36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 107
CONTENTS
Monday, June 5, 2000
1100
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Private Members' Business
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1105
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1110
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Third reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1115
1120
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1245
1250
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1255
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1300
1305
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1310
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1335
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1340
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| EDUCATION
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| SRI LANKANS
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1400
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| LEBANON
|
| Mr. Mark Assad |
1405
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| RON LENYK
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1410
| ENRICO AND JOSEPH MANCINELLI
|
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. David Price |
| PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1415
| ENVIRONMENT WEEK
|
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1420
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HUMAN RIGHTS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1440
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1445
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| DEVCO
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1450
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| THE RCMP
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1455
| IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1500
| WAYS AND MEANS
|
| Notice of Motion
|
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1505
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Finance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| COPYRIGHT ACT
|
| Bill C-485. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1510
| MARINE LIABILITY ACT
|
| Bill S-17. First reading
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
|
| Bill S-18. First reading
|
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Motion for concurrence
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| PETITIONS
|
| Genetically Modified Organisms
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1515
| Child Tax Benefit
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Productivity
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| The Economy
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Research and Development
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| The Economy
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| The Debt
|
| Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua |
| Agriculture
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Gasoline Pricing
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| Sexual Assault
|
| Mr. Chuck Cadman |
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1520
| Immigration
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Highways
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
|
| Bill C-32. Third reading
|
| Mr. Rob Anders |
1525
1530
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1535
1540
1545
1550
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1555
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1600
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
1605
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1625
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1630
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Division deferred
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Report stage
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1635
1640
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1645
1650
1655
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1700
1705
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1710
1715
1720
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1725
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1730
1735
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| Motion
|
1740
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1745
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1750
1755
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1800
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1805
1810
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1815
1820
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1825
1830
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1835
1840
| Division on Motion No. 6 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 7 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 8 deferred
|
1845
| Division on Motion No. 16 deferred
|
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Motions Nos. 13 and 14
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Motion No. 15
|
1850
1855
1900
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1905
1910
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1915
1920
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1925
1930
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1935
1940
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1945
1950
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1955
2000
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
2005
| Mr. Pat Martin |
2010
2015
2020
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
2025
2030
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
2035
2040
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
2045
2050
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
2055
2100
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
2105
| Division on Motion No. 13 deferred
|
| Division on Motion No. 14 deferred.
|
| Division on motion deferred
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 107
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 5, 2000
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1100
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I notice that today we are not starting with Private
Members' Business but with orders of the day. I would just like
to point out, and ask for guidance from the Chair, that this is,
by my reckoning, the sixth time that the member for
Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge has not been available to move ahead
with his private member's bill, which means that we will have no
Private Members' Business today.
I do not mind if the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge cannot
be here because of an illness, is sometimes unavoidably away or
whatever it might be, but when it gets to the stage where we have
gone through this six times, it means that someone else's private
member's bill does not come forward today because a swap could
not be made or whatever.
1105
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you and the clerks have attempted to get
us Private Members' Business today, but it does seem, in my
opinion, to be very unfortunate when someone abuses the goodwill
of the House and the goodwill of the Chair by continually putting
this bill off and not dealing with it.
I would love to debate it, get on with it and have a vote on it,
but it appears that there is some sort of strategy, that none of
us are aware of, of putting it off indefinitely. This is the
sixth time now and today we have no Private Members' Business.
The private members in the House deserve better than that.
I would ask the member to reconsider what he has been doing here
with this bill. I would also ask the Chair to consider his
options as to what can be done to expedite this. It is not
right, when we have such little time for Private Members'
Business, that even that little time is not available to us.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course this is not the first
time this has occurred. It has occurred with members from
various parties where the same or a similar situation has arisen.
However, that does not make it right.
I agree with the hon. member that the private member's process
that we have is not designed for a bill to come up in rotation,
then back down again and never actually be debated. With that in
mind, I certainly will bring it to the attention of the hon.
member.
Additionally, about a year and a half or two years ago I asked
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs if it could
devise a mechanism whereby after a certain number of times there
would be a process whereby the bill would go the bottom of the
list, cease to be votable or something like that.
I would not be adverse to having a rule like that if members of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs want to
have a look at it again because I agree with the sentiment
expressed by the member.
I do not believe there is a strategy or anything like that.
Members have done this before. Perhaps what we need is a
mechanism to ensure that when a bill is votable it is debated or
it ceases to be part of the votable bills so that another bill
could become votable. I think that would be a reasonable way to
look at it.
The Speaker: This particular circumstance does cause
me some concern. There are two issues here. The first issue
that I have been asked to deal with is the point brought up by
the opposition House leader, that this particular bill has come
up six different times. I am quoting him on that. Every time it
has gone around. I believe he is asking me to make some kind of
a decision on this particular aspect.
The second thing was brought up by the government House leader.
It was mentioned that a year and a half ago the procedure
committee was asked to consider this problem in a more general
form, not this specific problem, and to give us some guidance as
to how many times a bill can come up and then go to the bottom
again. I think this is reasonable. I would certainly encourage
the committee to consider this sometime soon.
I want to deal with the first issue that was brought up. I
wonder if the government House leader would take it upon himself
to ask the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge to please come to
the House. I would like hear what he has to say about it. After
having heard what the hon. member has to say, I will bring a
decision on the first part.
On the second part, I encourage the committee to deal with the
recurring problem. We will take it from there.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1110
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Finance, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-32, an act to implement certain provisions of
the budget tabled in Parliament on February 28, 2000, be read the
third time and passed.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to
address the House at third reading of Bill C-32, the budget 2000
implementation bill. The measures in the bill were all announced
in the 2000 budget.
[Translation]
In this budget, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed that the
government would observe its plan of sound financial management,
that it would reduce taxes, and invest in abilities, knowledge
and innovation. This plan will make it possible for the quality
of life of Canadians and their children to be improved.
[English]
Several measures in Bill C-32 contribute to improving the
quality of life for Canadians. Amendments to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act
and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example,
will strengthen access to post-secondary education, provide
support for health care and provide more financial assistance to
families with children and students. It is important that these
particular measures be in place before the summer recess in order
to benefit those Canadians who want and who need them.
Let me take a moment to provide the House with a brief overview
of the bill. The first announcement the Minister of Finance made
in the 2000 budget concerned increased funding for post-secondary
education and health care, thus reaffirming the importance the
government attaches to these two areas.
[Translation]
Bill C-32 calls for a $2.5 billion increase in Canada health and
social transfer payment for health, social programs and
post-secondary education. This is the fourth increase the
government has made to the CHST.
The additional funds will be distributed to the provinces and
territories on a per capita basis and will go into a trust fund
from which they can draw funds for four years once the bill has
been passed.
[English]
Combined with a value of tax transfers and this new supplement,
total CHST will reach almost $31 billion in 2000-01, up from
$29.4 billion in 1999-2000. Put a different way, together with
the $11.5 billion investment in the 1999 budget, the cash
component of the CHST will reach $15.5 billion in each of the
next four years. That is a 25% increase in the CHST from the
1998-99 level.
One reason to pass the bill without delay is to ensure that this
much needed money gets into the health care system quickly to
help Canadians.
A second measure in the bill concerns financial assistance to
students.
[Translation]
As hon. members are aware, the Canada student loan program has
been making post-secondary education more accessible since 1964.
The current agreement under which financial institutions make
loans to students on behalf of the federal government will,
however, come to an end on July 31, 2000.
[English]
The bill we are debating today ensures that the Canada student
loans program will continue to serve students after that date.
There will be money available for student borrowers after July 31
and there will be no interruption in service.
As I indicated before, it is essential that this measure be in
place soon so that there is money available for students who will
need loans in September.
A third measure provides increased child tax benefits and
indexed GST benefits effective July 1, 2000. To assist families
with the added expense of raising children, benefits under the
Canada child tax benefit are being increased by $2.5 billion
annually by 2004. The government's five year goal is to bring
the maximum Canada child tax benefit for the first child to
$2,400 and to $2,200 for the second child by 2004.
To achieve these goals, the Canada child tax benefit will be
fully indexed. The base benefit and the national child benefit
supplement will be increased beyond indexation. The income
thresholds for the base benefit and the national child benefit
supplement will be raised and the reduction rate for the base
benefit will be lowered.
1115
Middle income families will benefit substantially from these
changes. For example, the CCTB benefit for a family with two
children and an annual income of $60,000 will more than double,
from $733 before the 2000 budget to $1,541 by the year 2004. This
measure is one more reason Bill C-32 must be passed without
delay. Low and middle income Canadian families are depending on
the CCTB increases and indexed GST benefits in July.
Another measure in this bill also assists families.
[Translation]
Budget 2000 is extremely generous toward parents of newly born
or newly adopted children, increasing the duration of parental
leave allowed under the employment insurance program as well as
the flexibility and accessibility of benefits.
The duration of parental leave, which may be used by one parent
or split between the two, will be raised to 35 weeks. With 15
weeks of maternity leave and the standard two week waiting
period, this brings the leave related to the arrival of a child
up to one full year.
[English]
In addition, the number of insurable hours that must be worked
to qualify for special benefits will be lowered to 600 hours from
700 hours. Parents will have increased flexibility to decide
whether one or both parents will spend time at home with a new
child, as only one waiting period per birth or adoption will be
required instead of two.
Income earned while receiving parental benefits will be treated
the same as for regular EI benefits and the Canada Labour Code
will be amended to protect the jobs of employees in federally
regulated workplaces during the extended parental leave period.
[Translation]
Another measure will allow Canadians to further diversify their
personal retirement savings plans. The limit on foreign property
that can be held in registered retirement savings plans and
other deferred income plans will be increased to 25% for 2000
and to 30% for 2001.
Several bodies, including the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Finance, the Senate Standing Committee on Banking,
Trade and Commerce, and the Investment Funds Institute of Canada
have asked that this ceiling be raised.
[English]
These increases will also apply to the Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board. There is a change in Bill C-32 which directly
affects the Canada pension plan. The provinces are permitted to
borrow money from the CPP under terms set out in the CPP
legislation. Bill C-32 responds to a request from the provinces
that was agreed to by the federal-provincial ministers of finance
last December as part of the CPP triennial review for a
prepayment option for provincial CPP borrowings. The provinces
will now be allowed to prepay their CPP obligations in advance of
maturity and at no cost to the CPP plan. This will provide
provinces which have fiscal surpluses with some flexibility to
look for ways to reduce their debt. It also means that more
funds will be transferred to the CPPIB and invested in the market
at higher expected returns.
On the international front, Bill C-32 amends the Special Import
Measures Act, or SIMA, to bring Canadian countervailing duty laws
into line with recent changes to the WTO subsidies agreement.
Certain provisions in that agreement which rendered certain
foreign subsidies immune from countervailing duty action lapsed
last December 31.
[Translation]
Bill C-32 allows for the suspension of provisions in the Special
Import Measures Act that implement these non-actionable subsidy
provisions into Canadian law.
These amendments will ensure that we are not treating our
trading partners more favourably than they are treating us in
countervailing duty investigations.
[English]
The two remaining measures in the bill concern first nations
taxation and an amendment to the Excise Tax Act.
Thirteen first nations will be allowed to levy a direct 7%
GST-style sales tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco products sold on
reserve. The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will collect the
sales taxes and the federal government will vacate the GST room
where the first nation tax applies. First nations which wish to
follow suit in the future can be granted authorization through an
order in council instead of a legislative amendment.
1120
Finally, this bill addresses the issue of tax evasion. The
Minister of National Revenue will be able to apply ex parte, in
other words, without notice, for judicial authorization to
proceed with assessment and collection action in instances where
revenues may be at risk if GST and harmonized sales tax
registrants are allowed their usual remittance period. Until now
the Minister of National Revenue has been powerless to proceed
with assessment and collection action before the tax came due.
[Translation]
In short, the measures included in this bill are non contentious
and, because of three initiatives in particular, this bill
should be passed quickly.
It is essential that the CHST supplement be invested in the
health network as quickly as possible. It is essential that the
student loans program be in place by September. Finally, it is
essential that the child tax benefits be increased and that the
indexed GST benefits be available by the end of June.
[English]
If these three measures are not enacted before the summer recess
Canadians will suffer. While the remaining measures are not
facing a similar timeframe, they are nonetheless important for
millions of Canadians and for the efficient operation of
government.
I strongly recommend that all hon. members give their support to
this bill.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32.
Right off the top I want to say that it is interesting that the
hon. member across the way did not say that it is important to
pass this legislation because it will give Canadians hope,
because it will give them new opportunities or provide the
hundreds of thousands of jobs that are necessary to help out
people on the low end of the income scale. He simply said that
some benefits will be increased.
The speech which my hon. friend across the way just gave speaks
volumes about the approach of this government. It is always
“Let's try to manage the problem”. It will not fundamentally
fix it. It will not provide people with opportunities. Instead,
it is “Let's manage it. Let's get it off the boil and put it on
to simmer on the back burner”. That characterizes the whole
approach of this government.
Having said that, I want to talk about Bill C-32 in the context
of something the Prime Minister said the other day in Germany.
He said that the Canadian Alliance has an agenda of greed. That
is a serious accusation and I want to address Bill C-32 in that
context. If we asked ourselves what exactly does that mean, it
becomes pretty apparent very quickly that there is a huge irony
taking place.
What is greed? What does it mean to be greedy? It means taking
something that one is not entitled to, something that one did not
earn. Thinking about it that way, that perfectly describes the
government. It is absolutely true that over the last six and a
half years since it has been in power it has taken more and more
money from people's pockets, money that does not belong to it.
Truthfully, it belongs to the people who earned it. They earned
it by working hard. What does the government do? It now
confiscates 50% of their income and, in some cases, at the
margins people face a tax rate of 60%. That is shameful, but it
is what occurs under this government and it is completely
unapologetic for it.
That is the agenda of greed that we see in Canada. I would argue
that when this government taxes $7 billion a year away from
people earning less than $20,000, that is an agenda of greed.
1125
What have those people done that they deserve to have that much
money taxed away from them? They have worked hard. They may not
have skills or education. In some cases they may have fallen on
hard times. That is their crime. For that they are punished by
paying $7 billion a year in taxes. It is absolutely
unbelievable. That does not include the taxes they pay in Canada
pension plan premiums, which are going up, and EI premiums. CPP
premiums are going up far more than employment insurance premiums
are going down. People are paying more and more.
What about brain drain? One of the factors which drives people
out of the country is heavy taxation. I would say that is an
agenda of greed, of which this Liberal government is guilty. The
government is taxing people to the point where they are saying
that the government obviously does not appreciate the fact that
they work 50, 60 and 70 hours a week, creating, in some cases,
hundreds of jobs.
The government taxes the life out of people until they say “Why
should I pay these high taxes?” They do not mind paying taxes
that are maybe a quarter or a third of their income, but why 50%
or 60%? That is what happens to some people at the margins in
Canada today. That is greed. It is greed when the government
takes money that it is not entitled to.
I think it is greedy when the government puts people in the
position in which both parents have to work. How many times have
we in this place heard people say “If I had a choice, I would
stay at home with the kids. That is what I would prefer to do.
That is a choice that I would like to have”. The government
taxes people so heavily today that both parents have to work, one
just to pay the finance minister.
That is the definition of greed. If the Prime Minister wants to
look for an agenda of greed, he should look at his own agenda. It
is an agenda of greed when people are taxed that heavily to
support the government. It is not like people are getting great
services for the money they send to the Minister of Finance and
the Prime Minister. Consider the human resources development
scandal. What happens?
We have $7 billion a year that comes from people making less
than $20,000 a year. A good chunk of that goes to a department
like human resources development, and a good chunk of that money
goes to things that are, to be charitable, questionable
activities. Consider all the money that is poured into the
coffers of people who are great political supporters of the Prime
Minister.
It is not like there is some objective process that people have
to go through to get this money. We know, for instance, that in
the Prime Minister's riding, because of political pressure, all
kinds of grants to friends of the Prime Minister were approved.
These people then gave money back to the Prime Minister for his
campaign. Now we have four police investigations in the Prime
Minister's riding.
That is an agenda of greed. The government takes $7 billion
from the lowest income Canadians and then gives it to its
political cronies, who then give it back in the form of campaign
contributions. That is an agenda of greed. If there is anyone
guilty of greed, it is the Prime Minister and this government.
It is about time that we pulled the mask off and revealed the
Prime Minister and government members for what they are. They
are people who too often use the tools of government to push
their own political ends. That is fundamentally wrong. Many of
us were sent to this House to change that, to turn it around. It
is absolutely disgusting how the Prime Minister can say with a
straight face that the Canadian Alliance has an agenda of greed.
That is ridiculous.
1130
Our purpose in this place is to allow people to keep more of the
money they earn. That is why we are promoting the tax proposals
we are pushing today like solution 17. We are saying that people
should be able to keep the huge majority of the money they make
and send in enough to ensure that we have a good health care
system in Canada and that we can provide for pensions and things
people really value.
That is what we should be using government for, not ripping off
taxpayers to push the blatant political ends of people in
government. That happens all too often. I resent very much the
Prime Minister saying that we have an agenda of greed when it is
so clear that everything the Liberals do is calculated to take
more money out of people's pockets to further their own ends.
I believe in a concept of justice that says we are entitled to
what we work for and obtain honestly. That describes 90% of the
people in the country. The massive majority of people in Canada
work hard, are honest and are willing to pay their fair share of
taxes. They do not want to pay a whole bunch of taxes for
unscrupulous activities. We have seen that too often in the
government. It is time for it to come to an end. People may say
it is fine for me to say all this but that I should back it up
and explain what I mean.
I do not know for how many months we have been pursuing the
human resources minister about the boondoggle in human resources
development which is obviously guilty of gross incompetence,
political pork barrelling and patronage on a scale that is
without precedent. I do not think we have seen anything this bad
before.
Let us consider the transitional jobs fund or the Canada jobs
fund. The Liberals change names to try to hide what they are
doing. If that is not one of the most obvious examples of
milking taxpayers to fund political patronage, I do not know what
is. Even the human resources development committee has said that
this program does not seem to have any criteria. It seems to
have a pot of money that allows the minister carte blanche and
members across the way carte blanche to fund their ridings, their
friends and the projects they personally support in an attempt to
lever themselves back into power. It is disgraceful. It has
reached the point where even the Liberal chair of the committee
brings down a report saying that it has to come to an end and
recommending breaking up the department.
The parliamentary secretary says that Bill C-32 is good because
it will enhance a GST credit and do this and that. Those guys do
not get it. There is a much bigger picture. There is no vision
across the way. The Liberals simply ad hoc their way through
parliament. It is time for some fundamental changes.
People will ask if we are really in bad shape. Yes, we are and
I want to talk about it for a moment. Three weeks ago a report
came down from Standard & Poor's DRI Canada which had the
audacity to point out a pretty startling fact about which the
government should be embarrassed.
The report pointed out that the people in the poorest U.S.
state, Mississippi, have more disposable income per capita than
the people of Alberta, the wealthiest Canadian province. I would
think that would be something government members would be
concerned about. If they want to talk about an agenda of greed,
how is it that Canada, with its human and natural resources, can
be in a position where the amount of money people have left over
after the government is done with them is lower than that of the
poorest American state, Mississippi? How did that happen? Is it
right that it should happen?
The money that people have left over to pay for food, shelter and
clothing is diminished to the point where there is less in our
wealthiest province than in the poorest American state,
Mississippi.
1135
That speaks volumes about who really has an agenda of greed in
Canada. It is the government across the way. The only reason
that happens is because of public policy decisions. The
government has decided that the best approach is to tax the hide
off people. Then it will decide what is good for folks. With
half the income people earn and the government gets to keep, it
will decide what is good for them. It will spend it for them. We
see it spent on all kinds of foolish projects. We see it spent
ineffectively. We see it spent on things that people do not
want. We see it spent on things that are contrary to the values
of the people it takes the money from in the first place.
We are in a situation today where people in Canada are seeing
their standard of living eroded and eroded and eroded. I have
given many speeches in this place on this point. It has a lot to
do with the government's contempt for people who are
entrepreneurs, who risk their life savings to start businesses
and who are innovative. I believe it is contempt.
The Prime Minister talked in Germany about the superior values
of the Liberal Party and how it cares more. That is a joke. It
is ridiculous. As I just pointed out, we are in a situation
where the government takes $7 billion a year from people making
less than $20,000. How can it say that it cares more? If it
wants to have an election on that issue, I say bring it on. Let
us have a contest, an election on that. Let us let the people
decide if it is compassionate and caring to take $7 billion from
people who make less $20,000 a year.
Is it really compassionate and caring to tax people so heavily
that both parents have to work, not because they want to work?
According to every poll I have seen, 70% of two income families
today said that if they had their druthers one parent would be at
home with the children. They do not have the option.
Is it compassionate to entrench in the tax system a double
standard when it comes to taxation of families? A two income
family pays a lot less taxes than a single income family earning
the same amount of money. That is the government's approach. It
is doublespeak. It hopes that people will simply look at the
sound bite and not observe what it really does. As a result,
people get more and more cynical about politics, and the
government wonders why fewer people come out to vote.
There will be a day of reckoning. I hope we have an election
campaign on the issue of Liberal values or social values. The
record of the government is reprehensible. It has done more
damage than just about any government I can think of in recent
memory in Canada. I do not think there has been a government
that has damaged the public more.
Let us consider that over the next five years we will probably
run a surplus of about $150 billion. The government's approach
is to jack up spending even higher, with more and more money
going into more programs even though they have huge problems, not
only in human resources development but in other departments like
industry where there are billions of dollars in corporate
welfare.
Let us look at the department of Indian affairs which is full of
problems. I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is here. We send billions of dollars into Indian
affairs every year, and what do we get for it? We get 70%
unemployment on Indian reserves. We see suicide rates that are
through the roof. There are substance abuse problems that are
unbelievable. Very little money gets beyond the band council
level to rank and file natives.
1140
The government will continue to drive spending through the roof.
It will take more and more money from people to fund all kinds of
programs that do not work. I would say that is an agenda of
greed. When people take money that does not belong to them, when
they take more than their share of the pie, that is greed. That
is unjust. We see it over and over again from the government.
Bill C-32 nods a bit toward things like reducing taxes, but on
the other hand the government is ripping more money out of
people's pockets. It gives back a little with one hand and takes
more and more with the other. It is this duplicitous approach
that makes people cynical.
Some people are probably wondering about Canada's position in
the world after six and a half years of this approach to
government. People say that the economy is moving along fairly
strongly and that unemployment is down to under 7%. That is
pretty good, but why is it not good enough?
I make the point that we should not be mesmerized by the recent
strong growth in the economy. While we all welcome strong growth
in the economy we must remember there are two types of growth.
There is the type of growth that is premised on strong
productivity. There is also the type of growth that is premised
on a workforce that is producing more and more and generating
more opportunities. Then there is the type of growth that we get
by allowing our dollar to sink to ever lower values by basically
cheapening ourselves to the point where we in that way attract
more investment into the country. That is the approach the
government has taken.
Over the last 25 years we have seen a decline in the Canadian
dollar. There is no better indicator of the health of an economy
than the strength of its dollar. It tells us how we are doing
relative to the rest of the world, and certainly in this case
relative to the United States. We measure ourselves, I think
rightfully, against the United States. We used to have a
superior standard of living than that country. According to just
about everyone, including the government's own industry minister,
our standard of living has now fallen dramatically as against
that of the Americans. I encourage people to remember we are a
country that is blessed with uncommon resources. We have
tremendous resources, human and natural.
How is it that we have seen this decline in our standard of
living and this decline in our dollar? It has a lot to do with
the sanguine approach of Liberal governments over the last many
years and their rah-rah attitude: “We are number one in the
world. We will spend our way out of this problem. Let us wrap
ourselves in the flag. The other guys are bad because they want
to cut taxes”. We have seen that over and over and over again.
The result is that investors see through all that stuff and ask
what is really being done to keep the economy competitive. They
look at the statistics. They see that our disposable income
continues to fall relative to that of the United States. Now, as
I pointed out, our wealthiest province has lower after tax income
than the poorest American state. They look at things like our
productivity. What is happening with Canadian productivity? We
know that it has improved a bit lately. However we also know
that it is falling further and further behind that of the United
States.
We must remember there is only an imaginary line between Canada
and the United States and its public policy differences. That is
what explains why the U.S. economy is doing so much better than
ours. Why is it that in Canada today manufacturers and people in
the industrial sector are investing about 30% less on equipment
and machinery than they are in the United States? Why is it that
we are in a situation today where we have much less spending on
research and development in Canada than in the United States?
Why is it that we are in a situation where the new economy in
Canada is producing fewer opportunities for people in terms of
high tech start-ups?
1145
One of the striking facts of the last year was that in Canada
there were exactly four initial public offerings for Internet
companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange. At the same time in the
United States there were 165. It has 10 times the population. I
could understand if it had 40, 45 or even 50 more IPOs, but there
were 165 IPOs in the United States.
The situation is we are falling behind in that new wealth
creating sector that is symbolized by the Internet. Canadians are
leaving the country in droves to go to the United States. A
recent report from Statistics Canada said that many of the people
who we educate here are going to the United States, particularly
in the medical field. It talked about doctors and nurses leaving
in droves.
The government uses the soothing balm of saying yes, but people
are coming in from outside Canada to fill some of those slots.
This is where its thinking is so short term and superficial.
Instead of replacing those people with people who in some cases
are fleeing horrible regimes elsewhere, would it not be better if
we were a net winner of brain gain instead of suffering from
brain drain, where we are losing all those people in the first
place?
How much sense does it make to educate people at huge expense to
the taxpayers only to see them go to the United States and other
countries around the world? It is crazy and ridiculous that the
government says it is not a problem, do not worry about it. It
speaks to the sanguine, carefree and even careless attitude of
the government.
We could point to so many other things to demonstrate that the
government is reckless and careless when it comes to managing the
economy. There is the falling dollar and falling productivity
relative to the U.S., the falling standard of living and the
output per capita.
One of the most amazing statistics I have come across is the one
that indicates our output per capita between 1988 and 1998.
Canada's output per capita over that 10 year period grew by 5%.
What is the significance of that? What is output per capita?
Output per capita is how much on average each person produces
for the economy. Why is that important? That is what determines
our standard of living. The more we produce per person in an
economy, the better the standard of living, the more money people
will have, the more money people can use to look after things
that are important to them and their families, the more money
ultimately that people pay in taxes to the government to fund
things that people care about, such as health care and higher
education, those sorts of things.
During that 10 year period ours grew by 5%. That is all. In
the same period, France saw its standard of living, its output
per capita, grow three times faster. Most people would say that
France really does not strike them as a country that is at the
leading edge when it comes to wealth production but it grew three
times faster than Canada.
Australia grew four times faster. The U.S. grew four times
faster. Norway grew six times faster. And Ireland? It grew 18
times faster than Canada. Why was that? Is it because Ireland
has more resources than Canada? I do not think so. Is it
because it is in a situation where it has much better educated
people? Hardly. I think we are fifth in the world for spending
on education.
We produce some of the best educated people in the world. The
fact that we are so often raided by the United States and other
countries to pick those people off is a testament to that. What
is the difference? Why are we falling so far behind relative to
the rest of the world?
1150
One of the big reasons is that in Canada the taxes are way too
high. Taxes basically shut down initiative. They send a message
to people who are really ambitious or who are prepared to risk a
lot of money to get their ideas off the ground, the government
tells them to get out of here, that they are not wanted. People
will be punished for the crime of trying to create jobs and
produce new products and come up with new ideas. People are
fleeing in droves.
That is why our output per capita is so pale compared to that of
our trading partners around the world. That has to turn around.
The Prime Minister uses a balm and medicates himself with such
slogans as the Canadian Alliance has an agenda of greed, when it
is precisely the government that has the agenda of greed.
Nothing will get better as long as those guys are where they are.
Things have to turn around. The government has to be replaced.
The Liberals have to be thrown out.
People have to get the message that the Canadian Alliance will
allow people to keep more of the money they earn. That is not
greed; it is justice. That is being a government that is
respectful of the work, effort and risk people take simply to
make a living, to try to get by.
It is time to throw off some of the ridiculous slogans we hear
from the Prime Minister and really look at the record. How do we
do that? How do we turn things around?
The first thing is to have some honest discussion with people.
We do not try to medicate the public with slogans about Canada
being number one and attack people who have other ideas simply
because he chooses not to agree with them. We sit down and
address the hard issues.
What are the hard issues? We have to ask how good a job is
being done with the money the public already sends in. Is a good
job being done? The answer is no. The government is doing a
lousy job. Health care is broken. Human resources is broken.
Indian affairs is broken. Transport is broken. Defence is
broken. Justice is broken. They all have to be fixed. Let us
go in there, take the money that is currently being spent and use
it more wisely so that people get good results for the money that
is being spent. That is the first thing.
Second, what do we do with the $150 billion in surpluses that
will come our way over the next five years? The first thing is
to recognize that Canadians are among the highest taxed people in
the western world. Income taxes are around 50% higher than the
G-7 average. Those taxes have to come down.
The people at the low end who are taxed to the point where they
can hardly feed themselves should not be paying taxes. People at
the middle should get a huge tax break. People at the upper end
should get a big tax break too because we want them here. We
want to keep them here. We do not want to drive them out. We
want them here. They will pay taxes and put people to work. But
the government loves to engage in the demagoguery that suggests
if people at the high end of the income scale get some kind of
tax break, it is bad.
I would submit that the real agenda of greed is the one that
comes from the government. It seems to want to tax every loose
penny it can find in everybody's pockets.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Except the Bronfmans.
Mr. Monte Solberg: “Except the Bronfmans”, as my friend in
the NDP said, but it goes beyond that. It goes beyond that
because what we see is a government that not only taxes every
cent it can find, but then it sends the money to all its friends
in what I hope is a vain attempt to lever itself back into power
in the next election campaign. I hope Canadians throw out the
Liberals for that insult.
It is time to put an end to that crazy way of doing politics.
Let us leave that money in people's pockets. Let us show people
the respect they deserve. Let us allow them to maintain the
dignity that goes with being able to feed our own families. That
is something people should ask for and expect as a bare minimum.
How would we do it? The Canadian Alliance says to go through
the envelope of spending that currently exists. Get rid of the
pork barrelling and patronage and put it into things that people
care about, such as higher education and health care. Let us fix
the military. Let us do something with the justice system. Let
us get the bare essentials fixed.
1155
Let us give people a big tax break. We are advocating a tax
plan which would see the basic and merit exemptions pushed up to
$10,000 each and a $3,000 per child deduction for every family in
Canada with children 16 years of age and under. Right off the
bat that would mean a family of four would have $26,000 of tax
exempt income.
After that we would tax people at a rate of only 17%. Everyone
would be taxed at 17%. That is it. People would say, “I finally
get the sense that maybe I am now being taxed fairly. I am being
allowed to keep the majority of my money”.
That would have a wonderful impact when it comes to attracting
investment and talent back into Canada. By virtue of cutting the
top rates from 29% and 26% down to 17%, the capital gains rate
would fall down to around 20%. That would be the total rate,
20%, federal and provincial combined. This would be a wonderful
incentive for people to invest.
It would mean that we would catapult ahead of the United States,
Ireland, the U.K. and Japan. We would start to attract
investment and put more people back to work.
Who suffers when we have an unemployment rate of almost 7%? Is
it people who have skills? I do not think so. Is it people who
have education, who come from a good background? No, it is
people at the low end.
The Prime Minister wants to talk about values. Why does he not
put in place an investment climate which would ensure that
business would come to Canada to the point where so many
companies would be looking to hire people that people without
skills and education would be sought after? Why is Canada in a
situation today where for every job there are three people
chasing after it? Why not reverse that? Why not have three jobs
chasing every person?
One of the remarkable things about what has happened in the U.S.
is the economy is so hot there that many companies cannot find
workers so they have set up in what are traditionally known as
ghettos. They said to the people, “We know you do not have
skills. We know you do not have an education. Some of you have
been on welfare your whole lives. But we are coming to your
community because we need workers. We will give you on the job
training. We will give you skills. We will give you
opportunity”. They get experience and contacts. And they get
the dignity that goes with being able to look after themselves
and to buy food for their families.
That is the great benefit of an economy which moves at its
capacity. The government seems to think Canada's economy is
wonderful if unemployment is barely under 7%. We have to do way
better than that if we want to help all Canadians. The government
is not doing it.
That is what solution 17 would do. It would get the economy
moving rapidly and would allow everyone to have a chance to have
a job, and the opportunities and dignity which go with it.
When the parliamentary secretary gave his speech on Bill C-32,
he said that we must pass this right away so people could get
enhanced GST credits before the summer. That is nice, but would
it not be better to have opportunities and jobs that pay good
wages instead?
That is what is happening in the U.S. I hate to keep referring
to the U.S., but we used to be on par with it when it came to the
standard of living. I do not understand why the government wants
to play second fiddle to the U.S. Why does it think that is
good?
We hear the proud nationalism coming from the other side, but
the Liberals are content to allow the Americans to eat our lunch.
Well I am not and the Canadian Alliance is not. We think that
investment belongs in Canada. Those jobs belong in Canada.
People need more than a GST credit cheque. They need jobs. They
need the disposable income and the opportunities.
We are tired of the middling busy work approach from across the
way. It is time for a fundamental change in Canada, a change
which will allow us to shoot to the front of the pack instead of
falling further and further behind, as we have done for the last
20 years.
That is just not good enough. It is time to turn it around.
1200
I will conclude by saying that if there is anybody in this place
who is guilty of an agenda of greed, it is the Prime Minister and
this government. They show absolutely no compunction about
taking more and more money out of people's pockets and spending
it on things that people do not care about or, in some cases,
things that I think are unscrupulous, things that benefit the
Liberals to their political ends. That is an agenda of greed.
That is what has to come to an end.
I urge people across the country who are watching this to help
us bring an end to that by throwing the government out. We have
an election coming in the next year. Let us get rid of that
government. Let us put in place a government that respects the
hard work of the taxpayers and is willing to allow them to keep
that money so that they can maintain their dignity and look after
their own families.
Let us put in place a government that will stay out of the lives
of taxpayers, that will quit interfering in their lives and allow
them to raise their children as they see fit. That is what the
Canadian Alliance wants. The only way to make it happen is to
elect an Alliance government and get rid of the scoundrels across
the way.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it is my pleasure to speak to the House on Bill C-32.
I remind our viewers that this is an act to implement the budget
of February 28, which we are to pass so the government may make
certain expenditures.
I will say right off that the budget the Minister of Finance
presented on February 28 provided for surpluses of some $95.5
billion for the next five years.
Logically we should be
delighted. We should say “If the government is accumulating
surpluses for the next five years, we are a long way from the
budget cuts that were made to eliminate the deficit. We are a
long way from the situation in which we had a deficit of $42
billion during the years of the Conservative government under Mr.
Mulroney”. Initially this looks like good news.
However, I have to point out, with all due respect, that it does
not represent good news if indeed the government will be raking
in some $95 billion in the coming five years—it may in fact
represent a problem.
Before becoming an MP, I had the opportunity to be a city
councillor. I am a resident of Boischatel on the côte de
Beaupré and I had the opportunity of sitting on the municipal
council for seven years. I will draw an analogy, and it is very
relevant to the situation we are in today.
I recall that when I served as councillor between 1987 and 1993
until my election as the member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans we had budget
surpluses in certain years. I can still see the mayor of the
time busting his britches and saying “We were good managers; we
have a surplus”. I am sorry, but what I am saying applies to
the Minister of Finance as well. If a government accumulates
surpluses shamelessly, it means that it is accumulating them
because it is overtaxing.
1205
A government should tax according to its needs, rather than
giving way, as this Liberal government has done, to an impulse
to overtax and to reduce the income of certain classes of
society. We will come back to this, but this is the point I
wished to make: a $95 billion surplus over the next five years
is hardly good news. It means that this government is cutting
too deep and taxing too heavily.
If this government were realistic, it would set taxes at a
reasonable level, so that taxpayers could breathe a little
easier.
They will not breathe any easier with the small tax cuts
expected up until 2004. On the contrary, Canadians are still
heavily taxed by international standards.
I have this to say to the Minister of Finance, the member for
LaSalle—Émard, “If you have a $95 billion surplus, if you think
you are so great, you should be able to do something about the
real problems”.
I want to talk about a real problem, one which continues to drag
on while this government, as usual, does nothing—I am referring
to the increase in the price of gas. The present situation in
Canada, particularly in Quebec, is completely unacceptable.
Let us not forget that in addition to GST this government
collects an excise tax on every litre of gas sold. This excise
tax is 10 cents per litre of gas at the pump, and 4 cents per
litre of diesel fuel. If this government has a $95 billion
surplus, if it is crowing about how wonderful it is, let it
immediately suspend the excise tax, in order to give taxpayers
and consumers a little breathing space and slow down the
inflationary trend resulting from recent increases in the price
of gas.
As the Bloc Quebecois transport critic, I am regularly in touch
with trucking associations, owners of bus companies, and owners
of school and other buses. These people, particularly the
truckers, are all telling us that they have no choice but to
pass on to consumers the increase in the price of gas.
At present, when young couples building new homes order
landfill, or topsoil for their yards so as to start a lawn, the
trucker will have no choice but to pass these costs on to them.
The intercity carriers, who are barely making a profit at
present, will have no choice but to pass these costs on to the
consumer.
Another example would be companies shipping goods by road. If
shipping costs rise, the costs of the goods will rise as well.
This shows the whole inflationist spiral the recent rise in gas
prices has triggered.
Why is the Bloc Quebecois calling for immediate suspension of
this tax? To give companies a bit of a chance to catch their
breath until prices get back to a reasonable level.
1210
Every member in this House, as well as those watching us at
home, knows that the average cost of a litre of gasoline at the
pump in Quebec was about 54.9 cents in February 1999.
Everyone finds gas prices far too high. Some people have made
what in my opinion is a logical and normal choice: to use public
transportation. In major cities, one sees growing numbers of
people on in-line skates, or taking the bus or subway. There are
people who have decided that, because of the atmospheric
pollution caused by automobile emissions, they are going to do
their part by choosing not to use their cars to get to work.
That is fine, but there are people who have no choice. Those who
are faced with these gasoline price increases are telling us “It
makes no sense, we are getting poorer by going to work”.
In February 1999, when the price at the pump was 54.9 cents a
litre, no one was saying that it was too much. It had reached an
acceptable level, given inflation and people's incomes.
This morning I left my riding of Beauport to come here and I
stopped in Montreal, where a litre of gas costs 84.9 cents.
There is a huge difference, 30 cents a litre, between the price
of 54 cents in February 1999 and today's price of 84 cents, in
early June 2000.
This government claims that it is compassionate and that it
respects consumers. It keeps repeating that it listens to
Canadians,
but which group of Canadians does it listen to? It listens to
the big contributors to the Liberal Party.
If this government is listening to ordinary people, it should
decide to immediately remove the excise tax, which accounts for
10 cents per litre.
The Bloc Quebecois raised another point regarding gasoline
prices, namely the government's laxness regarding competition.
This government is not doing anything to promote competition.
Canada is the only country, relative to the United States, that
lets companies be refiners, distributors and retailers at the
same time.
Whether these companies are called Petro-Canada, Esso or Irving,
they all have their own refineries. They get a margin of profit
at the refinery.
They send this gasoline to their own distributors and therefore
get the profit from the distribution. Then they send the
distributors' gasoline to the retailers. They have their own
network of service stations—and so they rake in more profit.
Who ends up paying? Who pays the totally unacceptable gasoline
prices, like the 84.9 cents a litre they are paying in the
Montreal region? Does anyone in this House think this is
acceptable?
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond: This allows the big companies to report
record profits. Things are not going well. The price of
gasoline has reached 84 cents a litre, and the companies are
announcing record profits. In addition to making record
profits, the companies are announcing massive layoffs.
In addition to making more money, they are going to get rid
of people so they can make even more money.
Is that acceptable in a free and democratic society
such as Canada? Absolutely not. The Minister of Industry will
say “But this is not our fault. This is a worldwide phenomenon
with the prices of OPEC, with the Arabs, Kuwait, the producing
countries and Venezuela”.
1215
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are saying that it is time
to do some housekeeping. It is time to look and see if there is
perhaps a bit of incest in the relations among the companies.
We should ask the Competition Bureau to do this, but, in the
meantime, the government ought to free us, by cutting the excise
tax by 10 cents a litre now, to provide the time necessary to
look into the situation.
