Debates of June 5th, 2000

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I want to say that I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11. I am pleased to speak to the bill but not so pleased with what may come of it.

I am sure that this is not easy for the people of Cape Breton, for the miners who have worked underground for some 30 years and for the younger ones who have not been working that long. With Bill C-11, the government is trying to pass the buck on Devco. This is certainly not easy for the people or Cape Breton and I can sympathize with them.

It is not easy for workers in a region such as Cape Breton, where the unemployment rate is as high as that in the Acadian peninsula. It is not easy today for a miner 40 years old, who has been a miner all his life, to realize that he will one day lose his job. Where will he find another job? It is not easy today, with the new economy, this knowledge and high tech economy. I put myself in the shoes of the miner wondering what he will do if and when he loses my job. I was talking about someone 40 years old, but there are others who are 45 years old. That is still young—I am 45—but I would not be prepared to go to university.

I remember the prime minister saying that one has to acquire new skills three times in his lifetime. My God, three times in a lifetime. It costs a young person $30,000 to $40,000 to get a university degree. If he has to do it three times, he will be in debt for the rest of his days.

But, with Bill C-11, the miner in Cape Breton is going to be left in limbo. Is he going to have a job tomorrow, or not? That is the problem. That is what needs to be dealt with. How can these people be helped? It is sad and unfortunate that the government has taken this position. It is too bad that the government has not put into place a program saying “Some people will be able to retire, but we have another program that will help others re-enter the labour force and offer them new opportunities”. Instead, they are offered nothing but uncertainty.

Think about it, we have here nearly 305 MPs quaking in their boots—or should I say their high heels, Madam Speaker—because they do not know if they will be re-elected in the next election. Everyone is worried, and there is a lot going on in ridings. Things are hopping because the MPs want to get re-elected; they are afraid of losing their jobs.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the Cape Breton miner, who also does not know whether he is going to lose his job or not and who might find himself without a livelihood. Put yourself in the place of this miner who is going to wake up jobless one fine morning. That is no easy thing, especially for a person with a family, with children who go to school or university. It definitely is not easy.

The NDP asked the committee to go to Cape Breton to meet with the workers, sit down with them and listen to their concerns. We did not get the support of this House. I want to tell the people of Cape Breton today that the NDP supported them from start to finish.

I am sure the people of Cape Breton are listening on CPAC to the debate in the House of Commons tonight. They will see that the only ones who are getting up in the House of Commons, one after the other, are members of the NDP.

We are fighting for the people of Cape Breton, fighting for the working people of Cape Breton, fighting for the miners who are facing the possibility of losing their jobs. It is not the Liberals. They do not have any alternative for those people. I am telling the Liberals on the other side of the House that it is not easy for working people who worked in the mines all their lives driving scoop trains or being miners to find a job today in this country at the age of 40 or 45.

I worked 15 years in the mines. I know what a mine is. High technology is not what one finds down in the mines. When one leaves mining it is a big problem. What are the Liberals saying to those people? Are they being told to get out of Cape Breton?. The Prime Minister has been saying all along that if they cannot find jobs they should go somewhere else. That is too easy.

The people of the Atlantic provinces want to live in the Atlantic provinces. We were born in the Atlantic region and we have the right to live in the Atlantic region as Canadians. We need the government to not only support Ontario. Are we part of this country? Yes or no.

We had a member in our region who wanted to sell out the Atlantic area. His name was Doug Young and he is with the Canadian Alliance today. That is where he is.

The government is not helping the people of Cape Breton with what it is doing. It is leaving them with no alternative, leaving them there in the cold. It is not helping those miners and it should be ashamed.

As I said, the 301 members of parliament in the House of Commons shake in their pants and hey shake in their dresses because they are worried about the upcoming election and probably losing their jobs. Most of them are a bunch of lawyers. They should not be worried about losing their jobs, but the people of Cape Breton have to worry about it because they do not have a job the next day. It is not easy for working men and women who lose their jobs and have no alternative. It is no fun for their families, living in the dark and not knowing what will happen to them the next day. It is no fun for them.

One of the things we ask is for members of the parliamentary committee to fly by plane to Cape Breton. If they are afraid of a plane, it is not that far. They could meet with the people of Cape Breton and listen to what they have to say. The Liberals did not want to go to Cape Breton. They do not want to get up in the House of Commons and speak about it. Are they shy or what?

