36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 20
CONTENTS
Monday, November 15, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
|
| Mr. Rick Laliberte |
| Motion
|
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1125
1130
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1135
1140
| Mr. André Bachand |
1145
1150
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1155
1200
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1205
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1210
1215
1220
1225
| Mr. David Chatters |
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1250
1255
1300
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1305
1310
| Amendment
|
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1315
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1320
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1340
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1345
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1350
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| SENIORS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| ESTABLISHMENT OF NUNAVIK COMMISSION
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| CANVAS OF WAR
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
1400
| POLAND
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S PERFORMING ARTS AWARDS
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR FOR THE CULTURE OF PEACE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1405
| THE LATE FRANK FAUBERT
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| THE LATE DAN ROWAN
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| ANTI-SMOKING MOVEMENT
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1410
| FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVANTS RETIREMENT FUND
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
| SQUEEGEE KIDS
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| THE REFORM PARTY
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
1415
| BANKING
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| PETITCODIAC RIVER
|
| Mr. John Herron |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PORT OF VANCOUVER
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TAXATION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| DEVCO
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1430
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1435
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| FINANCE
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1440
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CSIS
|
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| RAILWAY CROSSINGS
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1445
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| DEVCO
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1450
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES
|
| Mr. Lou Sekora |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NUCLEAR WASTE
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| EAST TIMOR
|
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1455
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ULTRAMAR
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Hon. John Manley |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1500
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| CSIS
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SPECIAL ORDER PAPER
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Foreign Affairs and International Trade
|
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1505
| INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Public Accounts
|
| Mr. John Richardson |
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION IN RESPECT OF WEST COAST PORTS
|
| Bill C-315. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
|
| Bill C-316. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1510
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Procedure and House Affairs
|
| Motion for Concurrence
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Equality
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| Telephone Service
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Iraq
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| The Senate
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1515
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| The Senate
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Port of Vancouver
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1525
1530
1535
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1540
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1545
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1550
1555
1600
1605
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1610
| Mr. David Chatters |
1615
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1620
1625
1630
1635
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1640
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
1645
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1650
1655
1700
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1705
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1710
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1715
1720
1725
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Stan Keyes |
1730
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1735
| Mr. John Duncan |
1740
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| WEST COAST PORTS
|
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1745
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
1750
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
|
| Bill C-11. Second reading
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1755
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1800
1805
| Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1810
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1815
1820
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
1825
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1830
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 20
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 15, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
INTERNATIONAL CIRCUMPOLAR COMMUNITY
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified
Canadian boundary for participation in the international
circumpolar community.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to stand on behalf
of my constituents of Churchill River. I am also exceptionally
proud to stand as a Metis member of parliament, as this week
recognizes the Metis peoples of this country.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
The pride in representing one's people and the pride in being
able to speak in the House of Commons to bring forth the issues
and perspectives of this country is certainly paramount in this
private member's motion that I bring forward.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
The message I bring from people who live in the northern half of
the provinces that touch on the 55th parallel is that we have
been overlooked. The federal government by convenience has been
sending delegations and representations to the Arctic Council of
Circumpolar Nations and circumpolar conferences from north of 60.
The definition of the north seems to be a major problem in this
country. We find that the definition of the north which exists
on the website of our Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development is that Canada's north is any land north of 60. I
bring the message to Canadians that this is wrong. North is not
only north of the 60th parallel. In this country north varies
within political, cultural, territorial and geographic areas.
A major part of this discussion has taken place in the last 30
years, since in 1970 a man named Louis Hamelin wrote a book about
nordicity. He brought out 10 factors to define the north, which
created the Hamelin line. Different government departments have
recognized the Hamelin line as being the definition of Canada's
north.
A few years ago the Arctic Council was created and,
symbolically, it was created here in Canada. Its eight member
states are Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway,
Russia, Sweden and the United States. These member states sit as
the Arctic Council. Our ambassador to the Arctic Council is Mary
Simon.
1110
I challenge the federal government to identify the Canadian
north. Since it is recognized internationally that the
circumpolar north is the 55th parallel, let us give the privilege
of participation to any people or province that falls within the
55th parallel in the international circumpolar community.
Opportunity should be given to British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. I have excepted Quebec
because Quebec has been involved. A portion of Quebec falls
within the 60th parallel and it has been involved in the dialogue
in the circumpolar community. However, I ask that the other
provinces be given that opportunity.
The development of the north is truly a challenge for this
country. It has vast tracts of land, vast resources, but very
few people. The population of the north is not democratically
represented in the House of Commons. There are very few northern
members of parliament and very few senators who sit in the other
house who specifically represent the north. This is a wake up
call for the government. Even though there are small
populations, let us represent these regions.
I have been involved with the northern regions in the dialogue
and discussions of the circumpolar community as an observer, most
recently in Whitehorse where the concern was sustainable
development. The discussions of course, first and foremost,
concern the connection of our people to the land, the
interconnectedness between sustainable development and the future
development of resources to sustain life.
The cycle of life is paramount in Nordic countries like Sweden
and Denmark, which are smaller countries with smaller resources.
The long term use and sustainability of their resources is
paramount. Just because Canada has more vast tracts of land, we
cannot overlook the lessons we can learn from our neighbouring
countries in the north. The design of our houses, the design of
our roads, the design of our infrastructure all come into play.
We can learn from the member states, from our neighbours.
The issue of pollution is a subject of major dialogue because of
transboundary pollution. My riding is called Churchill River,
which obviously has within it the Churchill River. However, the
river flows into Hudson Bay, so all pollution in the water of
Churchill River affects Hudson Bay and the Arctic region.
The McKenzie River system, which flows into the Arctic, starts
on the southern side of the 60th parallel. It does not start
north of the 60th parallel, so anything that happens in the river
system, in the watershed area, affects the northern regions and
the circumpolar regions.
I wanted to raise that because the jurisdiction, through the
Natural Resources Transfer Act, belongs to the provinces. The
provinces are responsible for water and land resources. Recently
some federal responsibilities for the environment have been
transferred to the provinces. However, this further transfer is
not taking place with further resources.
The federal government has to take responsibility, define the
north, involve these provinces and the northern peoples to
represent the issues and their grievances among each other and to
find solutions to the problems and ways of transferring this
knowledge to further generations.
It is a long journey we are undertaking as we go into the new
millennium. I believe the challenges that face us are now at the
forefront. The Kyoto protocol, which identified major changes in
our climate, will affect the north in a very unique and specific
way. I say again that Canada needs to define the north. I
welcome members from all corners of this country taking part in
this dialogue.
1115
An issue raised by people representing Quebec concerned the
French translation of Canadian boundary being a bit different
than our intention. I do not want to pretend that I can master
French but frontiere is the term recommended to us. I believe
members of the Bloc raised this issue to clarify the definition
they would like to see.
We did not purposely bring an international boundary issue to
Canada, but the northern half of our provinces, the 55th
parallel, are not being involved in dialogue on northern issues.
They have to be involved in this dialogue so they can bring home
the issues from the major conferences which are taking place. I
am talking about such conferences as the Arctic Council which
talks about foreign issues, defence issues, pollution issues,
resource depletion issues and social and health issues. All these
issues are specific to the north. This dialogue should remain in
the north and northerners should not be excluded from it. The
55th parallel represents a huge community within our country and
it is up to us as a country to involve these people.
In addition, the boundary of convenience is the term we would
like to use. The 60th parallel has been a convenient boundary for
the federal government in its definition of the north. It is
time for the federal government to redefine the north and open
the books on the definition of the north. We should first strike
the web page definition from the Indian affairs definition of the
60th parallel and begin dialogue in the House of Commons.
We should discuss where the issues take place. As I mentioned,
there are international forums such as the Arctic Council.
However, if we have issues in the north I believe the wealth of
the north will sustain the economic future of the country. If we
do not involve the people who live in those regions, we will be
making a big mistake.
We have to put ourselves at an international level so we can
compete and share our wisdom. This wisdom is sometimes locked
into what we call aboriginal traditional knowledge. Just because
a birch tree is called a birch tree in English it may have a
French definition. The scientific community might have a Latin
definition. The Cree have a Cree definition.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Cree]
[English]
The Dene have a Dene definition of that same birch tree. Our
universities and our knowledge based institutions do not
recognize the aboriginal language definition of these trees. They
test us in the Latin, English or French definition but do not
give credit for our aboriginal knowledge.
We know the moss, the Maskêk, the muskegs of the world, through
the boreal forests or the taiga of northern Europe and Russia,
breathe oxygen to us. However, we are taking forestry, which is
a huge industry in the country, to a point where ranch lands take
over the deforested areas and then agriculture kicks in. We are
losing the natural abundance of oxygen producing forest land, the
boreal forest.
I am told that we are losing the boreal forest faster than the
Amazon forest because of the huge machinery being used today.
This is all for an immediate economic gain. That is the
sustainable future that I am talking about. If that dialogue is
to take place we have to talk to the people who live in the
forests so they can understand the impact those industries are
having within their area. They will then be able to make sound
decisions on economic, social or environmental impacts. Their
knowledge of either Cree, Dene, Ojibway and all these languages
will be recognized and credited as part of future developments.
1120
The reason I raise this is that I applaud the efforts of the
Arctic Council. I applaud the efforts of the Northern Forum. I
applaud the efforts of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. These
conferences are a guide and a good future for us. It is like
these people have worn the snowshoes for us and are making the
trail. They are making a trail which recognizes each other. They
are dialoguing with foreign and international neighbours. They
are recognizing and respecting each other for who they are and
where they are from.
As a country we can do that, but allowing only a certain portion
of the north to be a part of this dialogue is a major oversight
by the federal government. That line should be brought down to
the 55th parallel which is internationally recognized as a
northern community. Let us start the dialogue within our own
country. Let us involve the people north of 55 to be part of the
northern definition and the dialogue in the international
community as we deem it as a circumpolar community.
I am proud to be a northerner, but Canada, give us a chance.
There are a lot of examples the north can give to the rest of the
country and to the rest of the world. Give us an opportunity and
we will shine, as does the northern star.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member for Churchill River for
introducing the issue of the Arctic into the House. It is a
subject which I think has not been prevalent enough in our
debates and discussions. He is to be commended for taking this
initiative.
He may be aware that our committee, the foreign affairs and
international trade committee, a year and a half ago undertook a
study, Canada and the Circumpolar World, which was deposited in
the House before the last election. The response of the
government was subsequently tendered in the House. I will speak
to that in a few minutes.
We have to recognize that we share many challenges and
opportunities in common with our Arctic neighbours. Canada is
seeking solutions to expand a northern co-operation and how our
northernness contributes to organizations within the United
Nations, Organization of American States and others. The past
decade has witnessed an unprecedented process of multilateral
co-operation and institution building in the circumpolar north
designed to foster circumpolar co-operation in tackling the
region's problems and aspirations.
Canada has been an active player in the circumpolar north for
many years. It is an area where we have important interests at
stake and where we can exercise meaningful influence and
leadership. Being clear about our aims will help ensure that we
have the greatest possible benefit from our diplomatic,
scientific and other international efforts in and concerning the
circumpolar region.
From time to time we have pursued specific policies in the
region, as with our initiative to establish the Arctic Council to
which the member for Churchill River mentioned in his speech.
[Translation]
Vigorous circumpolar institutions and processes are now
emerging, and they will play an increasingly important role in
facilitating collaboration between governments and the people of
the north.
Among the concrete expressions of this emerging circumpolar
community is an increase in person-to-person contact. These
developments all contribute to a shared vision of responsible
action in an increasing number of areas.
That is why this government expressed its intentions in this
area in the recent Speech from the Throne:
To advance Canada's leadership in the Arctic region, the
Government will outline a foreign policy for the North that
enhances co-operation, helps protect the environment, promotes
trade and investment, and supports the security of the region's
people.
[English]
Indeed, many of the complex issues we face as a nation are
centred around the direct concerns of northerners.
This initiative, therefore, is also in keeping with the
prominence the government gives the human security agenda in
Canada's foreign policy.
1125
The Minister of Foreign Affairs intends to move forward in this
area by examining the possibilities in the trade, investment and
transportation sectors by exploring new ways of dealing with the
pollutants that threaten the livelihood, lifestyle and often the
existence of our northern communities, by seeking new approaches
to connect communities and forge partnerships in order to secure
a better life for all northerners, and by examining how northern
issues, practices and solutions might have an application and
expression elsewhere. In other words, he will make the northern
agenda a two-way proposition.
With this in mind, the government is working on a comprehensive
new document called “The Northern Dimension of Canada's Foreign
Policy” which will be ready by the end of this year.
At the beginning of my remarks I made reference to the report
that the foreign affairs and international trade committee filed
in the House entitled Canada and the Circumpolar World. The
Government of Canada's response was filed in the House. In our
report we raised many of the issues that the hon. member for
Churchill River raised in his speech. It recognizes the nature
of the northern community and its specificity, yet also how it
links to the south and our neighbours.
In the course of preparing our report, the members of the House
had the opportunity to travel to Russia and the northern nations
that are our neighbours and of speaking to the people in our
circumpolar region. We learned that there is much work to be
done there to integrate members of the northern community into
what is taking place in the world.
I believe strongly that the formation of the Arctic Council was
an extremely important part of that community building. If our
northern neighbours in our own country are to affirm their
specificity and develop a life for themselves which guarantees
the preservation of their lifestyle, surely the member for
Churchill River will agree with me that one of the best ways to
ensure this is to ensure they have strong collaborative links
with people of similar aspirations and backgrounds who are their
real neighbours in the north. I am speaking of people in
northern Russia, northern Finland, northern Norway, northern
Sweden and Greenland. These are people who share similar
aspirations and cultures, people with whom our citizens in
Canada, in northern Quebec, the Northwest Territories and the
Yukon, can be in daily contact with through the Internet. They
have regular communications.
They also have something else and totally new in the Arctic
Council. The Arctic Council is an unusual international
organization. It brings the members of the Arctic nations
together, not only the countries I have already spoken about but
also the United States of America. Through Alaska, the United
States is an arctic nation.
In the Arctic Council there is a relationship that has been
developed that is very unusual in international law; that is, the
role of the aboriginal peoples of the north to actually have the
right to participate in the deliberations and actively be
involved in the Arctic Council. That is an extremely important
innovation in an international institution and an innovation that
we can learn from in other international institutions where, as
members of the House know, there is considerable concern today
that individuals do not have relationships with huge
international organizations like the WTO or even the United
Nations.
What is happening in the Arctic through the Arctic Council is
that the aboriginal peoples who live there are having an input
into an important part of what is not only Canadian foreign
policy, but the development of their lifestyles in that area.
We all know that northern issues are complex, ranging from the
questions of sovereignty and defence to issues of industrial and
commercial development, new trading relationships and
transportation routes, environmental protection, research and
education, health and social development, and the promotion of
cultural diversity.
1130
The circumpolar community embraces some of Canada's most
important foreign policy partners, as I believe I have
demonstrated, from the Nordics and the EU to the U.S.A. and
Russia. Only by working together and building on the broad
community of regional organizations from the Arctic to the
Barents Council and promoting co-operation, coherence, and
synergies between and among them, is Canada better able to move
forward on these many issues that tend to be transboundary
concerns.
The end of the cold war has opened new possibilities for
co-operation with Russia and the Baltic states. There are also
exciting new possibilities for partnership with other countries
of the north, particularly Russia, the Baltic states and with
various communities within the north, particularly the indigenous
peoples operating through the Arctic Council and other
institutions that we can build in the future.
We know of the Nordic Council, the Council of Baltic Sea States,
the Barents Council and the Arctic Council. They are four
important institutions that have been developed in the north to
enable an international dimension to be brought to the existence
and preservation of indigenous people.
I conclude by saying to the member that perhaps in my remarks I
have not addressed his specific concern about the 55th parallel,
but I did want to bring to the debate a dimension which I thought
was important. I remind the House that the Arctic is a region of
Canada that is part of a circumpolar region. Its development,
the development of its people, their survival, their way of life
and their existence in the global community will only be
preserved if we bear in mind their relationship to their Arctic
neighbours and our relationship to our Arctic neighbours and the
way in which we work together in these important international
institutions.
I urge the hon. member opposite who has brought this matter
before the House not only to bear in mind the issues which he
raised in his speech, which I think were very appropriate, but
also those other issues of foreign policy which I think we have
to focus on if we are going to guarantee that the indigenous
peoples of the north will preserve their way of life.
I believe that the government through the activities of the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development is doing exactly that. The government
is focusing on not only the domestic dimension of this issue but
the international one.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central and as one of the
official opposition's critics for foreign affairs to debate
Motion No. 237.
The motion asks the government to recognize the 55th parallel as
the Canadian boundary for participation in the international
circumpolar community. The 55th parallel is accepted by the
international community as the boundary that separates the
circumpolar territory of the world from more southerly regions.
The NDP member of parliament may simply want to make sure that
our domestic laws and policies coincide or match the boundaries
that are used by the eight countries concerned with the
northernmost regions of the globe, but this may not be the case.
We in the official opposition are very often alone in opposing
the positions taken by others in the House on issues like
Nisga'a, where the benefits are given based on race and not based
on need. In the next 20 years the courts will vindicate our
position on the Nisga'a bill.
While the Liberals try to figure out whether or not there is an
agricultural crisis, we are going to the hardest hit communities
to rally support for a long term solution. Being the foreign
affairs critic I can say that apart from the other practical
solutions that are possible we propose an aggressive campaign
against punitive foreign agricultural subsidies. I am sure that
today our farmers are wise enough to make well informed choices.
Forty per cent of our country lies in the territory north of the
60th parallel.
If we lowered the mark to 55 degrees, it would be significantly
more than 40%. This area would clip off the tops off the
provinces. If we included the range of provincial north in
addition to Arctic Quebec and Labrador, a great deal of policy
concerns would come into play. This is noted in “Canada and the
Circumpolar World”, a 1997 report of the foreign affairs
committee.
1135
Many federal-provincial matters will result from the lowering of
the boundary that we draw to separate northern Canada from
southern Canada. Imagine the interprovincial and
federal-provincial squabbling and fighting that would ensue if
the boundary were lowered.
Most of the policies that concern our Canadian north are federal
government policies. The area between the 60th and the 55th
parallels is covered by aboriginal policies under the
jurisdiction of the department of Indian affairs, in particular
its northern affairs branch. There are other issues. There are
environmental concerns in our mid-north. Resources would be
affected.
It seems that a great deal of consideration needs to be given to
this motion. There may not even be a problem having our domestic
circumpolar boundary being five degrees less than the boundary
referred to in the country's international policy. The motion is
not clear as to why the domestic boundary should be changed. The
60 degree mark is the product of the Arctic Council of eight
arctic countries.
Should we be spending taxpayers' money to be a member of the
Arctic Council? That is a big question. We are known to be a
member of every organization that exists without evaluating
whether or not it is useful or productive to be a member. It is a
big question of whether we should be a member of the Arctic
Council. Maybe we should study that. The government spends
millions of dollars every year to keep us in good measure with
the Arctic Council and a host of other international
organizations.
Let us look at the Reform Party policy. We referred to the
Arctic Council in our foreign policy statement which was unveiled
a few moments ago. It is entitled “Canada and the Millennium:
A New Look at Foreign Policy”. It is a wonderful document and I
encourage every Canadian to go through it. It is analytical and
has vision. It is a beautiful document. I encourage everyone to
read it.
Chapter seven deals with policy in relation to international
organizations. We state that the government spends our tax
dollars to join organizations just for the sake of joining. The
Liberals, and the Tories before them, have a reflex reaction to
international problems. They have knee-jerk decision making
policies. They immediately support, promote and create
international organizations.
One example is the Arctic Council. In 1996 Canada was
instrumental in lobbying for the creation of an Arctic Council of
circumpolar states. Its precise purpose and utility remains as
unclear now as it was in 1996. The council's value seems to have
been largely symbolic. The Liberals have not been able to work
out what that council does and why its activity would affect
Canada. So many other questions remain unanswered.
The U.S. is not enthusiastic about the council either. It will
not deal with matters relating to military security for example.
It is open to question whether Canada should be a member of such
organizations but the government spends tax dollars as if it were
at a casino with bags and bags of cash to spend. This government
is a spend and spend and tax and tax type of government. It is
spending an enormous amount of money in this organization.
1140
Why are we worried about the 60th parallel? While Canada
certainly should seek to maintain constructive and friendly
relations with all countries, our resources are finite. The
Reform Party believes that we must focus our diplomatic attention
first on those countries and regions where we have the most
significant political, strategic and economic interests and
second on those countries that are most important to Canada and
Canadians.
Our most significant political partners are the countries that
make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the G-8
countries. These are the countries whose diplomatic policies
have the greatest impact on Canada.
In strategic terms we need to focus on those regions from which
direct threats to Canada or to vital Canadian interests might
arise, namely North America, the circumpolar region and Russia,
the Euro-Atlantic region and the North Pacific and East Asia. In
economic terms, national interest demands that we concentrate on
promoting trade relations with those countries and regions that
are crucial to promoting the prosperity of Canada. It is very
important that we look at it in these two terms.
In this regard, 98% of Canada's trade is conducted with the
United States, the Americas, Europe and the Pacific Rim. That is
where our business lies. Those are the partners with whom we
should do business and where we should go to great lengths to do
business. That is where we should concentrate our efforts. That
is where we should put our scarce resources.
In conclusion, as a result of political devolution and
participatory development, global interest in the circumpolar
region is expected to increase in the future. It has great
potential geopolitical significance in terms of the issues of
environmental change, indigenous rights, sustainable human
development and development of the immense natural resources that
are in the Arctic region.
Building an adequate framework for circumpolar co-operation is
essential to avoid future international conflicts. This motion
is only part of the bigger picture of foreign policy. We need a
fundamental change in our foreign policy. We cannot afford to
fix our foreign policy bit by bit. A complete renovation of our
foreign policy is needed.
We have seen what the Liberal government has done with the
Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act. It has done it piece by
piece and has screwed up the whole Immigration Act which is not
serving Canadians' best interests. Similarly, there is a need
for us to look at our foreign policy in the bigger picture and
evaluate the important elements of foreign policy which would be
beneficial to Canada and Canadians.
I encourage the NDP member and all Canadians to study the Reform
Party's foreign policy proposal which was unveiled today and
which is called “Canada and the Millennium: A New Look at
Foreign Policy”. It is a wonderful document.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
take a few minutes to speak on the hon. member for Churchill
River's Motion No. 237.
Essentially, the discussion on this private member's motion is
focused on where Canada's north begins. Where do we start
applying the term “northern Canada?” This is an important
issue.
Those who have spoken before me referred to the international
aspect, but there is a very significant national, domestic,
aspect as well.
I would like to mention, before I go on, that our Reform Party
colleague has referred to a new document on foreign policy:
“Canada and the Millennium”.
But which one is it? It seems to me that when the Reform Party
refers to the millennium, it means the last century, not the
coming one.
1145
I hope it is a mistake. We are going to speak of Canada and
the new millennium and not of the millennium, because we could
be speaking of the 19th or the 20th century, rather than the
21st century.
That said, when the member for Churchill River speaks of the
55th parallel rather than the 60th parallel, I think that what
he wants first and foremost is to strengthen the people, the
representatives living and working in what is called northern
Canada and the eight countries in this circumpolar group, the
world's circumference in the north.
The member explained very well that the north is often taken for
granted.
The desire is to strengthen the people living there,
politically, so issues concerning the environment and
sustainable development in the north may be recognized.
The member also wants—and we may or may not agree with him—to
give the north greater political clout within the country. If
the parallel is changed from the 60th to the 55th, many more
people and groups will be involved, and many more provinces will
be concerned about the issue of the Canadian and international
north.
The issue, in the end, is where does the north begin?
Unfortunately, because of the way we work, we do not have a lot
of time to get to the heart of what is behind this motion.
However, it would be interesting to know the aim and the impact
locally, within the country itself.
Does the hon. member know, for example, if the territory
identified as the north will increase? What will be the impact
on the departments concerned? What will be the impact on the
departments of natural resources and Indian affairs? There will
certainly be a financial impact.
If part of the provinces' territory is now included in the
Canadian north, they will have different obligations
provincially, federally and internationally. There will be an
impact. Before the provinces are told “We are going to
impose on you part of what will be called the Canadian and
international north” they should be thoroughly consulted.
Quebec is considered an example because of its work with its
northern communities, except that such work is not easy to do.
Unfortunately, we will not be supporting the motion as
introduced by the hon. member for Churchill River. He should,
however, be congratulated for bringing the issue of Canada's far
north and the international north before the House.
Often, the far north is seen as a deserted area with few
inhabitants which has little political clout domestically and
internationally but which is a source of revenue and a national
treasure because of its natural resources.
There is an increasing realization that it is a treasure that
must, of course, not be polluted, that must not be taken for
granted, a treasure that must be developed in co-operation with
the people who have lived there for a very long time, and who
were there even before the Europeans arrived here. They must be
included.
I am not sure that changing the international boundary would
make a big difference.
It would perhaps give stakeholders in Canada's north additional
political clout.
That having been said, the far north is going to take on
increasing importance. There is much talk about high
technology. We have only to look at investments in high
technology, pharmaceuticals and telecommunications in the
national capital area and in the vicinity of Quebec City. We
are told that these are the technologies of the future.
Any decision to manufacture silicon chips in Canada's far north
would be hampered by transportation considerations.
Nonetheless, Canada's economic stability lies in its natural
resources. The far north is an absolutely marvellous place
that must be developed, but that must be developed wisely and in
a measured, or sustainable as they say, fashion.
The natural resources of the far north and the high tech
industry of the south must be developed within the parameters of
sustainable development.
1150
We maintain that the hon. member's motion would increase the
critical mass of people living in the international north. This
is the idea. However, we must not forget that the provinces'
boundaries, both in the south and in the north, are defined by
parallels.
The situation created by the provinces in Canada does not exist
in most of the other countries that are part of this circumpolar
community. We must be careful. Canada's situation and history
are different from those of the other countries that are on the
same parallel, whether it is the 60th or the 55th.
The provinces' territorial division reflects a situation and a
history that are different and that are not found in the other
countries.
This must be recognized and Canadian governments, both Liberal
and Conservative, did recognize it.
That being said, the objective is to give the north much greater
political, demographic and economic clout. We must also be
logical in our approach. When we refer to the 55th parallel for
seven or eight countries, we are speaking for all the countries
concerned.
What we are saying is that Canada's historic and territorial
reality prevent us from supporting this motion. However, we ask
the government to set a clear policy, not to deliver a policy
statement here in the House, but to truly work on a permanent
basis with those who have the honour and the pleasure of living
in what we call the north.
If you asked Quebecers and Canadians to name a place where they
would like to live, I am convinced that the vast majority of
them would not choose northern Quebec or northern Canada. We
must therefore help and support those who live in the north and,
more importantly, we must respect their social, economic and
cultural environment. We must recognize that these people are
giving Canada a territorial sovereignty over a very sparsely
populated region of the country.
If it were not for these people, territorial sovereignty as we
know it in the Canadian far north would not exist. Quebec's old
civil code used to provide that when a person occupied a piece
of land for 25 or 30 years, that land belonged to that person,
unless it was claimed by another party. The occupation of a
territory is a concept that exists in international law.
In order to ensure that Canada does not lose the great and rich
territory, the difficult territory that is our Canadian far
north, the international north, efforts must be made to ensure
that the people living there are supported and have a voice both
here in Ottawa and in the provinces, as well as internationally.
I therefore congratulate the hon. member for Churchill River on
his great concern for northern issues and for increasing our
awareness of them. Every time this hon. member raises something
in the House, it is something positive. The people living in a
region must be respected, as must the region in which they live.
There is a connection between the two and we salute the hon.
member for Churchill River for raising our awareness of an issue
with which he is so familiar, the people of the northern region
and their region itself.
I congratulate him on his undertaking, but the question of
whether to use the 55th or the 60th parallel is a highly complex
one, deserving of far more debate. We congratulate the hon.
member, therefore, but unfortunately cannot support a change in
the international border for the international far north and the
Canadian far north.
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague from Churchill River and I share the Churchill name. We
certainly share ridings that are very similar and ridings from
the 50th parallel to the 60th which do not have an opportunity to
be part of circumpolar discussions internationally because of the
way Canada recognizes our communities north of the 55th parallel.
I thank my colleague from Churchill River for bringing forward
Motion No. 237 which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary
for participation in the international circumpolar community.
1155
It is not something that is way out of line, considering that
all other countries recognize it. One has only to wonder why
Canada would choose not to recognize the 55th to 60th parallels
as part of the same circumpolar area.
I would hope that it is not simply because we have already put
boundaries in place, as my hon. colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party mentioned when he said that we have these
boundaries in place and it becomes really hard or impossible to
do things.
Might I suggest we are a country that just recognized a new
territory. We took one entire territory, put another line in
place, and recognized a new one because we recognized that people
in that area had specific concerns and felt they should be
represented in a certain way.
I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that the people and
communities that fall within the 55th to 60th parallels should
have the opportunity to have their wishes expressed as part of
the circumpolar global community. As I said, the rest of the
world acknowledges the 55th and one has only to wonder why Canada
chooses not to.
Let me assure the House that those of us who live north of the
55th parallel consider ourselves northerners. We understand what
happens in the country north of us because we have very great
similarities. I might add that once we reach a certain point in
the northern community such as the 53rd or 54th parallel, it
becomes a very specific part of our life.
We acknowledge that. We identify our communities by that. My
home community of Thompson, Manitoba, identifies itself as north
of the 55th. The community of Snow Lake identifies itself as
north of the 54th. It becomes very important to each of us
because we know the differences that happen when we reach that
point. There are differences geographically, demographically and
climatologically. There are grave differences within our
country.
I do not have a lot of time but I want to get in a couple of key
points. I guess the member of the Reform Party as well as the
member of the Progressive Conservative Party are united in a lot
of ways. They are united when it comes to voicing that this is
all wonderful and that we should do this, this and this. However,
they do not want to put anything in action and they do not really
believe people should have a say.
The hon. member of the Conservative Party indicated that if most
Quebecers were asked they would not want to live in the north.
Quite frankly maybe that is the case but because most Quebecers
do not want to live in the north why do we deny those persons and
communities north of the 55th parallel the opportunity to have a
say? Is it just because most Quebecers do not want to live in
the north?
In northern Manitoba we do not have the majority of the
population, but the people who are there strongly believe in the
north. We are committed to the north. A good number of the
people have lived there for 25, 30, 40 and 50 years because they
believe in the north. We believe in northern Canada. We are not
willing to go in there, reap the resources from the north and
leave nothing in return. We are there committed to our
communities and we deserve to have the same right for
representation internationally within the circumpolar community
as have people everywhere else. I find it disappointing anyone
would suggest that just because others do not want to live there
those in the north should not have a say.
Since I probably do not have a whole lot of time to get into a
lot, I will comment that it was also indicated that the provinces
would not necessarily be supportive of lowering the parallel from
the 60th to the 55th. I will comment on a report that the
foreign affairs committee presented last year which commented on
how the provinces felt:
Generally, however, the provincial dimensions have not been very
prominent in analyzing Arctic affairs affecting Canada; the
exception being Quebec which is clearly the most advanced in
terms of examining its distinctive “nordicité” within a
domestic and international context.
I suggest that is the case because Quebec has been a part of the
circumpolar conference and the other provinces have not. By
including them in the circumpolar grouping they would be very
much more involved in the north and what happens there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Churchill will have approximately five minutes when next this
issue comes to the House for debate.
1200
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the order paper.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to seek unanimous consent to move the following motion.
