Peter Mancini

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I want to say that it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to these motions.

I am proud of the motions that have come forward but I think we need a bit of history on some of them and on Bill C-11. My colleague has given some of the history going back to 1995. However, it is important for members of the House to understand what these motions mean and what has happened to them.

Those members of the Liberal Party who do not know the history of the committee that reported on this bill should listen. They should know the history and they should be ashamed.

After the government brought in time allocation the bill was sent to committee but not through the normal course of events. It was rammed through the committee to the point where the witnesses were given 24 hours notice to fly from Cape Breton to Ottawa during extended hours that the committee held, where the chairman ordered supper for the witnesses and the committee members, over a two day period, so they could say that they consulted. It was a farce. Yet, in good faith, the people of Cape Breton came forward to the committee. The major of the regional municipality came. Women from the Northside Futures Group came. The unions came. Every one of those witnesses made recommendations to the committee. Those recommendations from the witnesses formed the substance of the motions before the House today.

Some of those motions were brought to committee in another form. Despite the fact that these motions came from witnesses who will be directly affected in the communities where they live, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources exercised his duty as whip, and up and down the line, when the motions were brought forward, most of them were defeated.

I see some members in the House today who I think have a social conscience. I urge them to read those motions. Not all of them are up for debate in this grouping, but they are as innocuous as ensuring that Cape Bretoners sit on the board of directors. They were defeated by the government. We have to wonder why.

We believe there is a move afoot to ram this through before the next election so that the next Liberal standard bearer in Cape Breton does not have to answer or defend the actions of the government.

What is worse is that those witnesses were given a little bit of hope. Cathy Baker, whose husband is a miner and who has been affected by this, gave up her 12-hour shift on short notice to come to Ottawa to plead with the government to keep certain sections in the act. One of the Liberal members on the committee said to her that her comments made him think differently about the bill. The next day or the day after he voted against the very recommendations that she had put forward. He was whipped into shape.

There is a certain irony here today. This bill will undo the work of previous Liberal administrations: the Lester Pearson administration and the Pierre Trudeau administration involving Allan MacEachen, Romeo Leblanc and other Liberals who were considered left wing thinkers. I know the Liberal members are tired of hearing me say that because it perhaps creates a twinge of conscience.

The irony is that as the Prime Minister travels off to Berlin to deliver what many think is the left wing election platform of the Liberal Party, while he issues that statement in Berlin, here at home his government is undoing the very kind of Liberal policies for which this party was once so proud. While he echoes a remnant of what might have been in Berlin, the actions of his Minister of Natural Resources and of his government speak far louder than those words. When we compare that speech in Berlin with the legislation before the House today, it speaks of hypocrisy.

The minister has a choice. He can give credence to his leader's comments in Berlin by withdrawing this bill or, at the very least, by accepting amendments that were put forward by the people of Cape Breton, or he can make his leader look like a hypocrite and pass the bill in this Chamber. It will be an interesting contrast between that speech and this legislation.

I will now go directly to the motions that have been moved today. I will speak directly to Motion No. 2 which says that prior to the sale or disposal of all government assets, there should be a public inquiry into what this will mean for the economy on the island of Cape Breton. That is not happening.

The interesting reason that Motion No. 2 is an important motion is because the act that we are replacing mandated the government to assess what the economic impact would be as a result of the transition from a resource based economy to another one. That was what the foresight was of the government of Lester Pearson. To give it teeth a section was put in the act that mandated the government to look at that.

What could possibly be wrong? How could it be against public policy for a government to say that it understands the implications of this, that it is aware it will be selling off the assets of a crown corporation that is the major employer in a particular community, that it is aware that will mean massive layoffs and will have economic impacts, and that it will have a public inquiry and study it in order to find the best way to deal with it?

God knows in this House over 130 years we have had public inquiries into every possible subject. When it comes to the lives and the economic consequences of a bill that will affect the lives of 100,000 people, which is the population of the regional municipality of Cape Breton, when it comes to examining what effects this bill will have on those people, there is no interest, no time and no money. Perhaps the government can explain why it has no interest.

