Debates of May 8th, 2000

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act

[Dennis Gruending, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

That is true.

I want to talk a bit about the fact that coal from Colombia is coming into Cape Breton. If we are importing coal, what about the mine in Cape Breton which has not yet been mined out and could produce a lot of coal, the Donkin mine which is shut in?

Canada Steamship Lines is delivering coal to Nova Scotia Power from Colombia. I have two things to say about that. Let us talk about the Colombian side of it first.

Last weekend the leader of a miners union in Colombia, Francisco Ramirez Cuellar, the president of Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Empresa Nacional Minera, was in Canada meeting with our party and the labour movement. He told us about the coal coming in from Colombia. He told us that coal miners in Colombia earn wages as low as one-tenth of what coal miners in Canada earn. He talked about Colombia's environmental protection laws which if they exist at all are not enforced in the coal mining industry. He talked about the labour which is used. The equipment is very old so people have to work very hard under very unsafe working conditions, which many of us simply could not think of working under. We take safety for granted.

As a result of all this, Colombia can sell coal at about half the price of what it is produced for in Canada. That is one thing. The conditions under which coal is mined in Colombia would make it rather attractive for a company which is going to buy the Devco assets but which would not mine the coal nor produce jobs in Cape Breton, to import the coal mined by people who earn effectively starvation wages. It gets worse. We were told that 80% of the union leaders assassinated in the world each year are Colombian union leaders. Government sponsored paramilitary squads frequently displace workers who continue to express an interest in organizing.

The situation here is that the Devco assets are up for sale by the government. There may be a company which is going to purchase those assets, but there is no guarantee that hole is going to be mined in Cape Breton. We may well see a further devastation of the coal mining industry in that province. Why? So that a private company which buys the assets from the government can simply purchase coal offshore to supply Nova Scotia Power.

This is the kind of thing which has not received the attention it deserves because the government has not been interested in having a full scale inquiry into what is happening. Rather, it has tried to write very circumscribed legislation and push it through the House as quickly as possible into committee where we would look at the legislation it has written but not at the wider context of what has happened and what is happening in Cape Breton. When I talk about the wider context, an example is what I have just been speaking about, Colombia.

It has been the contention of our caucus, ably represented by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria and others in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, that we should have a real inquiry and a real look at this industry. We are extremely disappointed that has not happened. We are even more disappointed that the government, rather than have this issue debated fully, has moved closure for the 65th time in this parliament.

The coal mining industry has had a long and illustrious history in Cape Breton. There is a lot at stake here, people's jobs, their lives, their dignity, the health of their communities. The government has not consulted with them although it said it would. It has manipulated people and the process aimed at dissolution and divestiture.

This is why the NDP caucus is so opposed to closure and to what the government is doing. That is why we feel so strongly that the situation has to be studied. This goes beyond the rather narrow confines of the bill as the government has outlined it.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned 65 times for closure in regard to different bills is getting beyond the point of being ridiculous. Anyhow we are here to discuss Bill C-11 and the impact it will have on the eastern part of Canada.

This is the government's latest attempt to ruin the economy of Canada's east coast, especially Cape Breton. Let it be clear that I am not in favour of government running much of anything, especially a mining company. This has been proven time after time after time by the utter failure in results when government gets involved in things.

The Prime Minister's latest so-called success story is to travel there to announce the creation of a new call centre. Does he seriously believe it makes good use of the talents and skills of Canadians and of the natural resource of coal to ask the miners of Cape Breton to become telephone operators? Or should the miners sit at home and let their wives earn the family bread and butter? These are some of the questions that are being asked down there.

Since I first came here in 1993 when the constituents of Okanagan—Shuswap sent me to Ottawa, delegations from Cape Breton have been asking parliament to do something to save the coal mining industry. Studies show there is plenty of coal in the ground. The location and facilities on hand for export are great. Skilled workers are on hand. There is a long tradition of mining coal and a fully developed community infrastructure.

The only thing B.C. had for its northeast coal was the coal itself hundreds of miles from the coast, but B.C. has been exporting to Japan. It built the infrastructure from scratch and had to convince workers and families to move there. Cape Breton had all of that but government has done such a poor job of managing the mines that the taxpayers have been on the hook.