I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of
this House, if at any time after 3.15 p.m. during this day's
sitting, a minister of the crown requests that the House revert
to Introduction of Government Bills, the House shall do so and
the bill in the name of the Minister of Labour, entitled an act
to provide for the maintenance of west coast ports operations,
1999, shall be introduced, read a first time and shall be
disposed of as follows:
1. Commencing when the said bill is read a first time and
concluding when the said bill is read a third time, the House
shall not adjourn except pursuant to this order or to a motion
proposed by a minister of the crown, and no Private Members'
Business shall be taken up;
2. The said bill may be read twice or thrice in one sitting;
3. After being read a second time, the said bill shall be
referred to a committee of the whole;
4. During consideration of the said bill, no division shall be
deferred;
5. After no more than six hours of consideration of the said
bill, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at all
remaining stages shall be put forthwith and successively without
further debate or amendment;
6. Immediately after the said bill is disposed of the House
shall adjourn.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like clarification from the government House
leader.
If we do get into the bill this afternoon, is that in the event
that there is no agreement whatsoever in the Vancouver port
situation? Or, is this introduction today a result of asking
that we bring this in, in any event? In other words, I would
like to know, more or less, the status of where this is at at
this point in time in British Columbia before we give unanimous
consent. If there is no agreement today, then we will discuss
this legislation today and finalize it today?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind responding
very briefly so as not to delay the House.
The government is quite firm in its resolve that this afternoon,
if there is not a situation whereby the people will be going back
to work, either because they have decided to, which I understand
they have already done, or because management prevents them from
going back to work, which is the condition remaining, there will
be agreement to go back and a commitment to go back to work.
Otherwise we will proceed with this legislation.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is rightfully seeking
unanimous consent to proceed with this motion. I want to say
that we will support this motion in order to open the port of
Vancouver.
1205
However, I must say that in my years as a member of parliament
this is the first time I have ever had to address backward
legislation which would encourage employers to go back to work
when in fact they have locked out their employees. If they want
to end the situation and get the port working it would be simple
to take the padlocks off the gates which they have locked.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I am not standing here as
my colleague from the NDP did to enter into debate; I am merely
asking a question that I am not certain was answered by the
government House leader.
This is not a matter of just going back to work. My question
is, giving approval to this—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
question was put to the government. The response was very clear
and we are not going to debate it.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it was not clear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Yes, it was and we
are not going to debate it.
The government House leader has put a motion to the House. Is
there unanimous consent for the government House leader to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the House give
its consent to the motion as presented by the government House
leader?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I was seeking clarification
as to whether the government was satisfied with merely going back
to work or having a collective agreement in place. The Chair did
not give us the opportunity to make that clear before we approved
this. I am very disappointed in the Chair.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets
of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is now coming
before the House for debate, Bill C-11, is an important component
in the reshaping of the coal mining industry on Cape Breton
Island. I hope that all hon. members will be able to give this
legislation their prompt and favourable attention.
The bill is quite simple. It provides the legal authority for
the Cape Breton Development Corporation, otherwise known as
Devco, to sell all or substantially all of its assets consistent
with a privatization plan recommended by Devco's board of
directors and agreed to by the Government of Canada in January of
this year.
Timely passage of this bill will allow us to proceed as quickly
as possible to secure a purchaser for Devco's assets and to
finalize a transaction which can help lift some of the clouds of
uncertainty about the future of coal mining on Cape Breton Island
and confirm the maintenance of good solid private sector jobs.
Let me put this bill into context. For some 300 years coal
mining has been an integral dimension of Cape Breton's existence.
It is ingrained not only in the island's economy, but also in its
heritage, its culture and its very way of life. For the past
three decades, since 1967, Devco, as a federal crown corporation,
has been the principal instrument by which mining activity has
been undertaken. There are strong historic bonds between the
corporation and Cape Bretoners which cannot be taken lightly and
which must be treated respectfully.
1210
Any accurate reading of the present day realities and future
possibilities would indicate that a turning point has indeed been
reached. The time has come for some fundamental change.
It is instructive to note that as far back as the Donald
Commission of 1966, in a report entitled “The Cape Breton Coal
Problem”, a recommendation was made to phase out coal mining on
Cape Breton and shift the local economy to other more viable
alternatives. Devco was created as a result of that particular
report. Its mandate was to discontinue uneconomic coal mines
while providing other employment outside the coal industry and
diversifying Cape Breton's economic base.
Since 1967, as a Devco shareholder, the Government of Canada has
invested approximately $1.6 billion in keeping the corporation's
coal mining operations afloat. The federal treasury has also
provided more than $500 million over that same time period for
economic development initiatives beyond coal, first through
Devco's industrial development division and after 1998 through
the then newly established Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation,
known as ECBC. Everyone would agree that this is a great deal of
money, particularly the operating subsidies for Devco.
Beginning in the early 1990s, shortly after the economic
development mandate was shifted from Devco to the ECBC,
successive federal ministers in successive governments
established target dates by which Devco was to have implemented
business plans to attain commercial viability in its coal
operations without the need for ongoing subsidization. Most
recently, in 1996 my immediate predecessor fixed 1999 as such a
target date and provided Devco with a federal loan of some $69
million to be drawn upon over that three year period while
commercial viability was being achieved.
The board of directors, the management and the employees
laboured mightily toward that important goal. However,
unfortunately, by late 1998 it became evident that the goal was
simply unattainable. Chronic geological problems, productivity
levels that were below industry standards, quality
considerations, uncompetitive costs and pricing led the board of
directors to some serious and unavoidable conclusions.
They requested that their 1996 loan obligations of $69 million
be forgiven, plus they identified a further requirement of some
$81 million to keep Devco functioning through the year 2000. The
board of directors recommended that when the specific mining
operations then under way in Devco's Phalen mine were completed
in about 15 to 24 months' time, Phalen should be closed. They
also recommended that a private sector buyer should be sought to
purchase all of Devco's remaining assets, that being the best and
most realistic way to sustain as many coal mining jobs as
possible, estimated at perhaps up to 500 jobs, in a commercially
viable operation.
The board of directors further recommended a human resources
compensation package for those employees, estimated at
approximately 1,000, who would not likely find work with a new
private owner. That package, including early retirement
incentives for about one-third of the affected employees and
severance and training arrangements for the other two-thirds, was
costed at approximately $111 million. The package is fully
consistent with the requirements of the collective agreements
between Devco and its unions, and in some respects it exceeds
those requirements.
The Government of Canada accepted those recommendations from the
Devco board of directors and it added a further initiative, an
incremental $68 million in a fund to further promote economic
adjustment and development on Cape Breton in addition to what
would normally be undertaken by either the ECBC or the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency, or the federal department of Human
Resources Development Canada or any other federal department or
agency. I announced all of these decisions last January.
1215
Since that time there has been a number of further developments,
some of them good and some of them bad. On the good side, the
Government of Nova Scotia has come forward with an incremental
$12 million to add to the economic development funding, bringing
the available total for economic development now to $80 million.
As requested by Cape Bretoners, local consultations have been
undertaken to obtain the very best possible local advice about
how to use that new funding. Everyone wants wise decisions to be
made to achieve sustainable, long term economic diversification
and growth. Community groups, the clergy, labour organizations,
industry and business representatives, local authorities,
academics and private citizens have been putting forward some
very creative and innovative ideas to reshape and reinvigorate
the local economy.
The panel that was assigned to conduct these consultations with
Cape Bretoners is now preparing its summary report of what it
heard. Federal and provincial officials will use that
information as the basis upon which to design an economic
investment strategy for Cape Breton. The initial elements of
that strategy should be operational during the first quarter of
the year 2000.
Also on the positive side, Devco has engaged the firm of Nesbitt
Burns to serve as its financial adviser and to see out potential
purchasers of Devco's assets. The assets for sale include the
Phalen and Prince collieries, the Donkin Mine site, the
corporation's coal pier and railway, its coal preparation plant
and related mine infrastructure. Private sector expressions of
interest are expected in December.
The legislation now before us is the key to moving that process
forward. The future hinges in large part upon that process being
successful, and of course Devco and the Government of Canada will
be most interested in a buyer who will make the most tangible and
long term commitment to Cape Breton.
On the negative side of the equation, since our announcement
last January Phalen Mine has experienced two very serious roof
falls which have raised questions about human safety. The board
of directors consequently took the position, and I think everyone
agrees rightly so, that for safety reasons first and foremost
Phalen had to be closed now, not sometime in the latter part of
next year which had been the original expectation last January.
This early closure precipitated by very serious safety
considerations punched a $70 million hole in Devco's business
plan due to lower revenues on the one hand and higher expenses on
the other. It also raised questions in the minds of those
employees who based upon our January announcements were expecting
certain specific benefits at a certain time under the human
resources package, all predicated upon Phalen being in operation
about a year longer than that which has turned out to be the
case.
I am pleased to confirm that we have successfully reprofiled the
timing of some of the funding that we announced last January. We
have also increased that funding by another $70 million. This
will allow us to sustain the corporation through the current
fiscal year, that is to April 30, 2000, and to ensure the human
resources benefits remain intact as originally expected.
We have of course received many representations calling for that
original human resources package to be revised. On this point I
do not want to raise any expectations because any room to
manoeuvre on this point financially is very limited.
1220
However, because of the new and unexpected situation created by
the roof falls and consequently the early closure of Phalen, the
human resources package is being assessed in the context of
fairness among different groups of employees, relevant
precedents, both those from the past and those that might be
anticipated in the future, and overall fiscal responsibility. If
any adjustments are made in the overall package, I would expect
them to be relatively modest.
Returning explicitly to the privatization process and Bill C-11,
it is important to note that the bill is not only required to
complete any potential sale of assets. It is also an integral
and key element in the whole privatization process. It sends a
clear signal of serious intent. It will help to bring
prospective buyers to the table and keep them there, leading
hopefully to an early and successful conclusion.
Beyond providing the legally required sale authority, the bill
creates no new ministerial powers and no delegated authorities.
It maintains what is called the general advantage of Canada
clause which will ensure that the Canada Labour Code will
continue to apply, a point that is important to Devco's unions
and employees. That is in the bill.
Also there are the usual provisions about the continuation of
previously existing legal proceedings. For example, the United
Mineworkers Union has initiated a grievance proceeding under
subsection 17(4) of the existing Devco Act. While the new bill
would eliminate that particular section, it would not affect the
outstanding grievance because that grievance was started while
the previous provision was in the law so the rights that existed
under that particular provision are continued.
During our consultations the province, the Cape Breton community
and Devco's workers asked that the proceeds from any sale of
Devco's assets remain in Cape Breton. Subclause 2(2) of the new
bill will ensure that happens.
Devco will also continue to be accountable to the government.
The terms and conditions of any proposed sale of Devco's assets
must be approved by the Government of Canada. After the sale the
current Devco board of directors will remain in place to ensure
that all other obligations are properly looked after.
The Financial Administration Act also ensures accountability
with respect to how Devco uses the proceeds. It must as a crown
corporation operate within an approved business plan, summaries
of which are tabled in the House.
The changes I have outlined are contained in the first five
clauses of Bill C-11. The consequential amendments that follow
in the remainder of the bill remove various provisions that are
no longer applicable or would no longer be necessary under the
current act.
As I said at the outset, the bill we are discussing today is
straightforward and simple. It is a bill that is as much about
Cape Breton's economic future as it is about Devco's past. It is
as much a beginning as it is an end. We are trying our very best
to move forward along the best available path.
We all know that none of this is easy. The challenges that are
to be faced are enormous, but by allowing a private sector
operator to purchase Devco's mining assets we are taking a
tangible step to try to maintain the maximum possible number of
coal mining jobs in Cape Breton in a commercially viable context
for the long term.
May I once again give my assurance to Devco, most especially the
employees and their families but also the management and the
board of directors, that the Government of Canada takes the
issues surrounding the Devco situation very seriously. We wish
to work in a very constructive way with all of those affected to
try to arrive at the end of the day at the very best possible
situation for all concerned. We must be most concerned about the
future of Cape Breton.
1225
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-11, an act
to authorize the divestiture of the assets and to dissolve the
Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton
Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments
to other acts.
In short, the Reform Party intends to support the main thrust of
the bill although we have some concerns and we will be
introducing some amendments to address some of those concerns.
However, in general terms we will support the sale of the assets
of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
We congratulate the government in finally getting around to
addressing the problem that maritimers and other Canadians alike
have witnessed for years and years. The Cape Breton Development
Corporation was originally the baby of Prime Minister Lester B.
Pearson, which gives one an idea of how far back the history of
the whole matter goes.
Most people today refer to the Cape Breton Development
Corporation as Devco. It was and still is a disastrous money pit
for the taxpayers of Canada. As far back as 1957 it was
recognized that the coal industry in Cape Breton simply would not
be sufficiently viable to sustain the economy of Cape Breton on a
long term basis. In 1966 the Donald report commissioned by the
Government of Canada recommended the downsizing of the Cape
Breton coal industry and chose 1980 as the target for production
to cease.
In the same year Prime Minister Pearson and Nova Scotia Premier
Robert Stanfield announced a $55 million package to phase out
coal mining in Cape Breton within 15 years. It would not have
been easy for the miners or their families, but postponing the
agenda from what was originally planned has certainly spawned a
whole new generation of miners. Some of these miners will be
losing their jobs at a relatively young age and will not qualify
for pensions, which has prolonged the same problems expressed
during the debates in the time of Mr. Pearson.
It was recognized that without diversification the long term
effects on the economy that supports these same families would
get increasingly and drastically worse. The economy would become
dependent on a dying industry, which could then lead to
dependency on government programs and subsidies. In 1966 such
forecasts were only warnings of things to come. Thirty years
later Devco has realized all of the predictions and the worst
elements of the early earnings.
In 1967 Devco was formed as a federal crown corporation, and
contrary to the 1966 plan much expansion took place in the next
20 years. However, the expansion came at a cost to taxpayers as
much of the development was subsidized by the government, a
pattern that would continue for many years to come.
In 1989 there was hope that the government would finally
approach Devco in a manner that encouraged the company to remain
productive on its own power and relieve Canadians of the tax
burden of supporting the company. The $30 million per year
subsidy was to end in 1995 and after that point the company was
expected to remain viable on its own.
Speaking of the development of Devco, on March 23, 1992, the
Liberal member for Cape Breton—East Richmond, Mr. David
Dingwall, stated that federally we conceived and implemented what
was known as the Cape Breton Development Corporation to try to
assist the diversification of the local economy and also in later
years to try to provide alternatives to the use of coal in Cape
Breton.
As the years passed it became more and more obvious that this
simply would not happen. Like many other Liberal promises, this
one too was little more than an empty election promise. The
rhetoric seemed to have an end in sight with the 1989
announcement, yet like so many other government promises it never
happened. Since 1996 a further $150 million has been provided to
sustain Devco.
1230
In the last 33 years, Devco has experienced many shutdowns,
failures to meet production targets and stunning financial
losses, including some serious roof cave-ins in one of the mines.
In August of this year, Devco's annual report showed that it had
one of its worst years on record, suffering a $299.7 million
dollar loss.
Through the years, Devco has employed scores of hard-working,
driven and responsible miners. It is certainly not their fault
that Devco has proven to be such a disastrous example of a crown
corporation. However, it is the miners and the Cape Breton
community that are suffering from the abysmal lack of government
action to ensure that the mine best serves those who support it
and those that it supports.
In January 1999, it was announced that the government would take
steps to privatize Devco, including two mines, an international
pier, a railway, a coal wash plant and all surface operations.
This announcement immediately raised howls of protest and despair
from Cape Breton as mining is all many Cape Bretoners have ever
known. Coal mining is to Cape Bretoners as oil and gas are to
Albertans.
Remembering the effects of the cod moratorium in Newfoundland,
Cape Bretoners are terrified that an entire industry, economy,
lifestyle and culture are doomed to extinction. I sympathize
with those concerns. I agree that all that is reasonable must be
done to alleviate the difficulties that privatization will cause
for the 1,100 miners and their families that are affected by this
decision.
When one studies the long history of Devco, it becomes quite
clear that Devco was primarily created for political purposes.
From the beginning, the corporation was rife with political
patronage and nepotism and certainly did not operate as a viable
commercial venture might have done. The reality is that due to
the ineffective management of Devco by the federal and provincial
governments over the years, Devco is not and never will be a
viable crown corporation. It is simply sucking millions of
dollars in subsidies every year. Since 1967, the government has
provided over $1.5 billion in subsidies. In all fairness,
taxpayers cannot continue this kind of subsidization of Devco.
Bill C-11 starts the process of privatization by giving
legislative authority for the sale of all, or substantially all,
of Devco's assets. I am very pleased to see that there is an end
in sight to the government's responsibility for Devco. The
federal government should no more have been in the business of
coal mining in Cape Breton than in the business of oil and gas in
Alberta. These reserves of coal in Cape Breton and oil and gas
in Alberta are under the exclusive jurisdiction and ownership of
the provincial governments. The federal government should
certainly not be interfering in those territories.
Yet what may not end is Canadian taxpayers losing out on the
deal. As a crown corporation, all profits from the sale of
company assets should return to public coffers. That is what
should happen.
I am not convinced that that is what the government has in mind
for this legislation. There are some very interesting holes in
the bill that could be conveniently filled through more patronage
and more Liberal back scratching.
For example, subclause 2(2) of the new bill calls for
subsections 99(2) to 99(5) of the Financial Administration Act to
not be applied to the disposal of Devco assets. I cannot help
but wonder why it is that the FAA needs to be suspended for this
sale to go through and, more important, what is going to replace
those accountability controls that are provided for in the
Financial Administration Act. The FAA ensures that a sale such as
this happens in an open and accountable manner. If those
restrictions are removed, what will control such issues as who
gets the successful bid and did they pay a reasonable amount for
the assets? Was the transaction made with best value for money
interests? Will the money return to the public coffers?
Devco has historically been rife with patronage and nepotism. It
is crucial that this last transaction be done properly, in an
open, honest and accountable manner with the best interests of
all Nova Scotians and all Canadians in mind, not just the Liberal
interests.
1235
Another concern I have is that currently only bidders and
cabinet have access to the bidding process. No one else can get
information about how much the assets are worth or, for that
matter, what level of liability exists on those assets. How will
we know if the final price is truly reflective of the value of
the assets?
Not all of Devco's assets are no longer viable. The Donkin
mine, the international pier and the railway system are all
functional. After having invested millions of dollars over the
past 30 years and, thanks to the government, never seeing any
kind of economic return on this investment, I believe that
Canadians at least deserve to know that Devco's death will not
serve the same political purpose that its birth and life did.
Another concern of mine is that the government is proposing to
entirely repeal section 17 of the original bill. This is the
section under which the grievances have been filed and certainly
around which most of the controversy exists. This section
legislated that in the event of a mine shutdown or sale the
government had to do everything in its power to mitigate the
effects on miners and their families. Something must replace
this protection for the workers and their families, but I cannot
help but wonder why the government seeks to remove this clause.
Is it concerned with ongoing lawsuits or does it just want to
wash its hands of the entire mess regardless of the effects on
Cape Breton?
Whatever the reasons, certainly it is reasonable for the unions,
the miners and their families to expect the same kind of
protection as long as some of the Devco empire still exists. If
that protection was reasonable in the old act, it should continue
to be reasonable in whatever replaces that old act until Devco
and its assets no longer exist.
The Reform Party is very sensitive to the needs and fears of
Devco families and certainly we do not want to cause them
unnecessary hardship. However, the sale of Devco must take place
if Nova Scotians are ever going to get out from under the control
and dependency of the federal government.
Unfortunately there are a few complications that might make the
sale difficult. For example, the accumulated liability of the
company is estimated at around half a billion dollars. The majority of
that liability comes from ongoing arbitration regarding workers
compensation, severance payouts, as well as other workers'
concerns as a result of section 17 of the old act. At least this
element of the liability is known.
What is not known is what the environmental costs and
liabilities may be in the future. Cleanup of the Devco site has
been budgeted by Devco to cost $110 million. However, as with
most things where the government is involved, the price tag will
no doubt actually be much higher than that. One only has to look
at the history of the Sydney Steel mills and the Sydney Tar Ponds
to see the potential environmental liability could be much
higher.
The successful buyer of Devco might not have to pay the
liability as part of the deal and likely no one would bid on the
Devco assets if that liability were to go with the assets of the
company. Regardless of who buys the company, somebody will have
to pay for the liability, whether it is the taxpayer or a private
company. Inevitably it will be the federal government, which of
course is the taxpayers of the country, that will be responsible
for whatever the real liability of Devco will be.
As if past costs were not enough, the taxpayers will continue to
be on the hook for many years to come. Bill C-11 addresses any
future lawsuits against Devco and provides reassurances that
regardless of the state of Devco the lawsuits will stand.
However, instead of suing Devco, instead the government and
therefore the taxpayers will pay the price. According to the
bill, there is no finite end to this arrangement. Even though
Devco may no longer exist, no doubt it will remain a fixture on
the taxpayers chequebook for many years to come.
My sense is that Cape Bretoners and many maritimers are very
concerned with what they see happening to their way of life. I
do not blame them. It must be a terrible worry and a concern to
see the industries and way of life that generations have come to
know, appreciate and develop disappearing. I do not believe that
the maritime economy and way of life needs to be put on the
endangered list quite yet or that Atlantic Canadians need to
depend on the largesse of the federal government in perpetuity.
1240
The Reform Party is sympathetic to the concerns of maritimers
and we believe that Atlantic Canadians are poised to take
advantage of a rising economic tide. Rather than being caught in
a whirlpool of discredited, backward-looking Liberal economic
development policies that only pull maritimers down, Atlantic
Canadians are looking toward a wave of economic and social
progress based on new ideas and new politics.
This new direction represents the foundation of a new growth
strategy for Atlantic Canada, a strategy that offers tax relief
to the many instead of subsidies to the few. It includes new ways
that are free of Liberal patronage and corruption to attract
private as well as public capital to rebuild the east coast
infrastructure, from ports, to airports, to short line railways,
to shipyards, to highways both traditional and electronic.
It includes rebuilding the old trade routes to New England and
across the Atlantic to Europe which free trade is now reopening.
It includes getting the financial houses of the Atlantic
provincial governments in order by throwing out patronage
infected spend and tax regimes and replacing them with a
government committed to controlling spending, balanced budgets,
lowering taxes and paying down debt. It promotes the
attractiveness of the east coast as a place in which to live and
to raise families in combination with excellent education
institutions as the foundation of the knowledge based industries
of the 21st century.
I have been to the east coast many times and I have family
there. My son lives in Nova Scotia and has for many years. My
colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap, visited the
Devco operation a number of times, went down in the mines and
spent a lot of time with the unions that were involved in Devco
and the shutdown. Therefore we do have some familiarity with the
issues around Devco and around the economy of Cape Breton and
Nova Scotia.
I have always said that if I was to choose a place to live in
Canada, other than my native Alberta, it certainly would be the
province of Nova Scotia. Its majestic beauty, its welcoming
people and the resilient spirit of its citizens are
characteristics of Atlantic Canada and certainly Nova Scotia. It
is truly amazing that maritimers have managed to maintain their
pride and dignity through years and years of Liberal and
Conservative patronage and policies that give birth to that kind
of government intervention.
The Reform Party believes that the efforts of Atlantic
Canadians, not bureaucrats or politicians from the federal
government, can and will revive the Atlantic economy.
This bill is a starting place to begin giving over control of
the economy to Atlantic Canadians and away from the Liberal
government's greedy hold on an enterprise that was never meant to
be profitable. If it had been economical, Nova Scotians would
have developed the project successfully. From the beginning, it
was simply an exercise for the Liberals to win votes; votes won
at the cost of the well-being and economic stability of an entire
community. So much for responsible government.
On March 23, 1992 the Liberal member for Cape Breton—East
Richmond, Mr. Dingwall, argued against the privatization of
Devco. I think the following quote gives some idea of the
mentality of Liberal thinking in that part of Canada. He said:
—to privatize Devco, to give it to his friends—that kind of
(an) individual to come in and be the sole operator of a coal
mine, to strip it down to sell off its best parts and make a
million dollars or more and then walk away from it in five years,
is privatization which I would never support.
Perhaps the Liberals have changed their definition of
privatization since then, but in my mind it is exactly the kind
of action that the Liberal member described that we are facing
without stricter controls in the legislation.
I cannot support the bill as it exists now because although I
agree that Devco must be privatized, it must happen responsibly
with open, honest and accountable procedures. Until changes are
made to the bill to ensure an accountable process, I cannot
support the bill and I urge other members of the House to do the
same.
1245
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thank you for
permitting me to speak in the debate on Bill C-11.
The bill, whose short title is the Cape Breton Development
Corporation Divestiture Authorization and Dissolution Act, is
intended essentially to end the federal government's involvement
in the Cape Breton coal mines.
I would point out initially that the first section of the bill
concerns the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act of 1967 and
provides for the repeal of certain outdated provisions. For
instance, the word chairperson is now used instead of
chairman and the number of directors has been changed.
The second section concerns the mission and assets of the
corporation. The changes will make the mission of the
corporation essentially commercial, since it no longer has to
reorganize and rehabilitate the coal division as initially
provided in the act.
The third section concerns financial provisions and sets out the
procedure for authorizing advances to provide working capital.
It will be interesting to take a longer look at clause 19. Does
it mean that the government intends to fund the new corporation
before it is privatized? The workers pensions and rights
acquired over the years also warrant very close consideration.
That is what we intend to do this in committee.
Because, under the Financial Administration Act, legislation is
required to authorize the federal government to sell part of the
assets, the House is now considering Bill C-11, which will
authorize the federal government to divest itself of its assets
in the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
It should be pointed out that the main provinces involved in the
coal mining industry are Nova Scotia, Alberta and British
Columbia. Many people feel western coal is of higher quality.
Coal is essentially an export commodity, as less and less of it
is in use in our generating stations, since natural gas is less
harmful to the environment and therefore used more.
The corporation employs close to 1,700 miners, so this will
throw some 1,000 people out of work in a region where the
unemployment rate is already at a worrisome level, of close to
25%.
At the same time, the minister is announcing $110 million
in assistance to be used for severance pay and early retirement
programs for the miners, as well as $68 million for economic
development in the region. The Government of Nova Scotia has
recently announced that it would be investing $12 million in the
long term economic development of Cape Breton.
Devco was established in 1967 by the Cape Breton Development
Act. Its assets include the Prince and Phalen mines, the Donkin
mine site, the corporation wharf and rail line, its coal
processing plant and the related infrastructures.
Federal government participation in Cape Breton coal mining
dates back to 1967. In the mid-sixties, the owner at the time,
Dominion Steel and Coal (DOSCO) announced its intention to close
down operations. The federal government decided to create Devco
to operate the mines, with the plan to withdraw gradually and to
ensure the economic diversification of the region. This
participation, meant to be temporary, continued until this past
January.
A little over 30 years and some $1.6 billion later in the life
of Devco the crown corporation responsible for managing these
mines, the federal government withdrew, while ensuring that it
would maintain its jurisdiction over labour relations,
occupational health and safety, and labour standards.
1250
Let there be no mistake—the government is withdrawing and mines
are closing down. However, one of them must continue to operate
and the government is hoping to be able to privatize it. This
is why the bill refers to the continuation of the existing
jurisdictional regimes in the areas I mentioned earlier.
To date, the office of the Minister of Natural Resources have
not been crowded with buyers. Coal is not an emerging market.
The reverse in fact is true. All that time and money spent
persuading Cape Bretoners that their economy could be based on
coal mining alone.
The government knew that it should diversify the economy but,
rather than doing the responsible, but difficult, thing, the
Liberals of the day decided to pass on the problem to their
successors.
Bloc Quebecois members were elected to promote and defend the
interests of Quebecers. Whether those interests involve
employment insurance, restructuring of the airline industry, or
opposition to Bill C-6 or the young offenders legislation, the
Bloc Quebecois has always devoted its energies to promoting and
defending the interests of Quebecers.
This is why the voters have placed their trust in us, and it is
what guides us in the House. We must be vigilant when it comes
to bills that do not concern Quebec directly, because what the
federal government is doing could have repercussions for Quebec.
The bill before us is a good example.
In many areas, the federal government is behaving like a unitary
government, with little regard for the provinces, and even less
for Quebec. A few examples will suffice if anyone is still in
any doubt: the millennium scholarships being imposed by the
government on Quebec, despite the fact that Quebec has an
excellent loans and scholarships program based on students'
needs; Bill C-6 on personal information protection in the context
of e-commerce, which the Minister of Industry has introduced
without prior consultation, although Quebec already has personal
information protection legislation that has received
international acclaim.
The list is long, and every day we try to add examples to prove
to Quebecers that there is a level of government in our
territory that is not doing the job given it by the
Constitution. In fact, that level of government is doing too
much.
It is the federal government that is doing too much. Perhaps it
is because the Constitution Act gives it too much power. The
federal government uses all sorts of provisions in the
Constitution Act to impose its jurisdiction in areas that are
under provincial jurisdiction. Members not supporting this
approach, such as the Bloc Quebecois, must criticize it. Only
infrequently do we see our neighbours opposite rise to criticize
the centralizing aims of the party in power. Some, exceedingly
rarely, display courage, such as the member for Lac-Saint-Louis,
in expressing his opposition to the restructuring of the airline
industry.
I referred earlier to the Constitution Act, which has a new
section on natural resources, section 92A. The section reads as
follows:
(1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws
in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the
province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable
resources natural resources and forestry resources in the
province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary
production therefrom; and
(c) development, conservation and management of sites and
facilities in the province for the generation and production of
electrical energy.
This provision dates from before Devco's establishment. It must
not be assumed that it is federal jurisdiction. Reference must
be made to subsection 92(10), which sets out that local works
and undertakings are under provincial jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the federal government declared the Cape Breton
mines to be a work of general advantage to Canada in order to
establish its jurisdiction and ensure the application of federal
legislation in such areas as labour and occupational health and
safety.
1255
This way of going about things, also known as declaratory power,
allows the federal government to interfere unilaterally in the
division of powers. Brun and Tremblay define it as follows:
—it is the right given to the Parliament of Canada by sections
91(29) and 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867, to extend
its exclusive jurisdiction to local works, by declaring them to
be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more
provinces. The works that are the subject of such unilateral
declaration no longer come under provincial jurisdiction.
The courts refuse to rule on the appropriateness of recourse to
this power; in fact, the federal government has used it on
close to 500 occasions in connection with a wide variety of
infrastructures, including railways, telephones, and dams.
The federal government thus interferes in provincial
jurisdictions in all sorts of ways. In some cases, it cites its
spending authority, and in others it uses its declaratory power.
For the government to have taken this approach in 1967 is one
thing, but for it now to decide to get out of the mines but hang
on to its jurisdiction using clause 5 of the bill is
unacceptable.
For the information of those listening, I will read clause 5
The works and undertakings operated or carried on by the
Corporation on or after June 15, 1967 are declared to be works
for the general advantage of Canada.
It is this clause in particular that we have a problem with.
In the 1990s, the federal government slashed provincial transfer
payments in order to balance the budget. In a federal system
with centralizing tendencies, these cuts were just one more step
on the road to concentrating power in the hands of the federal
government.
With the present surpluses, is the federal government getting
ready to “buy” jurisdiction? There is cause for concern and
this is why we think Bill C-11 poses a threat.
The Bloc Quebecois will oppose Bill C-11 primarily because of
clause 5, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over
what we feel is a provincial matter.
As well, we feel it is important to raise certain points
relating to the situation in Cape Breton. It is not so much the
federal withdrawal from the coal industry that bothers us as the
resulting outcome, unfortunately in large part its own doing.
We do not need to draw any pictures, the Liberal government's
policies on regional economic diversification are well known.
Suffice it to say that it has not always made the wisest of
choices. As long ago as the late 1960s, a commission on the
future of the industry of Cape Breton indicated that coal
production would have to be phased out and the local economy
truly diversified. Federal investments have not worked out and
by focussing solely on this one industry, the government
encouraged hundreds of young people to follow their fathers into
the mines.
