Peter Mancini

[The Environment, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is one throne speech promise gone by the wayside. I will give the Liberals a chance to honour another one.

In the same throne speech, the government committed to making the clean up of toxic sites a priority. Last week the Minister of the Environment acknowledged that the Sydney tar ponds is, and I am using his words, “perhaps the single most polluted site in Canada and presents a serious health risk”. However, he refused to indicate whether the clean up was even a priority of the government, saying that it was in the hands of the joint action group.

The chair of JAG has publicly complained about the foot dragging by his government partners. Will the minister commit today to making the clean-up his number one environmental—

[Devco, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government invoked closure to stifle debate on Bill C-11, the government's bill which dismantles Devco. This week it plans to ram the bill through committee.

The company and the unions right now are in arbitration which may compromise the evidence which comes before the committee. Will the minister show good faith and write to the committee asking that it postpone hearings until the arbitration is complete? If not, will he at least ask the committee to travel to Cape Breton to hear from the citizens in that community?

[Job Creation, May 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House who participated in the debate for their thoughts and for their ideas.

Because I only have five minutes I want to comment on the remarks of the member for Hamilton West. I will concentrate there first because I am not sure he understood the importance of the motion. He spoke about the accomplishments of his government in terms of reducing unemployment. Again, I do not want to be political and I do not want to be critical for the sake of being critical. There are areas in the country where government policy has worked extremely well, but there are areas in the country where it has not worked.

As much as Toronto, Ottawa and perhaps Vancouver have unlimited growth, it very difficult in regions of the country to pick up national newspapers that talk about the unprecedented growth and the economic strength of the country and walk out to the main street of our downtown and see boarded up buildings and young people leaving our communities because the unemployment rate is 20%, 21%, 24%, and, heaven knows, in some of the native communities it is 75%.

While there is economic growth and that growth is important to help carry the regions which do not have the growth, we do not want to be carried any more. We want to be self-sufficient and make a contribution.

The member said that they appreciated the intent and were doing what the motion says. Then he went on to talk about the private sector. If that is the belief then all government departments should be sent out of this city and the private sector should be the sole engine of growth in Ottawa. Give us the $60 billion of the Department of Human Resources Development and put it into the main street in my hometown. I would be happy with it. Take the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and put it somewhere in Newfoundland. Take the Department of Transport and put it in western Canada. Let the private sector be the sole engine of growth in this city.

I do not want to get too angry. When we hear that in other regions of the country there is a temptation to say the government does not care. It says that we should do as it says, not as it does. I want to make very clear that if the Liberal Party and the member support the intent of the motion, we would look forward to receiving some of the things that could be located in our area.

I know the member from Bras d'Or has written to the Prime Minister and suggested that the Canadian Tourism Commission be located in Cape Breton. The government keeps telling us that tourism is the way to do that yet there is no sign of it. When this commission is created it would not even be missed in this town, but it would be a centre of good jobs and some money located in the community I represent. Then if someone wants to open a little coffee shop or a restaurant, he or she knows there will be some people there who will spend some money.

The member for West Nova touched on the CBC. I think that is a prime example. There is talk of centralizing, of cutting regional broadcasting across the country and centralizing the whole operation. Centralizing it where? In Toronto where the government's policies are working, where there is low unemployment, where a centralized broadcast is not needed. One of the conditions for the CBC to get some of its licensing was that Newsworld would be run and operated out of Halifax. There was a commitment to the intent of this motion but now we see that being cut.

We have been through this in the smaller centres. We dealt with cuts to CBC and the loss of a regional broadcaster and a local suppertime news hour 10 years ago when we lost it in Cape Breton and it went to Halifax. Now we are being told it will go from Halifax to Toronto.

The CBC is a crown corporation and the government does not have a complete hands on approach, but surely it would say that its intent and in the spirit of the motion, if the regional suppertime news hour has to be cut—and I do not think the government could justify it—that it should be located somewhere in western Canada in an area where there is high unemployment.

