Peter Mancini

[Devco, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a member of that committee will be watching.

On another matter, last night the Liberal government and Conservative Party joined forces to pass Bill C-11, an act dismantling the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which will have devastating effects on the Cape Breton economy. At third reading, I offered the government concrete suggestions to help rebuild the economy of Cape Breton, including making Cape Breton a location for public research facilities, like the National Research Council.

Will the government agree with my suggestions and commit to make Cape Breton a centre of environmental research excellence by locating any new research facilities on the island?

[International Circumpolar Community, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 237, brought forward by my colleague the member for Churchill River, which deals with the international circumpolar community. I will read the motion for those who are not familiar with it:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the 55th parallel as the identified Canadian boundary for participation in the international circumpolar community.

The motion sounds a little complicated but I think for those who read it carefully its meaning will be fairly clear.

We recognize the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois and her amendment to the motion. She raises a valid point and an interpretation for a greater understanding of the honourable intent behind Motion No. 237.

The motion calls for leadership and a vision for the future of this country. Canada is a large country with diverse regions and economies. This diversity includes our varied cultures and histories. One need only look at the House, at some of the artwork and some of the names of the members of parliament to understand how diverse and rich our culture is.

This land is based upon shared values and a common sense of purpose in the face of geographic challenges. This point is often missed by those who would compare us to our neighbours to the south.

In the debate on this motion we have listened to the different policy spins and an apparent refusal for parliament as a whole to demonstrate leadership and vision in this new millennium.

However, we do acknowledge and thank the members who have spoken in favour of this motion. The members recognize this motion for its intent to include a very marginalized sector of Canada, the northern regions between the 55th and 60th parallels. Broadening the participation and opportunities for these northern regions and communities can provide a better socioeconomic future for current and future generations.

One has to ask the question, why should these northern areas of Canada be delegated to base resource extraction where material shipped south is processed and value added goods and services are repurchased by the north?

Coming from the east, from the island of Cape Breton, I understand all too well what happens when raw materials are shipped to one part of the country to be processed and sent back for us to purchase again. It is ironic that we should talk about that on the night that we will vote on the Devco bill, which was an attempt to diversify the economy after years of doing exactly what has been happening to the people in the north.

The House surely can recognize an opportunity for a region to find greater self-sufficiency and move forward on its own. In turn that would create less dependency on traditional revenue sources and greater equality. There are pockets of the country which are extremely wealthy and are doing extremely well, and there are other regions, and certainly the north is one, where that wealth is not shared. It is time to allow the people in the north greater self-sufficiency and to move forward in that regard.

We have listened as the government commits to one progressive northern circumpolar policy and then does the exact opposite in action. As I have said in the House over the last few days, the government's actions certainly speak louder than its legislation and its words and rhetoric.

If we look at some of the findings on file, the government's response to the 1997 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is almost exclusively in relation to DIAND definitions of the north, that being north of the 60th parallel. The response includes the following points at page 10, recommendation 32:

The government is committed to involving northern stakeholders, especially aboriginal peoples, in international discussions of Arctic issues and Canada has played a lead role within the Arctic Council to ensure that this commitment is met.

This landmark committee report was based on an overall circumpolar community, not on a limitation to a 60th parallel boundary of convenience. The standing committee recommended:

—an explicit goal of federal government circumpolar affairs policy should be to facilitate community based local, and regional level contacts, in close co-operation with provincial and territorial governments and their Arctic constituencies—

We are talking about involving the people who live in the communities in decision making.

—as well as in ongoing consultation with indigenous peoples' organizations, the private sector, and NGOs working on circumpolar sustainable development issues. A concerted effort should be made to avoid the duplication of initiatives, while at the same time assisting co-ordination among the various Canadian actors working towards common circumpolar objectives.

That recommendation is exactly what this motion is intended to expedite. This is not some flighty idea; it has come forward after real thought, consideration and a report.

Decisions are being made not by the circumpolar communities and regions affected, but are based on multinational interests content with maximum development profits with as little interference as possible.