Thirty years later, when many miners had not worked long enough
to have a decent pension, the coal industry is in a total
decline. It is, moreover, important to point out that, although
there are some 1,700 employees of Devco, the futures of 6,000
individuals and families whose living comes from coal mining are
at stake.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill as it
stands. The main reason for our opposition relates to the
maintenance of federal jurisdiction. I would also point out
that this whole mess, which dates back to 1967 and that the
federal government should have tried to remedy by diversifying
the economy of Cape Breton, affects the workers and their
families.
1300
The reclassification manoeuvres under way will make it possible
for heads of families to be bumped from their jobs. We will
therefore be making an effort to get answers from the minister
on retirement conditions and on how Devco's assets will be
privatized.
I am anxious to see the bill go before the natural resources
committee so that we will get some answers.
[English]
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, once again I stand in the House to oppose the slow and
calculated government plan to abandon the people of Cape Breton
by shutting down the livelihood of so many in the mainstay of the
Cape Breton economy.
My colleagues in the government would have us believe that Bill
C-11, the privatization of Devco, is a step that we all agree to.
The miners who are out of work because of the government's
actions do not agree with the government. The spouses who have
to worry with their partners about how they are going to pay this
month's bills do not agree. The people of Cape Breton do not
agree with the government. I and my fellow NDP colleagues
certainly do not agree with the government.
We are sick and tired of the Liberals' policies that benefit
only themselves and their friends. The people of Cape Breton did
not elect Liberals in the previous election because they were
tired of not being listened to. This is their future that the
government is playing with and we are not going to play its game.
The Liberals have mismanaged Devco since they first got into the
coal industry 30 years ago. Only the Liberals could be in the
same position of trying to close an industry 30 years after they
started the job.
During those 30 years of managed mismanagement the people of
Cape Breton were told that their was a future in coal. New
exploration went ahead and coal was once again, as it had been so
many times in the past, an important industry for all Canadians.
Cape Bretoners faced long term decisions on the government's
initiatives. In a cold and calculated manner, the government has
changed its mind and is ready to disregard coal while sacrificing
the people of Cape Breton with little more than an afterthought.
Where is the respect that the people of Cape Breton deserve after
sending generations of men down in the mines to bring coal to the
surface to benefit all Canadians? Where is the respect these
same men deserve for putting their lives and their health at
stake, a sacrifice that has helped Canada be what it is today?
The government does not respect the hard work and sacrifice that
generations of Cape Bretoners have put in. It is getting out of
the coal industry as fast as possible, with a total disregard for
the economic, social and cultural ramifications that will result
from its decision. Cape Bretoners have been made economic
refugees at the hands of the Liberal government.
May I remind everybody in the House that this is just not some
accidental series of events or that Cape Bretoners have bad luck.
Instead of working on a long term solution in co-operation with
the workers, communities and labour representatives, the
government developed a secret plan to destroy Devco and the
communities of Cape Breton, a plan that the minister continues to
deny today. The government has followed this plan right to the
letter, an extremely efficient move after 30 years of managed
mismanagement. It is so efficient that we might say it is
ruthless. It has certainly been well planned.
The government embarked on the road to get to this day nearly
four years ago when it commissioned Nesbitt Burns to create a
secret plan for the dismantling of Devco and destruction of Cape
Breton. It was a time when we had three representatives in the
House of Commons with the Liberal government and 10 MLA ministers
represented in the provincial legislature.
In order to justify this plan, the government also had to prove
that Devco was not commercially viable. So the government went
ahead and did just that. It purposely set out to destroy the
work of generations of miners by instituting policies that would
ensure that Devco looked like a liability on the government's
balance sheets.
The bill we are debating today, Bill C-11, will allow the
government to get away with its attempt to ignore and discard the
people of Cape Breton. Section 17 legally binds the government
to respect them and the government is trying to get rid of that.
The government is trying to abandon its responsibilities.
1305
In 1967 when Devco was created, the government made a commitment
to create economic development and even made it its legal
obligation with respect to creating opportunities for Cape
Bretoners. Yes, money has been sent to the island of Cape Breton
over the years. But let us be clear, most of it has gone to line
the pockets of Liberal supporters or for the current government
scheme to make Devco not commercially viable. Now, 30 years
later, the government still has not created sustainable economic
development or opportunities for Cape Breton, and it is preparing
to jump ship.
Cape Breton Island has an unemployment rate which is nearly
double the national average and the government has created the
condition to cut even more jobs. We all remember that the
election slogan of the government in 1997 was jobs, jobs, jobs,
which is obviously as valuable as its promise to cut the GST.
The so-called children's agenda in the throne speech supposedly
shows the Liberal government's commitment to improve the quality
of life for all children. Obviously it did not mean the children
of Cape Breton miners and others who depend on mining in the
area. It did not mean the adult children of miners who will have
to take out even bigger student loans to get an education or who
will have to delay their education. The Liberals obviously were
not talking about the youth who are leaving Cape Breton in
alarming numbers, because after 30 years of a supposed government
commitment to the communities of Cape Breton there are still no
jobs and even fewer opportunities.
The government has followed its plan, developed within cabinet,
to the letter. The secret plan was developed without the input
of the workers, the communities and those who will be most
affected by these decisions. After it has raped the land and
ignored the people, it now expects us to believe that this
Liberal road show which it calls an economic adjustment panel
represents some kind of sincere commitment. The government has
never made a sincere commitment to Cape Bretoners in 30 years,
and this panel is no exception. Cape Bretoners will not be fooled
by this smoke and mirrors, because we have lived with smoke and
mirrors from the Liberal government and we can see through its
facade.
Instead of beginning community consultation immediately after
the Liberals made the announcement in January that killed over a
thousand jobs and spelled disaster for the people in the economy
of Cape Breton, instead of beginning consultation then, the
Liberals waited almost 10 months. It was 10 months of
speculation and anxiety for the people whose jobs were killed and
who do not know where the money to pay their bills will come
from.
The government has appointed a panel of Liberal supporters that
clearly does not reflect the diversity of the community. How are
a Liberal Senator, two businessmen from P.E.I. and a bunch of
Liberal supporters supposed to know what the miners, community
leaders, aboriginal leaders and the unemployed people need? The
sad truth is that nobody on the island believes the panel can
know what the communities need.
This rushed series of five minute presentations by various
community stakeholders will not be enough to come up with a plan
that will finally bring long term sustainability to the island of
Cape Breton. The government already knows that. The government
is only going through the motions of consulting the community.
This is all part of its plan. The government has already
outlined what areas it thinks Cape Bretoners should work on. The
Liberals have already created a made in Ottawa solution for a
made in Ottawa problem and the price will be paid in Cape Breton.
This attempt at consultation is just as much of a joke as the
government's other attempts to live up to its responsibilities
under section 17 of the Devco act. The adjustment strategy is a
joke. The consultation process is a joke. The punch line, which
will hit the citizens of Cape Breton straight in the stomach, is
that once the government pushes Bill C-11 through the House, it
will no longer be obligated to help clean up the mess that its 30
years of mismanagement of Devco have created.
Once again I and my colleagues must protest the government's
plan to abandon its legal responsibility to the people of Cape
Breton. The government is legally obligated under section 17 of
the Devco act to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to
reduce unemployment and/or economic hardship that will be the
result of the Liberal government's action in shutting down and
privatizing the Devco assets.
1310
The government would like us to stand by and allow it to pass
Bill C-11 which would allow it to abandon Cape Breton. My NDP
caucus colleagues and I will not support the government, nor will
we support this bill.
Devco has been run for 30 years without the problems that
required its existence in the first place ever being resolved.
Again I ask what the government's rush is to get rid of Devco and
its obligations to the people of Cape Breton. The government
needs to spend more time ensuring that it fulfils its obligations
instead of running around in circles trying to get away from
them. If the government does not make the time and put the
effort in now, the problems that already exist in Cape Breton
will only increase and become more difficult to address. I am
here to demand that the government make the time for the people
of Cape Breton.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets
of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to
amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a second
time but that the Order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the
subject matter referred to the Standing Committee on Natural
Resources and Government Operations”.
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. Questions
and comments.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened intently to the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and
her description of the concerns of the people of Cape Breton.
I too have taken some interest in this issue. I have talked to
United Families and other organizations that have come before us.
I share her concerns and those of the member for
Sydney—Victoria about the livelihoods of some of the miners who
may have to change their vocations.
I listened to the member speak and she never used the word
“future” in her discussions. She talked about the last 30
years. Just by the act of moving her amendment, she seems to
want the last 30 years to continue.
The reality is that the industry of Cape Breton has changed and
we have to get on with change. People throughout the country are
faced with various types of change. The world is changing in some
profound ways. Globalization is before us.
There are some very great institutions down in Cape Breton.
There is Cape Breton Business College. Some new industries are
starting up. Let us talk about taking some of this money to
create something for the future. We could have a community based
organization going out and asking the people how they would like
to restructure their communities and how to make Cape Breton a
viable economic engine of the future.
Today geography does not matter. People do not have to live in
Toronto to be successful in business. They can use the Internet,
the information highway.
1315
We listened to members of the NDP that are constantly hearkening
back to the past, to keep things the way they are and to keep
government intervention in our industries. This is part of the
problem people are suffering from today.
Why can the member not use the word future and think about the
future of our people rather than hearken back and keep the past
locked in place?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
future I only have to say to the member that if it were not for
the strong will of all people on Cape Breton Island we would not
have been able to have any future in the last 30 years.
The member must recognize what is happening on Cape Breton
Island. I am not talking about the inability of Cape Bretoners
to survive. God knows. We have survived over the course of the
last 30 years with absolutely no assistance from the government,
although the minister and government members would like people in
central Canada to believe so.
Nobody has ever questioned the amount of money that has come to
Cape Breton Island, but the reality of it is that it has gone
into the hands of a few. I am not talking about no future. I
know there will be a future on Cape Breton Island because unlike
the government I believe in the people of the island. We are
talking about a transition. We are talking about a cold and
calculated plan on an island that has been suffering a right wing
agenda for the last 10 years.
In 1993 Cape Breton had approximately $1.2 billion circulating
in the economy, but as we know the federal government cut
transfers by 35% and interestingly enough the money circulating
in Cape Breton lessened by 35%. Then came the collapse of the
fishery. It is absolutely clear now who was responsible for
that. The federal government came in with changes to EI in 1996,
which took another $100 million out of our economy. The minister
now stands and says that he will take the federal government out
of the coal industry, which will mean another $300 million out of
an economy that is already in crisis, and we are supposed to be
happy.
The economic analysis that has been done with respect to this
decision of the federal government puts the dollar figure at $1.5
billion. I will never be willing to accept a $68 million cheque
dressed up how the minister wants to dress it up for a $1.5
billion problem.
I do not doubt that we will have a future, but we need some
serious commitment on behalf of the government. During the
course of the last 2.5 years the government's actions speak a lot
louder than its words.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will just make a comment and perhaps the hon. member could
comment on it. We have heard a fair amount of discussion about
how Devco was set up some 30 years ago with a mandate to get out
of the coal industry by 1980. I think that is what my colleague
in the Reform Party talked about.
What is not mentioned, and I think my colleague will agree with
me, is that in the 1970s when the OPEC oil crisis happened and
the country was facing a desperate situation because of the price
of imported oil, the Government of Canada turned its eyes to the
coal industry in Cape Breton looking for help. That plea for
help across the country was answered by the generation of coal
miners who today will find themselves out of work. They are my
age and the age of many of the members of the House. They were
promised a future serving Canada in the coal industry, and today
they find themselves in real desperation. What are the member's
thoughts on that point?
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my
colleague has mentioned with respect to the country turning to
the miners and their families on Cape Breton Island.
There is an important piece of information which the government
does not want a lot of Canadians to understand, more importantly
central Canadians. It talks about the fact that Devco tried and
that it was so committed to the people of Cape Breton it did
everything humanely possible to make sure that the corporation
became viable. There are some on this side of the House who
clearly disagree with its definition of commitment.
1320
It is important to note that when the government talks about the
investment sometimes it has referred to it as the big black hole.
Yes, it has invested approximately $1.65 billion in the industry,
but it is important to note that $6 billion was generated. I am
not an accountant, but I think that is not a bad return on an
investment.
The reality of the situation, as I said in my speech, is that
four years ago the government decided to get out. It charted a
course. The legislation was very clear. The government could
not exit an industry that was commercially viable. In order for
the government to exit the industry, it had to set the wheels in
motion to ensure that the industry was not commercially viable.
Two years ago I stood in the House and questioned the minister
about whether or not there was a plan to privatize the coal
industry. He stood in the House and told me no. Is that
commitment? Is that honesty? Is that integrity? People on Cape
Breton Island do not think so.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we had a blank cheque sitting here today, or if we
had direct access to the treasury, what are some of the
constructive thoughts and initiatives the member thinks the House
should explore on behalf of her constituents? I ask her to give
us some ideas on how we could make things better.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, one of the things
that is really important not to do is what the federal government
did with respect to its human resource development package. What
it did with that package, just to inform the member, was pit
family member against family member. That is what the government
has done. It has pitted family member against family member.
The minister does not want to hear this point. The minister
does not want to hear the reality of a man who has worked for 30
years and at the age of 45 years will not get a pension because
of the government. The minister does not want to hear that. The
minister does not want to recognize that there are brothers
putting other brothers out of work. That is the reality.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I asked a very direct and humble question of the member
on what some of her specific, constructive ideas would be, and I
would ask her to answer.
The Deputy Speaker: The member has a supplementary
question but I do not think he has a point of order.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: Mr. Speaker, the member asked for
suggestions. One of my suggestions, as I just stated, was
clearly not to pit family member against family member in this
package. That is very clear. I expect the government to treat
everyone equitably.
I have a real hard time when I listen to the minister and his
so-called sincere efforts. One thing Cape Bretoners said very
clearly in 1997 was that any initiatives regarding Cape Breton
must have the best interest of all Cape Bretoners at heart, and
not just a few friends of the Liberal government.
When the base was closed in Summerside, what did the government
do? It threw in the GST offices. It already has—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member
for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill
C-11, a very important and timely bill not only for the island of
Cape Breton but for all Nova Scotia and the east coast.
It is 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.
I am also pleased to acknowledge the presence of the minister in
the House. He has taken part in this debate and travelled to
Cape Breton. I commend him for that effort.
I am speaking on behalf of my colleague from South Shore who is
unable to be here. Normally the bill would have carriage under
his critic's portfolio.
1325
I welcome the opportunity to address the important issues which
are brought to bear by the bill. One is certainly the fact that
it will have a very dramatic impact on the lives of many people
living in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. The bill in essence will put
a great number of people out of work and affect many families,
small businesses and communities, particularly those around the
Phalen and Prince mines. The potential sale, pensions, resource
management and long term impact of the Devco divestiture are what
the bill is about.
I would like to begin by giving a bit of historical background
about the legislation and the road that has led to the closure of
the Cape Breton Development Corporation, or what is commonly
referred to as Devco. It began in 1967, but a coal mining
company started much earlier than 1967. It goes back in its
historical roots as far as 1720 and the first coal mine ever
opened in North America.
Coal mining flourished until the end of the second world war, at
which time the demand fell dramatically and Devco's predecessor,
the Dominion Steel Coal Company, Dosco, was hard pressed to
continue its operations.
In 1965 the situation was at a point where Dosco announced that
it would have to close the Cape Breton mines and its 6,500
employees would be out of work completely. This is where the
Liberal government of the day stepped in and announced that it
would take over the operation of the mines and established the
crown corporation known as Devco.
Coal production had dropped to the point where in Canada only
11% of the coal market existed, down from 60% in earlier years
when coal was in much greater demand.
As we know the world events in the early 1970s changed the way
we looked at energy in the coal industry as a whole. A
remarkable turnaround took place during that time. I am
referring to OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries, and the situation within the oil crisis of 1970 that
saw oil prices rise dramatically, settling at $10 a barrel
following the initial surge or the equivalent of $35 in today's
standards.
Countries were searching for alternative fuel sources and they
found that coal was economical and available. Devco suddenly had
a hot commodity and the crown corporation prospered for a period
of time. New mines were opened in 1974. The Lingan mine
followed in 1976 and then the Prince mine.
The second oil crisis in the late 1970s continued to provide
economic prosperity for those in the coal mining industry. By
1984 the price of coal was at $52 a tonne, more than six times
what it was in 1967 when Devco began operations.
The Phalen mine opened in 1987 and the development of the Donkin
mine was begun, representing what was supposed to be the largest
underground mine in North America. Devco signed a 33 year
contract to supply the Nova Scotia Power Corporation with coal.
The industry seemed to be sustainable and prosperous.
The importance of this prosperity in the coal mining industry
has a dramatic impact on the legislation we are debating today.
It was the federal government through Devco, and encouraged by
the high prices of coal and the availability of coal in Cape
Breton, that promoted coal mining as a viable way of life for
Cape Bretoners, particularly young men entering the job market.
A strong tradition had existed in that part of the world for
many years. The young men whose fathers and grandfathers had
worked in the coal mines were told that the coal mining industry
had a 20 to 45 year future expectation. That is why, simply put,
young people turned down other job opportunities or stopped
searching for work and began work in the coal mines. It was a
job that allowed them to stay in Cape Breton and to work in mines
like many of their family members had before them.
We are telling some of those same people today that the
government was wrong, the jobs no longer exist and they have to
pack it in. What is the government doing? How does it respond?
The government is offering an $11 million support package and it
calls for an economic development package to encourage new
projects in this area. This is not a new approach. This
approach has been taken before by previous administrations.
The support package will include early retirement incentives,
enhanced severance packages and training allowances. I heard the
minister refer to some figures, one being that $1.6 billion was
put into Devco over the years to keep that industry afloat and
$500 million for economic development. It goes without saying
that this has not been the answer, sadly.
The $68 million economic development package put forth here is
meant to promote sustainable long term economic development for
Cape Breton and to diversify the economy. However, one again has
to look at the record and question how successful it will be.
1330
They are laudable objectives, but the government is essentially
going to be taking away $300 million from the coal mining
industry and the Cape Breton economy and replacing it with $68
million, and that will be over a long period of time.
Furthermore, the government has tried this approach. Since 1967
there have been a number of projects and investments made to help
the Cape Breton economy, but few have been successful. A massive
amount of money being injected into the economy in a reckless way
has not worked.
Most Cape Bretoners realize that Devco cannot continue operating
as it has been over the past few years. The Conservative Party
supports the divestiture of this crown corporation. However, the
way the government is doing it is another matter. The package
itself, I would suggest, is flawed.
I asked the minister about this and I hope we will get an
opportunity to speak about this further. How can the government
explain that mine workers who have spent 20 to 25 years, and in
some cases longer, working in a coal mine will not qualify for
pensions? Why is something not being done to address this?
Cape Bretoners would also like to know if there were other crown
corporations which faced similar problems when they were
divested.
A fair question was asked by somebody who worked in a coal mine
for many years. He wanted to know why someone who has worked for
12 years in a coal mine would qualify for a pension, while
someone who has been in the mines for as long as 20 to 25 years
would not. There has to be a more equitable approach.
These are the types of anomalies and inconsistencies that
frustrate the workers and undermine the government's legitimate
and sincere approach to this problem.
Compounding the problem is the fact that there are serious
health problems and issues that have to be addressed. Many coal
miners face very difficult health problems. Black lung disease
is an incurable disease that affects many coal miners. On top of
that, Cape Breton as a whole has one of the highest cancer rates
in the entire country.
To get back to the more immediate implications, without jobs
1,200 miners and their families who work in this industry will be
affected immediately by the closure of the Phalen and Prince
mines and will be unable to access the necessary health programs.
United Families representing the families of the mine workers in
Cape Breton travelled to Ottawa to highlight some of these
concerns and to ask the government to reconsider the package
itself. They were not asking simply that the mines be kept open.
Rather, they wanted some assurances that their pension plans
would be fair, that their health programs would be protected and
that the government would look at all available options.
We also heard from other groups, such as Northside Future and
the United Steelworkers of America, on their recommendations for
Devco.
There are other options available that would enhance the sale of
the Phalen mine and increase the opportunities of finding a
willing buyer. The Donkin coal reserve is a good example. It is
believed that the Donkin mine contains approximately 1.5 billion
tonnes of coal, according to a report dated 1997. There is an
obvious potential for mining operations and employment, yet the
government has done little to encourage the divestiture of
separate parts of the coal mine industry. Instead, it is all or
nothing. This is the approach that has been put forward. All of
these mines or nothing.
We know that there are other options. Men like Tom Macpherson
of Sydney, as we speak, are working on a proposal to salvage an
industry and to look for some other means of keeping a hand in
the industry.
We know that Devco should be divested and the Conservative Party
supports the initiative, but we question how well the people of
Cape Breton, particularly miners themselves, are being served by
the government's approach in this bill.
The government's approach in Nova Scotia has been to ignore
things. It was only after the loss of all 11 seats in Nova
Scotia that it perhaps rethought that strategy. We know it has a
new plan and a new senator who is going to be carrying the flag
and trying to raise the fortunes of the Liberal Party in Nova
Scotia. It makes one question if the Senate of Canada is now the
minor league for the House of Commons because he has told us he
is going to run.
The unemployment rate in Cape Breton has been around 20% for the
last 15 years. Cape Bretoners are known as hard workers and they
have certainly known hard times. Devco management has publicly
acknowledged on many occasions that the extra efforts of the
miners were what allowed the mine to meet its production
schedules.
It is interesting to note how the Reform Party referred to this,
and I take the hon. member of the Reform Party at his word when
he says he has a great deal of affection for the province of Nova
Scotia.
However, to my recollection the Reform Party did not even run
candidates in Cape Breton in the last election. One has to take
a closer look at that.
1335
That is not to say that the exercise of propping up Devco by any
means has not been a financial disaster. We know that the people
of Cape Breton are watching this situation very closely. They
have been referred to on occasion as a financial burden and as
being dependent on the rest of the country. That is not
something which anyone takes pride in.
Cape Bretoners are willing to work hard and willing to work in
the coal mining industry, but that option is apparently being
taken away from them. Now the government has to look for other
options of employment for coal mine workers, including remedial
work that would have to be done around the clean-up of the mine
sites. The Prince mine itself is waiting for a buyer. That may
offer some employment possibilities, but it does not have the
production capabilities to meet the requirements of the Nova
Scotia Power Corporation. There has to be some recognition that
if coal mining is to continue it is going to have to be done in
such a way that it can at the very least meet the requirements of
the Nova Scotia Power Corporation.
All of this has to be done in a carefully scrutinized way, open
and transparent. These are words that we often hear from the
government, but again one questions its sincerity.
The sale of the Prince mine in Cape Breton and the possible
development of the Donkin site could provide employment
opportunities.
There is time now before us to address some of the faults in the
legislation. Members of the Conservative Party we will be
looking forward to getting this particular bill to the committee
where it can be looked at in greater detail.
I know the minister has been following the situation quite
carefully. I sincerely hope that the government will be open to
some of the constructive changes that might be put forward by
other parties. This part of Nova Scotia has been devastated in
years past and in fact the province itself has a crippling debt
that it has to deal with. The Atlantic provinces have certainly
seen their share of hard times in recent years.
With the start of the new century one would hope that the
Atlantic provinces and in particular the island of Cape Breton
and the province of Nova Scotia will be able to benefit from some
of these future possibilities: Sable gas, the resurgence of some
elements of our fishing industry, the use of other natural
resources and entry into the high tech industry. One would hope
that the government will encourage this type of future prosperity
and future development.
There are ways of doing that which have been demonstrated by
other governments. I am referring to the province of Prince
Edward Island when a decision was made to close down armed forces
bases on that island. The government of the day, which was a
Conservative government, immediately responded by putting a
government office, a GST processing office, in that area of
Prince Edward Island. I would suggest that type of approach. If
we are going to be taking a major industry, a major employer, out
of the economy of Cape Breton, the government should be prepared
to look for ways to inject future opportunities in that part of
the country.
I thank the House for its indulgence and the opportunity to
speak to the bill and I look forward to future participation in
the legislation.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was in
Cape Breton and I heard a gentleman who runs an automotive supply
company which operates around the world. He was asked if his
employees were competitive. His answer was that they were the
best productive workers in the world. I know that the people of
Cape Breton have the resilience and the ability to deal with this
matter and they have the resilience and the ability to change.
It is sad that the opposition party does not like the idea of
change and wants to keep things pretty much the way they are.
The member spoke about the process, which he did not really
like. He thought that rather than have a complete divestiture,
the government should allow people to pick and choose what parts
of this enterprise they would like. I find that to be absurd.
It is sort of like someone picking over a dead carcass; we are
going to take the good stuff, but we are going to leave the bad.
A process like that usually ends up in higher unemployment. We
need a harmonious holistic approach for someone, a company or a
joint venture, to take over this industry in Cape Breton and to
run it as an ongoing concern, rather than breaking up the pieces,
throwing away the ones that are not liked, throwing away the
workers who are not liked and just keeping the good ones.
1340
Why would the member promote such a policy in Cape Breton, where
obviously one of the major concerns is employment? We want to
keep as many people employed as possible. Why would the member
want to propose a system which would allow people to pick over
this carcass and throw people out of work?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.
I certainly agree with the reference to Cape Breton people being
productive.
I think the member has perhaps misunderstood the premise of some
of my remarks when he suggests that I do not recognize the future
potential in Cape Breton and the need to reach out and look for
other solutions. I am not going to stand here, as I would
suggest no member of the House should do, and say that this is
going to be an easy solution, that there is something that will
be found overnight or that something will fall out of the thin
blue air to replace an industry that has been there for
centuries.
I am not suggesting for a minute that we should be picking out
pieces of this carcass. Perhaps a more apt analogy would be to
take pieces of a used car. I am suggesting that we should look
at the entire situation. Is it all or nothing? Will all of
these mines be closed, doing away with the coal mining industry
completely, as opposed to operating some of these mines that are
economically viable and can be operated safely?
Certainly safety we cannot ignore in this debate. Heaven forbid
that we have another mining disaster like that which we saw in
Plymouth, Nova Scotia at the Westray mine. We know that coal
mining can be done safely. If we can put a man on the moon, we
can take coal out of the ground and we can do so safely. It has
been done in the past.
I am suggesting that rather than wiping out the whole industry
in Cape Breton, if there are those interested in buying certain
select parts of that industry and operating them in a way that
will be in line with government regulation, that is what we
should be doing. We should not rule out that option.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague from
Nova Scotia. There has long been an affinity between my part of
Nova Scotia and his, particularly in the coal mining industry. I
was heartened to hear him talk about the decentralization that
was done by the former Conservative government when industries
were closed down in other areas. I hope that is something this
government will consider.
I was happy to hear the hon. member talk about health
considerations. Those watching this debate and reading
Hansard should know that many miners' families who rely on
the drug plan that is currently operated through their employment
have no idea whether their prescription drugs and their health
needs will be met as of December.
This was not clear to me. The hon. member was critical of the
package that is being offered. Is it the position of the
Conservative Party that there should be an enhanced package for
miners in Cape Breton?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question
from my colleague from Nova Scotia. He is correct in saying that
there is a longstanding affinity and I know the people of Pictou
County owe a great debt of gratitude to the people of Cape
Breton, the draggermen in particular, for their assistance during
the Westray disaster and on other occasions when mining disasters
took place in my part of the world.
In simple terms, I would support an enhanced package if it would
ensure an equitable approach. As I tried to outline clearly in
my remarks, there is an approach that appears to be in existence
in which inequities exist, where individuals who have worked in
the coal mining industry for a long period of time are
disentitled to benefits, while those who appear to have been
there for a shorter period of time are receiving benefits. There
have been occasions when this has occurred in other programs, for
example the TAGS program.
If the public at large is to have any confidence in this
package, this remuneration or compensation package, there has to
be fairness.
That is what is missing here. It is not the genuine intent, but
the formula that has been set up by the government is flawed. We
have an opportunity to fix that. I hope that with the
participation of the Progressive Conservative Party and other
parties in opposition that the government will be open to the
changes that will be proposed at the committee. I hope they will
take place.
1345
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on his tone in approaching this
problem. Quite often if the tone is constructive, then there is
a willingness on this side of the House to resolve these issues.
In terms of pension benefits and health fairness, I cannot
believe that the minister is not going to make sure that the
pension benefits and those issues relating to health are not
included in the package. If the member's point is that we are
not communicating clearly what that package is, then that is
something we can work on.
I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that this
package ranks with some of the best settlement packages around.
If there is room for better communication or minor improvement,
then the member has brought up a very important point. In other
words, we should not have a similar divestiture in Sudbury, which
is in my province, where the miners are getting preferential
treatment over the miners in Cape Breton. I cannot imagine that
we would do that.
On the other options, the member has brought up a very
interesting point of looking at the notion of keeping a window in
the industry. I think the member spoke about the Prince mine or
the Donkin mine. If there is a way we can keep those mines, it
is worth exploring. I am no expert in this area but I see that
the minister is nodding his head that the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has brought up a useful and
constructive idea.
I want to refer to Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. The
reality is that every region in this country over the last seven
or eight years has had to reinvent itself. Does the member not
see the possibilities through the Enterprise Cape Breton
Corporation with this enhanced economic package of the extra $70
million on top of its existing pool of funds? There are
opportunities for enhanced tourism, entertainment, motion picture
and knowledge based industries. Information technology is
exploding all over the world. We know of the academic
achievements of most people in Nova Scotia and how Acadia and all
the other universities are ranked. Can we not see opportunities
for real economic development if we have a positive approach on
this?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those
comments and the positive tone. However, it does not answer the
basic issue of equity when one is looking at the approach.
I take the member at his word when he says that surely the
minister does not intend that and that this is not going to be
allowed to happen. Time will tell. On this side of the House we
certainly hope that the government would not allow that to
happen.
As for the enhanced and possible opportunities that are going to
exist by this package, I agree. I hope that the people of Cape
Breton and all Nova Scotians will rise to the occasion. They
have in the past and they have had to. Information technology,
industry, academics and music are very important parts of the Cape
Breton economy that have been developing.
These opportunities cannot exist unless there is a starting
point. They need some form of industry to come in in the short
term and address the unemployment situation. This is where the
real dire straits exist. There is 20% unemployment. The same is
true of Guysborough county in the riding I represent. I know it
is true in other parts of the province.
In Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces generally, people
want to work. They do not want the stigma to continue that
maritimers are dependent on the rest of the country and have to
leave to get jobs. They want to work. They want to stay at
home. They want to be able to raise their families. They want
to grow up and live in the places they are accustomed to. They
want their dignity.
I hope this bill will address some of those inequities.
1350
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to put some thoughts on the record. As a
downtown Toronto member, I think it is important that people
realize we are just as sensitive to these issues as members who
come from the region.
The greater Toronto area in the last two and a half years has
been blessed with one of the most exciting economies the country
has seen in the last 20 to 30 years. Having said that, we should
make sure that some of the reasons our economy is booming are
applicable and that the opportunities exist in other parts of
Canada. It is important to examine some of the good luck that
Toronto has had and see if it can apply to other parts of the
country.
I want to start with the easiest sector of all, and the fastest
growing sector in the world, the tourism industry. Anyone who
has travelled to Cape Breton knows that it is an absolute slam
dunk. There are all kinds of instant tourism possibilities in
that great part of Nova Scotia.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about his
community needing work immediately. In that particular sector,
with just a small portion of that $70 million, we could mount a
very serious tourism campaign, not just for those who want to
travel within Canada, domestic tourism, but we could target areas
of the United States. Overnight we could enhance and create jobs
in the community with bed and breakfast enterprises and tour
companies.
That is my first point. I raise it because believe it or not,
in the last three years one of the fastest growing sectors in
Toronto has been tourism. It affects everything, not just hotels
and motels, but restaurants and all the other subsets under the
tourism rubric.
Another area that is exploding in Canada, and not just in
Toronto but in Vancouver and Montreal and which has potential in
Atlantic Canada and Cape Breton, is the motion picture industry.
