Michelle Dockrill

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following:

“(3) It is a condition of every agreement to transfer an asset of the Corporation that is used as part of a coal-mining operation that the coal-mining operation shall continue in a manner satisfactory to the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.

(4) It is a condition of every agreement to transfer an asset of the Corporation that could be used as part of a coal-mining operation that the asset shall be developed and a coal-mining operation shall be undertaken in a manner satisfactory to the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following:

“(3) Prior to the sale or disposal of all or substantially all of the Corporation's assets, the Government of Canada or the Government of Nova Scotia shall hold or cause to be held a public inquiry in order to: a ) determine the effects that the sale or disposal of all or substantially all of the Corporation's assets may have or may have had on the economy of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, with particular attention being given to the issue of the unemployment and economic hardship to the residents that may result or have resulted; and b ) assess the measures taken by the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those governments to reduce those effects.”

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

Madam Speaker, I rise again in the House to raise the issue of Scotia Rainbow. I find it unfortunate that I still have to do this but it is the reality.

There are still too many unanswered questions with regard to the operations of Scotia Rainbow. There are questions like how much money did it receive by way of federal and provincial sources and how many people is it employing? We would think that these would be easy questions to answer. It looks like the government cannot do it or does not want to be held accountable.

It would be easy for the government to put this issue to rest once and for all if it would just give us the answers. Why does it continue to protect Scotia Rainbow? What stakes does it have in this?

This drama continues under the guise of economic assistance for Cape Breton Island. We all agree that Cape Breton's economy is in desperate need of help. After the government's devastation of the fishery, the devastation of the coal industry, and the devastation of employment insurance, health care and post-secondary education, all caused by the Liberal government, Cape Breton Island needs to rebuild its economy.

What did the government do in return? It sent money to the tune of $20.9 million to a company. Is this the thanks Cape Bretoners get for working hard and building this nation? It amounts to a slap in the face.

The people of Cape Breton are not looking for handouts. All we are looking for is a commitment from the government to long term, well paying, sustainable jobs on the island. There is no doubt that the federal government has sent a lot of money to Cape Breton. The only problem is that there is nothing to show for it. Large numbers of initiatives have been co-opted by a few with self-interests. These self-interests are costing Cape Breton its economy.

What I am asking is quite simple. How many jobs were created at Scotia Rainbow, and how much money did it receive from the federal government? That is all. The government keeps saying that it has nothing to hide. It is all very simple. If there is nothing to hide then show us the facts.

[Genetically Modified Foods, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the issue of employment insurance.

In March the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled a report which showed that only 30% of unemployed women qualify for EI benefits. At the same time the Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus from the Atlantic provinces called for changes to the unemployment insurance system so as to ensure more seats for this federal Liberal government in Atlantic Canada.

It is rather clear that the government recognized there were problems with the EI system.

The government recently made changes to EI in order to reduce unemployment rates in the country. The problem is that it did nothing to actually reduce the number of unemployed in Canada. The government is simply playing a shell game with Canadians. It is easy to fool people with numbers.

In order to address the growing unemployment rate in Canada the government redrew the boundaries for EI economic regions. In Nova Scotia, for example, there are currently five regions and soon there will only be three. With the old boundary system, Cape Breton Island was in its own region with Guysborough County. Now Cape Breton has been lumped in with an even larger part of the region, all the way to Halifax County. This new boundary reduces the unemployment rate for Cape Bretoners and, in doing so, reduces the benefits which Cape Bretoners can receive. This was just another devastating blow from the government.

We all know that the numbers used for the unemployment rate do not reflect the reality of unemployment across the country. I know for a fact that on Cape Breton Island the unemployment rate is incredibly high. In some areas it is as high as 50%.

It is a real shame that this could happen only a few short weeks after the House adopted a motion introduced by my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst and seconded by myself which called on the House to restore EI benefits to seasonal workers. The motion set out to urge the House to undo the damage that was done back in 1996. Now what do we get? Even more damage.

The federal Liberal government has destroyed the fish. It is presently in the midst of destroying the coal industry. This is all due to the mismanagement of our resources by the Liberal government. What do Cape Bretoners get in return? Less access to EI than they had before.

The devastation is even worse for women. As I said earlier, only 30% of unemployed women qualify for EI benefits. If we turn the numbers around it means that 70% of unemployed women do not qualify for EI benefits.