The only thing the Liberals say is that the caucus of the Atlantic met and let us catch the wave. I hope the people of Cape Breton tonight are listening and will let the wave go by because the Liberals are not there to fight for them.

We in the Atlantic have served the Liberals on a silver plate for 100 years, and this is what we get today. Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland, said that the people of the Atlantic would never give up on the Liberals. The Liberals gave up on the Atlantic. That is what happened in the Atlantic region. They gave up on the people of the Atlantic region. They came to the Atlantic region and took all our resources. They took all our fish. After doing that they said they would cut their employment insurance and put them on welfare. That is what they have done to the people of the Atlantic.

Today we have a Liberal government that does not want to take responsibility for the gaffer, the one in French we call le trov noir, the black hole. These people cannot go from one season to the next. The provincial government says that it is not its responsibility. The federal government says that it is not its responsibility. Its wants the people of Cape Breton to go on welfare. The NDP will fight for the people of the Atlantic and for the people of Cape Breton.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we left on Friday we were dealing with Devco and here we are 48 hours or so later entering extended hours to deal with the bill yet again.

I congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst on a very emotional speech. He and others in the House are saying that before the legislation goes forward Cape Bretoners should have the chance to have their say. It is for this reason that we moved amendments that would allow for the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations to hold hearings in Cape Breton before the legislation was voted on at second reading stage. However, in their haste to ram the legislation through and shut Devco down, the Liberal majority opposite rejected that suggestion totally and completely.

MPs in our caucus from across the country have stood up for Cape Bretoners. Over half my colleagues have spoken to second reading stage, led by our leader, the member for Halifax. All New Democrats from coast to coast to coast recognize that if the government is allowed to treat Cape Breton this way, it can do the same in every other region of the country.

On the other hand, the Liberals have quashed the debate on Devco at every step along the way. They ended debate at second reading stage of Bill C-11. They decided to end debate before a settlement had been reached on the issue of miners' pensions and severance packages. Before it was announced whether the buyer of Devco's assets would even continue mining in Cape Breton, the government simply sold off the assets. This was before any decision had been made about the remediation of mine sites or long term economic development to replace the jobs that would be lost.

It should be noted that only eight Liberal members even bothered to speak to Bill C-11 at second reading. Should Cape Bretoners be grateful that the Liberal government provided limited economic assistance after shutting Devco down? The committee process was a sham. Less than six hours were allocated to hear from witnesses. The witnesses were given less than 48 hours notice to appear and no time to prepare. The majority of government committee members were scarcely in attendance throughout.

The Liberal majority voted against all the amendments put forward by the opposition on behalf of witnesses and the people of Cape Breton. The NDP motion called for the committee to hold public hearings in Cape Breton among the people affected to allow the people hurt by the legislation an opportunity to be heard. The Liberals voted against it.

We also proposed a motion to ensure that health benefits for workers and their families who suffered from mining related illnesses would be allocated. Again the Liberal majority government voted against it.

We asked that representation for workers and pensioners on the pension board be ensured. This was denied. We asked that there be some representatives on the board of directors who actually lived in Cape Breton. This was denied once again by government members opposite. We asked for assurance that some of the representatives on the board of directors were from the Devco pensioners association. That too was rejected by the Liberal government opposite.

The other opposition caucuses have been generally supportive of the bill. Both right wing parties have been supportive of it, but why would we be surprised with that?

The enactment provides the necessary authority for the disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and provides for the dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the corporation.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable a private sector operator to acquire the mining assets of the corporation so that the federal government can exit the coal mining business in Cape Breton and to provide for the continuation of the existing jurisdictional regimes for labour relations, occupational safety and health, and labour standards.

The NDP will propose that the bill be withdrawn and that the matter be referred to committee, for three main reasons.

First, the unions representing Devco employees have taken the corporation to court for failure to meet its obligations under the legislation and seek to have clause 17(4)( b ) included in any new legislation.

Second, we want the committee to be able to institute a process of full public consultation in Cape Breton in order to develop a long term strategy for the economic development of the region in order to offset the effects of possible privatization.