I did a show with Ralph Benmergui one time and that is what he said to me. He talked about Devco and I asked him how many people were employed in his building in downtown Toronto by the government and paid by taxpayer dollars. I would like to see a little more decentralization.

[Job Creation, May 15th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take into account regional unemployment rates when establishing or expanding government offices and agencies so that regions with high rates of unemployment are considered for any new job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on my motion. It should come as no surprise to members of the House that the motion should come from me, given that I represent one of the areas which has had chronically high rates of unemployment for a long time.

We are not alone in that. One of the privileges and I suppose one of the benefits of being a member of parliament is that there is a lot to learn. What I have learned over the last three years is that the chronic rates of unemployment which affect Cape Breton are not exclusive to Cape Breton. There are areas in New Brunswick, including certainly the region represented by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, which have chronically high unemployment.

For the member who is seconding the motion, the gracious member for Yukon, unemployment is no stranger to her riding, as well as regions in the north of the country, northern Manitoba, parts of northern Saskatchewan, and parts of British Columbia. In fact no region of the country is free from chronic high rates of unemployment. As we have said repeatedly in the House, the disparity between the have regions of the country and the have not regions of the country is growing immensely.

One of the ways, and it is a humble suggestion from me, I think the government could address this issue is by incorporating the motion into its decision making process. The motion essentially says that if the government is expanding a government department, if it is creating a new government department, if it is expanding an agency or creating a new agency, part of the criteria as to where that agency or department would be located would be to look at unemployment rates in areas of the country which have chronically high unemployment rates.

It is appropriate that we address the motion on a Monday. Most of us have come to the House this morning from our ridings. I know for me, when I leave the airport in Sydney, Cape Breton, arrive in Ottawa and travel downtown, and then conversely when I go home, it is a bittersweet experience because I see the tremendous wealth in Ottawa, generated and created to a large extent because of the public service in the city in that it is the government capital.

There was a time when it had to be that way. There was a time when in order for departments to run efficiently, in order for there to be a fair exchange of communication, there had to be government departments congregated in one area, and that area was naturally the capital city.

Let me tell the House a little story about what came to light for me. It was given to me in a dialogue with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and indeed with his deputy regional director. There is in my riding a radio station necessary for ship to shore communication operated by the coast guard. There was a plan afoot to move that and centralize it in Halifax. Understandably the people in my riding, the people who work in that area, were not pleased to think about having to leave their homes and locate somewhere else.

When I met with the regional deputy director he told me that if they wanted to they could navigate the ships that come in and out of the gulf and the Bras d'Or lakes from an office in Ottawa. I put the reverse to him and said that if they could do that with the technology, surely they could navigate the ships that come in and out of Halifax harbour and other harbours from this location. He began to laugh, so I asked him if I were wrong, if the technology were one way. He had a sober second thought. Maybe he is planning to work for the Senate or to be appointed, I do not know, but after sober second thought he told me I was right, that there was no reason.

We know that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in one of its reports two years ago, maybe not that long ago, recommended that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be located on either one of our coasts because there are no fish in the Rideau Canal. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans had made some errors in calculation. It was felt by the standing committee that it would be appropriate for those public servants to be located in the fishing communities to hear from the fishermen directly.

Which coast would be chosen? My suggestion would be, and the motion reads, that one of the criteria would be that the government would look at the areas of high unemployment. I say quite frankly, to have a huge department like that locate in western Newfoundland would be beneficial. I will not even be parochial here, as much as I would like to have it in my own riding. Suppose the department were to locate in Port aux Basques? Suppose it were to locate in Argentia in a community that right now is seeing its resource bases dry up? These would be welcome well paying jobs that would provide some stability in that community.

Conversely, there may be some ridings along the northern coast of British Columbia, and I am not as familiar with them, that would be suitable for the department's location. Would it matter in terms of communication? We have the technology now. That is what we are constantly told by the Minister of Industry. The new technological age allows us to sit at our computers anywhere in the country and effectively do our jobs and run our departments. If the private sector can do that, if it can be done from Ottawa to the regions of the country, then I do not see why it cannot be done from the regions to the centre.