In the House last Thursday or Friday, the Minister of Finance
said that the Minister of Industry had commissioned a study. Do
people realize when this study will be made public? The
Minister of Industry has ordered that it be released by the end
of the year—December 31, 2000.
The Minister of Finance promised us wonderful tax cuts. “My
February 28, 2000 budget,” he proudly told us “contains tax cuts
for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004”. Right now, with the recent
increase in the price of gasoline and the price of energy in
general, we can see that, if something is not done immediately,
any gains from these tax cuts will be completely wiped out for
certain categories of the public.
This is totally unacceptable. The left hand is promising tax
cuts and the right hand—not that there is one—is doing nothing.
With the increase in the price of gasoline and energy, the
upshot is that any gains from these tax cuts will be completely
wiped out until 2004.
There is a lot of talk about gasoline. This inflationary spiral
will have an impact on many industries. I mentioned the
transportation sector, so food transported by truck, but there
are a number of industries using petroleum-based products that
will have to pass on price hikes to consumers. I will give an
example.
I and the members for Témiscamingue, Lotbinière and Sherbrooke,
all of us representing the Bloc Quebecois, visited 21 ridings in
Quebec. We travelled to all regions and held press conferences,
offering information specific to each of the regions we visited.
We were able to note how much change there had been in prices at
the pump between February 1999 and when we made our tour in
March and April 2000.
At some service stations we held press conferences. The press
conference I particularly remember, however, was the one at a
greenhouse in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. One tends to forget that the
entire greenhouse industry is heavily dependent on energy costs.
This is the time when we are preparing our yards and putting in
our summer plantings, and the nursery owner, who grows potted
plants in his greenhouses, told us what the increase in fuel oil
meant to his costs. This was a small grower.
At the present time, the major producers have the opportunity to
heat with natural gas, but operators of small or medium
businesses who are trying to earn a living do not have the means
to convert to natural gas. They are still dependent on fuel
oil, the price of which has risen in leaps and bounds over the
past year.
This greenhouse operator told us “I have two choices. Either I
keep prices at last year's level, and assume the increased cost
of fuel oil, or I try to pass the increase on to the customer.
If I do that, I have to compete with the major American chains,
which have the opportunity of buying in bulk, so they can really
slash their prices. There is no certainty that I will be able
to make it through this coming summer”.
1220
The rise in heating oil prices was mentioned in his case, but
there is also a rise in the cost of styrofoam containers.
Styrofoam is a petroleum based product. Styrofoam suppliers,
such as Cascade in the Drummondville region or in the Kingsey
Falls region, which produce styrofoam flats and plastics of all
kinds, polyethylenes, will be hit with an unavoidable price
increase. Farm producers will either absorb it or pass it on to
consumers. The wheel keeps turning, and the same consumers,
the same taxpayers, take the blow. This government, with its
surplus of $95 billion, should do something about the increase
in the price of gasoline.
A second aspect I would like to cover, which advanced somewhat
last week, is Bill C-205, which I introduced in order to enable
mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools. The debate has
gone on in this House for some ten years. It involves a job
category, a category of employees, vehicle technicians, who earn
on average $29,000 a year.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you have a car as I do and when you go to
a service station or to a dealer's you can see how vehicle
technicians, more commonly known as mechanics, are members of a
category of employees that work very hard. Sometimes they have
to work in very difficult conditions. Their work is very
physically demanding.
Most of the time they work on concrete floors, in high humidity
areas, under vehicles from which water, oil and slush drip in
their faces in the middle of winter. These people work in areas
where oil, dust, noise and toxic fumes are the norm.
I tabled Bill C-205 because some people told me about this
issue. Let me say from the outset that I am not an expert on
automobiles. I am not a car buff. I have a hard time just
putting oil in my car engine, but luckily I have a good mechanic
who does it for me. Some colleagues have asked me “Why are you
tabling this bill? Is your father or your brother a mechanic?”
Not at all. It is simply a matter of common sense.
During an election campaign, or whenever we try to be receptive
to people's concerns, we talk to ordinary people, to workers. We
do not only talk to millionaires. On a typical day, a member of
parliament is likely to meet many more hard-working, low-income
people than he or she will meet millionaires or billionaires.
It is through these encounters that I was made aware of this
issue. Workers in the automobile industry told me “It does not
make sense; other categories of workers, including musicians,
chainsaw operators and dentists, can deduct the cost of the
tools required in their employment”.
This is why I tabled Bill C-205 which, incidentally, was voted
on on Tuesday. I want to take this opportunity to thank hon.
members and to congratulate them for doing so.
There were 229 members in the House and 218 of them, from all
parties, voted in favour of a bill introduced by a Bloc
Quebecois member. I said from the outset that this was a bill
that transcended party lines. This was not a debate between
federalists and sovereignists; it was not a debate about Quebec
versus the rest of Canada. It was simply a matter of common
sense and fairness with respect to people whose work is
physically very demanding.
1225
I thank the 217 colleagues who voted with me to get this bill
through second reading stage.
Mr. Speaker, you are a seasoned parliamentarian, as well as an
expert in constitutional law. You know that a bill from a
private member, an opposition member to boot, rarely makes it
past second reading.
I deplore that 11 Liberal members voted against the bill, but
they will have to live with their decision. Votes on private
members' bills are free votes, with members voting according to
their conscience.
When these 11 Liberal members are visiting service stations and
automobile concessions during the next election campaign, I hope
that they are given a polite reception by the mechanics, who
work very hard in these establishments, but they will have to
explain to these mechanics in person why they voted against my
Bill C-205. They will have to live with their decision. That
is not my problem.
This bill will have to be considered in the Standing Committee
on Finance before it can come back to the House at third
reading. I hope that the next election, which is expected this
fall, will not kill this bill on the order paper. I hope that
the government will give the bill top priority so that it can be
passed before the next election.
The four year legal mandate is up on June 2, 2001. Last Friday
it had only been three years since we were elected.
Let us keep in mind that, in Canada, the legal, normal and usual
mandate is four years and that, under the Canadian Constitution,
up to five years are allowed before an election is called.
It is true that there is a tax cost related to this bill to
allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools. It is true
that this is going to cost the government money, but the
Minister of Finance is bragging of having a $95 billion surplus
over the next five years. I believe he has the financial and
budgetary possibilities of accepting this bill, which would
enable automobile mechanics to finally be recognized for their
true value and to be allowed to deduct the cost of the tools
required for their work.
Let us not forget that my purpose in tabling this bill was to
help young men and women who are just finishing school.
There are, unfortunately, not many young women working as
mechanics but I believe that, as our society changes, it will be
less and less a male-only trade, and we will see more and more
girls choosing this profession.
Another purpose of this bill was to give young people the chance
of getting a job. When a young person finishes school, he usual
has debts because of his studies. He then goes to a car dealer
or a garage looking for work and the boss is going to ask him,
for a certainty, “Do you have your tools?”
We know that the most basic tool set runs between $3,000 and
$5,000. There is no certainty that a young person just
finishing school, with debts to begin with, is going to have
that kind of money, and there is also no certainty that his
parents will be in a position to help him either.
Any set of tools that are the least bit specialized can run up
to $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000.
The possibility of deducting the cost of tools would also be a
recognition by this government of its desire to really give
young people a chance and the opportunity to find work. I think
the Minister of Finance ought to give some thought to this.
1230
Another private member's bill I introduced, which may involve
some financial commitment by the government, concerns employment
insurance benefits. Over the years, the government has
accumulated surpluses in the employment insurance fund.
We in the Bloc Quebecois contend that, since 1993, this surplus
has not belonged to the government, but rather to the employees
who contribute to employment insurance every week from their pay
cheques and to their employers, who also pay employment
insurance contributions, the employer's share.
We consider that the surplus of over $31 billion in the
employment insurance fund—and I am sure that there is more than
that today—belongs to the workers, and thus the unemployed, and
to the employers. The employer's contribution to unemployment
insurance should be reduced.
During the last break, I visited many businesses in the Beauport
industrial park in my riding. People said to me “Mr. Guimond,
we could create jobs if we could reduce certain payroll costs,
employment insurance contributions, for example”.
When I took my degree in industrial relations, we talked about
fringe benefits. Today, we call them benefits. Let me say in
passing that these benefits are less and less fringe benefits, a
name that is no longer acceptable. Now we talk about benefits.
Today, the employer pays between 30% and 35% of benefits. An
employee hired today costs 35 cents for every dollar the
employer pays in salary, even before he has worked.
Many SMB owners say “Lower the payroll taxes, lower the
contributions to employment insurance, and we will create jobs”.
This is all the more appropriate in the context of today's
budget surplus of $31 billion.
This is why I introduced my private member's bill and I can
hardly wait for it to be debated in this House. I can hardly
wait to hear what all my colleagues from all parties on both
sides of the House have to say on the matter. I want students
excepted from having to pay employment insurance contributions,
to have the option of not paying them.
When students do not work enough to qualify for employment
insurance, why should they have to contribute if they hold a
summer job? We currently have students here. They will begin to
work soon, or they did at the end of April or in early May.
These students will pay employment insurance contributions. In
September, when they go back to school, they will not be able to
get employment insurance benefits, because they will be full
time students. Since they will not be able to look for full time
work either, they will not qualify for employment insurance.
The bill I tabled is designed to allow these students, if they
think that they will not work long enough to qualify for
employment insurance or that they will have too many hours in
class in September, to be exempted from having to contribute to
the EI program. Such contributions are an indirect tax.
If these young people have more money available when they are
working, it indirectly alleviates their parents' burden. If,
instead of getting $195 net per week, a student takes home $210
or $212, he will have more money in his pockets and be more
financially independent.
1235
This in turn means that the parents will not have to shell out
as much money for a bus pass or a pair of sneakers when classes
resume in September. This is the reasoning behind the bill. I do
hope that the government, which boasts about a $95.5 billion
budget surplus over the next five years, will listen to the
public, particularly since the Prime Minister plans to call an
election soon.
My 40 minutes are running out quickly. I could have talked about
the lack of measures in the February 28, 2000, budget to truly
fight poverty. I cannot understand the Minister of Finance, who
claims to sympathize with the poor and to understand them.
Maybe that is true. Even though he has led a very sheltered
life, even though we know he has a bank account big enough to
buy out most members here, to buy us all out, he tells us he
understands the poor.
Let us not forget that the Minister of Finance is the former
president and owner of Canada Steamship Lines, one of the
largest shipping companies. He is therefore a prosperous
shipowner, a fellow with money coming out his ears, whose
company, Canada Steamship Lines, registers its boats abroad in
tax havens and does not hire many Canadian sailors so that it
can pay the lowest wages possible.
The Minister of Finance says he understands the poor and is
concerned about their situation. There must be poor people
living in LaSalle, in his riding of Lasalle—Émard. Is there
anyone listening who lives in LaSalle or Ville-Émard who thinks
that their member of parliament, the Minister of Finance, is
someone who understands and is in touch with the poor? Is he
someone who makes a practice of visiting soup kitchens and
meeting with the poor, the disadvantaged and those who beg for
money in Montreal? Does he give them a quarter when he takes a
walk along rue Sainte-Catherine? Does this describe the Minister
of Finance? No. He is insensitive.
The best proof is that his February 28, 2000 budget contained
nothing for the poor. He tried to throw together a few little
programs to once again boost this government's visibility. This
government has an obsession with visibility.
It wants to put the maple leaf everywhere. It even put it on
the front of Via Rail trains. I do not know how many thousands
of dollars it cost taxpayers to put a maple leaf on the front of
Via Rail trains so that moose, caribou and deer watching the
train go through the Gaspé park toward the town can be sure that
it is really a federal government train. Just to be sure, a
maple leaf was added to the front of Via Rail trains. This
government has an obsession with visibility.
I believe that, if this government has any sensitivity to the
needs of the people of Canada and of Quebec, it should think
twice and ensure that there are measures to allow the ordinary
people, the members of the middle class, the hard working people
who punch the clock in factories and other businesses, those who
are supervised by others, those who do not make enough to make
ends meet, those who are worried about losing their jobs, those
whose have children in Cegep who want to be like everyone else
and have things like everyone else, a bike for instance, to be
able to benefit from concrete taxation measures.
This is today's reality. Canadian and Quebec society is made up
of several different categories of people.
I think it is regrettable that this government pays more
attention to the powerful. When we realize that the six biggest
banks in Canada have recorded a profit of $8 billion in 1999,
can this government be one that listens to those who have
little?
Can we believe that this government is one that listens to the
middle class, when we see the six major banks making $8 billion
in profits?
1240
While the big banks like Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and
Toronto Dominion are announcing record profits for 1999—they have
never made so much money—2,500 jobs are being cut, branches are
being closed, there is no more service. People are being told
to use the automatic teller, which will cut down on the number
of counter staff needed.
In the branches, the tellers are being forced to tell us “Use
the automatic tellers. There is no charge for it”. That is
what they are being made to do.
I said so the other day to my teller at the National Bank. I
said “Do you realize you are working to do yourself out of a
job? You encourage me to pay my hydro bill at the banking
machine in order to save $1.25. You are doing yourself out of a
job”. She said “Mr. Guimond, we have been instructed to direct
our clients to the banking machine”.
Can we say we are in a better, more developed, society when we
just do business with banking machines? What about humanity's
place in society? Where will humans be taken into account once
and for all? When are we, as members, going to take those who
sent us here into account? They are the public.
This fall we may be going back to the people. What do they
expect of us? We must represent them worthily and listen to
their needs and concerns.
I hope that the 301 members of the House of Commons will be
motivated by one thing, not greed, not power or latching on to
it, but the defence honestly and to the best of their ability of
the people they represent.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I will be splitting my
time with my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton.
I want to say a few words on the bill before us today, the
budget implementation act, Bill C-32. In many ways I suppose
this is the wind up of the budget debate in the House that
started back in February. It actually started before that with
the finance committee holding hearings around the country last
fall, taking ideas to the Department of Finance and giving
Canadians the opportunity to have a platform to express their
ideas of what should go into the budget.
The great debate really was what to do with the so called fiscal
dividend. The prediction made by the minister in London last
fall was that we would have a surplus of around $10 billion this
fiscal year and $95 billion to $100 billion over a five year
period. Since then we have had revisions: this was even too
conservative; the surplus would be even higher; and the
flexibility even greater than that in terms of the economy that
is going pretty well full blast across the country.
The debate is about what we do with the money. We hear from the
Reform Party members of course, who basically want to spend all
the money on tax cuts. The Canadian people are saying that a tax
cut is about their third, fourth or fifth priority. What
Canadians have said to us as we toured around the country and in
poll after poll is that the main thing they want is to reinvest
the money in the Canadian people, particularly in the health care
and education systems for our future and the future of our kids.
That is where the Canadian people want to go.
We are seeing great opposition to that, not just from the
Alliance Party but from the Liberals across the way. The
parliamentary secretary knows that the Liberals have cut back on
spending on health care by more money than any Conservative
government has done in the history of this country. They have cut
back on health care by billions and billions of dollars, to the
point where the federal government is now paying, in terms of
cash, 13 cents or 14 cents on the dollar compared to 50 cents on
the dollar some 20 or 30 years ago when medicare was introduced
in the country.
After the pushing and prodding by the CCF and the NDP, the
Pearson government introduced medicare back in the 1960s. The
deal at that time was that the federal government paid 50% and
the provinces paid 50%. Under the current Liberal regime, the
Liberal government pays 13 cents or 14 cents on the dollar in
terms of cash for health care. That is why there is a crisis in
health care from one part of Canada to the other.
1245
It is the reason we are now being threatened with bill 11 in
Alberta and the opening of the floodgates to a private health
care system that would operate alongside a public health care
system. In other words, it would be two tier American style
health care as a result of a Liberal government not putting
enough money into health care in Canada.
That is the major priority of the Canadian people in poll after
poll and in calls to our offices, e-mails and faxes. When we
talk to people on the street, they want more money in health
care. They want to keep a single payer health system, a public
health system. We do not want American style health care in
Canada. That is the way we will go if we do not persuade the
government to change its ways and put more money into health
care. The money is there. It is not as if the money was not
there like four or five years ago. The cash is there and it is a
matter of what to do with this priority.
We are hearing a lot about education from young people and from
people in general. They want more federal funds going into
post-secondary education and training to prepare people for the
new economy. I suggest that knowledge is power and extremely
important in terms of building a strong economy for the future.
That is the way we should be going in terms of more federal tax
dollars going into educating and training people, building a
strong economy, and building skills so we can be competitive with
the rest of the world in the future.
These should be the two big priorities of the government across
the way, but what does the government do? It put more money into
cutting taxes in the last budget than it did into health care
because it is afraid of the Reform Party, the so-called alliance
party which keeps pushing the tax cut issue.
I think we should mention a word or two about the alliance
reform party. It is now advocating a 17% flat tax across the
board. Regardless of how wealthy we are, we would pay 17% in
taxes. On first blush that might sound pretty attractive to some
people. Then we find out that for people making $30,000 a year
their tax cut would be $488. For people making $100,000 a year,
their tax cut would be $7,988. For very wealthy people making
$250,000 a year, their tax cut would be $25,988. People making
that kind of money should be paying more.
We have historically had a progressive tax system. Currently
the system has three different tax rates: 17%, 26% and 29%. The
middle rate will be reduced gradually from 26% to 23%. That is
progressivity: 17%, 26% and 29%.
When the very same conservatives that now call themselves the
alliance reform party were in power, they made the tax system
less progressive. There used to be seven or eight different tax
brackets back in the 1970s and early 1980s. Now they want to
eliminate progressivity altogether. A millionaire will get a
huge tax cut. One should vote for the Reform Party if one is a
millionaire.
One of the leadership candidates who is an extremist in more
ways than one, Stockwell Day, has been pushing the idea of the
flat tax and helping the rich for the last year or so. He is not
just an extremist in that regard. He is an extremist in all
kinds of social conservative ideas as well in terms of
intolerance.
That is not the way Canadian people want to go. Canadian people
want a progressive tax system. They want to reduce taxes for low
and middle income people. They still want enough tax money from
those who can afford to pay taxes to invest in health care,
education, farmers, the fisheries and the basic industries that
provide a job and livelihood for each and every Canadian. That
is the way we should go.
It is also interesting how the government failed to eliminate
some the loopholes in the tax system. On the weekend I read with
interest an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, June
3, headlined “Taxman ordered to justify $2B deal”. There was
the ruling of a judge in a court case on Friday. The Federal
Court of Appeal ruled that George Harris, a Winnipeg activist,
could take Revenue Canada to court to contest the tax collector's
decision to allow $2 billion in family assets, believed to be
those of the Bronfman family, to be transferred out of the
country and the capital gains to be transferred out of the
country tax free.
This was a ruling back in 1991 which did not come to light until
1996. The government promised legislation, but the government
has not really acted upon the promise to bring in legislation to
ensure this kind of thing does not happen.
1250
According to the Ottawa Citizen and the information in the
courts, the Bronfman family transferred assets worth $2 billion,
I gather stocks in particular, from Canada to the United States
in 1991. The capital gains on those stocks were about $700
million. Some officials in the Department of National Revenue,
in a secret meeting where no minutes were kept according to the
court documents, decided that the Bronfman family did not have to
pay tax on that $700 million of capital gains.
Where are the priorities of the government? It will tax the
ordinary citizen who is making $10,000 or $20,000 a year. If
that person fails to pay taxes he will get a tax notice. He will
be penalized and will have interest added to the tax owed. The
government will go after him hook, line and sinker until that tax
is paid. One could be a widowed granny and the government will
go after her, but the Bronfman family with $700 million in
capital gains paid not one penny in tax.
Is that fair? Is that just? Is it a true, just and fair
democratic society that has a system which is so unfair and so
unjust?
I conclude by saying that the Liberals have let this happen. The
reform party alliance would make it go even faster. Just this
morning its finance critic said he wanted a tax reduction for the
wealthy, for the rich. Even my friend from Calgary is hanging
his head in shame when he hears those words. The wealthy and the
rich, the Pocklingtons and the Bronfmans of the world, would get
a tax cut from the reform party alliance.
That is not where the Canadian people stand. The grassroots
people say they want tax fairness, tax justice and equality. They
want money in health care and money in education to build a
strong economy.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, 22 times since the Liberals were elected in 1993 they
have raised personal taxes.
Did they raise taxes once for combat bras? Did they raise taxes
twice for sex changes for soldiers? Did they raise taxes three
times so that they could allow the Bronfmans an easy out? Did
they raise taxes four times so that they could pay for the
fountains in Shawinigan? Did the raise taxes five times so that
they could fund dumb blonde joke books?
The list goes on. I would like my colleague to respond and let
us know why the Liberals raised taxes so many times.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I am not a Liberal so
I guess the member should ask that question of Liberals across
the way.
I suppose one reason they raised taxes so often was that they
wanted to spend $60 million on an unelected Senate. I know my
friend is very interested in the Senate issue in terms of trying
to abolish the unelected Senate. We may disagree on what it
should be replaced with, but certainly spending $60 million on an
unelected Senate is a waste of taxpayer money.
There are all kinds of other waste as well. The member
enumerated some of them. I am aware of some of the ones he has
talked about, but I do not know about sex changes for soldiers.
Maybe he could elaborate on that, but I certainly know about the
fountains in Shawinigan and all kinds of other money wasted
across the country.
The one I referred to specifically was letting the Bronfman
family get away with not paying a penny in taxes on the $700
million in capital gains. The member makes a very good point. If
we do not tax certain things then other people will be taxed to
fill the gap. If the Bronfmans are not taxed on $700 million
worth of capital gains, who will pay the bill? It will be
ordinary working people in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or
anywhere else in the country. They then pay the bill.
That gets back to my original point that we need a fair tax
system based on the ability to pay.
It should be a progressive tax system, not a flat tax system
because the wealthy people get away with a better deal when
everybody pays the same tax rate. A progressive tax system based
on the ability to pay is the way to go, with tax reductions for
middle income people, with a lot higher exemption that would
exempt more and more poor people, and with tax credits for
children so that we have a children's agenda to invest in the
future.
1255
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, one of the great platforms of the
New Democratic Party is the reduction of the dreaded GST and in
Atlantic Canada the HST. Could my hon. colleague from Regina
elaborate on what a reduction of the GST would do for all
Canadians?
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, a reduction in the GST
would be the best way to reduce taxes in a very fair and balanced
way for ordinary Canadians. One point in the GST means about $3
billion in terms of total government revenue.
In essence the GST is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same tax.
When someone gets a haircut one pays 7% whether it is wealthy
person, a poor person or a middle income person. Some people do
not get haircuts so they are at tremendous advantage here in the
House of Commons. It does not make much sense to reduce the GST
for our friend from Vancouver, but for most people a reduction in
the GST is the quickest way to create a fairer tax system.
It is also the quickest way to stimulate the economy by putting
more money back into the hands of consumers, particularly
ordinary people who will spend it on the necessities of life and
in turn create jobs.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, an act to
implement certain provisions of budget 2000. This morning I
listened with great interest when the government member spoke
about the wonders of budget 2000 and the wonderful effects its
implementation will have on Canadians. I thought about how a
country measures success and realized that a country measures
success by the success of its citizens.
The Minister of Health and other government members talk about
health care and the fact they have reinvested in health care
because Canadians have said they want to maintain a public health
care system. I wonder why the government does not want to talk
about the realities we see every day, certainly in my part of the
country, with respect to what government cuts have done to health
care.
Recently I turned on the television to watch a program about two
individuals in two different provinces in Canada. One was a
young woman who had been diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumour
and had to undergo surgery. Unfortunately she ended up disabled.
She was only in her early thirties. It was found out later that
the tumour was not cancerous, that it was benign. It was the
matter of a misdiagnosis.
The other case involved an older gentleman with some abdominal
pain. He went to the hospital and was diagnosed with cancer of
the bowel. Following surgery, approximately 10 or 12 days later
he died because of complications from the surgery, only for his
wife to find out that he too had not had cancer.
The show went on to talk to approximately seven Canadian
pathologists. The commentator was asking them how this could
happen in Canada. The pathologists said very clearly that it was
because there was not enough money being invested into the
system. There are not enough pathologists in Canada. The
number they quoted was 59 pathologists for every million.
I come from the health care sector. I have found myself asking
on a number of occasions what kind of a country we live in. I
heard the remarks of my hon. colleague in the Bloc. He asked
whether we were living in a better society.
1300
When I listen to government members, I guess from their
perspective there are some people who are living in a better
society. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle has just
mentioned a couple of them, those individuals in Canada who are
not scraping by on a daily basis. What about the areas of the
country where people are not doing all that well, as in the
unfortunate case of Cape Breton? What is the government's
answer? It does not want to talk about the reality that we have
1.5 million more children who will go to bed hungry than we did
10 years ago. The government does not want to talk about the
fact that we are hearing from doctors and health care
professionals that there is a major problem with the health care
system and we need the government to reinvest money.
Nobody is saying that the system does not need to be changed.
From the perspective of the health care system, we all know there
is a need for innovation, but we also know, and we are being told
on a regular basis, that the government has to put back what it
took out of health care.
In my part of the country we have 25% poverty. Child poverty is
much higher. Government members would tell us that their
commitments to EI, health care and education have made things
better for Canadians. Better for all Canadians, or better for
some Canadians? We see on a regular basis that the answer to
that question is that these policies have not been for the
betterment of all Canadians.
Five or six years ago Canadians were willing to do their fair
share to deal with the deficit. That was our responsibility as
Canadians. People did that, especially the workers. As we all
know, the government obtained its surplus on the backs of
Canadians.
We are all familiar with a program that used to be called
unemployment insurance. It was there in case we lost our job.
It was a safety net to help us until we got another job. The
government changed the name to employment insurance and it has
become nothing more than a cash cow to generate revenues for the
federal government. Might I say that those revenues are not
assisting the unemployed.
Only 30% of unemployed women in Canada qualify for employment
insurance. We have heard government members and the Prime
Minister recently say that there are problems with employment
insurance which will have to be fixed. Maybe that will secure
some seats for them in Atlantic Canada.
What has the government done? In my part of the country it has
is changed the boundaries. We used to have five regions in Nova
Scotia. The proposal of the government is to take it down to
three regions. The government says it will do this to ensure
that the areas of the country which have the highest rates of
unemployment will receive what the people need. The reality is,
in my part of the country the changing of the boundaries will
mean that the people of Cape Breton will now only qualify for 30
weeks of employment insurance, rather than 32 weeks.
Something I have always found phenomenal when listening to
government members is that they are wonderful at confusing
Canadians with numbers. We always hear them talk about 18%
unemployment in my part of the country. I have had the occasion
to ask Statistics Canada how the unemployment rate is measured.
An official told me that if people were unemployed for two years
they would be included in the data of Statistics Canada.
I do not know about central Canada, but in Cape Breton if someone
does not have a job for two, three, four or five years, they are
still unemployed. They still do not have a job. However, unless
they have been unemployed for two years they are not included in
the mechanism used by the government to measure the number of
unemployed. With the changing of the zones in my part of the
country Cape Breton will fall under an unemployment rate of 15%.
1305
When I go home and talk to my constituents about the policies
and the changes that the government is talking about, people
laugh. They know it is not 18%. They know the rate is closer to
40% or 45%, with some areas of Cape Breton at 50%. With the
stroke of a pen the government will now officially say that the
unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island is 15%.
I go back to my original comment. How do we as a country
measure success? Do we not measure it by the success of our
citizens? It certainly appears that the government does not
measure its success by its citizens. If that were the case, then
the government would be addressing the issues and the concerns
directly affecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
When government members talk about how good the budget is, I
hope some of them have a conscience and recognize in their own
heart that this budget will not assist the number of Canadians
who have been drastically affected by the policies of the
government.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, in 1996 the Liberals increased the burden with regard to
overseas employment tax credits, such that people had to leave
Canada to find jobs because jobs were not available here, partly
because of high taxes. They were faced with an increased tax
burden.
When people have to leave Canada because of high taxes, when the
Liberals increase the tax burden, something which is truly
egregious, are they doing so to fund a subsidy to Wal-Mart? Are
the Liberals increasing taxes to fund a subsidy to Safeway? Do
the Liberals raise taxes to give a subsidy to Bombardier? Do
they raise taxes so they can give a subsidy to Shoppers Drug
Mart? Do they raise taxes on Canadians so they can give more out
in corporate welfare?
Why are there so many tax increases when there is so much waste?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, as my colleague
from Regina—Qu'Appelle said, I would never attempt to speak on
behalf of government members or even attempt to explain why they
have done what we have seen them do over the course of the last
six years.
It is important to note for my colleague from out west that we
on Cape Breton Island have never complained about paying our fair
share. In all of the years I have lived on Cape Breton Island, I
do not remember ever hearing one person complain about paying
their fair share. What I have heard people talk about is the
unfairness of the tax system.
I would like to leave my hon. colleague with the message that my
constituents tell me all the time. They tell me that they would
like to have a good job so that they could pay their fair share.
1310
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have a question for my good
friend from Cape Breton. The question concerns what is happening
to the economy in terms of the thousands of men who are losing
their jobs and the effect that will have on the women and
children, their families.
The women and children are usually the forgotten ones when it
comes to budgets and tax cuts. What happens to the women and
children when their husbands, in the traditional roles of Cape
Breton miners and steelworkers, lose their jobs due to economic
concerns? The Liberal government basically forgets that Cape
Breton Island even exists.
From her own personal experience, if the hon. member could
elaborate a bit more on that, I am sure the House would be
greatly enlightened by her wit and wisdom.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, I will try to
provide my colleague with some wit and wisdom.
As I have stated over and over again in the House, it is
unfortunate every week when I go back to my part of the country
to see the overwhelming effect government policies have had.
As my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore has said, a number of the people who are being adversely
affected are children and women.
Just recently I had the occasion to talk to a young couple. He
worked on a fishing boat. We all know what has happened to the
fishery on the east coast. He lost his job. His wife was a
process worker in a plant. They were sitting in my office with
the most beautiful three and a half month old baby girl. They
were in their late twenties and thought they had the world by the
tail. Neither one of them had a job. We talked for a while. The
woman finally broke down and told me that she had just put the
last diaper she had on her daughter. That is the reality in my
part of the country, day after day.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-32, the
budget implementation act for the 2000 budget.
It is important to take stock of where we are as a country and
how we have achieved our current financial position. This is the
third budget in which Canada has had a surplus. While the
Liberals opposite will crow and take credit for this fiscal
achievement, the very policies that were required to lead Canada
to this point in economic history were vociferously opposed by
the Liberals prior to their forming the government. I will refer
to a few of them specifically: free trade, the GST, the
deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy.
All of those things the Liberals campaigned and fought against.
Prior to 1993 they were completely and diametrically opposed to
them.
Since then, unburdened by the yoke of principle, the Liberals
have embraced these policies and in some cases have claimed some
level of originality in introducing them or spearheading them.
It is important that we raise this issue at this time because on
Thursday of last week McGill economist Tom Velk and historian A.
R. Riggs released a paper evaluating Canadian governments back to
World War II on economic criteria. It should come as no surprise
to members of my parliamentary caucus in the Progressive
Conservative Party that the best economic record of any Canadian
prime minister since World War II was held by none other than
Brian Mulroney. I think it is important that we recognize the
vision and courage of a prime minister who actually took the big
steps, who did not ignore the global trends and made the
structural changes to the Canadian economy that were necessary to
lead Canada into the 21st century.
1315
The headline in the National Post on Thursday was
“Mulroney ranked first, Chrétien dead last as leaders of the
economy”. The Ottawa Citizen said “Recession beating
Mulroney as economic champ, study says”. The study referred to
a number of specific criteria upon which the economists based
their judgment.
In applauding Mulroney, the professors said that he presided
over a general fall in interest rates that lasted more or less
the entire term of his office. Inflation took a beating during
the Mulroney years. Mulroney, unlike the present Prime Minister,
inherited a troubled economy with tremendously high interest
rates and high inflation. They said that low income Canadians
fared better under Prime Minister Mulroney than they did during
the Liberal administrations of the present Prime Minister or
under Mr. Trudeau. That may surprise some of the members
opposite, but the numbers speak for themselves.
The study credited the vision and the courage of the Mulroney
government in embracing the policies of free trade and the GST.
These were not easy policies to embrace or to spearhead at a
tumultuous time in Canadian political history. In fact in what
was referred to as the free trade election in 1988, over half of
Canadians voted against free trade. The question of course should
not necessarily be what policies are the most popular, but what
policies will lead to the greatest level of economic growth and
prosperity for Canadians.
That was a government that was not focused on next week's polls
as much as the present government is. It was focused on the
challenges and opportunities facing Canadians well into the next
century. The record of that government speaks for itself not
just in terms of what it achieved during its years in office, but
what its policies have achieved since then and are destined to
achieve well into this century.
In studying the record of the current government, it said that
under the tenure of the current Prime Minister and Minister of
Finance, the dollar is lower than it has every been in Canadian
history. Productivity is comparatively low and its growth has
lagged behind that of the U.S. Per capita GDP is lagging
comparatively to our trading partners. In the last 10 years
Canada has had a GDP per capita growth of about 5% while
countries like Ireland have had a 92% growth in GDP per capita.
The U.S. and Germany have had a 15% growth in GDP per capita.
As our neighbours to the south and our trading partners
elsewhere are improving their productivity, production and
success, we are lagging behind. As citizens in other countries
are getting richer, the Canadian citizenry is getting poor.
Nowhere is that more exemplified than the dramatic and
significant loss in the value of our dollar since 1993. Under
the Mulroney government, the dollar lost one cent in nine years
of power. The dollar has lost around nine cents since the current
government took power.
Every time the dollar drops, Canadians effectively have a pay
cut. We depend on our trading relations with other countries for
many of the goods and services that Canadians need and enjoy.
When the dollar drops, the purchasing power of Canadians drops
and their standard of living drops. There has been a significant
drop in Canada's standard of living over the past several years.
In the 1990s, take home pay in Canada decreased by about 8%. This
was during a period when Americans enjoyed a 10% increase. An 18%
gap has erupted between Canada and the U.S. in terms of disposal
income or take home pay at the end of the day. That is
disturbing.
One of the impacts of that has been an unprecedented level of
brain drain. The number of Canadians who are going to the U.S.
to seek greater levels of opportunity and prosperity has grown
from 16,000 per year eight years ago to about 100,000 per year
last year.
1320
It is not just the number of people who are going. The most
disturbing area of this trend is who is going. In evaluating the
type of people who are going we see that some of our young,
bright talents, some of the best and brightest we have in Canada,
are choosing to pursue their futures and opportunities in the
U.S. Ultimately the loss will be to Canada not just in terms of
future tax revenue, but in terms of the ability for these
individuals to build stronger companies and ultimately a stronger
country. It will ultimately benefit the U.S. and not Canada.
We should be doing more to keep these individuals and talents as
opposed to driving them away. Before we decide what policies we
should be implementing to keep them here, we should be evaluating
what specific current policies are having such a deleterious
impact on our ability to keep those people.
Certainly the Canadian tax system represents one of the largest
impediments to growth and prosperity. It is not the only clue to
the brain drain crisis but it is a very important area of public
policy that we need to be concerned about. I can give a couple
of examples of the degree to which our tax system affects the
brain drain.
Let us say a technology worker, a programmer in Vancouver, makes
about $70,000 per year. That individual is in the top marginal
tax bracket in Canada. We hit our top marginal tax bracket at
$70,000, even after full implementation of the budget's
initiatives. In the U.S. one does not hit the top marginal tax
rate until about $400,000 Canadian. As a result, the software
programmer in Vancouver will be paying federal and provincial
taxes combined of about 52% of his or her income. At the same
level of income, about $70,000 Canadian, about an hour and a half
away in Seattle, that same individual would be paying about 26%
of his or her income, effectively half the level of taxation that
he or she would be paying in Vancouver.
Frankly for someone with a family and who is making student loan
payments, car payments, mortgage payments and hockey costs for
children, or whatever it is, that is not a lot of money. The
notion that someone making $70,000 in Canada today is rich is
probably wrong-headed. We are taxing those people as if they were
fabulously wealthy. That is one of the reasons we are driving
people, particularly within that critical $70,000 to $100,000
range, out of the country. Those are the people we need.
Another area where we need to address our tax issue
significantly is at the lower end of the scale. Currently, our
basic personal amount even after the budget is almost $8,000.
That is far too low. The U.S. equivalent threshold in Canadian
dollars at which an American starts to pay taxes is around
$11,000. We call ourselves a kinder, gentler nation yet we start
taxing people at about $8,000.
In the short term this should be increased to about $12,000 and
over a period of time should be increased beyond that. In the
short term we should be looking at an increase to $12,000. That
would take millions of low income Canadians off the tax roles.
It would reduce the tax burden of all Canadians in a fair and
equitable manner.
In terms of impact on the new economy, there is probably no more
negative tax in Canada than our capital gains tax regime. The
recent budget and this budget implementation act would see a
reduction in the capital gains inclusion rate from 75% down to
66%.
That would still leave us with a 13% disadvantage over the U.S.
in the critical area of capital gains. No form of taxation
affects the new economy more than capital gains taxes.
1325
The currency in terms of compensatory assets in the new economy
is clearly stock options. Increasingly, whether it is in
biotechnology or e-commerce, stock options are used to incent and
attract talent and to keep talent. In Canada we have a 13%
disadvantage even after this budget in the very critical area of
capital gains taxation.
The reasons the government will not reduce capital gains tax
further have very little to do with realities. It is very
dangerous when we build public policy, as is often done in this
place, around perceptions and not reality. Let me deal with a
couple of those perceptions.
First, there is the perception that capital gains taxes are paid
largely by the rich and it would be inequitable to reduce capital
gains taxes and thus to reduce taxes on the rich. Over 50% of
capital gains taxes in Canada are paid by people who make less
than $50,000 per year. Individuals throughout the small growth
companies, from the receptionists to the CEOs, are all incented
and paid with stock options.
Also, with the level of market participation that exists today,
more so than ever in the history of Canada, Canadians are
investing in the equities markets through secure long term
vehicles such as mutual funds. They are able to achieve
diversification with a relatively small amount of investment and
as such are participating in record numbers at this point.
The other perception is that somehow we cannot afford to
eliminate the capital gains tax, which is what I would like to
see done. A Progressive Conservative government would eliminate
personal capital gains tax. Some people say we cannot afford to
do that.
The capital gains tax only brings in around $1 billion per year.
Estimates I have heard in terms of personal capital gains tax in
recent years are revenues ranging from $700 million to about $900
million. If we assume that there will be some shift in the way
employees are compensated as a result of the capital gains tax
elimination, let us say if it goes from $1 billion to $1.5
billion, that is a very conservative estimate of the loss of
revenue to the Canadian government. Ultimately that revenue
would be made up significantly by the increased level of activity
and by the unlocking of capital.
Effectively one of the most pernicious impacts of capital gains
taxation is the degree to which people make decisions not based
on economic or business realities and criteria, but instead on
tax criteria. People hold on to investments far longer than they
would have normally and do not make the types of investments they
probably should be making in some of the new economy vehicles and
opportunities. That locking up of capital denies many of Canada's
growth industries, particularly in the knowledge based sector,
access to the needed capital.
We live north of the greatest capital markets in the world, the
U.S. We cannot afford to penalize and to handcuff our technology
sector. In any of the knowledge based areas of our technology
sector, whether it is biotechnology or information technology, we
cannot afford to deny these players, the individuals who are
building their companies and who are building a stronger and more
competitive Canada, the opportunity to access capital.
Effectively by locking up this capital in Canada's capital gains
prison we are actually preventing these companies from growing
here in Canada. Ultimately in many cases these companies are
gravitating south of the border in trying to raise capital.
1330
The venture capitalists, whether it is Perkins or the Sequoia
capitalists of the world, are investing in these companies and
are then encouraging these companies to move their research and
development activities and manufacturing south of the border.
While we would like to think that these investments can be
made—and do not get me wrong, I encourage foreign investment in
Canada's growth industries, we need the investment—I do think
there is a significant risk which is borne out by the fact that
when this foreign investment is made, it quite frequently leads
to a movement or a migration of the companies and the innovators
to the U.S. It stands to reason that over a period of time that
would have a significant cost to Canada.
The fact is that by unlocking this immense pool of capital to
reduce or, as we are proposing, eliminate personal capital gains
tax in Canada, we would actually be able to fund and raise
capital for these innovators here in Canada.