I want to talk about that just for a second. Let us look at the money that has been poured into Devco. The miners have not seen any result of that. The mine is being shut down. Taxpayers and members in the House of Commons would like to know what happened to all of the funds and what is happening to all of the assets. Let us have a public inquiry. Let us see where the money has been going. Let us see who has really benefited. Let us find out to whom they are related. Let us find out what has been going on at Devco because for sure the miners have not been getting it.

The Senate has held hearings and studies have been done but the government has ignored the most basic thing, running the business well. Even excellent businessmen have a tough time with today's high payroll taxes and red tape business climate in Canada.

The government decided to appoint its own mismanagement team and had that team send one year plans and five year plans to Ottawa for approval. In some of its decisions, despite building great port facilities and having a unique location beside the ocean, it chose to abandon all foreign markets. Let us look at it. We spend years to develop foreign markets for customers. When a conscious decision is made, as the people the government appointed to run Devco made, to let the foreign markets go, to let those markets slide and not care, the markets turn away. When we go back to them, those markets have already found other countries that will supply the coal that we denied them. Try to get those markets back. That is not the fault of the miners; it is the fault of those the government put in charge.

For example, union representatives went along with management to visit Mexico. The united mine workers promised there would be no work stoppage if Mexico would buy Cape Breton coal. Mexico signed on but the government team signed off. Union workers even agreed to take significantly less than standard coal mining wages. It is a tough, dirty, dangerous job but they agreed to take lower wages to ensure our coal could compete and the community could keep the jobs.

With regard to Devco, I have never seen management-labour relations so bad. In fact, they are the worst I have seen. Devco even refused to show the union its books to work out acceptable contracts.

I have to admit on some grounds the work was tough. They had problems in some spots, particularly in the hanging wall, the roof of the tunnel. They kept shutting down time and again. It was run so badly they finally had to eliminate all customers except Nova Scotia Power.

The supply of coal got so low that Devco agreed to allow American coal to be imported directly by Nova Scotia Power. It was raised already in the House, but I really have to wonder when we have the coal and can supply the coal but somebody makes the decision that we have to import the coal, we have to look at who is involved and how much money is involved in the transportation of the coal. We know it is not from people in Canada. We know the coal is coming in from offshore so we have to stop and think who would haul that coal for Canada.

[An hon. member]

The NHL?

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No, it is a shipping firm.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Is it CSL?

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yeah, it would be CSL. That is held by, what is his name?

[An hon. member]

The finance minister of the Liberal government.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yes, the finance minister of the Liberal government.

Naturally, being nice, honest and hardworking people, I have to wonder when we talk about job creation and helping out the miners just exactly what the government has been doing. I would say that it certainly gave the miners the shaft while it closed the mine down. That would be my way of looking at it. I do not think I am wrong but I am willing to accept that maybe I am.

Meanwhile out in Alberta, to comply with the government's promises made at Kyoto, Japan without adequate consultation with business and industry here at home, at least some great experiments are being done to reduce carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. In Alberta technology has been invented that can actually bury carbon dioxide in the coal seams so that for every molecule of carbon dioxide taken out in order to clean up our air, we get back two molecules of usable methane gas. Experts predict this will allow Alberta to bury, they call it sequester, all carbon dioxide from all the coal they export and expect to burn in their coal fired power plants in the next 500 years and make money while doing it.

Where is the new technology for coal back east? Instead of technology it brings in call centres. I go back to what I originally said. The government is trying to force the miners of Cape Breton to become telephone operators. I have to wonder exactly where the government got the brilliant idea to go this route.

Eventually the government got the brilliant idea to privatize the coal mining operations. Would we not expect the privatization to be completed before it did a shutdown, before the workers left because they lost hope of making a future for themselves and their families in that part of Canada, before they gave up their foreign markets? That was so tough to get in the first place but the government gave it away lock, stock and barrel. Here we are today looking at Bill C-11 which is trying to get the government off the hook after so many years of mismanaging one of the country's greatest natural resources, the coal of Cape Breton.

Men who went down to the mines as teenagers still do not have enough years of service combined with their ages to qualify for any pension under the plan because they are still too young. These men are supposed to be retrained. Maybe they will become telephone operators at the Prime Minister's new call centre but I doubt it.

Maybe the Liberals will move in some other centre, like New Brunswick's role as the registration centre for all Canadian firearms, and the Prime Minister can turn Cape Breton coal miners into federal bureaucrats. Maybe that is the game plan, I do not know.

