subject matter at hand. Since 1993 I believe it has been over
60 times that the Liberal government, the ruling party, has
invoked the idea of limiting debate in the House of Commons. We
came here to take part in the democratic process, to speak freely
and raise the issues we believe are important and not to be
silenced every time we turn around by a heavy-handed ruling party
that sees fit to silence people when debate is clearly so
important.
Having heard the members who actually reside in Cape Breton
speak passionately about the bill earlier today, the people of
Nova Scotia do not want the debate to be terminated. The people
who live in the communities in Cape Breton want their voices to
be heard. They want a free and open debate that explores all the
aspects of the closure and the bill which will oversee the
shutdown of the Devco corporation.
In what limited debate there has been we have heard from the
government side misinformation that borders on negligence in not
having had the courtesy to find out what the true facts are about
Devco before the government invokes measures that will see its
termination. We heard speeches earlier today that border on being
intellectually dishonest.
I heard a member say that the government has poured $1.7 billion
of what he called taxpayer generosity into these coal mines and
that enough is enough, that we have to terminate this flushing
good money after bad. The hon. member failed to point out,
whether deliberately or through naivety and if it was through
naivety it would be irresponsible naivety, that the Devco
corporation was not just a coal mine.
Does anyone who does not live in Cape Breton realize that Devco
was not just a coal mine? When it was founded Devco was a coal
mine and an economic development corporation. The coal mine in
fact was successful as a stand alone enterprise. For many years
it showed a profit. It served a valuable function by providing
coal for the Nova Scotia Power Corporation and it operated in a
viable manner.
1625
The other side of Devco in the years from 1967 to 1980 was
economic development. All kinds of things were tried on the
island to stimulate and diversify the economy. Some of those
ventures succeeded and some of them failed. Not all of that $1.7
billion went into coal mining.
It would have been a lot more honest had that been pointed out
at the front end. We would have expected someone from the
government side at least to have been honest enough to portray
those figures in an accurate way. The government also failed to
point out that in that same period of time, the coal mining
aspect of Devco produced $5 billion worth of product and economic
activity in Cape Breton, $5 billion with a spinoff effect.
Everyone knows that a dollar spent in today's economy gets spent
four times before it reaches its final state of repose, which is
usually in some American shareholder's pocket.
I am in the middle of my speech and a lot of the comments I am
making are being addressed to the government side. I cannot help
but note there are virtually no government members in the House
of Commons. it would be irresponsible for them to push this
legislation through and not even have the courtesy to be in the
House of Commons to listen to what little debate we are going to
have.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member said that there are virtually no government
members listening to or participating in the debate. The record
will show that is not accurate.
The Deputy Speaker: What is a problem is when members
make these references to the presence or absence of members. We
do get into trouble. It is against the rules to do that. I can
only admonish all hon. members to comply with the rules and avoid
reference to the fact of who is not here.
Members have other things to do besides sit in the House. I am
sure there are committees sitting as we speak. Members have
other obligations. To point out absences is not helpful and, I
would point out to all hon. members, is contrary to the rules of
the House. We will avoid that, I know, in future remarks. The
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor and I know he will
want to get away from that topic.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I raised the
relative shortage on the other benches was by way of introducing
the calling of quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I will certainly be glad to call
quorum, but the way to do it is to avoid reference to who is here
and who is not, because then we get into disagreements.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum. The hon. member for
Winnipeg Centre has the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for at least
going through the exercise.
I began my remarks by talking about what a shame, what a tragedy
and what a travesty it is to limit the debate on such an
important subject. What I was getting around to was not just the
face value of the argument about the closing of the Devco coal
mines, but the fact that this is an issue of much larger
significance.
Many things have not even been raised. The secondary impacts of
shutting down Devco have not been dealt with and they will not be
dealt with in any detail in the House because the debate has been
limited by moving time allocation.
One of the natural things which comes to mind, one of the
obvious consequences of selling off Devco and closing Devco is
the whole issue of foreign ownership, economic sovereignty, loss
of control of our own industries and our inability to control our
own destiny when it comes to matters regarding the development of
our natural resources.
One thing we have seen in this country in recent years is an
absolute epidemic of foreign takeovers. In part a low Canadian
dollar has led to this, and in part it is because there are
people lurking just across our border who are willing to gobble
up any aspect of our natural resources they possibly can. This is
one of the predictable consequences we are going to see, I
believe, as we divest ourselves of the Devco operations.
An even more frightening spectacle in my mind is that the whole
idea of Devco was to feed coal into the Nova Scotia Power
Corporation to generate electricity and to have a vertical
integration. We would enjoy that benefit and the secondary
benefit of the labour created by the mining of coal, that we
could create electricity with that coal. There was a natural
customer for the product.
1630
Nova Scotia Power Corporation will now be in the unenviable
position of trying to buy its power elsewhere. Where? It will
probably be from the eastern seaboard of the United States. Mr.
Peabody will supply the coal, I presume, to Nova Scotia. Who
will ship the coal from the eastern seaboard of the United States
to Cape Breton? It will be Canada Steamship Lines. The Minister
of Finance and steamships will be going into Sydney harbour
loaded with American coal to burn in Nova Scotia Power
Corporation. If this seems shortsighted, if it seems
economically perverse, I put it to members that it is. That is
why this needs to be debated and that is why we need more time in
the House to deal with some of these predictable consequences of
shutting down the whole Devco operation.
I am a trade unionist and have been a union representative for
much of my working career. I find in cases like this the best
way to convey the true impact of this sort of economic move is to
try to personalize the issue by looking at the actual people
involved. If we try to visualize in our minds the actual
families and workers who are being displaced by all of this, it
is useful to look at a profile of the Devco employees.
If we try to get in our minds who these people of the United
Mine Workers are, and there are four unions involved, of the
actual members of the United Mine Workers of America union, 414
out of 500 or so have grade 12 or less education. The average
age is 44.5 years. They have industry specific skills that make
it very difficult to relocate into other industries. I raise all
these factors to point out the difficulty of trying to
reintegrate the displaced employees into other industries, et
cetera, et cetera.
One of the reasons we see such an overwhelmingly low level of
education in people who are fairly my contemporaries, where it is
not usual for there to be over 80% of them with grade 12, is that
they were seduced into quitting school and going to work at
Devco. They were told the big lie. People came into their
classrooms and virtually said “You can sit here and finish high
school or you can go to work tomorrow with a good $12, $14 an
hour job with grade 8 or grade 9 and we will keep you employed
for life, until you retire, working in the Devco coal mine
operation”. That was bad advice and it has complicated the
reintegration of some of these displaced workers into alternative
lines of work.
One of those lines of work ironically will be the next subject
that we debate here today because we have been told that the
government side will not put up any more speakers on the subject
because it wants debate to collapse on the subject so that we can
move on to the next subject which is tourism. What it really
wants all the Devco miners to do is grow long, red pigtails like
Anne of Green Gables so they can be cute little tourism oddities
maybe. If they can learn to play the banjo or something they
could entertain American bus loads of tourists who drive to Cape
Breton to see them because there will be very little else for
them to do, given the callous way that this whole issue has been
treated.
Had we had more time and had we been given the opportunity to
debate this issue further, I am sure other important subjects
would be raised. But as it is now, once again we can hear the
jackboots marching to the drums of closure and time allocation.
The Deputy Speaker: In accordance with Standing Order 38
it is my duty to advise the House that the item to be taken up at
the hour of adjournment later this day is the following one: the
hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, The Environment.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have already raised this point a couple of times. This
is an important debate to the people of Cape Breton and I would
call quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on this bill.
Considering that I did not have an opportunity to finish my
comments this morning on this issue, I would like to have a few
minutes to further investigate the whole issue.
Certainly I think it is absolutely imperative that the bill be
given time for adequate debate in the House and also time for
adequate investigation of the whole issue in committee and to
call all the witnesses that we need to call simply because of
some of the mystery surrounding the whole bill.
1635
There is a huge number of unanswered questions on the issue of
the disposition of Devco's assets and the rumoured purchase of
its assets, particularly by American interests, which seems
curious. Clearly, Nova Scotia Power has the need for huge
amounts of coal for the foreseeable future.
In spite of the need for coal and that coal exists in Cape
Breton which will last for as long as Nova Scotia Power could
probably envision using it, it makes no sense to me to shut down
the mines in Cape Breton and essentially sell the contract to
supply coal to Nova Scotia Power to an American interest, aside
from the fact that the finance minister's ships are hauling this
coal. Why have the Americans supply coal and have it transported
to Cape Breton when the coal is in Cape Breton and can be mined
as economically as it can be in other parts of the world? There
is something really rotten about this whole deal.
There is not only the issue of whether whoever buys the mines
would operate them for any length of time, but there is some real
question about the intentions of the people buying it. What
about the coal reserves that are available and strip mineable in
Cape Breton and Nova Scotia? There is a substantial reserve of
coal which is available without the undersea mining process that
is taking place in the Prince mine and proposed Donkin mine.
Those questions have to be answered.
There are the questions of drilling rights for the gas that is
available, not only the methane gas in the coal seams in Nova
Scotia but the other natural gas reserves that are rumoured to be
available as well. All of those questions have to be asked.