Finally, the uncertainty created by the recent court decisions with respect to first nations treaty rights and the repercussions on mining rights must be clarified.

There are a number of very excellent proposals in the Group No. 2 motions. I appreciate the fact that we dealing with them. The member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton suggested that at least one employee representative should sit on the Devco board of directors. We also ask under Motion No. 7 in Group No. 2 that clause 8 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the following:

“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria urged that the majority of the directors shall be residents of the island and that there be residency requirements to ensure that a majority of the directors live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the corporation's decisions.

Surely that would be a minimum. I am baffled to know why government members opposite would not be interested in having a minimal amount of protection and assurance that decisions taken in that region of the country shall be taken with the full knowledge and support of people who are actually resident on Cape Breton Island.

Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2 is certainly one that I endorse. It ensures that one-third of the directors of Devco are representatives from the employees' pension association. This is critically important.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked what would happen to those miners 45 or 50 years of age who have been working underground all their lives? Suddenly the mine closes. We buy imported coal from Colombia or wherever with miners' blood from that part of the world all over it. Cape Bretoners are thrown out of work. Jobs are very difficult, if not impossible, to come by. That is why having representation from the employees' pension association makes all the sense in the world. It would ensure that workers and their families are treated in the very best way.

The final motion in this group, Motion No. 16, would replace line 13 on page 5 with the following:

“18.(1) The Corporation shall by bylaw pro-”

It would also replace line 23 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) The bylaw shall provide that at least half of the members of the board or committee that is charged with managing the pension fund are selected by the Devco Pensioners' Association”.

This in effect would give the Devco pensioners association the right to select at least half of the membership of the body designated to manage the workers' pension fund. It also makes great sense that the local people would manage affairs as they wind down this corporation.

In closing I want to say that I am very pleased to have been part of this important piece of legislation and on the Group No. 2 motions. I would urge all members, not only the NDP caucus as we know where they will be, to support these reasonable changes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues to speak to the motions that fall under Group No. 2 pertaining to Bill C-11. I want to raise three concerns this afternoon relating to those motions and Bill C-11 as a whole.

I will begin my remarks by commenting on the significant contribution by members of the New Democratic Party, particularly from Atlantic Canada, to this debate and to this very important question around the future of not only Cape Breton but the whole country. It is a very hard act to follow.

The member for Acadie—Bathurst made an impassioned speech. He spoke from experience as a former steel worker, as someone who was down under and who worked in the mines. He brought important lessons to the House that ought to be listened to by everyone, not just members of the Liberal government but also members of the Canadian Alliance.

It has become clear to me, after having listened to the debate today, that the Canadian Alliance is only too quick to join with the Liberal government on Bill C-11 and dismiss the concerns of those people who gave their lives and who sacrificed a great deal for the economy of Cape Breton. They should not to be disregarded now and cast aside in the interest of expediency but that is characteristic of this government and the Canadian Alliance.

I also want to single out the work of the two members from Cape Breton, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria, who have brought so much to not only this debate about Devco but to many other issues. They have both been vigilant on this issue and others pertaining to Cape Breton. We are very grateful for the valuable contribution they make to our caucus and to this parliament.

Those members have had to deal with a number of issues that have posed serious difficulties for their region. Day in and day out they have spoken out for the people of Cape Breton, whether we are talking about the serious situation of Westray and the failure of this government to ensure that the corporation in question is held responsible for the deaths of these miners, whether we are talking about the serious situation of the tar ponds in Cape Breton and the years and years of inaction by this government to deal with that serious health problem, or whether we are dealing with Devco and the whole question of having an economic development corporation that is regulated and run according to the needs and aspirations of that region.

Whether we are talking about any one of those issues, the impact by those members has been clear and their representation as members in the House has been noticed and has been important to all of us. I want to thank them for their work.

We also have a significant number of members from Halifax and Nova Scotia who have been very important in bringing these concerns to the House. We are very honoured and pleased with their participation.

I will now go to my three concerns. I want to note for the House that we are talking about Bill C-11. Is it not interesting that legislation from another jurisdiction, the province of Alberta, is also called bill 11? I want to point out the similarities between these two pieces of legislation. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Maybe it just happens that this number symbolizes the callous disregard of right wing governments everywhere when it comes to the needs of the people. Let me note the similarities. Bill 11 in Alberta really represents the nail in the coffin of health care, of medicare. In that regard, I note the failure of this government to deal for one second with the impact of that legislation and take seriously the concerns of people everywhere about how our entire hospital system could be opened up to private corporations.