In September 1998 the Minister of Foreign Affairs published his vision for a northern foreign policy. He postulated on core Canadian values and long term national objectives, and “a greater focus in the north itself on self-reliance and sustainable development”. Again we are asking the community to be involved in decision making.

Let me return to the circumpolar community report. I am quoting from page three of the government's response:

For the most part, the Government of Canada accepts the recommendations of the Standing Committee, especially the underlying themes of renewing commitment to northern issues and circumpolar relations, and to the pursuit of domestic and foreign policies that will enhance sustainable opportunities for aboriginal people and for other northerners.

If that is what the government wants, then why should we not support this motion? It is not a bill; it is a motion.

At the 1999 World Summit on Nordicity held in Quebec City last February, there were open and frank discussions on the north and future options for northern communities. It was stated at the summit:

The question of the boundaries of the frigid zone has not yet been settled. A proposed indicator comprising 10 factors establishes the limit of this zone at between 50 and 70 degrees north latitude. Southeastern Russia and southeastern Canada are the two places in the world where polar conditions extend the farthest south.

Varying definitions for the north include temperature factors, geological indicators, and as many of my NDP colleagues have indicated, ecoregions.

The concrete answers and directions for northern participation and involvement in circumpolar affairs vary, as they shall in perpetuity. It is a disservice and unfair to northern Canadians to place limits based on a federal government department's arbitrary boundary.

As my colleague from Churchill River stated, the 60th parallel is a boundary of convenience drawn up by dominion surveyors without credence or comprehension of the peoples and the circumstances through Canada's great north. Shared international circumpolar community resources, culture and sustainable concerns should not be limited by outdated policies. As my colleague from Churchill River, Saskatchewan, likes to say, the south forgets that Canada's north is indeed inhabited.

During discussions with foreign affairs on this motion, the hon. member stated repeatedly that northern interests and stakeholders must be included and indeed encouraged to participate in northern and circumpolar activities and initiatives.

There is nothing radical in this motion. It has been studied. It has been reported. It is a call by northerners to be involved in making their own decisions and a call to recognize that they have a substantial contribution to make in developing their own economy. I fail to see why anyone in the House could not support the motion.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is late but I just have one question to ask. The member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and I have discussed this document in the past. I remember the document she is referring to. I remember the first time I saw it in her office when she showed it to me. I was incredulous. As the member said, I thought it could not really be a document from 1995.

However, as she has said, when we measure the way in which the government has put forward the plan from its announcement a year ago, in 1999, it has followed almost in parallel lines. As incredulous as I was, as the time goes by the concerns expressed by the member gain more and more credibility.

There is one point that she did not mention, and I just ask her to clarify for us here tonight. It seems to me that in 1995 surely the members of parliament who represented Cape Breton, because it not myself nor the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, would have been aware of this and would have made it known to the people they represent. I wonder if she could very simply and very quickly indicate for us what party represented the entire island of Cape Breton in 1995.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill at third reading, as I have risen to speak to it when it was introduced, as I have spoken to it in committee, as I have spoken to it at second reading and as I voted tonight on the amendments put forward by our party and by the Bloc.

I listened to the minister's words this evening. He approached the debate with a respectful tone. I think I should tell him that I know this has been a difficult process for him. It has not been an easy battle for any of us who have had to fight it.

There are some things however that need to be said and some items that need to be clarified with respect to the minister's statement.

First, he did come to Cape Breton in January 1999. Prior to his arrival, I wrote to him, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton wrote to him, and the provincial MLA for Cape Breton—The Lakes and the current MLA for Cape Breton Centre, Frank Corbett, wrote a joint letter on, I think, December 31 outlining that we understood that the government was moving in a direction. There had been rumours of that and documents that subsequently indicated that this plan had been in place for some time. We wrote indicating we understood the complexity of this. I remember the letter because we said that the pension plans in particular had to be looked at carefully because the current formula would not be fair.

The government announced a package in January. I will not go through the history. I have spoken to this bill many times. I have spoken to it passionately, as the minister has acknowledged. However, the package that was announced in January was never changed.

The minister indicated that in January of this year the unions requested a joint planning committee. Indeed there was an illegal strike. The miners went into the mine and held up production. There was a question as to whether or not Nova Scotia Power would be able to provide continued power to Nova Scotians.

Only then did the government agree to the process that resulted in binding arbitration. That arbitrator's award subsequently said that the miners and the employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation were shortchanged with the government's offer. They were entitled to more money and a different package. I think it is important to clarify that.

There are unanswered questions. This is unfinished business. The member from the Canadian Alliance referred to the question of the Donkin mine. Whether or not that mine will be subject to a sale remains unclear.

I heard today from people in my community and from miners who have lined up outside the general mining building requesting their severance package. They were told that they would not be eligible for a severance package because they would be in the workforce when the new owner took possession of the assets.

The member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and I attended the meeting with Nesbitt Burns held in the community and said that the men had been told they would get either a pension or a severance package or employment. We asked how they could guarantee employment.

There is still unfinished business. These men do not know if they qualify for a severance package, simply by virtue of the fact that they work for the corporation, or whether they have to hope there will be a job with the new company.

Other issues need explanation. In the middle of the provincial election campaign the Prime Minister of the country wrote to a woman in Glace Bay, Edna Budden, in a letter that she made public. This was in July and he said that she should not worry, that the government would review the package. He was confident that it would be improved.

That letter needs to be explained. It needs to be explained by the Prime Minister. It needs to be explained as to why it was sent and why the government only improved the package when it was forced to by an arbitrator. Those are unfinished pieces of business, which I suppose will be the job of historians to explain.

I feel tonight a bit the way I used to feel when I practised family law. Spouses would come to see me after a long marriage and say that they did not know what happened but the other parties were not interested any more.

A covenant was made in the Chamber 33 years ago, almost to the day, in June 1967. The then Liberal government made a covenant with the people of Nova Scotia and the people of Cape Breton, in particular through the Cape Breton Development Corporation, recognizing that the economy of Cape Breton had to be diversified.

These are not just my words. Let me read from an editorial in my community's newspaper this morning. It is entitled “The covenant is nearly at an end”. It talks about Bill C-11 and whether or not it will get through the Senate. It says:

Yet the Senate, that chamber of second sober thought, is perhaps the best place to debate the passing of the historic relationship between Ottawa and Cape Breton that has flowed in large part from the 1967 Devco act.

The arbitrator referred to the act and the historic covenant in his report. He quoted Jean-Luc Pepin. Ironically he quoted the New Democratic Party MP at that time for York South and a Conservative member. It is surprising that the Conservative Party voted in favour of this bill. Senator Bob Muir, who at that time was a member of parliament representing the mining community, and the New Democrats wanted the government to ensure employment for miners.

The government of the day said that it did not have to ensure that because of section 17 of the Devco act, which has already been referred to. I have referred to that section on numerous occasions and I do not want to use up my time saying what I have already said. It said that all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that could be expected to result would be taken by the government.

After 33 years one of the parties to the accord, as in a marriage, came in and said it is tired of the covenant. They have been together through some tough times and some good times. Certainly the people of Cape Breton have supported the Liberals throughout those 33 years.

In 1995 or thereabouts the government began having second thoughts about the covenant. In 1999 it served notice. Like a divorce paper, the notice was delivered. The parties went to court through the arbitrator and an award was made. I have no question that the covenant will be broken tomorrow night when the House passes the bill and it goes to the Senate.

Those kinds of breakups are always hard because both parties have invested. The people of Cape Breton have invested heavily with faith in their government. The government has invested heavily in Cape Breton. I do not diminish that. Like the spouse who is tired, the government has said it is time for them to go their separate ways.

Unfortunately the people of Cape Breton are like the spouses that end up impoverished. They are the ones who end up without the house. The kids are gone. There is not money in the bank account. They are told to get by the best way they can. There is a $68 million alimony payment over five years to replace the $300 million in the economy.

