Bev Desjarlais

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I am here to speak to this issue, but glad that I have the opportunity to speak for another 10 minutes. There was a lot that I did not have the chance to say about the previous amendments and I will make a point of emphasizing those points.

We are now dealing with the amendments in Group No. 3. They have been brought forward by my colleagues, and obviously none of my colleagues from the other parties, not the reform alliance nor the Bloc. Maybe one member of the Conservative Party had a little meek voice at one point. There has been nothing from government members, not a thing. Once again it emphasizes that they are all on the same wave length, that they are all in bed together, so to speak.

I am really disappointed in my colleagues from the Bloc. As much as I know they are here strictly for Quebec, usually they have more of a social conscience than some of the other parties. Quite frankly, that they would not even stand to speak for workers in Cape Breton is a disappointment. I expected more of a principled approach. Those members are there to support workers. The workers are fighting for what is important to them, ensuring that they have a decent pension and an opportunity to have a say over what happens to their pension.

Again, as my NDP colleagues have mentioned, there are some really way out amendments being asked for. The other parties are quite bothered over having to stay these extra hours to discuss these amendments. It is important for people to know that the hours have been extended. The NDP has forced the hours to be extended. The government wants to get on with other issues, so it wants to extend the hours to get this over and done with. Let us wipe those Cape Bretoners out of the House. Let us get them off the Hill as quickly as possible and move this issue out of the way, so we can deal with other things and go home for the summer recess. Everybody here is mumbling because they have to stay late tonight.

As hon. members are mumbling because they have to stay late tonight, as they are really feeling put out, they should think of each and every one of those miners in Cape Breton. They should think of each and every one of the families in Cape Breton, those small and medium size businesses and all those people who will be directly affected by what is happening here today. As they are feeling bothered, instead of hemming and hawing and cursing, they should take a moment to think about those families in Cape Breton who will lose out because the government did not have the will to start working on this issue five years ago.

It is quite apparent that it planned this five years ago. Instead of getting on with things and ensuring that there was training in place and opportunities in place, the government is fighting, saying that it does not want to put any more money into that black hole. The reform alliance members are saying no more money into that black hole and asking where else would pensioners get any money at 25 years or whatever. They are moaning about that.

The bottom line is that those miners in Cape Breton do not want a government handout. They never did. They want to work. As rotten as the coal mining industry can be, as dirty, wretched and unhealthy as it can be, those miners want to work, just like the miners at Westray wanted to work. They want to put food on their tables, a roof over their head, and clothes on the backs of their families. That is what they want. They do not want a government handout. The government had this plan in the works. Did it do anything for the last five years? No, nothing. All of a sudden it comes down with this policy of “We are not going to give them anything. We are going to get out of this”.

As I said when I spoke to the amendments in Group No. 2, we will watch to see what happens with coal mining in Cape Breton. If Devco is sold off for a little buck and a patronage investment is made, or if we see Canadian dollars being invested in Colombia, we will remind the government each and every day and we will remind Canadians each and every day that that was what it was about. It was a cheap investment.

We maintained all along that the government never really cared about decent labour standards, work standards or any of those conditions. It will take us right to the bottom. It will wipe out the coal mining industry in Canada, but invest in that same industry somewhere else with Canadian taxpayer dollars, the same dollars that those miners in Cape Breton put into the economy in their communities and throughout Canada through their taxes, their EI payments and their investments in the local economies.

The miners in Cape Breton cannot afford to invest in the Cayman Islands. The cannot afford to run a flagship under another country. They are not investing in Colombia; they are investing in Canada. That is more than this government is making sure is done.

The first amendment in Group No. 3 asks for:

“good mine safety, to provide permanent, full-time employment to the residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and to conduct its operations in a manner that benefits the economy of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.

That is pretty far out.

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

Madam Speaker, this is somewhat of a captive audience and it is wonderful, I have to admit. I was making the point about the government's inability to recognize what is important to Canadians and its inability to recognize what people in certain regions of the country want to be a part of. They want to have a say in what happens with their future. I mentioned pensions and wanting representation on the board for pensions so people have control over their future.