There is the question of a lawsuit that is currently before the
courts. It has been brought in by Donkin Resources Limited
because of promises the government made to those people who were
doing an assessment of the feasibility of opening the Donkin
mine. It cut them off at the knees. There is that whole issue.
How can it sell Devco before it settles the whole legal issue?
I found the suggestion by the member for Broadview—Greenwood
interesting. He suggested that they set up a government board to
oversee the pension fund and give Joe Shannon the chairmanship of
the pension board on top of everything else. That was really
interesting and really made a lot of sense. He did make some
sense in the suggestion that a lot of these issues could be
explored in committee with witnesses if the government allows us
time in committee to do that. That is the question and one that
has to be answered before we can accept that idea.
Because of all those reasons, the limited time of debate and the
secrecy surrounding the suspension of the Financial
Administration Act that guarantees us some transparency in this
whole thing, it is imperative that we have the opportunity to get
answers to these questions at some point in the process. It is
the only way Canadians are ever going to understand what this
deal was all about.
When I was in Cape Breton I met with the mine workers union. It
showed me in black and white that obviously over a number of
years the management of Devco was deliberating sabotaging the
operation of the mines. We could quite clearly see from year to
year where it cut off capital investment. Machinery was not
replaced or repaired. There was down time from poor equipment.
We could clearly see that, instead of preparing another coal face
to be mined when the one that was currently in operation was
completed was not done. When the operating face was mined out,
the whole mine had to shut down while they moved and set up to do
the process of preparing another face.
1640
Why did the government do these things? That is not an
efficient operation. That, in my view, was a deliberate attempt
to make Devco appear to be as uneconomical as it possibly could,
so it would be easier to shut down when the time came. Someone
has to answer for those things. We have to have a committee. Joe
Shannon, the chairman of the board of Devco, has some serious
questions to answer about his role and how he got a multimillion
dollar contract to move coal as he sat as chairman of the board
of Devco. That has to be a sweetheart deal. I do not know how
he possibly could do that. He also has to answer why as chairman
of the board with a vested interest like he has he is sitting and
assessing the bids with Nesbitt Burns Inc. in Toronto. He again
is clearly in conflict of interest.
We have to hear from the Donkin Resources group that put a bid
in and was rejected, in their words, because it was a Canadian
bid. Being a Canadian bid should not be the reason to reject it.
It should have been the reason to move it to the top of the list.
I had breakfast with another individual who put in a wholly
owned Canadian bid that was rejected for similar reasons. He had
some very interesting proposals tied in with his bid for Devco in
dealing with the Sydney tar ponds and a lot of other things we
have heard talked about today. I would like to hear from that
side of the issue at committee.
I think there is so much being hidden that needs to be revealed
and needs to be discussed about the whole Devco issue and what
the government has been doing and what the government's
intentions are with this that I certainly support the NDP motion
to hoist the bill and move it into committee before we are
finished second reading. I think it is a valid proposal.
I do not really care which committee it goes to. As far as the
amendment to the amendment, I am ambivalent on that. However,
the idea of getting it into committee and having a thorough study
of the issues that surround this I certainly would support. I
think the whole issue has a bad smell about it that needs to be
clarified. I hope the government will allow us to do that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to again discuss the issue of Devco. Some may
wonder why I am interested in this issue. It is because I have
had the opportunity to visit Sydney—Victoria and the great
island of Cape Breton.
I talked to the people when I was there about a year ago. They
were upset about the passing of a part of their history. They
also looked at the future with a new challenge of what they could
do to once again make a viable economy on the island of Cape
Breton.
I heard some of the members say “We don't want to make
telephone operators out of all of these miners”. Indeed that is
not the intention. When a company like EDS wants to invest money
in Cape Breton, it is a positive and good thing. It tells us
that company thinks there is a future in Cape Breton as the
people themselves think there is a future in Cape Breton.
There has been a lot of discussion about abandonment of the
workers. It is interesting to note from statistics that the
number of miners is divided into three groups, as I understand.
We have one group which has made 75 pension points and they are
over 60 years of age. Approximately 140 of them are going to
benefit from an early retirement program with pensions over
$20,000 a year.
A second group who are approximately 49 years of age with less
than 25 years experience are going to have work. This seems to
be the essence of the problem. Apparently some in the opposition
would prefer these people to be pensioned off. It is assured
that there will be at least 500 jobs for these people, so there
is no unemployment. In fact there are jobs to go to.
Finally, there is another regrettable group, 42 years of age and
under, the last people hired by the pit. They are receiving
three weeks salary for every year that they worked. Plus, if
they worked over 20 years, they get four weeks salary for every
year over 20.
Quite frankly this is better than almost any severance plan in
the country. The government has been generous.
1645
We are very concerned about the people of Cape Breton and their
ability to change their economy. Often speeches in the House
have been on how to keep the past going, how to keep the mines
open just one more month or one more year, how to keep a way of
life going that in fact has changed. The reality is that the
coal industry in Cape Breton, as is the case in Britain which I
visited recently, has gone by the wayside. The same members
speak in the House about the terrible aspect of fossil fuel
emissions and the environment and maintain the importance of
keeping a coal industry. In my opinion these comments are
terribly inconsistent.
It is not just about coal mining in Cape Breton. One listening
to the debate in the House would think that is all that goes on
in Cape Breton. However in Cape Breton approximately 3,000
people are employed in the forestry. Close to $1 billion of
private money is invested in Stora in Port Hawkesbury. In 1999
tourism witnessed the strongest year in its economy with $230
million being gained in tourism in Cape Breton alone.
What about knowledge based industries? Some 44 businesses have
set up on Silicon Island, employing 300 people. What about
Precision Finished Components in North Sydney? It is making
money and expanding. Also located on the north side is a company
that manufacturers plastic for markets in Canada and the United
States.
The list goes on and on. Poly Tech Windows in Baddeck employs
40 people and exports its products to the United States and all
over the world. Finewood Flooring in Middle River employs 20
people and exports its products to Germany and the United States.
MacPherson Bros. in New Waterford exports prefabricated homes to
Spain and Germany. The list goes on.
This tells me that the people of Cape Breton are adaptable. In
fact the people of Cape Breton have changed their economy. It
may well be that members of parliament do not seem to realize
this. We should be happy that Cape Bretoners have turned their
efforts to creating a new economy in Cape Breton. They went back
in history. They went back to the mines and kept the mines open
just one more month, just one more year.
It seems strange to me when I hear members of the Canadian
Alliance Party complaining about the system. They should be
celebrating that Cape Bretoners have found the courage to deal
with their misfortune and the ability to go forward. Certainly
it was not without some unease. The industrial revolution was
not easy on a lot of people. People had to make significant
changes, which is not easy to do midway through life. I would be
the first to admit that.
To keep on going with something that is not working is not
reality. The reality is that they require change. As I
understand it, more people in Nova Scotia are engaged in teaching
today than either the fishery or the forestry industries.
Economies change and they change with the times.
The people of Cape Breton are up to that change. They have
accepted the fact that their economy cannot continue to rely on
coal as a basis of sustenance for them. As a consequence, they
have tried to experiment and they will continue experimenting.
The government, in spite of the discussion about turning miners
into telephone operators, will continue to find ways to encourage
private industry to establish in Cape Breton to the betterment of
the people there.
I am happy to be part of a government that has made a tough
decision to dispose of the coal mining operations, but it is the
right decision. All of us realize that governments are not the
best operators of coal mines whether in Cape Breton or anywhere
else. It is time to move on. It is time for a new future. The
people of Cape Breton realize it and the government realizes it.
1650
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a great sense of both sadness and anger that
I rise to participate today in the debate on this important bill,
Bill C-11.
In rising to participate in the debate I want to make a couple
of preliminary points. First, as my colleagues from the New
Democratic Party have noted during this debate, particularly
today, it is absolutely shameful that once again on legislation
this fundamental, this significant, the government is bringing
down the hammer of closure before there has been any significant
movement for dialogue with the workers who are affected and the
communities that will be devastated by the results of the
decision of the government. This is becoming a habit with the
government.
As a member of the House for almost 21 years, I vividly recall
Liberal MPs standing when they were in opposition and condemning
the Conservative Party in the harshest of terms for its recourse
to closure, to time allocation. This government, particularly
in this parliament, has resorted to closure far more times, and
who would have ever imagined over 60 times, than the
Conservatives ever did. What we see is blatant hypocrisy and an
attempt to more and more marginalize democracy itself.
We know best is the attitude of the government: we know best
for the people of Cape Breton; we know best in real terms for the
corporate interests that are just waiting to get their hands on
the resources that are the vital part of this decision. I want
to condemn the process the government has embarked on to shut
down this debate.
Second, I pay tribute to my colleagues, particularly my
colleagues from Cape Breton, for the tireless campaign they have
waged both within the House and across the country in their home
constituencies of Sydney—Victoria and Bras d'Or—Cape Breton to
make Canadians more aware of just how significant and how
important the issue is for all of us.
I represent an urban community on the other side of the country.
