The House resumed from June 2 consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 2.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2000 / 4:30 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments in Group No. 2, which have been moved by myself and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton on behalf of the people of Cape Breton, and indeed on behalf of our party, which has for a very long time championed fairness for working people.

When I rose to speak to the first group of amendments on Friday of last week I said that it was not a pleasure. At that point in time we were fighting. We watched the government invoke closure on the bill at second reading. We watched the work of the committee. Witnesses were brought from Cape Breton. It was suggested that amendments would be forthcoming, none of which were accepted at committee as the bill was railroaded through.

Throughout this entire debate the witnesses, members of parliament, particularly the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and myself, who came forward kept referring to the unfairness of the government's offer to the coal miners who had worked underground for so many years. We kept referring to section 17 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, saying that if members read that section they would know that it was incumbent upon the government to offer a fair package. At every turn the Liberal government rebuffed that argument and said there was no merit in it.

On Friday of last week, while we were debating amendments in the House, an arbitrator filed with the Minister of Labour a decision regarding the Cape Breton Development Corporation as to whether the government's package was fair. Let me read from that report, which references section 17. For two and a half years we have been arguing that section 17 should be interpreted to provide the communities and the miners with a better deal. Paragraph 38 of the binding arbitration agreement states: “For the purposes of this arbitration I accept that I should strive insofar as possible to decide matters....In doing so, I must bear in mind the unique statutory requirement embodied in section 17 of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. Regard must be had to the various public and private sector comparables referred to by the parties. Since Devco is a public sector comparable, especially in light of the statutory obligation imposed on Devco pursuant to section 17”—and he goes on to make an award.

The award will provide pensions for everyone who has worked in the mine for 25 years, regardless of age, which is something that we have been pressing the government to do from day one. It took an arbitrator and the mining communities in Cape Breton to fight tooth and nail to get what should have been the opening offer of the government when it went into Cape Breton in January. Instead, miners' wives and families had to form an organization and travel to Ottawa at their own expense, culminating in a strike in January of this year. The miners went underground by way of an illegal strike and broke the law to show the government that it was wrong.

I do not know if members of the Liberal Party understand what it was like to be in those communities for those days in January. I know and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton knows because we were at Prince Mine with the miners and their families. We talked to Nova Scotia Power. We were there when the RCMP brought a riot squad to the community where I have lived my whole life. It is a peaceful community. We were there when the women and children, the families of the miners, had to decide whether they would stand in front of the Prince Mine and stop the Nova Scotia Power trucks from going in. They struggled with that.

In a responsible way, the miners said they would come out if the government would simply agree to binding arbitration. The government, which was pinned down under the threat of violence in those communities, like something out of 1930, said “All right, we will agree to binding arbitration”. The arbitrator said that the miners were right, that the package was unfair.

I start with that premise because we were right about the package. Now let us talk about the legislation. I think we are right on that too. If we could submit the government to binding arbitration, I believe that an arbitrator would say that none of the amendments proposed by the New Democrats to make this bill a better bill are unreasonable. Let me cite what we are seeking with this group of amendments.

One of the motions calls for at least one employee representative to sit on the board of the directors of the new Devco corporation.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

An hon. member

That is a radical idea.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

That is radical, as my friend says.

What is happening, for those who are not aware, is that Bill C-11 will create a new Cape Breton Development Corporation, the purpose of which essentially will be to administer pensions, to deal with remediation and to deal with ongoing litigation. It will be a company that will gradually reduce in size as the obligations of the government through the crown corporation cease.

We thought, why not have people from the community sit on the board of directors? It makes sense to me. The government will say that five of the current seven directors are from Cape Breton. That is fair enough, but it is not mandated in the new legislation. Why not mandate it? That is the first recommendation.

For some reason the Liberal members on the natural resources committee had a problem with that. Every Liberal voted against an amendment similar to that, while all members of the opposition parties thought it was a good idea. It was not just those of us from Cape Breton, it was members of the Canadian Alliance, members of the Conservative Party and members of the Bloc, all of whom said “It makes sense to us to have local people sit on the board”.

The second radical proposal is that there be a residency requirement ensuring that a majority of the directors of Devco live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the corporation's decisions.

As a member of parliament I have been lobbied by groups on this issue, and individuals who appeared before the committee asked that a member of the workers' pension association sit on the board or committee which will administer the pensions. I was questioned by members of the Liberal Party on this issue. They asked “Why would you want someone from the pensioners' association to sit on the board that administers the pensions?” As I understand it, currently that pension fund is administered by a brokerage house in Montreal, which turns a considerable profit. I think it is something in the vicinity of $7 million or $8 million a year. I explained that in Cape Breton we have the kind of history, the kind of culture, in which we believe in helping each other out. Many members of the pensioners' association would like to see some of the profits which are earned as a result of their pension funds being invested put back into the communities in which they live, put back into the communities where their children work, put back into the communities where their grandchildren go to school.

