Peter Mancini

[Organized Crime, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Charlesbourg. I take this opportunity to welcome the new solicitor general to his new post. He is, like myself, an islander. He comes from perhaps a more gentle island, a little less rugged than my own, but from parts of my island we can look across the channel and see his island. That is as nice as I will be.

I will move now to address some of the comments he made today in his report. First I suggest that he wants to build upon the last report which came before the House a year ago. It will be tough going because there is very little foundation to build upon.

In the last year the commitments made by the previous solicitor general to combat organized crime have not come to any kind of fruition. Indeed, all we have heard is another statement of what they hope to do.

I will read the definition of organized crime from the government's own document. It includes economically motivated illicit activity undertaken by any group, association or other body consisting of two or more individuals. It is beginning to sound like we might include leaked documents in this definition, given the point of order today. The definition also includes, as I have suggested, formally or informally organized, negative impact of said activity, and so on.

The types of organized crime that take place in Canada would be shocking to Canadians. It includes money laundering. It includes the sale of illegal drugs. It includes, which I think is particularly shocking especially to the generation following us, environmental crime and the way hazardous waste is either sold or hidden in the country. It includes contraband, economic crime, fraud, migrant trafficking and motor vehicle theft. The cost of these activities is in the billions of dollars. The cost to the health of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, of the illicit drug trade is staggering.

There is a statement from the government's document on the organized crime impact study which deals with the seizures of illicit drugs and the increase in the use of crack among adolescents, which has gone from 0.5% in 1993, the year when I believe that party took power, to 1.9% in 1995. There has been a gradual increase in the use of illicit drugs.

These types of activities require urgent action.

At the same time that we have this report and the government talks about the need to combat organized crime, we have seen the downsizing of the RCMP. We have seen the training centre in Regina suffer from funding cuts. We have seen RCMP offices in British Columbia suffer from funding cuts.

We in the New Democratic Party call upon the government to reinvest in the necessary policing forces if we are going to actually be tough on crime in this country.

I welcome the statement of the solicitor general. I look forward to working with him in a constructive way to combat organized crime in this country.

[Workplace Safety, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out today to the families and loved ones of all those who suffered so tragically in the Westray Mine disaster.

It was one year ago today that the report on the Westray disaster was released. That report noted that management through its actions and attitudes sent a message that the safety of the workers was not a priority and that this was a contributing factor to the disaster. Based on a submission from the United Steelworkers of Canada union the report called for the federal government to introduce amendments to legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors be held accountable for workplace safety.

The federal government has done nothing to act on that report even though on average 900 workers die needlessly in workplace related accidents each year in Canada.

In light of the federal government's inaction, the NDP will be bringing forward legislation in this session that will hold corporate managers and directors accountable for the safety of their workers, legislation that we hope will prevent any future disasters like the one at Westray.

[Devco, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Scarborough East and the Minister of Human Resource Development discuss jobs today. It bears on a question I asked in the House two weeks ago today to the Minister of Natural Resources. I asked what plans the government had for the hundreds of workers who have been laid off by Devco, a crown corporation in Cape Breton.

The chairman of that federal crown corporation has said it may not be able to meet its December 1 payroll. What plans if any does the government have to deal with the payroll commitments of Devco to the miners who work there?

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister mentions poverty and other concerns, let us talk about social justice concerns.

Listening to the Deputy Prime Minister defend the solicitor general is a little like reading the soliloquy of Hamlet , whether he should be or not to be. It is clear that the solicitor general has neither the confidence of the people of Canada or even members of the House.

When will the solicitor general end his agony for himself and the nation and resign?

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister asks whether it was a public discussion. Indeed it was public discussion about a sensitive issue in a public place.

Yesterday in a radio interview involving both me and the Liberal member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, even he said he would find it difficult to defend the solicitor general.

The die is cast. What remains is for the deed to be done. Even members of the other caucus admit that there are problems. When will the Prime Minister do the deed and ask for the resignation of the solicitor general?

[Railway Safety Act, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to say a few words on the Bill C-58 to amend the Railway Safety Act. The bill is a complex one and the government has asked that we co-operate with it in moving it quickly through second reading to committee stage.

I know that our transportation spokesperson, the hon. member for Churchill, is very keen to review the bill when it goes to the Standing Committee on Transport and indeed to hear from the various stakeholders and the many witnesses who will appear before that committee to deal with the intricacies of that legislation.

For that reason and because it is important to hear from those stakeholders we will co-operate with the government's request to date. However, government members should not take our congeniality at this stage to mean that we will give them an easy time of the legislation when it goes to committee.

There are some points in the legislation that are positive but important questions remain to be answered. When dealing with bills as intricate and comprehensive as this one, committees have to review them very carefully and systematically to avoid unintended consequences or unforeseen results. That is why the testimony of the witnesses will be particularly important.

The bill does many things. It seeks to update the Railway Safety Act and it includes some positive measures to strengthen enforcement of safety regulations. It also addresses concerns about noise pollution from train whistles which was addressed by the previous speaker from the Bloc Quebecois.

Since passenger rail service was abandoned by first the Conservative government and not reinstated by this government, in the part of the country I come from in Cape Breton we miss the sound of the railway whistle. There are others who may miss it. When I grew up there were those who would complain about the late night whistles, but there was also a rumour that those who lived close to the railway line tended to have more children. Maybe we will hear from witnesses in that regard before the committee.

On a more serious note, one area we will be looking at very carefully is the clause dealing with the medical fitness of railway employees designated as critical to railway safety operation. Admittedly, since these workers are responsible for the lives and safety of Canadians, it is crucial that they be medically fit when on the job.

At the same time, however, there is a careful balancing act here. We must be careful not to go too far to infringe on an individual's right to work. Workers must not be prevented from working to support themselves and their families unless there is good reason. It would be interesting to see—and it could be a very progressive step—if there was some kind of obligation on the part of the corporations to assist the workers in ensuring their fitness for the job.

We know there are problems in terms of fitness. As Canadians work harder and harder, do more and more work and have less and less leisure time, those who are fortunate enough to work, their physical health suffers. It would be an opportunity to see corporations in the railway business take the lead in this area and assist in providing their employees with the time and facilities, with perhaps some financial incentives, to ensure they are medically fit to do the job, especially if that is a requirement.

Another area of particular concern is that the bill in its current form empowers railway companies by requiring the Minister of Transport to consult with them in certain circumstances. At the same time the bill does away with the railway safety consultative committee. This is of particular concern to us.

That committee, composed of representatives from industry, labour and other stakeholders, advises Transport Canada on railway safety issues. Bill C-58 will be replacing that by requiring the Minister of Transport to consult with the corporations. It does not do the same thing for the other stakeholders. That is an important distinction and an important area to explore at the committee level.

The discrepancy perhaps reflects the Liberals' corporatist ideological bias, not to mention the propensity to reward those who support them financially. We are however encouraged that the bill at least recognizes the importance of outside consultation. It recognizes that government bureaucracy is not infallible and that there is a place for outside opinions, but simply consulting with the railway companies alone is not sufficient.

Let us face it. If a railway company is in business its objective is to meet the bottom line. That is not always consistent with the public good. This is something that we understand in the New Democratic Party. The role of government is to ensure, protect and enhance the public good. That is not necessarily the role of a private corporation. Therefore only consulting with railway companies will not give the necessary balanced picture that is required. We believe it is important that other stakeholders be consulted.

I mentioned that we miss the sound of the railway whistle on Cape Breton. We have not given up the fight in that regard. It is my hope that the bill will have some relevance. Indeed there is a private railway company in the part of the country I come from and the riding I represent. It will have significance and impact on my riding. What is lacking is passenger rail service.

I would take every opportunity in the House to encourage the Minister of Transport to re-examine the decision of the government not to reinstate that passenger rail service. At the time that it was dismantled by the Mulroney government it was clear that members of the Liberal Party were opposed to it. I attended the hearings in my own riding and we still await some remedial action in that regard.

However I will not take any more time in the House on this issue because it has to go to committee. I have said that we are complying with the government's request to move the bill to committee as quickly as possible. Therefore I offer our conditional support at this stage.

[Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise following my Bloc colleague whose comments I always take seriously.

The bill talks about anti-profiteering during times of emergency or disaster. I come from a part of the country that is no stranger to disaster or to emergencies. The Atlantic region or any region that relies on a resource based economy knows the meaning of disaster.

Coal has historically been a major source of employment and a major industry in the part of the country I come from. Where the fishery and steel mills have been major sources of employment and industry, we are all too familiar with emergencies and disasters. I need only mention some of the great historical disasters that have occurred in my province and in the Atlantic region. The Swissair disaster is the most recent, and disaster goes as far back as the Springhill mine disaster where hundreds of miners suffered a dangerous fate. They worked with dangerous consequences to free miners who were trapped underground. I can talk about the Ocean Ranger , the terrible loss of life that occurred off Newfoundland in the cold and stormy waters of the Atlantic Ocean. I can talk about many disasters and many emergencies coming from my part of the country.

What this has done for us is taught us the value of co-operation. It has taught us the value of working together as communities in times of stress and also in times of plenty. Coming from that historical background we know that while good times may be here today, they may well be gone tomorrow. Out of that has developed a culture that understands the need of neighbour to assist neighbour, of community to work with community, of sharing with those who do not have at the present time, and ensuring that there are social programs and community programs in place to assist when those emergencies and disasters occur. It is not just my region of the country that has this history, it is all of Canada. One of the great things we can be proud is our ability and willingness to share with our fellow Canadians whenever disaster strikes. That again is part of our history.

In the 1930s during the Great Depression when parts of western Canada became a dust bowl it was from Atlantic Canada that goods and food were collected and sent across the rail lines, some of which no longer exist, to the western provinces to assist them.

I mention the Halifax explosion as one of the great emergency disasters that occurred in the Atlantic region. When that happened many parcels and medical needs were sent from the western provinces to the Atlantic region.

The most recent examples are the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay region in Quebec where many Canadians from all parts of the country worked together to assist fellow Canadians in ensuring they did not suffer from those disasters, or suffered minimally. We have to thank the armed forced, Canadians from all parts of the country who work shoulder to shoulder with those who sometimes receive better pay and work in better conditions, given the recent report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Canadian forces have responded in times of emergency in a way that we can all be proud of.

Indeed it is out of that co-operative sense of working together that the New Democratic Party and its predecessor were born. It was out of the roots of the Great Depression when it was understood that purely market driven individual forces would not ensure the betterment of communities that there had to be a sense among communities of working together and sharing resources. It was out of that that the seeds of social democracy were born.

I am pleased to see the Reform Party understand that in times of emergency we have to come together and work together. I also understand it looks at the darker side of that, those motivated purely by greed or individual profit who would exploit those circumstances. I recognize that would be a dangerous thing and indeed a wrong thing.

I turn now to the bill. I found it a curious bill at initial reading. I recognize the comments from previous speakers who say this is proceeding into provincial jurisdiction or that it is sometimes against business. I read the bill in an entirely different way and perhaps I can give it a different interpretation.

I think we currently have emergencies. When I read the definition of a national or local emergency in the act that is declared to be such an emergency by a national or local emergency proclamation that has not expired or been revoked under this act, I can talk about the economic emergency that we currently have in my riding of Sydney—Victoria. I have raised in the House on many occasions and have spoken with the Minister of Natural Resources about the fact that we have a crown corporation that employs 1,600 people, the chairman of which has said that as of December 1 they may not be able to meet their payroll. This means that the miners who work underground may not be paid. The secretaries who work in the office may not be paid.

Consequently the merchants and shopkeepers in the communities who purchase their Christmas inventory, in preparation for the sales that may occur in the next month, may not sell their goods and will face their creditors. I suggest that under this bill we have an emergency. We could easily declare it as such.

I then go on to read that a local emergency means an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature—temporary for us but sometimes the mismanagement has been going on longer—whose direct effects are confined to one province and that seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of the persons in that province. Clearly the lives, health and safety are threatened when we have an economic crisis.

I like the fact that the bill recognizes that persons who are victims of any emergency that seriously endangers their lives, health, safety or property should be able to purchase essential goods, services and resources during that emergency at reasonable prices. On should this bill be enacted, I could go back to my riding and say if you cannot make the bank payment or the mortgage payment, there is an act here that says you should not be deprived of your property during this crucial time.

I suspect the only way we could deal with that is to ensure there are government funds available in an economic crisis to assist those people who suffer from it. This could bring this whole debate to what this government has done with the unemployment insurance fund and how less than 40% of the people who pay into that fund are entitled to receive it. Should they find themselves in an economic crisis where their property is endangered they do not have access to an insurance policy they paid for.

I also look at a national emergency which means an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that seriously endangers the lives, health, safety or property of persons in Canada. Today we finished a whole debate on health care, the crisis in health care and the emergency in health care. People are finding their lives endangered because of an economic crisis.

The bill brought forward by the member from the Reform Party could be interpreted broadly. I welcome that interpretation, especially if we were to apply the terms economic emergency to the debate.

[Apec Inquiry, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has been fond in this question period of quoting from the affidavit of Mr. Toole.

Let me quote part of paragraph 15. “To this Mr. Scott said: Oh, you mean Hughie' and commented to the effect that Hughie might have to takea' or the hit' orfall'.”

The real question is, when did the Prime Minister's office know that Mr. Toole's affidavit and account of events contradicted the solicitor general's?

[Apec Inquiry, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue before this House. It is not about who is here or who is not. It is not about name calling. It is about integrity and justice.

The Deputy Prime Minister says that the solicitor general has no role in the process. The solicitor general voluntarily created a role and is now a witness before the very commission that has to report to him.

When will the government not recognize the conflict and call upon the solicitor general to resign?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of Cape Breton workers have been laid off by the Cape Breton Development Corporation in the last few weeks, causing great uncertainty in the mining communities I represent.

On Monday of next week I will be holding meetings with the stakeholders in the coal industry in my community and we need to know two things from this government.

Will the government commit to opening the Donkin mine, yes or no? If not, what solutions does it have for DEVCO and the miners of Cape Breton?