There is another point that I would raise. Some time ago in the 1980s there was some decentralization, which is what it was called then, where the Department of Citizenship and Immigration located in my home town. It is a good thing it did, because as the government divests itself of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as the government withdraws from other industries and as we face real economic challenges, one of the bright spots is the employees of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration who are keeping the downtown core alive to a great extent. They are the people who can afford to buy lunches, buy clothes and whatnot to keep small entrepreneurs in business. If these small entrepreneurs were supplying goods to various departments they could benefit.

I had an exchange earlier in my term with the Minister of National Defence. We do have a small base in Sydney. When it came time to refurbish it, two of the local small business entrepreneurs went to the department to try to sell furniture. They were rebuffed. The furniture came from somewhere else. There was no spinoff in the local economy from that, shamefully, but had there been a fairly substantial government department or agency there is no question that it would benefit the communities.

If we do want to question that, we need only look at the cities in the country where the civil service and government expenditures laid the foundation for an economy. I am happy for the people of Ottawa, but in this city today we hear constantly of large high tech corporations locating here. They are doing so in part because there is a stable financial base here.

The same is true in Halifax in the province I come from and of Moncton or Fredericton, New Brunswick. The civil service has provided a stable economic base for investment. Frankly, the wealth being generated in some of those capital cities today by the private sector certainly would allow the public sector to move out without tremendous disruption, especially if it is a new agency or government department.

Another example is the recent announcement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage of $48 million for a national war museum. I have nothing against a national war museum but I do not know why it has to be in Ottawa. I do not know that there is any particular reason that expenditure of money has to be spent here. It provides construction and tourism jobs. It attracts tourists to a particular area. Why not look at an area of the country that proudly served by sending its soldiers, sailors and airmen over? It could be in any particular part of the country as no region has a monopoly on courage. We could look at an area with high unemployment, which made a significant contribution to the war effort, and locate that museum there. It would serve as a focal point for tourism, would provide construction jobs and what have you.

Instead, it will be yet another expenditure in this city. Just as it is completed, I suppose the the multimillion dollar renovations to the Parliament Buildings will take place. I do not know how far they will go but there are plans to create boulevards in this city, all of which are government expenditures. Since I have come to this city, I have seen the road outside my office paved three times. People in my riding would give anything for one-tenth of the paving budget alone that is spent on government buildings here in Ottawa.

If we look at how the expansion of the national capital region to Hull enhanced the economy in that particular area, it certainly shows that it can work.

I also point out that we in Cape Breton have been criticized because of the Devco expenditures. People have said that the government spends millions of dollars on the coal industry. I ask members to think about the following fact and what it would mean in their own ridings. In the city of Halifax there is something like $60 million deposited into bank accounts every two weeks by way of civil servants' pay. The civil servants do important work and heaven knows we agree with the work they do. However, if I had one-quarter of those pay cheques being deposited in my riding, it would go some lengths to offset the loss of jobs we are going to suffer when the federal government pulls out of the industry.

It is interesting to note that Canada's newest territory, Nunavut, recognized the importance of doing this kind of work. Nunavut stands out for having recognized the failure of the federal government on this front and has set out recommendations in a detailed plan outlining the priorities for the new territorial government. It is entitled the Bathurst Mandate. One of the things the new government recognizes is that if people are going to feel connected to their government, if they are going to feel that they pay taxes and should receive some benefit for that not just in services but in economic development, then one way to do that is to provide those outlying communities with government departments. As I have said, why should we not? The technology is there.

Nunavut is calling for the fulfilment of the commitments of government to deliver employment to decentralized communities. How better for a community to feel connected to the federal government and to see some benefit for the taxes they pay than to see the government spending some money in their own community?

Through partnering arrangements, the government does spend money in terms of paving, assisting provinces and in medicare. Every day in the House we have debates on whether or not the federal commitment is enough.