I am sure most members saw The National last night or the
night before. The motion picture industry in Canada is one of
our most rapidly growing sectors of the economy. The preferences
that exist right across the country to attract and grow that
sector are amazing. This is something where instant opportunity
can be created in Cape Breton. Sometimes we are so close to the
problems that we do not realize some of the advantages of the
natural assets we have around us. That sector could be utilized
immediately.
These are ideas where we do not have to wait. The premier of
Nova Scotia, the industry minister or the heritage minister can
make instant requests of people in the motion picture industry.
They can tell them of the preference package under the Enterprise
Cape Breton Corporation, to take a look at what Cape Breton
Island is all about and use it as a site for shooting motion
pictures. Those are instant jobs. They are highly paid and good
solid jobs, not minimum wage jobs. They are skilled jobs and
semi-skilled jobs. History will show that once people are exposed
to a region like Cape Breton, they will come back for repeat
business.
Another area is information technology.
There is not a part of our country that cannot take advantage of
the opportunities within information technology and of what we
have in terms of the educational thrust in Cape Breton and the
whole province of Nova Scotia. There is absolutely no way we
could miss if part of that extra $70 million for special projects
in Cape Breton, the Devco divestiture, could be targeted toward
information technology including computer assembly and
e-commerce. These are all lay downs in my mind.
1355
Interestingly enough, because of the way the information highway
has changed the world, the people of Cape Breton Island can have
as much opportunity on the Internet as the people in downtown
Toronto.
Our responsibility in the House is not to stand up and be anti
everything. We should not be a coalition of antis here. We have
to deal in hope. I recognize that there are people right now who
are in pain and who have lost their jobs. One cannot imagine the
slap on dignity when one does not have work. But at the same
time, with money ready to roll in those various sectors, if we
put positive energy into this right away, some things could start
right away. If we were more positive in our action on Cape
Breton Island, we could create a momentum. That is what our
responsibility is in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a couple of
minutes before we get to Statements by Members. Perhaps we could
go to questions and comments after question period and proceed
now to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
SENIORS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe all of us owe a special tribute in 1999, the
International Year of the Older Person, to our seniors who, like
my parents, have lived most of this century. They have seen many
profound changes take place in our country and in the world.
Growing up in the war years, they know what paying the supreme
sacrifice meant. From the fifties on, they built the foundations
for a very prosperous country that our generation has now
inherited.
Today's seniors are still pioneers because they are dealing with
many issues that we will yet face: health care, retirement
security, affordable housing, remaining connected to family,
volunteering in our churches and communities, and time for
recreation and travel.
I believe we can learn many of life's most important lessons
from our seniors, like putting up with a little less until
something better can be afforded, or helping out neighbours and
not relying on government or someone else to do it. The timeless
principles and actions they have passed on to us are now our
responsibility to pass on to our children. That is the best
tribute we could give to our seniors. I thank them.
* * *
[Translation]
ESTABLISHMENT OF NUNAVIK COMMISSION
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the president of Makivik, Pita Aatimi, the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development and Liberal member for
Kenora—Rainy River, in Ontario, and the Quebec minister
responsible for aboriginal affairs signed a political agreement
to establish the Nunavik commission, on November 5.
This tripartite commission will recommend a form of government
for Nunavik, land covering the part of Quebec north of the 55th
parallel.
Its mandate will be to propose a plan of action and
recommendations for the structure, operation and powers of a
government in Nunavik, along with a completion schedule.
For many years, the Inuit of northern Quebec and I have been
nurturing the hope of creating a unique and innovative system of
government.
The Inuit of Nunavik have the ability and leadership to
stimulate their economic growth within Canada.
* * *
[English]
CANVAS OF WAR
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
Veterans Week I made a statement in the House about honouring our
Canadian war artists. Today I am pleased to let the House know
that the Canvas of War opens on February 11, 2000 at the Canadian
Museum of Civilization. The exhibition will present over 70 of
the Canadian War Museum's best paintings, many of which have not
been displayed in over 80 years.
1400
Among the selected works are paintings by members of the Group
of Seven and by Alex Colville. The exhibition will be on display
at the Canadian Museum of Civilization until January 10, 2001. It
is then scheduled to travel to four other venues in Canada and
two in the United States.
Canada has one of the finest war art collections in the world. I
hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and every member of the House will
plan on going to see this very important exhibit.
* * *
POLAND
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Polish Canadians, Poles
worldwide and, in particular, the Polish community in my riding
of Parkdale—High Park who on November 11, 1999 celebrated the
81st anniversary of Poland's independence.
Ten years after regaining its freedom, Poland has effectively
joined the community of free countries. Poland's economy is in
good fiscal shape. Its investment rate has grown three times
faster than the GDP growth rate. As a result of Team Canada's
visit to Poland in January, Poland is projecting commercial
contracts valued up to half a billion dollars.
On March 12, Poland also became a full and unrestricted member
of NATO. Consequently, Poland now feels secure and stable
because it views this alliance as a structure which safeguards
peace and democracy.
Polish Canadians have made significant contributions to our
society. Several have been recognized as eminent figures in our
Canadian heritage and are to be found among Canadian politicians,
government officials, scientists, artists and journalists.
Today I would like to offer my congratulations to the people of
Poland and all Polish Canadians on the occasion of their
independence day.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today the standing committee on aboriginal affairs begins
hearings in B.C. on Bill C-9, the act to give effect to the
Nisga'a final agreement.
Of course we know there is nothing final about this agreement,
there are still some 50 areas to be negotiated. There is one
thing that is final though, the list of witnesses now appearing
before the committee. The list is locked up and no other
witnesses will be allowed to appear. In addition, the committee
will not be allowed to travel to all of the affected areas.
Two high profile persons who should appear but were not invited
are former B.C. premier, Bill Vander Zalm and President of the
Union of B.C. Chiefs, Stewart Philip. There are many more who
should be heard from but will not be.
The government's haste, secrecy and lack of consultation on this
important treaty will remind Canadians of a couple of other
events dreamed up by political elites: the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords. They were rejected by Canadians after
they found out what was involved. Is that what the government is
afraid of?
* * *
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S PERFORMING ARTS AWARDS
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday, November 6, 1999, the esteemed Governor General's
Performing Arts Awards took place here in the nation's capital.
This annual event celebrates Canadian performers who have
enriched our lives and recognizes these artists who have made
tremendous contributions to the cultural life of Canadians.
Each year, six artists are nominated for the awards by members
of their own arts community. I am pleased to announce that two
of this year's recipients Mr. David Cronenberg and Mr. Mario
Bernardi are from my constituency of St. Paul's.
Mr. Cronenberg is a world-renowned filmmaker whose work has been
characterized by his unique ability to examine the subtle
motivation of human psychology. An officer of the Ordre des Arts
et des Lettres de France, this year he chaired the Cannes Film
Festival jury and was the first Canadian to be honoured to do so.
Mr. Bernardi is most known for his complete understanding of the
composers and the music he conducts. As creator of the National
Arts Centre Orchestra and founding conductor, he has played a
pivotal role in developing the cultural centre in the nation's
capital and it is his leadership that laid the foundations of the
NAC which has endured for 30 years.
It is an honour for me to offer my congratulations to both of
these artists who have contributed so much to our culture and to
the arts community.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR FOR THE CULTURE OF PEACE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the United
Nations have designated the year 2000 the international year for
the culture of peace. As parliamentarians, we must all concern
ourselves with the development of peace in the world.
Parliamentarians from around the world have a vital role in this
regard by allowing the public to play its citizenship role fully
and promoting its participation in democracy. In this regard,
the Bloc Quebecois has created a workplace dedicated to
democracy and the role of the people. This initiative warrants
encouragement.
Perhaps it is not a mistake to think that the indefatigable work
of the artisans of UNESCO will open our hearts, and the words
and actions of public decision makers will give expression to
the appropriateness of their concern for real peace.
By introducing bills on female circumcision, sex tourism and the
creation of a position of poverty commissioner, I wanted to
enable those, often children, who cannot express their distress
and suffering, to be heard.
* * *
1405
[English]
THE LATE FRANK FAUBERT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of one of
Scarborough's great leaders, a former mayor who made landmark
contributions to Scarborough and her people and who lost his
battle against cancer in June.
Frank Faubert, fondly known as “Mr. Scarborough”, combined two
loves in his long political career: a passion for politics and
devotion to Scarborough, the city where he was born and raised.
In his public life he served as an alderman, member of provincial
parliament, mayor of the former city of Scarborough and as a
councillor in the new city of Toronto.
Scarborough and Toronto share in the legacy of his public
service and unique leadership style.
He was at the forefront in advancement of urban race relations
and was a major contributor to the settlement and growth of
Scarborough's multicultural and multireligious communities.
As mayor of Scarborough, Frank worked tirelessly to promote
Scarborough's image and as a place for businesses to invest.
On behalf of my colleagues from Scarborough East, Scarborough
Southwest, Scarborough Centre and Scarborough—Agincourt, we say
thank you to his wife Marilyn and their children for sharing
Frank with us.
We miss Frank and Scarborough will miss him too.
* * *
THE LATE DAN ROWAN
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, November 12 a United Nations plane on a humanitarian
mission to Kosovo went down killing all 24 people on board.
Among the victims was a Canadian from the national capital
region, Dan Rowan, an employee of the Correctional Service of
Canada. He was on his way of Kosovo as part of Canada's
contribution to help rebuild this wartorn region.
Canadians were shocked and saddened, as were people in countries
around, the world to hear of this tragedy.
While no words can lessen the pain and anguish felt by Mr.
Rowan's family, friends and colleagues, I am sure I speak for all
members of the House in extending our deepest and heartfelt
sympathies to those who knew him.
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is once again trying to impose an election act gag law
on the voters of Canada.
The House leader for the government says that he needs a gag law
because the parties and candidates have limits on what they can
spend. The real reason for the gag law though is to try to
prevent organizations like the National Citizen's Coalition from
bringing the voting records and performance of MPs to the
attention of voters during election campaigns.
But third party advertising would simply vanish all by itself if
parliament was a place of the people where MPs voted the way
their constituents told them to. The minister could put a stop
to third party advertising simply by working to reform our
dysfunctional parliament so that it is no longer a place of the
parties where the outcome of every vote is known before the
debates begin.
The minister's efforts are misdirected against third party
spending. He should stop trying to treat the symptom instead of
the cause and abandon his ill-advised gag law before the courts
do it for him yet again for the third time.
* * *
[Translation]
ANTI-SMOKING MOVEMENT
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate two
distinguished Canadians and Quebecers who, on behalf of the
Coalition québécoise pour le contrôle du tabac, have just
received awards from the World Health Organization and the
Canadian Society for International Health in recognition of
their involvement in and efforts to further the anti-smoking
movement. I am speaking of Heidi Rathjen and Louis Gauvin.
It is worth pointing out that the contribution of these
individuals has been recognized both nationally and
internationally.
In 1994, Canada concluded that national efforts to combat
smoking should be strengthened through international initiatives
that would address widespread transnational problems such as
contraband and transborder advertising.
Congratulations to our distinguished award winners, Heidi
Rathjen and Louis Gauvin.
* * *
[English]
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you too will find the
following news both shocking and appalling.
As a result of inadequate financial support by the federal
government for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the federal
government has essentially declared that Canada now has an open
season for unscrupulous types, swindlers, con artists and
especially for white collar crooks.
On September 27, Staff Sergeant Montague wrote to constituents
of mine who had been swindled out of $700,000 in a stock market
scam saying, “You have a valid complaint. However, due to the
shortage of resources in the RCM Police, we regret that we are
unable to continue with your investigation”.
In other words, the police are unable to uphold and enforce the
law. They lack funding to do the job that we expect them to do.
Staff Sergeant Montague's letter was really a public cry to the
solicitor general and to the government to provide the RCMP with
the financial support they need to uphold Canada's laws.
With a budget surplus of at least $90 billion over the next five
years, it means that the government has the money and not to
adequately fund the RCMP would in itself be a crime.
* * *
1410
[Translation]
FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVANTS RETIREMENT FUND
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again,
the Liberal government is demonstrating its inability to govern
responsibly.
After taking the pay equity question to the courts, government
employees must once again turn to a court of law for recognition
of their rights.
The $30 billion in the pension fund for public servants, and
members of the armed forces and the RCMP, do not belong to the
government. This money belongs to retired workers and to present
employees of the government; grabbing it constitutes legalized
theft. The Liberal government must stop treating its employees
this way.
The Bloc Quebecois has fought hard against Bill C-78 and the
usual indifference of the Liberals. Today, we wish to reaffirm
our support for public service unions, so that another of their
employer's injustices will finally be put right.
* * *
FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, the Bloc Quebecois spoke against the
arrival of Franco-Ontario television in Quebec.
However, at the 45th annual general meeting of the French
Canadian association of Ontario on June 3, 1994, Lucien Bouchard
said that the Bloc Quebecois served as the linkage between
francophones from outside Quebec and the federal government.
He added at this June 3, 1994 meeting that the dynamism and
vitality of Franco-Ontarians was a vital force in the Canadian
francophone community.
Opportunistic sovereignists should show a little consistency.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, since elected in 1997, I have been continually defending
the need for EI rezoning for the region of Albert County,
Salisbury and Petitcodiac. The livelihood of many families are
depending on it.
These rural communities with no economic similarities with
Moncton have been included in their neighbouring urban zone.
Seasonal workers will be finding themselves with no incomes
starting in January because of the government's past decisions.
During my ongoing correspondence with the former minister of
HRDC, I have succeeded in getting a commitment to move the
rezoning date from July 2001 to July 2000. I have been assured
that as an MP I would be involved in the process.
We are now just eight months away and the consultation process
has yet to begin. I urge the HRDC minister to make the EI
rezoning one of her priorities and to involve the MPs of the
affected regions. It is time for the government to make the EI
system work better for all Canadians.
* * *
SQUEEGEE KIDS
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
all know, squeegee kids are carving for themselves an economic
niche at the margin of society but still within it. They do not
conform to our model of dressing and behaving, but then, did we
at their age?
Squeegee kids create their own jobs. They work in hot and cold
weather. They are often left without remuneration when traffic
lights turn green.
Believing in repression rather than accommodation, the Ontario
government, showing again its ugly face, has decided to prosecute
squeegee kids. This is not surprising from a government which
wrenches $2.6 million from the budget for battered women.
Evidently the Ontario government needs money to build jails,
presumably for incarcerated squeegee kids. The Reform Party most
likely supports such a policy, but hopefully it will prove me
wrong.
This message is brought to the House by the Coalition of
Citizens for a Less Vicious Government in Ontario.
* * *
THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the
Reform Party has released its foreign affairs policy paper. This
paper was prepared in close consultation with many foreign policy
experts. It is an approach to foreign policy that the Reform
Party believes will take Canada into the 21st century with
credibility and confidence.
Canada is sliding into an insignificant status in the world and
all Canadians will suffer due to the loss of prestige, trade and
influence.
Canada needs a vision for the 21st century, not knee-jerk
reactions to world events. This policy promotes the pursuit of
national interests to marshal Canada's assets to emphasize our
sovereignty and political, economic and strategic interests in
vital areas.
We propose investment in hard power with a military that has the
tools to exercise effective influence. Canada cannot become the
world's 911 number. It needs a revamped foreign affairs policy
that will enable us to move into the 21st century.
1415
The Reform Party is prepared for the challenges of the new
millennium. It is too bad the Liberals are stuck—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North
Centre.
* * *
BANKING
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians thought they had won a victory when they
convinced the government to say no to monster banks and merger
mania. They were sadly mistaken.
The big banks have just found another way to accomplish the same
objective and Liberals just stand idly by and watch. In the
interest of increasing already obscene profits they are closing
branches, killing jobs and destroying the access of Canadians to
reasonable banking services.
In my constituency alone, which is a community of inner city
residents and older neighbourhoods, bank branch closures have
become an annual affair. In fact, we have two more to come in
just the next month.
People are fed up. They are fighting the CIBC's decision to
close branches that seniors and low income residents depend on.
They are dreading the impact of the announcement of the Bank of
Montreal of more layoffs and closures. They feel abandoned by
the banks and deserted by their federal government.
Why do Liberals stand idly by when the big banks sacrifice human
needs and devastate already hard pressed communities? It is time
for the government to say to the big banks that they have been
charged with a public trust and they have the responsibility to
reinvest in the very communities which gave them their success.
* * *
PETITCODIAC RIVER
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
future of the Petitcodiac River has been the cause of much
concern in the province of New Brunswick. Since the construction
of the causeway in 1968 the natural state of the waterway has
been significantly altered and the result has been the near death
of a river.
I recently wrote to the federal Minister of the Environment and
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as the political
minister for the province, urging them to initiate a jointly
funded federal-provincial comprehensive scientific assessment of
the causeway and its effects on the entire ecosystem of the
waterway.
There may be some questions that need to be answered. We need
to study the impact the opening will have on the lobster fishery
in Alma and the landfill site in Moncton. The answers may only
be found by opening the causeway gates for a significant trial
period so that scientists can determine the best way for long
term action.
We need to take the politics out of this issue and let science
decide what is the best way to save the Petitcodiac River.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PORT OF VANCOUVER
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the lockout at the port of Vancouver has cost Canadians
millions and millions of dollars again.
In three of the past four years labour-management disputes have
brought this port to a grinding halt. Unless something
substantial is done it will happen again next year.
Why will the government not introduce legislation for binding
arbitration of these disputes and remove even the possibility of
future lockouts and work stoppages?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are taking decisive action to bring work back to the
port. I think we have to thank opposition parties for their
co-operation in this regard.
With respect to the hon. member's specific question, this is
something we can take a look at and perhaps the labour committee
of the House of Commons can do so as well. We would welcome the
suggestions of all members from both sides of the House on how to
avoid this situation from being repeated in the future.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are tired of temporary ad hoc solutions to
this problem. Canadians want confidence in their port system and
they do not have it now.
This has become a yearly ritual. Labour-management talks break
down, work stops, and the government fumbles around looking for a
temporary solution that does not work even through the year.
Meanwhile Canadians are left paying the bills, in this case up to
$100 million a day.
Why will the government not end next year's strike or lockout
before it starts by introducing legislation to provide for
binding arbitration in these cases?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the legislation before the House will provide for
stability with respect to the particular group of employers and
employees in question for several years.
It certainly will give us time to examine the situation and to
take decisions on how to deal with this in a manner that respects
the collective bargaining concept and at the same time ensures
that the port operates in the interest of all Canadians,
particularly the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British
Columbia where key commodities depend on the port of Vancouver.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister avoids the question. These
are temporary ad hoc solutions that solve nothing in the long
run.
Every time one of Canada's ports shuts down because of these
reasons both foreign and domestic shippers go to American ports
to move their products.
1420
Each time that happens there is no guarantee that the Canadian
ports will get their business back. It is not only the daily
cost of these lockouts and strikes. It is the long term cost to
Canadians and Canadian business.
Again, why will the government not introduce some permanent
solution to this problem by providing for binding arbitration in
the case of these disputes?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his expression of confidence
in the ability of the government to deal with this matter
effectively. We appreciate that very much and we will take his
views into consideration because we do intend to go further into
this issue to make sure that this does not happen every year.
I suggest that all members of the House have a role to play in
working out the best ways to do this in the interest of the
people of British Columbia and the rest of the country.
I again thank my hon. friend for recognizing, in calling on the
government to do this, that we know what to do in the interest of
all Canadians.
* * *
TAXATION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Holly lives in a small town in British Columbia. She is a single
mother of five and three of her kids still live at home. She
went back to school and after years of hard work managed to
graduate from university and become a teacher. She wrote:
What does the finance minister have to say to Holly about the
pickpocketing of her paystubs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a number of things. First, we raised the child
tax benefit last year. In addition, we increased the threshold
above which people have to pay taxes.
In Holly's specific case, in the Canada opportunities strategy
we brought in a system whereby single parents will get a $3,000 a
year grant to go back to university. That is specifically what
we have done for Holly.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is cold comfort. Holly is already a teacher. She wrote:
My only option seems to be to leave this country because I need
to support my kids. I love this country because there is so much
good in it, but how can I see the good when the burden of
taxation is blinding me?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: It is great to just laugh and chuckle
across the way here, but our Prime Minister told Canadians that
they could just head south—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry. Since I
was able to hear the hon. member for Edmonton North I did not
realize there was such disorder.
Miss Deborah Grey: The disorder is right across the way.
If you turn to your right you would see it.
She asked:
The Prime Minister has told Canadians to move south if they do
not like it here. Why is his finance minister also encouraging
people like Holly to move south?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again the disorder is in the Reform Party's research
branch.
First, the Prime Minister said no such thing. Second, the fact
is that although obviously I do not know all the details of
Holly's situation in all likelihood she will have received by
next year a 14% to 14.5% tax cut.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
instead of proposing a coherent air transportation policy, the
Minister of Transport supported an illegal bid.
In this matter, the minister demonstrated a flagrant lack of
respect for parliament, something a court brought to his
attention recently.
After mocking parliament, supporting an illegal bid and being
set straight by the courts, why is the minister not resigning?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have established a process for restructuring our
airline industry. Now we have a proposal from Air Canada to
acquire Canadian.
I hope the hon. member will let Air Canada and the private
market carry on. If an agreement is reached, we will proceed
with measures to protect the public interest.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have seen the way the minister protects the public interest.
One of his guidelines was to recommend the consideration of an
illegal offer. That shows very clearly the minister's interest
in air transportation. That shows very clearly his interest in
transparent policy. He has made it plain he is much more
interested in according benefits to his friends. He has been as
incompetent in this matter as he was in national defence.
1425
Is it not time the minister took off, cleared the runway and
resigned?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said, we are following a policy at present. There
is a process in committee for studying the matter of our airline
industry. I invite the hon. member to pay attention to the
facts and arguments for restructuring when he makes accusations
against the government.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we have learned one thing from the airline saga: Canadian
International Airlines is well and truly controlled by American
Airlines, contrary to the spirit of the legislation on the
control of Canada's airlines.
Since he has refused to fulfil his duty as a minister and has
instead supported a project confirming American Airlines'
control over air travel in Canada, ought the Minister of
Transport not to tender his resignation immediately?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered that question.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
given his inability to protect the regional airlines, and his
equal inability to produce an airline policy for Canada, should
the Minister of Transport not resign, just as he did when he was
the Minister of National Defence, since he is totally
overwhelmed by the situation that exists in the airline industry
in Canada?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what I am overwhelmed about is the absolute
incompetence of the opposition, in this case the Bloc Quebecois,
which refuses to look at the arguments and refuses to enjoin in a
debate at committee. Instead it should pay more attention to the
facts and help all of us here deal with a very difficult
situation.
* * *
DEVCO
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's plan for Cape Breton is a one time kiss off
payment equal to less than one year's economic activity generated
by Devco and after that Cape Bretoners loose, like the federal
government did to fisheries workers, like the federal government
is doing to seasonal workers, like the federal government is
doing to our farmers and their families. Why is the government
leaving Cape Bretoners out in the cold?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is not. When we examine the record
stretching back to 1967, the Government of Canada has invested
over $2 billion in the operations of Devco, either on the coal
mining side or on the industrial development side.
In the course of immediate circumstances we are providing a
human resources package, an economic development package, all of
that in addition to what would normally be done by agencies like
ACOA and ECBC.
The Government of Canada has a longstanding commitment to the
people of Cape Breton and that will carry on.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about the future of Cape Bretoners and their children.
The minister conveniently failed to mention the $3.6 million
spent on a new tunnel connecting buildings on Parliament Hill to
protect our esteemed senators like Bernie Boudreau from the nip
of cool air on that one minute walk to the Senate. We cannot
have those senators out in the cold, now can we?
Meanwhile Cape Bretoners are already suffering 18% unemployment,
30% unofficial unemployment. How much pain must Cape Bretoners
endure before the government begins to treat them with dignity
and respect?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the people of Cape Breton need is the financial
support that is being provided by the Government of Canada and
serious and conscientious ideas about how to develop a better
future on the island. What they do not need are the histrionics
and hyperbole of a desperate political leader.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, based on the recent comments of the Prime Minister
it is obvious he does not understand the serious nature of the
recent security breach by a CSIS agent. Hopefully the solicitor
general does.
We know that a CSIS agent had sensitive top secret documents
stolen from his or her car while at a hockey game in Toronto. We
also know that the head of SIRC has commenced an investigation.
1430
What actions has the solicitor general taken to identify how
this breach of national security occurred and what disciplinary
measures will be put in place to ensure that it does not happen
again?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that the
government takes this matter very seriously and the Security
Intelligence Review Committee will be evaluating the situation,
as it should because it has a mandate from the House to do so.
When it does I will receive a report.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, that is a tired mantra. This is the latest fiasco
in this department that leads to an international embarrassment
and it is indicative of our national policing agencies being in
decline and disarray.
CSIS and the RCMP have had their budgets cut to ribbons by this
government. The head of SIRC, Paule Gauthier, read about the
CSIS calamity in the Globe and Mail almost a week after it
happened. We do not know when Ward Elcock heard.
When was the solicitor general first advised about this blatant
violation of national security and what actions did he take to
deal with that breach immediately? The confidence of Canadians
in our agents hangs in the balance.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was notified immediately.
What action is SIRC taking? It will review what took place. It
has a mandate from the House to review and report on the
situation. That is exactly what will happen.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general is taking great licence with the word
immediately. That theft occurred fully three weeks before it was
reported in the Globe and Mail and the first time the head
of SIRC read about it was in the Globe and Mail.
Why were they not informed immediately? Why is he covering up
for CSIS?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, SIRC, the
Security Intelligence Review Committee, has the mandate to review
these issues. It has access to CSIS files. That is exactly what
will take place. It will review the situation, it will report on
it and I will receive the report.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
once again this minister is taking great licence with the truth.
The fact of the matter is—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for
Kootenay—Columbia will want to stay well within the rules in
putting his question and I invite him to do so.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I would like the solicitor
general to tell the House and Canadians when he received advice
and when he advised SIRC. I believe that SIRC was advised by the
Globe and Mail three weeks after the event. Can he change
that opinion? When did the solicitor general advise SIRC? Did
he advise SIRC at the same time that he was advised? That is his
responsibility.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a previous
question, I was notified immediately. The Security Intelligence
Review Committee has the mandate, as I indicated quite clearly to
my hon. colleague, to review these issues. It has access to CSIS
files. It will review, it will report and I will receive the
report.
* * *
[Translation]
AUDIOVISUAL PRODUCTIONS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage has maintained that she knew
nothing about the practice of using other people's names that
went on in the televisual sector.
Yet there was an investigation in 1997, which was put on hold
shortly before the election was called and, a few months later,
Mr. Shapiro, an executive producer with World Affairs, testified
during a trial that he had used someone else's name. The
minister therefore cannot seriously maintain that she knew
nothing of this practice.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
What has she been doing in the last two years to ensure that
taxpayers' dollars are being properly spent?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for some weeks now, I have been making the point that
an RCMP investigation is now under way.
If the member does not believe me, does not believe in the
process, perhaps he would believe Agnès Maltais, Quebec's
culture and communications minister who, on November 13, asked
that the situation within SODEC be assessed and requested that
she be given the results of the RCMP investigation. With these
two documents, she will be in a position to take action.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister can go ahead and use the excuse that everything is
under investigation, but that does not change the fact that
there was an investigation and a trial in 1997, nor does it
change the recent revelations that show, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that producers acted fraudulently to obtain large amounts
of money from the federal government.
By refusing to take the necessary corrective action, is the
minister not guilty of complicity?
1435
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member continues to make insinuations. I would
just like to say that, if he does not believe me, and if he does
not want to listen to Agnès Maltais, he would perhaps be
interested in what Denise Robert, the president of the APFTQ,
has to say “The insinuations of widespread misappropriation of
funds we have been hearing here do not solve anything and are
very harmful to the industry as a whole, which generates 25,000
direct and indirect jobs in Quebec annually”.
If he does not want to listen to me, he should at least listen
to the president of the APFTQ.
* * *
[English]
CSIS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask the solicitor general again. He has told us that it is the
mandate of SIRC to look into this matter and that is correct, but
the question is what date did he receive advice from CSIS and
what date did he advise SIRC to carry out its mandate and do its
job?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague
previously, I was notified immediately. I do not have to tell
SIRC what to do. SIRC is mandated by the House to review the
files of CSIS. That is exactly what is taking place.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
let us try one more time. I need to know and Canadians need to
know from the solicitor general the date that he was advised and
the date that SIRC was advised by himself, by somebody at CSIS,
by somebody in his department. When was SIRC advised to look
into the theft? Was it at the same time that the minister was
advised? I do not think so.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all I can do is repeat to my hon.
colleague that I received the information from CSIS immediately
and SIRC has the mandate from this House to review the files.
The files are available. I do not have to tell SIRC what to do.
It reviews the files and reports to me.
* * *
[Translation]
FINANCE
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today the
ministers of finance are meeting together, and one of the main
issues they will be addressing is the cumulative cuts in federal
transfers to the provinces which have deprived them of some $33
billion.
Will the federal government admit that it has improved its
finances at the expense of the provincial budgets and that
transfer payments must be restored to their previous levels in
order to allow the provinces to reinvest in health and
education?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
surely, the hon. member knows that, last year, health transfers
to the provinces were raised in excess of $11.5 billion over
five years.
The hon. member must also know that the deficit has been
eliminated as a result of the economic upturn in this country,
the increase in employment, and the decrease in interest rates,
all entirely due to the atmosphere of confidence that reigns in
this country at this time.
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister not admit that the present financial situation of the
federal government and of the provinces reveals a serious flaw
in the Canadian federal system, namely that the government with
the money does not have the responsibilities, while the ones
with the responsibilities do not have the money, thanks to him?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
we look at the debt/GDP ratio, for example, we see that the
provinces are far better off than the federal government.
When we look at the amount that the governments are spending on
interest, it is 27 cents on the dollar for the federal
government and an average of about 14 cents for the provinces.
The three levels of government must work together, and we intend
to do so. By so doing, we will have the winning conditions for
a stronger economy and a better society.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
leaked document from the correctional service indicates plans to
spend $3.8 million on a plane because “forecasting indicates the
number of violent offenders is expected to increase”. The
justice minister says that violent crimes are declining, so why
is the solicitor general spending money for transportation on
what he calls an increase in violent offences?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all decisions made by Correctional
Service Canada are made with public safety as the number one
priority. On the issue of the plane purchase, it is for public
safety and also for economic reasons.
1440
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not read a lot of those reasons in the document.
The second reason for spending is that the current system of
using RCMP aircraft does not accommodate the scheduling needs of
the inmates.
Will the solicitor general please explain? Where are the
inmates going in such a hurry? The last time I checked, their
schedules were totally flexible.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, the purchase
of this plane is, first, for public safety and, second, it will
be a money saving venture. As well, the RCMP will have access to
this aircraft.
* * *
[Translation]
CSIS
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
an analyst from the Canadian Security Information Service was
robbed of highly confidential documents, as we know, because she
left them unattended in her car. Furthermore, she waited a week
to report the theft to her superiors.
Does the minister realize how ridiculous the secret service
looks when an employee decides to take secret documents to a
Maple Leafs hockey game?
The minister has said he called for an investigation
immediately, as soon as he learned the documents had been
stolen. What does immediately mean for him? Did he learn about
it in the Globe and Mail—
The Deputy Speaker: The solicitor general.
[English]
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, I was informed
immediately when this happened. The Security Intelligence Review
Committee will do a review, as I indicated previously, and it
will have access to all CSIS documents. It will review the
situation and it will report to me.
* * *
RAILWAY CROSSINGS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. This June several
grade school students in my riding could have been seriously
injured when a railway crossing arm apparently malfunctioned.