I have the great privilege and honour of representing Burnaby. I
have visited Cape Breton on more than one occasion and have been
tremendously impressed by the strength and the resilience of the
people of Cape Breton in the face of incredible adversity. That
strength, that resilience and that eloquence are certainly
reflected in our caucus in the representation from Cape Breton by
the member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras
d'Or—Cape Breton.
I note as well the extent to which many of us were moved by the
writing of another Nova Scotia member, a member of our caucus,
the hon. member for Dartmouth, in her powerful play The Glace
Bay Miner's Museum. She wrote about some of the impact in
intensely human terms of the uncertainty and despair that
affected many families as a result of the corporate decision
making, the insensitivity and the inhumanity of decisions that
were made solely on the basis of the bottom line.
We saw the ultimate obscenity of that approach with the death of
the Westray miners, death which was clearly attributed to
corporate greed. I hope the House will in the very near future
adopt the amendments the leader of the New Democratic Party
proposed which would make it very clear that we view it as
criminal wrongdoing when corporate interests are put ahead of the
lives and the safety of workers in mines and elsewhere.
I speak today with some albeit very limited knowledge of mining
myself, having working as an underground miner at a very young
age, as a young university student, in northern Ontario at the
Dickenson gold mine. I worked underground in Balmertown,
Ontario, in a mine which had an appalling safety record.
Certainly in a very small way I can relate to the uncertainty
faced by miners as every day they put their lives on the line
when they go underground.
All they are asking for is some sense of being treated with some
dignity and some respect. Instead of that we see the government
railroading the legislation through the House of Commons.
1655
As opposed to the original legislation tabled in the House, the
original Devco Act, we know there is no provision in the bill
that would compel the government “before closing to ensure that
all reasonable measures have been adopted by the corporation”,
that is by Devco, “to reduce as far as possible any unemployment
or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom”.
That is not radical. That is not revolutionary. All it is
asking is that there be an assurance that Devco, which has been
in existence for over 30 years, shows some respect, consults, and
engages in dialogue with the workers and the communities affected
by its decision to make sure that the unemployment, the loss of
jobs and the economic hardship are minimized. Why is the Liberal
government not prepared to even make that commitment to these
communities on Cape Breton? It is absolutely shameful.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I are attempting
to ensure that when the bill goes to committee we put back that
basic commitment to the workers, to the people and to the
communities of Cape Breton.
We know that there is a great deal of uncertainty in those
communities. There is currently an arbitration process under
way. Instead of the government respecting that arbitration
process and putting the bill on the back burner while the process
proceeds to its conclusion, what does it do? It rams through the
legislation and says to hell with the arbitrator. The Liberals
say they know what is best for the people of Cape Breton and they
know what is best for their communities. The reality is that
they know what is best for the corporate interests that stand to
gain from the dismantling of this corporation.
I find it shocking, as my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton,
my colleague from Sydney—Victoria and others have made very
clear, that there are big corporate interests just waiting to
move in and dismantle the corporation, to pick up the pieces and
to profit from this misery. We know that foreign ownership of
these resources is a very real possibility. More and more, as my
colleague from Kamloops pointed out today during question period,
we are losing control of our own economic destiny, our own
future, our own ability to make decisions about the best interest
of the people of Canada. We see that now in the case of Cape
Breton as well.
This is not a debate about figures or statistics. It is a
debate about flesh and blood people and families who look to the
future and feel a tremendous sense of uncertainty. They are
asking to be treated with some dignity and respect. Folks who
are perhaps in their fifties and sixties know that it will be
almost impossible for them to find another job but they at least
want a decent pension. They do not want a job at a call centre.
They want a decent pension and they want a future for their kids.
They do not want their children to have to leave that beautiful
part of our country to find a future, and they should not have to
do so.
That is why we in the New Democratic Party are appealing to the
government even at this late time to reconsider its approach, to
pull the bill back, as my colleague for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
suggested in an amendment that she proposed in February 2000, to
give the government and Devco an opportunity to enter into that
dialogue with the people of the communities affected.
As I said, what those communities face with the closure of all
Devco mining operations and the eventual gutting of the
corporation is devastating. They face the direct loss of about
1,500 good quality, well paying union jobs. Spin off jobs will
be lost as well. Two or three times as many small businesses
will be hit particularly hard. They face the loss and the
expenditure by Devco of as much as $50 million annually in that
region to contractors and suppliers. They face the loss of
almost $80 million per year in wages and salaries. In a
community that is already economically depressed, imagine the
kind of impact this has. Yet the Liberals insist on just
ploughing ahead.
It is a loss to Ottawa and to taxpayers of some $28 million a
year in Canada pension, unemployment insurance and income tax. It
is a huge economic loss of over $300 million to that region
alone.
1700
Mr. Speaker, I see you signalling me that my time has come to an
end. I am quite prepared to continue for another half hour or 45
minutes if the House would give me leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Burnaby—Douglas has asked for the consent of the House to extend
his time for debate by 30 minutes. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
would have been very pleased to listen to our colleague from
Burnaby—Douglas, whose eloquence and concern for workers is well
known.
I am very pleased to rise today, although the topic at hand is
of grave concern to us. I say that I am pleased because workers
across Canada know that, historically, they can count on the Bloc
Quebecois. We have given them our support both through our
colleague, the member for Portneuf, our natural resources critic
when the issue was first raised a year ago, and the tireless
dedication to workers shown by our colleague from
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, our human
resources development critic.
I want to draw a parallel with a situation I experienced in 1993
as a young MP. My colleagues may remember that in those days
Montreal was undergoing a process of industrial obsolescence that
had started in the 80s. There was a program called POWA, which
was totally inadequate for Montreal workers.
We will recall that in those days, in Montreal, there was the
Vickers shipyard, at a time when there were 30% too many ships on
the seas and workers in my riding had to be retrained. It was a
time also, in the late 80s and early 90s, when the whole textile
industry in Montreal was in trouble due to its obsolescence. It
has since picked up.
I must once again draw a parallel between my experience in the
90s and what is happening in Nova Scotia. With Bill C-11, the
government is getting ready to privatize Devco, turning over two
coal mines to the private sector, and putting close to 1,000
workers out of work.
This causes us to wonder what our duty is, what our
responsibility is, as parliamentarians, when this sort of thing
goes on in regions we might describe as one industry regions. The
coal industry, the mining industry, the coal mining industry is
not marginal in the Cape Breton community.
I have seen the figures on this. I am told that it was a really
major industry. This is all the more of a concern since the
government is saying today “It is no longer as cost effective as
we would like it, as we think it ought to be, we will privatize
it. We will let the private sector take over this industrial
sector, but we do not want the responsibility of knowing how
these workers are going to go about finding a second job”.
Members will say that the government set aside a certain amount
for separation bonuses. According to our information, and the
members of the government side will correct me if I am wrong,
there are some 230 miners with 25 years' experience.
1705
It is not easy. When you have 25 years of experience, of
seniority, when you have worked have worked in the same firm for
25 years, you have a certain know how, knowledge in an industrial
sector. It also means that you may be 45, 50, 55 or perhaps even
60, and it is then not easy to relocate or to find another job.
Bill C-11 does not resolve the problem of 225 or 230 miners with
25 or more years of experience with Devco, who are excluded from
early retirement programs as currently defined. This is where
our parliamentary responsibility calls out to us.
I ask Liberal members: what if it were your brother, your father
or your best friend who had given 25 years of work to a company
and who, all of sudden, found himself without an income because a
government has decided to withdraw from that industrial sector?
Even more disturbing—and the hon. member for Portneuf alluded
to this earlier—is what is happening now, this relative loss of
momentum in the coal industry. We understand that anything
related to the primary and secondary sectors of our industry is
experiencing difficulties of one degree or another. This is what
we call the “tertiarization of the economy”.
The economy is increasingly a service economy. This means that
certain sectors including the coal industry, that used to be very
important are now experiencing problems. Earlier I mentioned the
textile industry, but I could have included the leather and linen
industries, Vickers in Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, and the shipyards
for which the hon. member for Lévis fought hard and even
introduced a bill in the House.
What do the fight led by the member for Lévis, the
representations being made by the NDP members for Dartmouth and
Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, and the battle that I fought as a young
member of parliament regarding POWA, in 1993-94, have in common?
They all illustrate the responsibility we have as
parliamentarians not to let older workers down, because it is
harder for people who are 45, 50, 55 or 60 to find a new job.
That is what I cannot understand about this debate.
As has already been said, once again we are dealing with an
extremely authoritarian manner of carrying out House business.
What is the procedure which characterizes the most dictatorial of
governments? Let us not mince words, it is imposing gag orders.
For our audience, who are less familiar with the way the House
works, what does this mean? It means that, with a cavalier
gesture, without regard for the freedom of expression of
parliamentarians, which is part of our mandate from the public to
rise to speak in this House on behalf of the best interests of
our fellow citizens, the government, the Liberals, these
pharisees, these whited sepulchres, have decided through their
parliamentary leader to impose a gag order so as to limit the
speaking time of the members of the opposition.
Let us not forget that we are speaking today of the immediate
and future earnings of the mine workers. When we are dealing
with the income of the family wage earner, we are of course
dealing with the situation of entire families who would, if it
were not for the vigilance of the opposition parties, be in
difficulty. This is unacceptable.