Before I close I would like to quote Mr. Murphy:

We feel that handing off of the Nova Scotia Power Inc. supply contract to foreign suppliers is an unacceptable situation. We decided back in May to do something about it by forming a worker's co-op and submitting the bid for the Devco assets through the Nesbitt Burns process. Our bid was rejected, as was a bid put forward by Donkin Resource Limited, which is determined to press on with opening the Donkin Mine with the support of the community and groups such as our co-op, which is ready to invest in the project to ensure that at least some of NFPI coal is supplied by Cape Bretoners.

Mr. Murphy also goes on to question why the federal government would rather hand over a lucrative contract to a foreign company when the coal could be supplied locally. That is the question. Why would the government do it, unless there is something for somebody else's pocket?

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

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 Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I see a quorum.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

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.

[An hon. member]

Right.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

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.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity to engage in this debate. Essentially the point I want to bring before the House is that enough is enough.

I want to engage hon. members in the summary of the bill which says that this is an act to provide for the disposition of substantially all the assets of the corporation and for the dissolution and the winding up of its affairs. The purpose is to enable the private sector to acquire the mining assets so that the government can exit from the coal mining business; to provide for the continuation of existing jurisdiction with respect to labour relations, occupational health and safety, et cetera; and to permit legal actions to be brought against the crown, which is no small matter.

The most relevant clauses are clause 2 which provides for the sale or otherwise disposition of all or substantially all of its assets and to do everything necessary for and incidental to the closing out of the affairs. Clause 3 has to do with the continuing liability of the crown for outstanding issues relating to the corporation.

I am rather hoping that National Post is not listening to the debate, because those who say the issue is that the government has no business in these kinds of enterprises may well have a case with respect to the particular enterprise. I am not one who simply says that we walk away from all our social responsibilities to communities, but there are points at which we say enough is enough. Surely we have come to a point in our history where government cannot or should not continue to support businesses that are no longer viable. Surely enough is enough.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find that we do not have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being a quorum, the debate shall continue.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of the member opposite who has now produced an audience for us.

My essential point was the question as to when is enough enough? To listen to members opposite, one questions whether enough is ever enough.

In the course of the last 30 years, the Government of Canada has put $1.6 billion into this enterprise. In addition, the Government of Canada has put in an additional $44 million in the fiscal year 1998-99, another $86 million has been allocated for the year 1999-2000 and an anticipated $86 million is set aside for the fiscal year ending in the year 2001.

The Canadian taxpayer has a legitimate question: When is enough enough? When should the government get out of this business? When are the good people of Cape Breton, the capable people of Cape Breton, going to recognize that this is no longer a viable enterprise, recognize that there is a new economy, that they can participate in the new economy and enjoy the prosperity seen in many other parts of Canada?

The point of the bill is to organize the affairs of Devco so that it can be sold. The member opposite is concerned about the issue of whether it will be sold to a foreign buyer. I suppose if this was such a viable enterprise, there presumably are Canadian buyers available to purchase the assets.

The hon. member also mentioned the fact that there is $1 billion worth of coal. There may well be $1 billion worth of coal—I do not dispute his figure—but if it costs $2 billion to get to $1 billion of coal, then it does not make a lot of sense.

In order to make this as viable a transition as possible, the government engaged the services of Nesbitt Burns Inc. to sell the saleable assets. The assets include the Prince and Phalen collieries, the Donkin mine site, the corporation's coal pier and railway, its coal preparation plant and related mine infrastructure. Hopefully the purchase of these assets will occur sooner rather than later.

In order to make this a viable sale, the government has acknowledged that Devco has liabilities and is transferring the liabilities unto itself. There is something in the order of an expectation of $100 million environmental cleanup. No purchaser is going to purchase this mine with that liability. The government has taken on that liability.

In addition, the government has set aside something in the neighbourhood of $100 million for workmen's compensation claims. Again, no purchaser, whether Canadian or foreign, whether there is $1 billion in the ground or not, is going to take on that kind of liability.

Also, the government has set aside something in the order of $200 million plus for future pension liabilities. Again, no purchaser is going to take on these kinds of liabilities.

The numbers get to be a little staggering after a while. We talk about $1.6 billion over 30 years, then add in another $44 million in 1998-99, another $86 million in 1999-2000 and another $86 million in 2000-01. We set aside another $400 million or $500 million for liabilities which may arise by virtue of environment or workmen's compensation or future pension liability, but apparently enough is still not enough.

