Peter Mancini

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11. When I spoke to the bill originally I said that it was a day of shame in the House, that the Liberal government should be ashamed because it had betrayed the legacy of Lester Pearson. I say today that Lester Pearson would be shamed again, as the government closes down debate on the issue and forces it through the House of Commons without appropriate debate.

It is a legacy. The Liberals who are watching the debate today and those who will be reading Hansard should write to their members of parliament and to their party presidents to ask what happened to what was once a democratic party.

Let me talk a bit about the agreement because that is the substance of the debate. Why should this matter not be voted upon but go to a special committee or to the human resources committee? Let me begin by explaining what the negotiation process was.

I would like to explain the process, but first I suggest that I do not think we have quorum in the House. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call in a quorum.

[The Environment, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has moved closure on Bill C-11 denying many mining communities in Cape Breton hope, but there is another group of Cape Bretoners looking for a hopeful sign from the government.

On Friday, Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians and Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club launched their book, Frederick Street: Living and Dying on Canada's Love Canal . It is a condemnation of government inaction on this national environmental disgrace.

Will the Minister of the Environment show some leadership here? Will he explain where this is on his list of priorities and what he might do in the future?

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments and I thank his party for the positions it has put forward on behalf of the working people in Cape Breton. It is one of the few friends, other than the New Democratic Party, that the working people in Cape Breton have found to voice their concerns in this debate.

I have a couple of questions for the member. First, he talked about money. The government of course will say it is offering $111 million as an incentive package for the miners who are leaving. I point out that in 1996 our gross domestic product was $820 billion, and it is more today. While $111 million may sound like a great deal, in relative terms it is not.

I also point out that the government will say it has offered $68 million to Cape Breton for future economic development. I point out that the Minister of Canadian Heritage recently announced $48 million to build the war heritage museum here in Ottawa. For the entire island of Cape Breton and its future economic growth, we get the value of about one building in Ottawa.

More important though, I would ask the member to comment on the following. This is not the first time crown corporations have been shut down by the government. In each and every case there were benefits offered to those employees as the government extracted itself from whatever industry it was.

There are a number of areas we could compare, but let us just take health care benefits. These people are miners for the most part. They have gone underground. They have suffered injuries. Let me just cite some comparisons.

When VIA Rail was shut down, the employees of the crown corporation not entitled to retirement benefits were eligible for 100% pension contributions and full health benefits packages for five years.

When CN was shut down, the employees were entitled to group benefits and life insurance for a maximum of two years and the company paid the full cost.

When AECL was shut down, there was an extension of benefit packages with Blue Cross for health, dental and life insurance costs which were covered by the company.

When Devco shuts down, which the government says is justified, the employees who suffer from a number of ailments because of the kind of career and work they did, there are no provisions in this government package for extensions of health, dental or life insurance benefits. Those who have sick children, those who suffer from illnesses that they received in the mines, those who suffer from lung cancer, those who suffer from black lung will not be afforded the rights that were afforded other employees of crown corporations when the government withdrew from those corporations. That is just in health benefits. I could go on and compare others. I would be interested to hear the member's comments on those issues.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 1st, 2000]

The minister says “he was the best”. My family would agree with that. However he did not come with a resumé, a business plan and talk about how he would expand the country. He did expand it. He developed a business plan once he got here. It was an interesting one at different times, but I am not sure he would be considered the best and the brightest.

I agree that the immigration system should be bolstered by denying sponsorship to those convicted of spousal abuse, to those in default of spousal or child support payments, but then it says those on social assistance. Surely poverty is not a bar to immigration to Canada. Surely those who find themselves in need in their own countries for whatever reason and have to rely on state sponsorship would not be denied the opportunity to build a life in this country, the way that many of our ancestors did.

I know that the minister will answer these questions. This is the opportunity to debate and raise some of the reservations that we have and I welcome the opportunity to do that.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I did not plan to speak today but as I listened to speakers extol both the virtues and the concerns of the act I felt it important on behalf of the constituents of Sydney—Victoria that I put forward both the things I think are positive in the act and the things that I have some concerns about.

Our party has spoken to this issue already today. The critic for immigration, the member for Winnipeg Centre, will have a fair amount to say when the bill comes back to the House. I know he accompanied the minister on her most recent trip to China because of the concerns this party has about some of the things that have been happening.

This is a tremendously important issue. It has been said by speaker after speaker in the House that this is a nation of immigrants. I suppose some native people might say we are a nation of colonists, but I think it is fair to say that we are a nation of immigrants.