Today we shall be adding our voices to that of the NDP because
we are an enlightened opposition and understand that Bill C-11,
while it does not concern Quebec directly, obliges us to
solidarity. We have always been there in solidarity when workers
were being threatened.
1710
I am grateful to the NDP members for waging this battle today. I
want to tell the workers of Cape Breton that we are with them and
that we care about their destiny and their future.
What do we want done? We want the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations to give some thought to the
fate of the part of Canada known as Cape Breton, which relies on
a single industry, or just about, and we want better solutions to
be found to this industrial transition, which has meant that the
coal industry is not as important in the year 2000 as it was in
the 1960s and 1970s.
We say that this industrial transition cannot be achieved
without serious support from the government. We understand that
jobs will not be found as easily for some workers and that it is
the responsibility of this parliament to ensure that they have an
adequate income, in recognition of the contribution they have
made to the economic development of their region.
I want these workers to know that we will not forget them and I
say shame on this government, which once again has failed to
support those who need the help of this parliament.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I may be wrong, but we do not appear to have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Portneuf is right. We do not have a quorum. Call in the members.
[English]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, we just had a quorum call to make sure
there were sufficient members of parliament in their seats to
allow the debate to continue. Let us face it, this is a very
dark day for Cape Bretoners, a very dark day for democracy and a
very dark day for parliament.
Once again, in spite of the fact that this legislation will
profoundly impact on the lives of hundreds and hundreds of
families in Cape Breton and will mean a difference in the futures
of hundreds and hundreds of families in this hard-pressed part of
Canada, the government has decided that it does not want to hear
any more debate, that it has heard enough. The government has,
some 60 times in this session, again muzzled the duly elected
representatives of the people of Canada from 301 constituencies
who will have no further chance to participate in this debate.
The government is saying that it has the understanding, the
knowledge and the comprehension to say that enough is enough and
that it has heard enough.
The reality is that there are many people here who want to speak
to this legislation. The fact that the government has said that
it is not interested in allowing debate any longer is a dark day
for this institution. I know you, Mr. Speaker, must also be very
said. I know Canadians are sad. I know parliamentarians are
sad, at least on this side of the House. At least in our party
we are making an effort to keep the debate going. I know others
are very sad. I can see their heads shaking. This is a bleak,
black, dark, gloomy day for democracy and for the parliamentary
system in our country.
It is also a dark and mysterious day for Cape Bretoners. This
has to be one of the most mysterious debates when people are
raising questions that logically do not make any sense. For
example, the government has decided that selling Cape Breton coal
for Nova Scotia to generate power does not make any sense. It
has decided that it makes more sense to import coal from
Columbia, from Venezuela, from foreign countries.
1715
Imagine how the people of Cape Breton are going to feel when
those ships roll up to those docks in Cape Breton to unload coal
from Colombia. It has to be embarrassing. We are going to bring
coal from Colombia to Cape Breton.
Guess whose ships are going to be hauling that coal. This has to
be a sad day for political leadership in the country when we find
that the shipping company of the Minister of Finance is going to
be used to ship coal from Colombia to Cape Breton. As a matter
of fact, it has been shipping coal for a long time. There are 33
ships shipping coal from Venezuela, the United States, Colombia
and other foreign countries to provide fuel for the power plants
for the people of Nova Scotia.
If that is not enough, in today's newspaper we find that the
Minister of Finance is a little short of ships and has to build
some new ones. Does he select Canada's shipyards to build ships?
No. He goes to the low wage shipyards in China. That is where
he is building his ships. The Minister of Finance is building
his ships in low wage China, using Philippine labour, and the
ships are flagged in Liberia or some place in the Caribbean. The
Minister of Finance is supposed to be setting a model for
economic behaviour. There is a lot of puzzling around this which
we have to get to the bottom of in committee.
Who is going to buy this? I know that the workers who are going
to lose their jobs wanted to make a deal so that they could
essentially run the new company. They wanted to find ways of
raising finances. The Government of Canada said “Hold it, that
is not good enough. We want a foreign buyer”. It is part of
the theme of Canada being up for sale.
This morning Statistics Canada revealed that takeovers by
foreign companies have now reached breakneck pace. We are in
passing gear. Our low currency and the big for sale signs all
over the world mean that foreigners are coming here to buy and
control our economy like they never have before.
What does the Minister of Industry say about it? He is happy.
He is one happy camper. He says that he loves that foreigners
are buying up our economy and he loves that foreigners are
controlling our future. I can say that we in the New Democratic
Party do not like the idea of foreigners controlling the destiny
of this country's next generation.
It is time to take Canada back. The problem is we had a made in
Canada solution and the government said that it was not
interested. It would much rather have a mysterious foreign buyer
come in to take over the operation. This does not make sense.
Those people who over the years fought for this country in wars,
who fought and died for democracy, and those leaders of our
country from coast to coast to coast who struggled to build up
economic sovereignty must be turning in their graves right now.
They cannot believe this is happening in our country. It is a sad
commentary.
I have heard some of my Liberal colleagues, who have given
rather embarrassing presentations today, say that the people of
Cape Breton should be thankful for this handout. You have been
to Cape Breton, Mr. Speaker, probably many times. Most of us
have been there many times. As a matter of fact I was there
recently. We will never meet a prouder group of Canadians who
are prepared to work hard for their incomes. They are working
hard.
Today we are talking about hundreds of people who go down into
those pits underground. They go down into those dark, wet,
dangerous pits day after day and make modest amounts of money to
provide income for their families. They have been tossed on the
coal heap. Some 1,500 families have been told “Sorry folks, we
do not need you any longer”. We are not talking about 1,500
jobs. That is the obvious number of jobs. We are also talking
about spin-off jobs, because for every miner who loses a job, a
dentist, a teacher, a shoemaker and somebody else are losing
their jobs. We are probably talking about 5,000 jobs.
Then the Prime Minister roared into Cape Breton and said
“Listen, I know 5,000 of you have just lost your jobs or are in
the process of losing your jobs. We have got a great idea. We
are going to open up a call centre so that at least 400 of you
can be telephone operators”. The government expects people to
cheer for this.
To be fair, it is nice to have some kind of an infill.
1720
We are talking about men and women who work hard. For
generations people have been going down in those coal mines
working hard to provide for their families. The idea of sitting
in a call centre with a phone headset on for minimum wage is not
that attractive but that is the best we have. We have to deal
with this in committee.
We heard others say that today. For goodness sake, we are the
most connected country in the world. Our banks are overflowing
with money. We have talented and trained individuals. This
country has the best minds. If we cannot find a better way to
provide for the people of Cape Breton than what is in this piece
of legislation and what the government has announced, something
is very wrong.
If we put the proper economic strategy in place, if we included
the proper industrial strategy along with an economic strategy,
if we established a business plan for Cape Breton, we could turn
Cape Breton into the showcase of economic development in this
country if the will was there.
They are talented, hardworking, well trained and educated people
who are prepared to work hard. They are prepared to create
something of hope for their children, but they need a government
on their side, not a government that is prepared to toss them out
the window. That is another reason we have to get this bill to
committee and deal with it properly.
I was in Cape Breton with some of my colleagues from the New
Democratic Party. We met with individuals, mining specialists
and people who know the Devco operation inside out. They all
said the same thing. The theme which was emerging from all of
our deliberations in all of our meetings was the systematic
program to demonstrate that Devco was uneconomical.
Today many people have shared with us their personal
experiences, the way they were approaching the coal faces, the
way they set up those strategies and so on. In other words there
was a scenario to enable Devco to be financially inept and
therefore something the government had to sell off. That is
definitely not the case. We have to expose that.
What do we say to a group of people who say they know they are
going to get some measly severance arrangement? As a matter of
fact I heard a government member say that those people are going
to get $8,000 a piece to retrain themselves. Where do people
retrain for $8,000? Maybe for a call centre job to learn how to
put on a headset properly.
Eight thousand dollars is a bit of an embarrassment. As my
fiends from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and Sydney—Victoria pointed
out, all sorts of other government settlements have been much
fairer in how the men and women involved were treated. Cape
Bretoners get shortchanged. Cape Bretoners do not get a fair
deal. The government says to Cape Bretoners that it is not
interested in giving them the same kind of deal it gives
everybody else. Why is this? Why does the government treat the
people of Cape Breton in such a cavalier fashion?
There are lots of questions. We are up against closure today
and not many more of us will have a chance to speak. Let us just
hope and pray that when the bill gets to committee and witnesses
come before the committee to explain some of these questions and
provide new information that the government does not use its
muscle in committee and close that debate off as well. That
would be the darkest day.
Although the threat of closure is about to strangle us here in a
few more minutes, we hope that when the bill goes to committee we
will have a chance to debate it properly.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for
recognizing the constituency of Okanagan—Shuswap. Mr. Speaker,
imagine sitting around in Cape Breton or anywhere in Canada 30
years ago with your coffee buddies, your friends and you were
talking about what would be happening in Canada 30 years later.