We need only look at what happened with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Royal Oak Mines in Yellowknife and the pensions of those workers. What did the government do to those pensioners? What did it do to those workers after the years they put into that mine, the taxes they paid for the government to flaunt around and do with what it will?

The government did not provide services and health care. It did not provide enough funding for education. It did not provide enough funding for infrastructure. What did the government do with the taxes after the hard work of the miners at Royal Oak Mines? What did it do with their pensions? The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development signed away their rights for a few bucks. There was no consideration for the work they put in. The government would not sign away the pensions of our colleagues opposite, not for a second, but for ordinary workers the government does not give a spit, not a bit.

It might be quite apparent to the Liberals that I am very disappointed over this whole issue. I am disappointed that we have had to force the government to be concerned about Canadians.

It is not okay to be flippant all the time. We can heckle. Our parties can banter back and forth, but it is not okay to be flippant about the lives of Canadians. It is not okay to be flippant about the life of that Colombian labour leader. It is his life. I want each and every one of those government members when that man's death gets reported in this House like the 90 other Colombian labour leaders' deaths, to recognize that their government supported that by not making sure we did the things we could as a good and caring socially conscious government to make sure that the rights of workers are respected everywhere.

The Liberal government, the reform alliance and the Tories always make sure to look after big business. It can come up with legislation to protect every business, every tax break it can give a business and corporation, but it cannot come up with anything as simple as protecting the rights of ordinary workers and the leaders who are out there fighting for them. Ninety labour leaders are dead and our government is a cohort of that government in selling off jobs in our country to that government.

At some point the people across the way will have to let that sit on their conscience. They will take it to bed at night and will take it with them when they leave this place. That is what it is all about. It is not the flippant attitude that they do not know the person so they do not care. That is the impression that is being given to people around the world, except for business, and it is not acceptable.

Those colleagues on this side of the House will continue to be on this side of the House because they have no leadership. Until the NDP came to the House this issue would not have been talked about. The Devco bill would have been over and done with because they are not speaking for Canadians either. They are there right along with the other ones. It is only because we are here that they have had to recognize this issue. Most of them are hanging their heads in shame because they have not spoken on this issue to protect these workers and ensure that they have a fair say in their pensions and representation on the board of directors. Not a word.

I hope some of the members across the way will take this to heart.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a sad day for all of us here. We have reached the point that in order to receive at least some kind of reasonable and fair debate on a situation so important to so many Cape Bretoners, we literally have had to force the government into every little piece of debate we get in the House.

It is extremely sad that on this day there are parties, such as the partners, the brothers and sisters so to speak, of the Liberals on the right side of politics, the Conservatives and the reform alliance, who swear up and down against closure but will not stand in the House to force debate on this issue for Cape Bretoners. Not a bit. They are right over there with the Liberals. They might as well sit in the same seats. We have said all along that there is no difference.

I think Cape Bretoners will now know true to heart that there is no difference among any of those parties. They had a chance to speak out on this issue, to support Cape Bretoners, and to support amendments that would assist the people in that area of the country and they have failed to do so, there is no question.

I want to thank my colleagues, certainly from Nova Scotia, but from Cape Breton, who have made it very clear to us as their caucus colleagues the importance of this issue. We have followed it with them through the numerous stages over the last number of months. They have raised their concerns with us almost each and every day over the last number of months, or even a year or so since this all started to transpire. Their concerns are for the people of Cape Breton and what they saw the government do to the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. They have kept us up to date all along.

We still had a shred of hope that government members would see the light. But lo and behold they are buried somewhere down in that mine with no hope of ever coming out. They cannot see that there is a need to put in some kind of progressive amendments that will support the people of Cape Breton, the mine workers who have been there for years. I thank my colleagues for keeping us abreast of that over a number of months.

It is beyond me why the Group No. 2 amendments cannot be supported by all parties in the House. There does not appear to be anything dastardly that will overthrow the government. The amendments call for fairness. They talk about the reform alliance's favourite rout, to be at the grassroots, to keep the people involved. Did they support going out to Cape Breton to hold meetings and have the people involved in the discussions? Not a chance. Not the people in reform alliance because they talk one way this time of the year and another way when they think nobody is watching. But that is not the case. Canadians will know that it is just a lot of talk and no action when it gets right down to it. The bottom line is they did not support amendments to have mine workers or pensioners on the board. Boy, that is a shocker.