Let us draw the parallels to Bill C-11 where this move to privatize, to deregulate, to dissolve the economic development corporation that has held Cape Breton in good stead over the years could also be the nail in the coffin for that region. It perhaps could symbolize every harsh, cruel measure taken by this government when it comes to the region of Cape Breton.

It is also very important to note that in both instances, whether we are talking about bill 11 in Alberta or Bill C-11 here in Ottawa, the government in question has chosen to disregard the interests and concerns of the people in those jurisdictions and has failed to allow for a democratic process to be involved.

Let it be clear that one of the reasons we are so concerned today is because of the way this government has brought down the heavy hand of closure yet again. How many times is it to date? This government has brought in closure over 60 times in three years. This is unprecedented, unheard of and unacceptable.

I speak with some authority on this question having just suffered through a few recent meetings at the health committee where the government has worked very hard to ensure that one of the avenues available to members to exercise their democratic right has been shut down and closed off. It has tried to control and manipulate the agenda so that this committee is not able to have an input on the most important issues facing Canadians today, health care, the number one priority of Canadians.

Each and every day we are faced with this kind of undemocratic, dictatorial, authoritarian measure by the Liberal government. I think it is something for which the Canadian Alliance members surely should be taking heed. It should be enough to make them question why they are supporting Bill C-11 and why they are not standing with us on this very important issue.

I will now go to my second concern in the few minutes that I have left which has to do with the general trend on the part of the government to lead the way in terms of undemocratic government. I also want to mention the path that the government has chosen in terms of privatization and deregulation.

Bill C-11 represents one more move after a whole series of assaults on the Canadian fabric, on our very identity as Canadians, whether we are talking about CN, Air Canada, the way in which the government is trying to dismantle the CBC, food safety and the Canadian food inspection agency, Canada Post or Revenue Canada, we could go on for hours just talking about all the agencies and corporations, all the aspects of government that are so important for the health and well-being of Canadians, and how this government has chosen to offload its responsibilities somewhere else, on to the private sector and individual consumers, outside of its purview, away from the ability of the Government of Canada to ensure that Canadians can count on their government when it comes to fundamental questions of health, well-being, safety and when it comes to questions of economic security and jobs for the future. This is the most serious issue that we are dealing with when it comes to the government. I think it is important to simply quote from today's National Post . I do not normally quote from the National Post because obviously it poses real concerns in the way in which the Calgary Herald situation is being handled. However this clipping came across our desk today because it pertains to Walkerton and the whole tragedy around water safety.

I want to quote from an article by Bill Tieleman. It states:

It is time for a reckoning with those who would put blind faith in ideology and the unbridled pursuit of profit above the health and welfare of the public.

So while apologists for privatization and downsizing public services in this paper and elsewhere seek to defend their patron saint—Ontario Premier Mike Harris—

I see the Liberal government is trying equal none other than Mike Harris. The article goes on to say:

—by attacking his critics, the facts continue to mount up to an indictment of the Conservative government's policies.

In this particular case it was the Liberal government's policies.

I raise this because this government tends not to listen to what we in the NDP have to say. It will not listen to what people in the progressive movements have to say. It will not listen to social justice coalitions. Maybe it will listen to the likes of writers in the National Post . Maybe it will listen to people on the progressive conservative end of the political spectrum who say that enough is enough when it comes to the government's agenda of not only an undemocratic, arrogant style of government, but also when it comes to its extreme, right wing, fervent commitment to the corporate agenda.

My third concern has to do with the impact these policies will have on the health and well-being of Canadians in general. No one needs to remind anyone in the House about how important economic security and job security are to the state of health and wellness in Canada today. We know that when individuals and regions are hit with hardships, they are also hit with ill health and the spread of disease.

Let it be a lesson to the government that investments today into such things as economic development, corporations and organizations that seek to preserve the dignity of Canadians will hold us in good stead and ensure that health care costs will come down in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I call quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I do not see a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I see a quorum.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 9.

The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 10.

The next question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.