Debates of Nov. 15th, 1999

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

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.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

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.

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.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

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.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

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

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair has received an application for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

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.

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.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

You're just a big mouth, a loud mouth.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

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.