In addition to what the government directly takes on, there are additional issues that the government takes on in an indirect way through such organizations as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA as it known so well by members opposite.

Since 1987 ACOA has put $249 million into the riding. It is anticipated that it will put another $39 million into the island over the course of the next four years. Again, it is a considerable sum of money to adjust the living conditions of those who will be affected by this closing.

Then we have the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, or ECBC. In the past 10 years ECBC has put $97 million into the island. It is anticipated that it will put a further $36 million into the island over the course of the next four years. Again, what is enough? Apparently to members opposite it is never enough. There is never enough.

I thought that in the last election and in subsequent polling the taxpayers were pretty darn clear with the government that these kinds of things cannot continue.

We are quite prepared to be responsible with assistance. We are prepared to be responsible with assistance so that people can enter into the new economy, but this will not continue to be a continuous gravy train and a continuous drain on the resources of the government and the taxpayers' generosity. I would submit that in fact the taxpayer has been extremely generous with this situation for some arguably legitimate reasons, but there are times when one has to bring things to a close.

I was kind of perplexed when one of the previous speakers from the Canadian Alliance said that that the moneys which were recently put in, something like $12 million recently announced for a call centre, was a total waste of money, yet the member for Sydney—Victoria who spoke immediately prior to me was quite praiseworthy of the government's initiative in his riding to put that call centre there.

While a call centre may not be the leading edge of high technology, it is, however, a significant response to people who are needful of jobs. It may even be arguable that people who have been in coal mines for 20 or 25 years may or may not be suited to working in a call centre, but I suspect and I submit that not all people are coal miners and that the people of Cape Breton, in particular the children of the coal miners, might like the alternative of working at a call centre or the spinoff industries which result from the existence of a call centre in the area.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada has been most generous in this area. May I say that that has spanned a period of 30 years, that has been Liberal governments and Conservative governments, and that substantial commitment to the area has been an effort to make this kind of industry viable.

However, I submit that there are points at which one has to say enough is enough and $1.6 billion over 30 years is, in my submission, enough; $44 million in the fiscal year 1998-99 is enough; $86 million in the year 1999-2000 is enough; $86 million in 2000-01 is enough; $39 million for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is enough; and $36 million for ECBC over the next four years is enough. Those moneys are substantial. They reflect an enormous commitment on the part of the Government of Canada and in my view this bill deserves support from all members of the House.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, this debate sadly is faced with closure and that really has been eating at me because democracy is about talking. It is about working through issues. It is about taking the time. Every time the government invokes closures, it is like being told “Sit down and be quiet”. It is really tiring. There have been so many debates in which I have not been able to participate because the government has invoked closure. That is not what democracy is.

There are times when one can understand that possibly a debate should be closed, but not after two hours, not after two days, not after two weeks. We are here, elected to represent the people who put their faith in us and every time we want to say something we are cut off. I had the good fortune to be able to make it in on this debate, but on so many others I have not been able to.

This afternoon in Oral Question Period I listened to the Minister of Industry talk about all the benefits of globalization and how Canadians should be so thankful for globalization and the fact that foreign investment is at an all time high in this country. What the people in Cape Breton are facing is globalization. Their mine is going to be sold and the people who live in that community, who wanted to put together a co-operative approach to buying out the coal mine and using it for their own benefit to benefit their community, are not even being considered. We do not know who is being considered, but it is certainly not the people of Cape Breton Island.

The Atlantic provinces and Cape Breton have a long history of driving their people out, of having no place for their children to stay to work and live.

My father was born in Cape Breton and had to leave. He came from a big family of 21 children. There was nothing for him to stay for in his home province. He had to leave and go to the Yukon where he lived out the rest of his life, but his heart was always in his home. It was always in Cape Breton and it was a place he saw only once again after the end of the second world war in which he served.

I do not believe our country should be doing that to its citizens, making efforts to drive them out rather than keeping opportunities within the places where they were born. This is a huge country and it is very culturally diverse. People from Cape Breton are very different from people in the Yukon. The people of the eastern Arctic are completely different culturally from those people in the prairie provinces.

We have mobility in this country but it still does not make it easy to be able to afford to move. It does not make it easy to be humiliated and driven out of one's own province to seek work elsewhere, probably with barely a penny in one's pocket.