There are innovators in the financial service sector now who are
already doing that. The one which comes to mind, Yorkton
Securities Inc., has demonstrated that it is Canada's top
investment bank in the knowledge based industries. We are
putting in front of the Yorktons and in front of the McLean
Watson Capitals, which are raising money for Canadian knowledge
based industries, the barriers to success which ultimately
threaten their ability to raise the capital they need to invest
in the innovators who we as a country need to grow and develop
greater successes here in Canada.
If we are not competitive in that new economy, a lot of these
arguments are effectively moot. Our ability to afford the social
investments that Canadians value and treasure, whether it is our
health care, our social safety nets or the transfers to the
provinces, become moot if we cannot afford them. It is critical
to build a tax system around growth, not greed, so that we can
afford the types of social investments that Canadians want well
into the next century.
For some Canadians there is a belief that these investments,
whether it is in our health care or equalization systems, define
us as a country. It is very important to get our fundamentals
correct, that we reduce our debt in real terms, that we reduce
over a period of time not just our tax burden but that we use a
system of tax reforms to do what is required to make Canada more
competitive in the new economy.
I believe we can achieve success with visionary policies that
will lead Canada proudly into the 21st century, but we have to
move now. This caretakership government, which is taking baby
steps when other countries are taking gigantic leaps, is clearly
not appropriate or helpful.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, there have been a number of tax increases that have been
brought in over the last number of years.
The Liberals brought in 62 different tax increases since they
took government in 1993. One of those was an increased tax on
energy conservation and on pollution abatement equipment. That
tax which the Liberals brought in in 1994 resulted in $45 million
more.
The ironic thing is that we often hear the Liberals talking
about how they care about the environment but they actually
brought in an increased tax, $45 million more, for investigations
into energy conservation and pollution abatement equipment. That
is awfully strange.
The question I have for my colleague is whether or not that
money was raised so that things like video tracing the history of
Chilean poets in Montreal for $28,000 is an example of where that
money was going. Is the history of Chilean poets in Montreal the
reason why the Liberal government went ahead and brought in a $45
million tax on conservation?
1335
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, it is clear that we need
a significant level of tax reform and tax reduction.
The member referred to a specific tax under the Liberal
government. I in fact was not aware of that tax and I appreciate
his bringing that to my attention. Relative to his citing one
specific incident or evidence of spending, the history of Chilean
poets in Montreal, I am not aware of that specific investment.
However, since Pericles and ancient Athens, civilized societies
have invested in culture. Whether he believes that the history
of Chilean poets in Montreal is relevant or irrelevant, it
becomes a very dicey question to determine whether one cultural
investment is worthy or one is not. To try to discern whether
that is worthy borders on censorship.
I can point to many ways, particularly relative to the ministry
of HRDC, where the government has continued to play the old game
of picking winners and losers and ultimately doing what
politicians do best in terms picking more losers than winners and
interfering in the private sector in the course of that. I would
argue that while there may be some sensationalist benefit to
identifying specific cultural investments, the substantive waste
in HRDC is probably a more reasonable target for the hon. member
to cite.
I also urge him to consider that there are some elements of
culture that simply will not be privately funded and from which
there is a collective benefit to investing in Canada. While I
cannot comment on that specific example because I have not
studied it, as a Canadian I do value the fact that we have an
extremely diverse culture that contributes significantly to the
cultural mosaic of our country. That the government does play a
role in the infrastructure of that is a valued tradition that
Canadians in my riding and elsewhere value.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I did appreciate the attitude and
approach of my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and his party. We
on this side of the House support that initiative as well.
It was his government, the Conservatives, that brought us the
dreaded GST. Now the Liberals in Atlantic Canada have tacked on
the HSC which has created quite the underground economy. Last
year, according to the auditor general, federally and
provincially that equated to almost $12 billion of untaxed
underground economy going on in this country.
What does the hon. member, who is the finance critic for his
party, and his party plan to do to reduce the underground economy
and start reducing or eliminating the dreaded GST?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, it is important to
recognize that at least the New Democrats, on the issue of the
GST, have been consistent. They did not like the GST in 1993 nor
do they like it now. Of course the Liberals were completely and
diametrically opposed to the GST and have since embraced it, with
the Prime Minister on foreign travels in fact taking credit for
it.
While I disagree with New Democrats quite frequently, I do
respect that in terms of principles they are consistent, as
opposed to the patron saints of hypocrisy opposite who campaigned
on one agenda and then embraced another.
The only thing worse than the Liberal government stealing
policies from the Tories and taking credit for the results would
be if it were to implement its own. I am glad it has not been
terribly original in that area.
Relative to the GST, I would urge the hon. member to look at the
tax that the GST replaced, the manufacturer's sales tax which
actually, from a trade perspective, penalized Canadian
manufacturers. It made it more difficult for them to achieve
competitiveness and reduced the opportunities for Canadian
companies to create jobs and opportunities here in Canada.
If we compare the GST to other taxes in terms of its impact on
job growth and opportunities in Canada, it is probably one of the
more sensible taxes we have. If we reduce our personal and
corporate income taxes and capital gains tax in some of these
other areas, there will be a shift to a greater level of
dependency on a consumption tax base. There is a significant
consensus among economists around the world that most countries
should move in the direction of a greater dependency on
consumption taxes and less on income taxes in the long term.
1340
There are certainly some issues on collection that need to be
addressed and there is an underground economy that has grown
significantly. That is because the government has refused to do
what is necessary on the income tax side of the equation. I
do not think it is fair to blame that on the GST.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the finance critic for
the Conservative Party.
I remember reading some of the recent claims and statements made
by the Progressive Conservative Party at a recent rally talking
about increasing the spending on health care and other things.
They talked about reducing taxes and eliminating the capital
gains tax completely. They then talked about $25 billion a year
in debt retirement. Those all sound nice and the themes are
consistent with the Canadian Alliance Party, but in an effort to
attract some sort of public support they go over the top.
I wish they would follow the lead of our finance critic who has
submitted his plan to the academic community and economic
forecasters who say that our plan has integrity because it
balances out. Our plan actually works with the numbers. It
balances and it makes sense.
I wonder why the member opposite does not consider adopting a plan
and moving in a direction that has integrity, where the plan
balances as opposed to what we have heard from his party in the
past making wild promises that do not balance. Canadians see
that and will never embrace it. Canadians are embracing our plan
because it has been tested by academics and proven to be workable
and real.
I would invite the member to comment on that and to consider
supporting the Canadian Alliance approach to tax reform in
Canada.
Mr. Scott Brison: I appreciate the hon. member's
invitation. I will put it with the other invitations I have
received from his party and consider it with the same level of
seriousness as I have in the past.
The hon. member pointed to a policy conference that my party
recently held in Quebec City. I thank him for mentioning it in
the Chamber today. Eleven hundred Canadians from all walks of
life gathered in Quebec City to discuss the types of policies
that our party, at the very grassroots level, would like to see
implemented by a Progressive Conservative government and, prior to
that, as part of our platform in the next election.
One of the impediments we have as a party is the fact that we
are one of the most grassroots parties in the country. That top
down party, the Canadian Alliance, may develop its policies in
smoke filled boardrooms and backrooms but my party develops its
policies openly on the floor of convention halls, church halls
and school basements. It may take a little longer to develop our
policies but I think we will be favourably rewarded because our
tax proposals are not based on greed. They are based on growth.
I wish that party—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure that members would like to
hear the hon. member from Kings—Hants at length but time rules
do apply to the member as well and he has run out of time.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, today we are talking about the budget. I think it is
important for everybody to know that the Liberals have increased
taxes 62 times since they formed the government in 1993.
Corporate taxes have increased 27 times. Personal tax increases
have gone up 22 times. Bracket creep has increased six times.
The Canada pension plan has increased seven times.
1345
We must ask what we are getting for the 62 Liberal tax increases
since 1993. That is the question. I have done some research. I
would like to report to the House and to the world what types of
things the Liberal government has done with those 62 tax
increases since it came into power in 1993.
In my riding the Liberal government is subsidizing Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is a pretty successful firm. Yet the government has
gone ahead and increased taxes on Canadians and is subsidizing an
extremely profitable company like Wal-Mart in my riding.
It gets richer. The research goes on. Not only is the Liberal
government subsidizing Wal-Mart but it is subsidizing Canada
Safeway. How is it fair that IGA, Calgary Co-op or any of the
other grocery stores are subsidizing Canada Safeway? That is
what the Liberal government is doing. It is raising taxes on
everyone to give to the few.
The Liberal government is also subsidizing Shoppers Drug Mart.
All these companies are profitable. It has raised taxes 62
times. What is it doing with all this tax money? It is
subsidizing all sorts of profitable corporations. Shame on the
Liberals for doing these things.
It is not only corporate welfare that the Liberals are
subsidizing with their 62 tax increases since 1993. They are
funding studies too. They have done research just like I am
doing research, but what are they doing research on? What are
the Liberals spending our money on?
They want to have studies on lawn ornaments. The Liberals
actually had a study done on pink flamingos that are stuck into
lawns with our tax dollars. It actually happened. Can we
believe that the Liberals would give money to Bombardier? In
some respects that almost makes sense because Bombardier is a big
funder of the Liberal Party. I will deal with that at greater
length in a little while. Why is it that we are subsidizing
profitable companies and spending money to study lawn ornaments?
It does not make any sense. Why have there been 62 tax increases
for taxpayers since 1993 to do such things?
I will go through the individual tax increases and ask whether
it makes sense what the Liberals have spent money on. In 1994
the Liberal government increased the tax on energy conservation
and pollution abatement equipment, something that would reduce
emissions and somehow help the environment as it likes to claim.
It brought in $45 million of revenue. On the flip side, what was
the government putting the money into? It took the money from
one side, and what was it spent on?
The Liberals gave $33,800 to examine major league baseball in
Detroit. The last time I checked Detroit was in the United
States, but taxpayers in Canada were paying for 62 tax increases
to the government since 1993 so that it could give their money
away to study baseball outside Canada. The next time people
write their tax cheques to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
I want them to think about that.
The Liberal government continued its studies. It spent
$100,670, which a lot of tax money for the average taxpayer. As
a matter of fact it would take 21 average taxpayers to pay their
taxes the whole year in order to fund the interactive study of
video games.
1350
Why have the Liberals raised taxes 62 times since they took
office in 1993 so that they could spend over $100,000 in 21
taxpayer years to study interactive video games? That does not
make any sense. It is totally ridiculous.
Let us look at another infamous Liberal tax increase. In 1995
they brought in a 1.5 cent per litre increase on gasoline, which
resulted in a whopping $500 million. What did taxpayers get for
putting $500 million more into the Liberal coffers? What did the
Liberals wisely invest that $500 million in?
It did not go into roads. Once again, some of the studies show
that $44,000 of it went to the social construction of feminist
meanings. A lot of tax money came in, but I am guessing the
average person who paid the 1.5 cent per litre tax on gasoline
did not expect his or her tax money would go to a study on the
social construction of feminist meanings. Is it fair for those
people to pay those taxes and see them go toward such things? It
does not make sense.
Let us look at another of the 62 Liberal tax increases which
they have brought in since 1993. In 1995 the Liberals had an
additional tax on investment income from private corporations
which brought an increased tax burden to Canadians of $120
million. What did the Liberals put all that extra money into?
What did the Liberals do with the extra money they were bringing
in as a result of all the tax increases in 1995?
They gave $33,000 to promote and develop music in alternative
spaces. I ask the average taxpayer to think about that. Is
$33,000 for music in alternative spaces something that average
taxpayers, if they were the finance minister or the minister
responsible, would have thought was a wise investment of taxpayer
dollars? Would they have thought it was worthy of a 1.5% per
litre increase on gasoline so that Canadians were paying $500
million more into the Liberal coffers? Is that what they were
paying their tax increases for? I do not think so.
It goes on, because 62 tax increases takes a while. In 1995 the
Liberals increased the corporate surtax which brought in $120
million. They brought the the additional tax on investment
income which I have just mentioned. That was another $120
million. They eliminated the deferral of tax on business income
for $300 million.
For all these hundreds of millions of dollars what more could
the taxpayers possibly expect from the Liberal government? Some
161 different groups, associations and unions received $4,059,235
in grants. For average taxpayers paying more money in income tax
and paying more money at the gas pumps for their gasoline when
they have seen prices go up dramatically recently was it really
wise for the government to spend $24,000 for a film entitled
“Indians of Czechoslovakia: Interaction of Indigenous People
With Mother Earth?” Was that a wise expenditure of taxpayer
dollars?
How about a tax cut? That sounds a lot better to me and I bet
that is what my constituents would vote for. As a matter of
fact I know that is what they would vote for.
The story goes on. In 1996 the tax increases just kept on
coming from the Liberals.
They increased the taxes on Canadian pensioners abroad. In
Kingston, which is in the Speaker's riding, there may be people
who were affected by this. I know it is even worse in Windsor.
The taxes on Canadian pensioners living abroad brought in $10
million.
1355
When these pensioners paid the extra $10 million the Liberals
levied on them in 1996, what did they get in return? Some
$28,000 were spent on a video tracing the history of Chilean
poets in Montreal. Was the reason the government went ahead and
gouged $10 million from pensioners to fund a video on Chilean
poets in Montreal? Was that the rationale?
It goes on. Additionally in 1996 the Liberals froze the
contribution limits for RRSPs. More than that, they broke their
own promise when they did that. For what good reason did the
Liberals break an election promise on RRSP contribution limits?
For what good reason did they break the pact that they made with
taxpayers when they were elected? They went ahead and gave the
Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the Canadian
Advisory Council on the Status of Women over $34 million.
Would the average taxpayer say that was a wise expenditure of
funds? I think it is pretty questionable? The Liberals went on.
In 1996 they forced seniors to begin early withdrawals from their
RRSPs. For what reason?
The Speaker: It always pains me to interrupt the hon.
member. He has seven minutes plus remaining when we return to
the debate.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
EDUCATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate over 1,000 students from Vancouver Charles Tupper
and the Killarney high schools who graduated last week.
I was impressed with their dedication, intelligence and warmth.
I can say without a doubt that the students from Vancouver
Kingsway represent the leaders of tomorrow. I wish them all the
best in their future endeavours.
* * *
SRI LANKANS
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, over the past seven days my office has been inundated
with copies of e-mail messages sent to the Prime Minister and
Minister of Finance by Sri Lankan born Canadian citizens.
In addition, I have received messages from as far away as
Melbourne, Australia. Virtually all those messages criticize the
finance minister for his attendance at the FACT function and
congratulate me for bringing to the attention of parliament the
CSIS reports about that organization. Here are a few words from
one of those e-mail messages to the minister.
What could be more un-Canadian than overtly supporting a well
documented terrorist group, looking the other way when such
groups collect money for war, and ignoring the statements of the
Canadian, U.S., and Israeli intelligence services?
In his misguided attempt to garner votes the Minister of Finance
has embarrassed the government and alienated peace loving Sri
Lankans throughout the world.
* * *
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sunday,
June 4, marked the 13th anniversary of National Cancer Survivors
Day. Cancer touches all of us either directly or indirectly
since approximately one in three Canadians will be diagnosed with
cancer during his or her lifetime.
1400
On Sunday survivors were honoured, those who are living with and
beyond cancer. We also recognize the important role that family
members and friends play in the life of the many survivors. We
also want to thank the many health care professionals and
researchers who devote their lives to finding a cure or to making
life more comfortable for people faced with this disease.
Last year over 700 communities across North America celebrated
National Cancer Survivors Day. On Sunday several of us
participated in the events taking place in our communities to
ensure the ongoing success of this very important day.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
June 4 to 10 is Environment Week 2000 and today is World
Environment Day.
Since 1971 environment week has been celebrated around the
world. Each year Canadians are challenged to demonstrate their
commitment to creating a cleaner and healthier environment. The
theme for this year is community action on clean air and climate
change.
In my riding of Kitchener Centre, the city is hosting the 13th
annual energy and environment forum. This event brings together
experts and community members to discuss how we can best work
together to meet our environmental challenges.
Let there be no doubt that the government is committed to
improving the environment. The $125 million investment in the
green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment
fund is a clear indication of our support.
These initiatives are being undertaken in partnership with the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities to help address air
quality, water quality and the transportation needs of our
citizens.
I encourage all members of the House—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.
* * *
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the government for establishing another national
infrastructure program and on committing up front the federal
share of the funds.
The municipalities of Canada are enthusiastic participants in
this program. We are currently negotiating with the provinces.
I urge that the definition of infrastructure be left to the
municipalities. They know where the need is greatest. They know
where funds are best allocated.
The government conducted an excellent national infrastructure
program involving the provinces and municipalities in 1994. It
worked well with the municipalities selecting projects subject to
clearly defined criteria and control.
Let us build on the experience of that excellent program. The
municipalities need help soon with their infrastructure projects.
* * *
NATIONAL CANCER SURVIVORS DAY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Canadian Cancer Society assisted in celebrating the
13th annual National Cancer Survivors Day. This day honours
survivors who are living with and beyond cancer. This day is so
important as it also recognizes the role that family and friends
play in the lives of cancer survivors, as well as health care
professionals and researchers who devote their lives to helping
those faced with this disease.
Cancer touches us all either directly or indirectly.
Approximately one in three Canadians will be diagnosed with
cancer during his or her lifetime.
Today improved detection methods, increased availability of
information and enhanced treatments allow for more people to
achieve a full recovery.
This day demonstrates that a diagnosis of cancer is not an
automatic death sentence. Now observed in over 700 communities
throughout North America, National Cancer Survivors Day is a
powerful tribute to everyone whose lives have been touched by
cancer. It is a day to celebrate courage and hope.
* * *
[Translation]
LEBANON
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on May 23 and 24,
2000, the Israeli troops occupying Lebanon left it, thus
implementing, after many years, UN resolution 425.
This is a big step towards sovereignty for the Lebanese people.
Now it is up to the Syrian troops to negotiate their departure
so the Lebanese government may exercise complete sovereignty
over its territory.
[English]
For many, many years Lebanon was the home of refugees, for
Armenians and for Palestinians. No country has had to play as
humanitarian a role as Lebanon, welcoming all those who were
oppressed.
Today its borders have to be secure. I hope and believe that
Canada with the international community will safeguard the
borders of Lebanon. Let there be a viable democracy—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the president of the Fédération des travailleurs du Québec,
Henri Massé, said last week “The big oil companies are going too
far. I am concerned about these increases in the price of
gasoline, which are adding to inflation. The problem is of
concern to the regions of Quebec”.
I agree with Mr. Massé, but we must approach the problem as a
whole with the governments of Canada, Quebec, the provinces and
the territories, with the major oil companies and the regional
stakeholders in Quebec.
Together, we need to arrange for a two day summit in an effort
to find a real solution for consumers.
* * *
FIGHT AGAINST POVERTY
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the late
Fernand Dumont used to say “Collective problems do not vanish
because we have talked too much about them: they persist because
we did not solve them”.
We can never say often enough that the persisting gap between
the health of our economy and the increase in poverty is a real
shame for our society. That gap directly impacts not only on the
physical and psychological health of individuals, but also on
the chances of success, in their adult life, of children living
in poverty.
Even though the Prime Minister feels that Canada is among the
best positioned countries in the world to make other rich
nations aware of the need of less fortunate people, the fact is
that since he took office in 1993 we have had seven years of
social deficit.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois solemnly pledges to make the
necessary representations to the federal government, asking that
it alleviate the harm it has caused to hundreds of thousands of
women, men and children, by making the fight against poverty a
priority.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister went to Germany to say that people
who advocate tax relief have an agenda of greed. He could not be
more wrong.
Greed is when one takes more than one is entitled to, more than
one has actually earned. If that describes anyone, it describes
the Prime Minister and the Liberal government. It is the Prime
Minister and his government who are guilty of greed when they
force people earning less than $20,000 a year to pay $7 billion a
year in income taxes. It is the Prime Minister and his
government who are guilty of greed when they tax people so
heavily that investments, jobs and young people are driven out of
the country.
The government is guilty of greed when it taxes people so
heavily that both parents are forced to go out into the
workforce, one just to pay the taxes. It is greed when the
government uses its power to overtax, to hand grants to its
friends and to pour money into Liberal ridings in a transparent
attempt to lever themselves back into power.
Canadians deserve to keep a lot more of the money they work so
hard for and honestly earn. That is not greed; that is justice.
I urge Canadians to join with the Canadian Alliance in the next
election and let us throw those—
* * *
RON LENYK
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the first business person of the year award in the new millennium
in Mississauga was recently given to Ron Lenyk. The Mississauga
Board of Trade announced the honour last week at a dinner
celebrating its annual awards night.
Ron Lenyk is more than just a businessman; he is totally
committed to the city and the community. He recently reached the
milestone of 30 years with the Mississauga News. Ron
started as a cub reporter and worked through the ranks to become
the business leader of that company.
The best part of this recognition of Ron Lenyk is that much of
what Ron has done and continues to do is done in anonymity. He
is well known for just getting the job done, inspiring those who
work with him and spending countless hours helping people. He is
a great choice for the business award and is quick to give
everyone around him the credit for his success. Maybe that is
the secret.
Congratulations to Ron Lenyk.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the secrecy, deception and lack of transparency associated with
free trade negotiations seems to be getting worse over time under
the Liberals.
Last week the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Free Trade of
the Americas Agreement would not be on the table at the OAS
meeting in Windsor. Yet we know the OAS is part of the
secretariat for the FTAA and when the Prime Minister spoke to the
OAS, he could hardly talk about anything else but trade. Why the
dodge about the relationship between the OAS and the FTAA?
A few weeks ago we found out that the Business Council on
National Issues had been quietly negotiating a free trade deal
with Japan. As CAW president Buzz Hargrove rightly observed, big
business has decided to eliminate the middle man, that is
government, and negotiate these deals itself. No more is there
to be even the charade of democracy.
The OAS event in Windsor and the BCNI in Japan are all part of
the same pathology. Pro free trade politicians meet behind
barricades to protect themselves from the people because they are
now openly and shamelessly taking their orders from the corporate
sector. The Liberals should either build the metal fences even
higher or reclaim their role as representatives of the people,
one or the other.
* * *
1410
ENRICO AND JOSEPH MANCINELLI
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I pay tribute to two outstanding Canadians, Enrico Mancinelli,
who came to Canada from Italy in 1952, and his son Joseph.
Enrico is the Canadian director of the Labourers' International
Union of North America, while his son is a vice-president. LIUNA
is a multifaceted union representing over 65,000 members in
Canada mainly in the construction industry.
Under the Mancinellis' direction, LIUNA has contributed to the
well-being of Hamilton through the building of affordable
housing, scholarship programs, participation in community
activities and initiatives such as the Canadian Labour Hall of
Fame.
Their contributions have included the revitalization of
Hamilton's downtown core, including the redevelopment of a local
hotel and the construction of long term care facilities. More
recently they bought the old CN station in Hamilton and restored
it to its original grandeur.
I am sure all hon. members will be happy to join me in
congratulating Joseph and Enrico Mancinelli and thank them for
all they have done to make Canada a better place to live.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last Thursday in the House two hon. members of the Canadian
Alliance confidently outlined their party's immigration policy.
In referring to the type of immigration system, the hon. member
for Souris—Moose Mountain said, “We want the system we had in
the last century that brought people into the country. We had no
immigration problems with law. We had no immigration problems
with unemployment”.
Here is the immigration system we had in place in the last
century. A head tax was placed on Chinese nationals. Parliament
passed legislation which prohibited all Chinese from voting even
if they were Canadian citizens. Finally, restrictions were
placed on the number of Chinese and East Indians coming to
Canada.
These were not the only such remarks made. The hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands said that the real problem in the
immigration department is the refugees who arrive in Canada. He
further stated that we were doing these refugees a service by
sending them back.
I would like to thank the hon. members for clearly explaining
the Canadian Alliance's racist and discriminatory policy on
immigration and refugees.
* * *
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to congratulate three New Brunswickers who have been
recognized for the positive differences they are making in the
lives of persons with disabilities.
The New Brunswick Easter Seals March of Dimes provincial award
of merit has been presented to Bill Wallace of Fredericton in
recognition of leadership in the development of services to
persons with disabilities in New Brunswick.
An award was presented posthumously to Kevin O'Connell in
recognition of outstanding volunteer support of the New Brunswick
Easter Seals March of Dimes.
Finally, an award of merit in recognition of distinguished
leadership in support of the organization's fundraising efforts
was presented to another of my constituents, Andy Wilson. Andy
has been involved as honorary chair of the March of Dimes since
1998.
I would like to extend my congratulations to each of these award
winners for the good work they have done for this important
organization which provides services to persons with physical
disabilities. Their efforts are much appreciated.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last week the government introduced legislation to
modernize Canada's grain handling system but instead of looking
to the future and capitalizing on its opportunity to leave $300
million in the pockets of producers with a commercially
accountable contract driven system, the Liberal government has
chosen to look to the past.
Despite giving producers short term relief for freight costs,
the so-called reforms in Bill C-34 will only entrench the
inefficiencies and incompetence that have dominated western
Canada's grain transportation since the turn of the century.
Studies by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have
shown that excessive government red tape is a serious impediment
to improving productivity in the agriculture sector.
By refusing to reduce the role of the Canadian Wheat Board, the
government has ignored the advice of experts such as Mr. Kroeger
and Justice Estey. It is perpetuating a bureaucratic culture of
excessive government interference and overregulation that will
continue to cost Canadian farmers millions of dollars each year.
* * *
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
recently CBC management announced that all of the CBC regional
supper hour news programs will be cut back from one hour to half
an hour.
Here and Now in Newfoundland has a 64% market share. It
has a viewing audience of 157,000 people. In comparison, in
Toronto CBC's supper hour newscast has a market share of 2% and
an audience of 36,000 people. The show with ratings closest to
Here and Now is the one on Prince Edward Island with a 76%
market share and 44,000 viewers.
1415
Obviously the local CBC news shows in P.E.I. and Newfoundland
are in a category all to themselves, and on their own merits they
deserve not to be cut back.
It is time for the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the
Newfoundland Liberal MPs, who are taking very little interest in
this subject, to show a little courage and tell the CBC that
whatever they do in the rest of the country, Here & Now
is here to stay.
* * *
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENT WEEK
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to celebrate Canadian Environment
Week, which will end on June 8.
As members know, technological developments and globalization
have triggered an increasing number of environmental problems.
Unfortunately, the government seems to be putting more emphasis
on exports and international trade than on the protection of our
environment.
As former Quebec premier Pierre-Marc was reported as saying in an
article published today in La Presse, “We must not isolate trade
policies from social and environmental concerns”. This is the
perspective in which we must work for the sustainable
development of our planet.
It is my hope that this Environment Week will be an opportunity
to work toward that goal. Promoting public transportation or
creating new and less polluting fuels are excellent ways to
promote a happy combination of the environment and the economy.
I thank all those who will take part in this Environment Week.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the HRD minister was
asked when she was first advised about the now famous internal
HRD audit. She said “I received a briefing on the full internal
audit on November 17”. I bet she did. Now we know that her
office was told at least a month before that.
I will give the minister an opportunity to clarify it now. Does
the minister really expect us to believe that all senior ranks in
her department, as well as her own personal staff, knew about
that audit but she did not?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surprise, surprise, the Canadian Alliance
members and their favourite national tabloid have discovered that
meetings do take place in my department, that people do come in
from out of town to attend those meetings and that e-mails are
exchanged. They even report information that has been a matter
of public knowledge for months, that I was briefed on November
17.
Clearly there was work being done in my department on the
internal audit before the audit was completed and before I was
briefed. That is as it should be.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, before she was briefed. In fact, the
access to information response that we have said that she asked
to be briefed on “hot issues” only.
On August 9 she received that briefing on the transitional jobs
fund, the Canada jobs fund, as well as grants and contributions.
That was a week after 40 senior officials met for two days to
discuss that crisis. They knew what was hot. On August 9 the
minister was briefed.
Why does the minister keep pretending that she only knew about
it in November?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, because that is true.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that may be, but we would like to
know what they discussed.
For the upcoming briefing of Monday, August 9 the first items of
business were the TJF, CJF and grants and contributions.
The minister says now that she got a briefing on it, but we have
been hearing her say for months that basically the first she knew
of it was November 17.
The government has bungled $1 billion. That is a hot issue.
How hot does it have to be before the minister will stand and
admit that she burned Canadians badly?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party opposite continues to come to
the House and take things out of context.
They talk about draft reports. They talk about e-mails. They
talk about all kinds of information from the past that is now
part of the public record.
What they refuse to talk about is the fact that my department
made 10,000 pages of information public which indicated that
grants and contributions are invested in ridings right across
this country, not just government ridings.
What they refuse to talk about is the fact that my department
has reviewed 17,000 files and found that $1 billion is not
missing.
When will they come clean and tell the Canadian public—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, HRD documents tell us the following:
on June 14, 1999 interim audit results were presented; on July
14, 1999 the proposed action plan was produced; on July 27, 1999
there was a two day meeting of 40 top HRD officials; and on
August 9, 1999 the minister was briefed on hot issues only at her
request.
1420
In light of this document and record of intense activity and
focus on the boondoggle audit, is the minister seriously asking
Canadians to believe that it was not part of her August 9
briefing?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, preliminary work was undertaken in the
department before the internal audit was complete. That is as it
should be. The department came to me when the audit was complete
and a management response had been added to it. That is as it
should be. The process that was undertaken was as it should be.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question as to whether this boondoggle audit was part of her
August 9 briefing. We have a copy of the briefing schedule.
“Note to file: Minister Stewart was briefed on hot issues only
at her request. She preferred knowing what balls were in the
air”.
Was this ball, which was clearly in the air, not even mentioned
at her August 9 briefing? Is that what she is telling Canadians?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I have said on a
number of occasions and what is clear from the report in the
National Post today. I was briefed on November 17.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development has told the House
repeatedly, and again today, that she was not made aware of the
problems in her department until November 17, 1999, although she
was sworn in on August 3 of that year.
Would the minister have us believe that, when she first took up
her duties, she did not receive this kind of briefing from her
deputy minister? Did nobody warn her about what was going on in
her department? Was there never any mention of the final report
of October 5 before November 17? Is that really what the
minister would have us believe?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the questions being raised today are old
news. They are a matter of public record. We have been through
this on a number of occasions.
I was briefed on November 17. At that time I indicated that I
wanted a stronger response from the department. When that was
complete we made the internal audit public. Since that time
considerable work has been undertaken in the department, not only
to share with the House where grants and contributions are—and I
repeat that they are in every riding of members of the House—but
also we have reviewed 17,000 files and found that there is $6,500
outstanding.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
is new today is that there are revelations, facts, and documents
we have obtained through access to information to prove what we
have been saying for several weeks, if not months, now.
What is not new are the minister's evasive answers. What is not
new is her wish to conceal the facts, and what went on in her
department.
Does she realize that the only honourable thing left for her to
do is to resign, because nobody believes her?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians appreciate is the
fact that I and my department made clear to them that there were
improvements we could make in managing our paper. We made that
public. I think what Canadians appreciate is that we have a plan
of action that is supported by the auditor general to ameliorate
the difficulties.
I think what Canadians also know when they look at the report
that I made to the standing committee is that this is not about
$1 billion missing, as the opposition continues to suggest.
Rather, it is about a department that is fully prepared to
improve its administrative practices in support of the grants and
contributions that make such a difference in the lives of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the noose is
tightening around the neck of the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
On June 14, 1999, a preliminary report was tabled. On July 27,
40 public servants from all over Canada were brought to Ottawa,
to the department, to be briefed on what was going on in Human
Resources Development Canada. On August 3, the minister was
sworn in and received a briefing.
How can she have us believe that neither the PMO nor the former
minister, who was aware of the situation, nor the Deputy
Minister, who organized meetings of staff to inform them, could
not have taken the trouble to inform her, the minister, the
person supposedly responsible for the department, that there was
a problem at Human Resources Development Canada?
1425
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us review the process again. Indeed,
the department was doing preliminary work on an internal audit
that was not complete until late in the fall. Indeed, the
department made sure that the audit was finished and the
management response which they wanted to provide me was complete
before they brought it to me. That is the appropriate process.
When I received their work I said that I wanted a stronger
management report. That was prepared and when that was done we
made the whole thing public. Subsequent to that we have made
significant progress in improving the administration of grants
and contributions.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what we see
happening today is enough to make a person totally lose hope.
Either the minister is the one who co-ordinated the game of
hide-and-seek that has been going on in Human Resources
Development Canada for more than a year now, or she has been the
puppet of the PMO and of her own Deputy Minister, who preferred
to bring 40 public servants together from all over Canada in
order to speak to them of the problems at HRDC instead of
speaking to the new minister about them.
Either way, whether she is the puppet or the puppet master, she
must resign.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I completely reject the premise of the
hon. member's question.
Again let me convey to him the process as it was undertaken.
The department was completing an internal audit. In the context
of that it was doing preliminary work. Beyond that, once the
internal audit was complete, and once the management response was
prepared, it was provided to me and I received a full briefing on
November 17.
* * *
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
week the Deputy Prime Minister assured the House that the focus
of the OAS meetings in Windsor would be human security, not the
trade agenda. He said that issues like the case of Francisco
Ramirez would be on the agenda. He is the Colombian labour
leader who was being pursued by paramilitary death squads.
I ask the acting prime minister, has Canada gone beyond vague
generalities and raised the case of Francisco Ramirez? What
measures is Canada proposing to safeguard human security through
the OAS?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister outlined the government's
approach to this matter, and contrary to the assertion of my
friend opposite, the economic agenda did not dominate, as the
Deputy Prime Minister said last week. Human rights and democracy
were foremost on the minds of all there and were mentioned by the
Prime Minister. The Prime Minister talked about the
inclusiveness of societies in the OAS empowering citizens to deal
with civil society. He talked about people not being left behind
by the technological revolution. He wanted all people to share
in the benefits of society.
I think it was a very successful conference, and Canada led—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it was
very important that 3,000 Canadians were there to help stiffen
the backbone of the government to provide some input on human
rights issues.
Over 90 trade union leaders in Colombia alone have been murdered
in the past year. Assurances were given that the human rights
agenda was the one that would predominate, and yet, in his only
speech to delegates, the Prime Minister went on at considerable
length about trade and the free trade agreement of the Americas
and all but ignored human rights.
My question for the government is why?
Mr. Denis Paradis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is advancing four
major points in Windsor. The first point is human security, as
we discussed in the throne speech. The second point is human
rights, which it is important. Democracy is an important issue
also. The third point is the inclusion of civil society on the
agenda. The fourth point is the agenda for the next summit of
the Americas to be held in Quebec City next April.
We are speaking about human security. We are speaking about
human rights.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the recent disclosure by a staff member in the
office of the Minister of Human Resources Development indicates
that the problems in her department were known as early as
October 20, and many would suggest earlier. On February 9 I
asked the minister to inform Canadians on exactly what date she
was first made aware of the problems.
1430
Given today's disclosure, does she stand by her earlier answer
that she was not aware of those problems until November 17?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, given the spinning, the nuancing and the attempts
that have been made to backdate this, it is clearly impossible
that the minister's office would not have kept such politically
explosive information from her.
It is equally impossible to believe that someone did not tell
the minister at least verbally that there was a serious problem
within that department. Does the minister feel that Canadians
can be misled and fooled into believing that she did not know
this problem—
The Speaker: Order, please. Let us stay away from words
such as misled. I want the member to go directly to his
question.
Mr. Peter MacKay: It is down to a matter of trust. Does
the minister believe that Canadians should trust her answer,
given what has transpired in her department on her watch?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the final stages of completing the
audit there was time for briefing that had to be organized.
E-mails were exchanged but that is the process as it would be
normally undertaken.
Again I say to the hon. member that it is clear. It is in the
public record that my briefing was on November 17. There is
nothing in the information that is being brought forward today
that suggests anything otherwise.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is being ever so careful with the words she
chooses when she talks about when she was first aware of the
problems in her department. She keeps saying that prior to
November 17 there was only preliminary work done on the audit.
In the briefing schedule for the minister that we received
through access to information it says that on the afternoon of
August 9 she received briefings on the transitional jobs fund,
the Canada jobs fund, and grants and contributions because those
were the hot issues of the day and the minister wanted to be
briefed.
Did she or did she not receive a briefing on August 9 about
those hot issues, the transitional jobs fund—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this on a number of
occasions right in the House. I have said that indeed I talked
and was concerned about specific projects from the transitional
jobs fund and from the Canada jobs fund. There were many other
issues of great concern to me as a new minister in this
portfolio, and we talked about those as well.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, here are the facts. We know the HRD officials had a
crisis management meeting in late July. On August 9 the minister
received a briefing on the hot issues facing her department. We
assume it included that information. On September 23 the media
lines about audit were on the way to her office. On October 20 a
key aide to the minister was aware of the audit. By November 5
even the Clerk of the Privy Council knew about the audit.
The minister knew about the boondoggle audit before November 17
and yet she told Canadians something different, or she was the
last one in the entire government to know about it. Which is it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new here. The facts
remain as they are. Indeed an audit was being undertaken in the
department. Work was being done as a result of preliminary
results of that audit. That is fully appropriate. I was briefed
on the whole audit and the management response once that work was
completed. That was on November 17.
What is critically important here is that we, once the
management response was strengthened, provided information to
Canadians that we had a problem, that we were prepared to deal
with it, that we were going to fix it, and we are doing just
that.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listen to the minister. She tells us that all of the
department's senior officials discussed the problem. Her staff
discussed it. E-mails were sent. Officials from the various
regions of Canada met to discuss it, but she was not aware.
I imagine that, when she joined the department, they said “Not a
word, here comes the minister. She must not know”.
Does she think we really believe her? Is she credible? Who
besides her believes her?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to trust the Canadian
people can trust me to respect them.
When it comes to trust, the Canadian people can trust me to tell
them the good news but also to tell them when we have problems,
to identify how we are going to fix them, and to go ahead and fix
them.
1435
When it comes to trust, the Canadian public can trust me to
stand up against this kind of questioning which takes us back in
time over issues that are a matter of public record and to
confirm to the Canadian public that I am prepared to deal with
tough issues to find the solutions with respect to their
interests for the country.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
incredible statements are being made here.
I see the minister smiling often. I wonder what she finds funny
in the fact that millions of dollars are beyond administrative
control and that 13 investigations are being carried out by the
RCMP in her department. What is funny about that? What is
funny about trying to get people to believe such totally crazy
things?
Is this minister finally going to understand that she is
destroying the image, not only of this government, but of
politics in general with this attitude, which shows no respect
for the House, parliament and the public.
The Speaker: I think we are coming very close to using
unparliamentary language. It is time to calm down a little.
The Minister of Human Resources Development.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is out of respect for the Canadian
people that I made the internal audit public. It is out of
respect for the Canadian people that we provided to the House
10,000 pages documenting where the grants and contributions,
their tax dollars, were being invested right across the country.
It is out of respect for the Canadian people that my department
reviewed 17,000 active files and identified quite clearly that
this was not an issue of money but an issue of important
paperwork being missing. For me, having that paperwork is
fundamental and that is why we have taken—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has talked all around this issue. I want a
very specific answer. We have access to information documents
that show she had a briefing on August 9 during which CJF, TJF,
and grants and contributions were discussed.
My question is very specific. Was the issue of the internal
audit brought up at that briefing? Yes or no.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the issue of the internal audit was not
brought up at that meeting. Let us look at what was: employment
insurance, post-secondary education, seniors pensions, child
poverty and, yes, the transitional jobs fund, all things that we
know are of no interest to that party.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the briefing was supposed to give the minister some
sense of what the hot issues were in her department. Now we have
a situation where the minister has just told the House that
according—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We will hear the question.
Mr. Monte Solberg: The minister had a briefing on the
9th. She was told that she was going to get all the information
on the hot issues. Now she is saying that her own department
would not give her the information about something as hot as that
internal audit.
If the minister is that incompetent that she does not know what
is going on in her department, will she resign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is hot here is that hon. member's
imagination. He and other journalists can look for something
sinister in all this, but I am sorry, it is all about mundane
scheduling.
I say again, based on preliminary results from the internal
audit which was not completed until late in the fall, the
department was preparing a management response. Then they
brought it to my attention. There is no new information being
brought forward to the House. The facts remain as they always
have been.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services wanders around Quebec,
it costs the taxpayers big bucks. For instance, Michèle
Tremblay has been receiving $53,500 annually from the department
for the past three years to provide communication services.
1440
In addition, Ms. Tremblay's firm receives contracts from the
Canada Information Office, the CIO, to organize tours, including
drafting speeches.