I will use another example, the new gun registry. To the government's credit, the registry was not located in Ottawa. The gun registry is a very real and tangible expression of government expenditures in a community.

I do not want to touch on the HRDC scandal that has occupied so much of the House's time, but instead of arbitrary criteria, what I am saying in this motion is that one of the compelling criteria in determining where those government offices should be located would not be political patronage but would be in areas of high unemployment.

It is very hard to justify, in this day and age, setting up a government agency or a government department in a city like Ottawa when we have regions in the country that have, in my particular hometown, an unemployment rate of 21% to 22%. I will not just single out Ottawa. It is also difficult to justify putting it in Toronto where there are predictions of a shortage of skilled labour. I submit that it could be a saving to the taxpayers in terms of the amount of taxes the Government of Canada would have to pay on a building with a high square footage because of the crowding and the land value in certain areas. If the buildings are located outside the major centres in areas of high unemployment there tends to be empty office buildings.

If we were to walk down the main street of Sydney Mines or of Plumber Avenue in New Waterford, I could show the government empty buildings that it could fill with a government office or agency at a fair savings to Canadians.

[Employment Insurance, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate today on a private member's motion that was brought forward by the member for Acadie—Bathurst dealing with the restoration of unemployment insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to restore employment insurance benefits to seasonal workers.

The member's riding, like my own and like many ridings in Canada, would be considered by the government to be a rural riding. It is interesting to note that in many of these ridings, the workers have suffered as a result of the changes to the Employment Insurance Act that the government introduced before the last election. Understandably, the workers were upset by that and showed their displeasure with the changes by voting against the governing party.

The question would have to be asked: Has the government learned from the voter's verdict on the changes to the unemployment insurance system? One would think that it may have learned somewhat of a lesson.

Those who watched the Liberal convention that was held some time ago heard the Prime Minister, probably to the chagrin of his Minister of Finance and certainly to the chagrin of some of his cabinet ministers sitting here today, admit that perhaps the people were right. He stopped short of saying that perhaps the NDP was right. We knew all along that the government's changes to the EI program were wrong. The Prime Minister did not want to give us too much credit so he, kind of appropriately, went over our heads to the sovereign people who sent a message to the government, especially those in Atlantic Canada, that the changes made them suffer.

One would think that the Liberals would welcome the motion from the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It would allow them to vote in favour of this motion and admit that they learned their lesson. They could say that they are listening to the Prime Minister and are prepared to restore the funding to employment insurance.

Instead, in what is, I would say, a tricky manoeuvre, the Liberals moved an amendment. The amendment to the motion would make it read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review employment insurance benefits for seasonal workers.

We do not need a review. The people of Atlantic Canada do not need a review. The people who are seasonal workers in every part of this country, whether they are working in the woods in British Columbia, in the tourism industry in Alberta or in any industry across Canada, do not need another review.

The changes to the unemployment insurance act were imposed by the government under former minister Doug Young who is now a member of the Canadian Alliance Party, I guess. A review took place in 1995 when a working committee was set up to examine the issue of seasonal work and employment insurance. In terms of the Liberal amendment, the review has taken place.

The working group found some interesting statistics and reports. First, and this needs to be said, the report found that what is seasonal is not the workers. We refer to seasonal workers, but it is the jobs that are seasonal. The working group also found that the needs of that particular group in the labour force were largely ignored. Moreover, it noted that there was a negative attitude toward seasonal workers that was emerging in society and that the workers themselves were somehow considered responsible because of the fact that their jobs were temporary.

There are certain realities in this country. We live in a harsh climate. There is certain work that can be done in the summer that cannot be done in the winter. There are tourist seasons that are not year round. It is not the workers who are seasonal. It is that in certain parts of the country employment follows things that are beyond our control. One of those factors is weather. Another is where investment falls.