I used to advise those spouses that they did have to get on, that there was no point in bitterness or that at the end of the day they would waste more time than they had already wasted. I refer to the same editorial where it says:

Section 17, which will be expunged from the amended act, sets out obligations to the workforce and the general economy in the event of coal industry downsizing or the closure—

Those words sound almost anachronistic in today's more Darwinian economic and political climate. Perhaps the words have become little more than empty marks on paper, but their official eraser from the law of the land should at least provide an occasion to pause and consider where Cape Breton goes from here.

I spent many hours on the floor of the House condemning the government for what it has done, but the editorial is right. We have to look at where we go. We are a tough people. We are proud people. We are people who will rise from this. We are a people who will move on. We are a people who will accept the challenge. I will offer to the government tonight some suggestions. I hope it listens because it challenged us from time to time to say what it should do.

The minister referred to the report tabled by the economic panel. The one thing I was waiting to hear, which nearly every group that presented before the panel talked about, was decentralization. We now accept that we are in a crisis. The government has walked away. I suggest the first thing the government should do is look at decentralizing some of the very wealthy departments that exist in this very wealthy city and move them to areas of high unemployment.

I had a motion in the House to that effect. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has said that the department should be moved out of Ottawa to either coast. In an area of 50% unemployment it is time for the government to act on that recommendation.

There are other things the government could do. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is currently in Cape Breton. It provides some spinoff economy. As has been referred to earlier, there is also a need for remediation work. The mines have to be remediated. That is a legal obligation on the part of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The miners who are out of work or who will not qualify for pensions or benefits ought to be provided with an opportunity to remediate those mines. That will provide some lasting employment for those individuals and some training in that regard.

It has been mentioned that we have the Tar Ponds site. There is no better place in the country for a centre of environmental excellence than the island of Cape Breton. We are a beautiful island but we have environmental problems. I would ask the government to invest, if it is serious about its commitment, in the island of Cape Breton to create a centre of environmental excellence.

Other companies are looking at investing and growing the technology. Let us be clear that we have to clean up the environment or we simply will not have a world. There are sites around the world that need remediation. Cape Bretoners are hard workers. With the right training we could develop a technology that we could export around the world.

In the short term these would be most welcome announcements from the government: that it plans to decentralize, that it plans to set up a centre of environmental excellence and that is plans to remediate the mining sites. Indeed it has to remediate the Sydney Tar Ponds. All of these create jobs. All of these create knowledge. All of these create some wealth.

There is in my riding the Canadian Coast Guard College. It is a fact that there is currently in the law a requirement that everyone who ships oil on the ocean has to employ individuals who are trained in ocean cleanup. There may be one centre in the country where we can train people in that regard. The Canadian Coast Guard College on the ocean is a perfect place for the government to begin training individuals in ocean cleanup, in oil spills. That too could become a centre of environmental remediation for teaching individuals in that regard.

Cape Breton has a history of being an energy centre. I note that the Minister of Finance provided money in the budget this year for clean coal research and clean coal development. We have the miners. We have the coal. We have a history of providing energy. The government should invest and ensure that clean coal technology is developed in Cape Breton.

Cape Breton can also be a centre of sustainable energy development. In Europe, Denmark and Alberta wind power is seen as the energy source of the future. There are no greater winds than those that come off the north Atlantic. We could provide sustainable energy, not just for Nova Scotia but for much of the eastern seaboard.

Clean coal technology, wind power and environmental excellence would all provide opportunities. I have been asked to tour these plants. I am told that wind powered generator plants are like airplane manufacturing companies. There is all kinds of work for electricians, for the skills people in Cape Breton have developed working in the mines.

I spoke to the Minister of Natural Resources personally the other day. I commend him for finally appointing an arbitrator to help determine the dispute between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in terms of who shares in the Laurentian offshore. There is a real opportunity, if we seize it and if the government assists us, to make a petroleum industry in Cape Breton. We should be the supply base for any kind of offshore development. The skills of the workforce of the Cape Breton Development Corporation would be best suited to do that kind of work. It is dangerous work we know, but we are up to the task. It requires training but we are intelligent. The sooner we can develop the Laurentian Basin, the sooner we can see some economic growth.