If somebody said that all the coal mines in Cape Breton would be
shut down, somebody would have called for an ambulance and a
white jacket.
1725
What are we doing today? We are talking about exactly that. We
have to stop and wonder how this all took place and what
exactly happened.
I have had the opportunity to go to Cape Breton. I have also
had the opportunity to go down into the mines with the workers,
and hardworking and dedicated people they are. Not one of them I
talked to was asking for a handout. When I talked to them they
were asking for the truth.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It might
have been that my subconscious knew that the member for
Okanagan—Shuswap had already been on his feet speaking to this.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: Mr. Speaker, but not on the
subamendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): But not on the sub-
amendment. According to the infallible records of the clerk
it was. We could ask for unanimous consent for the member to
speak for another eight minutes and that would solve the problem.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: I was just going to talk about the
mismanagement with regard to Devco.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately our
records indicate that the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap has
already been on his feet. I am sorry it took that long to figure
it out.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again to speak to Bill C-11 with some sadness.
The last time I spoke on the bill was in November. I raised
questions about the basic misunderstanding of the problems in
Cape Breton by the government. I spoke about the fact that many
Cape Bretoners who still consider themselves Cape Bretoners no
longer are able to live there. They now reside in my community
of Dartmouth or in Montreal, Calgary or Toronto, or they have
been forced to leave the country. They go to Boston or elsewhere
in the United States because of the government's approach to the
problems of Cape Breton.
The approach has been that it is time to move on; it is time to
leave the island that they love; it is time to lower
expectations, to know that what the coal miners have wrested from
the rock with their sweat and with the lives of their fathers and
grandfathers is not worth the government's attention any longer.
What it is really time for is the government to stop being so
arrogant and to stop being so patronizing.
Since I last spoke on this bill a number of things have
happened. The people of Cape Breton finally got the government's
attention by taking direct action. They took control of the
mine. These men had finally had enough and the spouses and the
families of the men had had enough. Together they took control of
the mine. I do not blame them. They were not prepared to let
the legacy of sweat their forefathers had left go without a
fight.
I want to salute the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton for her
levelheaded and hands on approach to the workers who took that
dramatic action. I think the situation may have descended to
violence had she not been there to keep communications between
the parties going during that very tense situation. That took a
lot of guts on her part and it took a lot of guts on the workers'
part to take the action that they did. They brought the
attention of the entire country to their plight.
I also wish to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for the
brilliant defence of his constituents and his articulate,
eloquent and passionate representations made to government
members, sadly to no avail. The Liberals seem hell-bent on
destroying Cape Breton island. They told the workers down the
mine that they would send their reasonable grievances to an
independent decision maker to get them to end the strike and
allow the coal to flow once again.
It was strange that when the coal stopped flowing the power
supply to my constituency became uncertain. Still the Liberals
say that shutting off the tap of Cape Breton coal is a good
thing. Maybe I should be a little more charitable.
1730
It is willing to let Devco go simply so an American company can
have the privilege of buying the supply contract which will keep
my constituents' lights on. However, from what I am hearing here
and back in Nova Scotia, the government has never fulfilled this
promise to the brave workers who went down that mine. I am not
surprised, only saddened.
The only thing the government has done is assured workers in
Cape Breton that they will be provided jobs in call centres. The
Prime Minister himself flew to Cape Breton on the eve of a
provincial election to tell people in Cape Breton that he would
get rid of good paying jobs without providing decent severance
and let them work for crap wages in call centres. The Prime
Minister called this the best kind of patronage. I call it
arrogant and patronizing.
While being a playwright, I had the great pleasure to write a
play about characters living in Glace Bay, called The Glace
Bay Miners' Museum. It was based on a very important story of
the same name by Sheldon Currie. This bill presents to me a whole
new scenario, a comedy of course, a farce I guess.
An hon. member: Black.
Ms. Wendy Lill: A black comedy, absolutely.
I have visions dancing in my head of a whole new industry being
put together in Cape Breton by the Government of Canada because
it believes in patronage first. First it announces call centres.
Hundreds and hundreds of jobs all over Cape Breton for former
coal miners to sit behind desks and explain to callers from
Alabama how to fix their washing machines or how the good people
of Mississauga can order their lingerie in the right size or
colour.
Then a problem surfaces. The call centre company's quality
control police at head office in Dallas or Singapore notice that
these call centre workers have Cape Breton accents, probably in
both languages. This greatly offends their sense of global
commercial homogeneity and the companies are not happy. The
government believes, above all else, that companies be kept
happy.
I see a group of concerned ministers and a legion of advisors
huddled around the Prime Minister discussing accent problems.
What is the result? We have a whole new private sector industry
being subsidized by HRDC to train Cape Bretoners not to have
accents. The Prime Minister himself will give the final exam
because he believes in hands on patronage for Cape Breton, and
according to many comics I know, he is an expert on accents.
I see the Prime Minister personally flying into Sydney and Glace
Bay on each and every graduation day to congratulate the new
accentless Cape Bretoners.
I also see problems with some of the companies accounting for
all the money they were given, but that would be another story, a
different story.
Eventually, the government, for the benefit of Cape Bretoners,
will encourage them to leave the island, after all they no longer
had accents and the call centre business was now moving farther
offshore due to newly signed trade agreements negotiated by the
Government of Canada.
I admit that some of this has been in jest, but less than one
would think. The underlying theme, that this government is
destroying Cape Breton, its culture, its lifestyle and its soul
with this bill, is not a joke. It is forcing people in
industrial Cape Breton to make a choice: accept less and maybe
not be forced to leave or leave and maybe not be forced to accept
less. This is no real choice at all. It is torture. It is
cruel, cynical and unjustifiable.
Even at this late stage of debate, even during the tyranny of
closure, I call on the Liberals to think about what they are
doing and pull this bill.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this
amendment on Bill C-11.
First, I want to tell the House, on behalf of the Canadian
Alliance, how absolutely aghast we are at the government for once
again moving closure. The government has now hit the record for
the number of times closure has been moved. It has tied the
record of the Mulroney regime that preceded it, and in a much
shorter time.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: That's nothing to be proud of.
Mr. Monte Solberg: That is nothing to be proud of. What
does closure mean? It means that the government is cutting off
debate.
This is an important issue. There will be almost 1,600 families
affected by this legislation. We have talked for a little over
five hours on this issue in the House.
There is no reason in the world why we should not have the
ability to talk about something that so fundamentally affects the
people of Cape Breton as does Bill C-11.
1735
I also remind the House that there have been many other times
when the government has prematurely moved closure. Let us
consider Bill C-20, the clarity legislation. We talked about it
for 18 minutes before the government moved closure.
It is outrageous that the Liberals continues to do this and is
not embarrassed about it. They seem to think it is fine if it is
them pushing the legislation through. They should be absolutely
ashamed. This is anti-democratic behaviour. On an issue that is
as important as this one, it is absolutely ridiculous. The
people of Cape Breton should be outraged by what we have seen
from the government.
I will now move on to more specifics in Bill C-11. I have been
to Cape Breton but I do not pretend to know it as well as some
colleagues in this place. Cape Bretoners are wonderful and warm
people. They live in a beautiful part of the world. Given an
even chance, they would have an outstanding economy. As far as I
can tell, Bill C-11 seems to be the final chapter in a legacy of
broken promises by successive governments.
What started out many years ago as a plan to help out Cape
Breton, instead seemed to be a situation where the government
kept hanging the carrot in front of their nose causing them to
move forward but ultimately to never realize their goal.
What was the goal of Devco and all the money that was put into
Cape Breton? It was to build a sustainable industry in Cape
Breton. Obviously, that has not happen. A lot of money has been
poured into this and people have spent years in those mines
building what they thought was a career. Now it has all come
tumbling down around their ears. They have families and they
expected to have a future in that place. It is now gone. The
government should be absolutely ashamed for allowing this to
happen over this long period of time.
We could recount reasons for for this, but it boils down to a
lack of transparency and honesty from this government and
previous governments about what would happen and what the chances
would be of having a sustainable industry. Even today my
colleagues have pointed out that there is no reason to believe
that those mines could not be profitable. Because of government
policies, that has not happened. Who pays the price for that? It
is the workers at Devco and the people of Cape Breton.
I suppose there are many ways we could try to fix this. I do
not pretend to be enough of expert to talk about those in great
detail. However, I do believe there is hope for the people of
Cape Breton, Nova Scotia and Atlantic in general. It does not
lie with governments that do not give people the straight goods.
It does not lie with governments that build peoples' hopes up
only to dash them later. It lies in the private sector. It is
time we gave the people of Cape Breton the same tools that many
of the more developed areas of the country already have.
What are those things? The people of Cape Breton need to enjoy
some lower taxes. Cape Breton is a beautiful and gorgeous part
of the world. With a trained workforce and with people who know
how to work hard, it has the ability to become a prosperous part
of the economy that some parts of Canada now enjoy. How do we do
that? We do that in a number of ways. First, let us clean up
the mess at Devco. Let us get it behind us and ensure that
people get a proper severance package, one that will not leave
them high and dry if they are near retirement but do not have the
number of years that would allow them to have that package. Let
us treat them decently and put this issue behind us.
