House of Commons Hansard #107 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was devco.

Topics

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I see a quorum.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, what do the federal Liberals and the Alberta Tories have in common? They are able to take large groups of workers and band them together into civil disobedience. The health care workers of Alberta had to use civil disobedience to get a fair contract from the Alberta government. The Cape Breton coal miners, who had to go underground in the coldest part of the year, suffered indignities by this government through the riot goons that it brought forward. Instead of consultation, it brought pepper spraying RCMP officers to stamp them out. It did not work. With the courage and dignity that only Cape Bretoners have, they forced this government into binding arbitration. We saw the agreement that was made the other day.

This binding arbitration is a slap in the face to the government, especially to the Minister of Natural Resources who said that under no circumstances would this package be reopened. Again, he was wrong and the Liberal party was wrong. All the government had to do was deal in good, open and transparent faith and it would never have gone this far.

Before I was politely interrupted by my colleague from Cape Breton, I wanted to say that the government's economic policies are dividing people ever so greatly. The government looks after its friends in the Liberal Party. I encourage everyone in the Liberal Party to take a trip to Cape Breton and see the famous Ding Wall. I do not mean David Dingwall. I mean the Ding Wall itself. He spent a lot of money to build a rock wall in the middle of a town. It is an absolute fiasco. It is an embarrassment to all Nova Scotians that this person, who was the Minister of Health at that time, could advocate spending a million taxpayers' dollars for a rock wall in Cape Breton. I know there are a lot of rocks in Cape Breton, but most of them were in that minister's head for that kind of expenditure.

What should have happened to that money and what should happen to the rest of the funding is that it go toward the care and fair treatment of Cape Breton coal miners and their families for long term economic growth in that beautiful part of the province.

The government calls for change. We all call for change. What I ask all members of the opposition parties and the government to do is to remind themselves of the people who are looking for small change on the streets. There are more and more people doing that on a daily basis. They are turning to charities looking for more and more help. I cannot help but say how proud I am, as an Atlantic Canadian, that Atlantic Canadians throughout the four provinces banded together and raised over $3.6 million for the IWK Grace Telethon, again showing the generosity and spirit of Atlantic Canadians when it comes to people in need.

On behalf of two of the finest people I have ever met in Cape Breton, two miners, one former miner and a current miner, Mr. Jose Pimentel and Mr. Vic Tomiczek, I want to say how hard they have struggled to keep their families going and how hard they have fought for the common workers and their common man.

It is not just the federal Liberals who are pounding away at Cape Breton coal miners, it is also what the provincial Tory Party is doing. In fact in the recent Nova Scotia election, Jane Purves, the minister of education for Nova Scotia, had a postcard campaign that very wrongly suggested that because SYSCO was open, that hospital beds in Nova Scotia would be closed. She very effectively and very meanly split and divided the mainland Nova Scotians with that of Cape Breton. I found it absolutely despicable that a woman of her talents could use such a low ball and low road campaign in order to get herself elected. I can assure the House that from this moment on we will be going after her in the next election to ensure her defeat.

The current minister of health for Nova Scotia also said, and I quote, “Possibly children with disabilities who need access to the IWK could rely on groups like the Lions Club or the Kiwanis or other service clubs to find their transportation needs to the Halifax Centre”.

This is from the so-called passionate, progressive Conservatives. There is nothing passionate and there is nothing conservative about it. It is meanspirited to balance their books on the backs of the disabled and on the backs of the needy. They are even recommending a program where they take away formula from children who require a special formula in order to digest their food. It is absolutely mean.

The Liberals have done the same. They refuse to negotiate in a fair, open and transparent manner with Cape Breton coal miners and their families or even to show respect for the two members of parliament from Cape Breton who stand in the House on an almost daily basis, who were in committee, and who brought forth very comparable amendments to adjust the reasonable debate that should be happening.

Canadian Airlines in its pension outfit has an employee trustee on the board. All Cape Breton is asking for is that we have the same. That is not a very unreasonable request. I am very proud to say that the federal Conservatives, the Bloc and the Canadian Alliance support the New Democrats in that initiative.

I can only hope that backbench Liberals can put pressure on the Minister of Natural Resources to say that a representative from Cape Breton absolutely should be on the board of trustees when it comes to pension liabilities. It only makes sense.