What we are facing is a possibility of Colombian buyers purchasing this mine. What would that mean for the people of Cape Breton? Certainly not putting their own people to work in these mines, if the mine even stays open.

So far the Canadian government has spent about $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion on the mine. That is not a small amount. It is a very significant amount and it has meant that people from that area had a chance to work and live. But the mine gave back as well. Up to $6 billion over those years went back into the community, back into people's lives, funding schools, health care and post-secondary education.

Should we have before us a bill that will shut down the mine and deal with the assets? How is it dealing with the employees, the people who have put their lives, blood and health into the coal mining industry which has a very proud and long tradition, not only in Cape Breton but through the Yukon and the north of Canada?

Miners have a tradition. They know that when they go down into the ground, their lives are at stake and they do that often not for extraordinary wages but to put food on the table for their families. These people who have worked and lived and put their souls into this industry are not going to get the same benefits as other Canadian agencies that have been sold off.

VIA employees will get a five year deal of 100% of their pension and health benefits for their families, but why are the Devco employees not getting those same benefits? Is this returning to the whole idea of globalization just to get away with whatever we can, to give our citizens, our employees the least that we possibly can so that those who would benefit from globalization, the very rich, get everything and the very poor get a few scraps that come from the table?

The people of Cape Breton, the men in those mines, have had to stand up over and over again to demand even basic courtesy for the work they have done. They have had to go underground in protest and say that they will not come out until they get fairness. They have had to go on illegal strikes to even have ministers listen to them. It took ages and ages for even the basic courtesy of a meeting to go ahead.

These decisions were made in 1995. It was only made public 1999 that these families, the people of Cape Breton, would be facing the loss of their jobs and again an out-migration from their communities. They would have to watch their children and grandchildren leave and not stay to build their communities.

In summary, I want to stress that I am really upset that the government has again invoked closure. It is becoming a routine practice. At one time it was considered absolutely extraordinary for closure to be invoked on a debate. I am tired of being told to sit down and be quiet, that I have said enough and that they do not want to hear from me.

I was elected to come here and to be a part of a democracy. Whether the government wants listen to me or not, I have the right to have a say, which is what democracy is about. However, it is being taken away from us over and over again because the government does not want to listen. It does not want to hear. It does have the power to say sit down and be quiet but that goes against our tradition of democracy and a fair hearing.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I find it a very tough issue.

When I decided to become a member of parliament 13 years ago, one of the things I said I would try to do as a member of parliament from downtown Toronto was not just to talk about issues or concerns that were specific to my community or my region, but to attempt, from time to time, where it was appropriate, to speak on issues that concerned every region of the country and especially speak on issues where people's voices really needed to be heard.

I think that is the essence of this Chamber. We respect, we admire and we do not want to hold back those in our community who are advantaged. Ultimately we are here in this Chamber to speak out for those men and women in our country who are experiencing a moment when they are truly disadvantaged. That is why I am in this Chamber. I am here for no other reason.

We have in front of us today a situation where we have 1,500 families whose voices need to be heard. I applaud and I want to let the member for Yukon and other members know that we on this side of the House have a duty and a responsibility, even though we are in government, to listen and to care about what is happening to those 1,500 families.

We should let Canadians know that after the debate in the House today this bill will go to a committee of the House of Commons. We all know that in committee the government has the opportunity to amend, alter or change legislation if constructive and creative ideas are put forward that can meet not only the local interests but also the national interests. It is important for us today to let Canadians know that when we go into committee that some of those creative and constructive options can be explored.

I want to put on the floor of the House of Commons two ideas today that could be explored in committee and which the government might consider the possibility of accepting. The first idea has to do with the board of directors that will be managing the pension fund for those 1,500 miners, those 1,500 families that are involved in this.

I come from downtown Toronto where pension boards and pension situations are constantly being upgraded and renewed in this day and age. I do not think it is an unreasonable request, an unreasonable consideration that we have a representative from the coal miners on that board. If that is an instrument by which we can create hope, transparency and some feelings for those families, then we should debate and explore that idea in committee.

The other idea that I believe needs consideration has to do with the tar ponds, the environmental disaster with the toxic pool that exists in that community. There is a real environmental opportunity that might exist in this disastrous situation that we are facing. Why could we not consider the idea of giving many of those miners, those who want to be involved in environmental renewal and environmental change, the opportunity of working on the tar ponds disaster?

We will have to deal with this crisis sooner or later. Why could we not begin considering using some of that highly productive and useful workforce from that island? Why could we not employ them as part of an environmental force?

Quite frankly, when that disaster is ultimately cleared up, it could give them a capacity to work not just in their own community but it would give us an expertise that we could use in other regions, not only of Canada but other regions of the world. In other words, we could use that environmental disaster as a test case where once we do clean it up, the men, the women, all the environmental engineers and so on who were focused on dealing with that problem could be an export possibility in terms of the human capital.

By the way, some of these ideas are not my ideas. They are thoughts and ideas that have come from members of parliament who have served that community and served that region.

In the three minutes I have left I want to tell a story about an author I have grown to love over my years as an MP. His name is John Howard Griffin. He wrote a book entitled Black Like Me . He was a white author from southern Texas who wrote in the mid-forties. He specialized in discrimination and racism. One day some of his black neighbours and friends said to him “You will never understand what black is about until you are inside our skin”.

John Howard moved to New Orleans where he had his skin pigmented. He lived and worked in a very tough situation. Six months later he went back to his own community where he used to do the Sunday mass collections. His own best friend rejected him because he did not recognize him.

We in the House have to understand the difficulties faced by those 1,500 families in Cape Breton. We have to use the House and the committee of the House to come up with constructive and creative opportunities so we can continue as a nation to always be there for the people who really need a voice when they are up against difficulties.

When we take this bill to committee, I appeal to members to design some constructive and doable ideas so that the people in Cape Breton will feel as proud, as excited and as hopeful about their community as any other community in Canada.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I speak on this issue with a degree of knowledge, since I was the Bloc Quebecois critic for natural resources for a while, in fact, at the time the government decided to shut down Devco's operations.

I listened carefully to the Liberal Party member, who hopes that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, or perhaps it will be the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, will review this bill and propose amendments.

A major problem here is that a committee, and I say this with all due respect for committees, will sometimes come to certain conclusions. However, if cabinet and the Prime Minister do not agree, the committee will unfortunately have to forget about its good recommendations and go in the direction shown by cabinet.

Therefore, since money is involved—the amounts are important but not exorbitant; on the contrary, they are too small—I am afraid that the minister's directives will be rather strict and the committee will have little leeway.

The Liberal Party member suggests, among other things, that the miners could be represented on the board, perhaps by a union representative.

We all know that a single representative on a board may be listened to but, no matter how well informed the representative from the mining sector may be, he can never convince the board to overstep its mandate, which will be defined in the legislation, since the act specifies the amounts involved. It cannot increase the moneys that would otherwise be available to the miners who are being laid off in this sad episode.

There are already some lessons to be learned from this situation. For years the federal government has been meddling in regional development. As early as 1960, it was recommended to diversify the economy of Cape Breton, which was essentially based on coal mining.

Unfortunately, these recommendations were never implemented and the federal government kept on pouring money into coal mining. Hundreds, thousands of jobs were created this way, but strictly in coal mining.

Today, as the government is getting ready to stop supporting this industry, which sadly has not been profitable for years, we can see the economy collapsing in the area because the diversification announced and expected 40 years ago did not take place.

This is by no means the only misguided example of the federal government's interference in regional development. A case in point is Atlantic groundfish. There is no more cod. Sadly, it was over-fished while the federal government was responsible for ensuring the sustainability of the stocks.

In many cases, the federal government may not be the best actor, it may not be in the best position to know what is important for a particular region. Here in Ottawa, everything is fine, of course. We look around us. The economy is relatively prosperous; the number of research centres is increasing. Just because things are going well in this bubble all around Parliament Hill does not mean the same is true everywhere. The Gaspé is another place with a number of problems which have made the headlines in recent weeks. Today, we are talking about Cape Breton.

There are not just the laid-off workers to think about. These 1,000 workers have families. If we look at the impact of the economic collapse resulting from the Devco shutdown, we are talking about approximately 6,000 people—men, women and children—who will suffer the consequences. This is tragic in an area where Devco held up the whole economy.

Earlier, the Liberal Party member mentioned that these employees could perhaps be put to work cleaning up the ecological aftermath. This labour force could indeed be used, but this is to lose sight of what should have been done and what the unions suggested at the time.