What is the minister doing to improve safety at railway
crossings in Cambridge and the rest of the country?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I know that this is of great interest to all members
of the House because railway accidents happen very frequently.
In the last 10 years we have seen a reduction in railway
crossing accidents. To achieve the goal of preventing accidents,
we are actively involved in the crossing improvement program. We
have contributed $50 million over the past six years. In fact
another $2 million went into the program just recently. We have
established a program called Direction 2006 which seeks to
increase awareness of safety issues surrounding the rights of way
and rail crossing issues across the country.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister wants to withdraw our troops from Kosovo. He
has confirmed what the official opposition has been saying for a
long time, that our troops are overstretched. To add insult to
injury, he has referred to our men and women in the military as
Boy Scouts, while the foreign affairs minister talks about soft
power.
When will the Prime Minister stop abusing and running down our
military and start giving them the funding they need to do the
job?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister and all of us on this side of the
House have great admiration for the work done by the men and
women of our armed forces. We are justifiably proud of the role
the forces have played in building peace and security in the
troubled Balkans.
We are certainly aware of their funding needs. The Minister of
National Defence is working on this. In the meantime, our
decision to consolidate in Bosnia has been done not in isolation
but in consultation with our allies who are carrying out similar
steps to avoid overlap and duplication.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
can see why the Deputy Prime Minister has to read the answer off
as to what the accomplishments of our troops are because he
probably does not even know on a personal level.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not think I need to remind the
hon. member for Calgary Northeast that people sometimes refer to
notes in this Chamber, but members do not read. It is contrary
to the rules.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, why do you not tell the
Deputy Prime Minister that? I think he needs a lesson or two
from the Chair.
The government has an ad hoc approach to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1445
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Everyone knows that members
can make use of notes.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I will make use of some of
my notes too, but I do not need notes to know what the
accomplishments of our military are. Obviously, the Deputy Prime
Minister does.
The mission to Zaire in 1996 is still known as the bungle in the
jungle by the Canadian military. We struggled to find resources
to send troops to Kosovo. We continue to look further to send
troops to East Timor. Now the Prime Minister has finally
admitted that there is a crisis in the military. Why does he not
give the Canadian forces the resources they need to do the job?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend says we are not giving due respect to the
armed forces. Now he insults them by calling their work bungles
in the jungle. He ought to be ashamed of himself.
If the hon. member was not holding up that paper close to his
glasses, he would not know if he was in the House or outside the
House.
* * *
DEVCO
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Natural Resources said today that he did not want
to raise expectations, but he said that funding allotted for the
economic adjustment in Cape Breton as a result of the
government's abandonment of Devco is under reassessment, finally
acknowledging that the original package is not adequate.
Will he commit today to a new funding package, a fair funding
package for the people and the miners of Cape Breton?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I explicitly said was as a result of the roof falls
which have created a very serious safety situation in the mines,
naturally we would review all aspects of the previously existing
human resources package in the context of fairness, in the
context of the precedents that exist on both sides of the
equation and in the context of fiscal responsibility. I put that
on the record in the House earlier today.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister for the second time
today acknowledge that the premature closure of the Phalen mine
has dramatically changed the dynamics of the situation facing
Cape Breton miners and their families.
Instead of making policies on the fly with respect to the future
of Cape Bretoners, will the government withdraw this grossly
inadequate bill and get the natural resources committee into Cape
Breton where a true consultation process can begin for Cape
Bretoners by Cape Bretoners?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the process of privatization is an extremely important
one. That is where the best hope lies in terms of long term
commercial viability for the coal mining sector in Cape Breton,
including the maintenance of the maximum number of good long term
jobs.
In terms of consultation, that consultation is ongoing, partly
in respect of economic development, partly in respect of the
privatization process and partly in respect of other elements of
this package. In response to the requests of Cape Bretoners, we
have made very sure that we have consulted and we will continue
to consult.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has skated very well on the
issue so far when he said that he knew immediately of the
disclosure.
When did he find out? Was it between the second and first
period? If he did find out immediately, did he tell the director
Ward Elcock? Why did he not tell the director of CSIS, Paule
Gauthier? Why did he not disclose that immediately so an
investigation could have begun three weeks ago?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I previously told my hon. colleague, I
was informed immediately. Also we have the Security Intelligence
Review Committee in place which is mandated by this place to
review CSIS activities. It has access to CSIS documents. It
will evaluate them. It will put a report together and I will
receive the report.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, there is a serious communication breakdown taking
place. We know the RCMP and CSIS do not communicate. Obviously
the solicitor general does not communicate with members of his
own department.
1450
This has been described as the most serious security breach in
the 15 year history of the service. What is the solicitor
general doing to plug the leaks? When are we going to get some
accountability from the minister?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. colleague,
there will be a report by the appropriate body. When I receive
that report it will be evaluated. That is the process. I ask my
hon. colleague to let the process work.
* * *
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the
Environment. Constituents from my riding of Port
Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam have declared a widespread
support for endangered species legislation.
I would like to know how far the minister is prepared to support
the species at risk legislation.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the constituents of the hon. member reflect the
views of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, all of whom want
to have strong endangered species legislation.
I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts later this
month, which follows up on a meeting of two months ago, so that
we can have full provincial and territorial participation in an
effective network across the country to protect species at risk.
* * *
NUCLEAR WASTE
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
United States does not want Canada to burn its waste plutonium.
Russian waste will only be imported if Canada pays for it.
Ontario Hydro does not want to burn plutonium and the Mohawk
leaders will blockade the shipment. Residents and town councils
along the proposed route have condemned the plan. It is pretty
clear that Canadians do not want a test burn.
Will the Prime Minister call off this unnecessary and unwanted
test burn today?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the reports that appear today are not quite
accurate. In fact, the United States does want to proceed with
the tests because they agree, as we do, that there is a very
important serious problem of nuclear proliferation of a large
surplus of nuclear warheads. If we are going to eliminate the
dangers and hazards of nuclear proliferation then we all must
play a part.
We have just completed a series of consultations. The Minister
of Transport will be releasing a report on that matter. We have
given all assurances that in order to achieve our objective of
helping in this nuclear disarmament, we will also make sure that
the safety and security of Canadians are protected as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have learned
that the American government has backed away from its intention
to send plutonium to Canada for use as fuel in a Canadian
reactor. We also know that the Canadian government wanted to
process Russian plutonium.
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Given the
American decision, does the government intend to reverse its
decision to import plutonium and transport it through Canada to
Chalk River, Ontario?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat what I said.
It is not true that the
United States is no longer interested in the tests on plutonium.
In fact, they share the great concern of all Canadians and
Americans with respect to the problem of nuclear proliferation.
I hope all members of the House agree that we must give very
careful thought to the Department of Transport's procedure
and, at the same time, to the importance of priority in
achieving nuclear disarmament.
* * *
[English]
EAST TIMOR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Today the East Timor Alert Network, Amnesty International and
the CLC all joined in calling on the government to impose a total
embargo on all military ties with Indonesia, including the
outstanding export permits and to support substantial Canadian
contribution to the stalled international tribunal on crimes
against humanity in East Timor.
Will the minister now agree to implement these important
recommendations and thus send a strong signal to Indonesia's
generals that they will be held responsible for their genocidal
policies in Timor east and west, in Aceh, Iryan Jaya and
elsewhere in Indonesia?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have always taken the position that the question
of accountability is one of the primary elements in the
settlement for East Timor. We are continuing to pursue that both
at the United Nations and in our discussions with other partners.
1455
At the same time I would like to emphasize that what is really
crucial, what is very essential now, is that East Timor has its
independence. The time, energy and resources of this country, as
with all countries, including the network, the CLC and the hon.
member, should be going toward ensuring that independence, to
help build a civic administration and to help protect the
security of the East Timorese. That is the real issue, not going
on the kind of wild goose chase the—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture recently showed his true compassion and
his true feelings for the farm crisis in western Canada. Recently
he told reporters that he had been told by farmers and I quote,
“Don't you dare bail those bastards out”. The minister also
states that he has taken a tough love approach to the farm
crisis.
Why is the minister of agriculture pitting one group of farmers
against another group of farmers, as opposed to trying to resolve
a very serious problem?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has shown very clearly how
we care about Canadian farmers. In the last 12 months we have
added to the safety net program over $1 billion, nearly $1.1
billion. That is four times what the hon. member's party said
was required.
* * *
ULTRAMAR
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Last summer the Ultramar corporation announced its intention to
acquire the Ottawa area terminal facilities of Coastal Canada
Petroleum, a major local supplier to independent wholesalers and
retailers.
While I understand that the matter is currently before the
Competition Bureau, can the Minister of Industry provide any
comments whatsoever on the implications of this acquisition for
local consumers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the viability and the role of the independent gasoline
petroleum suppliers is a very important component of a
competitive marketplace, and therefore needs to be of concern to
the government and to the Competition Bureau.
As the member for Nepean—Carleton has stated, the matter he has
raised is before the bureau. The bureau is considering it
carefully. It will consider whether it has implications for
competition in the region in which the acquisition has occurred.
The member can be assured that the bureau will do a thorough and
comprehensive analysis before permitting the acquisition to
proceed.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the solicitor general did not really answer the main
question from the member for Kootenay—Columbia. I would like to
give him a chance to answer it again.
When did the minister advise SIRC of the theft of top secret
documents from CSIS?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I found out three weeks ago today.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Immigration
Canada has refused access to two French-speaking immigrants
wishing to settle in Saint Boniface, in Manitoba, on the pretext
that they do not speak English.
How can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration justify the
decision by her department when the Secretary of State for the
Francophonie, the member for Saint Boniface, is of the opinion
that it is not essential to be able to speak English in order to
live there?
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong.
I cannot describe the situation because of privacy information.
However, I can tell the member that when it comes to
assessing, English and French language requirements
are assessed equally.
If in this or any other situation the suggestions of the member
opposite prove to be correct, then I will take the appropriate
action to ensure that the situation does not occur again and that
the situation is corrected.
* * *
CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Provincial and territorial finance ministers are meeting as we
speak. They are calling on the government for the full
restoration of federal transfer payments for health and
education. The premiers have already done the same.
Canadians have said time and time again that health care is
their first priority. They know that at 12% or less federal
funding, we will not be able to ensure medicare for very long
into the millennium.
Can we count on the government to do the right thing and ensure
the full restoration of the Canada health and social transfer in
the next federal budget?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last year the provinces defined what was full
restoration of the health transfer portion of the CHST and that
is exactly what the government did last year. In addition to
that, the Minister of Health announced a whole series of measures
having to do with evidence, best practices and research and
development. In last year's budget, we went substantially beyond
what the provinces asked for.
* * *
CSIS
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, let
us clear up that little definition of “immediately”. The
solicitor general did say in the House that he learned about the
incident three weeks ago today.
Can the solicitor general please tell us then why he did not
inform the head of SIRC immediately three weeks ago?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a number of
times. That is SIRC's mandate and it has access to all of CSIS
files. It will review the situation, put a report together and I
will receive the report.
The Deputy Speaker: That concludes today's question
period.
* * *
[Translation]
SPECIAL ORDER PAPER
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wish to inform the
House that, pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), and at the request
of the Government, the Chair has ordered the printing of a
special order paper giving notice of a government motion.
[English]
Although this should have been done this morning, and I
apologize to the House for forgetting to do so, I now lay upon
the table the relevant document.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the
honour to table in this House the government's response to the
report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade entitled “Canada and the Future of the World
Trade Organization”.
The government congratulates the committee on its continued
efforts and on the dedication of its members permitting the
consultation and informing of Canadians to be done so
effectively. The committee's report was studied in depth and
helped clarify the government's trade program.
Our government's response takes into account all 45 of the
committee's recommendations and expresses our priorities and
objectives for the ministerial conference of the World Trade
Organization to be held in two weeks in Seattle.
* * *
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order
in council appointments made recently by the government
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
1505
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to
present to the House, in both official languages, reports from
the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
concerning the following three meetings: 38th Commonwealth
Parliamentary Conference, which was held from August 7 to 13,
1999 in Quebec City; the 45th Commonwealth Parliamentary
Conference, which was held from September 18 to 23, 1999 in
Trinidad and Tobago; and the 11th seminar of the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association which was held in Malta from May 27 to
June 3, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official
languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts relating to chapter 6 of the April 1999 Report of the
Auditor General of Canada, Human Resources Development Canada—An
Accountability for Shared Social Programs; and, the second report
of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to chapter
10 of the April 1999 Report of the Auditor General of Canada,
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—Funding Arrangements for
First Nations: Follow-up.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table the comprehensive
responses to these two reports.
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership
of the Standing Committee on Finance.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the seventh report later this day.
* * *
FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION IN RESPECT OF WEST COAST PORTS
OPERATIONS ACT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-315, an act to provide for the settlement of
labour disputes affecting west coast ports by final offer
arbitration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, talk about timely. I think the
introduction of this bill is not only extremely pertinent to the
House, but something that is extremely timely in that we have
been discussing and will likely be looking at back to work
legislation to re-open the port of Vancouver and the west coast
ports today.
For the last week we have had a labour dispute that has
literally cut off all exports and imports on the west coast ports
and is having a devastating effect on Canada's economy.
My bill would provide for a final offer selection arbitration
method that would allow the parties to continue to work and
continue to keep the ports open while they continue to negotiate.
If they could not negotiate then they would put their final
offers to an arbitrator.
I believe this is something that is badly needed in the code and
it should be there immediately.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In light of the circumstances surrounding the port of Vancouver
and the fact that this bill has just been introduced, I wonder if
I might ask the unanimous consent of the House to make the bill
votable and begin discussing it immediately?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make
the bill votable at the moment and begin discussions immediately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Transfer of Offenders
Act (removal of foreign offenders).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to reintroduce
my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Transfer of
Offenders Act (removal of foreign offenders).
1510
This is a companion bill to Bill C-292, the immigration
enforcement improvement act, which I reintroduced on November 1.
The bill was first introduced in the 35th parliament following
the 1994 murders of Georgina Leimonis and police constable Todd
Baylis in Toronto. Non-citizens who had been evading deportation
from Canada committed both murders.
Under the current legislation, foreign offenders cannot be
removed from Canada unless they request to be removed and if
their country of origin agrees to accept them. The bill would
help to speed up the removal from Canada of non-citizens
convicted of serious offences. I would encourage all members of
the House to lend their support to this initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the seventh report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented
to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
PETITIONS
EQUALITY
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
take great pride in presenting a petition put forth by many
concerned Canadians but mostly from the province of Quebec.
The petitioners are asking our government to affirm that all
Canadians are equal under all circumstances and without exception
in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. They wish to
remind our government to only enact legislation that affirms the
equality of each and every individual under the laws of Canada.
TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
again to present another petition on the matter of lack of
telephones in parts of Peterborough county.
As members know, we are supposed to be the most connected
country in the world and yet here is a group of families not far
from the city of Peterborough who have telephone poles outside of
their homes but who have never had telephones. One can imagine
in this day and age what that means for teenagers and others.
The petitioners call upon parliament to intervene on behalf of
these people through relevant federal departments, the CRTC and
Bell Canada, to ensure they get telephone service soon.
IRAQ
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
a petition from people in Peterborough county, the city of
Peterborough and elsewhere, who are still concerned about the
situation in Iraq.
They point out that the people of Iraq have suffered untold
hardship in the wake of the gulf war, and that whereas ongoing UN
sanctions against Iraq, regarded as the most stringent ever
imposed by the UN, have devastated the Iraqi economy resulting in
the deaths of over one million civilians, including many many
children. They point out that these sanctions are not having any
effect on the regime of Saddam Hussein himself.
The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to appeal
strongly to the U.S. and Britain to cease all military operations
against Iraq and call for serious peace negotiations, and
further, to stop the suffering and death of Iraqi people that,
excluding an embargo on military material, all other sanctions be
lifted.
Further, they urge that Canada vastly increase its efforts in
providing food, medicine and infrastructure reconstruction for
the people in Iraq.
THE SENATE
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my honour, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, to present a petition that essentially calls for the
abolishment of the Senate.
The House will be amazed that this petition represents 129,000
signatures, which is more than my entire constituency, of men,
women and children. It looks as though almost everybody in the
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys constituency opposes the
Senate, although a few people from other parts of the country may
have slipped in to sign the petition.
1515
They point out a whole variety of reasons why they do not like
it and are asking the Government of Canada to take whatever steps
are necessary to abolish the Senate of Canada.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table a petition from my home town of Sundre, Alberta,
calling upon the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause
or do whatever is necessary to put an end to the child
pornography debate that has taken place as a result of the B.C.
court decision.
THE SENATE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from constituents in
Winnipeg and other communities in Manitoba regarding the
abolition of the Senate.
The petitioners believe that the Senate of Canada is an
undemocratic institution composed of non-elected members that are
unaccountable to the people.
They believe that the Senate costs taxpayers more than $50
million per year. They believe that the Senate is redundant,
given the roles played by the supreme court and the provinces in
protecting minority rights and providing regional
representatives. They also believe that the Senate undermines
the role of MPs in the House of Commons.
Therefore they call upon parliament to undertake measures aimed
at the abolition of the Senate.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
PORT OF VANCOUVER
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has received an application
for an emergency debate from the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the application for an emergency debate was sent last Friday. It
was asking for some action to be taken last week by the federal
government in terms of the Vancouver port situation. I see today
that we will be into that debate.
I want to make a point very clearly to the government, to all
members of the House and to those thinking about what is
happening here today. We are likely to hear that there is a
resolution of this conflict in British Columbia. However, what I
continuously hear from the government side is that there will be
a commitment by the employees and/or the employers to go back to
work, or to allow employees to go back to work. That is a lot
different from employees and employers saying that they have a
collective agreement, at least a memorandum of agreement. There
is a very substantive difference in that.
Unless we hear on this side that there is an agreement and not
just a resumption of work today, and possibly tomorrow there
could be other job action or the next day or the next day, we
will be indeed debating it long and hard in the House.
In view of the fact that we asked for this last week because of
inaction, we will accept the fact that there is now a motion to
debate the Vancouver port situation in the House already and we
will deal with that when it comes up a little later.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford therefore withdrawing his motion for an
emergency debate? The Chair has been left a little unclear as to
exactly what is intended.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of what if, what
if we get certain information. I would like to have it remain on
the books because I am not satisfied that those people over there
will have a proper resolution of the issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I will tell the hon. member what the
Chair is prepared to do, and that is to reserve decision on the
matter until later this day, which I will do.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to pick up on what my House leader has said.
There may or may not be discussion and debate on the problem at
the west coast ports in the House today.
If the government does not bring forth back to work legislation
then we on this side of the House will not have an opportunity to
debate it.
The Deputy Speaker: That has been solved. The Chair has
agreed to withhold a decision in respect of the matter until
later today. We will see what happens, but I do not think we
should get into a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the
crisis at the moment since that is not the purpose of the
standing order.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, an
act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to
dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time. I am pleased to discuss in the
debate on Bill C-11 the background of Devco for a moment. I want
to address perhaps some of the background from where I come from
in Nova Scotia and from some of the issues I have dealt with in
the House of Commons in terms of regional development grants and
so on. I also want to talk a bit about the litany of problems
involved in the amount of money that government throws at
situations, with no particular outcome in mind but really to keep
people in certain parts of Canada quiet.
There is a saying that goes something like this: a government
that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of
Paul. This is quite like the philosophy I see over there: it is
okay to take from taxpayers around the country and drop the money
into a certain area regardless of whether or not the project is
viable. Then they can count on a certain number of votes and say
“We are looking after you and this is how it is going”.
I will run through a bit of the background on the Devco
situation, but I think it epitomizes what this philosophy is
doing in certain parts of our country. We just cannot dole out
dollars to projects that really are not viable in the end result
and expect to have anything but calamity in the final analysis.
I will comment as well on the manner and the nature of debates
and the priority in the House of Commons on debates. I find it
more than interesting that the government has allowed a little
over five hours debate on Devco today. Yet the official
opposition had four and a half hours debate allotted to it for
the Nisga'a agreement. The Nisga'a agreement has ramifications
constitutionally. It has ramifications on many other issues of
all Canadians, including a referendum that has been denied the
people of British Columbia. Yet we get four and a half hours
debate on that issue. We are expected to come in here and be
quiet about having five hours debate on another issue. It just
escapes me.
I will give a little background about Devco. In 1966 the Donald
report commissioned by the federal government recommended a
downsizing of the Cape Breton coal industry with 1980 as the
target for production to cease. Let us just think about that. In
1966 politicians said that the coal mining industry in Cape
Breton had to be downsized and that hopefully by 1980 they would
be into other productions, other issues, manufacturing or some
other opportunities that should and could arise in Cape Breton.
Here we are in 1999 and we are struggling after $2 billion plus
being thrown at that project. The government is still sitting in
the House of Commons debating what to do next. It should
resonate throughout the country that the government in 1966
should have said, therefore, that if it was to downsize by 1980
these were the following alternatives that it planned to
undertake so that as it downsized it increased or upsized
industry in other alternative areas.
1525
No, it waited till 1980, as I will show, threw more money into
the project, did not know where it was going, did not look at
alternatives, and then said in 1998 that it had to be closed
down. It said it would sort of close it down. Now the employees
are saying that they were propped up since 1966 and are now being
thrown out in the cold.
What are the options? Look at Cape Breton. Ask the people of
Sydney if the government has invested in lots of other
opportunities. The answer is no, no long term sustainable
opportunities.
That is what they get when they rob Peter to pay Paul and count
on the support of Paul. I think Paul's support over there is
running very thin. That is precisely why in Cape Breton they no
longer have Liberal MPs. They have given up on the idea that
they will just keep propping them up with money, keep helping
them out, but they will not give them anything in the end.
In 1966 as well Prime Minister Pearson and Nova Scotia Premier
Robert Stanfield announced a $55 million package to phase out
coal mining in Cape Breton over 15 years. The province agreed
with it, it was going to phase it out, and then phase out money
was put in place in 1966. In 1967 Devco was formed. That
incorporated the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and the Nova
Scotia Steel and Coal Company.
All of a sudden in 1970 we saw an expansion in Cape Breton in
the coal industry. The Prince and Phalen mines were opened. Some
mines were opened. That was good. It kept them going, but four
years before they were to be downsized and closed.
In 1989 Ottawa announced a Devco subsidy of $30 million per year
to the end of 1995. Where in the name of blazes is the plan over
there? What is wrong with them? Do they not think, all five of
them who are here? It is amazing how all of a sudden the
Liberals come back into power and say they knew they were to
phase it out but, gee whiz, they have not thought about anything
else those folks can do down there. Then they dream up some more
subsidy money and keep it going, prop it up until the end of
1995.
Then they said the company, Devco, would sink or swim on its
own. They said that in 1966. They said that in 1970. They said
that in 1978. Here we are today in 1999 with all four of these
guys sitting here trying to listen. Where the heck is the
government?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford knows that he should not refer to the
presence or absence of members of the House. Tempting as it is,
and I have felt the temptation myself from time to time, I know
he will want to resist that temptation.
Mr. Randy White: It is tempting all right. The light is
on but no one is home. That is the problem. They are all smiles
and chuckles. If there were three of them sitting here, I would
have something to holler about. The problem is there is no damn
plan from members of the government. There are people counting
on livelihoods down there. They sit in here, what is left of
them, and they smile.
In 1966 they said they would phase it out. In 1974 they
confirmed the phase out. In 1978 they said phase out.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: You're just a big mouth, a loud
mouth.
Mr. Randy White: He says I am a big mouth. This country
needed a few big mouths to stand up to a government that robs
Peter to pay Paul, that has no damn plan whatsoever for the
people of Sydney, Cape Breton, or anywhere else in Cape Breton.
We are sick and tired of it. The government throws bottom
dollars at it. It throws taxpayer dollars at it. As an end
result, it throws them a couple of bones and says go away. That
is what the problem is.
1530
Now I am being called a hypocrite. Let us read along and see if
I am a hypocrite.
Is hypocrite in the books? Is the member allowed to say that?
The Deputy Speaker: The member should not use the term.
I did not hear the hon. member say it, but I am sure he did not
mean it.
Mr. Randy White: Talk about hypocrites. These are people
who say they will throw them a couple of dollars and in the end
there is nothing.
In October 1998 the roof fell in at one of the mines. In
January 1999 it came down to this. Here is the brilliant plan
after 1966. After 33 years here is what the Liberals said. They
announced that they would sell the Prince mine and close Phalen,
a move which would put 1,100 miners out of work. The people of
Cape Breton should not have been surprised. They were already
told in 1966 that this would happen in 1980.
Why on earth did we throw $2 billion into something which was
going to be phased out beginning in 1966? Would it not have been
a lot more reasonable for the government to be honest about it
all and let the people know it was not a winning proposition and
perhaps we should diversify? I know that is a strange word for
that group over there. Maybe we should diversify. Maybe we
should look for alternatives. They find that to be strange.
I will be splitting my time. How much time do I have left, Mr.
Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has one minute.
Mr. Randy White: I would like to say a couple of things
in a minute to all five members on the other side of the House.
In August 1999 Devco's annual report showed that it had one of
its worst years on record, suffering a $299.7 million loss in
1998-99. Is that a surprise to anybody when in 1966 the
government said it would be phased out? The point I am making is
that the government does not have any idea of what is a long term
plan. The government does not have a national strategy on
natural resources. The government has one thing only on its
mind: a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend
on the support of Paul. Is that not accurate? Is that not what
this is about? There was a lack of planning and now there are
1,100 people wondering what is going to happen tomorrow.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should ask for
a quorum count.
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I note that there are very
few government members in the House. I would like to have a
quorum count.
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
1535
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pick up where my colleague left off. He talked
about the need for a plan. Perhaps members will recall the
expression “If you fail to plan, you plan to fail”.
It would seem to me that this is a perfect example of that. The
government has had no plan in place. It started back in 1966
under the assumption that it was going to phase-out coal mining
in Cape Breton, and yet it has continued to hire, it has continued to
open new mines and it has continued to give the impression that
coal mining would be a viable way of life and a reliable
occupation.
It took years and years. The plan was that it would take 15
years to shut down coal mining in Cape Breton. One would assume,
albeit incorrectly in this case, that if the governing was going
to shut down something as important to the region as a basic
industry like coal mining it would come up with some sort of a
plan to diversify the economy or to prepare people for the
eventuality that there would be no coal mining. I think it was
Forest Gump who said it best: “Life is like a box of
chocolates”. The people of Cape Breton did not know what to
expect. They did not know what they were going to get. They did
not know from day to day or week to week what was going to become
of the mining industry.
We are getting this mixed message. The people of Cape Breton
always got the mixed message that the government was going to
phase out coal mining, and yet the mines remained open and they
continued to hire people. That is totally unacceptable.
Eleven months ago, in January, the government announced plans to
shut down one Devco mine and to sell the other. That is not too
bad. Let us see, that was 1966 to 1999. That is only 33 years.
I think the government acted fairly quickly on Prime Minister
Pearson's plan. It only took 33 years. When the decision was
made, it was as though the government pulled the plug in the
basin and let everything go at once. What a tremendously
shortsighted, poorly thought out, ill-advised plan this was. As
a matter a fact, this is so bad that nobody could call it a plan.
At the very best we could call it crisis management.
This reminds me of other things that have gone through the
House. Our House leader, the member from British Columbia, spoke
a bit about this in his remarks. We seem to be getting all kinds
of time to discuss this in the House today, which is appropriate,
but we have had other things come before the House, which have
run into the billions of dollars, on which the government has
moved closure and time allocation so that members on this side of
the House did not get an opportunity to express their concerns or
thoughts.
I wonder if it is only a matter of an hour or so before the
government House leader comes rushing in and says “That is
enough of this stuff. We are going to shut you down”, because
it has to deal with the tiddlywink act or some other tremendously
important piece of business. It seems to me that we are dealing
with the lives of at least 1,100 people in Cape Breton and there
has been no alternative presented or suggested to them.
1540
I want to talk a bit about the whole aspect of being an
underground miner. I cannot imagine the bravery it must take day
after day to go down into the mines, even the mines which have
every safety precaution, especially those which are located under
the ocean. I would think that people would have to have fairly
good nerves and great resolve to be an underground miner of any
type, but when the miner works underneath the ocean, a bay or
whatever, it seems to me it would take a particularly strong
individual to put up with that kind of work and that possibility
of danger.
Over and over again we have seen that there have been cave-ins,
slumps and sags. I do not consider myself to be claustrophobic,
but I am sure that if I was in a shaft someplace and the roof
caved in between me and the escape route, I would not be able to
make that claim. Claustrophobia would set it regardless of my
resolve. I admire and marvel at people who can work under those
conditions.
Having said that, I want to assure the House that I am sure the
people of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton are very adaptable and
diversified people who could make a living in many different
ways. They are talented and they have many things at their
disposal which they could apply if they were given a chance.
In this instance the government has chosen only to pour money
into a mine that should never have been supported. I think the
original intention of phasing out the mine in 1966 was probably a
good one in that there was co-operation and agreement between the
federal and provincial governments. The question is, why did the
government not act on it then? Instead it nursed this along to
the point where people got their hopes up and then at the last
minute it just simply pulled the plug, leaving the people high
and dry.
I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say in
regard to this bill. I have been listening to hon. members from
Nova Scotia and Cape Breton who have talked very passionately
about the problems. I am certainly hopeful that the debate today
will have a great amount to do with the resolution of this whole
situation in Cape Breton.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to the hon. member's comments, as well as the comments of his
fellow Reformer.
The essential message coming from both members is actually the
opposite of what we hear from the NDP, which is “Why were the
coal mines not closed down 15 or 20 years ago?” There are those
who would argue why we would even consider any option other than
keeping the mines open. It proves again that a Liberal
government is a government that can bring balance to the debate.
We are seeing the two extremes and at the end of the day the
position of this government will be seen as the right decision
which will ensure that the future for Cape Bretoners is a
diversified future which will rely on the creativity and the
innate ability of Cape Bretoners.
1545
There has been a dearth of ideas across the floor on what
members of the opposition would do if they had the financial
resources that are being made available in this case. What ideas
would they bring forward to help diversify, prepare and assist
the Cape Breton economy for the next century, indeed for the next
millennium?
I would ask the hon. member to put aside his view of the history
and give us his vision for the future. After all, this debate
should be about the best ideas that can be put in place for Cape
Breton. The panel has been asking for those ideas from the
community. What ideas does the hon. member or his party have to
ensure that the very best outcome possible can be found?
Before the member answers, I would advise him that in my riding
of Algoma—Manitoulin in northern Ontario, the community of
Elliot Lake suffered massive mine layoffs not too many years ago.
Something like 4,000 jobs were lost in a community of roughly
16,000 people. I do not want to make comparisons as each
situation is unique but if any Cape Bretoners asked me for some
of the ideas that were attempted in Elliot Lake, I would be glad
to share them.
I look forward to hearing from the member about any ideas he or
his party might have to assist in moving the whole matter
forward.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I
agree with the member opposite that the government is taking a
balanced approach. I do believe the government is taking a very,
very slow approach.
It was the Liberal government in 1966 that made the assumption
and set forth the so-called plan to phase out mining entirely in
15 years. Here we are, more than twice that length of time since
then, and the Liberal members have reached no conclusion except
to suddenly look at their watches and say that today is the day
to cut everything off.
There has been no preparation as far as diversifying the economy
is concerned. The people in the Cape Breton area are very capable
of doing other types of work. It is just a matter of providing
some incentives and markets for the people that live there. As
far as giving specific solutions regarding what the exact route
to take is, I could not do that in the little bit of time that is
allowed to me.
Suffice it to say that the approach that has been taken to this
point has been devastating to the people who have worked there.
Since 1966 people have based their careers on the possibility of
working in a mine or a mine related field. In 1999, some 33
years later, the government simply cuts it off.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is shame in the House today. There should be shame and I
think there is shame on the part of some government backbenchers,
perhaps even on the part of some cabinet ministers of the Liberal
government.