Will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services
explain why he is paying Michèle Tremblay twice for the same
services?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to point out to the
member that I have a number of responsibilities: Canada Post
Corporation, CMHC, the CIO and the Department of Public Works
and Government Services.
Second, all contracts complied with treasury board regulations
and were put out to tender.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister, who is also the chief organizer for the Liberal Party
of Canada in Quebec, tell us whether the reasons he paid Michèle
Tremblay twice for the same work had to do with his officials'
inability to prepare his tours, or was it because the CIO is
supposed to pay for strictly partisan communications?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker.
I have already explained that the ministerial tour of Quebec is
strictly governmental. We meet with municipal representatives,
chambers of commerce and community groups for the purpose of
discussing Government of Canada programs. While there, we
listen to them, so that our programs will reflect public needs.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on November 3, the member for
Calgary—Nose Hill asked the HRDC minister about mismanagement of
the transitional jobs fund. The minister said:
In terms of the projects...they were managed appropriately. They
went through the acceptable review process.
Yet today the minister admitted that she knew about the problems
when she was briefed on August 9. Perhaps she did not know about
the specific audit, but she clearly knew about the so-called hot
issues and yet she kept that information from the House.
In light of the breach of trust with Canadians, will the
minister do the honourable thing and resign?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to
please withdraw the words breach of trust.
Mr. Jay Hill: I will, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us remember what the internal audit
was all about. It was not about money. We have shown that the
money is clearly invested in programs right across the country,
even in the hon. member's riding. What it was about was missing
paperwork, important paperwork.
We made it clear to the Canadian public that we had an issue
there. We have made it clear to the Canadian public that we have
a strategy to fix the problem. If the hon. member would spend
more time talking about the results of the work to date, he would
be able to say to the Canadian public we believe the government
has this thing in hand, because indeed we do.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the audit was about the government's
mishandling and mismanagement of tax dollars. Not only was the
minister aware of the hot issues in August. She disregarded it
and continued to write cheques for a further $425 million without
changing a single procedure.
A responsible minister would have suspended the program until it
was accountable, not this minister. She just kept right on
trying to buy the votes of Canadians. In light of the fact that
the HRDC minister continued to write cheques, will she now do the
honourable thing and resign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now we get to the heart of the problem,
the problem we have always known to be the truth, that that party
does not believe the government has any business working with
Canadians from coast to coast to coast to help them with their
problems.
Again we see that party wants nothing but tax cuts, but on this
side of the House we are prepared to defend, to support and to
ensure that we have the administrative structure in place to be
sure that we can help Canadians with disabilities, help young
people who are having difficulty finding work and Canadians who
want to improve their literacy skills. That is what we believe
in.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA INFORMATION OFFICE
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Public Works and chief organizer of the Liberal
Party of Canada in Quebec not only awarded two parallel
contracts to Michèle Tremblay to organize his tours to Quebec,
but he also awarded a third contract for the same visits, this
time to the firm Communications et Stratégie, whose boss, Serge
Paquette, is a former candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Could the minister explain to taxpayers how he can pay friends
of the Liberal Party three times to organize his visits to
Quebec?
1445
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is clear that Bloc
Quebecois members are getting nervous about our ministerial
tours.
I want to share with the House what I read in L'information du
Nord of November 20, 1999:
Municipal authorities, officials from the chamber of commerce
and the economic development centre, representatives of the
senior citizens group, all enjoyed this meeting of about one
hour with Mrs. Robillard, who is on a provincial tour. Several
future projects for Sainte-Agathe were discussed. The minister
was informed about our situation, while we learned more about
available programs.
The comments of the mayor of Sainte-Agathe—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated its
intention to invest in infrastructure. Would the minister
consider supporting local initiatives, such as convention centres
or local bridges, as part of this infrastructure initiative?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the near future we will negotiate formally with the provinces
on the new infrastructure program for municipalities. It is with
the clear support of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities
that priority will be given to green infrastructure, but other
kinds of projects will be accepted too.
The program will be designed with a bottom up approach so that
the needs of the local communities will be answered.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister maintains that she knew
nothing about the internal audit until November 17. We now know
that her own ministerial staff knew four weeks earlier. That
means one of two things: Either the minister has no idea what is
happening in her office, or her staff is keeping her out of the
loop. Either way, there is only one thing that the minister can
admit to and that is that it is time for her to resign.
There is only one thing that Canadians want: A minister who not
only knows what is going on in her department but who is in
control of what is going on in her department.
How is it possible that a minister with a multibillion dollar
budget can be so unconcerned about what happens in her
department? Will the minister do the right thing and resign
today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, did I show I was unconcerned by making
the internal audit public? Did I show I was unconcerned by
bringing 10,000 pages of documentation to the House to
demonstrate where the grants and contributions went and where
that money that is so important to us is invested?
Did I show I was unconcerned by asking my department to review
17,000 files to prove that a billion dollars was not missing but
that it was a question of paperwork and to show that we can
indeed create a new system of administration to support these
grants and contributions? I think not.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources said that the government would review the Devco
arbitrator's decision carefully so that the government understood
its implications.
Will the minister indicate today that the government accepts the
binding nature of the decision, that the government will not be
appealing the decision and that the government will implement the
decision as quickly as possible?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said all that on Friday.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, after 18 months of uncertainty and suffering, Cape
Breton miners have finally had this minister and the government
acknowledge that their human resource package was inadequate.
Will the minister tell the House today whether or not the money
related to the arbitrator's decision is new money or will it come
from money already allocated for Cape Breton?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are in the process of precisely determining the
financial implications of the arbitrator's decision. I am
pleased that process has come to a successful conclusion. To the
extent that arbitration award requires incremental funding from
the Government of Canada, the Government of Canada will provide
it.
* * *
1450
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is obviously trying very hard to
distract and deflect. We are not talking about simple briefings.
We are not talking about the mismanagement of millions of
dollars. We are not talking about the entire audit.
I want to ask the minister a very straightforward question, a
question that has been asked before. Is she telling Canadians
that she had no knowledge, none, of the problems in her
department prior to the date of November 17 which she stated in
the House?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of the
internal audit, that comprehensive review of all the programs in
my department, I was briefed on November 17.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians are watching this spectacle because
she has refused to answer a straightforward question. She
professes to have respect for the Canadian people, but it is only
after an access to information request and she is dragged kicking
and screaming to the altar of truth that she comes up with an
answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Go directly to your
question, please.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have watched
this sad chapter long enough. Will the minister herself tell us
if she is running the department or is the department running
her? Is she just giving us a further runaround?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these questions today come as a result of
information that was released by my department subject to an
access request. The parties opposite are asking questions, the
same questions they asked months ago, for which I provided
answers months ago. What is so interesting here is that the
answers remain the same. There is nothing new here despite the
sinister suggestions of the opposition.
This is about mundane scheduling. This is about the process of
government. This is about a department that was responding to
preliminary results of an internal audit and then preparing to
brief the minister, nothing more.
* * *
THE RCMP
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
responsible for Western Diversification.
The colourful history of the RCMP dates back to the opening of
the west. In that regard, I am sure the minister would be happy
to tell the House about Friday's launch of the new RCMP heritage
centre in Regina.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification)(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was my
privilege to announce a $4.2 million dollar project that came
from the partnership agreement with the federal government and
the province. This will be matched by a local committee of the
private sector by $2.1 million.
Why was this done? It was done to celebrate the RCMP, its great
accomplishments for Canada and its prospects of continuing to be
a worldclass police force in the future. This is another tourist
attraction for Saskatchewan and it is an excellent one. We
should be applauding this kind of announcement.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that there must be an election in the air.
My question is for the HRDC minister. The assistant to the
minister's executive assistant—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We deserve to hear the
question as well as the answer. The hon. member for Peace River.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, the assistant to the
minister's executive assistant over at HRDC knew about the audit
on October 20. It seems reasonable that her executive assistant
must have also known. Who else knew: Her chief of staff or her
executive secretary? If those people did know, why did they not
tell the minister? Maybe they thought she was just a stoogey
over at that department.
The Speaker: I would like the hon. member to withdraw the
word stoogey.
Mr. Charlie Penson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that word and
put in its place stand-in.
The Speaker: If the minister wishes, she may answer.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
IMPORTATION OF PLUTONIUM
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at a
meeting held this past weekend between American President Bill
Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the two heads of
state agreed to dismantle part of their arsenal of ballistic
missiles, which at the moment represents over 60 tonnes of
plutonium.
After the government has unilaterally accepted on principle the
importation of over 50 tonnes of MOX plutonium, can the Minister
of Natural Resources tell us whether these new quantities will
be added to what we are already expecting from the U.S. and
Russia?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker. Canada has undertaken to test certain quantities of
MOX fuel to determine their suitability in nuclear reactors such
as the CANDU. There has been no agreement, indeed, not even a
request for an agreement to move beyond the test.
* * *
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for
the second time the government has announced its homelessness
strategy. For the second time there is no sign of actual housing
being built. The harsh reality is that Canadians will be
sleeping on the streets and shelters tonight.
How does the minister come to terms with the fact that since the
first announcement in December, 20 homeless people have died in
Toronto?
Homeless people do not need public relations, they need social
housing. Will this government commit to a plan that includes
rather than excludes social housing, yes or no? Will it build
housing?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that
$305 million has been allocated to give supportive housing for
people who find themselves homeless.
Provincial facilitators are working in each of the communities
to come up with the best plans to suit each individual community.
* * *
[Translation]
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, there
is already one minister who always cringes at the sound of the
words “internal audit”.
Now we learn that several internal audits have been called for
within Heritage Canada. Knowing in advance what the minister
would answer, I am addressing my question to the person
responsible for the proper conduct of internal audits, the
President of Treasury Board.
What does the President of Treasury Board intend to do to ensure
that there are proper internal audits carried out soon within
the official languages program, one that is often questioned in
this House, and that these are, of course, made public?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that, at the present
time, thanks to the official languages program, we have 2.7
million young Canadians who have learned the other official
language.
What is important is that, when an agreement is signed, the
government of the province delivering the agreement is in fact
audited daily through their public accounts.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the municipalities of Georgina, East Gwillimbury, Newmarket and
King in my riding of York North are concerned about improving and
greening their infrastructure.
Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House how the
two green funds launched this weekend in London can help these
municipalities? What role will the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities play?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian municipalities are very strong advocates of
effective early action to combat climate change and other
environmental challenges.
In the 2000 federal budget we ear-marked $125 million to assist
municipalities to advance that work, $25 million for an enabling
fund to help them identify needs and solutions and $100 million
in a revolving fund to help in the financing of specific
projects. The funding will be managed by councils and review
committees set up by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
The Government of Canada is proud to be their partner.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of one of my brother speakers, the
hon. Lloyd Snow, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1500
[English]
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICE OF MOTION
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion respecting amendments to the Income Tax Act, the income
tax application rules, and certain acts relating to the Income
Tax Act.
These measures implement the brilliant budget policies of our
finance minister and the government. I ask that an order of the
day be designated for the consideration of this motion.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to the standing orders, I have the honour to table in
both official languages the government's responses to 20
petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour of presenting to the
House, in both official languages, the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which represented Canada
at the meetings of the committee on economic affairs and
development and at the first part of the 2000 session of the
parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe held in London,
England, and in Strasbourg, France, from January 18 to 29, 2000.
[English]
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I also have the honour to
present to the House in both official languages the report of the
Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the 24th European Parliament-Canada interparliamentary meeting
in Brussels from March 18 to 25, 2000.
1505
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the
honour of presenting to the House, in both official languages,
the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, which
represented Canada at the meetings of the committee on economic
affairs and development and at the second part of the 2000
session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe
held in Paris, France, from March 29 to 31, 2000, and in
Strasbourg, France, from April 3 to 7, 2000.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in
both official languages the sixth report of the Standing
Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that it be granted leave to travel from October 15 to 25, 2000 to
Quebec, New Brunswick, Maine, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and
Labrador, and P.E.I. to continue its comprehensive study on
aquaculture, the statutory review of the Oceans Act and of other
fisheries issues; that the committee be composed of two Canadian
Alliance members, one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member
and five Liberals; and that the necessary staff do accompany the
committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the sixth report later this day.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present three further reports on behalf of the
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I have the honour to present in both official languages the
seventh report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that it be granted leave to travel to Chile during the month of
November 2000 to continue its comprehensive study on aquaculture;
that the committee be composed of two Canadian Alliance members,
one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member and five Liberal
members; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
I have the honour to present in both official languages the
eighth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that it be granted leave to travel to Ontario during the month of
October 2000 to continue its comprehensive study on aquaculture;
that the committee be composed of two Canadian Alliance members,
one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member and five Liberal
members; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
Finally, I have the honour to present in both official languages
the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), your committee recommends
that it be granted leave to travel to Japan during the month of
February 2001 to continue its comprehensive study on aquaculture;
that the committee be composed of two Canadian Alliance members,
one Bloc member, one NDP member, one PC member and five Liberal
members; and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present in both official languages the fourth
report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, May 12, 2000, your
committee has considered Bill S-10, an act to amend the National
Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the criminal code,
and has agreed to report it without amendments.
FINANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official
languages the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance
entitled “Prevention Today—Savings Tomorrow” in relation to
its study of a natural disaster reduction plan.
During the past three years the work of the finance committee
has focused on improving the standard of living for Canadians by
way of sound public policy that manages our resources efficiently
and enhances productivity. Today we face a growing exposure to
losses from natural disasters, a concern we have conveyed in our
prebudget consultation reports. In fact over the last two
decades, disaster recovery payments of this country have been
doubling every five to ten years.
This report highlights the findings from our consultations with
expert witnesses and sets out the committee's recommendations for
addressing this very important challenge.
* * *
[Translation]
COPYRIGHT ACT
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-485, an act to amend the Copyright Act
(Minister).
1510
He said: Madam Speaker, the bill I am introducing today
proposes that the Minister of Canadian Heritage become the
minister responsible for the application of the Copyright Act,
except for the purposes of section 44.1 of that act.
This bill is in response to the almost unanimous request of
copyright holders who, faced with the Minister of Industry's
careless handling of the Copyright Board, are asking that
responsibility for the board be turned over to the Department of
Canadian Heritage.
This request has been made repeatedly by the Society of
Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, known as
SOCAN, as well as by the largest Canadian agency representing
the cultural sector, the Canadian Conference of the Arts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[English]
MARINE LIABILITY ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (for the Minister of Transport,
Lib.) moved that Bill S-17, an act respecting marine liability
and to validate certain by-laws and regulations, be read the
first time.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time)
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.) moved that Bill S-18, an act to amend the National
Defence Act (non-deployment of persons under the age of 18 years
to theatres of hostilities), be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I
move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans presented to the House earlier this day be concurred
in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured and pleased to present a
petition that is very timely and important in terms of the debate
and dialogue we are having in this place.
The petition is signed by numerous constituents who are
concerned about biotechnology. They call upon parliament to
implement legislation for clear labelling on all genetically
engineered seed and foods derived from, processed with,
containing or consisting of genetically engineered organisms
before they are released into any and all commercial markets.
I am pleased to table this petition on behalf of my
constituents.
1515
CHILD TAX BENEFIT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions which I wish to
present.
The first petition calls upon parliament to build on previous
actions to assist families through the Canada child tax benefit.
PRODUCTIVITY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to undertake a comprehensive strategy for productivity
enhancement.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to continue to use prudent economic assumptions in the
formulation of the budget.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to continue to support research and development.
TAXATION
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to announce a timetable for the elimination of the 5% surtax.
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to ensure that Canada's debt to GDP ratio remains on a permanent
downward track.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to continue to reduce employment insurance premiums.
THE DEBT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I present a petition which calls upon parliament
to continue to apply the contingency reserve, which is set at $3
billion per year, to debt reduction.
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Madam Speaker, I
wish to present a petition which has four parts and 189 pages in
total. The petitioners request that the government support
Canadian agriculture. They indicate that we need a level playing
field with respect to the subsidies that are being paid by the
Europeans and the Americans. The petitioners are calling for $1
billion for an agricultural trade equalization payment for all
Canadian farmers.
I respectfully submit this petition on behalf of my
constituents.
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have the honour to table two petitions.
The first is from petitioners in Joliette, Longueuil, Saint
Lambert, Brossard, Boucherville, Saint-Georges-de-Beauce and
Sainte-Julienne, who are protesting predatory gasoline pricing.
Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump and Canadian
consumers' inability to take action and protect themselves
against increases in gasoline prices, the petitioners are
calling on parliament to pass a resolution to stop world
petroleum cartels in order to bring down overly high gasoline
prices.
The second petition is from petitioners in Gatineau, Montreal,
Terrebonne, Drummondville, Chambly, Longueuil, Labelle,
Saint-Jérôme, Saint-Jovite and Blainville and deals with the same
topic, predatory gasoline pricing.
Given the soaring price of gasoline at the pump and Canadian
consumers' inability to take action and protect themselves
against increases in gas prices, the petitioners are calling on
parliament to pass a resolution to stop world petroleum cartels
in order to bring down overly high gasoline prices.
[English]
SEXUAL ASSAULT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a
petition containing the names of some 5,800 citizens who call on
parliament to enact legislation which would increase the
sanctions against those who perpetrate sexual assault on minors.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately
300 people from St. John's East who are concerned that the
British Columbia Court of Appeal on June 30, 1999 dismissed the
appeal to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the criminal code,
making possession of child pornography illegal in British
Columbia. The petitioners state that by upholding the lower
court decision possession of child pornography in British
Columbia is now legal. The petitioners state that the well-being
and safety of children are in jeopardy. Therefore, the
petitioners call upon parliament to invoke section 33 of the
charter of rights and freedoms, commonly known as the
notwithstanding clause, to override the B.C. court of appeal
decision, and to reinstate subsection 163.1(4) of the criminal
code, making the possession of child pornography in British
Columbia illegal, and by so doing reinforce and affirm our
objection to the B.C. court of appeal decision.
1520
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions which I would like to table.
The first petition contains 200 signatures, which will add to the
over 12,000 signatures I tabled in the House. The petitioners
are calling for a change to our immigration system which would
allow us to honour our commitment under the Geneva convention to
bring in genuine economic refugees and enable them to make a home
as soon as possible.
HIGHWAYS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the second petition I present on behalf of the
British Columbia Automobile Association and it contains 106
signatures. The petitioners ask that the federal government
start to invest money in our road infrastructure. They state
that the condition of our roads contributes to thousands of lost
lives and injuries every year right across this country, and that
putting more money into our roads would improve trade
opportunities, job creation and tourism.
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise to present several petitions. The first
petition contains some 50 signatures from residents of Windsor,
Ontario and St. John's, Newfoundland. The petitioners pray that
the government will appeal its recent amendments to the
Canada-U.S. tax treaty which negatively affect social security
recipients who are residents of Canada. It is an unfair tax grab
on seniors.
I am also pleased to table four petitions with some 800
signatures from Canadians from five provinces. The petitioners
call on the federal government to end the discrimination in the
tax code against single income families with children and to
correct the inequities in the federal tax code so that there is
equitable treatment of all families with children.
I would also like to table two petitions, containing some 400
signatures, mainly from Albertans. The petitioners call on the
federal government to reduce the tax burden on the Canadian
economy and on Canadian families through a tax cut of at least
25% over the next three years.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2000
The House resumed 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 third time and
passed.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, when I was interrupted by question period I was going
through the 62 different tax increases which the Liberals have
brought in since they formed the government in 1993. I was
looking at what type of money the Liberals had brought in with
the tax increases and what they were doing with that money.
I talked about the tax increases which were implemented in 1994
and 1995. In 1996 the Liberals increased personal income taxes
11 times and took $260 million out of the pockets of individual
taxpayers. They did that through an RRSP contribution limit
freeze, which broke an election promise I might add. Then they
went to pension plan contribution limits being frozen, once again
breaking an election promise. Then they forced seniors to begin
early withdrawals from their RRSPs. Then the Liberals forced
seniors to begin early withdrawals from their RPPs. It gets
better. The Liberals went on to eliminate the deductibility of
administration fees for RRSPs. They forced people to pay for the
fees, which they had not done before. They then went on to
eliminate the deductibility of administration fees for RRIFs.
The Liberals took $260 million out of people's pockets.
1525
I previously commented on something else the Liberals did in
1996. They increased taxes on Canadian pensioners abroad. They
fleeced seniors for another $10 million. They did not just stop
with individual income tax increases. No, the Liberals had more
on their agenda. They increased the burden by $10 million on the
overseas employment tax credit for people who could not find a
job in Canada, probably due to high taxes.
It always raises the question, with $260 million in personal
income tax increases and $70 million in three corporate tax
increases which the Liberals brought in in 1996, for a total
increased tax burden of $330 million, what types of things did
the Liberals do with that extra $330 million?
There is a program in Prince Edward Island called “I want to be
a millionaire”. It cost $31,000. Six average taxpayers had to
pay their full tax bills just so the Liberals could have that
program. What they did not tell people was that the government
was making a number of people millionaires that year, and they
happened to be the cronies and friends of the Prime Minister.
That program was not how to raise money for Jean, or somebody
with that first name. It was not about raising money for the
Prime Minister, and therefore getting all sorts of lucrative
contracts. That was not what that program was about, but that is
the reality of it. These Liberals are very good about lining the
pockets of those who support them, and lining the pockets of the
friends of the Prime Minister. It does not even matter if they
are Canadians. They can be overseas for all they care. They
make sure that they look after their own.
If someone gives a couple of thousand dollars to the Prime
Minister's campaign in Shawinigan, it is a sure bet there will be
a sweet deal on a hotel or something else. That is a shame.
What else did the Liberals spend the $330 million on that they
took out of taxpayers in 1996? They spent $100,000 to establish
an 18-hole golf course in Sudbury. That is pretty serious money
for the average person. As a matter of fact, 21 taxpayers had to
pay to the government income tax on everything they made.
Twenty-one people paid tax to establish the golf course in
Sudbury. There are plenty of golf courses which the government
has subsidized. Sudbury is but one of a long list.
What business is it of the government to take money from 21
hard-working Canadians, their full tax bills, to subsidize golf
courses? How do the Liberals account for that type of spending?
Is that the justification they use for $330 million more in the
form of tax increases in 1996? They ought to hang their heads in
shame.
I will get to the most egregious of all. What did the Liberal
Party of Canada receive from the taxpayer? How much did the
taxpayers who never voted Liberal contribute to the Liberal
Party? Over $2 million in a tax subsidy.
These budget bills are a sham. What the Liberals do not say is
that they have hiked taxes 62 times since they took office in
1993. There have been 27 corporate tax increases, 22 personal
income tax increases, six bracket creep increases and seven
Canada pension plan increases. What was all of this for? It was
for sex changes for soldiers, an unelected Senate, a fountain in
Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's cronies, dumb blonde joke books,
Bubbles Galore, meat dresses, HRDC boondoggles, studies for
lawn ornaments, Bombardier, other forms of corporate welfare, as
well as $200 million which was wasted in the budgetary estimate
of HRDC. Shame on the government for taking that money from
taxpayers.
1530
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Madam
Speaker, I think I heard pretty well the hon. member's entire
speech and I am not sure whether he mentioned anything about the
debt burden that exists today. He spent a lot of time talking
about tax increases, where government is misspending its money
and those kinds of things. I was very sympathetic to what he had
to say.
I kept thinking of our new grandson who just came into the
world. I look at that little boy and think about the debt burden
he is carrying as a newborn child on the Canadian scene. We are
getting nothing for that. We are paying interest charges of
something like $40 billion or $42 billion a year. That is
roughly half of what we need to pay for our health care expenses
on an annual basis in Canada.
Could my colleague say something about the need for a plan to do
two things? First, there is a need to balance the budget. Then
there is a need to pay down the debt, and not in a happenstance
kind of way where if we happen to have a little money left over
we will pay down the debt a bit. Should there not be a
systematic plan that would reduce the debt so that the burden on
young children coming into the world today will be reduced
somewhat? Could he comment on that?
Mr. Rob Anders: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
of my hon. colleague. I would just like to say that I think the
problem is even worse than what has been laid out.
We pay about $42 billion a year in debt payments, in interest on
the national debt of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the Liberals
across the way who helped to drag this country through the muck.
It is just the tip of the iceberg. It means that we are looking
at about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
The sad fact is that our demographics are such that not everyone
will pay that bill.
For my hon. colleague and his grandchildren, the $600 billion
that Canada owes right now as a federal debt will be multiplied
because of unfunded liabilities with regard to the Canada pension
plan, land claims, irresponsible management in the country, and a
demographic bubble that will burst in 2017 with regard to the
aged and health care expenses.
This government and these Liberals are sleepwalking into a $2
trillion debt in upcoming years. That means that for youngsters
out there such as the grandchildren of my colleague it will not
be owing a mere $20,000. I want to let the grandchildren of
today know that it will be closer to $100,000 which they will
pay. That is sitting on them right now even if this government
or any other government never charged a dollar more to the debt
of the country.
If they get a university education, if they pursue
post-secondary education and raise their expectations for their
standard of living and their wages, as their high school guidance
counsellors tell them to do, it will mean a $200,000 bill. It is
as if a house is sitting on their shoulders for which they will
have to pay. It is a house they will never own but it is a debt
given to them by the Liberals. Shame on them.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker, it
is certainly an honour to stand here to say a few words on Bill
C-32. Being a finance bill, it gives me a fair amount of
flexibility. As it is my first speech in the House, I would like
to thank the people of St. John's West who let me come here to
represent them in this great institution.
1535
Over the years Newfoundland has been represented by some
tremendous politicians in this Chamber. I think of some great
cabinet ministers. We had the Hon. Don Jamieson. We had the
Hon. John Crosbie. Of course now in cabinet we have the hon.
member for Gander—Grand Falls. As the great musical philosopher
Meat Loaf would say, “Two out of three ain't bad”.
It is a great pleasure to represent such a great district. It
is a province that has great riches but a province that has been
treated very poorly.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to be with you all today, to share my vision,
my hopes, my dreams and my aspirations for this great country.
[English]
However my dream of Canada is one where the provinces and the
people are not only treated equally but are also treated fairly.
Quite often to treat people equally does not mean that they are
being treated fairly. As we look across this great country it is
so diverse there is no way that a made in Ottawa or made in
central Canada solution is one that works in other parts of the
country.
Some people have asked me if being sworn in a few days ago or
being able to make my maiden speech today will be my most
memorable moment in politics. I have to say no. The one moment
in my political life that will always stand out was the moment in
the House of Assembly in Newfoundland on the night when we were
debating the Meech Lake accord, the night when eight of the ten
provinces had agreed to the accord. Out in Manitoba we had our
friend waving his feather and holding up debate, yet knowing that
the Manitoba legislature would agree to the Meech Lake accord.
In our own house of assembly, despite the fact that many of us
fought for the implementation of that great accord so that all of
us could come together as a nation, the premier of our province
pulled the plug when he saw the support of his own party slipping
away. He used the excuse that we were out of time. That was the
night that I thought the future of Canada changed. I hope I am
wrong but unfortunately I do not think I am.
Sometimes it is not that others are asking too much. It is that
sometimes some of us are willing to give too little. I think in
that case we lost a tremendous chance to unify this great
country. It may be some time before we get another. However, if
we treat people fairly rather than just say we are treating them
equally, perhaps that chance will come again.
I will use some of the topics in this bill to illustrate how my
province of Newfoundland is being treated extremely unfairly. We
have CHST funding. Before 1993 when the present government came
into power, health care and post-secondary education were funded
based on need. Provinces that needed got. Newfoundland at the
time was a province in need, and we received a sufficient amount
of funding.
Not long ago the federal and provincial governments shared on a
50:50 basis in funding health care. Today in Newfoundland the
federal input to our health care budget is only 15%. We can
just imagine what that does to the budget of a small province.
When the funding formula was changed to a per capita basis
rather than a needs basis, most of the other provinces at least
held what they had, if we factor in the cuts. Many of them
received increased funding because of increasing populations.
Many provinces have increasing populations because the young
people who are leaving Newfoundland and going to places like
Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. These are young people of
child bearing age who are not only adding themselves to the
population but over the years will be adding their offspring to
the population.
The gain of other provinces is Newfoundland's loss. We are not
only left with a rapidly declining population. We are left with
an aging population.
1540
When the CHST funding was changed we got a double whammy. We
received fewer dollars and we have an aging population which eats
up more of the health care dollars. The statistics show that
about 60% of our budget is spent on people 65 years of age and
over. Consequently we are suffering greatly from the change in
funding.
This year we heard about the great one time supplement that was
given to provinces. Newfoundland received $42 million over four
years. That equates to a little over $10 million per year.
Government members opposite will if that is not a tremendous
extra addition to its budget. Over the last six years, because
of a change in formula, we have lost $750 million in CHST
transfers. Is it any wonder that health care is in the state it
is in? The poorer the province, the worse off it is becoming.
CHST transfers also include funding for post-secondary
education, an area where we have been extremely lax. The
greatest resource in our country is our young people. We are
forgetting that and we are ignoring them. We are forgetting to
invest in their futures.
Because of the great demand on health care funding, much of the
money designated to post-secondary education is swallowed up by
the health care vacuum. The dollars have to be put into health
care. The people who pay the price are those who should be the
beneficiaries of post-secondary funding.
In countries such as Ireland and Iceland we see economies that
have turned around tremendously. We can talk about the effect of
the European common market on Ireland and how well it is treated
in relation to holding on to its royalty payments, et cetera.
However, if we talk to officials in the Irish government they
will tell us that the turnaround started when they started
recognizing their primary investment should be in young people.
Today, because of the investment and because of the opportunity
that every young man and woman has to become educated without any
great costs, and in some cases without any costs, the Irish
economy has turned around tremendously. When industry beckoned
they had a young, aggressive and educated workforce.
I ask where is our young, aggressive and educated workforce. In
the case of Newfoundland, most of them are either moving to other
parts of Canada or unfortunately along with our lobster friends
in the other provinces are moving south of the border because
they will make more money to offset the tremendous debt load upon
leaving post-secondary institutions.
That is not the way to grow a country. The way to grow a
country is to invest in our young people. It is something that
the present government has to think about and then act upon. We
are paying a heavy price now but we will pay a much greater price
in the future.
Over the past year we have heard about the federal government
having to pay the banks millions and millions of dollars because
of their input into the student loans program and their inability
to collect some of the money owed to them. Let us look at the
horrendous service charges being suggested for handling loans for
the government. If we add up the amount of money we pay the
banks, if we look at the tremendous amount of service charges we
pay, and if we look at the money lost that young people cannot
pay back, which quite often drives them into bankruptcy, would it
not be a lot more sensible if we took the dollars we are throwing
away and invested them directly into the education of our young?
It does not make any sense.
1545
A few days ago I asked the Minister of Finance a question about
CHST transfers. He basically sloughed it off by saying that the
provinces were doing very well in equalization payments.
As I mentioned earlier, Newfoundland is a very rich province. It
is rich in its resources, its people and its potential.
Unfortunately, as it develops its resources every dollar received
from royalties for the development of its mines, its offshore oil
and other industries, the federal government is there with its
greedy hands to claw back anywhere from 75 cents to 90 cents of
every dollar.
If we went to work today and made $100 but on our way home
someone took $75, $80 or $90 from that $100, how could we
advance, progress and improve our lot in life? The answer is
that we could not.
Let me use the European experience. As Ireland started to
develop, the European common market had the sense to let it hold
on to some of its own royalties so that it could invest in itself
until it reached a certain plateau where it was equal with
everyone else.
If Newfoundland was allowed to keep the money that its people
earned, it could be a have province instead of being looked upon
by many as the poor cousin in the country. Newfoundland is not
the poor cousin. It could be a rich cousin. It could be a major
contributor to this nation if this nation treated it fairly, not
equally with a blanket rule made in central Canada, but fairly.
Labrador has major power developments. A contract was signed on
the Upper Churchill years ago with our friends from Quebec. As
we have been told by everyone, including the courts, a contract
is a contract and we cannot blame our friends for that.
Presently Newfoundland gets about $10 million out of that
contract each year in profits. Quebec gets closer to $1 billion.
Hopefully, as we negotiate the Lower Churchill and with the help
and input of the federal government, the deal will be fairer and
all partners will benefit. That is the way it should be in the
Confederation of Canada.
Although the federal government allows provinces like Alberta to
feed its pipelines through other provinces and have access to
markets, it is unfortunate that it refuses to let Newfoundland
have a power corridor through Quebec so that it can send power to
the markets on the eastern seaboard. That is something for
another day.
When we talk about fairness and equality let us look at the CBC.
Yesterday my colleague from St. John's East and I had the
opportunity to attend a rally sponsored by Friends of the CBC in
St. John's, Newfoundland. Hundreds of people come out to tell
the government that they do not want their evening news programs
cut. Newfoundland and Labrador are spread out over a very large
geographical area and the news coverage from that area is perhaps
the only thing many of the hardworking people in Newfoundland get
to see. Everyone looks forward to the evening news because it is
local, it is relevant and it is news from all over our great
province.
The government is now recapitulating a bit and is telling us
that we can have half the program. It is saying that half a loaf
is better than none and that we should be glad of it. Half is
not good enough if the news program is very successful and very
popular. Half or maybe none might be good enough in an area
where the evening news programs are not even watched. I have no
problem with programs being cut if nobody wants them. However, I
do have a problem with programs being cut that are essential to
the culture, the history and the people of the province when that
program is one of the most popular in the province.
Hopefully the government will get some sense.
1550
I am not blaming the board of directors at CBC. They can only
do what they can with the money they have. In this case the
money comes from here. It is the federal minister's
responsibility to ensure that the CBC has enough funding for
areas, and there are many across this great country, rural areas
in particular, where their needs are best served by local
programming, and in many cases that is sponsored by the CBC.
Let us look at the infrastructure. We have a harbour in St.
John's, the first harbour to which any boat sailed to the island,
if we look at it from the time of the European discovery in 1497.
It is the oldest city in the province. It wreaks of sewage
simply because this government has failed to come up with its
share of the money to clean up the harbour. The municipalities
have come to the table. The province has expressed its
willingness to come to the table. The hesitancy is from the
one-third input of the federal government. If the federal
government came to the table, this major problem could be solved.
The adjacent cities of St. John's and Mount Pearl are the first
stop basically for most people coming to our great province, a
province that has more tourism potential than any other place in
the world.
My own district, which surrounds St. John's, the southern shore,
St. Mary's and Placentia Bay, are the oldest settled parts in
North America. Every few miles there are a variety of
attractions. Walking along the shore we can see major icebergs
sculptured as only Michelangelo could do. We can watch whales in
their natural environment and caribou on the opposite side in
their natural environment. There are birds, salmon rivers,
historic sites, old fortifications and great archaeological digs
of the colony that Baltimore settled in Ferryland. We have some
550 million year old fossils at Mistaken Point and the world
renowned bird sanctuary at Cape St. Mary's. I could go on and
on. These are all within a few miles of a major capital city, a
city that with some help from the federal government could be a
clean and beautiful city.
Those are the fair treatments for which we are looking. In
transportation, Newfoundland, being an island, is now being held
hostage by two monopolies. Marine Atlantic is the only ferry
service to our island and over this last couple of years we have
had our battles. This year a fast ferry has been serving us when
the weather is good. Unfortunately, next year we will revert to
a slow ferry.
A survey done during the week showed that everybody thought the
service by Air Canada had been downgraded. It is more expensive
and much worse than it was. There is a need for fishery
research. We are a rich province but we need help, co-operation
and we need to be treated fairly.
[Translation]
I hope that, in the days, months and years to come, we will
continue to work together for a strong and united Canada and a
better one.
[English]
If people think we cannot have a better Canada, I refer them to
the words of Robert Kennedy when he said “Some people see things
as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask
why not?”
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic
Party on the federal side, we do wish to congratulate the newest
member from St. John's West on his electoral victory. We welcome
him to the House of Commons.
He brings a certain dialect and flair to the House of Commons, as
only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can, and I thank him for
that.
1555
Although I do disagree with a couple of political statements he
has made, I want to thank him for bringing up the issue of
tourism and other things with regard to the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. We in Nova Scotia think we have a
pretty good province to visit, too. I will make the hon. member
a pledge. I will go to his province and visit if he will come to
our province to visit as well.
He mentioned a couple of things about health care and the CBC.
This is where I find that the Conservatives, sometimes in a
campaign, will campaign from the left and govern from the right.
I believe in the party's 1997 election platform which stated
that it would advocate further cuts to the CBC. The CBC cuts did
not happen under just the Liberal Party. They happened when the
Mulroney Conservatives were in power from 1984 to 1993. They
started the cuts and the Liberals continued them. Does the hon.
member agree with the 1997 platform of the Conservative Party of
further cuts to the CBC?
I admire him and the member for St. John's East who went to the
Friends of the CBC rally. I do hope they are able to change the
way the Conservative Party thinks and stands up for public
broadcasting in this country from coast to coast to coast.
The member's own party leader said that he supported Ralph
Klein's bill 11 and that he also supported advocates of two tier
health care in this country. We know that in Newfoundland and
Labrador the majority of people when polled were dead against a
two tiered health care system. Being a long term parliamentarian
in his own provincial legislature, the member for St. John's West
should know very clearly what a two tier health care system would
do to the people of the outports whom he so eloquently defended
right here in the House.
Does the member advocate further cuts to the CBC as his party's
platform did in 1997? Does he support his party leader's
approach to a two tier health care system in this country?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, first, let me say to my
hon. colleague that I visit his province fairly often. My son
attends Dalhousie University, which is in Nova Scotia, and I
visit him about three times a year. I would ask him to
reciprocate by making that many trips to my province.
In relation to the hon. member's two questions, he was not
listening very carefully when I spoke. When I talked about the
CBC, I said that if there are areas in the country where cuts are
necessary, if people are no longer watching and the CBC wants to
cut programs, then it is up to the people. However, in areas
such as rural Newfoundland, and Newfoundland generally, the
evening news is an extremely popular program. Therefore I
certainly do not support cuts in the areas where the market is
there, nor should anybody else. I see that the hon. member
agrees.
In relation to the two tier health care system, again if he had
listened carefully to what our leader said at the time of the
fiasco in Alberta—and perhaps it is the Premier of Alberta
taking out a membership in the Alliance that has coloured his
thinking—our leader said that he could not blame the local
provinces for looking at ways to help their people because of the
cuts imposed by the government. However, our party stands firmly
against any two tier system in health care.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I was
listening to the speech by our new member in the House, and at
one point he spoke of the agreement Quebec concluded with
Newfoundland on the development of Churchill Falls.
He deplored the fact that, in this agreement, few benefits
remained for Newfoundland. Perhaps I misunderstood and he could
enlighten me, but he seemed to be blaming Quebec for being
greedy in signing this contract.
I would like to point out that no one wanted to support
Newfoundland in its efforts to build the dam and develop
hydro-electric power: neither New York—the Americans—nor the
Canadians, nor Ottawa. Only Quebec supported Newfoundland at
the time. Although Quebec set rigorous conditions for
Newfoundland, no one else would have been satisfied with them,
they would have demanded more.
So, we have to go back. It was many years ago. Quebec helped
Newfoundland at that time and is prepared to do so again with
the development of hydroelectric power at the border between
Labrador and Quebec.
1600
[English]
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether
the hon. member did not hear me or he did not understand me
clearly when I spoke about the old upper Churchill contract which
was signed many years ago before my involvement in politics. I
said quite clearly that a contract is a contract.
I think Hansard will show that I do not blame my friends
from Quebec. They signed a binding contract. It is not their
fault. It is to their advantage that power rates increased. We
had settled for a flat rate. I have never, nor have we ever,
blamed the people of Quebec for this. In fact, the future
developments in our country especially as they relate to hydro
power will be successful if there is a good friendly partnership
between Newfoundland and Quebec.
Going back to my comments on Meech Lake, again I say to him that
a lot of people in our province would love to see Quebec play a
much more important partnership role within this great country of
Canada.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-32. It is an honour to
represent the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands and British
Columbia. This bill is the budget implementation act which gives
us a lot of latitude on what we speak about today.
It is important that we lead from the front. Quite often in this
Chamber we do not put forward what Canadians, especially the
younger generation, really want to see, how we will provide them
with alternatives, how we will allow them to fulfil their dreams
and aspirations and how they can become excited about this great
country.
A number of my colleagues spoke about the endless tax increases,
particularly the employment tax increases that have occurred
since the Liberals took power in 1993. I am very enthusiastic
about what the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, has to
offer the Canadian people. A lot of work has gone into it and it
is being reflected in the polls. We are seeing dramatic
increases daily. There is a lot of encouragement that Canadians
are ready for a change.