Second, let us go about allowing the economy to produce jobs
that these people can rely on. How do we do that? We begin by
lowering taxes for one thing. I am not saying that is the only
thing. We must give people a decent severance package so they
can pay for retraining.
1740
The government must be allowed to remove the barriers that
prevent so many companies from investing in places like Cape
Breton.
Why is it that some parts of the country do extraordinarily well
while others languish? One of the reasons is that the
governments looking after those areas have all kinds of
impediments in place that do not allow those areas to prosper.
Cape Breton, I would argue, is a victim of those sorts of
policies. Sadly, that has happened at the provincial level. I
will not reflect on whether it is happening now. It has
certainly happened at the federal level over a long period of
time when areas like Cape Breton were operated like a fiefdom by
certain Liberal members of parliament and senators. That is
crazy and it has to end.
We are not in the 20th century any more. We have to step into
the 21st century and give these people the tools they need to do
the job: lower taxes, fewer regulations and a commitment to
training the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, which should
primarily come through provincial levels of government. This is
probably an area where I disagree with my friends on other sides
of the House, but I think it needs to come through the provinces.
These people need to be well trained. If this begins to happen,
we will perhaps see the sorts of things that have happened in
other parts of the country begin to happen in Cape Breton. People
will come to a beautiful place like Cape Breton because the
impediments are now gone. They will want to enjoy the quality of
life that a place like Cape Breton can offer.
This is an island that people from across Canada and from around
North America flock to because it is so beautiful and a wonderful
part of the world. The people are great and have a unique
culture. Cape Breton has every potential to become a powerful
economic area. However, it will not happen if we continue to go
down the same tried and failed road we have gone down so many
times before.
Help is not going to ultimately come from governments. If there
is any lesson to be learned from the last 30 years in Cape
Breton, it is that the government cannot be relied on. What
happens time after time is that nobody wants to do what is right,
they only want to do what is easy. They want to do what they
think will get them re-elected, only to find out years later that
they made promises they could not keep. For crying out loud, let
us not go down that road again.
Instead, let us give these people the tools. Let us lower their
taxes, leave more money in their pockets and let the
entrepreneurial spirit shine in Cape Breton. I believe it can.
We have seen it happen in many other places.
I will conclude by simply saying, especially to my friend across
the way who has been responsible for moving closure so many
times, that it is time to allow a little democracy to flourish in
Canada. This is the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada.
If democracy should be evident anywhere, it should be evident
here.
Sadly, freedom of speech is apparently something that is
anathema to the government. It does not want to hear about
people getting up and speaking out on issues that are important
to the people so it moves closure and shuts down debate. It has
now moved closure as many times as the Mulroney regime, and it
should be ashamed.
Cape Breton has the tools to do the job. Unfortunately, it has
been pounded by government after government suggesting that help
will come from Ottawa. It has not. Promises have been dashed by
this government and other governments.
The people of Cape Breton need a new vision, a vision that
embraces the private sector, one that has provided so much
prosperity for the rest of Canada. Let us hope that the
government will see the error of its ways and allow the people of
Cape Breton to really flourish in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government wants to impose time allocation again, for the 65th
time, I think. I am a young parliamentarian, but I always thought
parliament was the place to debate, to discuss issues.
However, I can understand why the government wants to gag the
opposition. It is because it closed Cape Breton's Devco mine.
1745
The Liberals have nothing to say, since hardly any of them have
addressed the issue this afternoon. Only opposition members are
talking about it. If the Liberals are proud of the job that they
are doing, if they are proud of having found the solution for
Cape Breton people, they should at least rise and defend their
position. They are closing that mine, but they have no good
reason to do so, they have no reason at all.
They have no reason to do that to people who have worked in the
mine for over 30 years, people whose lives totally depend on that
mine. This closure will affect over 1,500 families, not to
mention the spinoff it will have on all the other jobs related to
that mine.
As Newfoundland's Premier Brian Tobin said “It is not the
people of Atlantic Canada who let the Liberals down, it is the
Liberals who let Atlantic Canada down”. That is the problem for
the Atlantic provinces. The Liberals let them down.
It is not just Devco. We have a similar situation with the
Sydney steel plant. The Liberals are letting the people of
Atlantic Canada down.
The government offered $8,000 for training. What difference is
that $8,000 going to make to train people who are 45 of 50, to
help them rejoin the labour force, considering that it is hard to
find work in the Atlantic provinces? Jobs do not grow on trees.
The people of Cape Breton deserve more respect. The miners of
Cape Breton deserve more respect.
As a former miner myself, it is something I have to say today in
the House of Commons. I said it last time and I say it again
today, I have a lot of respect for these miners.
Government members say they supported Cape Breton all those
years. The people of Cape Breton got up every morning to go to
work. They have put their health and their life on the line.
They have sacrificed their health for this country. Today,
people like the finance minister are benefiting from what is
happening in Cape Breton, as his ships are bringing in coal from
abroad. What is going on in this country is absolutely shameful.
People went on a hunger strike to get the attention of the
Liberal government. We will recall minister Dingwall, who was
turfed out by my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
The same government that is currently in power has hurt seasonal
workers in Atlantic Canada and across the country by cutting EI
benefits.
While in opposition, Liberal members used to say that, should
they ever form the government, they would never do as the Tories
did. They used to say economic problems ought it be attacked,
not people. This is what the Prime Minister used to say when he
was in opposition. But once in office, the Liberals gutted
employment insurance. They squeezed out seasonal workers who are
faced with the black hole, the so-called gappers.
This is what the Liberals have done. They followed in Brian
Mulroney's footsteps. There is a good reason why we can hear a
Liberal member singing. He is unable to rise and make a decent
speech in support of the closure imposed by his party. The
Liberals have invoked closure in the House of Commons 65 times.
Shame on them. This is an all time record.
[English]
It is a real shame that the government put closure on this
legislation so we cannot debate this issue.
An hon. member: What is the difference?
Mr. Yvon Godin: There is no difference.
The parliamentary leaders in the House of Commons know better
than that. It is a real shame how the people of Cape Breton are
being treated today. The Premier of Newfoundland, a good Liberal
and a good friend of the Prime Minister, said that the people of
the Atlantic provinces did not drop the Liberals, the Liberals
dropped them. We could see that is what happened with employment
insurance
1750
The Liberals were in opposition in the spring of 1993. The
present Prime Minister said at that time to some people in Quebec
that the Conservative Party attacked the wrong people by cutting
the employment insurance. They should attack the economy is what
he said.
In March 2000 we heard the Prime Minister at the Liberal
convention saying “We lost the Atlantic provinces because we cut
the employment insurance. We have to give it back if we want
some votes”. He did not say he wanted to give it back because
he heard the people, the seasonal workers. That is not what he
said. We might have said that was a good thought on his part and
that the Liberals will make some changes because they now realize
they have hurt families in this country from coast to coast to
coast. That is not what they said.
Now they are saying that the Atlantic is for sale. I have a
surprise for them. The Atlantic is not for sale and our people
in the Atlantic will not be bought out by the Liberals, I can
tell hon. members that much.
I remember not too long ago the Liberal caucus in the Atlantic
provinces said “Let us catch the wave, and to catch the wave we
have to change the employment insurance because when we changed
the employment insurance we lost the Atlantic. Let us catch the
wave”.
I hope the Liberals catch the wave and that they start to
understand that in the Atlantic provinces we are still part of
this country. We are human beings in the Atlantic provinces and
we have kids who have to go to school. The kids will go hungry
because of the decisions of this government. The government
dropped them, that is what it did.
It is a shame what the Liberals have done to Cape Bretoners. It
is a shame what they did in my riding where people are caught in
the gap and then left on the street. Shame on the Liberals for
what they have done to the people in the Atlantic provinces and
across the country who are not fortunate enough to have a full
time job. Shame on the Liberals for what they have done.
[Translation]
The Liberals should really be ashamed of the way they treated
the people who are not lucky enough to have a full time job. I
offer as an example all those who have seasonal jobs in the area
of tourism. The New Brunswick provincial government is now
telling loggers “In the short term, the only solution is to go
on welfare”. I am sure the same thing is going on in Cape
Breton.
The attitude of today's governments has to change. I know that
people alone will be able to bring about this change by putting
the Liberals out of office once and for all and by showing them
the real road so they will understand what it means to be a
family in misery, instead of all of them coming from Ontario,
where things are prosperous and where they are lucky enough to
have people who work all year long.
If they go to northern Ontario, perhaps they will understand
too. Even Liberal colleagues say that people have been
mistreated by the Liberals.
I hope that this amendment will be referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development so that we can look at
the human side of this situation and the way people will be
affected by what the government has in mind.
[English]
I hope the government will agree to this amendment and send it
to the committee on human resources because we have to look at it
as a human problem for the people of Cape Breton.
1755
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is not the first
time I have had a chance to speak after my good friend from
Acadie—Bathurst. I appreciate the emotion and the colour he is
able to put into his speeches.
I would like to add a few remarks as we come to the conclusion
of speeches on second reading of Bill C-11.