1550
There ought to be shame first of all because a fraud has been
perpetrated on the people of Cape Breton. The government says
that in January of this year it came to a decision to disengage
itself from the mining industry in Cape Breton.
When my colleague from Bras d'Or introduced into the House of
Commons a cabinet document dated 1995, there were howls and
protests by the government. The government said, “We weren't
planning to divest ourselves of a role in Cape Breton in 1995.
That was just a study document”.
I live in Cape Breton. I remember in February 1995 the current
Minister of Finance giving an interview in Halifax. Oddly enough
he was asked a question on economic recovery in Canada. Canada
was going through a recession. His words to the interviewer
were, “I think we will find our way out of this economic
recession in Canada and Canada will prosper, but for Cape Breton
I don't see that prosperity”.
At that time those of us in Cape Breton wondered why the
Minister of Finance might make such a comment. Later on that
year, when faced with miners who wanted to open Donkin mine, who
wanted some kind of assurance from the government as to a plan
for Devco, the former member of parliament for Cape Breton—East
Richmond said, “There are no rabbits in the hat, boys. I can't
do anything for you”.
I was a citizen at that time; I was not a member of parliament.
We wondered why that minister who represented Cape Breton did not
have an answer. Now we know. We know because the then Minister
of Natural Resources was talking of privatization in 1995. I
submit that the Minister of Finance knew in February 1995 that
there was not going to be a coal industry in Cape Breton. I
think the then Minister of Health knew in 1995 that there was not
going to be a coal industry in Cape Breton.
The only people who did not know were the Cape Bretoners. Even
though they had a Liberal member of parliament at the cabinet
table, even though a Liberal member of parliament represented my
riding, even though a Liberal member of parliament represented
what was then Highlands—Canso, the only people who were not told
to get ready for economic adjustments were Cape Bretoners. There
has been a fraud and the shame is justified.
There is another reason for shame. The Liberals are abandoning
not only the miners and the people of Cape Breton with Bill C-11,
but they are abandoning their own history. They are abandoning
their own legacy.
Devco was the child of Lester Pearson. It was conceived and
drafted by a Liberal government composed of people like Allan
MacEachen, Romeo LeBlanc and Liberals who back then said that
they saw a role for government in compassionate help for regions
of the country outside the Ottawa valley.
There is a statue behind the west block of Prime Minister Lester
Pearson. If his spirit is in the House today, it weeps at the
hypocrisy of the government. Let me read some words. These are
not my own words. These are the words of Lester Pearson:
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 areas from dependence on a
declining natural resource to a sound economic base.
It was to be on a massive scale because government understood
the role and the history that Cape Breton miners have played in
building this country.
He went on, and I shame members further:
The Government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia
believe that a rigid adherence to a fixed timetable to reduce the
level of coal production might involve unnecessary hardship on
the dependent communities.
1555
Rigid adherence to a fixed timetable. What do we have from the
Prime Minister's Liberal government? An announcement in January
that come hell or high water the coal mines will close in
December 2000, a fixed agenda regardless of what it does to the
communities. That is hardly in the spirit of Lester Pearson. Let
me continue to shame the members:
Consequently, the rationalization of the mines will be related to
the success in the introduction of new industries. The crown
corporation will be instructed to give full consideration to the
needs of orderly adjustment, including the implementation of a
generous early retirement plan for the miners as recommended by
Dr. Donald.
A generous early retirement plan for the miners. They are the
people I went to school with. Today, at 42, 43 or 45, some with
one eye because of an accident in the mine, some with one
shoulder a little lower than the other because of a roof fall-in,
some missing a finger, they are told they will get a severance
package taxable by the Government of Canada and they should
retrain. That is hardly in the spirit of Lester Pearson. Shame
on the Liberals for that.
The contrast is so dramatic. If people in this country who used
to vote Liberal wonder whether they can find a home in this
right-wing government, that should tell them. If anyone thinks
that the Prime Minister's shuffling of a few cabinet ministers
and talking about a children's agenda is a pretence to the return
of the Liberals of old, they are right. It is a pretence. Bill
C-11 which will cause undue hardship to the miners in Cape Breton
is a testament to the fact that the Liberal Party lost whatever
soul it had under Lester Pearson. The present Prime Minister,
who was brought into politics by Prime Minister Pearson, should
be ashamed.
There is another aspect. I credit Allan MacEachen as he thought
he could enshrine some sense of responsibility on the part of the
government. Section 17 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation
Act was passed in the House of Commons. That put the words of
Lester Pearson into law. It reads in part:
(4) Before closing or substantially reducing the production of
coal from any coal mine operated by it, the corporation shall
ensure that
What happened to the Liberal Party that it would take that
section out of the new proposed legislation? What happened was a
fundamental shift in ideology. There was a fundamental shift in
thinking. The Liberal Party no longer believes there is a role
for the government in communities like Cape Breton.
Shame hangs on the House and it hangs on the Liberal Party. My
only hope and I think the hope of Cape Bretoners is that some
backbenchers who still adhere to what was once a Liberal
philosophy will muster the courage of the miners and stand up
against their government when it comes time to vote on this bill.
Let us talk about the people who are affected by this. I have
talked a little about the men who for the most part are
courageous. They have been talked about in debate here. They
are the draegermen who went down into the Westray mine to recover
the bodies of dead miners, risking their own lives.
1600
We are a people, a distinct people. We are a people with our
own history, our own culture and, in some ways—if one talks to
my mother-in-law or my mother—we are a people of our own
language. We have preserved the Gaelic culture and the Gaelic
language. We are a people who, because we were fishermen,
farmers and miners, were never dependent on the government but
understood the interdependence of communities one on the other.
That culture today is under attack by the Liberal government with
this bill.
I was delayed in the airport the other night and wandered
through the bookstore. I saw many books on self-help: how we
need to reach out to each other; how we need to understand each
other; and how we need to be affectionate with each other. It
made me think of the miners who live in the communities that I
represent. When I go door to door, these people tell me “I do
not want much, I want to be able to keep my home here”. Their
homes are not $250,000 homes in Toronto. They are $30,000 to
$40,000 homes in New Waterford, Glace Bay, Reserve Mines or
Sydney Mines. They want to stay in those homes because four
blocks away is a mother who is getting older and needs to be
looked after. Three blocks down in the other direction are
brothers who go underground with them, protect them and look
after them. Their kids can go to school and stop at any house
and find a relative or a friend.
The self-help books say that this is the kind of community we
have to build. I say that we have it but the government is
tearing it asunder. The government is saying to those men
“move”.
The speaker who preceded me said “Oh, I know the people of Cape
Breton are resilient, adaptable and can be trained”. Yes, we
are. However, let me propose to the members of the House that
tomorrow I will take away their privileges, tomorrow they will
lose their seat, tomorrow whatever professional degrees or
whatever work they did will not matter, they will go down in the
coal mine and learn how to dig it. They should go ahead and
adjust accordingly. They should move from Rosedale, from Toronto
or from Calgary because that is what economic adjustment is all
about. They should sell the house even though the market is
depressed. That is what economic adjustment is all about. That
is what the bill is all about.
The history of the coal mining communities in Cape Breton is a
long one. It has been recited here over and over again. There
seems to be some kind of thought that there was government
dependence. We heard the figure of $1.6 billion that has been
spent in Cape Breton on Devco. The miners in Cape Breton worked
for private companies until the 1960s and then began to work
under the crown corporation. Inasmuch as the government spent
$1.6 billion, it took back $6 billion in taxes. That is not a
bad return. It is not dependence, it is work.
What did we ask for in return? We asked for pensions. I do not
think that is unfair. We asked for some readjustment. We asked
for some economic development money.
The miners in Cape Breton have contributed to the building of
the country from one coast to the other. They did not all just
stay in Cape Breton and go underground. They went to Flin Flon,
northern Ontario and Elliot Lake. Why did they go? It was
because the companies knew they were the best damned miners in
the business. They knew that if they needed someone who could do
explosive work, Cape Breton miners would respond and would risk
their lives, which some of them did, to build this country.
I began this address by referring to the statue of Lester
Pearson behind the West Block. There are four other carvings
that the members of the House of Commons should look at the next
time they wander out into the lobby.
1605
Above the ceiling in the lobby of the House of Commons, in the
four corners which is a testament to their prominence, are four
carved portraits: One is a farmer because the farmers were
recognized as having helped build the country; one is a
fisherman, and we all know what happened on the east and west
coasts to the fishermen who helped build the country; one is a
woodcutter, a carpenter who helped construct and build the
country; and, in a place of honour under the Prime Minister's
office, is the face of a miner because there was a time when
miners mattered to the government. There was a time when it was
recognized that those people contributed.
Today we stand in the people's House, in the House of commoners,
and debate how to make them adjust in the new economy.
Shame on the government. Shame on the policy. The shame will
follow it. The government will take its place beside the
Dominion Steel and Coal Company which called in the army to shoot
the miners when they tried to strike for a decent wage. The
government will place its name alongside those companies that
exploited and then put out of work the Cape Breton miners.
We will survive as we always have. However, I do not think the
Liberal government should come knocking on the door of Cape
Breton. It might be strange to see the Prime Minister who is now
out of the country. It is interesting that since the whole
package was announced, we have never seen the Prime Minister
visit Cape Breton except maybe for a game of golf. When he did
that he did not do it in the industrial heartland. It would
interesting to see the Liberals come to Cape Breton and speak to
the miners eye to eye and tell them that they have to adjust to
the new economic forces because this is the new Liberal Party.
It is a shame on the House, a shame on the memories of Liberal
cabinet ministers for whom Devco represented an ideology and a
shame for the people in my riding.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as with previous
speakers, I listened carefully to the member for Sydney—Victoria
who spoke passionately about the people and communities he
represents. That is what we expect in the House and we
appreciate that.
That being said, there was a certain element of exaggeration in
his comments, although he did not exaggerate the importance of
this issue to the communities and the miners. I come from a
mining area myself. I live in Elliott Lake and I represent 60
communities, many of which have a history of mining. Some are
still in mining today. Mining is important to our area.
It is important that a few things be clarified. One of the most
important points is his reference to section 17(4). He was
lamenting that Bill C-11 would delete all of section 17,
including section 17(4), from the bill. He knows, as all members
who are following the debate know, that will have no bearing
whatsoever on the grievance. I will not comment on the grievance
except to say that the grievance process will continue. The
removal of section 17(4) will have no bearing whatsoever. The
minister said as much in his speech.
As far as the economic development responsibilities of Devco, he
knows that many years ago that responsibility was transferred to
the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. He tried to make a good
point but he failed on facts.
He mentioned Mr. Pearson who was the member for the riding I now
represent. I am proud and honoured to represent the area that he
represented. He made reference to a particular book which stated
that the government at that time would not adhere to a rigid
timetable.
1610
Well, I hardly think that 30 years later suggests that a rigid
timetable was in mind at that time.
I again emphasize that the government has found a balance
between the views on the left and the views on the right of those
who would say “let us look to the past as we go to the future”
and those who would say “we should have closed the mines down 20
years ago”.
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond to
this because I think the member's history needs a little
correcting.
There is something the member failed to mention. He talked
about a 20 year timetable and the 30 years it took to phase out
the coal industry, which was the original intent, but the reality
is that was the intent and the government began to take steps in
that direction.
What happened in the 1970s was that there was a determination
made in 1974 and again in 1978 to expand the coal mines because
it was necessary for the betterment of the country. This
government, which is now phasing out the coal industry, did make
an original plan in the late sixties to phase out coal, but then
it came into my community and into my schools saying that there
was a 25, 35 or 45 year career path in the coal mining industry.
Young people believed their government members who said, “Come
to work for us and you will have a job for life”. That is the
covenant that was made. That is the bargain that was struck.
When it comes to talking about history, let us not forget the
handshake that was extended to the young men of Cape Breton who
were told that Canada needs their coal and that they would have a
job there forever.
The member is right that the original intent was to phase out
the coal mine, but for him to say that it took 30-some years,
there is a little interruption there and that is when a promise
was made. It was the generation of today's miners' fathers who
were told in the sixties that the coal mines would be phased out,
but it was the next generation who was promised something
different and they were promised that by Liberal governments.
I take the member at his word. I think he is proud to represent
Lester Pearson's former riding, but I suggest he reread some of
the speeches of his predecessor to see what he would have done in
this situation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully and I certainly appreciate the comments of the
member. Being a native Cape Bretoner, certainly his comments are
from the heart and very relevant. He gave great voice to the
concerns of the working people and the miners of Cape Breton, but
there are a couple of areas I am still kind of confused about.
What exactly is the position of the member and his party when it
comes to the future of coal mining in Cape Breton? Does he
support the closure of the coal mines or does he not?
Further, I would like to hear the member's views on the proposal
by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood who expressed such
confidence in his minister's ability to turn Cape Breton into the
Hollywood of the north. We have some wonderful, talented people
from Cape Breton, certainly Hank Snow, Rita MacNeil and some
others come to mind, but is that the future of Cape Breton? I
wonder how much confidence the people have in that kind of a
proposal or in the idea of turning Cape Bretoners into
bureaucrats working for the government, as has been done in so
many other parts of Atlantic Canada.
Last, what would his party's position be with the idea of the
private sector being allowed to use the world-class pier in
Sydney, Nova Scotia, which belongs to Devco, for the import and
export of value-added products from the massive oil and gas
reserves off the coast of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton and using
the free trade agreement to access the markets in New England for
those products that would perhaps be manufactured in Cape Breton
and Nova Scotia?
1615
Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Speaker, it is a long question and
much to cover. Let me start by saying that nobody in Cape Breton
is saying that the coal industry has to go on for ever and ever.
The reality, however, is that we were told on January 11 there
would be a shutdown of the industry. We were told that there
would be community consultation in that regard. Sixteen days
later a package was presented with no consultation, with no
discussion. It simply was done as is.
As to the member's comments about talented Cape Bretoners, he
mentioned some of our singers and songwriters. I suggest he read
a new best seller called No Great Mischief, written by
Alistair MacLeod from the coal mining town of Dunvegan.
The title is an interesting one. It comes from General Wolfe
who, when he used the Highlanders in the battle on the Plains of
Abraham, said “Send the Highlanders over first; it is no great
mischief if they fall”. I think Cape Bretoners have felt for a
long time that the attitude of the government is to send them
over the wall first; it is no great mischief if we fall.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to the bill and specifically to talk about
the future of Devco and some of the problems in Atlantic Canada.
I have been listening with interest today to some of the debates
by people who live in the area. I respect much of what they have
had to say, especially the parts that dwelt upon the work ethics
and the good character of the people of Cape Breton.
I used to work in the logging industry and always thought that
was pretty tough, but from the times I spent going down in mines
to have a look at them and so on I was very impressed with the
hard work and the good work ethics of people who work in such
situations. There is not much doubt about that. The members who
are closely associated have been speaking on that. Their
tributes to the people in their ridings are well taken.
Obviously we have to be concerned about those workers and those
people, but let us do it without doubting the hard work and the
work ethics of the people in the area. The bill does not bring
that into question. The question is not about whether or not
these people are hard workers. Obviously they are. It is a
tough life and it is a tough type of work.
We are wondering about and debating today the best way to create
long term wealth for the people in this area. What is the long
term answer? Is it to continue along the path that has been set
out before them with Devco for the last 33 years? Is it in the
best interest of both the workers in the area and of Canadian
taxpayers in general to subsidize this industry to the tune of a
couple of billion dollars?
I would argue that it is not. It has nothing to do with how hard
they are working. It has to do with the quality of the coal they
are mining and the impossible situation they are in. They will
never be able to make money in that pit. It will never happen.
It cannot happen.
As I was preparing my notes I thought of the situation in
British Columbia where successive governments propped up an area
of my province called Cassiar. We can all tell stories of what
happened in Cassiar, but the similarities are fairly consistent
with what is going on with the people affected by the closure of
Devco.
Cassiar was propped up year in and year out for political
reasons. Millions upon millions of dollars were sent into that
area in an effort to prop up the local economy, to keep the mines
open, and so on. It just did not work. It was a good effort and
it was a good heartfelt concern for local workers.
1620
The sad fact is that at the end of the line when finally the
subsidies ran out not only did the workers lose their jobs. That
happened, but because they had been strung along so long with the
process of a never ending supply of government grants coming
their way that when it finally shut down they not only lost their
jobs. They lost everything. They lost their homes, their
businesses, and what they felt was their future. They lost it
all because it was an unsustainable level of government
subsidies. It was just a matter of time until it was cut off.
I cannot remember how long Cassiar was subsidized, but it was
certainly in excess of 20 years. When they finally pulled the
subsidies it was a harsh pill for locals to swallow because of
the huge disruption not only in their work lives but in their
overall lives. Most of them had to move away.
I do not think we can make the case that continuing subsidies at
the level we have been used to in Devco's case is sustainable in
the long run. There are 1,100 workers involved. There are
hundreds of millions of dollars in losses in a single year. We
cannot sustain that level of subsidies. It is just not possible.
The question needs to be asked: When is it appropriate to
subsidize a business? When is it something federal or provincial
governments should entertain? There is a very short list of
circumstances where government subsidies are appropriate.
I think first of a natural disaster. When the floods hit the
prairie provinces and completely wiped out the crops in quite a
large area it affected prairie farmers through no fault of their
own in a one time disaster situation. They deserved our help. It
was not their fault. It was nothing they did. Flooding is not a
routine yearly problem. They deserved some help from us to tide
them through that natural disaster. An earthquake would be
another example where the government could step in and say that
this is an odd situation with very severe economic hardship.
Another example is when there is systemic and long term
inappropriate foreign subsidies that distort the trade situation.
That is not the case with the coal industry. That is not why
this mine cannot make money. It has to do with the quality of
the coal, the access to markets and so on. It is not the
workers. It is the fact that they are in an untenable economic
situation that cannot be sustained. Again, it is not appropriate
to subsidize it.
Why then has the government over the last 30 some years
continued to subsidize this industry even when it seems to be
hopeless? It is because successive Liberal and Conservative
governments have felt that the best way to secure a vote in
eastern Canada, in Atlantic Canada, was to throw money into
subsidy programs. If it was working for unemployment reasons
then every person in Atlantic Canada should have two or three
jobs because they have spent like crazy in one bad government
decision after another which has not resulted in increased
employment.
Unemployment has been the highest in Atlantic Canada throughout
my lifetime because the government subsidy programs the Liberals
and Conservatives have been so in love with have guaranteed that
their industries remain inefficient and uncompetitive for
generations on end.
They do not diversify. They do not build the infrastructure
necessary. They do not get into the business of the 21st century
because they are looking for the subsidies of the 19th century.
That is why they cannot break out of the endless circle of
government subsidies combined with high unemployment.
When I was in Atlantic Canada last there was a headline in one
of the Atlantic magazines: “Government Subsidies: Toxic Waste
for Atlantic Canada”. That is what they called it, because
wherever the subsidies went they showed an absolute corresponding
increase in unemployment the more subsidies the government put
into an area. Is that not ironic? We would think we were
helping people by giving them money.
We would think that if another $100 million could be thrown into
this area surely everybody would have a job, but absolutely no
correspondence could be shown between high government subsidies
and high unemployment. That is the case.
1625
People around the world have been able to break out of this
syndrome. It can be done but it takes some leadership and some
vision on the part of the government. The inappropriate
government subsidies have to be cut when governments start to
pick winners and losers in the free market system. They have to
give generalized tax relief to allow businesses to thrive in a
free market system. Unless we are willing to throw money at the
free market system indefinitely—and we are seeing today that is
not possible—the alternative is to lower taxes, lower
bureaucratic red tape and allow businesses to thrive on their
own.
We do not have to go far south from Atlantic Canada to see the
juxtaposition between a high subsidy and high unemployment zone,
which is unfortunately our Atlantic provinces. We do not have to
go that far south to a physical environment that is not much
different to see that the unemployment rate is much less, the
employment rate is much higher and the standard of living starts
to increase.
We could even go further south, Georgia for instance, and see
what it did. It was once the basket of the United States
economy. I have a clipping entitled “Atlantic Canada should
take a financial lesson From Georgia”. The head of the program
was in charge of giving out research funds. He could help people
research and he could do R and D work, but he was not allowed to
give out any government subsidies in Georgia.
He was commenting on the comments of the former Liberal Premier
of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, when he called on an end to
subsidies to Atlantic Canada after he retired. I respect Frank
McKenna somewhat because he did have his head screwed on
straight. He knew the long term answer was not increased
government subsidies because they are always subject to
patronage, always subject to abuse, and they always picked
winners and losers in a marketplace where they have no business
being.
Mr. McKenna saw how Georgia, Ireland and other places around the
world with high taxes and high regulatory government regimes had
turned it around almost overnight by reducing taxes, reducing
regulatory red tape and allowing businesses to thrive based on
the free market system.
I think there is hope for Atlantic Canada. One day it will rise
from the high unemployment situation it is in. It will not be
because of government subsidies. It will not be because people
are buying votes with a guarantee to keep a mine or a certain
sector open. It will be because they will get their act together
on the tax issue. People like Frank McKenna will come forward
asking for an end to this arbitrary subsidy program and move
toward a free market system.
That is not to say the public does not have an interest in it or
that governments cannot have an interest. I think there will be
an increasing need for public-private partnership whether we are
talking about ports, airports or facilities of different sorts.
We will be looking increasingly at public-private partnerships.
Of course public money will be involved. We will also be looking
for private money because we will need more money than we could
ever possibly spend out of the tax purse. We will need private
investment to make things shine in Atlantic Canada.
We will need to sort out basic things in Atlantic Canada as in
the rest of Canada like the fallout from the Marshall decision as
an example. It did not take very long for the Marshall decision
to ripple right down into the Sable Island gas issue. It took
only a couple of weeks after the decision for another appeal
board to strike down the consultation side, on whether or not
they consulted enough on the pipeline for the Sable Island gas
project. The board said that they had not consulted broadly
enough with the Mi'kmaq people, that consultation was inadequate
and that they had to start over again.
They better get that settled.
1630
Atlantic Canada has a very bright future. Its greatest export
over the last generation has been its young people. It has a
chance to repatriate not only those young people, but to woo
people from across Canada and around the world if it has a
vibrant economy.
Not only Sable Island gas, but the new gas discoveries are going
to be the basis of a new, broadened and more productive
workforce. It will not be based on government subsidies but on
the fact that it will have access to materials, natural resources
and the technology that is all part of the modern natural
resource industry.
It is going to have to quickly settle this jurisdictional
problem of whether we have equal access to natural resources, or
whether we have access based on ethnicity or race. That issue has
to be settled. I am not saying it is absolutely one way or the
other. I am saying that the government should not leave that
open as it is right now. The federal government has basically
abdicated its role and shrugged its shoulders.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said
that he thinks it means open access to all natural resources,
including wood products and access to the mines in Atlantic
Canada. That is quite a statement, but I do not think the people
in Atlantic Canada, who are looking to finally break out of this
high unemployment and high subsidy business they have been in for
years, think that is the way. They want this clarified.
People in Atlantic Canada want to see where we are heading as to
the allocation of natural resources. They want to see whether we
are going to divvy it up based on ancestry or based on the need
to access the products equally among all Canadians. That will
have to be settled in Atlantic Canada. Once again that will do
more to take that uncertainty out of the system which will allow
the free enterprise system to do its part. Hopefully in my
lifetime, and hopefully within the next decade, it will result in
a reversal of the sad fortune Atlantic Canada has been facing for
quite some time now.
In case people are wondering why I am so hip on this idea that
grants, loans and so on should be given based on need rather than
on political expedience, I will refer to a couple of newspaper
articles which were written back in 1993, the year I was first
elected. The articles extensively quote the Prime Minister who
is in his home town. He talked about government grants. This is
the problem with them. In general they do not go toward the
purpose originally intended.
The Prime Minister said “You vote for the Liberals,
Saint-Maurice wins with Jean Chrétien”. What did it mean? An
October 1993 article reads “At each public appearance in the
region, Wednesday night and yesterday, the Prime Minister
reminded them that he will probably have enormous clout as Prime
Minister to pull the government strings. He said `When the
dossier for Saint-Maurice lands on a cabinet minister's desk,
need I say more', he says to rounds of laughter during the
meeting”. That is a nice make work project. When a dossier
lands on his desk or a minister's desk. And it says across the
top that this is for Saint Maurice. “Need I say more, it is a
done deal. It is going to be good for Saint Maurice”. Why?
Because they need it? Because it is based on objective criteria?
No. It is based on buying votes.
Here is a headline: “I'm not a traitor, says the Prime
Minister, I am Santa Claus”. That is an interesting concept for
a prime minister. I do not think he is a traitor, but he said
that he was Santa Claus and that he had the answer. “If you
know me” says the big guy, “I can get you some grants. When it
comes across my desk, it is a done deal”. When I first saw
that, I thought that may be pushing it. Maybe that would not
really happen. Maybe he was just joshing.
Let me run down a list of what happens with government grants
when the Prime Minister is allowed to pull the strings.
1635
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would ask for your judgment on whether the member's
comments are relevant to the very important debate on Bill C-11.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As the parliamentary
secretary is aware, I just replaced the Deputy Speaker not
moments ago. However, knowing the opposition whip and his
knowledge of parliamentary procedure, it would seem utterly
unbelievable that his comments would not be relevant.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, it is very relevant when I
talk about grants in the Prime Minister's riding because we are
talking about job creation grants. Devco has been operating for
the last 33 years with $2 billion in grant money from successive
governments. During that time governments have tried to argue
that job creation grants, $2 billion worth, are an excellent way
to promote full employment. It is $2 billion later and now
everybody is going to be laid off.
As another example, the same thing is happening in the Prime
Minister's riding. I will quote myself. It is very relevant. It
made the front page of the National Post a week or two ago.
Let me just go over this again for the benefit of the House.
There is only one job creation grant in the entire country that
ended up in a trust fund over the transitional jobs fund, one
grant in the entire country. That trust fund proved to be
illegal. It happened in only one place and that was in the Prime
Minister's riding. It benefited only one person and it was not
Santa Claus. The person it benefited was Claude Gauthier, a man
who bought $500,000 of the Prime Minister's land and his golf
course. He gave $10,000 to the Prime Minister's personal
re-election campaign. He got a $6 million CIDA grant. That would
all be fine, but the problem is that the jobs created in that
area went from 115 to 45.
Grants like this do not create jobs; they create dependency and
they create patronage. That is why we are in the situation we
are in today, excessive government grants over a long period of
time with no long term plan to get out of it.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member
for Fraser Valley was straying a bit, but I respect your ruling
that his comments were relevant. I am sure there would not be
very many members, if any, on this side of the House who would
think they were.
Earlier on when he was a little more relevant in his comments he
referred to the state of Georgia in the U.S. and the measures
taken to spur individual creativity and investment. I suggest
that his comments in that regard would best be given to the
province of Nova Scotia because in his example that would be a
state jurisdiction and in our system, the equivalent would be the
province. I recommend that he pass those ideas on to the
province.
The member's comments highlighted very graphically the
difference between the left and the right and the further proof
to my thesis that the Liberal government has found that right
balance in the middle. The member would have us believe that
total worship at the altar of free enterprise would answer all
the problems of society. Those on the left would say that total
devotion to socialism would answer all the problems of society.
I say to the House and to the hon. member that it is the balance
we have brought to government that has brought us closer to the
right solution.
I will not claim and I do not think anybody can claim that any
government is perfect, but I think one would have to go a long
way to find a more balanced approach to governance than we have
seen with this government.
1640
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I think I did try to paint
in the limited time available to me that there is a role. I said
there was a role for the public sector. I hope the member
remembers my comments about the public-private partnerships which
I think will be inevitable in areas like Atlantic Canada that
have an infrastructure deficit. I do think there is a role for
the public sector. I have maintained that.
Getting back to the example of Georgia, it is interesting that
it changed the constitution. An odd little clause says that it
prohibits subsidies to businesses in Georgia. It is prohibited in
the state constitution. Tax breaks are okay as long as they apply
to all businesses, not just to hockey teams, not just to one
specific favourite of the minister, but they have to apply to all
businesses. What is the result? Over the last 20 years, Georgia's
economy has grown 150%. The Canadian economy has grown by 45%.
Even in the United States it has only grown by two-thirds.
I do not claim that Maine is the be all and end all of a perfect
American state, but even in Maine where similar programs are in
place its unemployment rate is only 8.5%, half of what it is just
north of the border. It has the same type of geography, the same
type of logistical problems yet its unemployment rate which is a
key determining measurement factor is much less.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I heard my colleague talk about patronage and how that
happened in Atlantic Canada. I have to say that I agree with
him.
Having lived on Cape Breton Island all of my life, we have been
the epitome of patronage over the course of the last 10 to 15
years. I refer to the Liberal patronage under the auspices of
ACOA which we have all come to know and which some love very
well. The majority of Atlantic Canadians have no use for ACOA
because they have not been politically affiliated with the
government to access any money.
Cape Breton Island has had make work projects for a very long
time. Under the former ACOA minister we had what I refer to as
boardwalks to nowhere which have nothing to do with
sustainability or economic development.
Having said that, there have been serious failures on behalf of
the Liberal government with respect to commitments to Cape
Bretoners and the individuals who have decided to live there. Is
the hon. member saying that we should make the decision now that
that is not the path we are going to take any more and that we
are going to leave them out in the cold?
Some of my constituents are in very desperate situations. I talk
to them on a regular basis about their not having money for
things such as school supplies. I believe that is the direct
result of patronage. There is a saying in Cape Breton Island
that it is not what you know but who you know.
It is recognized that that has been the major problem in
Atlantic Canada and certainly in my part of the country. We
agree that we have to chart a new course in terms of commitment.
Would the hon. member agree that we have to be committed right
now to dealing with the crisis that is facing Cape Bretoners
which has been due to the lack of leadership and commitment, and
as the member said, the buying of votes in Atlantic Canada by the
government?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the
situation. I see it in pockets in other parts of the country as
well. Cape Breton is a large enough area and it is in our
folklore in Canada. Even though I am not a part of Cape Breton
and never have been, it is a little pocket of Canadiana we are
all proud of in some special way. I do not know exactly why, but
it is there and we are focusing on that today.
We also see it in pockets across the country in other natural
resource areas. I mentioned Cassiar as an example, which
virtually does not exist anymore. There are pockets where that
happens.
1645
I went to the region a couple of years ago during the general
election of 1997. Our candidate took me down the road. He did
not win. He did not even come close, but he showed me something
which was built with an ACOA grant on one side of the street
during the reign of the Liberals for a Liberal. Then he showed
me that another guy had built a new roof for his hotel when the
Tories were in power. I said that it could not be that bad. He
said that the way it works is, if you do not know the guy at the
top, you do not get anything, and that is just the way it goes.
Coming from western Canada it was just too bizarre for me to
believe. I could not believe that a system could be run so
corruptly. I sympathize with the NDP because it has not been in
power in this place, so it has not been able to pull those
strings. It is a tribute that the NDP got elected. That is an
amazing fact.
The truth is that if the solution was an ACOA grant or a
descendant of ACOA, then I would say we should have a look at it,
but I cannot imagine a system set up along the lines of a
government grant program that is anything like what we had that
would allow free market forces to apply. I am concerned that no
matter what the program and no matter how good the intentions,
whoever is pulling the strings will still be that politicized,
that partisan in nature, will not allow the actual economy to
take over, and it will still get sidetracked.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have time for a
quick question from the member for Yorkton—Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for giving me a few minutes.
I have been sitting here all day listening to this debate and
becoming educated on an issue I know very little about. I am
really astounded at the amount of money that has been spent on
Cape Breton. Two billion dollars is quite a bit of money to a
small prairie boy.
The member talked about Santa Claus giving away all this stuff.