The first and foremost change that will come is a single tax
rate. We call it solution 17. Our opponents, from the
Progressive Conservatives to their friends in the NDP, are
criticizing us for this. They have said that we will cut taxes
only for the wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will go into a few of the specific details about solution 17,
the single rate tax.
It is important to understand that Canada has three marginal tax
rates: 17%, 26% and 29%. We propose to bring those down to a
single federal marginal tax rate of 17% which would provide tax
savings for every single taxpayer in the country. Most
important, it is going to provide the greatest tax relief for the
poorest taxpayers, those with the lowest incomes.
It is important not only to emphasize the 17%, but we also
propose to increase the basic spousal exemption from $6,000 to
$10,000 each for adults who stay at home.
That gives two adults $20,000 without any of the other numerous
deductions which they can apply, such as their RRSP deductions,
before they pay a dime in federal tax. What is the net effect of
that? That is going to take 1.9 million, almost two million of
our poorest off the tax rolls.
1605
My riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands has many people in
retirement. They go there because of the mild winters. It is on
the south end of Vancouver Island. There are many seniors in the
income range of $20,000 to $30,000 who are struggling and they
are paying federal income tax. The Canadian Alliance believes
that is wrong and that these people should not be paying it.
We also recognize the importance of raising children and that
there is a significant cost to it. We would like to recognize
that by bringing in for the first time a child tax deduction of
$3,000 per child. Let us look at a family of four with an income
of somewhere between $26,000 and $30,000. They are still eligible
for the deductions but their basic exemption would be $10,000 for
each adult plus $3,000 for each child. They would be able to earn
up to $30,000 before one cent in federal income tax was paid.
I do not know how anyone could say that is providing tax relief
for the rich. The biggest beneficiaries of our solution 17 will
be the taxpayers with the lowest income. We will take them right
off the tax rolls.
We recognize that there is another thing taxpayers want,
especially the younger generation. I got into politics and ran
in 1997 because the dreams and the aspirations of our younger
generation had been shattered. They are frustrated. Our best and
brightest are flocking to the south. People will come up with
numbers and say that there is not that big of a brain drain, but
the very best are going, the brightest ones. That is what
concerns me.
The economic engine of our country 10 to 15 years from now, the
future CEOs, the future entrepreneurs who will create the jobs
are the ones who are leaving. In my own family, of my siblings
and my wife's siblings, there is one who works in the United
States now and there are two others. Almost half of them are in
the process or have at least applied for positions in the United
States.
With the right government and the right policies in place we can
attract investment and Canada can be number one. We could make
those younger people in the United States want to come to Canada.
We could have the younger generation of Americans say, “Would I
ever like to live in Canada”.
That is what we are putting forward. That is why there is so
much encouragement within the Canadian Alliance. That
encouragement is solely because of our policies and leadership
and what we are able to provide.
I can hear some of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party
laughing. I encourage them to come to British Columbia. I will
take them out there myself. They can talk to British Columbians
about the leadership the New Democratic Party has provided in
British Columbia. I say that in all seriousness. It has been an
unmitigated disaster. In any event, I am not here to talk about
that.
I want to read a paragraph from WEFA. The Canadian Alliance put
its plan out very early, well in advance of an election, because
we wanted our hon. friends from all parties to scrutinize it. We
also gave our solution 17 to WEFA which is one of the leading
economic forecasting agencies in the country. In fact Mr. Orr
does the economic forecasting for the Minister of Finance.
1610
This group is well respected within the financial community. I
am going to read the conclusion. It did an in-depth analysis.
Anyone watching who would like to learn more about this should
contact the office of the member for Medicine Hat for details. He
was instrumental in developing solution 17. I am going to read
the conclusion in its entirety:
The tax reduction proposals...are well focused on the needs of
Canadians today. They expand the economy, and most powerfully:
personal disposable income, consumption and our standard of
living. They create jobs. By lowering the marginal tax rates
they are particularly effective in stimulating work effort, and
stemming the brain drain and other productivity enhancing
features. By powerfully reducing the level of personal income
tax, particularly for Canadians of average and above average
income, they are well directed at providing a more competitive
tax environment in Canada relative to the U.S. They focus
precisely and effectively on “bracket creep”, raising the Basic
Personal Exemption, particularly affecting the lowest income
taxpayers, by much more than the rate of inflation: by
eliminating the current 26% and 29% marginal tax rates, any
bracket creep relating to these rates is eliminated. The issue
of fairness is addressed, not only by the elimination of bracket
creep, but by honouring the original policy intentions of the 5%
“deficit reduction” surtax and reducing EI premiums to be
consistent with EI policy...the tax reduction proposals of the
Reform Party are affordable. If all of the tax reduction
proposals are introduced as a combined package, over the 2000-01
to 2004-05 period, there would still be a fiscal surplus in each
and every year.
This was done by Dale Orr and Bob Dugan from WEFA. It speaks
volumes. WEFA is an independent forecasting agency.
We have put in some other features in our solution 17 which I am
very proud of. We are the first party to actually have a plan
for debt reduction as a line item in our budget. We have put a
line item in the budget because we believe there has to be a
plan, just like the plan we all have to pay down our mortgages.
We cannot go on year after year saying, as the current government
does, that if there is any money left over, we may consider
putting it on the debt.
When the economy is strong, we need to pay down the debt. We
have made a commitment to pay down $35 billion on the debt. We
have made a commitment to narrow the surplus down to $3 billion a
year. That is something the government has not done.
I call it leading from the front. It is very important that we
put these proposals out there. Obviously Canadians are equally
pleased, as the Canadian Alliance's popularity is rising every
day in the polls while the Liberal government's popularity drops.
Canadians want a change. They want to fulfil their dreams. I
know we will be able to deliver and provide what they are looking
for.
We need to look at other areas. Taxation alone is not going to
solve the problems.
I know we are debating the budget implementation act, but if we
are going to solve future budget issues in the country we have to
have a much more open and democratic process in the House. There
are 301 members here. We have to bring in the ideas of all
members so that when we debate the budget they can have
meaningful participation instead of only a handful of people who
surround the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance.
The circle of influence is so small. I have often said that we
live in a democracy. What is that? We get to go to the polls
once every four years to democratically elect a dictator.
That is not right. That is wrong. We need to change that. We
need to extrapolate on the great ideas of members of the House
and allow them to have meaningful participation in the debate. We
are committed to making those changes to allow a more democratic
process.
1615
After being in Ottawa for three years I believe one of the
problems is that the bureaucracy feeds on itself through no fault
of is own. It is the fault of the government. It grows and
grows and grows. The government has a system that encourages it
to grow. It is wildly out of control as is witnessed by the $1
billion boondoggle. We hear those stories daily. I know members
on the other side will say no, but the fact is that $1 billion
can go out without even being accounted for. We are told that
the government did not even have applications for 35% of that $1
billion.
It is not just the department of HRDC. It is rampant throughout
ministries within the government. We heard an earlier reference
to a grant from the Department of Canadian Heritage to write a
book on dumb blonde jokes. I believe there was a grant to the
Canada Arts Council from the government to hang dead rabbits on
trees because it was considered art. The list goes on and on and
on.
Canadians are in absolute disbelief about this kind of spending.
I appreciate it was not the ministers who actually read these
applications and said they would be great expenditures of
taxpayer money. However they are accountable for this money.
Bureaucracy has been blown completely out of control and needs to
be brought back in line so that there is accountability.
Another way that we can allow Canadians to fulfil their dreams
and achieve their aspirations is economic growth. We have talked
about our tax policy at length, solution 17, but there are other
things that are absolutely curtailing economic growth and
frustrating people such as employment taxes. Employment taxes
have increased. I know government members would say they
recently decreased the EI contribution rates, and I say only
minimally, but they have not told us that they have increased
Canada pension plan premiums even more than that.
I find it ironic. We are speaking to Bill C-32, the Budget
Implementation Act. The Minister of Finance claims $58 billion
in tax relief. If we look at some of the numbers, they are
consistent with what the government has done in the past. How
does it make up that $58 billion in tax relief? This is mind
boggling for me. It is bringing in the $29.5 billion increased
Canada pension plan premiums. If we factor those into the
additional taxes we are paying, it cuts that amount in half. It
did not bring that into the picture. It cherry picked what it
put into the $58 billion. It does not tell us the whole story.
Even worse, the government cancelled planned tax increases in
the years ahead, tax increases that have not yet happened. Tax
increases that were slated for years to come have been cancelled.
That is part of its $58 billion tax relief package. Can we
imagine? Last year the government said that it would raise taxes
by 5%, 10% and then 15% and then cancelled those tax increases
and called it tax relief? It is completely unacceptable.
It is time that we had change. We seem to be going in election
mode. The government goodie bag is revving up its engines and
starting to make announcements of hundreds of millions of
dollars. The Liberals believe they can fool the Canadian people
and buy their way back into power.
1620
We are in a new millennium and Canadian people will not accept
that any longer. They want people to lead from the front. If we
want to have the social programs that are so dear to us such as
our national health care system, the only way we will be able to
afford a sustainable health care system in the decades to come is
through wealth created by the private sector. The government can
have a strong tax base and the only way that will happen is if it
provides the right environment for the private sector to
flourish.
The Canadian Alliance has those opportunities. I am very proud
to be part of this new energy in the Canadian political
landscape. We are seeing it in spades across the country as my
colleagues and I have travelled and worked on the leadership race
within the Canadian Alliance. It is very exciting for us. It
will be most exciting for Canadians who will be the largest
beneficiaries. It is time we brought back respect to this
institution.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, the current member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about British Columbia. I grew up in
British Columbia. It was a beautiful province then. It is still
a beautiful province. I noticed that many people in his riding
seem to do very well living in British Columbia so the government
cannot be all bad.
I could also not help noticing that every time members of the
Reform get up they talk about the best and brightest leaving the
country. I see the member for Sydney—Victoria, the member for
Winnipeg Centre, the member for Dartmouth, myself, even my good
friend from Lethbridge in his own party, the other member from
Calgary and the member from Surrey are still here. All the best
and brightest have not left, as he stated
In all seriousness, his party is right when we talk about taxes,
tax reform and what to do about taxes in the new millennium.
Every time Canadian Alliance members talk about what they have
done, what they will do and how it will be, I cannot help but
think of their promise with regard to Stornoway. Their leader
said he would turn it into a bingo hall, and quickly that promise
was broken. I shudder to think how many other promises would be
broken if they ever formed government.
I respect the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands as a former
fisheries committee member. He never once mentioned the dreaded
GST which all Canadians hate. Would he not join us in the New
Democratic Party, not physically but in terms of policy, in
reducing the GST? A break on the GST would be the fairest tax
break for every Canadian from coast to coast to coast regardless
of income.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, I will respond to a number
of the member's points. He stated that the NDP could not be all
that bad in British Columbia. We will let the voters of British
Columbia judge that within the next 12 months and we will see the
results.
He talked about the best and brightest and referred to himself
and a number of his colleagues and even some members in my party.
We are here representing our constituents. There are many good
Canadians who are very frustrated and do not want to leave the
country but are forced to do so to seek other opportunities. I
have had parents of children who graduated from university come
into my office after taking their children to the airport in
Victoria because they had accepted jobs in the United States.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Gary Lunn: I ask the member in the NDP to give me a
few minutes and show the same courtesy I showed him. These
parents are very upset that their children are going to the
United States where they will probably end up being involved in
relationships and having children there. They want their
grandchildren in Canada. We can change that. We can be the
best.
The member asked specifically about the GST. Let me get to
that. Had we been the government of the day, I am sure that is
not something we would have done. It is there now and I have to
be very honest that we in the Canadian Alliance cannot promise to
eliminate the GST. We will not make promises that we cannot
keep.
We will give sound numbers. There is one thing the Premier of
Ontario, Mike Harris, has done that has not been done before by
any government. He did what he said he would do.
1625
We will not make a bunch of empty promises. As much as we do
not like the GST we cannot eliminate it, but we are prepared to
look at it. We have provided solution 17 which we believe is the
best opportunity to get the economy going. It would allow
Canadians to achieve their dreams and not punish them for doing
well.
There is a mentality in the government that wants to punish
people who are successful. As the economy gets going and as we
are in our second, third and fourth terms of government we will
be looking at everything. It is very fluid. I emphasize that we
will not make promises we cannot keep. We will deliver on
everything we say we can do, unlike previous governments that
have sat on that side of the House.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened intently to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. Once
again the Canadian Alliance Party is back on its kick of a flat
tax. Everyone in the Canadian Alliance dream world believes that
everyone will get a tax break: from the poorest to the richest
everyone will benefit from a flat tax. Most of us know this is
not possible. I do not think we can fool the Canadian people.
When we start looking at the concept of a flat tax, the reality
is that any of the so-called people who support that philosophy
must find other ways of reducing revenue to make it work. Most
of us would understand that if we are collecting x numbers
of dollars in revenue and personal income taxes today, in order
to impose a flat tax there has to be a shift between taxpayers
from poor people to the wealthy. In other words, wealthier
people would be paying significantly less tax and poor people
would be paying more. That is the way it has to happen. There
is no other way for it to be effective.
Canadian Alliance members would have us not understand that they
would also gut a lot of other programs. We heard the member
allude to private health care, the CBC and other things they
would simply gut. That is how it works. They would gut
government programs that people are now receiving. Undoubtedly
some the people in the low tax range who would benefit in his
wonderful dream world are the people who would miss the services.
Why do members of the Canadian Alliance not just come clean with
people and tell the truth? A flat tax will be a shift in taxes
away from the wealthy to the middle income earners. The only way
to give everyone a tax break in a magical world is to gut
government programs. Why does the member not just admit that?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, let me tell the House what
we would gut. We would not spend $500,000 building a fountain in
the Prime Minister's riding. We would not spend $1 billion on
unaccountable grants from political slush funds to the
government's friends and cronies. That is what we would gut.
That is what we would stop. We would stop unaccountable
spending. That is number one.
I will deal with number two. The numbers of the Minister of
Finance show a $95 billion to $100 billion surplus over five
years. That is taxpayer money. We would not rip off taxpayers.
We would not take the money from them. We would respect
taxpayers and the money we take in. We would make sure they get
value for their dollars. There is lots we can do. Our numbers
are sound and there would be surpluses each and every year.
We would increase the money going to health care. We would not
have people dying on waiting lists as there are with the
government. That is what is wrong. There are numerous
departments with zero accountability. There is unaccountability
in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Something like $23,000 tax free was given to every native person
in Canada, man, woman and child. Yet they still live in
abhorrent conditions because there is no accountability. Those
systems need to be changed.
The government uses money to buy votes and provide slush funds.
One-third of all grants went to people in the Prime Minister's
riding and those people gave money back to the Liberal Party of
Canada.
1630
It is criminal. It is corrupt. It is time for change. We
throw out premiers in British Columbia for much less than that.
It is absolutely wrong. We will let the voters judge this in the
next federal election.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, the hon. member made some very compelling
arguments about the need for lower taxes. It was a very good
presentation and I appreciated it very much.
However, he did not mention the need to start paying down the
debt which previous governments over the last 20 years have
incurred on behalf of all Canadians. It is close to $600
billion. One-third of every tax dollar we send to Ottawa goes to
interest, which does nothing for anyone. With the threat of
rising interest rates we have a ticking time bomb.
Would the member be so good as to articulate a plan which would
address and start to pay down the debt, as opposed to the
increased spending that we see from the other side?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Madam Speaker, quite clearly, in solution
17 a line item for debt reduction would amount to $35 billion
over five years. We would not leave the youngest children of the
country with a $600 billion debt like the Liberal government has.
Canadians would see a change.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
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.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
will be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.
* * *
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed from June 2 consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments in
Group No. 2, which have been moved by myself and the member for
Bras d'Or—Cape Breton on behalf of the people of Cape Breton,
and indeed on behalf of our party, which has for a very long time
championed fairness for working people.
1635
When I rose to speak to the first group of amendments on Friday
of last week I said that it was not a pleasure. At that point in
time we were fighting. We watched the government invoke closure
on the bill at second reading. We watched the work of the
committee. Witnesses were brought from Cape Breton. It was
suggested that amendments would be forthcoming, none of which
were accepted at committee as the bill was railroaded through.
Throughout this entire debate the witnesses, members of
parliament, particularly the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
and myself, who came forward kept referring to the unfairness of
the government's offer to the coal miners who had worked
underground for so many years. We kept referring to section 17
of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, saying that if
members read that section they would know that it was incumbent
upon the government to offer a fair package. At every turn the
Liberal government rebuffed that argument and said there was no
merit in it.
On Friday of last week, while we were debating amendments in the
House, an arbitrator filed with the Minister of Labour a decision
regarding the Cape Breton Development Corporation as to whether
the government's package was fair. Let me read from that report,
which references section 17. For two and a half years we have
been arguing that section 17 should be interpreted to provide the
communities and the miners with a better deal. Paragraph 38 of
the binding arbitration agreement states: “For the purposes of
this arbitration I accept that I should strive insofar as
possible to decide matters....In doing so, I must bear in mind
the unique statutory requirement embodied in section 17 of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. Regard must be had to
the various public and private sector comparables referred to by
the parties. Since Devco is a public sector comparable,
especially in light of the statutory obligation imposed on Devco
pursuant to section 17”—and he goes on to make an award.
The award will provide pensions for everyone who has worked in
the mine for 25 years, regardless of age, which is something that
we have been pressing the government to do from day one. It took
an arbitrator and the mining communities in Cape Breton to fight
tooth and nail to get what should have been the opening offer of
the government when it went into Cape Breton in January.
Instead, miners' wives and families had to form an organization
and travel to Ottawa at their own expense, culminating in a
strike in January of this year. The miners went underground by
way of an illegal strike and broke the law to show the government
that it was wrong.
I do not know if members of the Liberal Party understand what it
was like to be in those communities for those days in January. I
know and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton knows because we
were at Prince Mine with the miners and their families. We
talked to Nova Scotia Power. We were there when the RCMP brought
a riot squad to the community where I have lived my whole life.
It is a peaceful community. We were there when the women and
children, the families of the miners, had to decide whether they
would stand in front of the Prince Mine and stop the Nova Scotia
Power trucks from going in. They struggled with that.
In a responsible way, the miners said they would come out if the
government would simply agree to binding arbitration. The
government, which was pinned down under the threat of violence in
those communities, like something out of 1930, said “All right,
we will agree to binding arbitration”. The arbitrator said that
the miners were right, that the package was unfair.
I start with that premise because we were right about the
package.
Now let us talk about the legislation. I think we are right on
that too. If we could submit the government to binding
arbitration, I believe that an arbitrator would say that none of
the amendments proposed by the New Democrats to make this bill a
better bill are unreasonable. Let me cite what we are seeking
with this group of amendments.
1640
One of the motions calls for at least one employee
representative to sit on the board of the directors of the new
Devco corporation.
An hon. member: That is a radical idea.
Mr. Peter Mancini: That is radical, as my friend says.
What is happening, for those who are not aware, is that Bill
C-11 will create a new Cape Breton Development Corporation, the
purpose of which essentially will be to administer pensions, to
deal with remediation and to deal with ongoing litigation. It
will be a company that will gradually reduce in size as the
obligations of the government through the crown corporation
cease.
We thought, why not have people from the community sit on the
board of directors? It makes sense to me. The government will
say that five of the current seven directors are from Cape
Breton. That is fair enough, but it is not mandated in the new
legislation. Why not mandate it? That is the first
recommendation.
For some reason the Liberal members on the natural resources
committee had a problem with that. Every Liberal voted against
an amendment similar to that, while all members of the opposition
parties thought it was a good idea. It was not just those of us
from Cape Breton, it was members of the Canadian Alliance,
members of the Conservative Party and members of the Bloc, all of
whom said “It makes sense to us to have local people sit on the
board”.
The second radical proposal is that there be a residency
requirement ensuring that a majority of the directors of Devco
live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the
corporation's decisions.
As a member of parliament I have been lobbied by groups on this
issue, and individuals who appeared before the committee asked
that a member of the workers' pension association sit on the
board or committee which will administer the pensions. I was
questioned by members of the Liberal Party on this issue. They
asked “Why would you want someone from the pensioners'
association to sit on the board that administers the pensions?”
As I understand it, currently that pension fund is administered
by a brokerage house in Montreal, which turns a considerable
profit. I think it is something in the vicinity of $7 million or
$8 million a year. I explained that in Cape Breton we have the
kind of history, the kind of culture, in which we believe in
helping each other out. Many members of the pensioners'
association would like to see some of the profits which are
earned as a result of their pension funds being invested put back
into the communities in which they live, put back into the
communities where their children work, put back into the
communities where their grandchildren go to school.
They have been arguing for some time to have a say in that, to
open the books to see what is happening with their pension fund.
They have not been able to. I believe there is a court action
pending. They said “We don't like what the government is doing
to Devco, but if it is going to do it anyway”—and it is—“and
if the government can open the door for at least some
improvements, why not allow that?”
I have much more to say, but since I only have one minute left I
will say that I had an opportunity to examine the speech which
the Prime Minister gave in Berlin. This will be the new Liberal
platform. They are going to run from the left again. Let me say
to the people who want to read this document that if they compare
the Prime Minister's words in Berlin to the actions of the
Minister of Natural Resources today with Bill C-11, as the
government refuses to support communities directing their own
future as it withdraws, they will see that the actions of the
Liberals speak louder than words.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very glad to carry on where the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria was forced to leave off. Both NDP members of
parliament for Cape Breton, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton
and the member for Sydney—Victoria, have dedicated much of the
time they have spent as members of parliament fighting over the
Devco issue.
The point we are at today represents the culmination of literally
years of hard work on their part to try and adequately represent
the people who are affected by the Liberal obsession with
shutting down anything to do with publicly funded institutions
which might benefit working Canadians.
1645
One will note on looking at the record the very number of
speakers from the NDP who have risen on behalf of Cape Bretoners
and on behalf of the Devco families. Most of us have had reason
and have been motivated to join in this debate. Within our party
at least, members all across the country empathize with the
regional problems which occur in an area like Cape Breton. We
can identify personally and we draw many parallels with our own
regions. That is why we are so motivated to speak up.
The hon. member left off by pointing out some of the very
reasonable motions the NDP members made at the committee stage,
hoping to inject some balance and reason into the legislation.
If the Government of Canada is so completely committed to
shutting down Devco without consultation with the community, and
we think without exploring other options and alternatives, if it
is so driven, so obsessed with this idea, at least it could have
entertained reasonable motions at committee.
The hon. member was halfway through speaking about one of those
motions, which was for a jointly trusteed pension board which
would look after the pension plan while Devco is being
dismantled. That is not exactly a radical idea. Most employee
benefit plans are jointly trusteed for the very reason the hon.
member for Sydney—Victoria pointed out, that there may be
secondary objectives that can be achieved other than simply
getting the best return for the dollar to provide pension
benefits.
It is a credit to those miners that they were generous enough
and concerned enough about their community that they would say,
“Let us not look at pure profit as the only goal or the only
directive that we give our money managers. Let us look at some
secondary objectives. Let us look at the long term economic
development of Cape Breton to use some of the surplus profits of
our pension plan”.
That thought would not come forward if there were not workers on
the board of directors of the pension plan. It is a reasonable
request and it was summarily shot down at committee by the
Liberal Party.
There were other motions which were made to ensure health
benefits for workers and their families who may become sick, or
have long term health repercussions from having worked
underground all their lives. Once their employment ceases, so
ceases their supplementary health benefits.
Many people contract silicosis, black lung, or any number of
injuries or illnesses relating to their occupation. One would
think it would be callously indifferent for the employer to
abandon any obligation to provide supplementary health care
insurance to those people when the plant is shut down, if it is
to be shut down. This again was dismissed at committee stage.
The Liberals would not entertain it whatsoever, even though the
NDP was not alone in this request; it did have backing from other
opposition parties on the committee to be fair to them.
Why would they not institutionalize the concept of ensuring that
some representatives on the board of directors lived in Cape
Breton? The argument was that there are going to be some anyway.
Well, maybe there are now, but who is to say the board will
always be constituted in that way? Who is to say they do not
parachute in some Liberal patronage appointees to take over all
those key positions? They would probably pay themselves very
well on a board of directors like that. It is not inconceivable
that the Liberals may parachute in some patronage appointee to
take care of the new Devco board.
We wanted it institutionalized that Cape Bretoners will be on
the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation. This is not unreasonable. It is perfectly
reasonable.
These were not the type of motions that were designed to
embarrass the government. They were not the type of motions that
were designed to be radical. They were put forward seriously in
the hopes that they would be seriously entertained. They were
dismissed out of hand without any concern whatsoever.
Why would they not agree to ensure that some of the
representatives on the board of directors were from the Devco
pensioners association? Why would they not give the pensioners
some voice on the board of directors, those who are experienced,
those who were affected throughout their whole lives?
I would argue that there is no better expertise about Devco than
from those who dedicated their lives working there and who are
now Devco pensioners. That is where we will find some real
talent.
The Liberals voted against all of those motions at the committee
stage.
How did the other parties fare with regard to these motions? At
least they could entertain them and see the logic in these very
reasonable proposals.
1650
Now we find ourselves with one more opportunity to look at the
motions in Group No. 2 at report stage. The hon. member had just
started to speak to Group No. 2.
One motion we refiled states that one director other than the
chairperson and the president shall be an employee of the
corporation. That is a reasonable proposal. Again a director
other than the chairperson should be an employee of the
corporation, giving workers some voice in the long term viability
of the plant.
The majority of the directors shall be residents of the island
of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. That should be a given; it should
be automatic. I cannot imagine for the life of me how there
would be any strong protest from the ruling party on that basis.
At least one-third of the directors shall be members of the
Devco pensioners association. We talked about that.
Many of the motions in Group No. 2 are structural motions that
deal with the composition of the board of directors and its long
term viability.
What we are dealing with now is that the rules have really
changed since the bill even reached the committee stage because
now there is the ruling of the arbitrator, a binding arbitration.
As was pointed out this arbitration would not have taken place
were it not for the courage of the Cape Breton miners who
actually had to take justice into their own hands and break the
law. Sometimes civil disobedience is the only option.
When they were up against the wall and their livelihood and
community were at stake, these people had the courage to take
control of their workplace. I have to give the people of Cape
Breton credit because even during the course of that civil
disobedience and illegal wildcat strike, they were willing to be
reasonable with the government. They were faced with what were
really the modern day equivalent of Pinkerton goons when the riot
squad showed up taking up arms against their own. It is a sad
state of affairs in Canada when the people of Canada have to face
their own government taking up arms against them for standing up
for what is right.
Eventually when they finally agreed to what they thought was the
most reasonable solution to this seemingly untenable situation,
that solution and their demand was to put the matter before
binding arbitration. They were so confident that their position
was just and that they could defend it in front of an impartial
third party that they were willing to lay down their case before
an outside third party, an arbitrator, and let the case rest on
its own merits.
Guess what happened. The arbitrator agreed with the workers of
the Devco coal mine of Cape Breton and in many incidences came up
with the recommendations exactly as they were put forward by the
advocates of the working people. Especially in terms of pension,
the people making the argument on behalf of the miners looked to
other parts of the world where there were similar situations.
An hon. member: That is not unheard of, to be fair.
Mr. Pat Martin: That is right. There is great precedent
in other countries. Canada prides itself as being so fair and
equitable with its workforce.
In Germany coal miners with 20 years service who are 50 years of
age or older qualify for early retirement pension if they are
laid off as a result of a mine closure. There is far better
plant closure legislation. A coal company, a mining company or
any business enterprise cannot simply announce one day that after
30 years of showing a profit in a community, at 30 years plus one
day it is just going to close up shop and walk away. It simply
cannot be done. There is an obligation to the community which
allowed it to prosper and make a profit every year.
It is even better in France. It is funny how in France we often
find inspiration when it comes to fairness toward workers.
Pensioners laid off due to a plant closure or any mass layoff are
eligible at age 45 with 25 years service to an early retirement
pension equal to 80% of salary. That means for those who knock
themselves out and give their youth and health to an enterprise
which takes and takes, the enterprise has a lasting long term
obligation to the workforce that allowed it to function, even if
the plant is now closed or it disappears. It is a lasting
liability that carries on.
Devco did not offer that long term obligation. The government,
as the people in charge of Devco, tried to walk away from that
duty and obligation. Thankfully the third party arbitrator
intervened and introduced an element of reason and fairness,
exactly what the NDP has been saying from day one.
1655
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am not sure that we have quorum in the Chamber as
debate continues.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see quorum so we
will resume debate.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Madam Speaker, once again we find ourselves in this Chamber
trying to find some semblance of a conscience in the government
members concerning the Cape Breton miners.
I would like to take a few minutes to read a couple of
paragraphs which some members and maybe some members of the
Liberal Party across Canada would be interested in.
The federal government realizes that the Cape Breton coal problem
is essentially a social one. It is because of its awareness of,
and concern for, the well-being of individuals and their
communities that the federal government is prepared to assist, on
a massive scale, the transition of the area from dependence on a
declining natural resource to a sound economic base.
That was a quote from Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson on
December 29, 1966. There is another quote which I think some hon.
members will find very interesting.
I must say...that unless the social equation is introduced into
an examination of the current corporate plan of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, an important element in approaching the
problem will have been overlooked....When the Cape Breton
Development Corporation was organized and legislated, it was a
move from privatization to public ownership, because
privatization was incapable of dealing with the community and
social problems which would occur from a sudden cessation of
production in the coal industry.
That was an excerpt from a speech by Senator Allan J. MacEachen
on March 21, 1996. I think all hon. members across the room
today recognize those two individuals.
1700
When I was looking through the large amount of documentation
that we have on Devco, I came across another interesting comment.
It reads:
If elected on October 25, 1993 the Liberal Party of Canada would
want to increase production at the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
With an increase in production, no downsizing would be executed.
It was an interesting quote by a gentleman by the name of David
Dingwall on October 7, 1993.
On a number of occasions in the House we have said that the one
thing Cape Bretoners are sure of is that the Liberal government
and the members opposite are renowned for making empty promises
to Cape Bretoners and have done so for the last 30 years.
My colleague from Sydney—Victoria and all members of the NDP
have tried for the last three years to show government members
the serious implication Bill C-11 will have on Cape Bretoners but
our concerns and the concerns of the communities continue to fall
on deaf ears.
If there was one simple way to sum up what Cape Breton miners
are looking for we should go to the document called “A Message
from Cape Breton Coal Miners”. It says:
We are not asking for a handout. We, Devco's hard-working
employees, are asking Ottawa to give us a real chance to help
secure a brighter future for the company and our community. We
can make a difference.
That is the message from Cape Breton miners and the people on
Cape Breton Island that unfortunately has fallen on deaf ears.
We are here today, as my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic
Party have talked about, with respect to amendments in Group No. 2.
For those people in Cape Breton who are listening, it is
important for them to recognize that the amendments put forward
by the members of the New Democratic Party are not amendments
that will cost the government any money. They are not amendments
that will change the very essence of what the government is
trying to do in terms of privatizing Devco. They will allow some
semblance of transparency as it relates to the managing of the
pension funds.
My hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria talked about the members
of the pensioners association, who we have both had meetings with
and who have a novel idea. They know their pension fund is
generating approximately $7 million a year. They want that money
to be invested in their community. Is that not something new and
radical? Why do they want to invest that $7 million in their
community? It is because this government has failed to do that.
Day after day we continue to hear government members talk about
the good job they have done as it relates to Devco and that they
have given the miners a fair package. We just found out on
Friday that, as we have been saying for three years, as
delegation after delegation and as miner's wife after miner's
wife have come to Ottawa and clearly said, an arbitrator has
finally said that the package is inadequate. The arbitrator has
said that this government's package, as it relates to Cape Breton
coal miners, is inadequate and unfair.
I and my colleagues have talked to members of the government
about the implications that the bill will have on Cape Bretoners.
However, it continues to fall on deaf ears. When the bill was
before a committee, over 75% of the Liberal members were whipped
at committee and some did not even have the decency to be there
to listen to the witnesses who came to Ottawa.
I am talking about witnesses such as a miner's wife who gave up a
12 hour shift at $5.50 an hour to come here. She is the sole
breadwinner in her family because her husband is not working.
Government members could not find the time to pretend that what
these witnesses had to say was important.
1705
We have tried and tried. Every week I ask myself why the
Liberals will not try, why they will not do something to help
these communities and why they will not recognize the economic
hardship that already exists in Cape Breton, never mind the
results from the privatization of Devco. I finally came to the
conclusion that they are not listening because they do not care.
I just finished reading excerpts by other members from what I
would like to call the old Liberal Party, the Liberal Party that
had a heart. They clearly indicated that Devco's abdication from
the industry would be a social problem. In 1967 the Liberals
made a commitment to the community to diversify the economy.
I can tell the House a number of stories about the attempts that
were made to diversify the economy of Cape Breton under the
Liberal government. One case in particular involved sheep being
brought in from Scotland. These sheep were quarantined for a
year at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and they
eventually died. The joke was that the Liberals were going to
take the wool from the sheep and some of the steel from the steel
plant and make steel wool. The Liberal government's attempts at
economic development and recovery in Cape Breton became a joke.
It was not about assisting the community, it was and continues to
be about assisting the government's friends.
In closing I want to say that there is no doubt in my mind that
Cape Bretoners will survive. We will survive because we always
have. However, the one thing that the government should and will
be able to count on is the long memory of Cape Bretoners for what
this Liberal government has done to them, their children and
their communities.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the
eloquent debate brought on by the two members from Cape Breton,
the member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras
d'Oir—Cape Breton, I wrote a quick little ditty of a poem for my
friends in Cape Breton. I have not finished it yet but I thought
I should start out my debate in this fashion:
It takes a brave man to mine the black ore
To go deep in the earth and far under shore
They start as healthy men when they are young
They prematurely grow old with coal dust in their lungs
They fight for fair pensions and employment they demand
To raise their families on Cape Breton Island
That is a poem that I plan to send out to Cape Bretoners when I
get it finished. It shows the passion brought to the House of
Commons by my two colleagues from Cape Breton when it comes to
standing up for Cape Bretoners, not just the coal miners but for
the steelworkers, the fishermen and everyone who lives in that
beautiful place on the planet.
The government and other opposition parties always talk about
change and that we need to have change. I keep asking the
government and opposition parties about the people who are on our
streets asking for change, which is occurring more often.
This government's economic policies are dividing the rich and
the poor even more. The middle class is eroding and more and
more people are relying on charities, handouts and other avenues
for their livelihood to get by on a daily basis.
1710
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. There has been some eloquent poetry in the House today.
Again I see that we do not have quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the clerk to count the
members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, what do the federal
Liberals and the Alberta Tories have in common? They are able to
take large groups of workers and band them together into civil
disobedience. The health care workers of Alberta had to use
civil disobedience to get a fair contract from the Alberta
government. The Cape Breton coal miners, who had to go
underground in the coldest part of the year, suffered indignities
by this government through the riot goons that it brought
forward. Instead of consultation, it brought pepper spraying
RCMP officers to stamp them out. It did not work. With the
courage and dignity that only Cape Bretoners have, they forced
this government into binding arbitration. We saw the agreement
that was made the other day.
This binding arbitration is a slap in the face to the
government, especially to the Minister of Natural Resources who
said that under no circumstances would this package be reopened.
Again, he was wrong and the Liberal party was wrong. All the
government had to do was deal in good, open and transparent faith
and it would never have gone this far.
Before I was politely interrupted by my colleague from Cape
Breton, I wanted to say that the government's economic policies
are dividing people ever so greatly. The government looks after
its friends in the Liberal Party. I encourage everyone in the
Liberal Party to take a trip to Cape Breton and see the famous
Ding Wall. I do not mean David Dingwall. I mean the Ding Wall
itself. He spent a lot of money to build a rock wall in the
middle of a town. It is an absolute fiasco. It is an
embarrassment to all Nova Scotians that this person, who was the
Minister of Health at that time, could advocate spending a
million taxpayers' dollars for a rock wall in Cape Breton. I
know there are a lot of rocks in Cape Breton, but most of them
were in that minister's head for that kind of expenditure.
What should have happened to that money and what should happen
to the rest of the funding is that it go toward the care and fair
treatment of Cape Breton coal miners and their families for long
term economic growth in that beautiful part of the province.
The government calls for change. We all call for change. What I
ask all members of the opposition parties and the government to
do is to remind themselves of the people who are looking for
small change on the streets. There are more and more people
doing that on a daily basis. They are turning to charities
looking for more and more help. I cannot help but say how proud
I am, as an Atlantic Canadian, that Atlantic Canadians
throughout the four provinces banded together and raised over
$3.6 million for the IWK Grace Telethon, again showing the
generosity and spirit of Atlantic Canadians when it comes to
people in need.
On behalf of two of the finest people I have ever met in Cape
Breton, two miners, one former miner and a current miner, Mr.
Jose Pimentel and Mr. Vic Tomiczek, I want to say how hard they
have struggled to keep their families going and how hard they
have fought for the common workers and their common man.
It is not just the federal Liberals who are pounding away at
Cape Breton coal miners, it is also what the provincial Tory
Party is doing. In fact in the recent Nova Scotia election, Jane
Purves, the minister of education for Nova Scotia, had a postcard
campaign that very wrongly suggested that because SYSCO was open,
that hospital beds in Nova Scotia would be closed. She very
effectively and very meanly split and divided the mainland Nova
Scotians with that of Cape Breton. I found it absolutely
despicable that a woman of her talents could use such a low ball
and low road campaign in order to get herself elected. I can
assure the House that from this moment on we will be going after
her in the next election to ensure her defeat.
The current minister of health for Nova Scotia also said, and I
quote, “Possibly children with disabilities who need access to
the IWK could rely on groups like the Lions Club or the Kiwanis
or other service clubs to find their transportation needs to the
Halifax Centre”.
1715
This is from the so-called passionate, progressive
Conservatives. There is nothing passionate and there is nothing
conservative about it. It is meanspirited to balance their books
on the backs of the disabled and on the backs of the needy. They
are even recommending a program where they take away formula from
children who require a special formula in order to digest their
food. It is absolutely mean.
The Liberals have done the same. They refuse to negotiate in a
fair, open and transparent manner with Cape Breton coal miners
and their families or even to show respect for the two members of
parliament from Cape Breton who stand in the House on an almost
daily basis, who were in committee, and who brought forth very
comparable amendments to adjust the reasonable debate that should
be happening.
Canadian Airlines in its pension outfit has an employee trustee
on the board. All Cape Breton is asking for is that we have the
same. That is not a very unreasonable request. I am very proud
to say that the federal Conservatives, the Bloc and the Canadian
Alliance support the New Democrats in that initiative.
I can only hope that backbench Liberals can put pressure on the
Minister of Natural Resources to say that a representative from
Cape Breton absolutely should be on the board of trustees when it
comes to pension liabilities. It only makes sense.
The distribution of the funds will be in Cape Breton. Would it
not make sense to have people from Cape Breton on the board
administering the fund? Why would we want someone from Toronto,
Ontario, Saskatchewan or B.C., or anywhere else for that matter,
administering a fund that is solely meant for Cape Bretoners?
Besides the pensions and the unfairness of the Liberals, Cape
Breton miners in their heart of hearts would tell them: “Stick
the pensions where the sun don't shine. Just give us work. We
want to work and be able to look after our families”. Most
Canadians from coast to coast to coast want the opportunity for
gainful employment.
There is no reason in the world why there could not be gainful
employment in Cape Breton for the miners, the SYSCO workers, and
everyone else on that beautiful island. On that note I encourage
members of the Liberal Party who have never visited Cape Breton
to do so. If they did, their government would not be so
meanspirited toward the pensioners, the miners and their
families. By the way, some of the women will be coming to Ottawa
to demand more fairness and justice for their husbands and
families.
It is a sin that I as a member from Nova Scotia and a member of
the great NDP caucus have to stand in the House to state the
obvious to the government. The actions of the so-called newfound
left leaning Liberals, as their Prime Minister is saying in
Berlin, with their new Canadian way are talking about compassion,
fairness, openness and transparency, speak louder than words.
When the Minister of Natural Resources is asked a question about
Devco he almost looks like he is bothered by the question and
wonders what he is doing answering these pesky question from the
NDP on Devco? looks around with absolutely no interest at all and
thinks that the issue has already been settled. That is a sin.