On November 15, 1999, the Minister of Natural Resources
indicated to the House that fundamental change is required in the
coal industry in Cape Breton and that Bill C-11 is an important
component in the reshaping of that industry.
The bill provides the legal authority for the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, or Devco as it is commonly known, to
sell all or substantially all of its assets. The bill is
consistent with the recommendation from Devco's board that a
private sector buyer should be sought to purchase Devco's assets,
as agreed to and announced by the government in January 1999.
Finding a strong private sector owner who can maintain a
commercially viable operation over the long term is viewed as the
best and most realistic way to sustain as many coal mining jobs
as possible in Cape Breton.
In the debate of this bill, considerable support has been
expressed by members on both sides of the House for a private
sector commercial operation. I am pleased to tell the House that
the firm of Nesbitt Burns Inc., which is managing the sales
process for Devco, has been successful in identifying private
sector interest in Devco's assets. In fact, prospective
purchasers have toured Devco's facilities as part of their due
diligence process and definitive proposals have been received for
Devco's assets.
Devco is at the stage of evaluating and clarifying one of the
proposals with a view to finalizing the broad terms and
conditions of a sale in June. Negotiations concerning the final
detailed agreement of purchase and sale would then follow.
The prospects for transferring Devco's assets to the private
sector and for maintaining coal mining jobs in a private sector
commercial operation are real.
It is now more important than ever with purchasers on Devco's
doorstep that we move forward with this bill. Timely passage of
Bill C-11 will allow Devco the legal authority to finalize a
sales transaction with the purchaser. Most important, a sale
will confirm the maintenance of good, solid private sector coal
mining jobs.
During the debate there has been some concern expressed about
the fairness of the $111 million human resources compensation
package for those Devco employees, estimated at approximately
1,000, who will lose their jobs because of the need to close the
Phalen mine.
In January of this year, in response to requests from its
unions, Devco's management agreed to establish a joint planning
committee which is following the process as outlined in the
Canada Labour Code to resolve issues related to the existing
human resources package.
This process has led to the appointment of an independent third
party arbitrator whose decision will be binding on both parties.
That decision is expected around the end of May.
Beyond providing the legally required sale authority, the bill
creates no new ministerial powers and no delegated authorities.
It maintains what is called the general advantage of Canada
clause which will ensure that the Canada Labour Code will
continue to apply, a point which is important to Devco's unions
and employees.
The sale proceeds, as with any other funds provided to Devco,
will be expended under business plans which will be approved by
the Government of Canada. The Financial Administration Act
requires that Devco operate within an approved business plan,
summaries of which are tabled in the House. The bill will not
change that requirement.
Concern has also been raised by some hon. members about Bill
C-11's elimination of section 17(4) of the Devco act. Let me
remind my colleagues of two points.
First, the Canada Labour Code, as well as collective agreements
between Devco and its unions, contain provisions dealing with
workforce reductions.
Second, the economic development responsibilities of Devco's
former industrial development division were transferred to
Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation in 1988.
Although Devco has continued to make a significant contribution
to the Cape Breton economy, it has not been an instrument of
economic development for over 10 years. However, economic
development on Cape Breton is continuing to be addressed by the
government.
1800
In fact, to support economic development in Cape Breton and in
response to the requirement to close Devco's Phalen mine, the
Government of Canada has already committed $68 million. The
Government of Nova Scotia also contributed $12 million for this
purpose.
The new federal funding is in addition to any job creation or
economic development activities that would normally be undertaken
by either the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation or the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, or any other federal agency or
department.
Already the existence of this fund has made it possible to
attract jobs to Cape Breton. On March 21 the Prime Minister
announced the DES Sydney centre, a contact centre that will
create up to 900 full time jobs over the next four years. As
requested by Cape Bretoners, local consultations have been
undertaken to obtain the very best possible local advice about
how to use that new funding.
The panel that was assigned to conduct these consultations with
Cape Bretoners has submitted its final report to ministers.
Federal and provincial officials will use that information as the
basis upon which to design an economic investment strategy for
Cape Breton. The initial elements of that strategy should be
operational this summer.
Just as an aside I would point out, and I would like to make
comments contrary to those of the member for Dartmouth who
exhibited very little confidence, I believe in the workers of
Cape Breton.
Sheelagh Whittaker, who is president and CEO of DES Canada, when
it was announced that this new major project would be undertaken
in Cape Breton, said this: “DES customers, major global
corporations and telecommunications manufacturing and financial
services will come to rely on this centre for rapid and
responsive support. The customer service professionals here”,
and she meant there in Cape Breton, “will be trained and
equipped with cutting edge web and wireless technologies and the
DES centre itself will be nothing short of a showcase featuring
the latest thinking in both technology and customer service
processes”.
I believe she was clear in saying she was making a bit of a joke
I guess of the situation unfortunately, but I would ask her to
revisit her words and instead say that the people of Cape Breton
and the workers in the coal industry are capable people, capable
of adjusting to a new world and in fact as we begin this new
millennium proceed with a confidence that I believe and we all
believe is there.
Everyone knows the enormity of the challenges now facing the
people of Cape Breton. The Government of Canada is committed to
assisting in every reasonable way to help building a more secure
and durable future. Legislation now before us is the key to
moving that process forward. The future hinges in large part
upon that process being successful in finding a buyer who will
make a tangible and long term commitment to Cape Breton and to
Cape Bretoners and to its workers.
Bill C-11 is relatively simple and straightforward. By allowing
a private sector operator to purchase Devco's mining assets we
are taking a tangible step to try to maintain the maximum
possible number of coal mining jobs in Cape Breton in a
commercially viable context for the long term. Now is the time
to get on with the important business of examining the bill in
more detail in committee. Now is the time for us to show
confidence in Cape Breton and its people.
In responding to the amendment with reference to the HRDC
committee, I believe its proper place is with the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations which is
fully capable of examining this bill. While I remind the House
the bill is a simple bill, a straightforward bill, it does not
create any new authorities for the minister. It does not
delegate any authorities. It is a bill which will allow for the
evolution as it must of the coal mining industry in Cape Breton.
With that I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I ask all
members to support the bill, including my colleagues across the
House.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my
time with the hon. member for Halifax.
1805
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, all the mindless moralizing, tongue clucking and
finger wagging that we are hearing from this side of the House is
the same attitude that came with the announcement that 1,100 coal
miners in Cape Breton were out of work.
The so-called analysis of the event wafting out of all the ivory
towers west of our island could barely contain a content for coal
miners, the whole tribe of poor cousins east of the Gaspé. Our
sin, to hear the chattering elite tell it, was twofold: first,
we were poor; second, and even worse, we were undeserving poor,
the kind that is able enough but unwilling to do much for
themselves, always expecting others to take care of them.
Where do such ideas come from? I have never met a coal miner
who believed the world owed him a living—not my Dad, not my
Uncle Ronnie at the bottom of Number 26 colliery, not any of my
relatives who went down in the mine, not any of the miners on the
street where I grew up, not any of the miners I know anywhere in
Cape Breton. But what do I know? I am not a newspaper editorial
writer or a television news anchor. I do not get paid to
pontificate. I am a coal miner's daughter who grew up in Glace
Bay.
I do not have the sensibilities of people who dig abstractions
for a living. I know about the men who dig coal for a living in
Cape Breton and what I know is that the last thing any of them
ever got was a free ride. What I know is that they had worked
like hell for every single thing they got and still do.
I know they did the best job in the world, year in and year out,
until their bodies were broken by the work. The men took it and
came back for more. They battled the bosses when they had to,
but always did the work. Whatever it took to dig the coal, they
did it. Through the long days of summer they did it. Through
the short days of winter when they got up in the pitch black of
the dying night to descend into the pitch black of the mines,
finish their shift and come up as pitch black as the coal itself
to the home in the pitch black of the new night, they did it.
They did it for their wives and the kids and for the almighty
company overlords of the British Empire Steel and Coal Company
and the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and the Cape Breton
Development Corporation and for Canada. They did it to get a
paycheque and earn their way. They went into deep, dark holes in
the ground where the earth creaks and the pit props groan. They
endured dust and heat and wet and cold and noise and vermin in a
hell that no devil ever dreamed of. They gasped for air and
staggered to the surface after bumps that squashed their friends
to pulp or blew them to smithereens, turned around, worked in a
rescue, cleaned it all up and then went back underground again.
They did it to pay their way and because we counted on them to do
it.
When the wars came, we implored them do to it. Coal was life
and death. Coal was the margin of victory. Our world ran on
coal. Every comfort, every convenience, every essential service
was tied to coal and Cape Breton miners provided whole mountain
ranges of it. They served us all well. They never, ever got
something for nothing.
Clifford Frame, who built the Westray Mine that vaporised 26
miners in the early morning of May 9, 1992, got to walk away to
live in the sunshine without a scratch. Miners were not that
lucky.
They say Devco is unprofitable, whatever they mean considering
the source and however significant such an assessment can be
considering our island's political history. To date we have been
left with only the word of the federal government. But if it
truly is unprofitable, it is not because of the miners. God
knows enough of them died trying to make it otherwise.