How is this possible? The finance minister is praising the so-called wonderful surplus budget. He also tells us how great the economy is. If the economy is so great, why is there still so much economic devastation? Why do women have to pay such a high cost?

The government has acknowledged that the EI system does not treat women fairly. Why can the government not address the issue by taking a step forward rather than taking two steps back? Why will the government not do something for Canadian women? It knows its own programs have shown discrimination as they relate to Canadian women, so my question is very simple. Why is the Liberal government refusing to do something about it?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

And don't we all feel a lot safer?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating to listen to my hon. colleague with respect to the motion by the Conservative Party.

Recently in Nova Scotia Premier Hamm announced his government's intentions to privatize a large portion of the department of transportation. From what I understand after talking to individuals, Cumberland—Colchester is going to see about two-thirds of the department of transportation privatized. I heard the member talk about the federal government's obligation for a national transportation policy.

Is he in agreement with the premier of Nova Scotia's intentions to privatize the department of transportation?

[Status Of Women, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Terry Brown, the newly elected president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Ms. Brown is the first aboriginal woman to hold this post. On behalf of the NDP caucus I want to take this opportunity to welcome her.

Unfortunately, women continue to fight for access to health care, child care and employment insurance. These are issues that affect all Canadians but often have a greater impact on women.

Unfortunately for women, good health care, accessible child care, decent employment insurance, violence against women and equality issues simply have been ignored by the government.

We in the NDP caucus recognize that these issues are vital to Canadian women and are a top priority. The question Canadian women ask is when will the Liberal government make these issues its priority?

[Mining Industry, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is growing concern that the contract between the government and the prospective buyer of Devco includes conditions for no development, no expansion. No development means no more mining industry in Cape Breton.

Could the minister today guarantee the House that coal production will continue in Cape Breton? Will he make it a condition of the sale? Or, will Cape Bretoners continue to watch imported coal from Colombia being delivered on their shores by Canada Steamship Lines while Cape Breton coal stays in the ground?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is sometimes very frustrating on this side of the House when we hear some of the comments from the government that clearly indicate it is clearly not in touch with Canadians. Canadians have clearly said that they want the guarantee of a publicly funded health care system.

My question is very simple. Canadians have said the problem with the health care system is the lack of money. We know the government has the money. Why does the government not want to use money from Canadians to guarantee them the services for which they pay?

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my hon. colleague in terms of what the cost is of guaranteeing medical coverage for our neighbours to the south. As I said, I have had firsthand experience with those costs. Even the cost of small needle for a fly bite is absolutely astronomical.

With regard to the second part of my colleague's question, the figure I saw, and I would not want to be quoted, but the overall cost of the American system is something like 40% more than a publicly funded system. Our friends south of the border want what we have and our system is going to where they are at.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I have relatives who have been living in the United States for approximately 45 years. I have talked about standing here today and being disappointed at having to fight for health care. One of the interesting discussions that I continue to have with my relatives is that they do not understand what this government is doing. They have been south of the border for 45 years looking at Canada and saying “My God, we wish we had what you have”. I have an uncle who fortunately was not seriously ill but who had to be hospitalized for three days. I think the bill totalled something like $8,000. It does concern me and it should concern all Canadians.

Unfortunately, we recently had a medical crisis in my family. My mother-in-law had three heart attacks in three days. The doctors put her on a nitroglycerine intravenous so they could hold her over for the Easter weekend before they did a triple bypass because of the shortage of staff, the shortage of surgeons and the cost to do the surgery. We sat around for four days and prayed that she would not take that one massive heart attack and not make it to the surgery table. That is a reality every day in this country.

As my colleague indicated, what will happen to a single mother if she has to pay for health care? I had a case in my riding where a single mother went to a pharmacy with her two young children who were sick but, fortunately, not seriously sick. As any mother knows, when our kids are sick we are worried and concerned. The pharmacist called me because he was so disturbed. The single mother asked him if he could tell her which one of her children was the sickest because she only had enough money for the medicine for one. The pharmacist told me that he gave her enough medication for two and that he did not care if he lost his licence because he was able to sleep well with himself. Imagine a mother having to decide which one of her kids would get the medication.

We are at the tip of the iceberg if this government does not stand up and act now to give Canadians what Canadians are clearly telling this government and this House that they want. They are saying clearly that they do not want two tier for profit health care.