Bev Desjarlais

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, employment insurance has not been cutting it for many thousands of laid off lumber industry workers. While the Liberal government plays footsie with the Americans, workers find themselves unemployed in an economy on the verge of recession with little or no EI benefits because of Liberal government cuts to the program.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell us if she has any intention of temporarily topping up EI for laid off lumber industry workers to help them through this trade war?

[Employee Benefits, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, just in case my colleagues across the way have lost sight of what we are talking about or the public has forgotten, because sometimes when a debate goes on other things come into it, I want to reinforce the motion by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre:

That, in the opinion of this House, any actuarial surplus in any pension plan or employee benefit plan should be considered the deferred wages and exclusive property of the employees and should only be used to improve the benefits of retirees or to provide a contribution holiday for employees.

A lot of Canadians believe this already happens. We have heard horror stories over the years where different employers raped the pension plans or went bankrupt and used the pension plans and the employees were left out in the wilderness in the snow. They were left going into their senior years with nothing.

Canadians think that governments addressed this issue and put in strong regulations to make sure this did not happen. A lot of people out there believe this has already happened. It is surprising that sometimes private members have to bring forward good motions and good pieces of legislation to address the downfall and the lacking of the government of the day and certainly, that is the case here.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has been involved with employees for a number of years. I am sure over time he has seen a number of cases where this has happened and the employer has utilized the funds.

I think of the situation of the Giant mine workers in Yellowknife and what they went through with their severance packages and pension plans when that mine went under. The government, and I believe it was under the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, took over the mine and literally gave nothing back to those employees. They were left out in the cold, which again is no surprise with the government.

It is crucial that we as private members bring these motions forward and remind the government of what is important. Canadians want to see values. They want to know that when they make investments in their pension plans, they will reap the benefits of those pension plans.

It is not just those employees that reap those benefits. Each and every one of us knows retirees in our communities. Often employees leave their employment with a pension that gives them $10,000 a month. Mostly they are minimal pensions that give a person a living to some degree. Those people are interspersed in every small community, village and town in the country. Those are the people who keep our local economies going. The more we can put into their pockets in their retirement, the better off we are as a country. That is what sustains our local economies and builds the country we know and we want to be proud of.

I am extremely pleased that my colleague has brought forward this motion. I want to support his motion. It has certainly been good listening to some of the members who have supported it. Obviously there are those who had some rather lacking comments about it for what I consider invalid reasons, but so be it. That happens in the House.

I reflected on some things as my colleague from the PC/DR Coalition was speaking. He talked about the need for the government to follow through on what it does so that the private sector will also follow through. It is tough ensure that the private sector will follow through on rules if the government does not do it.

Pay equity was the prime example. For 14 years public servants had to fight the government year after year after year. Literally hundreds of thousands, actually millions of dollars went to legal fees to fight the employees who were claiming rightful equity within the public service.

Finally the government was forced to come through with it. There were 14 years of legal fees and fighting. Through that whole process that was the example it was setting for private industry in Canada. It said that pay equity was not important, not worth diddly-squat. It made that fight in the private sector that much tougher.

It is crucially important that the government practice what it preaches. Otherwise it does not get the support and does not have the trust of the public.

There is another situation. I almost do not want to bring it up but I do so because it happened this afternoon and it bothered me that the government would take this stance. We talked about the cluster bombing in Afghanistan. Former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy is renowned internationally for his efforts to ban landmines. Canada sings its praises about banning landmines. We could not get the U.S. on side and never could, but Canada went out there and sang its own praises. All the Liberal members I am sure jumped up at numerous times and clapped and cheered because they were opposed to landmines.

Today we heard about cluster bombs. They will land and not explode, but they will explode later. They act just like landmines. We heard that we have to do that sometimes. No, we do not do it ever. If we do not believe there should be landmines, then we follow through all the time. It is absolutely inhumane to leave bombs sitting around for children to walk over. The small children are the ones who suffer the most.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, October 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party at second reading of Bill C-38, an act to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act.

It was not that long ago, in fact just about 18 months, that we last debated a bill to amend the Air Canada Public Participation Act. That was the last parliament's Bill C-26 which, among other things, approved Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines. I think it is important that as we debate the bill before us today we remember this context. It has been about a year and a half since the government passed Bill C-26 to approve the merger of the two national airlines and I think it is now pretty safe to say it has been a disaster. The government completely dropped the ball with the merger.

One of the minister's stated objectives in Bill C-26 was to foster competition in the domestic market. He said so repeatedly in the House. What has happened? Eighteen months later we have even less competition than we had before. Royal Airlines and CanJet are no more. They have been swallowed up by Canada 3000. Two entire airlines are gone. So much for fostering competition.

The minister also said that Bill C-26 was supposed to prevent Air Canada from using predatory pricing to drive its competitors out of business. As we on the House of Commons transport committee have heard repeatedly over these months, this part of that bill has been a failure as well. The small airlines that are trying to compete with Air Canada and offer Canadian travellers some choice in the market have repeatedly been saying what we in the New Democratic Party were already saying while Bill C-26 was still before the House: that the anti-predatory pricing measures contained in that bill were toothless and completely ineffective.

This should not be surprising to the government. The commissioner of the competition bureau came before the transport committee while we were reviewing Bill C-26 and told us straight out that the bill did not give him the powers he needed to stop predatory pricing, but the Liberals ignored him. So did the Alliance and the Tories. I do not know why that happened. Maybe they just had their ideological blinders on and would not even think about the possibility that maybe a little regulation was necessary to prevent Air Canada from abusing its monopoly.

The competition commissioner said the bill would not give him the power to stop predatory pricing. My party's response was to try to do something about it. At report stage I introduced amendments to strengthen the competition bureau's ability to fight predatory pricing. The Liberals, the Alliance and the Tories opposed it and now we see the results.

The bill before us today, Bill C-38, would repeal paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This would remove the 15% cap on ownership of shares by an individual or a group of individuals working in concert. This is a thoroughly underwhelming response to the current crisis in the airline industry. If the minister thinks that this is going to solve either the short term or the long term problems facing Air Canada and the overall airline industry, he is fooling himself.

The government argues that removing the shareholder cap will allow large investors to come in, buy the company, recapitalize it and restructure it. There are two problems with this reasoning.

First, industry and market analysts tell us that there is virtually no interest out there from investors in making any kind of major investment in failing airlines like Air Canada. This was the case before September 11 and it is even more so now given the world decline in travel and tourism since the terrorist attacks. Who does the government think is going to come along and invest all this money in Air Canada? Unless it knows something that it is not telling us, the bill would not do even a little bit of good.

The second problem with the government's reasoning is that even if removing the cap were to solve Air Canada's short term problems, which I do not believe it will, it opens up the airline to an even more long term problem down the road.

Why has the minister flip flopped from 18 months ago when arguing against the elimination of the cap? Is it simply because he sees no other way to address Air Canada's short term cash crunch? There are much better ways to address the short term necessity of keeping Air Canada in the air, which do not carry the long term costs that the bill carries. In the past few weeks, as the New Democratic transport critic I have suggested numerous alternative ways that the government could help Air Canada make it through the short term cash crunch, like tax deferrals, interest free loans, lower airport lease fees and initiating negotiations with Nav Canada to find a way to reduce the air navigation fees.

New Democrats do not want to see a direct government handout of taxpayer dollars to Air Canada, but if it is necessary we have said it should come with strings attached and should give the government a say in how the airline is restructured.

The bill addresses only the immediate short term problem facing Air Canada and it does not even do a credible job at that.

We have to look at the long term issues facing the industry. In the long term it is crucial that the government break the airline industry out of the destructive cycle it has been in for the last decade. The cycle repeats itself over and over again in every country that, like Canada, has an unregulated airline industry. First, capacity rises to unsustainable levels. This leads to massive financial losses. Then the weakest companies go under. They collapse and are downsized or the airline reduces capacity. Then the cycle repeats itself.

This is a ridiculous way for the government to let an industry as important as the airline industry operate. The uncertainty we get from going from crisis to crisis undermines the entire national economy. We can ill afford this with our economy on the verge of recession.

If the government ever wants to end this cycle it has to drop the passive, minimalistic approach the transport minister is suggesting. It has to stop responding on a crisis by crisis, patchwork and piecemeal basis and look at some modern regulation to limit the growth of capacity. I am not talking about the old fashioned regulation of every route and every fare. I am talking about limited, targeted regulation to control the growth of capacity: a modern regulatory regime.

For the good of our airline industry the minister needs to take off the ideological blinders telling him that all regulation is bad and realize that total deregulation is just as bad as total regulation. There is a middle way and that is what he should be aiming for.

Although I do not believe this extinction of the shareholder limit will be the saviour of Air Canada or do the job of stabilizing industry, my party will not delay the bill going to committee. The transport committee needs to review the situation and, quite frankly, I hope we will see investors come forward. However, more must be done to stabilize our entire airline industry. Had one or two shareholders owned Air Canada, where would they be today? Would they have survived the huge losses of the past six weeks? Will these present changes ensure service to all regions of Canada? I think not.

My colleague from the Bloc has rightfully criticized the government for its approach to offering loan assistance. The government has said that if the airline restructures and lays off workers it will get assistance. The government has abandoned smaller rural and northern communities by not holding Air Canada to the merger agreement.

I also want to join my colleague from the Bloc in the disappointment I feel that the Alliance Party refuses to accept our bilingual nation.

Much more needs to be done to stabilize the airline industry. It is time to realize that the strategy of the last decade has not worked. We need to look at alternative methods. I look forward to having witnesses appear before transport committee and to coming up with a resolution that I hope will truly, once and for all, give some stability to our airline industry.

[Lumber Industry, October 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. government's new tariff on softwood lumber brings the total tariff to over 31%. Now it looks like the B.C. government is about to crack under pressure and cave in to U.S. demands to get the tariff removed.

If one province cuts a side deal with the U.S. it will undermine all provinces. Lumber industry groups, including the B.C. Lumber Council, are calling on all levels of government to stand firm and work toward a long term national solution for Canada.

Does the government agree with the industry that all provinces should stand together in forming united fronts against the U.S. attacks? If so, how will it keep a rogue provincial government like the B.C. Liberals from selling out--

[Lumber Industry, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government's inaction is devastating our forest industry. Now the U.S. is expected to add a second softwood lumber tariff to the one that has already caused thousands of layoffs in Canada.

Does the minister know whether the U.S. plans to increase the tariff by as high as 40%? Should this happen, will the government commit today to an income support program for forest industry workers affected by job losses?

Will the government finally stand up to the U.S. and ensure the well-being of our forest industry?

[National Rivers Day, October 25th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I too want to commend my colleague from across the way for bringing forward the motion, which I believe was seconded by my New Democratic Party colleague from Burnaby--Douglas.

National days have been mentioned when we sometimes joke about how we are running out of days. There are 365 days in a year and we are starting to run out of days that we can use to name something to honour, whatever it may be. I think we need to reflect on that. As much as it seems that it is just one of those things we do all the time, I have to admit that I find myself paying special attention now when I hear whatever particular day it is. The fact that it gets additional public recognition makes a difference as to how we look at it.

I think of March 8, international women's day, and the impact it has had on me. I was nominated for the first time for my party on March 8. There are numerous days like that which cause us to think and reflect on things that are very important and near and dear to us.

Our national rivers system is near and dear to all of us and unfortunately we sometimes do not see that. There are a good number of Canadians who never so much as get near the water. They are either just travelling down the highway or heading off on a sidewalk to work. Some people never get the opportunity to be by the rivers or, if they are very lucky, to be on a boat or a canoe on the river system. This is something that needs to be experienced.

I have had that pleasure within the riding of Churchill and pretty much most of Manitoba, both on land and water. There is a tremendous number of waterways and rivers within the riding of Churchill.

I will make a point of commenting on the Bloodvein River which is one of the heritage rivers mentioned previously by my colleague. I did not know about the heritage rivers system until I became a member of parliament and was reading about the Bloodvein River. I was truly impressed. The more I studied the heritage rivers system and the Bloodvein River flowing through Manitoba and Ontario, I recognized the impact it had on the Bloodvein First Nation and how they worked with the river. To this day they take great pride in the Bloodvein River and its tourism potential. For anyone listening, it is a fantastic canoeing river and a truly enjoyable experience.

As well, in the northern part of my riding there is the Grass River system. This is another fantastic canoe trip with waterfalls along the way. It is a wonderful system within the riding and truly another enjoyable tourist attraction.