Taking away our living is an injury all Cape Bretoners will have
to bear. Blaming us for the loss is an insult that sears our
souls. It is cruel and callous to expect us to submit to the
snide chiding of self-appointed pundits who see us as latter day
cargo cult civilization, always watching the skies for gifts from
the gods of government. Give us the respect we deserve. Do not
add the indignity of insult to injury.
We earned everything we ever got. We earned it with our sweat,
our blood and our tears—oceans of sweat, lakes of blood and
rivers of tears. There was a time when it was enough to earn us
a living. It should forever be enough to earn us respect.
1810
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to share the time with my
colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton. I do not have the direct
ties to coal mining in my immediate family as does the hon.
member who just preceded me and that is why she speaks about the
issue so eloquently and so passionately.
Let me say very briefly why I was prompted, and I guess I would
say provoked, to enter the debate that is before the House at
this time. There are really three things that provoked me to do
that. One was recognizing and watching the government invoke
closure yet again, I think for the 65th time in this session if I
am not mistaken, outdoing the Mulroney government's record for
heavy handedness and disregard for the importance of dealing with
an issue like this in a thorough and comprehensive way. What a
legacy for the current federal Liberal government.
Second, I have been listening and watching members across the
way, most recently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Human Resources Development, talk about the lives and livelihoods
of Cape Bretoners, in particular the miners and their families,
as if they are a commodity, a commodity to be disposed of, to be
traded away. The focus of attention has been so much on the
notion of transferring assets, completing sales, finishing deals
and finding buyers. If there were ever an eloquent reason for
referring this legislation as the subamendment before us proposes
to the human resources committee, it is that. We are talking
about the future of a generation of people and the next
generation coming from behind them.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources
Development said “Well, I believe that Cape Bretoners are
capable of adjusting to change”. You are darn right they are
capable of adjusting to change, but we are talking about human
lives being lived in a community and what the economy of that
community is going to look like. This government does not even
have the sensitivity or the decency to understand why issues as
complex and as sensitive as this should be brought before the
human resources committee.
This brings me to the third reason why I was provoked to enter
this debate at this time. On Friday I was in Windsor, Ontario. I
was participating in a forum, a teach-in really, around the
upcoming meetings of the OAS that are going to take place in
Windsor. One of the speakers at that forum was the president of
the mine workers from Columbia. That trade unionist who risks
his life to come and talk with us in Canada about what is
happening to coal mining, not just in his own back yard, not just
in his country, but around the world, used the issue of Devco and
the government's handling of Devco as one of the most dramatic
examples of what is wrong with the corporatization of our economy
both locally and internationally.
What he described is absolutely true. While this government
presides over the elimination of large numbers of jobs in the
coal industry and puts at further risk the opportunity for future
work in the coal mines by saying “Well, the private sector will
do it just as Westray, the families of the survivors of Westray,
did about the privatization of coal mines.
What this trade union leader from Columbia talked about is while
the federal Liberal government knowingly puts the jobs and the
futures of those coal miners of Cape Breton at risk, what it does
is drive the race to the bottom and turn around and import the
coal from Columbia, one of the worst countries in the world with
regard to labour standards, working conditions and human rights.
I want to end by pleading with the federal Liberal government to
understand the simple concept of treating the lives of Cape
Bretoners and the future of those miners and their families, and
others who are dependent upon the mining industry as a human
issue to be considered by the human resources committee, not as a
commodity, not just something to be traded away.
1815
Our human resources are going to be the future of Cape Breton.
It is high time the government understood that treating people
with dignity recognizing that they are indeed a human resource is
going to be the key to a prosperous and stable economy in Canada
based on human rights and decent labour standards.
Let us refer this issue to the human resources committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 6.15 p.m.,
pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt
the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to
dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the
House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1845
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was
negatived on the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dockrill
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Vautour
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 134
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment
lost.
The next question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1855
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dockrill
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 53
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Muise
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Valeri
| Vautour
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 133
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Redman
| Reed
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 129
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Dockrill
| Duncan
|
Elley
| Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Johnston
| Lill
| Lowther
| Mancini
|
Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 53
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ACT
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court, and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-19.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the members
of the Bloc Quebecois vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the New Democratic Party present vote in favour of
this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I had to step outside the Chamber for a minute. I was
not recorded for the last vote but perhaps you could record my
vote as being with the government on this subsequent vote.
The Speaker: On this vote you will be recorded.
1905
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 153
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Lowther
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 30
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs and International Trade.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-32.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded has having voted on the motion now before the House,
with Liberals voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting against this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
[English]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP are
voting no on this motion.
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting no on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 127
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bigras
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Crête
|
Cummins
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guimond
|
Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Mancini
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
|
Penson
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Robinson
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Stinson
| Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
– 56
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
CANADA NATIONAL PARKS ACT
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks of Canada, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second
reading stage of Bill C-27, an act respecting the national parks
of Canada. The question is on the motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the House would agree, I would propose that you seek unanimous
consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members
present this evening will be voting against this motion unless
instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois are voting in favour of this motion.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP are voting
in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive
Conservative Party will be voting yes on this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Axworthy
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lill
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Mancini
| Manley
| Marchand
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Redman
| Reed
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Robinson
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Valeri
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 153
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Bailey
| Benoit
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Gilmour
|
Gouk
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Johnston
|
Lowther
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Penson
| Reynolds
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Stinson
|
Strahl
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford) – 30
|
PAIRED
Members
Lefebvre
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Normand
| Nunziata
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1910
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, earlier this spring the Pembina Institute for
Appropriate Development released a study that exposed the
government's failing record on climate change. The institute
reported that Canada's worst polluters are spewing out more
greenhouse gases than ever.
Nine companies, most of them petrochemicals, joined a voluntary
program to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. They did so
following Canada's promise to do just that at the Rio de Janiero
conference in 1990, but seven years later these companies were
belching out substantially more pollutants than they had earlier.
It is not just the companies that are dragging their feet. The
same report shows that of 88 measures passed by federal and
provincial governments to combat global warming, only one-third
of them have ever been implemented. Many of these programs are
for public awareness or consultations and have fallen short of
expectations.
This year our Canadian emissions of carbon dioxide and similar
gases are expected to reach 694 million tonnes. That is 15%
above the level Canada agreed to stabilize at 10 years ago.
It was in 1997 with great fanfare that Canada signed the Kyoto
protocol. That committed us to a substantial reduction in our
emissions of greenhouse gases. As of today, Canada has still
failed to ratify that pact. In fact, it appears that we are
backing away from our original commitments because of our failure
to get there to date.
Amazingly the government continues to rely on the voluntary
efforts of individuals and corporations. It refuses to promote
alternative technologies which, according to the Suzuki
Foundation, could reduce our country's greenhouse gas emissions
by as much as half.
The government refuses to talk about the regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions and instead puts its trust in companies
like Petro-Canada. Members may be aware that this company's new
president and CEO said last week that his investors have put
money into a company for its shareholder value and not “for us
to solve a global problem”. It is going to take more than
volunteerism here. It is going to take government action.
Climate change is no longer something for Canadians to worry
about tomorrow. The changes are already with us today. The
polar ice caps are thinning. Nearly 300 square kilometres of a
large ice shelf in Antarctica have disintegrated since October
1999 because of steadily increasing temperatures. In our own
polar region, Inuit hunters and elders report that hunting is
becoming risky because of thinning ice and melting permafrost.
Weather patterns are also changing and the economic effects can
be devastating. Earlier this spring NASA reported a shocking
decline in the ozone layer over northern Canada. Despite a
worldwide ban on ozone depleting chemicals, it is expected that
ozone layers over Canada will take decades longer than we had
expected to return to normal. Again this is because of
greenhouse gases.
This is not good news for our children who already face high
cancer risks. Climate change is upon us, yet the government
refuses to take action. There have been consultations and talks
and talks and consultations, but there is no national plan to
reduce greenhouse gases.
1915
Canadians are waiting for options to help reduce these
greenhouse gas emissions. I urge the government to move beyond
consultations, to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to set some
targets to meet our promises.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this
point.
I commend the member for taking the issue of climate change and
the emission of greenhouse gasses as serious. It behoves all of
us as members of parliament and as responsible citizens of this
country, indeed responsible citizens of the world, to convey the
message to our colleagues and fellow citizens that this is a
serious issue. It does demand a serious response not just from
us in Canada but from the global community. It is a global issue
and an issue that cannot be fully resolved without concerted
global action.
Canada generates only about 2% of the world's global emissions,
but on a per capita basis we rank much higher on the list in
terms of global emitters, so we must do our part to deal with the
issue.
Beginning with the Kyoto protocol, we have put together a
process that has engaged 450 Canadians in more than 16 issue
tables to examine every dimension of the greenhouse gas issue
vertically by sector and horizontally by the cross-cutting theme
to make sure that we had before us at various levels of
government a complete menu of well thought out, well researched,
factually based policy options from which to choose.
That work is now virtually complete. The ministers of energy
and the environment federally, provincially and territorially are
meeting throughout this year to select from that menu the policy
options that we will pursue in the future. Canadians can be very
assured that the Government of Canada is very serious about the
issue. We intend to perform to international standards.
The Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.17 p.m.)