Santa Claus gives away his own money. Where does the money come
from that is given to these people? I come from Saskatchewan and
the prairie farmer is—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That was a great
question. Now there is time for a quick response.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer the
question. I know the member for Yorkton—Melville is concerned
about the situation with the farmers on the prairies and the fact
that when the Prime Minister says to the people in his riding “I
am no traitor, I am Santa Claus” it may be some comfort to the
people in that riding, but most of us realize that the money
comes from somewhere. A lot of the money the Prime Minister has
handed out has come from the backs of Cape Breton coal miners,
from prairie farmers, from loggers in my riding and from people
around the country. It has been sent to be used or misused in
ridings that the Prime Minister thinks—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but we are
out of time.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-11, the
divestiture of Devco. The debate that has gone on up to now in
some ways has pandered to the past, to a myth or a perception
that unfortunately exists in other parts of Canada about the
economy of Cape Breton. I have heard the word sinkhole used a
couple of times. I have even heard members of the New Democratic
Party say that we should not do this, that we should continue on
with what we have done in the past, that we should stay in the
past. I do not think either one of these images or visions of
Cape Breton is realistic. I think as Cape Breton exists today it
is quite a different place than it was 10 years ago.
I have been heartened by and I will give credit to Keith Brown,
vice-president of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. He has
basically said that Cape Breton has turned the corner, that Cape
Breton today is a robust economy.
1650
We have been talking about unemployment rates in Cape Breton. I
was amazed to find out that in fact the unemployment rate in Cape
Breton is declining. It has declined something like 13% in one
year. It has done that because of one basic thing: it has been
able to diversify its economy.
The people of Cape Breton are going through some stressful times
of adjustment. There is not anybody in this country who has not
had to deal with some kind of adjustment in the 1980s and the
1990s because of economic change. Quite frankly, I feel for
those people. I feel for those Cape Breton coal miners. I
understand what it is like to be 45 years of age and looking at
no job.
However, the unemployment rate is declining. There is new
industry starting in Cape Breton. There is a great potential, a
great future to living in Cape Breton. It is not to go back and
live in the past, as the NDP would have us believe; it is to go
forward into the future.
There are some very interesting statistics. For instance, 47%
of all people employed on the island in 1981 worked in the goods
and services sector. That is now down to 20%. In other words,
there is a dramatic shift away from the production of goods and
services like coal to a service based economy.
Demographic change has occurred in various places. When we talk
about unemployment statistics we have to look at the actual
labour market. The reality is that at the same time as these
statistics have been going up and down—and going down
currently—the actual labour force in Cape Breton has been
increasing dramatically. For instance, the labour force in Cape
Breton went from 106,000 in 1970 to 126,000 in 1996, an increased
labour force of 20,000 people. That has to do with the
demographics of the area and the age of the population.
This is the perception which I hear from NDP members: “If you
cannot see the men in droves heading for the pit, the mill or the
wharf with their lunch pails in their hands, there must be less
people working”. That is not true. Look at the statistics.
There are more people working today than there were two years
ago.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill: And going to the food banks.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: NDP members are not interested in
facts; they are into fiction.
The future is many faceted for the people of Cape Breton. The
unemployment rate has improved on the south coast of Nova Scotia.
By December 1997 the unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island had
fallen and improved from the seventh highest rate of 13.5% in the
province. By December 1997, 8,000 fewer people were unemployed
as compared to December 1996. The unemployment rate fell from a
high of 27.5% to 13.5% by December. The economy of Cape Breton
has started to change, in spite of members of the NDP who would
like to keep it in the past, with the possible exception of
Devco.
There are other successful industries. The re-opening of the
National Sea Products plant in Louisburg, the establishment of
dealer services in North Sydney, the potential sale of the Sydney
Steel plant and gas liquefier plant at Port Tupper are all
potentials for new industry.
If members recall, the government will provide additional
funding to enable those people to relocate from the coal industry
to new sectors. Some people may ask why we are doing that if the
economy is so successful already. There is great potential for
these people because these new jobs are being created in Cape
Breton today.
I will not say it is easy. I will not stand here as an Ontario
member and say it is easy for somebody who was a coal worker all
of their life to suddenly turn around and become a computer
engineer or take advantage of some of the new technologies. There
is obviously a learning curve. It will be necessary for them to
go through some kind of a learning curve.
Indeed, it may well be that it will be impossible to fit them in
over some kind of timeframe. However, the people of Cape Breton
have a very promising future ahead of them.
1655
The per capita income in Cape Breton has been increasing
dramatically. There has been something like a 50% increase in
the last 10 years.
Mr. Peter Mancini: What is it?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: This person is very much interested in
what they call the Porter theory of economics, which means that
one needs strong clusters of economic activity in order to grow
the economy. Guess what? Cape Breton has those clusters now
being created within its economy. Here are some interesting
statistics.
Currently Cape Breton has produced more CD-ROMs for educational
purposes than the rest of the province and leads Nova Scotia in
multi-media. The development of a silicon island concept should
only serve to strengthen this position.
The University College of Cape Breton is a leader in engineering
in the province. The UCCB's connection with the knowledge based
cluster will be a linchpin to fostering economic growth. This
college employs 420 individuals, making it the sixth largest
employer in Cape Breton.
What we are saying is what we all already know about Nova
Scotia. There are more people in Nova Scotia engaged in
education than there are in forestry or the fishery. These are
the signs of a new economy.
Tourism is another cluster being promoted in Cape Breton.
Tourism employs about 8% of the people and it is increasing.
Finally, we get into gas and petrochemicals. We have all heard
of the Sable Island field. Port Hawkesbury and Port Sydney are
strategically located to service this industry. We are seeing
that the Sable Island project is only the tip of the iceberg. As
we speak, plans are under way for the ongoing exploration of the
Laurentian sub-basin which is located in the Grand Banks between
Cape Breton and Newfoundland.
We see a whole vision for the future. We see the vision of a
high tech industry forming in Cape Breton. We see the vision of
a tourism industry. We see the vision of a petrochemical
industry. Sure, I understand there are some exceptions to this.
Some people in Cape Breton are saying that they do not want to
promote natural gas because they have always been dependent on
coal. This is not an either/or situation. In fact, it can be
both of those things.
We hear members of the NDP today telling us that we cannot get
rid of Devco, that it is part of our past and they want to keep
it. The reality is that this is part of a change. It is part of
a change in the economy as we move toward a better life. I do
not think that members of the NDP or anyone else in this room
will be able to stop this change. The change is upon us. It is
a global change and it is a change for the good. It will change
the basic lifestyle of the people of Cape Breton.
There are jobs here. There are opportunities here. These are
all positive things.
An hon. member: Here?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: The hon. member was born in Cape
Breton. He is one of those people. He has a vision of the
future. This government is supporting that vision of the future.
It will support those types of industries that will create a new
future for the people of Cape Breton.
We realize that it will be a painful exercise to go through.
Change is always difficult. Change is not easy. When economies
move around, somebody gets hurt. Somebody gets an elbow in the
side. I am not saying it is going to be easy.
The industrial revolution in England was not easy. A lot of
people got hurt. A lot of people got chewed up. However, the
reality is that we are in a new revolution. It is going on in
telecommunications. People do not have to sit in Ontario or
Toronto. We have heard some people say that to live in Cape
Breton simply meant that when people got to the right age they
got on the bus and went to Toronto. That is not true any more.
They do not have to do that any more. They can sit in their
basement, get on the Internet and be plugged into the world. The
young people of Cape Breton know that. The people at the
University College of Cape Breton know that. That is the future.
That is what this government understands.
We have to move on to the future. We have to help that
transition as much as we can. That is why we have provided a
package to make that transition, to be part of that transition.
1700
I heard the NDP say today that we should forget about getting
rid of Devco, study it for another 10 years, keep it going
because we have a commitment to keep this old industry, and so
forth. That industry may well be successful. Maybe some
entrepreneurs could take that industry and make it successful. I
hope they can. Even if they can, governments will not change the
future. The future will be there.
It is important that we as legislators try to help people
through change. It is a package like the one the minister is
presenting today that makes the transition possible and as
painless for those people as possible. It recognizes that is a
good for Canadians to help each other, to help those people
catapult themselves into the future.
I am happy as a member from Ontario to celebrate with the people
of Cape Breton who are making this traumatic change. I wish them
the best and I look forward to dealing with them in the future.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, with all due respect to the member across the way, when
he throws a name at me like Keith Brown it makes me realize
exactly how not in touch with reality the government really is.
It is because of such individuals that any economic development
over the course of the last 30 years has not worked. He did such
a terrible job in the industrial development sector of Devco
running a golf course that the government gave him the
vice-presidency of a crown corporation. That is what happens
when one has a vision according to what the government's vision
is.
As I sit and listen to the member I wonder when was the last
time he visited Cape Breton and actually talked to some of the
real people.
Recently I was present at almost all the presentations at the
so-called Liberal road show that they are referring to as the
adjustment panel. The former premier of Nova Scotia, who was a
former member of this Chamber for 17 years, said one important
matter the panel had to take into consideration before the
decision with respect to Devco was the crisis that the Cape
Breton economy was in and the reality of the fact that the
unemployment rate was 30%. That was fact he said. On top of
that we will have now an increase in that unemployment and an
economy that will continue to be on fast decline.
Is the member telling us and the House that the former premier
and the former member of parliament for 17 years was wrong in the
numbers he quoted on Friday?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to quote
numbers in the future. It is another thing to quote numbers
today. I will not dispute the methodology of how they were
calculated. I am more interested in the facts. As anybody goes
out and predicts numbers after one year, two years or three years
they become pretty unreliable.
The reality is that the unemployment rate has been declining in
Cape Breton. That party and that member do not seem to want to
take that into consideration. They do not want to consider the
future of the people of Cape Breton who have a wonderful future
ahead of them if they just start thinking positively and do not
start with a negative attitude like that of the member who thinks
everything will be worse tomorrow, everything will be bad
tomorrow. The reality is that it is a new tomorrow. It is a new
future and we are happy to be part of it.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I almost expected the hon. member to break into song. I feel
like I am watching a Broadway production called Happy
Miners.
1705
He made a point. He should know that I have presented to the
economic panel some 50 pages of where I think the government
could economically diversify the economy of Cape Breton. That
includes many things from renewable energy production, to
expansion of the University College of Cape Breton, to a national
shipbuilding policy which the federal Liberal government has
rejected over and over but which is a natural fit for Cape
Breton.
There are many ideas that the government can implement if it has
the will. Given the statistics the hon. member has quoted, I
think he needs a bit of a reality check regarding the Cape Breton
he sees with rose coloured glasses. He is talking about all the
jobs that are being created. The reality is that the mayor of
the Cape Breton regional municipality sees a decline of $25
million in tax revenue over the next five years and has said as
recently as three weeks ago that the municipality may have to
simply declare itself no longer an entity and fall under
provincial auspices because Devco and Sysco are being cut by the
federal and provincial governments.
The member talked about the University College of Cape Breton.
The president of that university acknowledges that the reality is
we need some kind of massive response to the number of children
of miners who cannot afford tuition as a result of this package
and who will not be able to further their education at that very
worthwhile institution.
That is just a dose of sobering reality for the member's cheery
response. We are prepared to diversify economically. We need
some help and assistance in that, but let us get real.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, the one thing I did catch
in his dissertation was that he talked about all the things we
could do in the future to diversify the economy, but the
government had to be a partner.
I understand the concept of being a partner in the area of
education, and I agree with him. I think we in government have
an obligation to educate our people. That is why we started a
millennium fund for kids that possibly could not make it into
secondary institutions.
What the member did say, which I thought was more profound, was
that we have to be partners in all these businesses. That is
exactly the thought process which created Devco in the first
place. With all the things that have gone on in the past that
will not fly any more. Surely the people of Cape Breton can see
that does not work any more.
Governments cannot be directly involved in businesses, mainly
because we are pretty damn poor at it when it comes right down to
it. The reality is that we do not want the government as a
partner. What we do want the government to do is to be involved
in those areas where it can increase the skill sets of people.
We must realize that the federal government gives direct
contributions through our transfer payment mechanism to
post-secondary education. There is a commitment of the federal
government to post-secondary education.
The member is saying that it is not enough, that we need to find
ways to deal with the underlying financial restructuring that
will occur. I am sure we will continue as we meet in committee
and other places to try to find ways to resolve that problem, but
that is not all that problematic relative to a lot of other
places in the country which have been struck by structural
changes to the economy.
We have to find ways to solve those problems. We have to find
the money to solve those problems. We have some money on the
table that goes part of the way toward solving those problems. I
agree it is not perfect, but the reality is that collectively we
will find a way to solve those problems.
I do not believe that everything is as terrible in Cape Breton
as the member has said. I believe there is a large glimmer of
hope. I think there is a great, bright future for the people of
Cape Breton.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, today we are actually having a rather
telling debate in the House of Commons. We are talking about
part of the country that has been struggling for a long time
successfully.
It is called Bill C-11.
1710
I thought about how a person could begin a presentation which
would reveal how one thinks about this legislation. I thought of
a way. I know I am not supposed to do this but it symbolizes
what we think about the legislation. It should be torn up and
thrown away. It should be torn up in little tiny pieces and just
chucked away.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys has far more experience
than I and knows full well that demonstrations of this kind are
not countenanced by our rules.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
intervention. I think it is a crazy rule because we have to find
ways to symbolize what we think in this place. We can use our
vocabulary, prepare our speeches and so on. Some of my
colleagues across the way have been noted from time to time for
their rather exuberant presentations. I acknowledge the practice
we have in this place. We should not physically tear up
legislation, and for that reason I apologize, but I thought it
was a good idea in terms of expressing how we feel.
What is the legislation all about? Let us be very frank about
it. It is about the men, women, families and children of Cape
Breton. What does the legislation do to them? It slaps them
across the face. Every man, woman and child in Cape Breton is
being slapped across the face with this legislation. If the
minister had the guts when he stood he would have waved this as
some sort of symbolic slap across the face to the people of Cape
Breton. That is what—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am really
disappointed that I have to intervene once again. We have
determined over the years that we do not refer to another
member's fortitude or lack thereof.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was
referring more to the way I thought the minister could have made
his presentation.
A lot of people today are watching the House of Commons, the
Parliament of Canada, to see how it will proceed with a very
serious issue in Cape Breton. My colleagues from
Sydney—Victoria, from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and others have
spoken to this issue. Do people really care about what is
happening to the people of Cape Breton?
We know how the government feels about the prairie farmers who
are also in a crisis situation. They have been faxing, phoning,
writing and sending delegation after delegation. They are
completely ignored, which I suspect will account for some of the
outcome in the byelection later today. We will set that aside.
Those of us from western Canada know how callously we have been
treated by the government when it comes to agriculture. Now we
slip to the other coast and to Cape Breton.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): They don't care.
Mr. Nelson Riis: My friend from Wild Rose says that they
do not care. Today we are trying to test whether or not they
care. This is the litmus test for the Liberal government to say
that it cares about people in Atlantic Canada, that it cares
about people in Cape Breton. We will see what the government
will do. The package it has come up with is absolutely pathetic.
It is a pathetic, uncaring and meanspirited package.
If I could get away with it, but I probably cannot, I would
point to Liberals across the way and say that what they are doing
in Cape Breton is a form of institutionalized child abuse. It is
child neglect. When a child is neglected in our country it is
called child abuse.
1715
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With great respect, I think it is inappropriate to use
terminology like that and to refer to the people of Cape Breton
as children.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I was paying very
close attention to the debate. I certainly would have intervened
had I felt that the suggestion had gone to a point that was
inappropriate, but I appreciate your intervention.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon.
Liberal friend opposite that there are thousands of children in
Cape Breton who tonight are experiencing a form of societal
political child abuse.
I want to make the case that in this country when we abuse or
neglect the needs of a child we are convicted of some form of
child abuse. This particular package neglects not one child's
needs, not 100 children's needs, not 1,000 children's needs but
tens of thousands of children's needs. That is why I say this is
a societal political form of child abuse that we are witnessing
in the House of Commons today. This is a conscious decision by
Liberal members opposite to inflict pain and suffering on the
children of Cape Breton because they are going to inflict pain
and suffering on the parents in Cape Breton.
Are we supposed to sit here and take this today? I have heard
my colleagues opposite, who do not necessarily agree with some of
the thrust of our arguments, say that they appreciate that the
hardship of the folks in Cape Breton have to be acknowledged. As
a matter of fact, I remember my old Liberal friend, who was not
long ago the premier of Nova Scotia, describe the situation in
Cape Breton as an economic crisis. Is this piddling piece of
legislation how the Liberals deal with an economic crisis? Is
this how they deal with a state of hopelessness that they
perpetuated on the people of that part of the country?
This is a cruel and thoughtless document. This is a document
that is intended to pick on the people of Cape Breton. Surely to
goodness the government does not expect the people of Cape Breton
to sit there quietly and take this. I know, the Liberals are
going to consult. Oh my God, how pathetic a comment could one
make? They say, “We're going to consult”. What is there to
consult about? Do we want to consult in terms of what the
alternatives are?
My colleague from Sydney—Victoria has already made a 15 page
presentation of what actions could be taken. They were
thoughtful, positive, progressive comments in terms of what this
transitional package could look like, but there was one thing
that it required in order to be properly implemented and that was
proper and adequate financial investment, not this little Mickey
Mouse, weasel-minded piece of legislation.
A lot of my Liberal friends opposite have said “We don't hear
any positive ideas”. I do not know about them, but if they had
read the proceedings of the panel and heard the presentation
simply made by one member who made many presentations about all
of the progressive initiatives that could be taken in that part
of Canada, I am prepared to say today that with the appropriate
investment by the government, Cape Breton could be turned into
the economic showpiece of this great country. It requires an
investment, a commitment and a willingness to put money on the
line.
The government cannot say it does not have any money. It has
billions and billions of dollars sitting in a fund right now
called a surplus. It has money coming out of its ying-yang. It
has billions and billions of dollars that it could invest if it
wanted to.
One can only assume that if the government has the money it must
not want to invest it properly. The will and the commitment is
not there to the people of Cape Breton. They are not asking for
a handout. I have heard Liberals say today that the people of
Cape Breton want a handout. That is an insult.
1720
The people from Cape Breton have moxie. They have the guts,
the courage, the experience and the talent. They want to work in
progressive and positive careers.
I remember a visit to Cape Breton where we had a chance to drop
into the University College of Cape Breton. I do not think I
will ever forget that day. There was a long lineup of young
people who were students at the university college. There was
the administrative staff and members of the board. Every single
one of those individuals, every man and woman who made a
presentation to our committee, said that they had a great future
there but that they needed some resources and some
infrastructure.
Can anyone imagine what the state of affairs would be in this
city without any investment in the high tech infrastructure? The
government says that it cannot afford it. It can afford to
invest all kinds of money in the nation's capital. The University
College of Cape Breton wants an investment.
My friend mentioned that there were all sorts of ideas, such as
shipbuilding. We are one of the world's greatest trading
nations. Should we not have a viable, dynamic shipbuilding
sector? We have a delegation visiting the House of Commons
industry committee tomorrow in order to make its case for
developing a comprehensive and major program to develop the
shipbuilding industry in the country. Can anyone imagine a
better place to centre that than in Cape Breton? There is no
shortage of ideas and so on in terms of how to deal with this
situation.
My colleague mentioned that a lot of people today were going to
lose their jobs. This will not be hundreds of people. A
thousand people will lose their jobs in that part of Canada. Can
anyone imagine the impact of that? Some of the economists have
suggested that impact will be somewhere in the range of $1.5
billion over a few years. Hundreds and hundreds, thousands and
thousands, millions and millions of dollars will be taken out of
that local economy as a result of that closure.
As a member of parliament from Kamloops, I understand it because
we just had a closure of a major copper mine. Thank goodness it
was temporary, but I know the impact it had, not only
economically but psychologically, on those people who worked hard
underground in those mines. If anybody in the House of Commons
had spent five minutes underground in that part of the country
and saw the kind of working conditions that those men and women
have struggled with for so many years, they would know that these
miners deserve every particular break they can get from the
government to enable them to carry on and support their families.
The government said that it decided to take a bold step and go
consulting. That has got to be one of the most pathetic gestures
a person could come up with. This is the same government that is
now consulting over Nisga'a. The Prime Minister said that the
government was not going to change one letter of that agreement
or one letter of the legislation. In other words, we can consult
until the cows come home but the government will not change
anything. I suspect that is about the same willingness to have
input into the situation now in terms of consultation in Cape
Breton.
The people of Cape Breton have not been spared this kind of
imposed violence against them, such as from the old coal
companies that brought in people to break-up the strikes.
Violence is nothing new to this part of Canada, but the people
have always stood up, struggled on and been successful. They
will do it again. All they are asking for is a fair break in
terms of investments into that part of country through their
university college and other agencies. This would enable them to
pick up, carry on and do what any progressive person would want
to do, turn it into an economic showpiece for the entire country.
Let us think about what the government could do for Cape Breton
today if it stood up and said that it had decided to make some
bold changes to ensure that every young person in Cape Breton has
access to the University College of Cape Breton and that it would
ensure that every person who needs upgrading and training has
access, and to that end, it would eliminate the tuition fees for
that institution for the next 10 years.
1725
Goodness grief, the amount of money the government has taken out
of the EI fund could have been used for the stuff that has
probably spilled beside the desk of the Minister of Finance. We
are not talking about a lot of money, but it is that kind of bold
initiative that the government could be taking. What does it do
instead? It comes in with this completely laughable piece of
legislation. If it was not so serious, we would consider it to
be some form of laugh-in, for Pete's sake, or some kind of yuk yuk
club intervention by the minister.
This is a very serious issue. We are talking about the future
of men, women, children and families in Cape Breton. As New
Democrats on this side of the House of Commons, we will do
whatever is physically possible to ensure that the legislation
never ever sees the light of day.
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, he has spent some time in
Cape Breton and really has a good sense of what is happening on
the ground.
I just have a simple question for my colleague. He has been in
the House a lot longer than I have and has seen a lot of
legislation come and go. He has seen a lot of initiatives on the
part of governments that have not in fact benefited the citizens
that they are supposedly intended to help.
There seems to be a perception that continues to permeate from
the Liberal government to central Canadians and some western
Canadians that what is happening in Cape Breton is really Cape
Bretoners' own fault. I am wondering if the member sees any
responsibility over the course of the last 30 years in how the
economy has been on a steady decline not with the people of Cape
Breton Island but with the governments of the day.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, as others before me have
commented, we see in parts of Atlantic Canada that Cape Breton is
no different. This is a rather unusual form of patronage where
so much of the financial support that should go to good economic
ventures is peeled off for political payoff purposes. I wish I
could say something different, but the reality is that for too
long it has been political patronage, political pork
barrelling and political payoffs that have been determining the
economic development of that part of Canada, which should never
have occurred.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
found myself running down here literally after hearing the
remarks of a colleague of this place. We have shared this House
for some 11 years this month.
When the member for windbag, or rather Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys got up to speak—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sure the member
for Hamilton West has a withdrawal to make.
Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment to go
on to say how frustrated I was and why I had to say that. I
cannot let this go by.
When the hon. member got up and talked about the abuse of
children, I have never heard such poppycock from one member of
parliament in a long time, and this member gets up on a regular
basis. So I had to do a little research. Let us find out what
the facts are for this member who might be up making speeches and
ripping up paper, but only does it because he has to make, for
political purposes as he puts it, a little show for his
constituents.
How many people are we talking about? We are talking about
1,500 employees. How much money are we talking about from the
Government of Canada for 1,500 people? We are talking about a
$111 million package for 1,500 people. What does that mean? It
means that up to 500 people will be retained by the privatized
company to work in the Prince Mine, leaving 1,000 people. Of
those, 340 people will be eligible for a generous retirement
package of $24,000 a year until they turn age 65. I guess the
member forgot about that part of the child abuse he spoke of.
The remaining 650 people will receive severance and training
allowances for which they will receive four weeks per year
service or some $70,000 per person.
Is this abuse? It is a total package of $111 million for 1,500
people.
1730
Has the hon. member ever seen in the private sector such a
generous severance agreement with any employees as that one? Can
he give me one example in his riding or anywhere else in the
country?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have heard pathetic
interventions in the past. I have heard people make pathetic
interventions because they were afraid of the truth. The hon.
member who just spoke obviously flunked economics 101 if in fact
he ever went to college. That is obvious—
An hon. member: Sit down.
Mr. Nelson Riis: I won't sit down. The Liberals can yell
at me to sit down but they are stuck with me for the next two
minutes at least. The hon. member for Hamilton West talked about
the loss of 1,500 jobs. If he had studied any economics he would
know that for every one job of this nature there are at least
three other jobs lost as well.
An hon. member: The private sector is taking over the
line.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Which private sector? First of all let
us understand what we are talking about here. There is a 30%
level of unemployment today. My hon. friend is hoping that
people will leave Cape Breton in droves. His solution is to
drive people off the island. His solution is to tell them to
seek their fortunes in Toronto. That is where the action is. He
wants them to go to Hamilton or central Canada. I will tell my
hon. friend that not everybody wants to go to Hamilton or central
Ontario.
Mr. Stan Keyes: It is a beautiful city.
Mr. Nelson Riis: He finds that shocking. He should be as
aware as some of his Liberal colleagues that there are other
parts to Canada than central Canada.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a quick question and a compliment for the hon. member on his
speech, on his fire and enthusiasm. He is a true westerner, I
take it. It was well done.
However, there is a couple of questions that bother me. I
noticed that he never addressed anything in the package with
regard to the $70,000 payoff for one individual, or about $30,000
after taxes so it is really insignificant. It appears that the
whole package is setting up a very low minimal welfare state in
the Cape Breton area.
Would the member agree that is what this is doing? Is his
solution to create a larger welfare package, or are we genuinely
talking about investments to create the jobs he is talking about
that will keep this industry booming? What is he suggesting as a
solution?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Wild Rose for his question. I do not think he was listening
carefully to my speech or perhaps he got a little waylaid. Maybe
they disturbed him from across the way.
I did lay out that there is no shortage of progressive ideas in
terms of what the economy of Cape Breton can be. I happened to
be part of the process in Cape Breton some months ago where
countless individuals from all walks of life laid out a whole
series, a whole agenda of what they felt was very viable in terms
of a new economy for Cape Breton, but it required some
investment.
My hon. friend knows education. It is probably the best
investment we could make. They need more investment at the
University College of Cape Breton to allow local folks access to
that institution to enable them to develop the skills for these
new enterprises.
We are not talking about handouts being acceptable. We are not
talking about any form of revised welfare. We are talking about
providing the necessary infrastructure so the men and women of
Cape Breton can develop the dynamic economy they know they can
develop with the proper resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I had the
opportunity to meet with representatives of Devco a few months
back. I was thus able to become familiar with this extremely
unfortunate issue. I would like to make a comment and then ask
the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys to
respond.
The people I met with told me clearly that the miners who are
now losing their jobs are the same ones that the government
encouraged, a number of years ago, to settle with their families
and make a career with Devco. These people are now being
abandoned.
1735
They are being abandoned at a time when they are extremely
unlikely to be able to find a new job in the region. They are
being abandoned at a time when they are not yet entitled to a
pension but very nearly so. They are being abandoned along with
their families, their children. They are being abandoned in a
region that is not one of the richest regions, quite the
contrary. They are being abandoned and the government is
turning a blind eye.
As I see it, this is irresponsible, and I would like to hear
what the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
thinks.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will be very short. I
listened with interest to my colleague's intervention. I think
it was a very thoughtful intervention and I agree with him 100%.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone is well aware at this point, we are talking
about Bill C-11, the Cape Breton Development Corporation
divestiture authorization and dissolution act.
Before I go into any specifics about the act I thought I would
take this opportunity to talk about some personal and family
history. One might say I have coal dust in my veins since it was
the coal mines that brought my grandfather to Canada. Without
coal I would not be standing before the House today. It is
amazing how one can step back into history through people who are
not long gone.
My grandfather was born in 1866 and by 1880, at the age of 14,
he was working in a coal mine in Scotland. Later he operated a
coal mine in China until the Boxer Rebellion at the turn of the
century. He was on the docks in Shanghai when Europeans were
being killed.
After returning to Scotland from China my grandfather, James,
along with his two brothers, Ninian and Tom, came to North
America to work in the coal mines of West Virginia. The three
brothers continued to work together and moved to British Columbia
where they worked in the coal mines. My grandfather worked at
the Coal Creek mine near Fernie, British Columbia.
On May 22, 1902, there were 128 miners killed in the Coal Creek
disaster. My grandfather was on the rescue team after this mine
disaster and this traumatising event certainly affected him for
the rest of his days.
I grew up in the coal mining town of Natal close to the
B.C.-Alberta border in the Rocky Mountains adjacent to the slag
piles and the coke ovens, adjacent to what was then the
Trans-Canada Highway that went through the Crow's Nest Pass. It
has since been moved from Crow's Nest to Rogers Pass.
We left there in 1955 because the government decided that
Michel, Natal and Middletown should not be there. It bulldozed
Michel, Natal and Middletown and relocated the communities to
Sparwood, essentially because it was the entryway to B.C. on the
Trans-Canada Highway. The three towns were bulldozed because of
the government's concern for optics. This was the entry to
British Columbia and on many days cars had to turn their
headlights on because of the coal dust, and our house was white.
People had a lot of pride in their community. There are a lot of
people who still have strong emotional ties to these communities
that are no longer there.
I understand the strong emotional attachments and the strong
affinity to the coal mining industry expressed by the people of
Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. I have been to Glace Bay, Sydney,
Pictou County, the site of the Westray mine and the memorial. We
cannot just wash this all away. Coal is in their veins.
Bill C-11 authorizes the winding up of Devco, one of the most
politicized and embarrassing public taxpayer funded exercises
seen in Canada. In a misguided and paternalistic way governments
in Canada for the last 30 years, and in fact for the last 70
years when one considers the predecessors to Devco, have spent
taxpayer dollars on the coal mining business in the maritimes.
1740
Some of the cynical among us might say that this money was to
buy votes. I would prefer to think it was just wrong-headed
thinking, but then I am cynical.
In any event, it has created an economy that is not free and
balanced by natural market forces. Now that the government is
pulling the plug, we have a painful and awkward situation for
which there is no easy solution.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I understand that if you were to seek it you would find
unanimous consent for the House to revert to Statements by
Ministers. This would permit the hon. Minister of Labour to make
a brief announcement regarding the British Columbian ports
dispute.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
WEST COAST PORTS
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to announce that both parties involved
in the British Columbian ports dispute have accepted a proposal
for settlement. The BCMEA just informed me that the lockout will
be lifted as of 4.30 p.m. Vancouver time today.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw: The union has agreed to go back
to work also today. This means that activities will resume at
British Columbian ports.
I congratulate the parties. It has always been our view that a
negotiated settlement is in the best interest of the parties and
the Canadian economy.
I would like to table the letters I have received from the BCMEA
and from the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union
of Canada.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to see that the port will be open within a couple of
hours. I am not all that pleased, though, that it has taken more
than a week for the government to act on this matter. The
minister will know that I wrote to her last Monday asking her to
do exactly what has taken place now but to do it in a more timely
fashion.
This is an incident that has cost not only millions of dollars a
day to the Canadian economy. It has also cost us as far as being
a reliable port is concerned. Our reputation as a reliable
shipper and receiver of goods is badly damaged. This will be a
very difficult hit on the economy of British Columbia.
I am very pleased to see that it is over without any more agony
than we had to go through, but I would implore the minister to
look at a situation being put in place that could alleviate all
this suffering, something we could work on before job action of
this type has to be taken. I would be pleased to talk to her
about that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I note that
most of us are very pleased with the turn of events, but not
necessarily for the same reasons.
I had the same letters the minister did, because we have been
following the matter right from the start. In fact, we have
been looking into this matter all weekend. I was in contact
with representatives of the union.