The distribution of the funds will be in Cape Breton. Would it not make sense to have people from Cape Breton on the board administering the fund? Why would we want someone from Toronto, Ontario, Saskatchewan or B.C., or anywhere else for that matter, administering a fund that is solely meant for Cape Bretoners?

Besides the pensions and the unfairness of the Liberals, Cape Breton miners in their heart of hearts would tell them: “Stick the pensions where the sun don't shine. Just give us work. We want to work and be able to look after our families”. Most Canadians from coast to coast to coast want the opportunity for gainful employment.

There is no reason in the world why there could not be gainful employment in Cape Breton for the miners, the SYSCO workers, and everyone else on that beautiful island. On that note I encourage members of the Liberal Party who have never visited Cape Breton to do so. If they did, their government would not be so meanspirited toward the pensioners, the miners and their families. By the way, some of the women will be coming to Ottawa to demand more fairness and justice for their husbands and families.

It is a sin that I as a member from Nova Scotia and a member of the great NDP caucus have to stand in the House to state the obvious to the government. The actions of the so-called newfound left leaning Liberals, as their Prime Minister is saying in Berlin, with their new Canadian way are talking about compassion, fairness, openness and transparency, speak louder than words.

When the Minister of Natural Resources is asked a question about Devco he almost looks like he is bothered by the question and wonders what he is doing answering these pesky question from the NDP on Devco? looks around with absolutely no interest at all and thinks that the issue has already been settled. That is a sin.

What should happen is exactly what happened with the pay equity debate. We had a minister, Marcel Masse, who showed complete ignorance toward the pay equity debate. He stood in the House time and time again and said that they would not deal with it. He was removed. We had another minister and within two months the pay equity issue was settled.

What should happen is the Minister of Natural Resources should step aside on the Devco issue. We should bring in a minister who is at least willing to listen, at least willing to understand the issues of Cape Breton, at least willing to sit down and talk with the two federal representatives from Cape Breton, not an unelected Senator Boudreau or unelected other people who are appointed by the government. The new minister could sit down and talk with the people of Cape Breton and the communities of Cape Breton to find out what the long term objectives should be for that beautiful island in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia.

In conclusion, I only hope and pray that the Liberal government will listen to the amendments brought forth by the two members from Cape Breton and that we move forward with a very positive resolution for the people of Cape Breton, especially its coal miners.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Wendy Lill NDP Dartmouth, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again to defend the interests of the people of Cape Breton against the government's plans as expressed in Bill C-11.

We are now at report stage. It is clear that the orders to government MPs have come down, which means no reasonable offers to change the bill are being accepted. We have seen government MPs oppose changes proposed by the duly elected representatives from Cape Breton to give Islanders some control over their future within the draconian regime set up under Bill C-11. Their reasonable offers to make the bill better have been shot down. This shows me that Bill C-11 is another legislative attempt, another piece of the Liberal government plan to dismantle the major institutions that build our country. The Liberals may deny this, but they have to learn that their actions have consequences.

The situation facing Cape Breton today has been brought about by some major government policy failures of the 1980s. I would like to take a moment to put on record some of these failures. Devco faced a number of problems in the 1980s, notably the impact of the 1981-82 recession and a disastrous fire that forced the permanent closure of No. 26 colliery in Glace Bay. Adding to these events were several policy decisions that had a direct impact on Devco's future. Since the 1984 loss of No. 26 Devco:

—has been living from hand to mouth without a long term plan for a reasonable, stable coal industry, hence the present situation.

That was a quote by Kent in 1996. Another quote reads:

Faced with a loss of production from No. 26 Devco opted to develop the geologically troubled Phalen mine while leaving undeveloped the Donkin deposit containing an estimated 300,000 tonnes. With the closure of the 26-year-old Lingan Mine in 1991, Devco was left as a two mine operation with no plans to develop a third mine. The shortsightedness of the approach was demonstrated when Phalen's premature shutdown precipitated the current crisis for Devco employees and their community.

Secondly, the Westray misadventure was harmful to Devco's future. There is some evidence that backers within government of the ill-fated mine were motivated by anti-public ownership bias toward Devco.