What should happen is exactly what happened with the pay equity
debate. We had a minister, Marcel Masse, who showed complete
ignorance toward the pay equity debate. He stood in the House
time and time again and said that they would not deal with it. He
was removed. We had another minister and within two months the
pay equity issue was settled.
What should happen is the Minister of Natural Resources should
step aside on the Devco issue. We should bring in a minister who
is at least willing to listen, at least willing to understand the
issues of Cape Breton, at least willing to sit down and talk with
the two federal representatives from Cape Breton, not an
unelected Senator Boudreau or unelected other people who are
appointed by the government. The new minister could sit down and
talk with the people of Cape Breton and the communities of Cape
Breton to find out what the long term objectives should be for
that beautiful island in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia.
In conclusion, I only hope and pray that the Liberal government
will listen to the amendments brought forth by the two members
from Cape Breton and that we move forward with a very positive
resolution for the people of Cape Breton, especially its coal
miners.
1720
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise again to defend the interests of the people of
Cape Breton against the government's plans as expressed in Bill
C-11.
We are now at report stage. It is clear that the orders to
government MPs have come down, which means no reasonable offers
to change the bill are being accepted. We have seen government
MPs oppose changes proposed by the duly elected representatives
from Cape Breton to give Islanders some control over their future
within the draconian regime set up under Bill C-11. Their
reasonable offers to make the bill better have been shot down.
This shows me that Bill C-11 is another legislative attempt,
another piece of the Liberal government plan to dismantle the
major institutions that build our country. The Liberals may deny
this, but they have to learn that their actions have
consequences.
The situation facing Cape Breton today has been brought about by
some major government policy failures of the 1980s. I would like
to take a moment to put on record some of these failures. Devco
faced a number of problems in the 1980s, notably the impact of
the 1981-82 recession and a disastrous fire that forced the
permanent closure of No. 26 colliery in Glace Bay. Adding to
these events were several policy decisions that had a direct
impact on Devco's future. Since the 1984 loss of No. 26 Devco:
That was a quote by Kent in 1996. Another quote reads:
Faced with a loss of production from No. 26 Devco opted to
develop the geologically troubled Phalen mine while leaving
undeveloped the Donkin deposit containing an estimated 300,000
tonnes. With the closure of the 26-year-old Lingan Mine in 1991,
Devco was left as a two mine operation with no plans to develop a
third mine. The shortsightedness of the approach was
demonstrated when Phalen's premature shutdown precipitated the
current crisis for Devco employees and their community.
Secondly, the Westray misadventure was harmful to Devco's
future. There is some evidence that backers within government of
the ill-fated mine were motivated by anti-public ownership bias
toward Devco.
This was a comment by Dean Jobb in his book Calculated Risk:
Greed, Politics and the Westray Tragedy.
In any case, the $100 million in federal and provincial funds
lost on that project would have gone a considerable distance
toward paying the cost of developing the Donkin deposit.
Furthermore, short term arrangements between Westray mine
operators and Nova Scotia Power had the long term effect of
forcing Devco to supply coal to Nova Scotia Power at its Trenton
generator at a substantially lesser price than Nova Scotia Power
was paying at other generating plants. All this left Devco in a
catch 22 situation.
After compromising Devco's ability to achieve a viable future
with questionable decisions during the 1980s the Conservative
government started the new decade by ordering Devco to become
self-sufficient. This mandate was renewed by the Liberals after
they took over in 1993. Self-sufficiency was accepted by top
management of Devco as a legitimate goal.
However Devco never really had a chance to achieve
self-sufficiency. Until geological problems at Phalen caused
losses to mount in recent years, Devco was making money on its
coal operations, but it failed to achieve self-sufficiency
because it was required to make larger than anticipated pension
payouts, some $241 million over five years. These higher payouts
were to be completed in 1999 but then it was too late. In May
1996 Senator Allan J. MacEachen stated that the loss of Devco:
Obviously in the year 2000 Cape Breton is in even worse shape
than it was before. Cape Breton is struggling with a 23%
unemployment rate.
Today Nova Scotia's unemployment rate has gone down to 12%. It
has recovered somewhat, but in Cape Breton nothing has changed.
The unemployment rate at 20% is only slightly lower than in 1996.
Employment and participation levels are almost identical.
1725
If the loss of Devco jobs were a major catastrophe in 1996, it
is even more of a major catastrophe now. The federal government
has an historical responsibility to the coal industry in Cape
Breton and Nova Scotia. Over the past 15 years the federal
government has failed in its responsibility.
Cape Breton has the coal resource, a skilled workforce and a
customer in the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. That should have
been a recipe for a stable and successful coal industry that
would have allowed a slow but sure growth of alternative
employment, but through incompetence or bad faith the federal
government has dropped the ball. It has been negligent and it
should be required to pay for its negligence.
If the government truly believes in the concept of responsible
government, it would take responsibility for its actions over the
past two decades. It would work with the people of Cape Breton
and their elected members to make Bill C-11 a better piece of
legislation, one that would strengthen the embattled community of
Cape Breton and not further undermine it.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
am honoured to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 which are
before us. The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the
hon. member for Sydney—Victoria certainly put a lot of thought
into an issue that impacts their communities. The whole island
will feel the repercussions of Bill C-11. These motions were put
forward to correct some wrongs and oversights which occurred in
the context of the bill.
It seems to be a challenge that at least one employee
representative will sit on the Devco board of directors. It is
not an unimaginable practice in any other corporation, community
or sector. Providing an employee representative to sit on the
board of directors is an honourable gesture. Any employee who
has served in the industry, in the company and in the community
would have a lot to offer in the decisions to be made in the very
short term and in the long term in dealing with the whole issue
of Devco.
I will give a brief explanation of the second motion in this
grouping. There is a residency requirement for members of the
board of directors. The majority of the directors of Devco
should live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by
the corporation's decisions. These decisions are major in impact
and in concern, as highlighted by my hon. colleagues on this
side. We are trying to get government members to realize that
these amendments could make drastic changes in how the bill
unfolds and how the decisions in the whole industry unfold in
Cape Breton.
We are saying that the majority of the directors of Devco should
live on Cape Breton Island. It is a small request but it is a
major request. We do not need to transport people from all over
Canada to serve the best interests of an industry and community
in that region. Cape Bretoners are very capable of handling their
own affairs, and certainly a lot of the solutions are with Cape
Bretoners.
It has certainly been highlighted and recommended, dealing with
the directors of Devco, that representatives of the employees'
pension association ensure that one-third of the directors come
from the employees' pension association. The crux of this major
debate and major concern of the employees is how their pensions
are interpreted, administered and identified among them. It is a
major issue.
If they have that much vested interest and seniority in terms of
the years of service in this corporation and in the industry,
they should assured of one-third of the Devco board of directors.
This representation is a crucial part of the motion.
1730
Selecting at least half of the membership of the body designated
to manage the workers' pension fund is another motion that has
been brought forward. If the body designated to manage the
pension fund is created, then at least half of the people sitting
on the representative body should be from the pension fund
association.
These motions are common sense recommendations. It is hard to
speak on common sense when everybody should have grasped the
whole aspect. All the government members should take a second
look at the motions that have been put forward. When the motions
are voted on, they should vote with their conscience and vote for
the common sense request.
The hon. members sitting with the other parties on this side of
the House have been very silent on this issue. I challenge them
to speak and debate these issues. These representations could
certainly be taken by other sectors, other communities, other
corporations, other mines in a very short while. The whole aspect
of protecting workers' rights and views is of utmost importance
for us, but it should be for every member of parliament. There
are workers in the communities of all of our constituencies.
The whole issue of coal mining and the evolution of mining in
this country and the transfer from private to public ownership
and flipping back to private ownership is certainly a concern. I
have experienced certain changes in ownership from public to
private in my neck of the woods in dealing with the forest
industry.
The forest industry in northern Saskatchewan is viewed as
pristine. As of late there have been huge allocations of forest
management and harvesting. The present forest management
practices use mechanical harvesters. It is not like the B.C.
terrain where they have to climb halfway up the mountain and then
they are limited by the elevation.
The boreal forest is flat. There are no inhibitors. The only
things that stand in our way are the waterways and maybe the
communities. Certainly, we should not overlook that a community
could be perceived to be in the way of any development. Community
development, industrial development and social development should
all be taken in context. In future plans, governments of the
world now use sustainable development as a coined phrase for
future sustainability, the integration of social, economic and
environmental issues. The communities are an integral part of
this development.
The Devco workers are asking that they be respected as a
community of workers, as a community in Cape Breton. They should
be an integral part of the development of any other industry in
the region.
Going back to the forestry issue, there was an allocation of a
major pulp mill just 18 miles from my community. At the time it
would have been a bleaching process and huge amounts of chemicals
would have been poured into the Beaver River which flows into the
Churchill River. This was stopped. It was stopped because of an
election. The government changed and a new attitude of policies
and perceptions took place and the whole private pulp mill was
dumped.
Years later it came back. Now it is a cleaner process. It is
still an allocation of the forests. It is still a private pulp
mill that produces paper. Who uses bleached paper? I do not
know for what purpose we have to have extremely white paper. Why
we have to bleach this paper and poison ourselves is beyond me.
We could use paper that is more natural, which would be less
harmful in its processes on our environment and our health.
A pulp mill was created. Huge allocations of the boreal forest
were made, but there are no profits.
In our region, every year the provincial government has to
backfill all the losses for the pulp mill.
1735
What are we doing it for? Why are we cutting these huge tracts
of land from forested properties using the excuse that it is
going to burn by forest fire anyway, that we take a certain
percentage of harvested forest to use for paper that was deemed
to be forest fire damaged anyway. They cannot see that forest
fires recycle the nutrients in soil and recycle the nutrients for
the many species that live in the forest. Clear cutting with
mechanical harvesting by no means replenishes any nutrients in
any soil or any region.
The community has to be taken into account. The whole region's
economy has to be taken into account. The environmental impact
has to be taken into account. The whole context has been coined
as sustainability.
It is a challenge for the government to look at these motions on
workers' rights and representation on the Devco boards, and
workers' representation on pension associations. These are
common sense requests that hon. members have put forward on Bill
C-11.
I call on all members to seriously look at these motions and
provide a debate on the Devco issue which impacts a certain part
of our region that has contributed for the betterment of all the
country. Looking at the history, they certainly have done that.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of daily
adjournment for the purpose of considering 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.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Will those members
who object to the motion please rise in their places.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The terms of the motion indicate that we should extend
the time, but it does not say until when. I do not know if that
means we should operate around the clock. I do not know if that
means we should operate until the end of July. I do not know if
it means we should go until the Prime Minister decides to call an
election. Given the vagueness of the motion, I have some
questions in that regard.
Mr. Bob Speller: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
The hon. member should read the rules. The rules do not
indicate at any point that we put forward a time. If he reads
the standing orders he will realize that the motion is in order.
I would ask that you call the question.
1740
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I find the motion to
be in order. I have read it. If fewer than 15 members rise, the
motion is deemed to be adopted. Will those members who object to
the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I therefore declare
the motion adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-11.
Motions Nos. 6 to 11 and 16 increase the participation of the
people of Cape Breton on the board of Devco either by requiring
an employee to be a director or specifying a percentage of the
directors who must be on the board of the Devco pensioners
association. This makes common sense. It speaks to a fairer and
more equitable way to deal with the Devco situation. This has to
provide some level of participation at the board level for either
employees or former employees and pensioners.
If we go back 20 years or more with regard to labour relations,
traditional industries have had some employee representation on
their boards for some time. In the automobile industry, Chrysler
was the first company to have representation from the UAW on its
board. I am surprised that in the original legislation this had
not been proposed.
The PC Party supports amendments that would provide a greater
level of participation for employees and/or Devco pensioners.
This would increase transparency and openness of the process and
would ensure a fairer level of participation and representation
for the miners.
The issues of pension and severance packages have been discussed
at length in the House and at committee. There are some real
inequities in the current pension structure. Under the current
plan workers with less than 75 pension points, a combination of
25 years of service and 50 years of age, do not qualify. It
creates some bizarre situations. Some miners with 25 years of
pensionable earnings would not qualify for a pension because of
the 75 pension point plan. This does not make a lot of sense.
Last week the federally appointed arbitrator ruled that miners
with 25 years of mining experience would qualify for pensions
regardless of age, but denied the same benefit for miners with 20
years of experience on the basis that it would be too costly.
This change would allow an additional 246 miners to qualify for
pensions. That is a step in the right direction. Medical
benefits will be extended to 640 miners which also is a step in
the right direction.
With regard to the Group No. 3 amendments, Motions Nos. 13, 14
and 15 would have the corporation's objectives continue to
reflect the goal of providing increased levels of economic
development—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. Did I hear
the hon. member say that he was speaking to Group No. 3, because
we are still on Group No. 2.
1745
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see a quorum.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I apologize for having
gotten ahead of myself with the amendments in Group No. 3. It is
just another case of the PC Party being ahead of its time.
Clearly there are issues of fairness that have to be dealt with,
and these amendments are a step in the right direction.
Among the big picture items that have to be considered is, what
is the plan the government has relative to future economic
development opportunities for the people of Cape Breton? For far
too long Devco provided a sense of comfort in an industry which
really did not have the long term sustainable viability that
would provide employment and economic opportunities well into the
next century. Whenever there is a change of this magnitude it
creates huge social and economic upheaval.
I would hope that we would take a serious look, not just in Cape
Breton but throughout Atlantic Canada, at some of the examples of
other countries which have utilized various levels of tax reform
as vehicles for economic development.
Probably one of the greatest examples of innovative social
policy combined with innovative fiscal policy to create greater
levels of economic opportunity would be that of Ireland. If we
compare Ireland 10 years ago to Atlantic Canada today, we could
see some significant areas of comparison and opportunity. Over
the past 10 years, because of innovative policies, Ireland has
had 92% growth in its GDP per capita.
I believe in Cape Breton, in Nova Scotia and in Atlantic Canada,
and I think we have to get a lot more innovative about how we
address economic development issues in Atlantic Canada and other
regions. I would hope that the government would work with the
University College of Cape Breton, Jacquelyn Thayer-Scott and
some of the other innovators in Cape Breton who are working to
incubate some of the small IT companies in the new economy. With
the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of
telecommunications, we can see a stream of world leading IT
companies coming out of Cape Breton into the 21st century. We
need to work together to create an environment which will make
that possible.
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to call for a quorum
count.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member is
calling for quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see a quorum.
Mr. Dennis Gruending: It is a
dubious pleasure to speak to Bill C-11, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation divestiture act. I say dubious because
of the great hardship which the government and this bill have put
upon the people of Cape Breton.
My colleagues from Cape Breton have dealt with the details of
the entire bill very well in many speeches, as well as the groups
of amendments. Group No. 2, which we are now on, relates to
ensuring that people from the community and pensioners are on the
board. This speaks very directly to a responsibility to the
community and to a transparency and accountability which has been
sadly lacking in the way in which the government has dealt with
this legislation, and specifically the Minister of Natural
Resources. I heard someone say earlier that every time we ask a
question about this subject, it almost seems as if he has gravel
on his seat. He does not seem to want to talk to it and he is
very uncomfortable with it.
The way the Liberals have dealt with this whole issue speaks
reams to their callousness and their ability to manipulate events
and people in the regions.
1750
There was an astounding lack of consultation in this whole
matter. The benefits, when they were announced, were completely
insufficient. I am speaking of health, pension and economic
development benefits. The Devco arbitration decision, which was
released on June 2, made it entirely clear that the package was
inadequate, which our members, in particular our members from
Cape Breton, have been saying all along.
The way in which the government dealt with the legislation,
quashing the debate at second reading, was undemocratic in the
extreme. It is completely uninterested in holding public
hearings. That should not surprise us a bit, because that is the
way it has dealt with a whole lot of other information in the
recent past.
I want to concentrate on something a little different tonight,
which also speaks to the heart of the matter in the second group
of amendments.
If I may give a bit of context and background, this past weekend
the Prime Minister of our country was in Berlin speaking to a
group of what I consider to be largely social democratic
governments about progressive governance. We might question
initially what he was doing there. We found that it was due to
his good friend, the president of the United States, Bill
Clinton, that he was even invited.
One may also ask what Bill Clinton was doing in a meeting
talking about social democratic governance, the third way, or as
the Prime Minister calls it, the Canadian way. I was reading in
The New York Review of Books this past winter an article by
an esteemed American economist, Robert M. Solow, called
“Welfare: The Cheapest Country”. The cheapest country was the
United States.
He ends his article by saying that what really distinguishes the
United States is the equanimity with which the majority
contemplates the poverty of a minority. So one might ask what
the president of the United States was doing in a meeting talking
about the third way, and secondly, what he was doing inviting our
Prime Minister to talk about the third way when clearly he does
not know the first thing about it. The way in which the Cape
Breton Devco situation has been handled speaks entirely to that.
This weekend the Prime Minister was boasting about Canada's
“mixed economy”, the third way; not private enterprise solely,
not development by the states solely, but a compassionate and
intelligent mix of the two. That is what our Prime Minister was
talking about, but as I said, I do not really know what gives him
the credentials to talk about it.
I briefly want to give a couple of examples which really do
relate to Cape Breton and to the Devco situation. He says that
the challenge is to seize opportunities, believing that private
economic growth has to be complemented by public investment, yet
we have a situation here where a mine which has been publicly
owned is going to be sold off. We do not know to whom. We have
no idea whether they will keep mining coal. We have no idea who
will be employed. We do not even know if someone might buy this
mine and shut it down, simply because they do not want to have
competition from it. This does not speak to me of a government
which comes at a mixed economy with any integrity or knowledge
whatsoever.
The context here is that he is lecturing governments from other
countries of the world, like the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
Our Prime Minister is lecturing them about the mixed economy and
the third way. This might be a good standup routine for Yuk Yuks
comedy, but it is not exactly what we would expect at a meeting
of august members of governments from other countries.
In this context, the Prime Minister says that Canada's
governments make a clear commitment to preserving the Canada
pension plan. It was not that long ago, a couple of years back,
when we were fighting tooth and nail to keep the government from
downsizing the Canada pension plan. When it got pushed to the
wall and could do nothing else, the government did not cut it as
badly as it was planning to. Suddenly now it is taking credit
for enhancing it. That is the way it always goes with the
Liberals.
He talks about a progressive income tax system. We know from
the last budget all about the progressive income tax system.
Yes, it is very progressive for people who have capital gains to
pay, for the more affluent in our society and for people who are
dealing with stock options. It is very progressive for them, but
there is not very much for the rest of us.
As our party has pointed out again and again, there is very
little for health care.
1755
He brags about the employment insurance program. That will make
my colleague from New Brunswick double over with humour. We have
had to fight the government on the employment insurance system
tooth and nail again. Even having done so, the benefits are much
more difficult for people to get. It has caused a great deal of
hardship for people, in particular working women.
I could go on. He talks about the government's support for
students. We know all about that support. The government does
admit that student debt has increased. That is about the only
ray of truth I see in the document.
He finally says that governments have to find new ways to engage
citizens. The government certainly has done that in Cape Breton
with Devco. People are engaged in anticipating their own demise.
It is a bit rich when the Prime Minister of Canada goes to
another country to, I suspect, set himself up as some wise person
who will return home and call an election on the things he is
talking about. When and if he does that we will be here to
remind him that, despite the highfalutin words, these are mainly
false and hollow promises.
In the couple of minutes left to me I want to refer to another
thing which is a cruel deception being practised on the people of
Cape Breton. We have been told that these mines are being shut
down. We are not sure whether the coal which still exists in
reserves will be mined in Cape Breton to supply coal for power
generation in Cape Breton. What we do know, and it is already
happening, is that coal is being hauled from Colombia to be sold
to Nova Scotia Power, being hauled on ships owned by the Minister
of Finance I might add. However, that is not my main point.
What I want to talk about is the race to the bottom being
perpetrated by this government on the people of Cape Breton and
how it will impact other countries.
A mine leader from Colombia where this coal is being purchased,
Francisco Ramirez Cuellar, was in Canada recently. He told us
that he feared for his health and safety when he went home
because he was coming to Canada to speak out about what was
happening. We now have information from the inter-church
committee on human rights in Latin America, dated May 29, 2000,
concerning an urgent action about renewed threats against this
Colombian trade unionist. As he had suspected and feared when he
went home, he was followed. It says that there were at least two
attempts when people in utility vehicles tried to pick him up.
If they had he probably would have lost his life.
I ask myself and I ask members across the way what kind of
development it is when we have these kinds of situations
occurring, when people in Cape Breton are being played off
against people in the third world. What are they being played
off against? They are being played off against regimes which
will torture and murder people who dare to unionize to improve
the situation for their workers.
This is a shameful situation. When we look at the motions being
put forward to improve the sad situation which this government
has perpetrated upon the people of Cape Breton, the amendments
that my party is putting forward are the least we could ask. I
humbly ask members across the way to give these motions
consideration and to at least pass them so that we can hold our
heads high eventually when we talk to the people of Cape Breton,
rather than having to hang our heads in shame because of what we
have done to them.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will only take a
few moments of the time of the House. The government will not be
supporting these amendments. I will not deal with the comments
or the content of the speeches of my friends across the way. I
would not have enough time to do that. I will only comment on
the amendments themselves.
When it comes to suggestions, which are essentially the focus of
these amendments, whereby the number of directors on the board
would be either from Cape Breton or from the Devco pensioners'
association, with no disrespect to anyone, at the present time
five of seven board members are in fact from Cape Breton. There
is one vacancy, I will acknowledge.
I do not think it necessary whatsoever to limit in legislation
the membership of the board. In fact, over time, as the work of
the board reduces after the sale, the size of the board could
conceivably decrease to one or two people. This would only limit
the appointment process.
With that we will hopefully proceed to the third group of
amendments.
1800
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is
a sad day for all of us here. We have reached the point that in
order to receive at least some kind of reasonable and fair debate
on a situation so important to so many Cape Bretoners, we
literally have had to force the government into every little
piece of debate we get in the House.
It is extremely sad that on this day there are parties, such as
the partners, the brothers and sisters so to speak, of the
Liberals on the right side of politics, the Conservatives and the
reform alliance, who swear up and down against closure but will
not stand in the House to force debate on this issue for Cape
Bretoners. Not a bit. They are right over there with the
Liberals. They might as well sit in the same seats. We have
said all along that there is no difference.
I think Cape Bretoners will now know true to heart that there is
no difference among any of those parties. They had a chance to
speak out on this issue, to support Cape Bretoners, and to
support amendments that would assist the people in that area of
the country and they have failed to do so, there is no question.
I want to thank my colleagues, certainly from Nova Scotia, but
from Cape Breton, who have made it very clear to us as their
caucus colleagues the importance of this issue. We have followed
it with them through the numerous stages over the last number of
months. They have raised their concerns with us almost each and
every day over the last number of months, or even a year or so
since this all started to transpire. Their concerns are for the
people of Cape Breton and what they saw the government do to the
coal mining industry in Cape Breton. They have kept us up to date
all along.
We still had a shred of hope that government members would see
the light. But lo and behold they are buried somewhere down in
that mine with no hope of ever coming out. They cannot see that
there is a need to put in some kind of progressive amendments
that will support the people of Cape Breton, the mine workers who
have been there for years. I thank my colleagues for keeping us
abreast of that over a number of months.
It is beyond me why the Group No. 2 amendments cannot be
supported by all parties in the House. There does not appear to
be anything dastardly that will overthrow the government. The
amendments call for fairness. They talk about the reform
alliance's favourite rout, to be at the grassroots, to keep the
people involved. Did they support going out to Cape Breton to
hold meetings and have the people involved in the discussions?
Not a chance. Not the people in reform alliance because they
talk one way this time of the year and another way when they
think nobody is watching. But that is not the case. Canadians
will know that it is just a lot of talk and no action when it
gets right down to it. The bottom line is they did not support
amendments to have mine workers or pensioners on the board. Boy,
that is a shocker.
What is so far-fetched about wanting the people who put in years
of their lives and probably their health in a good number of
instances, to have an opportunity? An hon. colleague from the
Liberals said there may be a time when there are only one or two
members on the board, that they may not need that many and they
do not want to restrict it by having to have Cape Bretoners.
If we took that kind of attitude in the House of Commons, where
would we be? Let us restrict it by not having any members from
Ontario. Boy, that would do it. It is absolutely disgusting to
even hear those kinds of statements. It makes absolute sense to
have the people who will be most affected by this legislation and
most affected by what happens with their pensions on the board.
There is not a lot of trust. I do not have a lot of trust in
who the Liberal government might appoint to a board that will
look after my pension. I would like to have some say in that. It
is not unreasonable for Cape Bretoners and the mine workers to
have a say in who will be looking after their pensions.
The Group No. 2 amendments are pretty much all along that line.
Motion No. 9 states:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41
on page 3 the following:
“(4) One director other than the Chairperson and the President
shall be an employee of the Corporation”.
That provides for at least one employee representative to sit on
the board of the Devco board of directors.
1805
Another shocker is that the government changed the Financial
Administration Act to make sure it could sell off Devco at, let
us say, a buck. Let us get down to it, it changed the act so it
could sell off Devco not even at value.
Canadians will be watching just to see what happens with Devco
because after today they will know it is an issue. They will
know that government patronage is probably lurking somewhere. To
the credit of the reform alliance members, they love digging up
smut. I am sure when this is all done they will be able to follow
up on who ends up buying the coal mines and Devco, if they so
choose. We never know because they change from day to day and
maybe they will not bother. Let us see whether it is tied to one
of the front seats on the other side of the House. It will be
very interesting and Canadians will be watching.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I think you will find we do not have quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see quorum.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, this is somewhat of a
captive audience and it is wonderful, I have to admit.
I was making the point about the government's inability to
recognize what is important to Canadians and its inability to
recognize what people in certain regions of the country want to
be a part of. They want to have a say in what happens with their
future. I mentioned pensions and wanting representation on the
board for pensions so people have control over their future.
We need only look at what happened with the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development and the Royal Oak Mines in
Yellowknife and the pensions of those workers. What did the
government do to those pensioners? What did it do to those
workers after the years they put into that mine, the taxes they
paid for the government to flaunt around and do with what it
will?
The government did not provide services and health care. It did
not provide enough funding for education. It did not provide
enough funding for infrastructure. What did the government do
with the taxes after the hard work of the miners at Royal Oak
Mines? What did it do with their pensions? The Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development signed away their rights
for a few bucks. There was no consideration for the work they
put in. The government would not sign away the pensions of our
colleagues opposite, not for a second, but for ordinary workers
the government does not give a spit, not a bit.
It might be quite apparent to the Liberals that I am very
disappointed over this whole issue. I am disappointed that we
have had to force the government to be concerned about Canadians.
It is not okay to be flippant all the time. We can heckle. Our
parties can banter back and forth, but it is not okay to be
flippant about the lives of Canadians. It is not okay to be
flippant about the life of that Colombian labour leader. It is
his life. I want each and every one of those government members
when that man's death gets reported in this House like the 90
other Colombian labour leaders' deaths, to recognize that their
government supported that by not making sure we did the things we
could as a good and caring socially conscious government to make
sure that the rights of workers are respected everywhere.
The Liberal government, the reform alliance and the Tories
always make sure to look after big business. It can come up with
legislation to protect every business, every tax break it can
give a business and corporation, but it cannot come up with
anything as simple as protecting the rights of ordinary workers
and the leaders who are out there fighting for them. Ninety
labour leaders are dead and our government is a cohort of that
government in selling off jobs in our country to that government.
At some point the people across the way will have to let that
sit on their conscience. They will take it to bed at night and
will take it with them when they leave this place. That is what
it is all about. It is not the flippant attitude that they do not
know the person so they do not care. That is the impression that
is being given to people around the world, except for business,
and it is not acceptable.
1810
Those colleagues on this side of the House will continue to be
on this side of the House because they have no leadership. Until
the NDP came to the House this issue would not have been talked
about. The Devco bill would have been over and done with because
they are not speaking for Canadians either. They are there right
along with the other ones. It is only because we are here that
they have had to recognize this issue. Most of them are hanging
their heads in shame because they have not spoken on this issue
to protect these workers and ensure that they have a fair say in
their pensions and representation on the board of directors. Not
a word.
I hope some of the members across the way will take this to
heart.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, once again,
I want to say that I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11. I am
pleased to speak to the bill but not so pleased with what may
come of it.
I am sure that this is not easy for the people of Cape Breton,
for the miners who have worked underground for some 30 years and
for the younger ones who have not been working that long. With
Bill C-11, the government is trying to pass the buck on Devco.
This is certainly not easy for the people or Cape Breton and I
can sympathize with them.
It is not easy for workers in a region such as Cape Breton,
where the unemployment rate is as high as that in the Acadian
peninsula.
It is not easy today for a miner 40 years old, who has been a
miner all his life, to realize that he will one day lose his
job. Where will he find another job? It is not easy today,
with the new economy, this knowledge and high tech economy. I
put myself in the shoes of the miner wondering what he will do
if and when he loses my job. I was talking about someone 40
years old, but there are others who are 45 years old. That is
still young—I am 45—but I would not be prepared to go to
university.
I remember the prime minister saying that one has to acquire new
skills three times in his lifetime. My God, three times in a
lifetime. It costs a young person $30,000 to $40,000 to get a
university degree. If he has to do it three times, he will be
in debt for the rest of his days.
But, with Bill C-11, the miner in Cape Breton is going to be
left in limbo. Is he going to have a job tomorrow, or not? That
is the problem. That is what needs to be dealt with. How can
these people be helped? It is sad and unfortunate that the
government has taken this position. It is too bad that the
government has not put into place a program saying “Some people
will be able to retire, but we have another program that will
help others re-enter the labour force and offer them new
opportunities”. Instead, they are offered nothing but
uncertainty.
Think about it, we have here nearly 305 MPs quaking in their
boots—or should I say their high heels, Madam Speaker—because
they do not know if they will be re-elected in the next election.
Everyone is worried, and there is a lot going on in ridings.
Things are hopping because the MPs want to get re-elected; they
are afraid of losing their jobs.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the Cape Breton miner, who
also does not know whether he is going to lose his job or not and
who might find himself without a livelihood. Put yourself in the
place of this miner who is going to wake up jobless one fine
morning. That is no easy thing, especially for a person with a
family, with children who go to school or university. It
definitely is not easy.
1815
The NDP asked the committee to go to Cape Breton to meet with
the workers, sit down with them and listen to their concerns. We
did not get the support of this House. I want to tell the people
of Cape Breton today that the NDP supported them from start to
finish.
[English]
I am sure the people of Cape Breton are listening on CPAC to the
debate in the House of Commons tonight. They will see that the
only ones who are getting up in the House of Commons, one after
the other, are members of the NDP.
We are fighting for the people of Cape Breton, fighting for the
working people of Cape Breton, fighting for the miners who are
facing the possibility of losing their jobs. It is not the
Liberals. They do not have any alternative for those people. I
am telling the Liberals on the other side of the House that it is
not easy for working people who worked in the mines all their
lives driving scoop trains or being miners to find a job today in
this country at the age of 40 or 45.
I worked 15 years in the mines. I know what a mine is. High
technology is not what one finds down in the mines. When one
leaves mining it is a big problem. What are the Liberals saying
to those people? Are they being told to get out of Cape Breton?.
The Prime Minister has been saying all along that if they cannot
find jobs they should go somewhere else. That is too easy.
The people of the Atlantic provinces want to live in the
Atlantic provinces. We were born in the Atlantic region and we
have the right to live in the Atlantic region as Canadians. We
need the government to not only support Ontario. Are we part of
this country? Yes or no.
We had a member in our region who wanted to sell out the
Atlantic area. His name was Doug Young and he is with the
Canadian Alliance today. That is where he is.
The government is not helping the people of Cape Breton with
what it is doing. It is leaving them with no alternative,
leaving them there in the cold. It is not helping those miners
and it should be ashamed.
As I said, the 301 members of parliament in the House of Commons
shake in their pants and hey shake in their dresses because they
are worried about the upcoming election and probably losing their
jobs. Most of them are a bunch of lawyers. They should not be
worried about losing their jobs, but the people of Cape Breton
have to worry about it because they do not have a job the next
day. It is not easy for working men and women who lose their
jobs and have no alternative. It is no fun for their families,
living in the dark and not knowing what will happen to them the
next day. It is no fun for them.
One of the things we ask is for members of the parliamentary
committee to fly by plane to Cape Breton. If they are afraid of
a plane, it is not that far. They could meet with the people of
Cape Breton and listen to what they have to say. The Liberals
did not want to go to Cape Breton. They do not want to get up in
the House of Commons and speak about it. Are they shy or what?
The only thing the Liberals say is that the caucus of the
Atlantic met and let us catch the wave. I hope the people of
Cape Breton tonight are listening and will let the wave go by
because the Liberals are not there to fight for them.
We in the Atlantic have served the Liberals on a silver plate
for 100 years, and this is what we get today. Brian Tobin,
Premier of Newfoundland, said that the people of the Atlantic
would never give up on the Liberals. The Liberals gave up on the
Atlantic. That is what happened in the Atlantic region. They
gave up on the people of the Atlantic region. They came to the
Atlantic region and took all our resources. They took all our
fish. After doing that they said they would cut their employment
insurance and put them on welfare. That is what they have done
to the people of the Atlantic.
1820
Today we have a Liberal government that does not want to take
responsibility for the gaffer, the one in French we call le trov
noir, the black hole. These people cannot go from one season to
the next. The provincial government says that it is not its
responsibility. The federal government says that it is not its
responsibility. Its wants the people of Cape Breton to go on
welfare. The NDP will fight for the people of the Atlantic and
for the people of Cape Breton.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, when we
left on Friday we were dealing with Devco and here we are 48
hours or so later entering extended hours to deal with the bill
yet again.
I congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst on a very
emotional speech. He and others in the House are saying that
before the legislation goes forward Cape Bretoners should have
the chance to have their say. It is for this reason that we
moved amendments that would allow for the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources and Government Operations to hold hearings in
Cape Breton before the legislation was voted on at second reading
stage. However, in their haste to ram the legislation through
and shut Devco down, the Liberal majority opposite rejected that
suggestion totally and completely.
MPs in our caucus from across the country have stood up for Cape
Bretoners. Over half my colleagues have spoken to second reading
stage, led by our leader, the member for Halifax. All New
Democrats from coast to coast to coast recognize that if the
government is allowed to treat Cape Breton this way, it can do
the same in every other region of the country.
On the other hand, the Liberals have quashed the debate on Devco
at every step along the way. They ended debate at second reading
stage of Bill C-11. They decided to end debate before a
settlement had been reached on the issue of miners' pensions and
severance packages. Before it was announced whether the buyer of
Devco's assets would even continue mining in Cape Breton, the
government simply sold off the assets. This was before any
decision had been made about the remediation of mine sites or
long term economic development to replace the jobs that would be
lost.
It should be noted that only eight Liberal members even bothered
to speak to Bill C-11 at second reading. Should Cape Bretoners
be grateful that the Liberal government provided limited economic
assistance after shutting Devco down? The committee process was
a sham. Less than six hours were allocated to hear from
witnesses. The witnesses were given less than 48 hours notice to
appear and no time to prepare. The majority of government
committee members were scarcely in attendance throughout.
The Liberal majority voted against all the amendments put
forward by the opposition on behalf of witnesses and the people
of Cape Breton. The NDP motion called for the committee to hold
public hearings in Cape Breton among the people affected to allow
the people hurt by the legislation an opportunity to be heard.
The Liberals voted against it.
We also proposed a motion to ensure that health benefits for
workers and their families who suffered from mining related
illnesses would be allocated. Again the Liberal majority
government voted against it.
We asked that representation for workers and pensioners on the
pension board be ensured. This was denied. We asked that there
be some representatives on the board of directors who actually
lived in Cape Breton. This was denied once again by government
members opposite. We asked for assurance that some of the
representatives on the board of directors were from the Devco
pensioners association. That too was rejected by the Liberal
government opposite.
The other opposition caucuses have been generally supportive of
the bill.
Both right wing parties have been supportive of it, but why would
we be surprised with that?
1825
[Translation]
The enactment provides the necessary authority for the
disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Cape
Breton Development Corporation, and provides for the dissolution
and winding up of the affairs of the corporation.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable a private
sector operator to acquire the mining assets of the corporation
so that the federal government can exit the coal mining business
in Cape Breton and to provide for the continuation of the
existing jurisdictional regimes for labour relations,
occupational safety and health, and labour standards.
The NDP will propose that the bill be withdrawn and that the
matter be referred to committee, for three main reasons.
First, the unions representing Devco employees have taken the
corporation to court for failure to meet its obligations under
the legislation and seek to have clause 17(4)(b) included in
any new legislation.
Second, we want the committee to be able to institute a process
of full public consultation in Cape Breton in order to develop a
long term strategy for the economic development of the region in
order to offset the effects of possible privatization.
Finally, the uncertainty created by the recent court decisions
with respect to first nations treaty rights and the repercussions
on mining rights must be clarified.
[English]
There are a number of very excellent proposals in the Group No.
2 motions. I appreciate the fact that we dealing with them. The
member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton suggested that at least one employee representative should
sit on the Devco board of directors. We also ask under Motion
No. 7 in Group No. 2 that clause 8 be amended by adding after
line 22 on page 3 the following:
“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following:
(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the
Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.
My colleague from Sydney—Victoria urged that the majority of
the directors shall be residents of the island and that there be
residency requirements to ensure that a majority of the directors
live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the
corporation's decisions.
Surely that would be a minimum. I am baffled to know why
government members opposite would not be interested in having a
minimal amount of protection and assurance that decisions taken
in that region of the country shall be taken with the full
knowledge and support of people who are actually resident on Cape
Breton Island.
Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2 is certainly one that I endorse. It
ensures that one-third of the directors of Devco are
representatives from the employees' pension association. This is
critically important.
My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked what would happen to
those miners 45 or 50 years of age who have been working
underground all their lives? Suddenly the mine closes. We buy
imported coal from Colombia or wherever with miners' blood from
that part of the world all over it. Cape Bretoners are thrown
out of work. Jobs are very difficult, if not impossible, to come
by. That is why having representation from the employees'
pension association makes all the sense in the world. It would
ensure that workers and their families are treated in the very
best way.
The final motion in this group, Motion No. 16, would replace
line 13 on page 5 with the following:
It would also replace line 23 on page 5 with the following:
“(2) The bylaw shall provide that at least half of the members
of the board or committee that is charged with managing the
pension fund are selected by the Devco Pensioners' Association”.
1830
This in effect would give the Devco pensioners association the
right to select at least half of the membership of the body
designated to manage the workers' pension fund. It also makes
great sense that the local people would manage affairs as they
wind down this corporation.
In closing I want to say that I am very pleased to have been
part of this important piece of legislation and on the Group No.
2 motions. I would urge all members, not only the NDP caucus as
we know where they will be, to support these reasonable changes.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to speak
to the motions that fall under Group No. 2 pertaining to Bill
C-11. I want to raise three concerns this afternoon relating to
those motions and Bill C-11 as a whole.
I will begin my remarks by commenting on the significant
contribution by members of the New Democratic Party, particularly
from Atlantic Canada, to this debate and to this very important
question around the future of not only Cape Breton but the whole
country. It is a very hard act to follow.
The member for Acadie—Bathurst made an impassioned speech. He
spoke from experience as a former steel worker, as someone who
was down under and who worked in the mines. He brought important
lessons to the House that ought to be listened to by everyone,
not just members of the Liberal government but also members of
the Canadian Alliance.
It has become clear to me, after having listened to the debate
today, that the Canadian Alliance is only too quick to join with
the Liberal government on Bill C-11 and dismiss the concerns of
those people who gave their lives and who sacrificed a great deal
for the economy of Cape Breton. They should not to be
disregarded now and cast aside in the interest of expediency but
that is characteristic of this government and the Canadian
Alliance.
I also want to single out the work of the two members from Cape
Breton, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for
Sydney—Victoria, who have brought so much to not only this
debate about Devco but to many other issues. They have both been
vigilant on this issue and others pertaining to Cape Breton. We
are very grateful for the valuable contribution they make to our
caucus and to this parliament.
Those members have had to deal with a number of issues that have
posed serious difficulties for their region. Day in and day out
they have spoken out for the people of Cape Breton, whether we
are talking about the serious situation of Westray and the
failure of this government to ensure that the corporation in
question is held responsible for the deaths of these miners,
whether we are talking about the serious situation of the tar
ponds in Cape Breton and the years and years of inaction by this
government to deal with that serious health problem, or whether
we are dealing with Devco and the whole question of having an
economic development corporation that is regulated and run
according to the needs and aspirations of that region.