I am very pleased to see that, at last, an agreement has been
negotiated between the union and the employers, and this has
been done democratically and not been forced upon them through
back to work legislation.
1745
Hon. members are aware that my party is always opposed to back
to work legislation, because we have always favoured negotiation
over force. This is also the best solution because, when all is
said and done, both sides work better and get along better as a
result.
I am pleased to take the floor today to congratulate both the
union side, with whom I have spoken several times today, and the
management side.
At last the workers will be able to get back to their jobs at
the Port of Vancouver, and the work can continue normally.
I congratulate them and I trust that, should there be another
such conflict in Canada, we will be wise enough to let the
parties settle it among themselves. I realize that a week can
be costly, but a week is not all that long for negotiating such
an important agreement.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the New Democratic Party I want to say how very pleased
we are that through the hard work and dedication of the
principals involved the two parties have seen fit to end the
lockout. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union of
Canada and the B.C. Marine Employers Association have seen fit to
end this lockout in a sensible way.
I want to particularly compliment the Minister of Labour, her
staff and her mediators for their extra effort and hard work. I
know there were some all night bargaining sessions. It is rare
to find that kind of dedication and commitment. It really helped
to bring this issue to a speedy resolution.
The progress today helps us preclude the bizarre spectre of
having to order people back to work in the case of a lockout. We
have to remember that this is a lockout, not a strike. Frankly,
the employers had the ability to save all those millions of
dollars that they lost if they just took the padlocks off the
gates. At least we do not have to go down the road of the
bizarre, perverse situation of ordering locked out workers back
to work. We are very relieved on this side.
Congratulations to all concerned. I understand that by
4.30 p.m. product will be moving through the docks of Vancouver and we
can all go to bed at a normal hour tonight.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
are delighted that legislation has not been required and that the
two sides are again back to work and work is continuing.
The west coast ports have suffered grievous damage as it is.
Canadian industry as a result of what has happened over the last
short while has once again got a black eye with its overseas
customers.
In the House we are faced with emergency legislation very often.
We are told that we have a crisis and that we have to bring in
legislation to prevent an economic catastrophe. In cases where
we have such catastrophes, where the national interest is at
stake, there has to be a better way of settling these issues.
People have the right to strike and they should not have that
right taken away all that lightly. If and when it is deemed to
be in the public interest to deny a group of workers the right to
strike, they should be offered some sort of arbitration process
in lieu of having that right taken away.
Here we have an industry with a very long history of strikes and
lockouts that is capable of having a stranglehold on the economy.
We are pleased that the strike is not going ahead but there has
to be a better way to deal with these issues.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I appreciate the comments from the last speaker with regard to
the history of the ongoing difficulty in what is happening on the
west coast.
I would like to seek unanimous consent to propose a motion that
we discuss bringing in legislation to make certain that this port
not be allowed to disrupt our essential economy at this point in
time. It is time to discuss it now and put an end to it.
1750
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for Wild Rose
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Deputy Speaker: Earlier today the hon. member for
Langley—Abbotsford moved for leave to seek the adjournment of
the House for the purpose of an emergency debate on this issue.
In light of the conclusion of the matter which has been announced
by the minister, the Chair is of the view that the application
for an emergency debate does not meet the exigencies of the
standing order at this time. Accordingly, there will be no
emergency debate this evening on that motion.
[Translation]
I also wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial
statement, Government Orders will be extended by eight minutes.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIVESTITURE
AUTHORIZATION AND DISSOLUTION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, an
act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to
dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the
Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee, and of the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver Island
North has the floor. He has fifteen and one-half minutes
remaining in his allotted time.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a little difficult to have my speech interrupted
but it was an important issue and it was certainly the right
thing to do.
Earlier in my speech I went into some family and personal
background on coal mining. We are here to talk about Bill C-11
which authorizes the winding up of Devco, one of the most
embarrassing public taxpayer funded exercises seen in Canada.
Now that the government has pulled the plug we have a painful
and awkward situation for which there is no easy solution. When
the government announced the closing of Devco in January of this
year, the minister was booed. Miners were loudly upset. The
minister was quoted as saying that the government will stand by
Devco's employees in the coming days “just as we have supported
Devco over the last 30 years, just as Canada has supported Cape
Breton since Confederation”. If Canada has been supporting Cape
Breton since Confederation and Devco for 30 years and if this is
where we are now, then surely it is time to try some other
approach.
Father Bob Neville of New Waterford, Nova Scotia hit the nail on
the head when he said:
We have to rid ourselves of an archaic, patronage driven economic
development model. [We have to] come up with a new development
agenda, based on the people of the Island rather than politicians
in backrooms making decisions for their friends.
The question we must all ask is that given the decades of
politicization of coal mining in the maritimes, why should anyone
believe that the government can handle the sale or dissolution of
Devco now without some of the same problems? We also have to ask
ourselves who will benefit from the sale of Devco? The public
interest and the Devco employees must not be compromised because
the government is once again favouring its friends. That is the
track record of senior governments on this issue and that is what
must not be allowed to occur again.
The main problem I have with Bill C-11 as it is currently
written is its lack of open accountability. We have called for
transparency in government for years. The original Devco act of
1967 stated in subsection 17(1) that Devco shall submit to the
minister a plan for the “progressive reduction of coal
production—and discontinuation of coal production from mines
that are not economically viable, and the plan shall take into
account progress in providing employment outside the coal
producing industry and in broadening the base of the economy of
Cape Breton Island”.
This is a mandatory provision using the word shall. The
government is failing to live up to its own recommendations.
1755
At the very beginning of Bill C-11, it is stated in subclause
2(2) that subsections 99(2) to (5) of the Financial
Administration Act do not apply to the authorization of Devco to
sell its assets. These very subsections of the Financial
Administration Act effectively say that crown corporations may
sell property only in accordance with the regulations.
It is true that Devco was originally set up so that it was
allowed to dispose of its assets on its discontinuation. It is
imperative that if the government intends to remove these
sections of the Financial Administration Act from applying to the
sale of Devco as the legislation currently reads, those removed
provisions must be replaced by new provisions that bring
accountability and public scrutiny to the process. Otherwise we
are back to cabinet being in charge of all information without
the necessity for public disclosure, and the public interest will
lose out to political considerations once again.
I am concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability
in the whole process. From the beginning the whole Devco
situation has been tainted by rumours that individuals connected
with the government have benefited from federal money. It is
essential the government open up the process of divesting itself
of Devco.
We all hope that this process leads to continued employment for
Cape Breton miners. The best opportunity for that to occur is to
eliminate the political decision making in favour of investment
decision making freed of those shackles.
I have not used all my time, but that is the conclusion of my
speech.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was not planning on participating in this debate but a couple of
things struck a chord with me.
Really what we are talking about with the bill is independent of
whether the amounts that are being suggested are enough. We have
to back up and ask what we are trying to do with that money. If
the plan is to simply continue with the pipeline of cash and
create a dependency in Cape Breton, then it is probably not
enough money because there is not enough money.
I have heard a lot of talk about economics today. I have not
heard a lot of talk about social sustainability. I have not
heard a lot of talk about environmental sustainability. If what
we are trying to do is to develop the economy of Cape Breton,
what we have to do is back up and look at what the government's
objective is. Clearly it is to try to develop the capacity of
Cape Breton to have a sustainable economy. That is in the best
interests of the government because we will end up with a vibrant
economy that can be taxed and which can supply money into the
government coffers.
I listened to and watched the antics of my hon. colleague from
the NDP. I say sincerely that I do not think he is doing the
cause any good in the long term. He mentioned that people in
Canada are watching this on TV. I would make the same point to
him. People are watching this on TV and when he rips up hunks of
paper and throws them in the air and calls what the government is
doing Mickey Mouse, a lot of people in other parts of the country
may not think it is Mickey Mouse.
I want to focus on Leeds—Grenville. I have been in this job
for a little over two years. Leeds—Grenville is a community on
the border. Prior to NAFTA we had tremendous opportunities
because there were border tariffs. The American companies would
come across the border and build a plant to serve the Canadian
market and circumvent the tariffs.
The border communities in eastern Ontario have a lot of branch
plants of American companies. We had good employment through the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
With the NAFTA, like it or not, there was a major shift in the
tariff policies of the government. As the global companies
shifted to scale economies and plants to serve global markets
these branch plants no longer fit into the equation.
1800
I am certainly not suggesting that the problems of
Leeds—Grenville in eastern Ontario compare with Cape Breton, but
they are not that far off. I have a list in front of me of six
plants which closed in the last two years in my riding and 1,700
people were put out of work. I am not saying that jobs were not
created, but the people who were displaced from these heavy
manufacturing companies are not the kind of people who are picked
up in the new economy. We have major problems with transition.
I look at what the government is doing in Cape Breton. I have
the numbers before me. I am not claiming to be an expert on
this, but there was a $69 million loan that was forgiven, $41
million to cover Devco's expenses to the end of the year, $111
million for the employees and human resource needs and then $68
million for economic development. The member says that is a slap
in the face, but there are 1,700 people in Leeds—Grenville who
would just love a slap in the face like that.
I am not saying that he is right or he is wrong, but his method
of delivery is sending a message that I do not think will serve
the interests of the people of Cape Breton. It is a very serious
issue, but we are not trying to create dependencies.
The NDP members were jollying it up with Reform members earlier
about how the old style did not work. I was not party to that.
I do not know how that worked, but $2 billion over 30 years,
allocated improperly, I am not saying was the way to go. The
approach we are being asked to support now, if we believe members
of the NDP, is rather schizophrenic. They are saying “Don't do
things the old way”, but when we try to change they say “There
is not enough money in the envelope”.
We are saying that we should not create dependencies. We are
trying to build capacities within these communities so that we
have sustainable economies.
When I was in Halifax last summer I took a side trip to a call
centre for the tourism industry. It was a tremendous experience.
They get about 3,500 calls a day and they route people to various
parts of Halifax. What they found was that because of this call
centre people were staying longer and they were spending more
money.
The tourism industry in my riding certainly has lessons that it
can learn from the way the people of Halifax are applying that
call centre and applying that money. There is reason for hope.
I do not think the sky is falling mentality is going to serve the
long term interests of the people.
I also want to talk a bit about the member criticizing Ottawa.
In 1995 Ottawa had one of the largest displacements of employees
in the history of Canada when the public service downsized.
Ottawa, through a program called REDO, took a look at the
fundamentals of the economy, what drove the economy and where it
could make strategic investments. As a point of comparison, the
REDO budget was about $1.8 million. One million, eight hundred
thousand dollars later, the Ottawa economy has very sound
fundamentals. It is not an economy that has dependencies. In
fact it is booming.
If the $68 million for economic development is applied properly,
if that money is used in an intelligent way, it can go a long way
to laying down the foundations of how that economy should be
operating so that it is sustainable; socially, environmentally
and economically sustainable. There are also ongoing programs.
This is not simply a one-time payoff. We have the various
development agencies in Atlantic Canada.
Eastern Ontario, for some reason, is an area that is not covered
by any of these. However, people have the ability to leverage
money with the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation or with the
Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency, so there are opportunities.
There is the potential to put money and strategic investments
where they belong.
Economic development is community development. Community
development is not necessarily throwing money at the problem. We
look to see what makes the economy work, where are the
opportunities and invest intelligently. That is the best
approach for Cape Breton.
1805
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way and I want to
clarify for him the position of New Democrats. What we have been
saying is that because the initiatives over the course of the
last 30 years have been ridden with patronage they have not
worked. Our position is very clear. We do not feel that the
mistakes of this government and governments over the past 30
years should be buried and carried on the backs of the Cape
Breton miners. That is our position.
My question to the member is very simple. He refers to the $68
million, which, if allotted properly, could prove to be
successful. He uses words like leverage, which are the kinds of
buzzwords we have heard for the last 10 years on the island of
Cape Breton with respect to wages, things like ACOA, the ECBC and
the CBCEDA.
My question is very specific. Given the fact that over the
course of the last 10 years leverage with respect to ACOA money
and ECBC money to the tune of $352 million has landed Cape Breton
with the highest rate of unemployment, I would like the member to
tell me, as well as those Cape Bretoners who are watching
tonight, some real specifics in terms of how he sees a mere $68
million being allotted as being successful when this government
was not able to accomplish it with $352 million?
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague
that I am not even going to try because that is exactly the wrong
approach. What she is starting with is an amount of money. Let
us take an amount of money and then we will make the problem fit
it.
The first thing we have to do with that $68 million is go back
and look at how the fundamentals of that economy work. Then we
will find out where the opportunities are. I think we would just
be remaking the mistakes of the past if we were to somehow pull a
figure out of the air and say that it would solve the problem.
The solution to the problems of the people of Cape Breton is not
necessarily more money. I am not going to pretend that I know
what that solution is. I am saying that I am going through it in
my riding. The first things we have to look at are what are the
opportunities, what are the strengths, what are the weaknesses
and what are the threats. If we go through that and figure out
how that economy works, then we will figure out where the
strategic investments should be made.
As for the $2 billion mistake, as she calls it, I wish the
government would come into my riding and make some mistakes like
that.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member for his comments and observations.
There are some opportunities. I do not want him to get the idea
that at any point in time we are not exploring them. One he will
know about, which I have discussed with him, is the creation of a
centre of excellence for environmental studies at the University
College of Cape Breton for mediation of the tar ponds, which is
the number one environmental disaster in this country. We look
to the government for some leadership in that regard.
I mention that because he talked about Ottawa, the downsizing of
the civil service and how they had to respond to that. It is
interesting that we stand in the House of Commons with 301
members, all of whom stay somewhere in the city overnight. I
contrast that with the day that I made a presentation to the
government's economic panel. The Department of Human Resources
Development was pulling out of Cape Breton civil servants who
worked with unemployed Cape Bretoners, centralizing them on the
mainland. I have voiced case after case. It has tried to pull
coast guard employees from Cape Breton and centralize them on the
mainland.
That is not the thrust of my question. He also talked about
community economic development. We have some of the best minds
in community economic development in this country, such as Father
Greg MacLeod, Rankin MacSween and people involved in New Dawn
Enterprises.
Since he has been so critical of the NDP, my question to him as
a member of the Liberal government is, why was not a single
member involved in community economic development appointed to
the economic panel to look at economic development in Cape
Breton? Rather, we had an ex-Liberal senator, another well known
Liberal school teacher—I know because he is my wife's first
cousin—the president of ACOA and the president of the ECBC who
will funnel through the money. Why was there not a single person
involved in community economic development appointed to that
panel by his government?
1810
Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question
under advisement, but I do want to touch on it. The member
mentioned environmental issues, so he has my attention and my
heart.
It is important to point out that Cape Breton is still part of
Canada. Cape Breton can still participate in ongoing programs.
I am presently putting together a package for the minister to try
to get some community development money into eastern Ontario.
Cape Breton can do the same. I do not think we want to give
people the impression—
An hon. member: Answer the question.
Mr. Joe Jordan: I did answer the question. I said that I
would take it under advisement.
I think it is important to remember that Cape Breton is still
part of Canada, that Cape Breton still has access to all of the
programs and services that other areas of the country do. To
somehow say that this is some sort of kiss-off is doing a
disservice to it and really is not serving the long term
interests of the area.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today to Bill C-11, which would authorize the
divestiture of the assets of the Cape Breton Development
Corporation. This bill is very important to me and to some of my
constituents, as well as to many of my colleagues.
One of the legacies of the federal policy toward Cape Breton and
its citizens is that the young people leave. They go down the
road to find work. They go to Montreal, Toronto or Alberta.
Many of them come to Dartmouth because it is closer to their
families. I have neighbours and friends who leave Dartmouth most
weekends to make the four hour trek back across the Canso
causeway.
The problems which face industrial Cape Breton are misunderstood
by many. This bill shows that the group that is most ignorant of
the history and reality of industrial Cape Breton is
unfortunately the federal government.
I sometimes find it useful to look into how misconceptions are
created. Many in Ottawa follow mantras. These mantras are not
real. They are not based on fact, but they are followed with a
religious fervour by both the government and the opposition. The
latest Ottawa mantras include such best sellers as “Cuts are
Always the Best Policy”, “Public Sector, Bad—Private Sector,
Good”, “Corporations are Always Right”, and “Cape Breton is a
Financial Money Pit”. It is interesting that not only has this
last mantra become government policy, but the same chant has been
taken up by the Reform Party. I guess members of the Reform
Party have finally become Ottawa insiders as well, adopting the
bureaucratic mantras just as the frontbench opposite.
I want to bring the fallacies of these last mantras to the
attention of the House. Cape Breton has been producing coal for
300 years, long before Ottawa bureaucrats existed to criticize
the enterprise. The coal which was produced in Cape Breton fired
the steamers which helped to build the British empire. It was a
critical component of industrial expansion in the early days of
Canada.
The contribution which Cape Breton coal made to our war efforts
in both wars cannot be underestimated. At the end of the second
world war, 17,000 workers kept Cape Breton coal moving, but there
was no doubt that, as with many other industries, after the war
there would be big changes to coal production in Cape Breton, and
there were. The mines declined substantially and by 1965 they
were ready for a closure which would have thrown 6,500 miners out
of work.
The government of the day, a more progressive government than
the one which has brought in Bill C-11, understood that allowing
the collapse of the coal industry was against the public interest
for two reasons. The Pearson government understood that there
was a viable economic need for coal production to continue in
Cape Breton. It is almost eerie how the setting up of Devco
seemed to have foretold the oil crisis of the seventies. Until
Devco, power in Nova Scotia was produced by oil generating
stations. If these stations had not been changed to coal fired
stations in the late sixties, the impact of the OPEC crisis would
have decimated the Nova Scotian economy.
I have heard both Liberals and Reformers whine on about the
money pit of Cape Breton requiring this drastic legislation, but
I never hear them talk about the billions of dollars saved by
businesses and residents of Atlantic Canada because of cheap Cape
Breton coal being used to create electricity.
1815
Neither am I hearing any argument coming forth from either the
Liberals or the Reformers which explains where the coal for Nova
Scotia's power plant is supposed to come from. Does the Reform
Party want us to import electricity from New England or to just
buy the coal? Does the government hope the lights just go out,
or does it care?
The Pearson government understood that the impact of an economic
collapse in Cape Breton would threaten the whole economy of
Atlantic Canada. It understood that there were two sides to an
economic equation, both expenditure and revenue. It knew that
cutting back on a single line of the budget does not necessarily
save taxpayer money. It knew that if it had no one working then
everyone goes on EI and then on welfare. These are increased
expenditures created by cutting expenditures. It also knew that
no jobs means no paycheques, no taxes, no small business and no
GST, creating a downward spiral which has significant costs
associated with it. Cutting expenditures in this case means
cutting revenues as well.
I have not heard members opposite crediting Devco with making $6
billion. The bill could see 6,000 lost jobs in relatively small
communities and 1,500 direct layoffs with up to three times that
many lost due to the downward spinoffs. The impact is
astounding. I firmly believe that economically destroying a
community is what really creates a money pit, not working to
preserve it. It not only fails to make economic sense, but it
fails to make moral sense.
That is why there were provisions put into the act which created
Devco to compel the government to ensure that all reasonable
measures were put in place by corporations to reduce the
possibility of economic hardship which can be expected from a
closure.
There was an obligation set into law that the economic
development of the area was part of the responsibility of the
Devco Corporation. Devco was to plan not only for the production
and sale of coal, but for local enterprises to take root and to
have sustainable communities created for those who have given
their blood, sweat, tears, their sons, their husbands and their
environment to coal.
The people of Cape Breton were to have the opportunity to
diversify their economic base. They were supposed to be allowed
to try another way to contribute to the economic well-being of
their communities. The government of Lester Pearson seemed to
grasp the importance of federal assistance in this matter. There
used to be an understanding that part of the public
responsibility of the government was to help Canadians, not just
guard corporate rights in an unfettered marketplace.
In question period today we heard again from the minister who
keeps harping about corporate viability this and market value
that. When will the government look into community viability?
When will he recognize that we need consumers for a marketplace?
When will he recognize that labour is required to create market
value? These are important ideas and we need to work with the
wonderful people of Cape Breton to establish alternatives which
build their communities.
Atlantic Canada is seen by many as a one way street, a money
pit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Atlantic
Canadians work very hard and they like to work hard. They want
to be productive, but government policy seems to have been
designed to ensure the failure of our economy. It has reduced
the availability of EI to workers who need it, which has
disproportionately affected Atlantic Canada.
TAGS is a joke, again a joke of which Atlantic Canadians have
borne the brunt. Now we see in Bill C-11 an increase on the
attack toward Cape Breton. Let us have a meaningful dialogue
with Atlantic Canadians on ways to fix our economic problems, on
ways to help keep our children in the region, on ways to use
government policy to help, not hurt Atlantic Canada.
I would also like to point out some other costs to closing Devco
which have been ignored by this government and by the provincial
Conservative government and which do not fit easily on to an
accounting sheet. How do we cost the fear of cancer because of
the environmental legacy of the coal and steel industry? Where
on the government balance sheet would we put the anxiety that
older workers feel seeing their years of service reduced to a
buyout or the equity they have in their homes evaporating due to
the economic effects of this legislation?
1820
I heard the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood ask my
colleague who represents most of the affected miners how much
money would be required to make her happy if there was a blank
cheque available. I found it a very difficult question to hear
put in this place. It showed ignorance of Cape Breton and
demonstrated the mindlessness of the mantras put out by this
government.
I would ask hon. members opposite where the supposed and
probably modest savings which may be seen by killing the economy
of Cape Breton will be placed. Do they believe that Cape
Breton's savings should go to subsidize more corporate boxes at
Maple Leafs games? Should savings made by destroying Glace Bay
go to the NHL subsidies, or perhaps to big tax cuts for wealthy
Canadians? This approach to government, punishing a poor region
and giving more to the wealthy, is divisive and morally bankrupt.
We need to be working on ideas such as community economic
development, alternative approaches to financing small business,
tourism and jobs, and the urgent clean-up of the toxic legacy
which existed in industrial Cape Breton.
My colleagues have talked about renewable energy industries. We
have talked about national shipbuilding. There is no end of good
ideas and people in Cape Breton who want to execute them. These
are the kinds of ideas that we need government policy to support,
not the short-sighted approach taken in Bill C-11.
In conclusion, I urge the government to scrap this punitive,
mean-spirited piece of legislation and to go back to the basic
principle of working with Cape Bretoners to develop a fair
funding package which will give Cape Breton a future and not just
a past. The responsibility of parliament in this matter is to
assist the people of Cape Breton in developing new economic roots
which will sink into their beautiful earth. We owe them that
much and much more.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
to the hon. member's comments and, as with others, I appreciate
the passion and concern with which she expressed her views.
I would like to focus on a particular point. I am not sure if
she was here when I made a comment earlier in the afternoon that
in my own northern Ontario riding, with a history of mining,
forestry and the natural resources sector in general, we have
suffered the ups and downs which are typical unfortunately of
mining, forestry, et cetera.
It has become obvious to me that local solutions end up being
oftentimes the best solutions when communities face a challenge.
I do not think that ideas from the nation's capital can be any
better than the ideas that come from local communities.
I have used the example of Elliot Lake in my riding which
suffered significant job losses a few years ago, numbering in the
neighbourhood of 4,000 jobs to be more precise. Without wanting
to compare communities, because I do not think that is fair, I
can say that the degree of local leadership shown in that
community and in the neighbouring communities proved to me that
the best ideas, the most substantive and substantial ideas, come
from the people themselves.
I would ask the hon. member to comment on whether she agrees
that the local communities, their leaders and individual Cape
Bretoners are the best people to decide on how to use some
financial resources to find the best future for their communities
and their families. Instead of simply ploughing seemingly
endless amounts of money into the coal industry, after 30 years
might it not be best to invest in the people themselves and their
own creative ideas? I would ask her to comment on the importance
of local leadership when it comes to investing in the future.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly in
agreement that what is required is local solutions to a problem
which has existed for a great length of time.
1825
Going back to the point when the Lester B. Pearson's government
looked at Cape Breton, it said it would continue to work with
Cape Bretoners until it was successful in growing some new
economic roots after coal mining was no longer an option.
Quite frankly everybody that has been speaking today has been
saying that we want local solutions. There are local solutions.
There are fabulous community development efforts and thinkers who
are there right now willing to take the ball and run. However,
they need a credible, decent amount of money and investment on
the part of the government which committed long ago to this very
effort.
We are simply asking for the government to keep its commitment
to the people of Cape Breton which was started many years ago
with Lester Pearson.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I thank my colleague for her comments. I think she made some
interesting and excellent points.
She talked about the number of job losses and the spinoff job
losses. It is important to bear in context that when she talks
about 6,000 job losses they are in a population of 100,000 people
in the industrialized area and the impact is enormous.
She talked about the impact on other governments. The reality
is that the federal government is downloading those costs on to
the province of Nova Scotia. Once unemployment runs out and once
the people employed in those industries look to social
assistance, it is the province of Nova Scotia which will have to
foot the bill. That province is already reeling from a huge
deficit.
She has made some interesting points. I also want to add that I
think she has a unique perspective on Cape Breton and certainly
on its culture. Members know she is a playwright, but one of her
great plays is Glace Bay Miners' Museum in which she
captured some of the cultural aspects of Cape Breton. I do not
know whether she wants to share those thoughts with us on
creating characters that were so determined and resourceful and I
think accurately reflected the people of Cape Breton.
Ms. Wendy Lill: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that sort
of throws me for a loop. It is fair to say that I have a rather
poetic attachment to Cape Breton and to the people whom I see as
being resourceful beyond the pale.
I guess the issue is the myth that people in Cape Breton do not
want to work, want to collect government money, and the whole
money pit thing. That is so absolutely far from the truth that
there is no one I have ever seen who wants to work harder and
longer and live harder and longer than the people of Cape Breton.
They want to do it with integrity, with enormous chutzpah, with
humour and with black humour. I think the culture of Cape Breton
gives the country a colour that we would be sorely lacking
without.
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
is with great honour that I rise as the NDP natural resources
critic to speak to Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture
of the assets of and to dissolve the Cape Breton Development
Corporation.
Sadly we have here another example of the Liberal government
abandoning the people of the Atlantic. About a year ago Premier
Brian Tobin of Newfoundland said that the Atlantic did not
abandon the Liberals, that the Liberals abandoned the Atlantic.
Not too long ago a person I am not shy to say is not my best
friend, the premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, said that
the federal government was forgetting the Atlantic provinces and
was not investing in the Atlantic provinces for economic
development.
He only realized 10 years later, now that he is not in, what his
Liberal colleagues were doing. They took all the money they
could and probably gave it to their friends. The reason the
economic development of the Atlantic provinces never happened was
that the Liberals gave too much money to their friends.
1830
Devco was created by the federal government in 1967 to rescue
the coal industry in Cape Breton. Now, 33 years later, the
government is turning its back on the hard-working men and women
of Cape Breton and creating great devastation for both the
economy and the community of Cape Breton.
When I hear speakers today in the House of Commons it sounds as
though the government has paid welfare for 33 years. Where is
the respect for those miners who went underground and worked day
and night? When people work in a mine they are dirtier than we
are when we leave the House of Commons.
Mr. Myron Thompson: I don't think so. Did you work
underground?
Mr. Yvon Godin: I worked underground for 15 years. Maybe
my friend from the Reform Party thinks a person getting out of a
mine is not dirtier at night than a person getting out of the
House of Commons, but I worked with miners underground and I know
what it is all about.
I feel that the House of Commons is lacking respect for the
people of the Atlantic provinces and the miners who work
underground. It is a shame. It is also a shame to hear the
speakers get up in the House of Commons and talk they way they do
about our miners, the people who furnish coal to this country and
other countries around us. We should not be surprised that the
Liberal government is backing out of its responsibilities. It is
nothing new.
What I find absolutely appalling is the government's
determination to take away the little protection that was given
to employees in the original Devco act. The original act of 1967
stipulates that the Liberal government cannot get out of its
responsibility to Devco until it has fulfilled sections 17 and
18. Why is the government now proposing an amendment that will
allow it to abdicate its responsibility under sections 17 and 18?
This proposal shows how little respect the government has for
Devco employees.
Some members might ask why sections 17 and 18 are so important.
Let me take the time to read them out so that we know exactly
what we are talking about.
On page 1, subsection 17(1) of the original act states:
Let me pick up under subsection 17(4) of the original act which
states:
(b) all reasonable measures have been adopted by the
Corporation, either alone or in conjunction with the Government
of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those
governments, to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or
economic hardship that can be expected to result from the closing
or reduction in production.
Now the act is very clear. It states that Devco shall ensure
that all reasonable measures have been adopted to reduce
unemployment or economic hardship. This absolutely does not make
sense. The government is defending what it did in the fishery
industry. It dropped the fishermen just like that. It was not
enough that we got caught in this country and around the world
with new technology that took away jobs, the government cut
employment insurance so that 800,000 people no longer qualify for
EI, in spite of all the fishery and natural resources we have in
our country. That is where the pain is.
When my friend across the floor talks about northern Ontario and
the industry in Elliot Lake, what industry is he talking about?
People went there to retire. That is not an industry. It is a
place of peace not a place of work. It is a shame to get up in
the House of Commons and talk like this.
Does anyone wonder why there are no Liberals in Nova Scotia?
They lost their seats because they did not know how to deal with
Canadians when they had a problem. They would drop them just
like this because that is how the Liberals do it. Shame on the
Liberals and the Liberal government. Shame on the Liberal
government for the way it is dealing with the mining industry in
Cape Breton today.
Shame on the Liberal government for its actions on the fishery in
the Atlantic provinces. Shame on the Liberal government for its
actions on the fishery in B.C. Shame on the Liberal government
for its actions on the agricultural issue and the farmers in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Shame on the Liberal government. The
government's record is not good.
1835
How can the government back down from the original Devco
commitment? The minister has said that his proposed amendment
will not affect the government's commitment to sections 17 and
18. If that is the case, why remove them? Why remove them if it
does not affect these sections?
I always said when I negotiated collective agreements that we
take something away from the agreement because it bothers us. If
it does not bother us, then we leave it alone. Why is the
government removing it here? It is because it bothers the
government. It is because the government wanted to lock up Cape
Breton.
I know how the people of Cape Breton feel. The people of
Acadie—Bathurst feel the same way. Members know what happened to
Doug Young. He was thrown out the door because of the way he
treated the people of Acadie—Bathurst. What happens in Nova
Scotia? The government appoints Bernie Boudreau to the Senate.
Shame on the Liberal government. The government has always
treated the Atlantic provinces this way.
I have said all along that the government wants the workers from
the Atlantic provinces to go across the country and plug the
holes where qualified workers are needed to do the job. It
happens all the time.
I work. I come from a family of 11. In the fall one of my
brothers had to leave at the age of 58 years. The government
thinks it is funny when it splits families. In March one of my
brothers at the age of 52 had to leave and go to work in northern
Ontario in order to get a job. This hurt the whole family.
My friend across the way talked about northern Ontario and how
pitiful it is. My friend can visit the Atlantic provinces. I
invited the former minister of human resources many times to
visit the Atlantic provinces. He refused to go. I hope the new
minister of human resources will get out of Ottawa and all the
other nice places she can travel to and go to see the people and
families who are hurting.
The Liberals say that too much is being given to the Atlantic
provinces. We have to realize what is given to the Atlantic
provinces. Personally I do not think anything has been given.
The government has taken away from the Atlantic provinces all of
our resources, all of our wood and all our fish. There has been
mismanagement of our fisheries by DFO. There has been
mismanagement of our forests.
The federal government has given some provinces loans. The
federal government says when a tree is cut down another should be
planted in its place. We did not have that for years. Where was
the government when we lost our resources? This is not the only
problem.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon.
member, but I can advise him that when the bill is next before
the House, he will have 10 minutes remaining in the time for his
remarks.
It being 6.38 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)