However, it is not the workers who say “I think I'll get up in May since I've hibernated for the winter and I'll go get a job”. They also in the fall do not say “I've had it with work and I'm going to sit down”. These are hardworking people who want work but the reality is that in the part of the country where they live the work tends to be seasonal in nature.

The working group also found that the Liberal government of the day warned that changes to unemployment insurance would disproportionately affect seasonal workers. I have already commented on that. It is clear that it did.

Finally, the working group predicted that the EI reform would have a negative impact on women. We already know that study after study has indicated that it is in many cases women who have lost their eligibility for employment insurance. They have paid into the fund and have been discriminated against by the changes to the employment insurance program.

As far as the amendment goes, while it is perhaps a friendly amendment, there is no need for us to study any more. This to me sounds like an election ploy. It is kind of like what the Prime Minister said at the convention when he said that we needed to review the Employment Insurance Act. A review can mean anything. It can mean that the act will be even more draconian at the end of the review, once and if the Liberals lucky enough to get another mandate.

Let us have a show of faith here this evening on this member's motion. Let us see members put their votes where their comments were at the Liberal convention and let us see them vote in favour of this member's motion. I do not think it will happen. I would be readily surprised if it did, but one never knows. We have been surprised in the House before.

Let me also comment on the value of seasonal work to the economy. People tend to think that seasonal work is perhaps not on that high of a plane because it is seasonal in nature. However, when we look at it, tourism ranks 12th among the major sectors of the economy. While I am discussing tourism, it is important for me to comment a little bit about my own constituency.

It is ironic that we should be debating this motion the day after the government invoked closure on Bill C-11, an act by the government to take away the jobs of miners in Cape Breton. What is the government's solution to the economic problems in places like Cape Breton where it is challenged with helping to develop an economy? It says that tourism is the answer. The government should talk to the women, in particular, who work in the tourism industry in my riding in towns like Baddeck and Ingonish. I know my colleague from Bras d'Or—Cape Breton would echo the same thoughts for the women who work in the tourism industry in her riding, as would all my colleagues.

Let me say that many people in the tourism industry in particular, but also in the construction trades, the fishing trades, the agriculture industry and the lumber industry rely on employment insurance to see them through. That is only natural. They pay into an insurance fund. It used to be called unemployment insurance until the government decided to play word games and call it employment insurance. They pay into that with their hard-earned money and surely at the end of the season they are entitled to get that money back.

The Canadian people have spoken about the government's changes to the employment insurance program. The Canadian people resoundingly oppose those changes. I ask the government members, whose Prime Minister has indicated he is prepared to see things our way, to vote in favour of the motion.

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the government talk about projected GDP and since we are on fiscal matters, would my colleague be prepared to comment on the way we measure the wealth of the country in terms of taxation?

For example, we do not ever talk about the real cost of production. We do not talk about environmental degradation when we talk about growth. We do not talk about the effect on poor families when we talk about social housing. I think there are questionable ways in terms of how the government measures growth.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have already raised this point a couple of times. This is an important debate to the people of Cape Breton and I would call quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

I know I am right. I have one minute left and I have much to say. Maybe I will move another amendment to the amendment so that we can move on with it. Let me just say it is a sad day for Canada. There is a future in Cape Breton and we can build on it, but we cannot build when we are discriminated against by the government in the way we have been discriminated against. If anybody wants the proof, as I have said, they need only look at the other crown corporation agreements and compare them to this one. It is not fair.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

That comes as a great shock to members in the House, but when I was a young man the Liberal Party actually talked about things like Canadian ownership. Let me tell the House what we are facing on Cape Breton Island today.

The government has plans to sell the Cape Breton Development Corporation and its most useful asset, a contract with Nova Scotia Power. The government is to sell it to a foreign company. Do we know what that will mean? It will mean that ships will come into Sydney harbour with foreign coal while there is a reserve worth a billion dollars at the Donkin coal mine. Cape Bretoners will not mine that coal. That foreign coal will feed the contract with Nova Scotia Power. The provincial government is looking at selling the steel corporation to foreign ownership. While we were happy to have EDS locate in Cape Breton and bring some jobs, it too is a foreign corporation.