This was a comment by Dean Jobb in his book Calculated Risk: Greed, Politics and the Westray Tragedy .

In any case, the $100 million in federal and provincial funds lost on that project would have gone a considerable distance toward paying the cost of developing the Donkin deposit. Furthermore, short term arrangements between Westray mine operators and Nova Scotia Power had the long term effect of forcing Devco to supply coal to Nova Scotia Power at its Trenton generator at a substantially lesser price than Nova Scotia Power was paying at other generating plants. All this left Devco in a catch 22 situation.

After compromising Devco's ability to achieve a viable future with questionable decisions during the 1980s the Conservative government started the new decade by ordering Devco to become self-sufficient. This mandate was renewed by the Liberals after they took over in 1993. Self-sufficiency was accepted by top management of Devco as a legitimate goal.

However Devco never really had a chance to achieve self-sufficiency. Until geological problems at Phalen caused losses to mount in recent years, Devco was making money on its coal operations, but it failed to achieve self-sufficiency because it was required to make larger than anticipated pension payouts, some $241 million over five years. These higher payouts were to be completed in 1999 but then it was too late. In May 1996 Senator Allan J. MacEachen stated that the loss of Devco:

—would create a major catastrophe and a social disaster for communities and their families.

Obviously in the year 2000 Cape Breton is in even worse shape than it was before. Cape Breton is struggling with a 23% unemployment rate. Today Nova Scotia's unemployment rate has gone down to 12%. It has recovered somewhat, but in Cape Breton nothing has changed. The unemployment rate at 20% is only slightly lower than in 1996. Employment and participation levels are almost identical.

If the loss of Devco jobs were a major catastrophe in 1996, it is even more of a major catastrophe now. The federal government has an historical responsibility to the coal industry in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia. Over the past 15 years the federal government has failed in its responsibility.

Cape Breton has the coal resource, a skilled workforce and a customer in the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. That should have been a recipe for a stable and successful coal industry that would have allowed a slow but sure growth of alternative employment, but through incompetence or bad faith the federal government has dropped the ball. It has been negligent and it should be required to pay for its negligence.

If the government truly believes in the concept of responsible government, it would take responsibility for its actions over the past two decades. It would work with the people of Cape Breton and their elected members to make Bill C-11 a better piece of legislation, one that would strengthen the embattled community of Cape Breton and not further undermine it.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Rick Laliberte NDP Churchill River, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to the motions in Group No. 2 which are before us. The hon. member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria certainly put a lot of thought into an issue that impacts their communities. The whole island will feel the repercussions of Bill C-11. These motions were put forward to correct some wrongs and oversights which occurred in the context of the bill.

It seems to be a challenge that at least one employee representative will sit on the Devco board of directors. It is not an unimaginable practice in any other corporation, community or sector. Providing an employee representative to sit on the board of directors is an honourable gesture. Any employee who has served in the industry, in the company and in the community would have a lot to offer in the decisions to be made in the very short term and in the long term in dealing with the whole issue of Devco.

I will give a brief explanation of the second motion in this grouping. There is a residency requirement for members of the board of directors. The majority of the directors of Devco should live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the corporation's decisions. These decisions are major in impact and in concern, as highlighted by my hon. colleagues on this side. We are trying to get government members to realize that these amendments could make drastic changes in how the bill unfolds and how the decisions in the whole industry unfold in Cape Breton.

We are saying that the majority of the directors of Devco should live on Cape Breton Island. It is a small request but it is a major request. We do not need to transport people from all over Canada to serve the best interests of an industry and community in that region. Cape Bretoners are very capable of handling their own affairs, and certainly a lot of the solutions are with Cape Bretoners.

It has certainly been highlighted and recommended, dealing with the directors of Devco, that representatives of the employees' pension association ensure that one-third of the directors come from the employees' pension association. The crux of this major debate and major concern of the employees is how their pensions are interpreted, administered and identified among them. It is a major issue. If they have that much vested interest and seniority in terms of the years of service in this corporation and in the industry, they should assured of one-third of the Devco board of directors. This representation is a crucial part of the motion.

Selecting at least half of the membership of the body designated to manage the workers' pension fund is another motion that has been brought forward. If the body designated to manage the pension fund is created, then at least half of the people sitting on the representative body should be from the pension fund association.