They have been arguing for some time to have a say in that, to open the books to see what is happening with their pension fund. They have not been able to. I believe there is a court action pending. They said “We don't like what the government is doing to Devco, but if it is going to do it anyway”—and it is—“and if the government can open the door for at least some improvements, why not allow that?”

I have much more to say, but since I only have one minute left I will say that I had an opportunity to examine the speech which the Prime Minister gave in Berlin. This will be the new Liberal platform. They are going to run from the left again. Let me say to the people who want to read this document that if they compare the Prime Minister's words in Berlin to the actions of the Minister of Natural Resources today with Bill C-11, as the government refuses to support communities directing their own future as it withdraws, they will see that the actions of the Liberals speak louder than words.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to carry on where the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria was forced to leave off. Both NDP members of parliament for Cape Breton, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria, have dedicated much of the time they have spent as members of parliament fighting over the Devco issue. The point we are at today represents the culmination of literally years of hard work on their part to try and adequately represent the people who are affected by the Liberal obsession with shutting down anything to do with publicly funded institutions which might benefit working Canadians.

One will note on looking at the record the very number of speakers from the NDP who have risen on behalf of Cape Bretoners and on behalf of the Devco families. Most of us have had reason and have been motivated to join in this debate. Within our party at least, members all across the country empathize with the regional problems which occur in an area like Cape Breton. We can identify personally and we draw many parallels with our own regions. That is why we are so motivated to speak up.

The hon. member left off by pointing out some of the very reasonable motions the NDP members made at the committee stage, hoping to inject some balance and reason into the legislation. If the Government of Canada is so completely committed to shutting down Devco without consultation with the community, and we think without exploring other options and alternatives, if it is so driven, so obsessed with this idea, at least it could have entertained reasonable motions at committee.

The hon. member was halfway through speaking about one of those motions, which was for a jointly trusteed pension board which would look after the pension plan while Devco is being dismantled. That is not exactly a radical idea. Most employee benefit plans are jointly trusteed for the very reason the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria pointed out, that there may be secondary objectives that can be achieved other than simply getting the best return for the dollar to provide pension benefits.

It is a credit to those miners that they were generous enough and concerned enough about their community that they would say, “Let us not look at pure profit as the only goal or the only directive that we give our money managers. Let us look at some secondary objectives. Let us look at the long term economic development of Cape Breton to use some of the surplus profits of our pension plan”.

That thought would not come forward if there were not workers on the board of directors of the pension plan. It is a reasonable request and it was summarily shot down at committee by the Liberal Party.

There were other motions which were made to ensure health benefits for workers and their families who may become sick, or have long term health repercussions from having worked underground all their lives. Once their employment ceases, so ceases their supplementary health benefits.

Many people contract silicosis, black lung, or any number of injuries or illnesses relating to their occupation. One would think it would be callously indifferent for the employer to abandon any obligation to provide supplementary health care insurance to those people when the plant is shut down, if it is to be shut down. This again was dismissed at committee stage. The Liberals would not entertain it whatsoever, even though the NDP was not alone in this request; it did have backing from other opposition parties on the committee to be fair to them.

Why would they not institutionalize the concept of ensuring that some representatives on the board of directors lived in Cape Breton? The argument was that there are going to be some anyway. Well, maybe there are now, but who is to say the board will always be constituted in that way? Who is to say they do not parachute in some Liberal patronage appointees to take over all those key positions? They would probably pay themselves very well on a board of directors like that. It is not inconceivable that the Liberals may parachute in some patronage appointee to take care of the new Devco board.

We wanted it institutionalized that Cape Bretoners will be on the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. This is not unreasonable. It is perfectly reasonable.

These were not the type of motions that were designed to embarrass the government. They were not the type of motions that were designed to be radical. They were put forward seriously in the hopes that they would be seriously entertained. They were dismissed out of hand without any concern whatsoever.

Why would they not agree to ensure that some of the representatives on the board of directors were from the Devco pensioners association? Why would they not give the pensioners some voice on the board of directors, those who are experienced, those who were affected throughout their whole lives?

I would argue that there is no better expertise about Devco than from those who dedicated their lives working there and who are now Devco pensioners. That is where we will find some real talent.

The Liberals voted against all of those motions at the committee stage. How did the other parties fare with regard to these motions? At least they could entertain them and see the logic in these very reasonable proposals.

Now we find ourselves with one more opportunity to look at the motions in Group No. 2 at report stage. The hon. member had just started to speak to Group No. 2.