Again we talk about betrayal. I remember when the Liberal Party once believed that Canada should belong to Canadians. Here we see a complete reversal, a sell off of assets so that foreigners and foreign companies will once again control the economy of Cape Breton. The miners and steelworkers in Cape Breton died fighting foreign ownership. For 30 years we made some progress. In the stroke of a pen and by bringing in closure the government is undoing that.

There are some very other important issues. For example, there is the pre-existing pension plan. There is money now. Many retired miners are receiving their pension. Who administers that pension? One might ask the Liberal members of parliament if they know that since they are so anxious to vote on closure. I challenge them. If they do not know the answer to that question, I challenge them tonight to vote against closure. If they do not know the details of who administers the ongoing existing pension fund, if they do not know the details of who is the buyer, if they do not know where this corporation will be at the end of the day, I challenge them to vote against closure, to be responsible members of parliament and to ask the hard question. I do not think they will do that.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

I am surprised the minister responsible for ACOA did not rush to his seat to hear what I have to say when he saw me on the television screen,

Let us look at the agreement. Members on the other side of the House will say that is there is a fair and final settlement for the workers at the Cape Breton Development Corporation. There is a history of some fair settlements for crown corporation workers as crown corporations have been folded by the government. Let us look at what happened in some of those cases and compare them to the workers at the Cape Breton Development Corporation to see if in fact it is a fair agreement.

Let us start with how this crown corporation was wound down. The Minister of Natural Resources came to Cape Breton in January. He walked into the Delta Hotel and basically said that it was the end of the process, that they were getting out of the coal industry and would have some consultations that would last for about a week or two.

When Marine Atlantic was folded as a crown corporation there was a special workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions and Marine Atlantic. When portions of CN were folded as a crown corporation there was a special workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions and CN. When VIA Rail was folded as a crown corporation there was special workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions and VIA Rail. When Transport Canada's work was taken over by Nav Canada there was a special workforce restructuring agreement negotiated between the unions and the corporation.

Why not for the Cape Breton Development Corporation? Why not for the miners of Cape Breton? Why was the same negotiation process not used for those workers when there is a precedent?

Let us look at some of the other comparisons. I have already mentioned in my questions today the extension of medical benefits and what was provided to other employees of crown corporations and has been denied the miners of Cape Breton.

Let us look at the education allowance. In many situations when crown corporations were shut down the employees were entitled to an education allowance. For VIA Rail the corporation paid up to $4,000 in tuition to a recognized institution. The employees could receive up to 90% of their salary and full benefits for 24 months. They also received a relocation allowance.

The miners in Cape Breton will get $8,000 if they do not get a pension. That is both their relocation amount and their training amount, $8,000 to go and find a place to live in another part of the country if they are lucky enough to get a job mining or to go back to school. I do not know what kind of retraining that will pay for in this economy, but I can indicate to the House that it will not be retraining that will provide a job.

In the early retirement plans again there was discrimination against the people who worked in the mines in Cape Breton. At VIA Rail there was a transition retirement for eligible employees with five years early retirement. The employees were eligible for benefits of between 90% and 70% of wages. There is no such consideration for Devco.

Home purchase plans were provided to employees of other crown corporations, not provided to the miners in Cape Breton. Special termination incentives were provide to other crown corporation employees, not provided in Cape Breton. The list goes on and on.

Those are some of the reasons we think that if the government were fair, and that is all we are asking, it would look at what it has done in other situations. It would look at precedent. One of my colleagues across the way who is a lawyer and knows about precedent should know that there is nothing wrong with looking at other crown corporation agreements and applying them in the same case. He knows that from his law school days.

Let us look at why the government is in such a rush to push this matter through. We have until December 2000 before the government withdraws. I will tell the House why it is in such a rush. I think it is because it has a foreign buyer. I am not a young man. I am in my forties.