The minister mentioned high tech and the call centre. With the greatest respect, I was happy to see the announcement and I welcomed it but those 900 jobs would be considered in any other part of the country secondary income jobs. In terms of high tech, if what we can expect are call centre jobs, it is simply not enough.

There is the opportunity to develop tourism. This is my concern with section 17. Tourism has been touted as the windfall for Cape Breton Island. Yet it has been reported to me that ECBC, the economic development agency that the minister now says will take over what was once the role of Devco, has decided to go back to the basics of assisting manufacturing. It has cut the budget which assists tourism in Cape Breton considerably.

We have some concerns. Tourism is an area that we can develop but we cannot develop it without infrastructure money. There is no point in inviting people to Cape Breton if the roads they drive on around the Cabot Trail are full of potholes. There is no point in inviting people to come to Cape Breton if we do not have museums and cultural centres for them to visit.

I presented the government with a wonderful proposal from the aboriginal community in Cape Breton to create a centre of Mi'kmaq studies and history and culture. It would be built on the waterfront and would provide an opportunity to attract tourists.

Our cultural industry is second to none. We could develop what Silver Donald Cameron, a well-known writer from Cape Breton, calls Banff east. It would be my hope that some day that could grow to where we would refer to Banff as Cape Breton west.

We have produced some of the country's best writers in literature. Alister MacLeod has two books on the best seller list. He is considered a master craftsman. Out of Cape Breton have come some wonderful writers. Ann-Marie MacDonald's book has been quoted. There are many. Bryden MacDonald and Audrey Butler have been nominated for the Governor General's Award.

There are opportunities for Cape Breton. I will work very hard and I know the people of Cape Breton will work very hard to see an economic future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren. We will do that with some mistrust of government. We will do that, although we are prepared to work with government, with some bruising. We will do that with some mistrust because a covenant has been broken. When it was broken we were left, in the vernacular, with the short end of the stick.

We are tough enough to rise to the challenge. We will rise to it. We will build an economic future, but the Government of Canada should be very reluctant the next time it reaches out to look for support from us, because we have given. We have given in two world wars, we have given in depressions, we have given to charities, we have given every time the nation has asked. We have given. Today we find the nation through the Government of Canada telling us it is time to separate. It is a sad day but we will get on with it.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, once again I see a good portion of the New Democratic caucus here, but I do not think we have a quorum.

And the count having been taken:

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Despite the fact that close to a third of the New Democratic caucus is here, I do not think we have a quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

That is a question that Cape Bretoners will ask. That is a question Canadians should ask. As the Prime Minister stands in Berlin and delivers his speech on the Canadian way, the headlines say that the Prime Minister wants to take the party back to its roots. Its roots are here. When members opposite vote down these amendments and vote in favour of Bill C-11 they will have ripped up the roots of the Liberal Party.

I know this is not easy because I have had discussions with colleagues of mine on the other side. I know that they struggle with it. Some members opposite shake their heads. When the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar talked about the labour situation in Colombia, some of the members shook their heads. I know they said he was not being relevant.

Let me tell the House what will happen with the passage of the bill. The number one asset of the Cape Breton Development Corporation is the contract to sell coal to Nova Scotia Power. It is worth millions. The proposed buyer for the assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation will be an American multinational that will ship coal. It is already coming in. It is already feeding Nova Scotia Power. It is turning a profit for Colombian mine owners who murder trade unionists in their country.

When the bill passes there is no guarantee that Cape Breton coal will be mined. There is no guarantee that Cape Breton coal miners will have work. The government cannot guarantee that. We asked it that at committee.

I urge members to ask the minister in their caucus meeting whether Cape Breton coal will feed Nova Scotia Power. Will it feed that asset? The minister should be honest with his own caucus. Members will have an opportunity to find out at the caucus meeting. I urge members of the Liberal Party who believe in the vision of Pearson, Pepin and MacEachen to ask the minister in caucus whether there a guarantee that Cape Breton coal will feed the Nova Scotia Power contract. If he says yes, with some guarantees, I think they can vote in conscience on Bill C-11, but I do not think he can give them that guarantee. I know he cannot give them that guarantee.