The government members will say that they have given $68 million to Cape Breton for economic development to replace the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The Minister of Heritage announced in the House the expenditure of $48 million toward the construction of a war museum. I suppose we have been given the price of a new building in Ottawa as the impetus for future economic growth for an island.

A contract was made between the Government of Canada and the people of Cape Breton. That contract said that the government would assist the people of Cape Breton through a transition period. Cape Bretoners understood that they would not be coal miners forever and ever. They understood that times were changing.

The people of Cape Breton looked to the Government of Canada to help them, not to baby them, not to make them dependent, but to help them. Is it wrong that they would turn to the government and ask for help as they made the transition? The Government of Canada in 1967 said it recognized its role and responsibility. It made a covenant, but today the covenant has been broken. Today there is a breach of faith and a breach of trust.

The people of Cape Breton have always given to Canada when asked. We have always honoured our side of the confederation agreement. I do not know that we can continue to make the same pledge because the covenant has been broken by the other partner and we have been left wanting.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-11, in Clause 11, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:

“(3) The by-law of the Corporation shall provide that if a person contracts any illness as a result of the person's employment by the Corporation, the person shall be entitled, for the remainder of the person's life, to the health insurance benefits that were provided as part of the terms and conditions of the person's employment.”

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following:

“(3) The Auditor General shall review the disposal of the Corporation's assets and all other activities related to the closing out of its affairs, and shall report to the House of Commons within six months of the disposal of the last of the Corporation's assets.”

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2000]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I had much more to say.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak to this bill today, but having listened to some of the debate and seeing the importance of the issue, I felt compelled on behalf of the people I represent to stand and speak about some of the issues which have been raised.

First, let me start by picking up on what was said by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who was in the midst of delivering what I thought were some interesting remarks when his time ran out.

He started with the question: How big should Canada be? What should the immigration number be? What should the population be before we add—

[Organized Crime, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government may have given itself a standing ovation a little too early on the issue of crime prevention. In the fall of 1997 I rose in the House and called for an investigation into allegations of corruption and the spread of organized crime in our ports resulting from the disbandment of the ports police.

At the same time I raised concerns about important investigative case files that were being destroyed or lost while biker gangs took control of the ports. Those concerns have not gone away. In fact they have resurfaced this week.

After three years of warning, will the minister admit that we were right and that he was wrong? More important, will he take steps to re-establish the ports police?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this week, while gearing up to discuss trade and democracy at the OAS meetings in Windsor, the federal government has been busy quashing democracy and workers' rights here at home. The government rammed Bill C-11 through committee after virtually no consultation and refused to consider any amendments.

The legislation not only delivers a serious blow to the coal miners and people of Cape Breton, but it has international implications as well. While Cape Breton miners lose their jobs, Canadian companies that once relied on Cape Breton coal will be buying more of it from countries like Colombia, where miners live in virtual poverty and over 900 trade union activists have been murdered.

The passage of Bill C-11 will result in the loss of jobs for Canadians, the underdevelopment of Canadian resources and financial rewards for Colombian murderers.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. If we wanted to look at what was the growth industry in Atlantic Canada or where we should invest funds, the auto repair industry, the shop industry, is probably the only bright light in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia at the current time.

I share with the member that concern. That is not just my concern. I have received a number of letters from constituents in my riding who talk about that very issue. They say that we are supposed to be developing tourism as an alternate industry in Cape Breton. As the government withdraws from Devco it keeps pointing to tourism as one of the areas of potential economic growth. However, as the member says, for people to get from one place to another with their car intact is no easy feat. We could all participate in some international races because we have learned to weave in and out and around the potholes. I share with him that concern.

I also share the concern that the smaller provinces or the provinces that find themselves economically strapped simply cannot afford the kind of extensive repairs that are needed. If the federal government wants to enter into some kind of agreement, there has to be the recognition that not all provinces have the same resources. That is one of the founding principles of this country and Confederation. I will be getting a sign again, but I would concur with the member and his comments.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the very eloquent member for Palliser.

I want to comment on some of the comments made by the chairman of the transport committee on a number of issues. He bragged today about the privatization of CN. He bragged today about Nav Canada. He bragged about the privatization of the airports. He bragged today about the privatization of the ports.

He pointed the finger at the NDP. He said that this was the bugaboo of members of the NDP, that they believe the government should be involved to ensure that communities do not face economic devastation. He is right. We do believe that. I thought at one time he might have believed that as well.

I will quote from a book I picked up the other day. “The question is who puts bread on the table when the private markets fail to do so? The long term role of the state will not be determined by the necessity in the short run to solve fiscal problems. There are signs now that the fashion of denying on principle a positive role for the state is losing its grip. The avoidance of social disharmony makes it imperative that those in authority will not lag behind their public in realizing that the state still has a role in keeping bread on the table. The people as a whole will have the final say in determining the future role of government and I am content to rely on their judgment”.

Those are the words of the Hon. Allan MacEachen, a well respected former Liberal. I wonder how he would feel about the comments of the transportation chair about the great, wonderful role of privatization of the transportation industry in this country.

I also think that the chairman and some of the members need a little history lesson. In condemning the Conservatives, he talked about how the Liberal plan has benefited the country. There may be some truth that it benefited parts of the country. Probably Toronto is doing very well. I pick up the Globe and Mail and I read about the economic growth in parts of Ontario. However there is a history here.

There was a time a hundred years ago when the economic centre of growth was Atlantic Canada. The transportation routes to Atlantic Canada were the most travelled in the country. A deal was made. It was called confederation. As part of the deal, some of the transportation routes would be bypassed in order for the country to forge into the west. For a hundred years we developed a transportation policy that allowed that to happen. We enhanced the St. Lawrence Seaway which allowed some of the ships that would normally stop in Atlantic Canada to find their way through the continent to the port of Montreal and the ports of Ontario.

Now Atlantic Canada finds itself in a most difficult situation. As the government of the day decides that privatization and the natural market forces are the way to compete, we find ourselves scratching our heads asking what happened to the concept of confederation where we were going to give a little bit in the interests of building a nation.

Now that the playing field is tipped a little bit in central Canada's favour, all of a sudden that does not matter anymore. All of a sudden we are all supposed to compete. Atlantic Canadians, and when I say this I know I will be supported by my colleagues in the Conservative Party who represent Atlantic Canada, can compete with the best of them when the playing field is level. But it is not and it has not been for some time.

When the member of the government says that there is a transportation policy in place that has created economic growth in this country, I say again maybe for some parts. In the region of the country I represent we are fighting desperately to keep in place a rail system so that when the federal government withdraws from the Cape Breton Development Corporation we have something to attract businesses so they can ship goods out.

They keep telling us in Atlantic Canada to pull ourselves up, to be competitive and to manufacture goods. We agree with all of that, but it is not much good to manufacture goods if we cannot get them to market. We do not have a sufficient population base. We rely on markets to the east where Europe is, to the south where there are huge markets in New England, and to the west, to Ontario. Without substantial investment from the government in the infrastructure of Atlantic Canada, we simply cannot compete and find our way to the same level of prosperity as other parts of the country.

We require a strategy that will invest heavily in those areas of the country that are not benefiting from the current economic growth. Atlantic Canada is one of them. That can be done in a number of ways.

I have advocated for some time the restoration of passenger rail service in my own hometown. We had a passenger rail service until the Conservative government took it out in the 1980s. It was a well used and profitable VIA Rail line. There was no reason to take it away. The city of Saint John found itself in the same situation. It had a rail service that was profitable. Prime Minister Mulroney said if the rail line was used, he would not take it out. We used it. We took him at his word and it was gone.

Consequently the community I represent is faced with an aging population. The major medical centres are in Halifax. People have the choice of driving to Halifax in a minivan at considerable cost or driving themselves on highways which have become incredibly terrifying for senior citizens because of the trucks and increased traffic. It is not like it was 25 or 30 years ago.