Whether we are talking about any one of those issues, the impact
by those members has been clear and their representation as
members in the House has been noticed and has been important to
all of us. I want to thank them for their work.
We also have a significant number of members from Halifax and
Nova Scotia who have been very important in bringing these
concerns to the House. We are very honoured and pleased with
their participation.
I will now go to my three concerns. I want to note for the
House that we are talking about Bill C-11. Is it not interesting
that legislation from another jurisdiction, the province of
Alberta, is also called bill 11? I want to point out the
similarities between these two pieces of legislation. Maybe it
is just a coincidence. Maybe it just happens that this number
symbolizes the callous disregard of right wing governments
everywhere when it comes to the needs of the people.
Let me note the similarities. Bill 11 in Alberta really
represents the nail in the coffin of health care, of medicare. In
that regard, I note the failure of this government to deal for
one second with the impact of that legislation and take seriously
the concerns of people everywhere about how our entire hospital
system could be opened up to private corporations.
1835
Let us draw the parallels to Bill C-11 where this move to
privatize, to deregulate, to dissolve the economic development
corporation that has held Cape Breton in good stead over the
years could also be the nail in the coffin for that region. It
perhaps could symbolize every harsh, cruel measure taken by this
government when it comes to the region of Cape Breton.
It is also very important to note that in both instances,
whether we are talking about bill 11 in Alberta or Bill C-11 here
in Ottawa, the government in question has chosen to disregard the
interests and concerns of the people in those jurisdictions and
has failed to allow for a democratic process to be involved.
Let it be clear that one of the reasons we are so concerned
today is because of the way this government has brought down the
heavy hand of closure yet again. How many times is it to date?
This government has brought in closure over 60 times in three
years. This is unprecedented, unheard of and unacceptable.
I speak with some authority on this question having just
suffered through a few recent meetings at the health committee
where the government has worked very hard to ensure that one of
the avenues available to members to exercise their democratic
right has been shut down and closed off. It has tried to control
and manipulate the agenda so that this committee is not able to
have an input on the most important issues facing Canadians
today, health care, the number one priority of Canadians.
Each and every day we are faced with this kind of undemocratic,
dictatorial, authoritarian measure by the Liberal government. I
think it is something for which the Canadian Alliance members
surely should be taking heed. It should be enough to make them
question why they are supporting Bill C-11 and why they are not
standing with us on this very important issue.
I will now go to my second concern in the few minutes that I
have left which has to do with the general trend on the part of
the government to lead the way in terms of undemocratic
government. I also want to mention the path that the government
has chosen in terms of privatization and deregulation.
Bill C-11 represents one more move after a whole series of
assaults on the Canadian fabric, on our very identity as
Canadians, whether we are talking about CN, Air Canada, the way
in which the government is trying to dismantle the CBC, food
safety and the Canadian food inspection agency, Canada Post or
Revenue Canada, we could go on for hours just talking about all
the agencies and corporations, all the aspects of government that
are so important for the health and well-being of Canadians, and
how this government has chosen to offload its responsibilities
somewhere else, on to the private sector and individual
consumers, outside of its purview, away from the ability of the
Government of Canada to ensure that Canadians can count on their
government when it comes to fundamental questions of health,
well-being, safety and when it comes to questions of economic
security and jobs for the future. This is the most serious issue
that we are dealing with when it comes to the government.
I think it is important to simply quote from today's National
Post. I do not normally quote from the National Post
because obviously it poses real concerns in the way in which the
Calgary Herald situation is being handled. However this
clipping came across our desk today because it pertains to
Walkerton and the whole tragedy around water safety.
I want to quote from an article by Bill Tieleman. It states:
It is time for a reckoning with those who would put blind faith
in ideology and the unbridled pursuit of profit above the health
and welfare of the public.
So while apologists for privatization and downsizing public
services in this paper and elsewhere seek to defend their patron
saint—Ontario Premier Mike Harris—
I see the Liberal government is trying equal none other than
Mike Harris. The article goes on to say:
In this particular case it was the Liberal government's
policies.
I raise this because this government tends not to listen to what
we in the NDP have to say.
It will not listen to what people in the progressive movements
have to say. It will not listen to social justice coalitions.
Maybe it will listen to the likes of writers in the National
Post. Maybe it will listen to people on the progressive
conservative end of the political spectrum who say that enough is
enough when it comes to the government's agenda of not only an
undemocratic, arrogant style of government, but also when it
comes to its extreme, right wing, fervent commitment to the
corporate agenda.
1840
My third concern has to do with the impact these policies will
have on the health and well-being of Canadians in general. No
one needs to remind anyone in the House about how important
economic security and job security are to the state of health and
wellness in Canada today. We know that when individuals and
regions are hit with hardships, they are also hit with ill health
and the spread of disease.
Let it be a lesson to the government that investments today into
such things as economic development, corporations and
organizations that seek to preserve the dignity of Canadians will
hold us in good stead and ensure that health care costs will come
down in the future.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I call quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see a
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see a quorum.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 6. 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): The recorded division
on Motion No. 6 stands deferred. The recorded division will also
apply to Motion No. 9.
The next question is on Motion No. 7. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 10.
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 8. 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): The recorded division
on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.
[Translation]
The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 11.
1845
[English]
The next question is on Motion No. 16. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 16 stands deferred. I will now propose Group No. 3.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP)
moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 35 on
page 4 with the following:
“good mine safety, to provide permanent, full-time employment
to the residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and
to conduct its operations in a manner that benefits the economy
of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.”
That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10
on page 5 the following:
“17. The Corporation, in conjunction with the Government of
Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those
governments, shall adopt and continue all reasonable measures
deemed necessary to reduce as far as possible the unemployment or
economic hardship that is expected to result from the closing,
privatisation or reduction in the production of coal.”
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10
on page 5 the following:
“17. The Corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to
reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or
unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine
operated by the Corporation.”
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Group No. 3
motions moved by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and by me
with regard to Bill C-11. A fair amount of quoting has been
going on. I began my debate on Group No. 2 by quoting from the
arbitrator's decision. Following that there was some quoting by
the member from Bras d'Or of former Liberals, notably Prime
Minister Pearson and Allan MacEachen.
I should point out that the arbitrator too quoted from the
debates of 1967. This is what the arbitrator had to say about
the passage of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and
specifically section 17 which, as I said earlier, is the section
we relied on to suggest that this package was not fair from the
beginning. I will read what the arbitrator wrote. This is not
political rhetoric. This is the actual decision.
On June 20, 1967, when the legislation was being examined in
committee of the whole House when there were Liberals on that
side who believed in the dignity of the working people—
An hon. member: When was that?
Mr. Peter Mancini: That was in 1967. Let me go further
because section 17 provides for the government to do whatever is
necessary to reduce hardship. There is some sense of history
repeating itself because here is what the arbitrator wrote on
June 20, 1967, and here we are on June 5, 2000. Members of the
New Democratic Party, in particular David Lewis, and of the
Progressive Conservative Party, in particular Robert Muir who
represented the community I represent today, expressed concern
about the language of section 17 and proposed amendments which
would have required Devco to provide alternate employment for
employees laid off as a result of a mine closure.
1850
In 1967, some 32 years ago, New Democrats stood in the House and
suggested to the Liberal Party which was in power that there
should be alternative employment for the miners in Cape Breton in
the event of a mine closure. Here we are 32 years later fighting
the same fight. Once again it is members of the New Democratic
Party who are arguing that there should be fairer treatment of
the miners in Cape Breton.
That being said, the Liberal government of that day did move
section 17. So far we have Lester Pearson, Allan MacEachen and
now we have Jean-Luc Pepin in 1967 talking about the need to take
all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any
unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result
from the closure of any mine. That was then.
Today we have the pretender to that throne in Berlin talking
about the Canadian way, proudly boasting that his party
understands the need for government intervention in a mixed
economy. While he says that, while he speaks the words of Lester
Pearson, Allan MacEachen and Jean-Luc Pepin, his government
passes a bill that refuses to allow Cape Bretoners to have the
majority of the vote on the board of directors.
That is covered by the group of amendments we have already dealt
with, so let us look at this group that the government will
oppose. Let us read my motion and compare it to Jean-Luc Pepin's
bill that the Liberal Party passed. Jean-Luc Pepin said that all
reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any unemployment
or economic hardship should be taken. Let me read my motion:
That corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to reduce,
to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or
unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine
operated by the Corporation.
Those are the words of the New Democratic Party today. Those
were the words of the Liberals 32 years ago.
An hon. member: What happened?
Mr. Peter Mancini: That is a question that Cape Bretoners
will ask. That is a question Canadians should ask. As the Prime
Minister stands in Berlin and delivers his speech on the Canadian
way, the headlines say that the Prime Minister wants to take the
party back to its roots. Its roots are here. When members
opposite vote down these amendments and vote in favour of Bill
C-11 they will have ripped up the roots of the Liberal Party.
I know this is not easy because I have had discussions with
colleagues of mine on the other side. I know that they struggle
with it. Some members opposite shake their heads. When the
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar talked about the labour
situation in Colombia, some of the members shook their heads. I
know they said he was not being relevant.
Let me tell the House what will happen with the passage of the
bill. The number one asset of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation is the contract to sell coal to Nova Scotia Power. It
is worth millions. The proposed buyer for the assets of the Cape
Breton Development Corporation will be an American multinational
that will ship coal. It is already coming in. It is already
feeding Nova Scotia Power. It is turning a profit for Colombian
mine owners who murder trade unionists in their country.
When the bill passes there is no guarantee that Cape Breton coal
will be mined. There is no guarantee that Cape Breton coal
miners will have work. The government cannot guarantee that. We
asked it that at committee.
I urge members to ask the minister in their caucus meeting
whether Cape Breton coal will feed Nova Scotia Power. Will it
feed that asset? The minister should be honest with his own
caucus. Members will have an opportunity to find out at the
caucus meeting. I urge members of the Liberal Party who believe
in the vision of Pearson, Pepin and MacEachen to ask the minister
in caucus whether there a guarantee that Cape Breton coal will
feed the Nova Scotia Power contract.
If he says yes, with some guarantees, I think they can vote in
conscience on Bill C-11, but I do not think he can give them that
guarantee. I know he cannot give them that guarantee.
1855
I asked the chairman of the board when he testified. We asked
the miners. We asked the minister when he came. We asked Nova
Scotia Power who it would buy coal from. It said whoever could
produce quality coal at the cheapest price.
In a year, when Colombian coal is coming into Sydney harbour, if
it comes and it will, it will be on their shoulders and the
responsibility of members of the Liberal Party. They cannot say
they were not told. I have told them. They cannot say they were
not warned. They have been warned.
Tomorrow night we will see how they will vote. I should say for
the record what is going on here tonight. This is one of the
last debates on the amendments to the bill. We are having the
debate tonight in extended hours because government members,
again in an effort to push the legislation through the House,
moved a motion that we would have extended hours. We have
extended hours and there has only been passion in this debate by
members of the New Democratic Party.
On behalf of the people of Cape Breton, I want to thank the 20
members of the fourth party in the House who have led the fight
with my colleague and myself to try to bring forward some
justice. It has only been us. We have been alone.
Let me conclude by talking about what a miner's wife said to me
who came to testify before the committee. I ask Liberal members
to listen. I will admit that after she testified we went out for
a beer. There were two young former Liberals there. We went
down to D'Arcy McGee's for a beer and surprise, surprise, there
was a Cape Breton band playing. The bar was packed as they
played Celtic music. This woman looked at me and said “Peter, I
do not understand it. They like our music. They like our
culture. Why do they hate us so much?”
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no quorum.
Call in the members.
1900
[Translation]
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see a quorum.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Madam Speaker, it is the second time in three
hours I have had the opportunity to rise in defence of Cape
Breton miners. Mind you, my hon. colleagues from Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton and Sydney—Victoria seem to do an extremely good job on
their own in defending the interests of Canada and workers within
the Cape Breton area.
My number one concern is that the member of the New Democratic
Party from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar understands the situation
completely and wholeheartedly but the Minister of Natural
Resources who comes from Saskatchewan does not even have a clue
as to what is going on. Why is that? Why is it that the
minister displays such arrogance toward Cape Breton people that
it permeates throughout the entire Liberal caucus and over to
members of the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc and the Conservative
Party who have been very silent on this serious issue.
One story I have not yet told in the House is that my father
worked in the coal mines of Holland. After the war he was an
electrician and worked in the coal mines in the south of Holland
in the territory of Limburg. In the late 1950s and early 1960s
Holland decided to shut down the coal mines. The answer at that
time was outmigration. For thousands of people, including my
mother, father and six of us, and I was just eight months old,
the only answer was to leave the country.
My father was a POW during the war. Holland was liberated by the
Canadians. The 55th anniversary of the liberation of Holland is
this year and there will be a big celebration in Halifax from
June 10 to 14. That was a little plug for my veteran friends.
My father always said that with a military like that, imagine
what kind of country it is. In 1956 we came to Canada. During
the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s we prospered and did very well as a
large family. If my father were alive today, he would hang his
head in shame over what the Liberals are doing to the people and
the miners of Cape Breton.
The amendments the two members from Cape Breton have put forward
are very simple and reasonable. They are almost identical to
amendments Jean-Luc Pepin proposed in 1967, as we heard the hon.
member for Sydney—Victoria say. They are almost word for word
what one of the famous Liberals said back in the 1960s.
What do the Liberals of the year 2000 say? There is complete
silence. They obey like lapdogs and sheep. I know most of them
are not. I know most Liberals personally and they are very
independent thinkers and fight for their constituents as well.
But when it comes to legislation like this, they become lapdogs
and sheep in the hands of one individual.
That individual is the Minister of Natural Resources.
He has displayed his arrogance on every single question when it
comes to Devco. His attitude is one of resistance, not one of
help, understanding or anything else.
1905
As the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria has stated very clearly,
the Liberals have a very simple task to do. Ask the minister
tomorrow or whenever they get the opportunity, will Cape Breton
coal be used in Nova Scotia power? It is a very simple question.
We want to have economic opportunities. The people of Cape
Breton have a right to economic opportunities, as do all
Canadians from coast to coast coast. As the hon. member for
Sydney—Victoria pointed out, it may very well be imported coal
that fuels the power for Nova Scotia. That does not make any
sense at all.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar pointed out that
in Berlin the Prime Minister was talking about the Canadian way
and how we have a public pension and everything else but he
forgot to mention that it was the Liberal government through
forced legislation with closure that took the $30 billion surplus
from the superannuation fund. That superannuation money belonged
to all current and retired members of the public service. That
$30 billion was taken in a flash. The money belonged to retired
judges, military personnel, RCMP, public service workers and
anyone who has ever worked for the public service. The money was
taken by the Liberals to use at their bidding.
It is very similar to what the Liberals did with the EI
legislation which also hurt the people of Cape Breton. They took
that money in a huge surplus. Of course, the Canadian Alliance's
position in its 1997 document was to give it back to the
employers, forget the workers and just give it back to the
employers.
The New Democratic Party is here to ensure that all parties,
especially the government, do not ignore the workers and the
plight of the families of Cape Breton. I can tell anyone
listening out there and our fans in the gallery here that if the
government can do it to Cape Breton, it can do it to any other
spot across the country. Why? The precedent will have already
been set.
Let me remind the government that the people do not want its
pensions. They do not want a handout. They do not want buyout
packages. They do not want to sit around. They want to be able
to work, just like every other Canadian across the country. All
they are asking the centrally based and centrally thinking
government to do is to get out of the Windsor to Quebec City
corridor and send a committee down to Cape Breton to listen to
the stories and the truth. It would hear about the impact of the
government's decisions on Cape Breton's people, families who have
been there for generations and generations.
I am the New Democratic Party's critic for fisheries and oceans.
I have seen what former Conservative and current Liberal policies
have done when the enactment of DFO policies hit the inshore
fishermen of Nova Scotia, and all of Atlantic Canada for that
matter. It was absolutely devastating.
We all remember the 1992 cod collapse when 40,000 Atlantic
Canadians were forced onto the welfare and assistance rolls and
their livelihoods were taken away. What was the answer?
Corporatization of a public resource, the fish stocks, and the
system of ITQs, individual transferable quotas, given away to
corporations, many of them large financial contributors to the
Liberal Party over the years. If we connect the dots and follow
the money, we will see exactly why the decisions of the Liberal
Party have been made.
For the life of me, I cannot understand for one second why a
backbench Liberal would not accept the rational amendments in
Groups Nos. 2 and 3 in order to have Cape Breton representation
in the bill. That is all we are asking for, for them to have
representation when decisions are made. They do not like
decisions being made in Ottawa. They want decisions that are
made for the people of Cape Breton by the people of Cape Breton.
That is common sense and, I would say to the Prime Minister who
is now in Windsor, it is the real Canadian way.
It is too bad that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the
Official Opposition, the leader of the Bloc, and Mr. Joe Clark of
the Conservative Party collectively did not have the backbone and
spine of our leader the hon. member for Halifax. If they did,
they would understand exactly what is going on.
1910
As the member for Winnipeg North Centre said about the tragedy
of what is happening to health care in this country, the only
solution for the Liberals, the Canadian Alliance and the
Conservative Party is to privatize it, just like they did to the
fish stocks. Again when the dots are connected it will end up in
their corporate friends' hands.
I must say it is unfortunate that the Atlantic caucus of the
Liberal Party came up with something called “Catch the Wave”.
In it was a shipbuilding policy. They have been snooping in on
NDP caucus meetings again because we have been fighting for that
as well. It is another example of how the Liberal Party again has
constantly ignored the issues which affect Atlantic Canada, my
new home province of Nova Scotia and the beautiful island of Cape
Breton.
There was a gentleman here before, a 17 year member of the
Liberal Party, named David Dingwall. Where is David right now?
Whoops, he lost. There was another member, and I am sure a lot
of Liberals are very appreciative of the fact that Mr. Doug Young
is now gone. When we speak to a lot of the Liberals, they are
very pleased that man is gone, along with his arrogance which he
displayed to the Canadian people and Atlantic Canada.
I only have one minute left but I just want to say this one last
time and I say it practically on bended knee. I cannot get down
because I will be ruled out of order. To my friends in the
Liberal Party and to members on this side of the House,
especially to my friends in the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc and
the Conservative Party, please have a good night's sleep tonight.
I ask them to look into their hearts and support the amendments
brought forward by our two Cape Breton representatives. I assure
everyone that things will go much smoother in Cape Breton if such
a thing is done.
I have appreciated the opportunity to speak once again on behalf
of the wonderful people of Cape Breton.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues from the New Democratic
Party caucus speak passionately tonight about a part of the
country that I love so dearly, I remember being a young child
living in Glace Bay.
I am very proud to say that I am a daughter of a coal miner. My
grandfather was in the coal mine when he was 11 years of age. I
remember my first day at school. The teacher went around and
asked us about our heritage, whether we were Irish or Scottish.
I went home and asked my grandfather what my heritage was. He
stood and adamantly said to me, “You are a Canadian and you
should forever be proud of being a Canadian, because we live in
such a wonderful democratic country”. Unfortunately it is fair
to say that my grandfather is probably turning over in his grave
right now because I do not feel much like a good Canadian.
When we look at the amendments in Group No. 3, as we have heard
from all of my colleagues, the amendments are not tying the hands
of the government. Motion No. 14 says that “the corporation, in
conjunction with the Government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or
any agency of either of those governments, shall adopt and
continue all reasonable measures deemed necessary to reduce as
far as possible the unemployment or economic hardship that is
expected to result from the closing, privatization or reduction
in the production of coal”.
Some would argue that members of the government do not want to
support that amendment because they themselves are not really
sure of the economic or social impact, but that is not true. The
government's own document commissioned by the Prime Minister in
1995 told the government of the social and economic impact of
privatizing Devco.
As we know, a study that the government commissions, especially
when it is with respect to a strategy to allow foreign
investment, is a very detailed document which talks about the
loss of tax revenue both provincially and federally.
It talks about the service sector and by what percentage it will
be cut in Cape Breton.
1915
It is fair to say that, unfortunately, the government did know
what Bill C-11 would do to Cape Breton.
I was taught that government works by people making their case,
by people making their argument. We tried that at committee.
Unfortunately, there were less than six hours of hearings. I
talked to some of my colleagues who have been here a lot longer
than I. They have never seen a piece of legislation at any other
committee dealt with the way Bill C-11 was. There was no
steering committee set up to discuss how long we would hold
hearings, how many witnesses we would hear, or whether the
committee would travel. None of that was done with Bill C-11. I
cannot help but ask myself why. Is it because the government
could not? Is it because the government would not? Or, is it
because the government did not want to?
I have received a number of phone calls from miners, their wives
and their children who are watching tonight, listening to the
only people in the House of Commons who are talking about what is
important to them, the members of the New Democratic Party. That
is not new to us in the New Democratic Party. We have always
been and will continue to be committed to workers.
A number of my colleagues made reference to a number of, shall
we say, Liberals with a heart from years ago. I came across an
interesting quote: “Business has a responsibility to eliminate
the human deficit of unemployment. Canada must work not just for
the powerful and the privileged, but for ordinary Canadians”. I
think it is pretty safe to say that is what we are saying in the
NDP caucus. That is the job and the responsibility of
government.
It is interesting that the quote I just read was made by the
Prime Minister on February 27, 1996. Clearly, once again what we
have seen is nothing but empty words and empty promises from the
government.
I have another quote: “No one in the Chrétien government
approves of the kind of corporate downsizing that is going on
without having regard to the long term effect on communities in
terms of the people”. Who was that infamous individual? None
other than the finance minister, who was quoted in Regina on
March 6, 1996.
Once again we have had nothing in Cape Breton but broken
promises from the Liberal government. Have Cape Bretoners asked
for something they are not entitled to? I do not think so. All
they have asked for is support from their government.
A few moments ago I heard a government member heckle “You do
not want them to continue to be dependent”. Who created the
dependency? Why was the dependency created? Some would say it
was created because once the government has a dependency then it
has control. To a degree that was correct. The Liberal
government did have control of Cape Breton until 1997. It did
have control of Nova Scotia until 1997. It does not have it any
more, because Cape Bretoners have now recognized what the
government is doing.
We heard about a miner's wife who received a letter from the
Prime Minister. In the middle of the provincial election
campaign, all of a sudden a letter came from the Prime Minister
saying “Don't worry. Be happy. We will look into it. We will
look after the miners”.
That letter was worth about as much as the words that I just read
from the Prime Minister. I have to ask myself why.
1920
I have gone to schools and I have talked to kids about how
important it is for them to have principles and integrity. One
of the most difficult questions I have had asked of me in the
three years since I became a member of parliament was when I
recently went to my daughter's grade five class. The kids were
wonderful. They wanted to know about parliament, what we do here
and how we do it. A little hand rose up in the back of the
classroom and a girl said to me “Miss Dockrill, may I ask you a
question?” I said “Yes, dear”. She said “My dad is a miner
and my dad is not going to have a job any more. The next time
you go to Ottawa can you ask the Prime Minister why I am not
important to him?”
I will leave that question with the few Liberal members that we
have in the House tonight to see if they can find an answer to
that question, because I do not have an answer for that little
girl. I do not know why she is not important to this government.
Maybe it is as my colleague said, she is not from Ontario. I
hope I am wrong, but unfortunately, with what we continue to see
from this government, it is no wonder we have 10 year old
children in Cape Breton saying “Why don't we count?”
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, recently, this week and last week, there has been a
great deal of discussion on the Hill about the consequences of
the Westray disaster. There has been a motion already before the
House and now there is a bill before the House from the hon.
member for Halifax having to do with finding a way through the
criminal code to deal with the contempt that mine owners
sometimes show for the lives of their workers by virtue of
negligence with respect to safety in the workplace.
There is another way to show contempt for the lives of miners
and workers. We can show contempt for them by the way we
dispose, in this case, of the property, of the place where they
have made a lifetime vocational commitment. I am talking about
the coal miners of Cape Breton, many of whom have worked for
Devco for literally decades, some of them 30 years, 40 years;
many 25 years, 20 years. We see the government moving to
privatize Devco. I am against privatization in any event. I
have seen the effect of other privatizations. It is an
ideological fixation that I once associated with the Tories and I
used to find surprising on the part of the Liberals, but now they
have actually become even bigger and better privatizers than the
Tories.
It is not just privatization in principle; it is also what is
going on in particular with respect to Devco. What is happening,
and this is what the government is not willing to do anything
about or to fess up about, is that really what it is selling is
not Devco. It is not a mine that someone else will take over and
run to produce coal and sell coal to Nova Scotia Power or to
other markets. What it is selling is a franchise to sell coal to
Nova Scotia Power, which is a significant user of coal.
The fear of my colleagues from Cape Breton, miners in Cape Breton
and the people in those communities is that the real agenda is
not to transfer ownership; it is really just a way of selling
this contract to sell coal to Nova Scotia Power. The mine
itself, the machinery and all of the other things, including the
employees, are a disposable part of the deal. The real heart of
the deal, the real kernel, is the franchise to sell coal to Nova
Scotia Power.
1925
We would not be surprised if whoever buys Devco is not just
someone who wants to go into the coal mining business, but rather
someone who is already in the business of mining and selling coal
from somewhere else. They do not have to take over Devco in the
real sense of the word. They do not have to produce coal in Cape
Breton. All they have to do is buy Devco to get the franchise or
contract to sell coal to Nova Scotia Power, and they have a
ticket to great wealth from here on in, courtesy of the Liberal
government and the Liberal backbenchers who have their hands over
their eyes when it comes to seeing what is really going on here.
Mr. Lou Sekora: Has the NDP taken over?
Mr. Bill Blaikie: I hear the hon. member for Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam making his usual incoherent
noises, Madam Speaker.
The point is that it is the people of Cape Breton and the miners
who have worked all these years for Devco who have been put
aside.
I might say that we stand here very much in the tradition of
former members of parliament from Cape Breton, New Democrat and
CCF members. There were members such as Clarence Gillis and Andy
Hogan, with whom I had the opportunity to serve in this place for
a brief period of time. This same great tradition has been
served ably and well by the hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape
Breton and the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.
All through the years we have been arguing for the welfare of
the miners, and even when it came to this bill we realized that
the government had the ability to get its way. It has the
numbers. It used them tonight, in co-operation with other
parties I might add, to impose a form of closure on this debate.
What is really galling is that it has not been willing to accept
even the slightest amendment to its bill. We have seen this
before. It is an unfortunate trend. There was a time in the
House of Commons when members of the opposition knew they could
not get amendments accepted which changed the basic intent of the
bill or which significantly altered the consequences of the bill,
but they could impose upon the conscience of government members
to accept amendments which would make the transition a little
easier, which would provide for a context after the
implementation of the legislation, or which would ameliorate some
of the possible consequences of the bill.
That is what our members from Cape Breton have been trying to do
and in every way they have been met by a kind of intransigence,
which I know has frustrated them in their efforts and has
frustrated us. Let us look at some of the amendments they wanted
to move.
They wanted to provide for at least one employee representative
to sit on the Devco board of directors. That is radical. One
employee representative to sit on the Devco board of directors. I
am sure the Prime Minister, when he was over giving his third way
speech, which really should have been called the zero way speech,
was probably talking about involving workers and all kinds of
flowery stuff. Here the Liberal government had an opportunity to
include one employee representative on the Devco board of
directors, and what do we get? Zilch. Nothing. Diddly-squat.
Intransigence. Resistance.
This is not just an insult to the members who move these
amendments; it is an insult to the people of Cape Breton. They
must be asking themselves what kind of attitude the Liberal
government has toward them that it would not trust them to have
one employee representative sit on the Devco board, or a
residency requirement ensuring that a majority of the directors
of Devco live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected
by the corporation's decisions. If the government were really
concerned about the consequences of this privatization for the
community, would it not want to see members of the community on
the successor board to make sure the new corporation had some
sensitivity?
If the government thought that a majority of the directors is too
much for it to live with, it could have reduced it and provided
some other number.
1930
The list goes on: ensure that one-third of the directors of
Devco are representatives of the employees' pension association.
There are a lot of pensioners after a lot of privatization who
have been absolutely beat up and mugged by the consequences of
privatization.
I can think of two in particular. When a previous government
privatized CN Express is a good example. The people who took it
over had no regard for the well-being of workers or pensioners
and a long struggle ensued. There are all kinds of reasons to be
concerned about privatization.
Some privatizations have gone reasonably well and there has not
been anything to worry about. One of the ways to make sure we do
not have anything to worry about is to have people on the board
whose first loyalty is to pensioners and to the workers. Is
there any progress on that? Not at all.
The list goes on and it is why we have chosen this evening to
raise this matter and to speak, one New Democrat after the other,
in order to make the point one final time that what the
government is doing is wrong. This debate over the Devco
legislation has been going on for some time now, not just in the
House but in committee. It is wrong for the people of Cape
Breton. It is wrong for the miners. It is wrong for the
communities. It is a violation of everything that a number of
former Liberal members of parliament and Liberal cabinet
ministers used to stand up for. It is a sign of just how
depraved and deprived the Liberal Party has become that it would
even consider doing what it is doing here tonight.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak to the third group of motions, Motions
Nos. 13, 14 and 15. I am going to continue the speech I started
earlier to some extent.
A look at the history of Devco reveals that coal has been mined
on Cape Breton Island for 300 years. At its peak, the Cape
Breton coal industry employed over 17,000 individuals. During
the first and second world wars, Cape Breton's coal and steel
were vital to the Allied war effort.
Following the second world war, the coal and steel industry
declined significantly. In 1965, only 6,500 miners were left, and
the remaining mines had to close. The Cape Breton Development
Corporation was established under an act of parliament in 1967 as
a crown corporation in order to acquire and streamline the Cape
Breton coal mining industry and to create alternate jobs, through
the government and the development of industry. Devco was to
take stock and gradually cut out coal mining while creating new
jobs through local economic development.
However, the federal government decided to begin developing new
mines in order to meet energy needs following the OPEC crisis and
with the rise in the price of oil in the early 1970s.
In 1980, the number of jobs dropped to 4,300 miners and the
number has continued to drop since then, because of developments
in technology. Since 1992, only two mines have been in
operation, the Prince and the Phalen mines. In January 1999, the
federal government announced it was withdrawing from the coal
industry and that is would close the Phalen mine by the end of
2000, would begin the process of selling the Prince mine and
would dismantle the crown corporation.
1935
In the context of a 300 year case history like this one, I
really want to explain what a miner is. The Liberal member said
“We are sending money and we have to pay for them. It is time to
put a stop to that. These people must be able to fend for
themselves”. That is almost the message they sent.
To be honest, I was insulted by that comment. As a former miner,
I know what kind of work is involved. I worked underground. I
know what miners did at Geco, in Manitouwadge, and I know what
they do in Sudbury. I met these people.
I worked at Geco. I also worked at the Brunswick mine for 15
years. When I was working there and representing the unions, I
had the opportunity to visit other mines. I went to Tucson,
Arizona, where miners work underground. I am familiar with the
work that these people perform. It is not easy work. A miner gets
up at about 6 a.m. and begins his shift around 8 a.m.
I will tell a little story. Teachers from a nearby village came
to visit our mine. They said “Miners are lucky, they are
well-paid, perhaps too well”. That was the comment made by
visitors before going down in the mine.
When these people put on miners' gear, heavy miners' safety
boots, with battery-operated head lamps, shovels, coveralls, and
protective helmets and went underground and walked on the rock
face, and finished a four hour shift, what was their reaction?
That miners were not paid enough. Four hours earlier, these same
people were saying that miners were paid too much.
When I was a shop steward in the Brunswick mine, a foreman told
us that we were not working in K-Mart. I agreed with him. It is
true that they are not working in K-Mart. They are not working
with Smarties and candies. They are working with rocks, and
rocks can kill. Smarties do not kill people. It is perhaps not
healthy to eat too much chocolate, but it does not kill people.
It does not fall on their head and kill them.
Miners have to go underground, dig tunnels, blow up rock, and
dig. They must prepare the ground. In the Brunswick mine, we
buried six of our fellow workers in 18 months in 1976. That is
not easy. In the Westray mine, they lost 26 of their co-workers
underground; 11 of them are still buried there. That is not
easy.
For 300 years, the people of Cape Breton have mined coal, and we
see what they get today—uncertainty. They do not know what
awaits them tomorrow. They do not know what awaits them in six
months.
I am perhaps repeating what I said earlier, but it is important
to tell Canadians over and over what the Liberals are doing to
Cape Breton right now. The members for Sydney—Victoria and Bras
D'Or—Cape Breton have explained to the House since the beginning
how important it was for Cape Breton to try to save the jobs in
the mines.
I saw the women of Cape Breton when they came here to meet with
us. They had tears running down their cheeks because they did
not know what would happen to their husbands should Bill C-11 be
passed.
I can assure hon. members that a miner who works underground all
day is dirtier than we are by the end of the day. It is not
easy to be a miner. He has spent his day digging and setting
explosive charges to get the mineral out of the ground. It is
even worse for coal miners; they come out as black as coal.
Imagine, if their bodies are that black, what about their lungs?
1940
As I said earlier, it is not true that a miner 40 or 45 years
old can easily find a job elsewhere. Coal mines are not all
over the place.
Working in a coal mine is different from working in a zinc,
copper or gold mine. The difference is between what is called
hard rock mining and soft mining. They are not in the least the
same.
It is not true that a miner who leaves Cape Breton to try to
find a job in another mine is going to find one overnight.
It is not true that there will be work the day after, because the
Caribou mine in New Brunswick is closed, the Heath-Steele mine is
closed and all the miners are out looking for work. There are no
jobs today.
These are our people. The people of Bathurst, New Brunswick,
Newcastle, Chatham, Petit-Rocher, Beresford, Caraquet, Tracadie,
Shippagan, Saint-Isidore, Allardville, Saint-Sauveur and
Robertville are still looking for work. Are the people of Cape
Breton going to find it? This will be another surplus of
unemployed miners. Mines do not open at the drop of a hat.
The federal government and the Liberals are saying “Let's catch
the wave in the Atlantic. We have to garner votes. We lost all
the seats in the Atlantic provinces”. If they want to gain the
upper hand, it is time they looked after these miners, they
provided something definite for them and they relieved them of
the fear of having no money the next day to put food on the
table.
Welfare is not the answer for miners who have served their
country all their life, who have worked for years and years in
coal mines in order to provide energy for Nova Scotia and part of
our country. Treating them this way is unacceptable.
This is why we are saying to the government that it should be
ashamed for refusing to send a parliamentary committee to meet
these people and face the music.
Now that these points have been made, members must not forget
who has spoken in the House this evening. The Liberals are
certainly not trying to save the miners' jobs.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Despite the fact that close to a third of the New
Democratic caucus is here, I do not think we have a quorum in the
House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I do not see a
quorum. Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see a quorum.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the third group of motions on Bill C-11, the
bill to divest the government of Cape Breton coal mines.
Earlier this evening on the second group of motions I spoke
about federal government policy mistakes in the 1980s that have
left Devco in the state it is in today. First, there was the
decision not to develop the Donkin mine. Some 300,000 tonnes of
coal which would have allowed for a healthy transition to a
diverse economy were not mined. Federal and provincial
government money instead went into the development of Westray,
which we now know was a colossal disaster for many people in Nova
Scotia.
The mine is not viable now because of short-sighted government
decisions. Even though the coal is there, the markets are there
and the miners are there, the government is divesting itself of
Cape Breton coal mines.
Where will that leave the people of Cape Breton? I have some
thoughts on that. Many members who have spoken very eloquently
today have other thoughts on that.
I want to look at the areas of poverty, out-migration,
employment, education and housing.
1945
First, I will talk about poverty. As would be expected in an
area of high unemployment, the Cape Breton region has the worst
poverty in Nova Scotia. Three of Nova Scotia's four poorest
counties, as measured by the economic dependency ratio, are in
the Cape Breton region, Cape Breton county, where the Phalen and
Prince mines are located. Cape Breton county, with 13% of Nova
Scotia's population in 1997, had 26% of social assistance
recipients and 30% of workmen's compensation claimants.
I will now talk about out-migration. To the extent that former
Devco employees are able to relocate, they will add to Cape
Breton's chronic population decline. The population decline is
not uniform across age groups. Between 1993 and 1998, the Cape
Breton region had a net out-migration of minus 5,632. Cape
Breton county bore the brunt of this population loss with 4,517.
Of these, over 2,000 were in the age group of 18 to 24, all of
our young people. Over 1,000 were in the age group of 25 to 44.
Many in this latter group migrated with their children,
accounting for a loss through migration of 665 in the under 17
age group.
What is the impact of all this economic devastation on
education? There was a sharp decline in school enrolment, down
21% in Cape Breton and Victoria counties between 1985 and 1999,
with a province wide decrease of only 7%. With provincial school
funding based on a per student formula, this has made it
difficult for Cape Breton schools to provide needed programming.
Significant out-migration of former Devco employees and their
families will aggravate this problem.
What about housing? Another impact of the declining population
is on housing sales and prices. The great majority of Cape
Bretoners own their own homes. Houses are hard to sell in Cape
Breton. It will likely be very difficult to relocate Devco
employees and to help them sell their houses. Cape Breton is in
a crisis and the Devco closure will make it even worse.
The Prime Minister is in Europe right now talking about the
Canadian way. I want to send the government a simple message
about Canada. We are a country which has always believed that
the Canadian way involves responsible government. When one shuts
down the mines and sits idly by as the provinces shut down the
Cape Breton steel industry, the community is devastated. That is
not responsible government. That is simply cruelty.
Cape Breton will not be the same with the closure of the mine.
The infrastructure will be gone and it will not be rebuilt by the
private sector. What is being done by the bill will not be
undone. Having short term and stop gap solutions which are
cleverly labelled transition funds gives no hope to communities
like Sydney, Glace Bay, New Waterford, Dominion and many others.
These communities have had their futures sold and the obvious
response of the government is that it does not care.
If the members opposite force Bill C-11 into law then they
obviously do not understand the consequences of their actions or
they do not care about the future of Cape Breton.
Cape Bretoners are not looking for handouts. They want to work.
They want to have a future for their families on the island. They
want to control their own future, as we all do, and they want the
major collective instrument which all Canadians have available to
them, and that is our government, to act as a partner for their
future not as an enemy who will deprive them of hope.
Like the people who founded this country, Cape Bretoners want a
responsible government, one which listens, one which they feel
will be there when they need it and one which will be willing to
support them if that means helping all Canadians.
Sadly, with Bill C-11 we are seeing that none of these glorious
goals our country was built on are reflected or supported, only
dismantled.
1950
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again in this debate, but
on a new group of motions, and speak to Bill C-11.
Before I get into the specifics of those motions, it is obvious
to anyone watching that we in the NDP caucus feel passionately
about what is happening in Cape Breton. It is for that reason
that we are speaking in this debate in relatively large numbers,
since we have a small caucus. Most of our caucus members have
been here either this afternoon or this evening talking on the
bill.
We in the NDP felt that before the legislation went forward, and
this goes back a bit in time, that Cape Bretoners should have had
a chance to have a say about what was happening. That was one of
the reasons we and they felt aggrieved in this process and why we
have stood here this afternoon and this evening. It is also why
the NDP proposed amendments that would have allowed the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations to hold
hearings in Cape Breton before the legislation was voted on at
second reading.
In its haste to ram the legislation to close Devco through
parliament, the government rejected that legislation, and not
only that, rammed it through in a way that really limited the
debate. We were opposed to that in other cases and in this case
we are opposed to it even more.
There are a number of things that the government did not do
right by the people of Cape Breton. As I said, it squashed the
debate on second reading of the bill, which was not right in this
place and not right for the people in Cape Breton.
The government also decided to end debate before a settlement
had been reached on the issue of miners' pensions and severance.
As many other people in our caucus have mentioned today, the
arbitrator slapped the government on the wrist over that. If it
is not feeling embarrassed, it well should.
The legislation was pushed through before any decision was made
about the remediation of mines sites or long term economic
development to replace the jobs that would be lost. In question
period earlier today, one of my colleagues asked the Minister for
Natural Resources if the money for severance would come out of
the existing package for economic development or would it be new
money.
I do not know how many ways there are to evade answers but that
is just what the minister did. We still do not know this evening
whether the extra amount of money that will come for pensions
will actually be new money, which is as it should be, or whether
it will be skimmed from the existing package that has been put
forward.