Everyone in the House has spoken about their own heritage. Members of the House represent immigrants from all parts of the world. My own heritage is Italian and Scottish. My grandfather on my father's side came here when he was 15. I look at my own son at 13 and wonder about my grandfather at 15 coming on a boat from Italy, not speaking the language, alone, and with 25 cents in his pocket. He chose this country to build a life. As I look around the House, I think that is the story for most of us.

Immigration is tremendously important because it defines not only who we let into the nation but how we will let the nation grow. It sets out the kind of vision we have for Canada in the future. It also defines whom we will not let in. That is as important a part of this debate as whom we let in. It is a reflection of our international obligations.

I commend the minister for reviewing the act and bringing forward new legislation almost 25 years after the last act was passed in the House in 1976. Because immigration is an important topic, I congratulate and commend her for bringing forward new legislation and opening the issue of immigration. It is an issue that has polarized Canadians in the last two or three years.

The act has been amended numerous times. While it has been talked about, it has only been since 1997 when we began to see the boatloads of Chinese immigrants coming to British Columbia that Canadians were galvanized and polarized by the issue of immigration. That polarization is on both sides.

There are those who are adamant that we should not let anybody else into the country. There are some groups in the country who believe that if we should let anyone in they should for the most part be of European ancestry. I know who those groups are because when I was critical of them I received some of their interesting mail. I know they put me on their website and did some very interesting imaging things, so I guess they are creative in a certain sense.

We have those groups on one side. On the other side we have some, critics might call, bleeding hearts who say we should open the doors to everyone. Naturally the balance is somewhere in between. That balance is something that is not easily achieved but again as the minister has opened the door I think it is something we have to talk about.

I do not think that we can talk about immigration without setting it against a backdrop of international and global issues because we are living in a global society. We are contributors to both the good and the bad parts of the global community. It should come as no surprise to us, with our vast amount of land and with our vast wealth, that thousands and thousands of people around the world want to come to Canada because of the inequities of the global world.

Let us not forget that we live in the northern hemisphere. We are the consumers of the vast majority of the world's energy. We contribute the vast majority of waste and pollution to the world's atmosphere. On the other side of the hemisphere are millions and millions of people living in abject poverty. Yet in the global world and in the information age these millions of people know the life that we live.

I had an interesting conversation on the plane going home last week with a friend of mine originally from Cape Breton who has lived for the last almost 30 years in a remote village in the Himalayas of India. He told me now it was not uncommon to see satellite dishes on some of the little homes in that part of India. Those people are watching for the most part American presentation of life in the western world. We should not be surprised, set against the backdrop of increasing poverty in the third world and increasing wealth in the northern hemisphere, that millions of people want to come to this country.

I heard the member for Mississauga talk about Canada taking its fair share. I think we have to talk about our fair share and our obligations. If we are consuming so much of the world's energy and if we are contributing so much to increased poverty in the world, surely we have an obligation. It is against that backdrop and the backdrop of the tremendous increase in world population that we have to look at our immigration policy.

Again let us be clear. It took the human race thousands, thousands and thousands of years to reach a million people worldwide. In the last 20 years the population has increased fourfold or fivefold to the point where we now have six or seven billion people. It is against that backdrop we have to look at the good things the bill has to offer and some of the things that may cause us some concern.

Of the good things, I look at what the bill talks about. It creates severe penalties for those smuggling people into Canada with fines up to $1 million and life in prison. I support that. I think trade in human beings is the most despicable kind of crime imaginable. To take those who are most needy and helpless, to demand that those people pay a price to come to this country and to traffic in human beings as if they were silk scarves, is tragic. It is wise for us to be harsh on those who smuggle people into this country.

I also think it is wise and again I commend the government for talking about increasing the number of immigration control officers abroad. The minister has said all along that what she intends to do is open the front door wider and close the back door. Part of the problem we have had is that we have not had enough immigration officers.

People talked about the Chinese immigrants coming from Fujian province and how they should probably go to the immigration office and do it the right way. In reality, if we think about where Fujian province is in China, where the immigration office is and the fact that we had perhaps one or two refugee officers in that province, it would have been impossible for those people to go through the appropriate channels if they are refugees to seek admission to this country.

I am glad to hear there will be an increase in immigration officers. I think the department needs them and it is fair for public servants who had a huge workload in the last few years. It is also wise to look at security checks for those who are serious criminals. However, as has been mentioned by the NDP member for Winnipeg—Transcona, what constitutes a crime in some countries may be questionable as to whether or not it would constitute a crime in this country. There are those people who are imprisoned that fought for human rights in their countries and may have criminal records. It would be my hope that the definition of crime would exclude those individuals.