These motions are common sense recommendations. It is hard to speak on common sense when everybody should have grasped the whole aspect. All the government members should take a second look at the motions that have been put forward. When the motions are voted on, they should vote with their conscience and vote for the common sense request.

The hon. members sitting with the other parties on this side of the House have been very silent on this issue. I challenge them to speak and debate these issues. These representations could certainly be taken by other sectors, other communities, other corporations, other mines in a very short while. The whole aspect of protecting workers' rights and views is of utmost importance for us, but it should be for every member of parliament. There are workers in the communities of all of our constituencies.

The whole issue of coal mining and the evolution of mining in this country and the transfer from private to public ownership and flipping back to private ownership is certainly a concern. I have experienced certain changes in ownership from public to private in my neck of the woods in dealing with the forest industry.

The forest industry in northern Saskatchewan is viewed as pristine. As of late there have been huge allocations of forest management and harvesting. The present forest management practices use mechanical harvesters. It is not like the B.C. terrain where they have to climb halfway up the mountain and then they are limited by the elevation.

The boreal forest is flat. There are no inhibitors. The only things that stand in our way are the waterways and maybe the communities. Certainly, we should not overlook that a community could be perceived to be in the way of any development. Community development, industrial development and social development should all be taken in context. In future plans, governments of the world now use sustainable development as a coined phrase for future sustainability, the integration of social, economic and environmental issues. The communities are an integral part of this development.

The Devco workers are asking that they be respected as a community of workers, as a community in Cape Breton. They should be an integral part of the development of any other industry in the region.

Going back to the forestry issue, there was an allocation of a major pulp mill just 18 miles from my community. At the time it would have been a bleaching process and huge amounts of chemicals would have been poured into the Beaver River which flows into the Churchill River. This was stopped. It was stopped because of an election. The government changed and a new attitude of policies and perceptions took place and the whole private pulp mill was dumped.

Years later it came back. Now it is a cleaner process. It is still an allocation of the forests. It is still a private pulp mill that produces paper. Who uses bleached paper? I do not know for what purpose we have to have extremely white paper. Why we have to bleach this paper and poison ourselves is beyond me. We could use paper that is more natural, which would be less harmful in its processes on our environment and our health.

A pulp mill was created. Huge allocations of the boreal forest were made, but there are no profits. In our region, every year the provincial government has to backfill all the losses for the pulp mill.

What are we doing it for? Why are we cutting these huge tracts of land from forested properties using the excuse that it is going to burn by forest fire anyway, that we take a certain percentage of harvested forest to use for paper that was deemed to be forest fire damaged anyway. They cannot see that forest fires recycle the nutrients in soil and recycle the nutrients for the many species that live in the forest. Clear cutting with mechanical harvesting by no means replenishes any nutrients in any soil or any region.

The community has to be taken into account. The whole region's economy has to be taken into account. The environmental impact has to be taken into account. The whole context has been coined as sustainability.

It is a challenge for the government to look at these motions on workers' rights and representation on the Devco boards, and workers' representation on pension associations. These are common sense requests that hon. members have put forward on Bill C-11.

I call on all members to seriously look at these motions and provide a debate on the Devco issue which impacts a certain part of our region that has contributed for the betterment of all the country. Looking at the history, they certainly have done that.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Elgin—Middlesex—London Ontario

Liberal

Gar Knutson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering 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.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The terms of the motion indicate that we should extend the time, but it does not say until when. I do not know if that means we should operate around the clock. I do not know if that means we should operate until the end of July. I do not know if it means we should go until the Prime Minister decides to call an election. Given the vagueness of the motion, I have some questions in that regard.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member should read the rules. The rules do not indicate at any point that we put forward a time. If he reads the standing orders he will realize that the motion is in order. I would ask that you call the question.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I find the motion to be in order. I have read it. If fewer than 15 members rise, the motion is deemed to be adopted. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And fewer than 15 members having risen:

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I therefore declare the motion adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-11. Motions Nos. 6 to 11 and 16 increase the participation of the people of Cape Breton on the board of Devco either by requiring an employee to be a director or specifying a percentage of the directors who must be on the board of the Devco pensioners association. This makes common sense. It speaks to a fairer and more equitable way to deal with the Devco situation. This has to provide some level of participation at the board level for either employees or former employees and pensioners.