One of the things the government could do is re-establish passenger rail service in the communities where it was profitable. That would maintain the rail lines so that as we try to develop some economic growth, the rail line is there and is used and maintained for both passengers and freight on which we could build an economy.

Let me talk a little about the airports. The chairman of the transport committee talked about what a wonderful job Nav Canada was doing, how good it was that it had been privatized out to a private corporation. Let me relate some of the experiences we have had.

There was a period of time about two years ago where Nav Canada decided it would downgrade the airport in Cape Breton. Again, as we are trying to build an economy, trying to take the government at its word and trying to be innovative and entrepreneurial, not only did we have a problem with the rail lines, but we also heard that the flight service centre would be removed from our airport.

Being a member of parliament and a community activist, I got the community involved. I said, let us talk to the people at Nav Canada. Surely they would be reasonable and understand that we need to maintain this service. Their response to me was that this was community consultation but they would make the final decision. They said, “We are a private corporation. What matters to us is the bottom line. It does not matter that you guys are trying to pull yourselves up. It does not matter that you need this airport if you are going to build any kind of economic infrastructure. We are interested in the bottom line and whether you are making money right now”.

Fortunately we are a tough lot in Cape Breton. The community got together. We fought hard enough and we kept the flight service station. Had it been government that was involved in that, it would have at least understood there was a social policy attached to the dismantling of that airport. However, the Liberal government in its move to privatization and its newfound zealot's belief in the private market, decided it would disband that.

That was the consequence for small communities in the country. I know what we face is no different from small communities in the west and in northern Ontario that are trying to build up their economic base.

The chairman of the transport committee, with some wry humour I suppose, talked about the small little ports in the east and the west. Those little ports represent an opportunity for economic growth for many of those communities. Maybe it is because I represent an island that has an inland sea in the centre of it that we are so sensitive to the ports. Those small communities rely on the ports to ship gypsum and lumber in and out. They rely on them as they plan their economic future for tourism and all kinds of activities.

When we got word that the government was divesting itself of the ports, the community was concerned because the economic base is not there for the community to say it can afford to take it over and have a port authority maintain it. Many communities in Atlantic Canada cannot afford that at this point in time, yet the port is essential if they are ever going to get to a point where they can afford to maintain their own ports.

Once again the playing field has been shifted. We have to run uphill and just as we are about to get there the ropes are being pulled away.

I accept the motion moved by the Conservative Party today. It provides important debate in terms of the transportation problems facing the Canadian people.

I want to talk about one other aspect of transportation. It is one which I do not think has been mentioned yet, although it may have been by the newest member of the House of Commons. I am sure he will find some interest in it as will my other colleagues from Newfoundland, and that is Marine Atlantic. It is a vital transportation link for the people of Newfoundland. It is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the province of Newfoundland.

I conclude by saying that those are all vital transportation links to Atlantic Canada. We will fight to maintain them and we will demand from the government the honouring of the contract that was made so long ago.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from the Conservative Party on his perspective as an Atlantic Canadian.

I would concur with him that for far too long those of us in the Atlantic region have been disadvantaged because of the historical trading links that went east to west. At the time of Confederation, we in the Atlantic region gave up the natural north-south trading routes, and we did so in good faith. As the member said, today we find that without the necessary infrastructure it is difficult to compete.

I would question my colleague on the issue of airports because I found his comments to be most interesting. We have a small airport in Cape Breton that is absolutely essential if we are to develop and grow an economic base. Yet we are threatened at various times with the loss of the flight service station and the loss of the people who operate the runway. We have been told that this could be centralized and done from Halifax.

The member spoke about the loss of two airports in New Brunswick, but I think we face the same thing in all of the Atlantic region. The government's philosophy might be to have one central airport, not in New Brunswick, but maybe in Halifax. I wonder if the member would care to comment on what the loss of these vital airports would do to areas like Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Cape Breton.