Water, as a river or a lake, has the potential to be very soothing and e very powerful, like the rivers in our country. They are very peaceful, but when the floods come they literally have the power to rip a community apart. The waters need to be respected and we need to show that respect environmentally. We can do good for the rivers and the rivers can do good for us.

I would like to comment on how we tap our rivers for other sources of industry. In my riding we have the great opportunity of hydro developments. The hydro projects within the Nelson River system in Manitoba have brought a lot of good opportunities and a lot of prosperity to the communities around them as well as to the province of Manitoba, but there have been problems as a result of hydro projects on the rivers. I tie that to the fact that we have to respect the river so we are not destroying what is there, so we are protecting it for communities around it.

I appreciate my colleague bringing forward the motion. I know the motion is not votable but it certainly has garnered the support of members here today.

I would hope that members will all continue to show that support in some manner so we can go ahead, whether the motion is votable or not, at some other point to officially name a national rivers day. It would cause Canadians to reflect upon the importance of our river system, the benefits to us, and the important need for our country in general.

[Air Canada, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is scrapping the 15% shareholder limit in Air Canada. Given that industry analysts are telling us that there are no large investors waiting in the wings to buy shares in Air Canada, will the Minister of Transport admit that the move is simply a substitute for taking substantive measures to help the airline?

Why will the government not consider significant proposals that will actually have some effect, like lower airport lease fees, lower air navigation fees and workplace stabilization plans such as those suggested by the employees?

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of good debate we need to have in the House. I will answer the question. Whenever we think the right or the opportunity to go to work is a licence to kill, something is seriously wrong. That is the problem. Yes, by all means they should have a job to go to. However with all due respect people said the same thing about the miners at Westray. They said if they had not had the mine to work in they would have had nothing.

Do we accept unsafe work conditions? Do we accept child labour? Do we accept death on the way home because we cannot put in safe social systems and safe transportation? Is that okay? No, it is not. That is where we differ. Yes, they should have the right to go to work. However they have a right to other things as well such as human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. That is where we differ. When the hon. member comes up with a trade agreement that has those things he will have the support of the NDP.

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond since my colleague referred to an analogy I made. In the point I was trying to make I referred to your son and the Montreal Canadiens in the same breath. It was in a good light, Mr. Speaker. I said that even in hockey we have rules. We have rules so that one guy or team is not so big and powerful that they have all the power in one area to the detriment of the other. That is the point I was trying to make.

That being said, I want to comment on how well Mexico is doing and re-emphasize that New Democrats are not in the least opposed to trade. We need trade for strong economies on both sides. Whatever countries are involved in the trading process it should be beneficial.

I will tell my hon. colleague a story. I was visiting Arizona a few years back and watching an American program. This is important because it deals with the issue of trade. On the program there was a representative of American companies that were doing business near Guadalajara, Mexico. The story talked about 200 dead women were disappering found in the desert.

Women were disappering going to and from their workplace. They were as young as 12 or 13 years old. Some 200 bodies were found over the course of a few years. People were imploring the companies to put some kind of system in place to bus the women to and from their residences and the workplace. These companies made a fortune selling their products in Canada and the U.S. yet their representative said they had to have flexibility and be able to make a profit. He asked why they should have to put in a busing system.

They found the bodies of 200 Mexican women. Is that right? Is that a fair deal for everyone? Is that what the member's idea of free trade is all about?

[Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest my colleague's comments about being a Reform member running alongside a Conservative and being pretty much onside with everything. I do not think there is any question about it. There will not be any argument there. New Democrats have long maintained that there really is not a whole lot of difference between the alliance-reform and the Conservatives. Quite frankly, we would also maintain there is not much difference between them and the governing party. That point is made.

He commented on the benefits of the trade agreements. I would agree that there certainly are benefits to trade agreements. He talked about the English language and people in Costa Rica learning the English language in order to be able to carry on trade. That is really important and there is no question about it, but what happens when we have what supposedly is called free trade with, say, the U.S. and because the U.S. lumber industry does not want its industry to suffer in the U.S. it imposes a 19% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber? Where is that great free trade with the United States?

That is the problem with these deals. They are not there to benefit both fairly. It is usually the big guy with the big stick who wins out.

I would like his comment on the 19% tariff that the U.S. has imposed on softwood lumber from Canada.