I cannot help but think of some similarities between what is
happening in Cape Breton and what has happened in my own area of
the country, in western Canada, in the way in which the
government has dealt with getting its way on some major things,
with a great relevance to the economy of the regions.
In this bill it is the Devco mine which is a fixture in Cape
Breton and terribly important to the economy and to the lives of
individuals in the community.
In western Canada, to take one example, we had the Crow's Nest
Pass freight rates on moving prairie grain. I will not go into
all the details of how and why western Canadians were able to
negotiate that in confederation, but it essentially relates to
the fact that we are a large landlocked area and there was no
competition in the moving of grain over large distances from farm
to port. I might also add that over time the railroads have been
given immense subsidies in land, money, and other things that
accrued to them for building the railroads. We thought we had
this benefit, one of the few benefits to our farm community,
forever.
The government began a move to get rid of it. The ways in which
it did that bears some resemblance to the ways in which it has
operated here. It made its plans in the dark of night and behind
closed doors. It was only when it had something to announce that
it told people and then it would announce it in such a way that
it was very difficult for the community to mobilize.
To make a long and sad story short, the Crow rate was taken away
from us by the Liberal government in the 1990s. It said it would
tide the farmers over by giving them a payment. The one time
payment was made but it was kind of like buying people with their
own money.
The one time payment was made and then along came this government
which got rid of the Crow benefit.
1955
What have we seen happen? We have now seen freight rates for
moving western grain move up, depending where the benchmark is
set, from three to six times. Now when farmers get a green slip,
as they do when they send grain out, they find that between 30%
and 40% of that gross amount goes to freight rates.
The similarity I see here is that we have people saying, “This
will be better for you in the long run”. Is it not interesting
how the people who think something will be better for us in the
long run, short term pain for long term gain, are seldom people
who are suffering from short term pain. They always think it
will be better for us but they do not mind the very difficult
transition period that is necessary which can break communities,
families and individuals.
My colleagues in the NDP caucus, especially the members from
Cape Breton, have moved a number of amendments. Regarding this
third group, I would like to describe them as amendments that
would really soften what seems to be the inevitable, the
privatization of this company. By and large these amendments
want changes, if changes are being made, to be made in a way that
will guard and take into consideration the needs for employment
in the region. We are not at all convinced by what we have seen
that the privatization of this company will put any priority on
that.
These amendments in Group No. 3 really speak to what we believe
may or may not be the government's intentions as to what it is
doing. We believe and know that the corporation is for sale. We
do not know to whom. We do not know under what conditions.
Coal has been mined in Cape Breton for decades and decades but
we do not know if a new buyer will mine coal there anymore. A
new buyer might simply be buying what one of my colleagues
described as a franchise, the right to supply coal for Nova
Scotia Power and others, but will it put any priority on
employment? We do not know that and that is the reason we are
standing here and the reason we are prolonging this debate to the
extent that we are. We do not know if we are getting, as we used
to say in farm country, a pig in a poke. We do not know if the
new buyer will continue mining. We do not know what will happen
to people's jobs. We know that people will get laid off but we
do not know what the conditions will be.
In the previous group of motions we wanted to ensure that at
least some of the people involved in the boards of directors
would have some sensitivity to the local community. We had the
audacity to suggest that people on the board of directors for
Devco, which is important to Cape Breton and has been over all
these years, would actually be from the community and represent
the community's best interests. We do not have any such
guarantee.
In a sense we might say there are privatizations and there are
privatizations. None of us in this caucus are arguing that
everything always has to remain the way it has been, but there
are ways in which one can deal with people and then there are
other ways in which one can deal with people.
We are very concerned in this case that the government is taking
privatization to mean something much different than what we in
this caucus and members of the community would consider it to be.
That is the reason that we feel so passionately about this.
This government's record on privatization is anything but
reassuring. I think of CN rail. It used to be a national
company. It has long since ceased to be a company that takes the
needs of its customers much less their communities into account.
There are two things we can now say about the new CN rail. First,
it has had a record profit, and second, it has been gobbled up by
an American conglomerate. We are afraid that will happen here.
There are many other examples we could give. I could give the
example of Air Canada which is a raw nerve for many of us. What
has happened to Air Canada? What has happened to its social
responsibility, its knowledge that it was performing a national
function? That is out the window. All it talks about now is
shareholders.
In summary, this group of motions put forward by my NDP caucus
colleagues want to ensure that if there is going to be a
privatization, that there is a priority put upon employment of
the people who are affected by this in Cape Breton. We will not
rest until that happens.
2000
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to speak
to Bill C-11 and in particular to focus on the third group of
motions. This is another attempt by the New Democratic Party
caucus to convince the Liberal government to hear the concerns of
Canadians, particularly the people of Cape Breton who have felt
the harsh realities of the government's negative policies.
I think people will notice that if it were not for the NDP
caucus here in parliament this evening, there would be no debate
and an issue of grave significance for a large region of the
country would be virtually ignored. We may be only 20 members in
a House of 301, but we will do our utmost to make the voices of
Canadians heard, voices which otherwise would not be heard in
this place. As we said when we were elected, we will do whatever
we can to wake up the Liberals and shake up Ottawa. I see that
some of the Liberals are awake tonight. I hope they will hear the
message we bring to them through this group of motions which are
very constructive propositions that should be seriously
considered.
Earlier today I tried to wake up the Liberals to what they are
doing by drawing parallels between Bill C-11 and Ralph Klein's
bill 11. It would be worthwhile to go over the similarities one
more time in the interests of making a difference this evening.
The purpose of bill 11 in Alberta is to privatize health care.
It is the first time in the history of this country that the
possibility of private hospitals in our otherwise universally
accessible, publicly administered health care system is real.
Compare that to Bill C-11 brought to Canadians by the Liberals
and note that it is about the privatization of the Cape Breton
Development Corporation. It is the dissolution of an economic
development corporation that has been a part of the history of
Cape Breton for many years. There is privatization on the one
hand with Ralph Klein and health care, and on the other hand
there is privatization with the federal Liberals when it comes to
economic development in the region of Cape Breton.
The second similarity is on democracy and the opportunity for
people to be heard, to make a difference and to have their
concerns taken into account. When it comes to bill 11 in
Alberta, thousands and thousands of Albertans demanded to be
heard. Ralph Klein decided that the views of those thousands of
Albertans and Canadians everywhere were not important enough to
be considered and arbitrarily proceeded with the bill. Of course
we know the outcome today. Just a few days ago bill 11 received
royal assent.
Let us look at the whole process of democracy when it comes to
the government's Bill C-11 and the essence of why we are here
today. The government refused to allow open public hearings
before proceeding down the path of the dissolution of Cape Breton
Development Corporation. We are here today because the
government has denied any opportunity for the people most
affected to have their voices heard.
In both cases the pattern is the same. They are autocratic,
undemocratic, heavy handed approaches to decision making. As my
colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, at least the Liberals are
consistent. Absolutely. Day in and day out there are nothing
but examples from the government of this kind of heavy handed,
undemocratic approach.
Let me talk about the next similarity between Bill C-11 put
forward by the Liberals and bill 11 put forward by the
Conservatives or the reformers in Alberta. It is a question of
who is supporting the bill. Let us look at what is happening.
Contrary to the wishes of most Canadians, the Liberals are lined
up with Canadian Alliance members, Conservatives and the old
reformers. Together in one voice they are supporting these two
initiatives. On the one hand there was passive acceptance by the
Liberal government when it came to bill 11 in Alberta and today
with Bill C-11 there is proactive, initiated privatization on the
part of the Liberal government. It is all the same whether we sit
by and let it happen or we actually make it happen. It is the
same outcome for Canadians.
2005
The outcome of these two bills is very similar. When it comes
to bill 11 in Alberta we know what will happen if the bill is
allowed to be proclaimed. It will mean for the first time in the
history of medicare the possibility of hospital services being
delivered by private for profit corporations. There is a hope, a
possibility that it can be stopped, that the dangerous path
embarked upon can be halted by some decisive moves on the part of
the federal Liberals. We will continue to pressure the health
minister and his colleagues to do just that before it is too
late.
Let us look at the outcome of Bill C-11 brought to us by the
federal Liberals. Again we are dealing with a survival of the
fittest scenario. Those who can somehow eke out an existence
without the support of the Cape Breton Development Corporation,
those miners who can find other gainful employment or some
security in their older years will survive. The rest will fall
by the way, thanks to the government.
The similarities are absolute. It may be a coincidence that we
are dealing with two bills numbered 11, but the outcome and
realities are the same.
I want to touch on a couple of other points. One is that the
government suggests time and time again that we on this side of
the House should get with it, that with the new global economy we
should change our ways, recognize that things like the Cape
Breton Development Corporation are no longer feasible in this day
and age and we have to tighten our belts and learn to accept
these new realities.
There is another way other than the callous approach by the
Liberal government. In mentioning that, I also want to point out
the hypocrisy, if that is permissible in parliamentary terms, the
double message of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister goes
outside the country and delivers a speech on the Canadian way and
says:
The success we have achieved as a nation has come not only from
strong growth but from an abiding commitment to strong values,
caring and compassion, an insistence that there be an equitable
sharing of the benefits of economic growth.
I am struck with the difference between those words and the
reality. It leaves us all to ask the question is this kind of
initiative, is Bill C-11 the Canadian way? Is that what the
Prime Minister meant? Is that where the Liberals are taking us
in the future?
Nobody on this side of the House is suggesting that there are
not changes to which we have to adapt and that global forces are
at hand, but there is a difference in how we approach our
responsibilities given those global trends, given technology and
so on. We may not be able to deny globalization. We cannot
always turn back the clock, but that does not mean we stop
exercising democratic means to shape the nature of the global
economy. It does not mean we leave to chance the kind of society
in which we live.
Globalization does not have to mean helplessness. It does not
have to mean an ever widening gap between the privileged few and
the rest of us. It does not have to mean a generation of young
people living in idleness. It does not have to mean leaving our
senior citizens who have built this country to fend for
themselves and survive by the seats of their pants.
The question for all of us is how can we channel trends like
globalization into things that work for people? We have to take
on the challenges but we have to do it based on the values the
Prime Minister talked about but which clearly do not serve to
guide him or his government in any way.
I want to end by simply saying that while we are not afraid of
something new, we also know we do not discard something just
because it is old. There are ideas and institutions which have
outlived their usefulness and ought to be discarded, but in our
eagerness to discard what is redundant and irrelevant, we must
take care not to throw overboard the moral and social values
without which human society would become a ruthless jungle.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very glad to take over the debate, to receive the baton passed
by my very capable colleague, the member for Winnipeg North
Centre who was making some excellent points when her time
unfortunately ran out.
2010
At this late hour of the night it is significant to note that it
is only the NDP that is standing up in defence of the people of
Cape Breton. Speaker after speaker after speaker from the New
Democratic Party caucus has tried to drive home the point that we
are trying to emphasize the fact that the people of Cape Breton
are not being well served by Bill C-11. In fact, Bill C-11 is so
fundamentally flawed that it needs and deserves the attention of
the nation and it deserves the attention of the House of Commons.
My seatmate here in the House of Commons, who is in fact my
roommate as well as we share an apartment in Ottawa, is the
member for Sydney—Victoria. We have become close friends. He
and I have visited each other in our ridings. The member for
Sydney—Victoria has visited me in the riding of Winnipeg Centre
and I in turn have visited Cape Breton, the riding of
Sydney—Victoria.
The one thing that struck us, even in the early part of our
relationship, was the similarities that exist for those of us who
live in regions outside central Canada. It is glaring and
obvious to anybody who does not live within the great heartland
where I suppose the power exists in central Canada just how our
issues are not reaching the national forefront. Our issues are
not being given the attention they deserve in terms of the
direction in which the country is going. This leads to a
resentment.
It is not any mystery why people resent central Canada. Frankly,
it is because people in regions outside central Canada feel
abandoned. They feel cut off. They feel adrift. Even if there
was once a pact that sought to bring us all together in a
national vision, that accord has been broken and shattered in
recent years. It has been destroyed by the government. Ironically
it was the Liberal Party in earlier years that created that
accord, people with better vision than those in the present
government. Notwithstanding the fact they may have been in rural
governments in a past era, the deal has been broken.
Previous speakers have pointed out that our Prime Minister has
been making speeches recently about the importance of making
globalization work for all people. He is speaking in global
terms. What he has not been talking about is making Canada work
for all regions. That seems to be an obsolete concept. That
seems to be a concept that was embraced by previous Liberal
governments and it has been abandoned by the present Liberal
government. Bill C-11 is the manifestation and personification
of that abandonment.
I want to speak to the Group No. 3 motions to amend Bill C-11.
We cannot really do that until we go through a bit of the history
of why it is necessary that we have these motions at all.
First and foremost, the reason we are debating this issue
tonight is that the Liberal government refused to bring the
debate to where it belongs, which is to the island of Cape Breton
to talk to the families of the Cape Breton miners and the people
who are directly affected by Devco. It was cowardly of the
government to introduce Bill C-11 and to close Devco without
consulting the people there.
What were the Liberals really afraid of? Were they afraid that
the wives and families of Cape Breton miners would come to them
at a public hearing and voice their concerns? Is that so
threatening? Is it so damaging that people might have an
alternate opinion about what we should do about the dissolution
of the Cape Breton Development Corporation? Cowardly is the only
word that comes to mind.
The fact that we are here so late at night discussing this,
trying to keep the House going so we can have this proper debate
only indicates we should have had this debate much earlier when
we had the opportunity. The government refused to go to Cape
Breton to consult. It left the miners of Cape Breton with no
alternative. Sometimes when the mechanism we put in place to
give ourselves satisfaction in terms of having our voices heard
collapses and falls apart, Canadians are left with no alternative
but civil disobedience.
I hate to say it but it is true, the miners of Cape Breton took
things into their own hands. We would not even be here today with
the small bit of satisfaction that Cape Breton miners will get
out of this dissolution if it were not for the courage of Cape
Breton miners to take over their mine by civil disobedience, to
strike illegally and to occupy the mine.
That took courage. That took strength. That indicates to me
that the government refused to listen to them and refused them
access to legitimate means of satisfaction, which should have
been available to them and this House of Commons through
legitimate debate, and should have been available to them at the
committee stage, when the committee could have actually toured
Cape Breton and listened to the concerns of Cape Breton miners.
2015
I am pleased that at the committee stage our party at least put
forward meaningful amendments. Some of those amendments now
stand before the House under Group No. 3, but they were raised at
committee first. We made legitimate, honest attempts to change
Bill C-11 to make it more fair, more just, more equitable, and
they were refused. They were just cast out. They were
categorically denied by the Liberal majority on the committee.
Some of those amendments were as reasonable as things like
guaranteeing that the people of Cape Breton would be represented
on any Devco board of directors in the future. How could anyone
think it would be in any way wrong for the people who are
directly affected to have representation? Honestly, it is
enormously frustrating for those of us who are still trying to
get some satisfaction out of this bill.
It is really no surprise that there are no Liberal
representatives from Cape Breton. I would say that Cape
Bretoners have lost any confidence in the Liberal government to
represent them adequately. There are only two members of
parliament from Cape Breton. They are both from the New
Democratic Party. I guess that explains partly why we are still
here standing for Cape Bretoners and trying to represent their
interests.
It comes to mind that there are no Liberal members of parliament
from all of Nova Scotia. That perhaps is significant.
The debate on Devco was quashed by the Liberal government. The
Liberal government has tried its best to deny voice to the people
of Cape Breton by ramming Bill C-11 through the House of Commons,
knowing full well that there are reasonable arguments to be made
to the contrary.
Many of the things brought forth by the member for
Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton two
and a half years ago now find themselves in the arbitration
award, the ruling that came down which resolved the illegal
walkout and the occupation of the Prince Mine. Yes, the people
of Cape Breton took the action of an illegal strike and an
occupation of the mine, but to their very great credit they were
reasonable enough to say that they would end the occupation if
the government put the matter to binding arbitration.
They were confident that their argument had enough merit that an
objective outside third party would see the merit in their
arguments, would agree and would rule with them. It takes great
courage for people to throw their future into the laps of an
outside third party, which they did.
We are pleased to say that in very recent days this arbitration
ruling came down. I believe it was on Friday, June 2.
Ironically, that was the third anniversary of the election which
saw every Liberal member of parliament summarily kicked out of
Nova Scotia due to gross dissatisfaction. The ruling came down
with almost word for word what the Cape Breton miners had asked
for originally and what the members from Cape Breton have been
saying would be a fair and just award in terms of pension
settlement, in terms of long term support for those who will be
displaced, in terms of representation on boards of directors for
any institution that might replace the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
There is some satisfaction in that, but there is still a huge
sadness and a huge disappointment for the people of Cape Breton
that it took civil disobedience and direct action to get this
satisfaction.
It speaks to the absolute arrogance and almost punitive kind of
indifference, almost a malice toward the people of Cape Breton,
that the government made them go to those degrees, to take those
steps, to go to those measures to get what should have been
theirs to begin with. Even still the arbitration award does not
adequately speak to the whole philosophical shift on behalf of
the Liberal Party, that Liberal members no longer feel any
responsibility toward any region outside central Canada.
I did not come here to fight about western alienation, but the
longer I am here I certainly sense how alienated I am as a
westerner. I can only sympathize with my colleagues from Cape
Breton, Nova Scotia or any region outside the golden triangle who
may feel that the Liberal government has abandoned them.
2020
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
sorry that I am here to speak to this issue, but glad that I have
the opportunity to speak for another 10 minutes. There was a lot
that I did not have the chance to say about the previous
amendments and I will make a point of emphasizing those points.
We are now dealing with the amendments in Group No. 3. They
have been brought forward by my colleagues, and obviously none of
my colleagues from the other parties, not the reform alliance nor
the Bloc. Maybe one member of the Conservative Party had a
little meek voice at one point. There has been nothing from
government members, not a thing. Once again it emphasizes that
they are all on the same wave length, that they are all in bed
together, so to speak.
I am really disappointed in my colleagues from the Bloc. As
much as I know they are here strictly for Quebec, usually they
have more of a social conscience than some of the other parties.
Quite frankly, that they would not even stand to speak for
workers in Cape Breton is a disappointment. I expected more of a
principled approach. Those members are there to support workers.
The workers are fighting for what is important to them, ensuring
that they have a decent pension and an opportunity to have a say
over what happens to their pension.
Again, as my NDP colleagues have mentioned, there are some
really way out amendments being asked for. The other parties are
quite bothered over having to stay these extra hours to discuss
these amendments. It is important for people to know that the
hours have been extended. The NDP has forced the hours to be
extended. The government wants to get on with other issues, so
it wants to extend the hours to get this over and done with. Let
us wipe those Cape Bretoners out of the House. Let us get them
off the Hill as quickly as possible and move this issue out of
the way, so we can deal with other things and go home for the
summer recess. Everybody here is mumbling because they have to
stay late tonight.
As hon. members are mumbling because they have to stay late
tonight, as they are really feeling put out, they should think of
each and every one of those miners in Cape Breton. They should
think of each and every one of the families in Cape Breton, those
small and medium size businesses and all those people who will be
directly affected by what is happening here today. As they are
feeling bothered, instead of hemming and hawing and cursing, they
should take a moment to think about those families in Cape Breton
who will lose out because the government did not have the will to
start working on this issue five years ago.
It is quite apparent that it planned this five years ago.
Instead of getting on with things and ensuring that there was
training in place and opportunities in place, the government is
fighting, saying that it does not want to put any more money into
that black hole. The reform alliance members are saying no more
money into that black hole and asking where else would pensioners
get any money at 25 years or whatever. They are moaning about
that.
The bottom line is that those miners in Cape Breton do not want
a government handout. They never did. They want to work. As
rotten as the coal mining industry can be, as dirty, wretched and
unhealthy as it can be, those miners want to work, just like the
miners at Westray wanted to work. They want to put food on their
tables, a roof over their head, and clothes on the backs of their
families. That is what they want. They do not want a government
handout. The government had this plan in the works. Did it do
anything for the last five years? No, nothing. All of a sudden
it comes down with this policy of “We are not going to give them
anything. We are going to get out of this”.
As I said when I spoke to the amendments in Group No. 2, we will
watch to see what happens with coal mining in Cape Breton. If
Devco is sold off for a little buck and a patronage investment is
made, or if we see Canadian dollars being invested in Colombia,
we will remind the government each and every day and we will
remind Canadians each and every day that that was what it was
about. It was a cheap investment.
We maintained all along that the government never really cared
about decent labour standards, work standards or any of those
conditions. It will take us right to the bottom. It will wipe
out the coal mining industry in Canada, but invest in that same
industry somewhere else with Canadian taxpayer dollars, the same
dollars that those miners in Cape Breton put into the economy in
their communities and throughout Canada through their taxes,
their EI payments and their investments in the local economies.
2025
The miners in Cape Breton cannot afford to invest in the Cayman
Islands. The cannot afford to run a flagship under another
country. They are not investing in Colombia; they are investing
in Canada. That is more than this government is making sure is
done.
The first amendment in Group No. 3 asks for:
“good mine safety, to provide permanent, full-time employment to
the residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and to
conduct its operations in a manner that benefits the economy of
the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.
That is pretty far out.
An hon. member: Good safety.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Yes, good safety. I can see why the
government would shy away from that, good safety.
This whole horrendous issue could have been avoided had the
government started dealing with it a number of years ago.
No one wants to see a situation where taxpayer dollars are
invested and nothing really comes out of it. No one wants to see
that. Neither do the miners of Cape Breton. This could have
been avoided had there been some planning and work done over the
last five years.
I would like to emphasize that those miners had to fight just to
get a decent pension. My colleague mentioned the miners having
to engage in civil disobedience, closing down the mine for a few
days in order to get the government to at least come up with a
decent pension. Canadians should be getting used to this now
with this government.
The women of the federal civil service had to fight for pay
equity for 15 years. They had to literally pull the government,
kicking and screaming, into the new millennium. It took that
long to get the government to pay what was owed.
The merchant marines had to fight for their pension. How long
did it take? It has taken the three years I have been here just
to have the government give them a decent pension, after all
those years.
An hon. member: It stole the surplus out of EI.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Absolutely. How long did the hep C
victims have to fight to see some kind of settlement? We still
have some who are not covered. We will keep at it because we
know that little by little maybe somebody on the other side will
listen. Perhaps there will be enough voices raised in Canada to
get those Liberals onside, to say nothing of my hon. colleagues
on the other side who are busy mumbling because they have to
stay late. Perhaps we will get something done.
The government should have got on with it and had things
working. It should have made plans, rather than wasting the last
five years.
We saw the same thing with the recent airline crisis. The
government could have done something about it. We did not have
to be in this situation with a monopoly carrier. However, for
the sake of deregulation and privatization, we had to make sure
we did not have any of that because it was really bad. We needed
a competitive industry. We really got the depth of a competitive
industry in Canada, did we not? We have a monopoly carrier and
numerous problems to go with it, all because the government did
not act a number of years ago.
Today we are arguing over the high price of air fares and the
treatment we are getting from Air Canada. The employees are
taking the brunt of it. They are the ones who are at the
counters with lineups two miles long. They are the ones who are
taking the flack from the passengers, not the Prime Minister, not
the Minister of Transport, not the Minister of Industry. Not
them at all. Not the president and CEO of Air Canada. The
workers are taking the flack, the ones who cannot afford to
invest in the Cayman Islands. The workers are always taking the
brunt of the policies and decisions of the government.
There is no question that the government does not look as though
it will do anything about the amendments to this bill. It is
shameful. It is very shameful. There is no question that none
of the other parties will do anything. They have other things
which they think are more important.
We have the Canadian Alliance members who are all rushing off to
make phone calls to get someone to vote for Preston or Stockwell
or Tom. I am surprised they did not send someone out to get Joe
onside because pretty soon we will see the rest of them moving
over there too. Then they will just move in with the government,
because there is really no difference.
It is disappointing that none of those hon. members are here
speaking out for ordinary workers and for the miners of Cape
Breton. It is extremely disappointing.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Madam Speaker, once again I see a
good portion of the New Democratic caucus here, but I do not
think we have a quorum.
2030
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is no quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have quorum.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I guess
they must have come out of the mine. I am pleased to rise on to
speak to the Group No. 3 motions. I want to address myself to
the contents of the bill again and to indicate the support I have
for the two members from Cape Breton and from Sydney—Victoria.
Motion No. 13 in Group No. 3 reads:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 35 on
page 4 with the following:
“good mine safety, to provide permanent, full-time employment to
the residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and to
conduct its operations in a manner that benefits the economy of
the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.
This motion involves broadening the good mine safety terms and
includes an employment requirement on behalf of Devco.
An hon. member: Who would vote against that?
Mr. Dick Proctor: I have no idea why anyone would vote
against good mine safety and an employment requirement on behalf
of the development corporation. Motion No. 14 in Group No. 3
reads:
That Bill C-11 in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10
on page 5 the following:
“17. The Corporation, in conjunction with the Government of
Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of these
governments, shall adopt and continue all reasonable measures
deemed necessary to reduce as far as possible the unemployment or
economic hardship that is expected to result from the closing,
privatization or reduction in the production of coal”.
This bill would reinstate the requirement for the development
corporation and both the federal and the provincial governments
to take all necessary steps and precautions to reduce the
negative impact of the privatization or cessation of activities
of the development corporation. Motion No. 15 in Group No. 3
reads:
That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10
on page 5 the following:
“17. The Corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to
reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or
unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine
operated by the Corporation”.
Again we support this initiative because it reinstates the
requirement for the corporation to take all necessary steps to
reduce the negative impact of the privatization or cessation of
activities of Devco.
The motions categorized in Group No. 3 are very important to
what we are trying to develop not only in Cape Breton but in
terms of what we want to see carried out from coast to coast to
coast with regard to proper occupational health and safety for
mine workers in particular and an employment requirement on
behalf of Devco.
Regarding the notion that the corporation should adopt all
reasonable measures to reduce to the fullest extent possible any
economic hardship, obviously there is coal in the ground in Nova
Scotia. The mine nevertheless will be closed.
We will be buying coal offshore. Some of us are very concerned
from where the coal will be delivered to Nova Scotia.
2035
Some of the miners have worked for 25 years or thereabouts. It
is tough to retrain those people after a lifetime of working
underground. They will not come up and suddenly qualify for the
new emerging technology, the infotech the other buzzwords that
are so prevalent.
An hon. member: What about Silicon Valley?
Mr. Dick Proctor: They will not come out of mine valley
and work in Silicon Valley. This is the essence of what my
colleagues in the House have been trying to convey to the
government and to members of other parties.
We are striving to make sure that these workers, these employees
and their families are treated as humanely and fairly as they
possibly can be. It is important not to lose sight of that
aspect of it. That is why we are holding up this bill. That is
why we are fighting for these changes. We think that what has
been offered so far falls short of what is fair and just to these
folks. They have been dealt a very bitter blow.
There has been an absolute lack of public hearings. I know the
Minister of Natural Resources was there, but all attempts to have
meetings in Cape Breton to debate and discuss this issue have
been brushed aside in a classic father knows best approach that
they do not need to hear from the local people, that those in the
Department of Natural Resources have all the answers and do not
have to bother with hearing from the folks who are most closely
affected.
The people of Cape Breton deserve a lot more than what they have
been offered by the government in this bill. Again that is why
we are so supportive of the important motions of the member for
Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria.
We are talking about the issue of the representation. We want
to ensure that the proper associations are represented so that
they can sit down with management and discuss the issues that can
help the employees and their families to reach a proper, just and
fair settlement.
This will be the last time I will have an opportunity to speak
to the three groups of report stage motions. We discussed some
of them at some length on Friday and adjourned the debate at 1.30
p.m. We have been dealing today with Groups Nos. 2 and 3.
Good mine safety is obviously an important issue. These motions
would reinstate the requirement for the corporation and the
federal and provincial governments to take all necessary steps to
reduce the negative impact of the privatization or secession of
activities by Devco and would reinstate the requirement for the
corporation to take all necessary steps to reduce the negative
impact of the privatization or secession of activities by Devco.
I will pleased to participate in the third reading of this bill.
2040
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-11 deals with an issue concerning the Cape Breton region.
Why did the government not allow any consultation to take place?
Why could the committee not travel to Cape Breton and speak to
the community?
It is not like we are dealing with all coal mines in Canada. We
are dealing with one mine in one location, in one city, in one
region, in one part of our country. This is why this debate is
happening. My hon. colleagues have stood time and time again to
bring forward the concern that the community is not being
listened to. The community could best represent itself if the
bill and its amendments were debated and discussed at the
community level.
The motions before us touch on health and safety and
jurisdiction. The economic impact of the bill should be designed
to be a positive one for the region and the community. Any
dismantling of the Devco mine or any rearranging either by
private initiative or closure of the mine should be looked at as
a positive step out of a very negative move.
The debate today challenges members on the government side to
realize that our common goal as parliamentarians is to make the
communities in our regions as well as our economic and industrial
sectors better places. Closing down the mine or possibly selling
it to private interests is a major transition for Cape Breton.
To reach this point has taken decades of evolution. To abandon
Cape Bretoners without their having a solid grasp on the details
or on the implications is not acceptable. It is fine to draft
procedures in a bill, but if we predict the impact it will have
on the community that is where the concerns start to overflow
into the House. The concerns at the community level far outweigh
the benefits.
The community has stated its concerns through its duly elected
members of parliament. We are calling on all members of
parliament to respect those views. They have been formulated
into amendments to create an act that better represents and
better serves the community. These amendments are what we are
debating tonight.
We want Liberal members to take a second look at the amendments
and to vote in favour of getting community representation on the
Devco board. We want the pensioners' association, the people who
have amassed huge pension funds and huge seniority credits over
the years of serving in this company, to have a say in the
dissolution of the mine. They should have a vested interest as
they know what is best. They risked their lives. This is no
ordinary mine by any stretch of the imagination. The health and
safety of the miners were in peril in the mines every day.
A good friend of mine, Mr. Matt Minglewood, sings a classic song
called Working Man. He is an excellent blues performer
from Cape Breton. He sings this song with his heart and soul,
just as Rita MacNeil would sing it. It deals with the life of a
coal miner and the lost ones who did not make it home. This song
hits hard.
2045
These are the concerns of the constituents, the miners and the
families and from which the amendments have been formulated. It
is detrimental. In my back yard there are uranium mines. There
will be a delayed impact on those mine workers. We might be
concerned about our miners in about 20 or 30 years when the
impact starts to show up. The respiratory and safety issues for
coal miners from being underground with unstable minerals,
unstable walls and ceilings in some cases are much more
immediate. The gases that emanate from this fossil fuel are
detrimental constantly. That is the view with which we bring our
passionate debate; it is from caring for our workers. We should
duly respect them.
We should have taken the committee hearings right into that
community because it concerns their mine and their immediate
community.
We are at the third group of our amendments. I want to crawl
into the conscience of the members who are listening, who are
present in the House or who are watching the debate on television
in their offices. This will come to a vote. We ask government
members to seriously look at these amendments that strengthen the
arguments and concerns that constituents have in Cape Breton, and
those of the workers and pensioners in terms of losing a
livelihood and the opportunity to raise their children as they
have been doing for so many generations in that neck of the
woods. That is the way I look at it.
That part of Canada has contributed to all of the economy of
Canada. The steel that came from Cape Breton built a lot of our
railroads and industries in the industrial age. Let us give
those people thanks. Let us not disrespect them in a way such as
this. Coal energized, heated and electrically lit many of these
buildings during much of the electrical revolution which took
place. This country was founded on many of the developments from
coal that was mined in that region.
Let us give those people due respect. They gave us a fighting
chance to have an economic stronghold in Toronto. Toronto should
say thanks. Montreal should say thanks. Vancouver should say
thanks. All the people we represent in the House should make a
conscious effort to thank that region which is hard hit
economically, environmentally and healthwise. Some things will be
genetically passed on to their offspring.
There is the legacy of the tar ponds, pollution which is being
left right in the middle of their community. We have to take
responsibility as a nation. We represent the nation of Canada.
Bill C-11 attempts to devolve an industry that may be justified.
The question of whether it is justified was tossed around. If it
is, let us do it in an honourable way.
The honourable process is to debate it correctly and thoroughly.
It should be listened to and heeded. If common sense approaches
are given by our colleagues in their representations of their
constituents and communities, they should be taken seriously by
the government. The senior officials of the government should
mentor their voters and tell them to vote with their consciences,
to vote in the right way.
In closing, the Devco issue has certainly come to a head on
making a decision on the future of a community and the livelihood
and careers of many families. Let us give it due respect. Let
us give that because of what those people have done for the
economy of the country and what they have done in trying to
represent themselves.
Some of the amendments try to allow workers to sit on the board
of directors and to allow pensioners to sit at their association
tables. It is so they can make crucial decisions as opposed to
parachuting in someone or in the worst case, putting someone in
these positions for partisan reasons because of their political
stripe or because of the card they carry. Let us respect the
community for what it is trying to achieve in its people
representing themselves.
An honourable way to end the debate is to vote in favour of the
amendments that my hon. colleagues have brought forward.
2050
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and
I suppose I would have to say to make one further plea to members
present and those members presumably representing their caucuses
to take seriously what it is we are involved in tonight.
I heard my colleague from Churchill River say that some of us
are trying to get inside the heads of our colleagues opposite to
understand what they are really thinking about the impact of the
legislation before us on the lives of miners who have devoted
literally their working years to the coal mining of Cape Breton
and the impact on the whole communities in which those people
live.
I suppose for members opposite it may seem we are just here to
wrap up a bit of unfinished business, that we are just taking
care of what is left over after the miners of Cape Breton have
been employed for a period of time by Devco. Now progress has to
go forward and since privatization is the mantra of the
government on many fronts these days, it is just more of the same
and we are just of wrapping up the assets and putting them to
bed, washing our hands of it and everything is taken care of.
It is very important for us to take stock of exactly what has
gone on here and what it is we are really engaged in, in dealing
with this stage of debate on Bill C-11. We need to think about
the backdrop for what is going on here. What is the context in
which this discussion is taking place?
I know that my colleagues, particularly the two members who so
ably represent the people of Cape Breton Island, the member for
Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, have
worked very hard to put forward the concerns of their
constituents, not just of the coal miners, but of their families,
their extended families and their entire communities, really the
entire economy of Cape Breton. They have tried to make members,
particularly on the government benches, understand the extent to
which Devco has been a positive economic development tool for all
of Cape Breton Island.
The economy of Cape Breton Island is an exceedingly important
part of the economy of the province of Nova Scotia. That is why
members from all of Nova Scotia are very much engaged in this
debate. But it goes beyond that.
What all of the members of the NDP caucus understand, and it
does not appear as though there are many others in the House who
understand, is that if the government of the day gets away with
doing to the people of Cape Breton Island and to the generations
of coal miners of that community, what it is apparently hell-bent
on doing, then it could do the same to any other community in
Canada. That is why the New Democratic Party has been absolutely
steadfast and persistent in standing against what the government
is doing here in dismantling Devco and basically saying it will
just wash its hands of the future of the coal mining industry in
Cape Breton.
The government will do the trendy thing. It will lay it open
and invite the privatizers to come in. It will turn it over to
private industry. Anybody who thinks that is a welcome
initiative to the people of Nova Scotia, particularly the people
of Cape Breton, does not know the history of coal mining in Cape
Breton.
They do not understand what went on in the lives of miners who
were employed by those private corporations.
It was hell. It was a very unhappy era in the history of Nova
Scotia's economy.
2055
If it is too much to ask government members to go back and look
at what happened in the province of Nova Scotia when coal mining
was in the hands of the private sector, maybe some of the members
opposite could take a moment to think about what went on in the
hands of a private corporation in Nova Scotia more recently.
There is no one opposite, particularly this week, who can pretend
they do not know the history of what happened under the private
corporation, the Westray mine, Curragh Resources.
I have to say that in my 20 years in politics, without a doubt,
the most horrifying experience that I have ever endured was to
spend an evening, as I recall of four or five hours, with the
coal miners who had survived the Westray disaster and with the
widows and families of the victims of the Westray disaster a day
or two after the lives of those 26 miners were lost. If there
was one thing that became clear to me, it was the difference it
made to coal mining in Cape Breton and in fact much more
dangerous coal mining taking place in Cape Breton. Let us be
clear that it was much more challenging, with very deep mines way
out under the ocean floor. There is no question that it was very
dangerous work and very vulnerable to any number of horrifying
kinds of disasters.
Does anyone know what the difference was? There was a genuine
sense that the public interest had to be protected, that the
lives and the livelihoods of the miners had to be protected and
that this was a resource, this was an asset to the whole of the
Cape Breton and Nova Scotia economy. What a contrast between the
experience of workers employed by Devco, a crown corporation in
Nova Scotia over the last several decades, and the horrors of
what happened under the private coal mining company of Curragh
Resources at Westray.
When I contemplate the kind of private industry start-up that
apparently the government is very enthusiastic about, at least in
concept, I do not think we are fully convinced that the
government is serious about coal mining continuing under private
auspices. In fact there is every reason to be suspicious that
this really is the government saying “Let us wrap up the coal
mining in Cape Breton and let us just move on”. There is every
reason to be concerned about what this is really about. Even if
we took the government at its word and it was enthusiastic about
coal mining under private auspices, we have to wonder if it has
really learned anything from the lesson of Westray.
If there was any member opposite who did not fully understand
what that lesson was before last week, there is no excuse now for
saying that they do not understand it. The United Steelworkers
of America that represent the surviving miners from Westray have
been here on the Hill for the last eight days to make sure that
there is no person in this Chamber, no one representing workers
anywhere in the 301 ridings in the country who does not
understand what it meant for coal mining to take place under the
auspices of a private company and where there was no assurance
whatsoever of there being a union. That is the other part of it,
the health and safety laws of this country mean nothing in the
context of a union free mine setting.
I have to say in conclusion that the backdrop for this is very
alarming, as is the failure of the government to learn the
lessons of history.
2100
Another part of the backdrop that I think is highly relevant is
the general assembly meetings of the OAS that are taking place in
Canada, for the first time since Canada joined the OAS 10 years
ago.
We have the spectacle happening right now before our eyes. It
is not something that people are talking about as a possible
future development but of coal being imported from Colombia, one
of the worst countries in the world in terms of labour standards,
environmental standards, health and safety, and human rights.
That coal will be imported from Colombia to be burned in Nova
Scotia because the government has pulled the plug on Devco
mining.
We have a government that has no interest in either the current
lives and the future of coal miners in that community and the
broader impact, or in a serious commitment to ensure the
continuation of coal mining in Cape Breton. In view of the
developments that are about to unfold and in view of what is
already happening as a result of the government basically pulling
the plug on coal mining in Cape Breton, it is amazing that we
have had almost no participation of government members in the
debate around such important issues.
This a very sad day, not just for the miners in Cape Breton who
in many cases have given their health or sacrificed their lives
to provide coal that has been so important to economy of the
country. It is also a sad day to think that the government could
turn its back on the regional economy. This country is made up
of regional economies. I think it is fair to say that this is a
lesson that will not be missed by the people of Nova Scotia or
others across the country who care a great deal more for their
communities and the regional economies.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The government earlier moved to extend hours because it
wanted to have as much debate as possible. I wonder if the House
would give its unanimous consent so that the hon. member for
Halifax could continue her remarks. I am sure she has more to
say on the subject.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent for the hon. member to continue?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will resist the
temptation to respond to each and every of the many, shall I be
generous, questionable points raised by my hon. friends across
the way, except maybe to point out a particularly important point
that much was made of, the reference to the very tragic incident
at Westray. I want to underline it was the unions that insisted
the new owner be subject to the Canada Labour Code and I want to
emphasize that the government responded accordingly.
Just very briefly on Motions Nos. 13 and 14, we do not want to
tie the hands of the new owner in terms of managing the operation
profitably for the benefit of Cape Breton and the whole country.
As well, I again underline that the Canada Labour Code will
apply.
On Motion No. 15, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was
created for the very purpose of economic development in Cape
Breton and that function by Devco was transferred to ECBC many
years ago.
With that, I would conclude by saying that the government will
not be supporting any of these amendments and I thank those who
participated.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
2105
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
Motion No. 13. 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): The recorded division
on Motion No. 13 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14. 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
yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
on Motion No. 14 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
recorded divisions at report stage of the bill. Call in the
members.
[Translation]
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The recorded division
stands deferred until tomorrow, at the end of the period allotted
for consideration of Government Orders.
It being 9.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 9.08 p.m.)