If we go back 20 years or more with regard to labour relations, traditional industries have had some employee representation on their boards for some time. In the automobile industry, Chrysler was the first company to have representation from the UAW on its board. I am surprised that in the original legislation this had not been proposed.

The PC Party supports amendments that would provide a greater level of participation for employees and/or Devco pensioners. This would increase transparency and openness of the process and would ensure a fairer level of participation and representation for the miners.

The issues of pension and severance packages have been discussed at length in the House and at committee. There are some real inequities in the current pension structure. Under the current plan workers with less than 75 pension points, a combination of 25 years of service and 50 years of age, do not qualify. It creates some bizarre situations. Some miners with 25 years of pensionable earnings would not qualify for a pension because of the 75 pension point plan. This does not make a lot of sense.

Last week the federally appointed arbitrator ruled that miners with 25 years of mining experience would qualify for pensions regardless of age, but denied the same benefit for miners with 20 years of experience on the basis that it would be too costly. This change would allow an additional 246 miners to qualify for pensions. That is a step in the right direction. Medical benefits will be extended to 640 miners which also is a step in the right direction.

With regard to the Group No. 3 amendments, Motions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 would have the corporation's objectives continue to reflect the goal of providing increased levels of economic development—

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

Order, please. Did I hear the hon. member say that he was speaking to Group No. 3, because we are still on Group No. 2.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I see a quorum.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Madam Speaker, I apologize for having gotten ahead of myself with the amendments in Group No. 3. It is just another case of the PC Party being ahead of its time.

Clearly there are issues of fairness that have to be dealt with, and these amendments are a step in the right direction.

Among the big picture items that have to be considered is, what is the plan the government has relative to future economic development opportunities for the people of Cape Breton? For far too long Devco provided a sense of comfort in an industry which really did not have the long term sustainable viability that would provide employment and economic opportunities well into the next century. Whenever there is a change of this magnitude it creates huge social and economic upheaval.

I would hope that we would take a serious look, not just in Cape Breton but throughout Atlantic Canada, at some of the examples of other countries which have utilized various levels of tax reform as vehicles for economic development.

Probably one of the greatest examples of innovative social policy combined with innovative fiscal policy to create greater levels of economic opportunity would be that of Ireland. If we compare Ireland 10 years ago to Atlantic Canada today, we could see some significant areas of comparison and opportunity. Over the past 10 years, because of innovative policies, Ireland has had 92% growth in its GDP per capita.

I believe in Cape Breton, in Nova Scotia and in Atlantic Canada, and I think we have to get a lot more innovative about how we address economic development issues in Atlantic Canada and other regions. I would hope that the government would work with the University College of Cape Breton, Jacquelyn Thayer-Scott and some of the other innovators in Cape Breton who are working to incubate some of the small IT companies in the new economy. With the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications, we can see a stream of world leading IT companies coming out of Cape Breton into the 21st century. We need to work together to create an environment which will make that possible.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to call for a quorum count.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. member is calling for quorum.

And the count having been taken:

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I see a quorum.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Gruending NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

It is a dubious pleasure to speak to Bill C-11, the Cape Breton Development Corporation divestiture act. I say dubious because of the great hardship which the government and this bill have put upon the people of Cape Breton.

My colleagues from Cape Breton have dealt with the details of the entire bill very well in many speeches, as well as the groups of amendments. Group No. 2, which we are now on, relates to ensuring that people from the community and pensioners are on the board. This speaks very directly to a responsibility to the community and to a transparency and accountability which has been sadly lacking in the way in which the government has dealt with this legislation, and specifically the Minister of Natural Resources. I heard someone say earlier that every time we ask a question about this subject, it almost seems as if he has gravel on his seat. He does not seem to want to talk to it and he is very uncomfortable with it.

The way the Liberals have dealt with this whole issue speaks reams to their callousness and their ability to manipulate events and people in the regions.

There was an astounding lack of consultation in this whole matter. The benefits, when they were announced, were completely insufficient. I am speaking of health, pension and economic development benefits. The Devco arbitration decision, which was released on June 2, made it entirely clear that the package was inadequate, which our members, in particular our members from Cape Breton, have been saying all along.

The way in which the government dealt with the legislation, quashing the debate at second reading, was undemocratic in the extreme. It is completely uninterested in holding public hearings. That should not surprise us a bit, because that is the way it has dealt with a whole lot of other information in the recent past.

I want to concentrate on something a little different tonight, which also speaks to the heart of the matter in the second group of amendments.

If I may give a bit of context and background, this past weekend the Prime Minister of our country was in Berlin speaking to a group of what I consider to be largely social democratic governments about progressive governance. We might question initially what he was doing there. We found that it was due to his good friend, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, that he was even invited.

One may also ask what Bill Clinton was doing in a meeting talking about social democratic governance, the third way, or as the Prime Minister calls it, the Canadian way. I was reading in The New York Review of Books this past winter an article by an esteemed American economist, Robert M. Solow, called “Welfare: The Cheapest Country”. The cheapest country was the United States.

He ends his article by saying that what really distinguishes the United States is the equanimity with which the majority contemplates the poverty of a minority. So one might ask what the president of the United States was doing in a meeting talking about the third way, and secondly, what he was doing inviting our Prime Minister to talk about the third way when clearly he does not know the first thing about it. The way in which the Cape Breton Devco situation has been handled speaks entirely to that.

This weekend the Prime Minister was boasting about Canada's “mixed economy”, the third way; not private enterprise solely, not development by the states solely, but a compassionate and intelligent mix of the two. That is what our Prime Minister was talking about, but as I said, I do not really know what gives him the credentials to talk about it.

I briefly want to give a couple of examples which really do relate to Cape Breton and to the Devco situation. He says that the challenge is to seize opportunities, believing that private economic growth has to be complemented by public investment, yet we have a situation here where a mine which has been publicly owned is going to be sold off. We do not know to whom. We have no idea whether they will keep mining coal. We have no idea who will be employed. We do not even know if someone might buy this mine and shut it down, simply because they do not want to have competition from it. This does not speak to me of a government which comes at a mixed economy with any integrity or knowledge whatsoever.

The context here is that he is lecturing governments from other countries of the world, like the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. Our Prime Minister is lecturing them about the mixed economy and the third way. This might be a good standup routine for Yuk Yuks comedy, but it is not exactly what we would expect at a meeting of august members of governments from other countries.

In this context, the Prime Minister says that Canada's governments make a clear commitment to preserving the Canada pension plan. It was not that long ago, a couple of years back, when we were fighting tooth and nail to keep the government from downsizing the Canada pension plan. When it got pushed to the wall and could do nothing else, the government did not cut it as badly as it was planning to. Suddenly now it is taking credit for enhancing it. That is the way it always goes with the Liberals.

He talks about a progressive income tax system. We know from the last budget all about the progressive income tax system. Yes, it is very progressive for people who have capital gains to pay, for the more affluent in our society and for people who are dealing with stock options. It is very progressive for them, but there is not very much for the rest of us. As our party has pointed out again and again, there is very little for health care.

He brags about the employment insurance program. That will make my colleague from New Brunswick double over with humour. We have had to fight the government on the employment insurance system tooth and nail again. Even having done so, the benefits are much more difficult for people to get. It has caused a great deal of hardship for people, in particular working women.

I could go on. He talks about the government's support for students. We know all about that support. The government does admit that student debt has increased. That is about the only ray of truth I see in the document.

He finally says that governments have to find new ways to engage citizens. The government certainly has done that in Cape Breton with Devco. People are engaged in anticipating their own demise.

It is a bit rich when the Prime Minister of Canada goes to another country to, I suspect, set himself up as some wise person who will return home and call an election on the things he is talking about. When and if he does that we will be here to remind him that, despite the highfalutin words, these are mainly false and hollow promises.

In the couple of minutes left to me I want to refer to another thing which is a cruel deception being practised on the people of Cape Breton. We have been told that these mines are being shut down. We are not sure whether the coal which still exists in reserves will be mined in Cape Breton to supply coal for power generation in Cape Breton. What we do know, and it is already happening, is that coal is being hauled from Colombia to be sold to Nova Scotia Power, being hauled on ships owned by the Minister of Finance I might add. However, that is not my main point. What I want to talk about is the race to the bottom being perpetrated by this government on the people of Cape Breton and how it will impact other countries.

A mine leader from Colombia where this coal is being purchased, Francisco Ramirez Cuellar, was in Canada recently. He told us that he feared for his health and safety when he went home because he was coming to Canada to speak out about what was happening. We now have information from the inter-church committee on human rights in Latin America, dated May 29, 2000, concerning an urgent action about renewed threats against this Colombian trade unionist. As he had suspected and feared when he went home, he was followed. It says that there were at least two attempts when people in utility vehicles tried to pick him up. If they had he probably would have lost his life.

I ask myself and I ask members across the way what kind of development it is when we have these kinds of situations occurring, when people in Cape Breton are being played off against people in the third world. What are they being played off against? They are being played off against regimes which will torture and murder people who dare to unionize to improve the situation for their workers.

This is a shameful situation. When we look at the motions being put forward to improve the sad situation which this government has perpetrated upon the people of Cape Breton, the amendments that my party is putting forward are the least we could ask. I humbly ask members across the way to give these motions consideration and to at least pass them so that we can hold our heads high eventually when we talk to the people of Cape Breton, rather than having to hang our heads in shame because of what we have done to them.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Algoma—Manitoulin Ontario

Liberal

Brent St. Denis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, I will only take a few moments of the time of the House. The government will not be supporting these amendments. I will not deal with the comments or the content of the speeches of my friends across the way. I would not have enough time to do that. I will only comment on the amendments themselves.

When it comes to suggestions, which are essentially the focus of these amendments, whereby the number of directors on the board would be either from Cape Breton or from the Devco pensioners' association, with no disrespect to anyone, at the present time five of seven board members are in fact from Cape Breton. There is one vacancy, I will acknowledge.

I do not think it necessary whatsoever to limit in legislation the membership of the board. In fact, over time, as the work of the board reduces after the sale, the size of the board could conceivably decrease to one or two people. This would only limit the appointment process.

With that we will hopefully proceed to the third group of amendments.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day for all of us here. We have reached the point that in order to receive at least some kind of reasonable and fair debate on a situation so important to so many Cape Bretoners, we literally have had to force the government into every little piece of debate we get in the House.

It is extremely sad that on this day there are parties, such as the partners, the brothers and sisters so to speak, of the Liberals on the right side of politics, the Conservatives and the reform alliance, who swear up and down against closure but will not stand in the House to force debate on this issue for Cape Bretoners. Not a bit. They are right over there with the Liberals. They might as well sit in the same seats. We have said all along that there is no difference.

I think Cape Bretoners will now know true to heart that there is no difference among any of those parties. They had a chance to speak out on this issue, to support Cape Bretoners, and to support amendments that would assist the people in that area of the country and they have failed to do so, there is no question.

I want to thank my colleagues, certainly from Nova Scotia, but from Cape Breton, who have made it very clear to us as their caucus colleagues the importance of this issue. We have followed it with them through the numerous stages over the last number of months. They have raised their concerns with us almost each and every day over the last number of months, or even a year or so since this all started to transpire. Their concerns are for the people of Cape Breton and what they saw the government do to the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. They have kept us up to date all along.

We still had a shred of hope that government members would see the light. But lo and behold they are buried somewhere down in that mine with no hope of ever coming out. They cannot see that there is a need to put in some kind of progressive amendments that will support the people of Cape Breton, the mine workers who have been there for years. I thank my colleagues for keeping us abreast of that over a number of months.

It is beyond me why the Group No. 2 amendments cannot be supported by all parties in the House. There does not appear to be anything dastardly that will overthrow the government. The amendments call for fairness. They talk about the reform alliance's favourite rout, to be at the grassroots, to keep the people involved. Did they support going out to Cape Breton to hold meetings and have the people involved in the discussions? Not a chance. Not the people in reform alliance because they talk one way this time of the year and another way when they think nobody is watching. But that is not the case. Canadians will know that it is just a lot of talk and no action when it gets right down to it. The bottom line is they did not support amendments to have mine workers or pensioners on the board. Boy, that is a shocker.

What is so far-fetched about wanting the people who put in years of their lives and probably their health in a good number of instances, to have an opportunity? An hon. colleague from the Liberals said there may be a time when there are only one or two members on the board, that they may not need that many and they do not want to restrict it by having to have Cape Bretoners.

If we took that kind of attitude in the House of Commons, where would we be? Let us restrict it by not having any members from Ontario. Boy, that would do it. It is absolutely disgusting to even hear those kinds of statements. It makes absolute sense to have the people who will be most affected by this legislation and most affected by what happens with their pensions on the board.

There is not a lot of trust. I do not have a lot of trust in who the Liberal government might appoint to a board that will look after my pension. I would like to have some say in that. It is not unreasonable for Cape Bretoners and the mine workers to have a say in who will be looking after their pensions.

The Group No. 2 amendments are pretty much all along that line. Motion No. 9 states:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:

“(4) One director other than the Chairperson and the President shall be an employee of the Corporation”.

That provides for at least one employee representative to sit on the board of the Devco board of directors.

Another shocker is that the government changed the Financial Administration Act to make sure it could sell off Devco at, let us say, a buck. Let us get down to it, it changed the act so it could sell off Devco not even at value.

Canadians will be watching just to see what happens with Devco because after today they will know it is an issue. They will know that government patronage is probably lurking somewhere. To the credit of the reform alliance members, they love digging up smut. I am sure when this is all done they will be able to follow up on who ends up buying the coal mines and Devco, if they so choose. We never know because they change from day to day and maybe they will not bother. Let us see whether it is tied to one of the front seats on the other side of the House. It will be very interesting and Canadians will be watching.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find we do not have quorum.

And the count having been taken:

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I do not see quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I see quorum.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Madam Speaker, this is somewhat of a captive audience and it is wonderful, I have to admit. I was making the point about the government's inability to recognize what is important to Canadians and its inability to recognize what people in certain regions of the country want to be a part of. They want to have a say in what happens with their future. I mentioned pensions and wanting representation on the board for pensions so people have control over their future.

We need only look at what happened with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Royal Oak Mines in Yellowknife and the pensions of those workers. What did the government do to those pensioners? What did it do to those workers after the years they put into that mine, the taxes they paid for the government to flaunt around and do with what it will?

The government did not provide services and health care. It did not provide enough funding for education. It did not provide enough funding for infrastructure. What did the government do with the taxes after the hard work of the miners at Royal Oak Mines? What did it do with their pensions? The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development signed away their rights for a few bucks. There was no consideration for the work they put in. The government would not sign away the pensions of our colleagues opposite, not for a second, but for ordinary workers the government does not give a spit, not a bit.

It might be quite apparent to the Liberals that I am very disappointed over this whole issue. I am disappointed that we have had to force the government to be concerned about Canadians.

It is not okay to be flippant all the time. We can heckle. Our parties can banter back and forth, but it is not okay to be flippant about the lives of Canadians. It is not okay to be flippant about the life of that Colombian labour leader. It is his life. I want each and every one of those government members when that man's death gets reported in this House like the 90 other Colombian labour leaders' deaths, to recognize that their government supported that by not making sure we did the things we could as a good and caring socially conscious government to make sure that the rights of workers are respected everywhere.

The Liberal government, the reform alliance and the Tories always make sure to look after big business. It can come up with legislation to protect every business, every tax break it can give a business and corporation, but it cannot come up with anything as simple as protecting the rights of ordinary workers and the leaders who are out there fighting for them. Ninety labour leaders are dead and our government is a cohort of that government in selling off jobs in our country to that government.

At some point the people across the way will have to let that sit on their conscience. They will take it to bed at night and will take it with them when they leave this place. That is what it is all about. It is not the flippant attitude that they do not know the person so they do not care. That is the impression that is being given to people around the world, except for business, and it is not acceptable.

Those colleagues on this side of the House will continue to be on this side of the House because they have no leadership. Until the NDP came to the House this issue would not have been talked about. The Devco bill would have been over and done with because they are not speaking for Canadians either. They are there right along with the other ones. It is only because we are here that they have had to recognize this issue. Most of them are hanging their heads in shame because they have not spoken on this issue to protect these workers and ensure that they have a fair say in their pensions and representation on the board of directors. Not a word.

I hope some of the members across the way will take this to heart.