Devco employees have vested rights. For one thing, they have been paying into a pension. Some of these employees are a few years away from retirement; others have much longer to go. If Devco itself had made an effort to do something about these clean-up operations, Devco employees would have been assigned to these duties as part of their regular duties. Their pension would have continued to grow and at some point these people could have retired.

At the time, the union had done some fairly specific calculations showing that retirements would be staggered out over the period between now, when the mine is being closed, and the time the clean-up was complete. The work force could thus be gradually reduced to a minimum. All these employees could have retired with a reasonable pension, with families looked after, with children who could have continued to grow up in their community.

By abruptly pulling the floor out from under these workers, the security they have accumulated has just disappeared. Even if they are given jobs, they will not have the assurance of a decent retirement on a reasonable retirement income, no matter how hard they work.

If the committee could manage to convince the minister that he needs to sweeten his offer so that the workers can remain with Devco, this would be a considerable improvement, and the ecological cleanup referred to by the Liberal member could be carried out.

I trust that the committee will manage to do so, but I sometimes lose hope when I see the best ideas and the best initiatives running headlong into a wall of misunderstanding, for reasons that we do not know and cannot understand. The plan may seem to make some economic sense in the short term, but in the medium and long term it will result in personal disasters on an unacceptable scale.

I see I do not have much time left. Hon. members will have understood by now that Bill C-11 is unacceptable to the Bloc Quebecois, both from the legal point of view—and we will be coming back to that—and from the human point of view. This bill is, first and foremost, unacceptable in the way it treats human beings.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to begin my remarks by commenting on the terrible state of affairs in the House of Commons when the idea of time allocation and closure is entered into so lightly and so frequently. Instead of being the exception to the rule, it has become the norm, at least in the short period of time I have been in the House of Commons.

I cannot tell the number of times I have had to stand here and criticize the government for abusing the idea of free and open debate in the House of Commons by invoking closure and time allocation anytime it is convenient for the government to do so or anytime it is worried about being politically embarrassed by the subject matter at hand. Since 1993 I believe it has been over 60 times that the Liberal government, the ruling party, has invoked the idea of limiting debate in the House of Commons. We came here to take part in the democratic process, to speak freely and raise the issues we believe are important and not to be silenced every time we turn around by a heavy-handed ruling party that sees fit to silence people when debate is clearly so important.

Having heard the members who actually reside in Cape Breton speak passionately about the bill earlier today, the people of Nova Scotia do not want the debate to be terminated. The people who live in the communities in Cape Breton want their voices to be heard. They want a free and open debate that explores all the aspects of the closure and the bill which will oversee the shutdown of the Devco corporation.

In what limited debate there has been we have heard from the government side misinformation that borders on negligence in not having had the courtesy to find out what the true facts are about Devco before the government invokes measures that will see its termination. We heard speeches earlier today that border on being intellectually dishonest.

I heard a member say that the government has poured $1.7 billion of what he called taxpayer generosity into these coal mines and that enough is enough, that we have to terminate this flushing good money after bad. The hon. member failed to point out, whether deliberately or through naivety and if it was through naivety it would be irresponsible naivety, that the Devco corporation was not just a coal mine.

Does anyone who does not live in Cape Breton realize that Devco was not just a coal mine? When it was founded Devco was a coal mine and an economic development corporation. The coal mine in fact was successful as a stand alone enterprise. For many years it showed a profit. It served a valuable function by providing coal for the Nova Scotia Power Corporation and it operated in a viable manner.

The other side of Devco in the years from 1967 to 1980 was economic development. All kinds of things were tried on the island to stimulate and diversify the economy. Some of those ventures succeeded and some of them failed. Not all of that $1.7 billion went into coal mining.

It would have been a lot more honest had that been pointed out at the front end. We would have expected someone from the government side at least to have been honest enough to portray those figures in an accurate way. The government also failed to point out that in that same period of time, the coal mining aspect of Devco produced $5 billion worth of product and economic activity in Cape Breton, $5 billion with a spinoff effect. Everyone knows that a dollar spent in today's economy gets spent four times before it reaches its final state of repose, which is usually in some American shareholder's pocket.

I am in the middle of my speech and a lot of the comments I am making are being addressed to the government side. I cannot help but note there are virtually no government members in the House of Commons. it would be irresponsible for them to push this legislation through and not even have the courtesy to be in the House of Commons to listen to what little debate we are going to have.