One motion we refiled states that one director other than the chairperson and the president shall be an employee of the corporation. That is a reasonable proposal. Again a director other than the chairperson should be an employee of the corporation, giving workers some voice in the long term viability of the plant.

The majority of the directors shall be residents of the island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. That should be a given; it should be automatic. I cannot imagine for the life of me how there would be any strong protest from the ruling party on that basis.

At least one-third of the directors shall be members of the Devco pensioners association. We talked about that.

Many of the motions in Group No. 2 are structural motions that deal with the composition of the board of directors and its long term viability.

What we are dealing with now is that the rules have really changed since the bill even reached the committee stage because now there is the ruling of the arbitrator, a binding arbitration. As was pointed out this arbitration would not have taken place were it not for the courage of the Cape Breton miners who actually had to take justice into their own hands and break the law. Sometimes civil disobedience is the only option.

When they were up against the wall and their livelihood and community were at stake, these people had the courage to take control of their workplace. I have to give the people of Cape Breton credit because even during the course of that civil disobedience and illegal wildcat strike, they were willing to be reasonable with the government. They were faced with what were really the modern day equivalent of Pinkerton goons when the riot squad showed up taking up arms against their own. It is a sad state of affairs in Canada when the people of Canada have to face their own government taking up arms against them for standing up for what is right.

Eventually when they finally agreed to what they thought was the most reasonable solution to this seemingly untenable situation, that solution and their demand was to put the matter before binding arbitration. They were so confident that their position was just and that they could defend it in front of an impartial third party that they were willing to lay down their case before an outside third party, an arbitrator, and let the case rest on its own merits.

Guess what happened. The arbitrator agreed with the workers of the Devco coal mine of Cape Breton and in many incidences came up with the recommendations exactly as they were put forward by the advocates of the working people. Especially in terms of pension, the people making the argument on behalf of the miners looked to other parts of the world where there were similar situations.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

An hon. member

That is not unheard of, to be fair.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

That is right. There is great precedent in other countries. Canada prides itself as being so fair and equitable with its workforce.

In Germany coal miners with 20 years service who are 50 years of age or older qualify for early retirement pension if they are laid off as a result of a mine closure. There is far better plant closure legislation. A coal company, a mining company or any business enterprise cannot simply announce one day that after 30 years of showing a profit in a community, at 30 years plus one day it is just going to close up shop and walk away. It simply cannot be done. There is an obligation to the community which allowed it to prosper and make a profit every year.

It is even better in France. It is funny how in France we often find inspiration when it comes to fairness toward workers. Pensioners laid off due to a plant closure or any mass layoff are eligible at age 45 with 25 years service to an early retirement pension equal to 80% of salary. That means for those who knock themselves out and give their youth and health to an enterprise which takes and takes, the enterprise has a lasting long term obligation to the workforce that allowed it to function, even if the plant is now closed or it disappears. It is a lasting liability that carries on.

Devco did not offer that long term obligation. The government, as the people in charge of Devco, tried to walk away from that duty and obligation. Thankfully the third party arbitrator intervened and introduced an element of reason and fairness, exactly what the NDP has been saying from day one.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure that we have quorum in the Chamber as debate continues. And the count having been taken :

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:55 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

4:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

I see quorum so we will resume debate.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Madam Speaker, once again we find ourselves in this Chamber trying to find some semblance of a conscience in the government members concerning the Cape Breton miners.

I would like to take a few minutes to read a couple of paragraphs which some members and maybe some members of the Liberal Party across Canada would be interested in.

The federal government realizes that the Cape Breton coal problem is essentially a social one. It is because of its awareness of, and concern for, the well-being of individuals and their communities that the federal government is prepared to assist, on a massive scale, the transition of the area from dependence on a declining natural resource to a sound economic base.

That was a quote from Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson on December 29, 1966. There is another quote which I think some hon. members will find very interesting.

I must say...that unless the social equation is introduced into an examination of the current corporate plan of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, an important element in approaching the problem will have been overlooked....When the Cape Breton Development Corporation was organized and legislated, it was a move from privatization to public ownership, because privatization was incapable of dealing with the community and social problems which would occur from a sudden cessation of production in the coal industry.

That was an excerpt from a speech by Senator Allan J. MacEachen on March 21, 1996. I think all hon. members across the room today recognize those two individuals.

When I was looking through the large amount of documentation that we have on Devco, I came across another interesting comment. It reads:

If elected on October 25, 1993 the Liberal Party of Canada would want to increase production at the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

With an increase in production, no downsizing would be executed. It was an interesting quote by a gentleman by the name of David Dingwall on October 7, 1993.