We commend the government for some of the points in the bill. There are others that we will take under advisement and look at very carefully, for example what constitutes a crime. Nelson Mandela was a criminal in South Africa because he fought against apartheid.

I had the fortune to meet with the vice-president elect of Taiwan who spent five years in prison for challenging marshal law in that country and today emerges as the vice-president. Her sentence was commuted from 12 years to 5 years because she had an illness. Would that person, because she carried a criminal record, be denied entrance to Canada?

I also have some other concerns. I know we will have an opportunity to examine them. I read the minister's press release which talked about expanding policies to attract the world's best and brightest to Canada. I do not know if under that criteria my grandfather would have been able to come to this country. He did not have a degree in computer science. He did not come with a lot of money. He did not have financial backing.

[Natural Resources, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the development of the oil rich Laurentian sub-basin presents an enormous economic opportunity to the people of Cape Breton, the people of Newfoundland, and Canadians.

The Conservative Government of Nova Scotia and the Liberal Government of Newfoundland are engaged in a jurisdictional fight. The project is in jeopardy. The companies are looking at setting up in St. Pierre and Miquelon, taking with them hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in royalties.

When will the federal government exercise a leadership role, help settle the dispute and ensure that the economic benefits come to the people of Atlantic Canada and not to the treasury of France?

[Budget 2000, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite quoted budget 2000 today and I am glad they did. I call on the government to use budget 2000 to address regional disparities in the country. I ask the government to make investing in regions of high unemployment a national priority.

Investments in the budget for geoscience initiatives in mining, the sustainable technology fund for the development of new environmental technologies, Canadian research chairs and new National Research Council facilities should be located in areas like Cape Breton and regions of high unemployment in order to generate lasting economic opportunities for that region and for the benefit of all Canadians.

Let us use the budget to create jobs in areas of high unemployment.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the government member. There are two points to this question coming from Atlantic Canada.

In the 1980s and early 1990s the Conservative government withdrew and cut passenger rail service in many important centres in the Atlantic region, notably Saint John, New Brunswick, and the rail line from my own community of Sydney to Halifax. The prime minister of the day challenged us to show that they were profit making and indeed they were. They were cut anyway.

Today there are many seniors who live in my community who have to make the route from Sydney to Halifax for medical treatment. They are afraid to drive on the twinned highways. They are afraid of the big trucks on these roads, which leaves them with one option, a monopolistic bus route.

My question is twofold. First, in the $2.6 billion is there a plan to return passenger rail service to these communities? Transport 2000 has recognized the importance of that. Petitions have been filed on behalf of those communities recognizing its importance.

Second, the current private rail system which exists to ship goods from Sydney to Halifax is in real danger now that the federal government has decided to close down the coal mines in Cape Breton. There is essentially very little product now since coal is not there to be transported. Yet we recognize the importance of that infrastructure if we are to build a new economy. It may require some government subsidization until the new economy is built. Will the government commit to that?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully. In her answer just now she clearly indicates that she is opposed to private for profit hospitals in health care. I take it she has no problem with that part of the motion which we in the NDP put forward today. I know she agrees that public health care is cherished by Canadians, so she does not have a problem with the first part of the motion.

Is there a problem with the motion where it calls for substantial and sustained increases in cash transfers to the provinces? She talks about a partnership and sitting down with the provinces and getting the best ideas. If the federal government as a partner is only putting in 15 cents on the dollar, does it not lose the moral authority to direct how the health care system operates?

[Supply, March 2nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I do think there will be more money forthcoming to health care but not because it is in the works now. I think it is because of the reaction that the Canadian public had to this budget. I might also say that it is because of the opposition, led by this party in the House of Commons, that there is a wave beginning. The government has recognized that and is now saying “Yes, there will be more money for health care”.

However, for the provinces to do any kind of long term planning, the extra money should have been announced on the day of the budget. I honestly do not understand why a sitting government would not say that it was going to do that and that x amount of dollars would be allotted for that. If it is there, surely Canadians should know about it.

On the question of co-operative federalism, I hope that the health ministers, the premiers and the federal ministers can put aside differences to ensure that this most important program for Canadians—I think the most important program in the country—is protected and preserved. I hope those things will take place.

I do not know why it has taken so long to pull everyone together. I have only been in the House for two and a half years but in that time I think we all saw that the health care system was crumbling and that we could have done this a little more expeditiously.