What is so far-fetched about wanting the people who put in years of their lives and probably their health in a good number of instances, to have an opportunity? An hon. colleague from the Liberals said there may be a time when there are only one or two members on the board, that they may not need that many and they do not want to restrict it by having to have Cape Bretoners.

If we took that kind of attitude in the House of Commons, where would we be? Let us restrict it by not having any members from Ontario. Boy, that would do it. It is absolutely disgusting to even hear those kinds of statements. It makes absolute sense to have the people who will be most affected by this legislation and most affected by what happens with their pensions on the board.

There is not a lot of trust. I do not have a lot of trust in who the Liberal government might appoint to a board that will look after my pension. I would like to have some say in that. It is not unreasonable for Cape Bretoners and the mine workers to have a say in who will be looking after their pensions.

The Group No. 2 amendments are pretty much all along that line. Motion No. 9 states:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:

“(4) One director other than the Chairperson and the President shall be an employee of the Corporation”.

That provides for at least one employee representative to sit on the board of the Devco board of directors.

Another shocker is that the government changed the Financial Administration Act to make sure it could sell off Devco at, let us say, a buck. Let us get down to it, it changed the act so it could sell off Devco not even at value.

Canadians will be watching just to see what happens with Devco because after today they will know it is an issue. They will know that government patronage is probably lurking somewhere. To the credit of the reform alliance members, they love digging up smut. I am sure when this is all done they will be able to follow up on who ends up buying the coal mines and Devco, if they so choose. We never know because they change from day to day and maybe they will not bother. Let us see whether it is tied to one of the front seats on the other side of the House. It will be very interesting and Canadians will be watching.

[Workplace Safety, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years since the tragic explosion that took the lives of 26 miners in the Westray Mine. It has been three years since Justice Richard gave his report on the disaster. He called for changes to the criminal code to hold corporations and managers accountable for putting workers in undue danger.

The House has passed a motion calling on the government to act on Justice Richard's recommendations. Last Monday the justice minister tried to pass the buck to the justice committee by telling the House that the committee was looking at the issue. What the minister said was wrong.

Corporate responsibility is not on the justice committee's agenda. It has never been on the justice committee's agenda. It is time for the Liberal government to stop avoiding the issue of workplace safety.

Every year over 600 Canadians are killed on the job and over a million injured. It is time for the government to hold bosses who do not care about safety on the job accountable.

The NDP leader has tabled a bill to act on Justice Richard's recommendations and hold corporations and managers accountable. I have seconded that bill. We call on the Liberal government, and all members of the House to help us make workplaces safer for all Canadians.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is almost becoming like a trick way to get my question out. Fair enough.

The implication is that the government cannot get the provinces onside. Is the member willing to accept the defeatist attitude by the government that we should give up if we cannot get the provinces to agree with everything? Should we just not bother with anything and say to heck with a national transportation policy?

If the government is doing that, as far as I am concerned it is doing exactly what the Bloc is saying with respect to Quebec. It has given up on the federal government. It will not work so it wants out of here. Is that what she thinks the parliamentary secretary is saying as well, that they will just give up on the provinces?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

I thought I had to go through you, Mr. Speaker. I know there was an implication from the parliamentary secretary that the reason the government could not accomplish anything is that it cannot seem to get the provinces onside. My question to you is that I am—

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in his questions to you.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question that more dollars should be going from the federal government to the provinces on transportation throughout Canada. That is all the provinces. There is no question those dollars need to go there. Taking dollars from the fuel taxes is what Canadians are indicating they want to see happen.

It is a lot easier for government to go out, spend dollars and have support for spending those dollars if Canadians can see the direct relationship of fuel tax dollars going into roads, infrastructure and also the environment. There is no question that people think that dollars coming in from fuel taxes should be going into the environment as well.

We have seen the Liberal government create one slush fund after another with taxpayer dollars. It is not providing the services such as health care and education. It is not putting enough dollars into the environment and transportation. It is creating its own little slush fund. I do not know about other Canadians, but quite frankly I expect to see a lot of those slush fund dollars pop up in Liberal ridings prior to the next election. The bottom line is, that is not how government should operate. We should not have to wait until prior to an election to see some of our taxpayer dollars benefiting all Canadians. Those services should be provided all the time. That is what we want to see the government do.

Forget about the slush funds, a slush fund for the HRDC minister, another for the justice minister and another for the transport minister. There is nothing for the speakers, but there are slush funds here, there and everywhere. The government is going to get everybody onside prior to an election and then it is just going to give them a good one after the election.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak to the motion from the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester.

I will read the motion just so that everybody can hear it. My hon. colleague from the Bloc had some issue with the provinces not being acknowledged. Personally, I do not see anything in the motion that negates the provinces from being involved in this.

However, I think it is extremely important for the government side of the House to hear and think about the motion because the minister said that he could not support it. I am at a loss to understand why he cannot support it because if the government is not doing these things it has a serious problem.

This is what the motion states:

That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to coast by all Canadians.

How on earth can the government not support that motion? If it is not doing that, what the heck is it doing there? If it is not doing that it should not be there.

If the members on the government side vote against this motion, everybody in Canada better be giving their heads a knock in the next election. If the government cannot address this issue and have a transportation policy in place, we have serious problems. It would be like the finance minister not having a plan for what we will do years down the road.

Before I go any further, and before I get too involved in the whole issue of transportation, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from the Yukon.

Without question, my fellow New Democratic MPs and I will be voting yes to this motion. There is also no question that the Liberal government has completely dropped the ball when it comes to transportation, and we will see that clearly tonight for sure.

There is also no question that Canada needs the federal government to show leadership in dealing with national transportation issues. As the New Democratic transportation critic, I have been saying this for a long time, and I am glad to see that the Conservative Party has been listening.

I have to say that it seems very odd that this motion today is coming from the Conservative Party. After all, when that party was in power during the Mulroney years—and the transport minister mentioned this as well—it was just as bad in transportation policy as the Liberal government is today. In a lot of areas, the Liberal government has just continued with the policies put in place by the Mulroney Conservative government.

All of a sudden the Conservatives say that the government has to show leadership on national transportation policy. Where was the leadership when the Conservatives were in power?

Let us look for a moment at the Mulroney Conservative government's record. This is the party that deregulated the airline industry in Canada causing the crisis we have today. Of course the Liberal government continued the deregulation so it is just as much to blame. It can go ahead and blame it on the Tories, and go back and forth, but the bottom line is that it is just as much to blame.

As a result of deregulation, Air Canada drove its only competitor, Canadian Airlines, out of business and now we have a monopoly, making things very tough for Canadians to get around and to fly.

Where was the reform alliance? Where were its members through all these last six or seven years while all this was going on? They were there cheering the Tories and the Liberals on deregulation and privatization and not doing anything to force the government into going against the policy of privatizing. They were doing nothing to force the government to come up with a transportation policy that addressed the social needs of Canadians as well as just making a buck.

The Mulroney Conservatives were also the ones who made the deepest cuts to VIA Rail. Of course the Liberal government continued that policy too which has caused a lot of problems for communities in my riding of Churchill and many others across the country.

When we look closely we see that the Liberal government did not change much of anything when it replaced the Mulroney Conservative government in 1993. It reminds me of a fable Tommy Douglas used to tell, the story of Mouseland. Many New Democrats and people with any kind of social conscience in Canada have heard the story of Mouseland, but I would urge those who have not to take the time to watch it on video or read it. It is fairly easy for people to understand if they are willing to take the time to view it.

The mice in Mouseland always elected cats to parliament. There was one party of white cats and one party of black cats, and we all know who those are, the Tories and the Liberals. But no matter which party the mice elected, the government always made laws that benefited cats instead of mice.

For anybody out there who has not figured it out, all of those ordinary Canadians out there, the everyday people putting in their 8, 10, 16 hours of work every day toiling to make a dollar, and all those people out there fighting to improve things for all Canadians are the mice that are not being represented by those parties and not having policies come forth that benefit all Canadians. What the mice needed to do was elect a government of mice instead of cats. It seems pretty obvious does it not?

The point Tommy Douglas was making is as true today as it was 40 years ago. There really is not much difference between the Liberal government and the Mulroney Conservative government. The Liberals are red, the Conservatives are blue, but they are both cats. That is why no one should be surprised when the Liberal government gets elected and continues Conservative policies.

While we are talking about cats, we now have the green cats, the reform alliance. I mention reform alliance because although the party has changed its name, people still see the Reform Party. The Canadian Alliance tries to get them to not think of reform because a lot of Canadians now realize that what the Reform Party did was to continue to support those policies. Those members will try to fool a few Canadians as to who they are voting for in the next election, but Canadians are a whole lot smarter than that. They will know, and we will make sure they know, that the reform alliance party is still the party that supports Conservative and Liberal policies that do not benefit all Canadians.

The man who set most of the Liberal government's transport policies was none other than Doug Young. Doug Young was a minister in the Liberal government until he lost his seat in the 1997 election. For a lot of that time he was the transport minister.

One of the first things he did as transport minister was to eliminate the Crow rate subsidy for western farmers. There was no question the Mulroney government would have eliminated the Crow subsidy. It would have taken a period of time to eliminate it, but the bottom line is that it would have eliminated it. This was the single biggest blow to the western farmers. It is one of the biggest reasons for the crisis facing so many farm families on the prairies today.

It is pretty obvious that if we do one thing downward, we see the crisis that develops as a result of it. What did members of the Reform Party say when Doug Young and the Liberals got rid of the Crow rate? They supported it. The Reform Party out there fighting for farmers in Canada supported the elimination of the Crow rate. Meanwhile other countries were still receiving subsidies. The party which says it supports the west sided with the Liberal government, the big banks and the rail companies against farm families.

Whatever happened to Doug Young? We all know what happened to Doug Young. He is with the reform alliance. What is extremely interesting is that Doug Young, the former transport minister who set all these policies the Liberal government is following is now with the reform alliance. And the Liberal government continues with the policies he set as transport minister. Is there any difference? Not a bit; Canadian Alliance, Conservative or Liberal, there is no difference. As Tommy Douglas would have said, a cat is a cat whether it is red, blue or green.

I want to talk about the New Democratic Party's transport policy. The most important thing is that our transport policy benefits ordinary Canadians, not corporate special interests. Canadians pay millions each year in fuel taxes and only a tiny fraction of that money goes back into transportation. The roads and highways in many parts of the country are in terrible shape because of federal neglect. This hurts our economy because most trade in goods is conducted by road and it makes the roads less safe for Canadians to drive on. For the amount Canadians pay in fuel taxes, they deserve quality roads.

It also goes beyond that. We heard my hon. colleague from the Bloc talk about it. The people of Quebec have given up hope on the federal government because they have seen that unless there is a federal government which supports all communities and all the provinces, we cannot survive. They have given up hope on Canada. The rest of us have not. We are not going to give up hope. We are going to fight. We are going to keep the federal government honest and make it put some dollars back into all of Canada.

I am going to conclude my remarks by reiterating that the New Democratic Party believes the federal government has a vital role to play in transportation. Federal investment in transport is important for the economy as well as the safety of Canadian travellers. Transportation is vital to linking the communities in our country from coast to coast to coast. It has been falling apart under the Liberal government. Train stations are closing, airlines are shutting down, communities are being cut off and highways are crumbling. The federal government has to make a commitment to ensure that our country has a safe, effective and efficient national transportation system and it has to do it now.

If the government does not agree it has a part in that, it will vote against this motion tonight. But if it truly is a government that is out there to ensure we have a national transportation policy, I cannot see how it could possibly not support this motion.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a treat to be here today to listen to the members on the government side of the House and members from the opposition party down at the far end argue over who has been the worst at managing Canada's transportation system. That should tell Canadians up front and absolutely positively that neither of those parties or any like them are going to do what is best for Canadians in regard to the transportation industry.

Both of those parties have fought time and time again to privatize our entire system solely on the basis of privatization being the best answer to transportation in Canada and it has failed. What they should do is look back at what was really best for transportation in Canada which was a policy that was there to meet the needs of Canadians, not just for companies to make a profit off the backs of Canadians.