On a number of occasions in the House we have said that the one thing Cape Bretoners are sure of is that the Liberal government and the members opposite are renowned for making empty promises to Cape Bretoners and have done so for the last 30 years.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria and all members of the NDP have tried for the last three years to show government members the serious implication Bill C-11 will have on Cape Bretoners but our concerns and the concerns of the communities continue to fall on deaf ears.

If there was one simple way to sum up what Cape Breton miners are looking for we should go to the document called “A Message from Cape Breton Coal Miners”. It says:

We are not asking for a handout. We, Devco's hard-working employees, are asking Ottawa to give us a real chance to help secure a brighter future for the company and our community. We can make a difference.

That is the message from Cape Breton miners and the people on Cape Breton Island that unfortunately has fallen on deaf ears.

We are here today, as my hon. colleagues in the New Democratic Party have talked about, with respect to amendments in Group No. 2.

For those people in Cape Breton who are listening, it is important for them to recognize that the amendments put forward by the members of the New Democratic Party are not amendments that will cost the government any money. They are not amendments that will change the very essence of what the government is trying to do in terms of privatizing Devco. They will allow some semblance of transparency as it relates to the managing of the pension funds.

My hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria talked about the members of the pensioners association, who we have both had meetings with and who have a novel idea. They know their pension fund is generating approximately $7 million a year. They want that money to be invested in their community. Is that not something new and radical? Why do they want to invest that $7 million in their community? It is because this government has failed to do that.

Day after day we continue to hear government members talk about the good job they have done as it relates to Devco and that they have given the miners a fair package. We just found out on Friday that, as we have been saying for three years, as delegation after delegation and as miner's wife after miner's wife have come to Ottawa and clearly said, an arbitrator has finally said that the package is inadequate. The arbitrator has said that this government's package, as it relates to Cape Breton coal miners, is inadequate and unfair.

I and my colleagues have talked to members of the government about the implications that the bill will have on Cape Bretoners. However, it continues to fall on deaf ears. When the bill was before a committee, over 75% of the Liberal members were whipped at committee and some did not even have the decency to be there to listen to the witnesses who came to Ottawa. I am talking about witnesses such as a miner's wife who gave up a 12 hour shift at $5.50 an hour to come here. She is the sole breadwinner in her family because her husband is not working. Government members could not find the time to pretend that what these witnesses had to say was important.

We have tried and tried. Every week I ask myself why the Liberals will not try, why they will not do something to help these communities and why they will not recognize the economic hardship that already exists in Cape Breton, never mind the results from the privatization of Devco. I finally came to the conclusion that they are not listening because they do not care.

I just finished reading excerpts by other members from what I would like to call the old Liberal Party, the Liberal Party that had a heart. They clearly indicated that Devco's abdication from the industry would be a social problem. In 1967 the Liberals made a commitment to the community to diversify the economy.

I can tell the House a number of stories about the attempts that were made to diversify the economy of Cape Breton under the Liberal government. One case in particular involved sheep being brought in from Scotland. These sheep were quarantined for a year at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars and they eventually died. The joke was that the Liberals were going to take the wool from the sheep and some of the steel from the steel plant and make steel wool. The Liberal government's attempts at economic development and recovery in Cape Breton became a joke. It was not about assisting the community, it was and continues to be about assisting the government's friends.

In closing I want to say that there is no doubt in my mind that Cape Bretoners will survive. We will survive because we always have. However, the one thing that the government should and will be able to count on is the long memory of Cape Bretoners for what this Liberal government has done to them, their children and their communities.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the eloquent debate brought on by the two members from Cape Breton, the member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Oir—Cape Breton, I wrote a quick little ditty of a poem for my friends in Cape Breton. I have not finished it yet but I thought I should start out my debate in this fashion:

It takes a brave man to mine the black ore To go deep in the earth and far under shore They start as healthy men when they are young They prematurely grow old with coal dust in their lungs They fight for fair pensions and employment they demand To raise their families on Cape Breton Island

That is a poem that I plan to send out to Cape Bretoners when I get it finished. It shows the passion brought to the House of Commons by my two colleagues from Cape Breton when it comes to standing up for Cape Bretoners, not just the coal miners but for the steelworkers, the fishermen and everyone who lives in that beautiful place on the planet.

The government and other opposition parties always talk about change and that we need to have change. I keep asking the government and opposition parties about the people who are on our streets asking for change, which is occurring more often.

This government's economic policies are dividing the rich and the poor even more. The middle class is eroding and more and more people are relying on charities, handouts and other avenues for their livelihood to get by on a daily basis.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Mancini NDP Sydney—Victoria, NS

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some eloquent poetry in the House today. Again I see that we do not have quorum.

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken: