Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act June 5th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The terms of the motion indicate that we should extend the time, but it does not say until when. I do not know if that means we should operate around the clock. I do not know if that means we should operate until the end of July. I do not know if it means we should go until the Prime Minister decides to call an election. Given the vagueness of the motion, I have some questions in that regard.
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act June 5th, 2000
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 Act June 5th, 2000
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 Act June 5th, 2000
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 Act June 5th, 2000
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.
Devco June 5th, 2000
Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources said that the government would review the Devco arbitrator's decision carefully so that the government understood its implications.
Will the minister indicate today that the government accepts the binding nature of the decision, that the government will not be appealing the decision and that the government will implement the decision as quickly as possible?
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act June 2nd, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:
“(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.”
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:
“(4) At least one third of the directors shall be members of the Devco Pensioners' Association.”
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-11, in Clause 13, be amended a ) by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:
“18. (1) The Corporation shall by by-law pro-” b ) by adding after line 23 on page 5 the following:
“(2) The by-law 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.”
Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act June 2nd, 2000
moved:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-11, in 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.”
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-11, in 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) At least one third of the directors shall be members of the Devco Pensioners' Association.”
The Environment June 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am glad it is on the agenda because we are talking here of 600,000 tonnes of foreign contaminated soil per year. Even Mexico has harsher rules than we do.
Will the government act now, or will the minister indicate to us what position the Minister of the Environment will take to ensure that the Government of Canada knows what is coming in, what form it is taking and where it is going?
The Environment June 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of tonnes of contaminated soil from more than 20 countries, including the United States, are being buried in Canada in towns like Trois-Rivières and Sarnia. The federal government authorizes the importation of waste without knowing what is going to happen to it when it gets here.
Will the government modify its regulations to ensure that Canada does not become the toxic waste dump of the world?