I asked the chairman of the board when he testified. We asked the miners. We asked the minister when he came. We asked Nova Scotia Power who it would buy coal from. It said whoever could produce quality coal at the cheapest price.

In a year, when Colombian coal is coming into Sydney harbour, if it comes and it will, it will be on their shoulders and the responsibility of members of the Liberal Party. They cannot say they were not told. I have told them. They cannot say they were not warned. They have been warned.

Tomorrow night we will see how they will vote. I should say for the record what is going on here tonight. This is one of the last debates on the amendments to the bill. We are having the debate tonight in extended hours because government members, again in an effort to push the legislation through the House, moved a motion that we would have extended hours. We have extended hours and there has only been passion in this debate by members of the New Democratic Party.

On behalf of the people of Cape Breton, I want to thank the 20 members of the fourth party in the House who have led the fight with my colleague and myself to try to bring forward some justice. It has only been us. We have been alone.

Let me conclude by talking about what a miner's wife said to me who came to testify before the committee. I ask Liberal members to listen. I will admit that after she testified we went out for a beer. There were two young former Liberals there. We went down to D'Arcy McGee's for a beer and surprise, surprise, there was a Cape Breton band playing. The bar was packed as they played Celtic music. This woman looked at me and said “Peter, I do not understand it. They like our music. They like our culture. Why do they hate us so much?”

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

That was in 1967. Let me go further because section 17 provides for the government to do whatever is necessary to reduce hardship. There is some sense of history repeating itself because here is what the arbitrator wrote on June 20, 1967, and here we are on June 5, 2000. Members of the New Democratic Party, in particular David Lewis, and of the Progressive Conservative Party, in particular Robert Muir who represented the community I represent today, expressed concern about the language of section 17 and proposed amendments which would have required Devco to provide alternate employment for employees laid off as a result of a mine closure.

In 1967, some 32 years ago, New Democrats stood in the House and suggested to the Liberal Party which was in power that there should be alternative employment for the miners in Cape Breton in the event of a mine closure. Here we are 32 years later fighting the same fight. Once again it is members of the New Democratic Party who are arguing that there should be fairer treatment of the miners in Cape Breton.

That being said, the Liberal government of that day did move section 17. So far we have Lester Pearson, Allan MacEachen and now we have Jean-Luc Pepin in 1967 talking about the need to take all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result from the closure of any mine. That was then.

Today we have the pretender to that throne in Berlin talking about the Canadian way, proudly boasting that his party understands the need for government intervention in a mixed economy. While he says that, while he speaks the words of Lester Pearson, Allan MacEachen and Jean-Luc Pepin, his government passes a bill that refuses to allow Cape Bretoners to have the majority of the vote on the board of directors.

That is covered by the group of amendments we have already dealt with, so let us look at this group that the government will oppose. Let us read my motion and compare it to Jean-Luc Pepin's bill that the Liberal Party passed. Jean-Luc Pepin said that all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship should be taken. Let me read my motion:

That corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine operated by the Corporation.

Those are the words of the New Democratic Party today. Those were the words of the Liberals 32 years ago.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:

“17. The Corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine operated by the Corporation.”

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the Group No. 3 motions moved by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and by me with regard to Bill C-11. A fair amount of quoting has been going on. I began my debate on Group No. 2 by quoting from the arbitrator's decision. Following that there was some quoting by the member from Bras d'Or of former Liberals, notably Prime Minister Pearson and Allan MacEachen.

I should point out that the arbitrator too quoted from the debates of 1967. This is what the arbitrator had to say about the passage of the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and specifically section 17 which, as I said earlier, is the section we relied on to suggest that this package was not fair from the beginning. I will read what the arbitrator wrote. This is not political rhetoric. This is the actual decision.

On June 20, 1967, when the legislation was being examined in committee of the whole House when there were Liberals on that side who believed in the dignity of the working people—

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 5th, 2000]

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

And the count having been taken: