House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was dollars.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Independent MP for Churchill (Manitoba)

Lost her last election, in 2006, with 17% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Pay Equity June 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, recent court cases affecting women workers at Bell Canada have cast into doubt the likelihood that these women will have their rights recognized under the federal pay equity legislation which has been on the books for 20 years.

If the government is committed, if the President of the Treasury Board is as committed as he says he is to equality for women, will the minister stand up today for the principle of pay equity and intervene in the Bell Canada case to ensure that 20,000 Canadian women have their concerns addressed in the appropriate tribunal to reach a fair and just settlement?

Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 June 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to speak on Bill S-3.

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act June 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, back in 1989 the Conservative government originally introduced the safety board act and we opposed it. It was fundamentally flawed then and it is fundamentally flawed now.

The bill before us is to amend the act but does nothing to address the deficiencies in the Transportation Safety Board. The main idea underlying this act is supportable in principle. In 1989 this act brought a number of federal bodies responsible for investigating transportation safety under the same roof.

If the Conservative government had wanted to, it could have streamlined these operations, increased efficiency and saved money for the taxpayers without sacrificing public. Instead this act created a seriously deficient Transportation Safety Board, a board that was and still is unable to fulfil its mandate to safeguard the lives of Canadians.

Last year there were 2,159 train, marine, air and pipeline accidents reported in Canada. This is just the number of reported accidents and does not include any that went unreported. These accidents resulted in 127 deaths. Yet the safety board's nationwide investigative staff only consists of 135 people. These 135 people, field investigators, supervisors, laboratory personnel, forensic investigators have to cover all the accidents that occur in Canada. No wonder the safety board is plagued with a backlog.

In its annual report the board states its intention to reduce the amount of time it spends on each case so that it can reduce its backlog. Think about that. They are going to spend less time on each case so they can cut down the backlog. An investigation into an accident is not something that can be rushed. It is a matter of public safety and warrants a complete and thorough investigation, not a rush job.

The government has left the Transportation Safety Board understaffed and underfunded so much that the dedicated public servants who work there have little choice but to cope as they are doing. It should not be this way. This organization is supposed to advance transportation safety in Canada. It is what Canadians rely on to protect them and their environment from accidents on the rails and waterways and in the the skies and the pipelines of this country.

Canadians rely on the Transportation Safety Board but its resources are spread too thin. It was a good idea to streamline safety investigations under one roof, but for it to work we have to give the board the resources it needs to fulfil such a broad mandate. By nickeling and diming the Transportation Safety Board the government is putting the health and safety of Canadians at risk.

This is not something we can afford to cut corners on, but that is just what is happening. Apparently the government would rather save money than lives.

Fortunately the original act included a clause requiring a review of the Transportation Safety Board. This review was completed in 1994. By then we had a new government. The Liberals had replaced the Conservatives.

The Liberals have had a chance to fix the problems with the Transportation Safety Board to make a meaningful investment in transportation safety but they have chosen not to. They are just as indifferent to the health and safety of Canadians as their Conservative predecessors.

Instead the Liberals have given us the bill before us today, Bill S-2. Not only does this bill not deal with the deficiencies of the Transportation Safety Board, it actually makes them worse.

At present the board consists of four members. One of the amendments that the Liberals are proposing would allow them to turn some of these appointments from full time into part time positions. We are led to believe that this is a good thing because they will be able to spread themselves a lot further. I am sceptical. I am concerned that the board will have even fewer working hours to deal with the many important issues it is mandated to investigate. This is a big step in the wrong direction.

There are a few good amendments in this bill, but on the whole it makes a bad act even worse. One of the good amendments which I will touch on briefly is the extension of the privacy protections for those who give information to board investigators.

As an experienced labour activist I know the kind of pressure and intimidation employers are capable of using against workers. If employees have information that is of use to the safety board but may be damaging to their employer, they must be free to give this information.

However, they might not co-operate with investigators if they are afraid for their jobs and families. Thus it is vitally important that testimony given to the safety investigators be held in the strictest of confidence. This is necessary so that witnesses can be candid with investigators without fear of retribution.

The extension of confidentiality in the investigative process is a good amendment. It gives workers the freedom to co-operate with safety board investigators and protects them. It is surprising to see such an amendment in a Senate bill. That place is hardly an institution known for protecting workers. It has historically played the role of advocate for the privileged few. Not that the privileged few have ever needed this protection with the Liberal and the Conservatives in power.

Even John A. Macdonald acknowledged the other house's role as a defender of the privileged when he said a larger qualification should be necessary for membership of the upper house in order to represent the principle of property. The rights of the minority must be protected and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor.

This amendment protecting workers is quite out of character for that other house. In the context of the rest of the bill this one amendment is an anomaly. The amendments to this bill that I most strongly object to are the ones that reduce the independence and public accountability of the board. These are much more in character for that unelected and unaccountable institution.

Like the auditor general, this transportation safety board is expected to be independent of political and outside influences. That is the whole point. It is supposed to provide an independent neutral perspective on safety issues in Canada. Everyone acknowledges this. Yet the safety board act includes a ridiculous provision allowing ministers and other interested parties to review draft copies of the board's annual report and submit comments on it.

This is a glaring contradiction. What this does is allow parties with vested interests in the board's reports to attempt to influence these reports to their advantage. Even if the board members try their best to be neutral they will be undoubtedly influenced to some degree by these outside submissions. This is especially true in the case of submissions by ministers since the board members are appointed by the government. Thus the safety board is not independent like it should be. It is subject to undue political influence.

Comprising the board's independence and neutrality in this way is scandalous. It risks the health and safety of Canadians for the sake of politics. The safety board must be free of outside influences so it can focus exclusively on public safety.

Not only does this bill before us today not resolve the board's independence problem, it makes the problem's magnitude much worse. At least now when private interests comment to the board about the draft reports these comments are not secret. At least the public has a chance to scrutinize these comments and see how the board is being influenced.

The bill would make these submissions secret. Why is this? Why do the Liberals in the Senate not want the public to know what people are saying to the transportation safety board? It looks like they do not want Canadians to know what is going on at the board. They are covering it with a shroud of secrecy. It is bad enough that the current act allows private interests to influence the safety board. Now the Liberals are trying to hide this from the Canadian people. It is deceptive. It is patronizing. It is anti-democratic. It shows how out of touch the Liberals are with ordinary Canadians.

I am forced to wonder what the Liberals are trying to hide. If these private submissions they are trying to hide were not unduly influencing the safety board there would be no reason to hide them. By placing this shroud over the safety board they are shattering the illusion of independence.

Canadians expect the transportation safety board to be looking out for them so that when they travel for business or for pleasure they can feel safe. That is why they need a safety board that is independent, neutral and adequately funded. It must be adequately funded so it has the resources to properly carry out its mandate. It must be independent so it can focus on public safety without undue political or private influences diverting it from its purpose. To deny the board these essential necessities does a great disservice to Canadians.

As I indicated, there are beneficial aspects of the bill. We will be in a corner today weighing the benefits being enacted before the summer or delaying the bill with the hope of trying to convince the Liberals of the changes in the fall. It is apparent they have a majority and I am not convinced that delaying the bill will result in any changes but just a stalling of the inevitable.

Public Service June 1st, 1998

Mr. Speaker, today's senior managers in the public service will receive performance bonuses of up to 10% after having received pay raises of up to 19%. Services have been cut. Rank and file workers are being penalized with wage freezes and court battles for pay equity. The pay equity tribunal ruling is expected in July. Already the Treasury Board president is hinting at appealing the decision.

Why will Treasury Board not treat all employees equally?

Westray Mine May 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the sixth anniversary of the Westray disaster. In 1991 the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy bestowed upon Clifford Frame, owner of Westray mine, the John T. Ryan award for mine safety.

At 5:20 a.m. on May 9, 1992 the Westray mine exploded taking the lives of 26 miners.

The Westray tragedy was not an accident and it was not a natural disaster. It was the end result of management that had no regard for safety and of governments that failed to ensure the well-being of workers. It was profit before people.

The United Steelworkers of America provided support to the miners and families from Westray. Together they were the driving force behind the Westray inquiry. It was the United Steelworkers of America who questioned the awarding of the John T. Ryan award to Clifford Frame and Curragh Resources. After a lengthy campaign by the steelworkers, on April 9 of this year the award was rescinded.

The Westray tragedy is a reminder of why we need unions to protect workers' rights and lives.

Canada Post May 6th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have a legitimate concern that the arbitration process set up to settle their contract dispute with Canada Post has been irredeemably damaged by the arbitrator himself. Remarks made by the arbitrator suggest that in advance of hearing the union's position he has already made up his mind on certain issues and leans heavily in favour of the corporation's position.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has asked the federal court to remove the arbitrator in view of its “reasonable apprehension of bias”. From the beginning of this contract dispute there have been serious concerns that bargaining in good faith had been compromised by a government holding the threat of back to work legislation over the heads of the union.

Given the fact that the recent remarks of the arbitrator, Justice Guy Richard, have totally undermined the credibility of the arbitration process, the NDP today urges the Minister of Labour to disqualify the arbitrator, give Canada Post a mandate to negotiate and allow the parties to get back to the table to negotiate a fair settlement through free collective bargaining.

Supply May 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. I re-emphasize what the member for Qu'Appelle mentioned regarding whether the province of New Brunswick would be able to come across with additional moneys if the federal government fails in its responsibility to compensate the victims.

Canada Shipping Act April 30th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-15, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, brought forward by the Minister of Transport.

We in the New Democratic Party agree it is time to bring some clarification and we have heard that the Canada Shipping Act is second only in size and complexity to the Income Tax Act and could use some updating, as could the Income Tax Act. The New Democrats believe it is time to reform the Canada Shipping Act.

Bill C-15 intends to do just that by adding a preamble to clarify its objectives, definitions and interpretations and to lay out the roles and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans . Currently there is no introductory part.

However, my party has concerns with the bill. I will not go into as much detail as I did at second reading but I do want to take the opportunity to say that it is somewhat annoying as to how we have dealt with Bill C-15. Sometimes it is difficult for MPs to find that a bill is up one day and then not, then up again and then we wait for months. For organizations and persons outside government it can be a strenuous task to follow the process of a bill, as with Bill C-15.

The bill is being presented as just a housekeeping bill and we should not worry too much about it. For the people in the maritime sector some of the changes are worrisome and critical, and these are some of the concerns.

It is common knowledge that sailors' human rights are often violated on foreign vessels. We cannot accept in Canada to lower the working conditions of sailors. We do not want a system in some countries of the third world where sailors have no rights aboard a ship, where they are at the mercy of the company they are working for. Press articles have indicated that federal fisheries observers are afraid some foreign ships they are assigned to are in such poor shape they could break apart and sink. We cannot expect it is only fishing vessels that are in bad shape. This was certainly verified by presentations at the port state control meetings in Vancouver last month.

It is worrying to think that the minister will hand over the inspections of the ships from Transport Canada inspectors. Even if the inspections were to be handed over to classification societies there is still cause for concern. It is no wonder that each year statistically 10 bulk carriers sink without a trace, usually taking a 25 person crew with them. Yet the crews are mostly from third world countries we have never heard of.

It is very obvious when classification societies are allowed to operate without government supervision, the market sets the standards for safety with the job always going to the cheapest, usually least safe operator.

Are we ready to accept such a system in Canada? We suffer from the cuts to airports. We suffer from the privatization of port police. Are we now going to have to suffer because ship safety goes down? We cannot put our safety or the environment in jeopardy.

As I stated at second reading, I strongly oppose the government's authorizing any person, classification society or other organizations to conduct the inspections.

This section is contrary to the stated objectives of the new act. Privatization of inspection will not encourage viable, effective and economic marine transportation. What it will do is increase bottom line pressures to cut corners and do things the cheapest way rather than the safe way. It is very worrying to think that the minister will hand over the inspections of these ships from Transport Canada.

Were this amendment to pass into law, the job of inspecting oil tankers and chemical tankers operating in Canadian waters could become patronage appointments. The classification societies include disclaimers of responsibility in all their documents and several court cases over the years have shown them immune from being sued, even where there is evidence of negligence.

A further point of concern is in section 317(1), inspections by others. The revenues generated by Transport Canada ship inspections will now be handed over to the private sector. A figure of $12 million per annum has been stated. Canada must compete with the United States. We are at a competitive disadvantage.

We have heard concerns that ships under 15 tonnes will be exempt from mandatory registration under the act. Their registration will be optional under section 17. The department's logic is that the registration of the large number of small vessels is neither practical nor necessary. However, tow boats under 15 tonnes tow equipment and fuel barges as well as log tows competing with vessels which are registered and required to meet Transport Canada's vessel standards.

The unregistered vehicles not only undercut vessels which meet standards, they are doing work which is hazardous to the environment and to marine traffic. Often their equipment does not meet the standards and their operators are not certified.

Some of the major objectives in the Canada Shipping Act are to protect the health and well-being of individuals, including the crews of ships, promote safety in the maritime transportation system and protect the marine environment from damage due to navigation and shipping activities.

If the act is intended to provide a level playing field, then all vessels engaged in commercial activities should be registered and inspected regardless of tonnage. As well, the act should require risk assessment in standards of equipment and certification. Registration should be required for all vessels towing fuel barges or other hazardous goods. It is important for the safety of our waterways.

It has also been brought to my attention that with the downturn of the fishery on the east and west coasts, many fishermen have turned toward tourism as an alternative source of income. This has led to an increasing number of tour boats. These boats may be under 15 tonnes. Are we going to put our tourists at risk on boats that are not duly inspected because they are less than 15 tonnes? Let there be no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that small pleasure craft need be inspected.

Another area of concern is the regulation respecting the control of ballast water. In a move to protect Canadian waterways from outside pollutants, ballast water must be exchanged while at sea. There was concern that by referring to products brought in by ballast water as pollutants, this would be subject to more stringent enforcement. To me that was a good thing. I have been to the Vancouver port and heard the praises of the representatives with regard to their clean water which they noted in conjunction with the exchange of ballast water.

I sincerely hope the changes in this section do not decrease Canadian standards and do not increase pollutants into Canadian waters, whether it be oil or outside water species.

To conclude, Bill C-15 is an improvement over the previous act. But there are still many areas of concern. As a result my party will not be supporting the bill.

Supply April 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. member.

I would like to know how the member would respond to the government's failure to set goals for decreasing unemployment. How would she respond to health and education transfers that directly affect poverty? No one would argue that increased education is one of the greatest weapons against poverty.

How would the minister respond to the cuts to EI that greatly affected aboriginal seasonal workers who no longer meet the requirement and are forced to go on welfare at a time when they are fighting to increase their self-worth?

We cannot look at child poverty in isolation as her other colleagues have been mentioning today. I think everyone realizes this. How does the minister respond to only isolating child poverty from the poverty of all?

Canada Shipping Act April 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to speak in favour of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. Bill S-4, introduced in the Senate on October 8, 1997, will amend parts of the Canada Shipping Act which deal with liability for maritime accidents and oil pollution damage.

Bill S-4 reintroduces amendments to the Canada Shipping Act first introduced to the House of Commons as Bill C-58 on September 19, 1997. Bill C-58 completed committee stage as proposed by the Standing Committee on Transport in its report to the House of Commons on December 11, 1996. The bill died on the Order Paper in April 1997 when the election was called.

The bill was introduced through the Senate because it had already passed the different stages in the House of Commons during the last parliament and the government wanted it to be passed in the fastest way.

I wish to take this opportunity to mention again, as my New Democrat colleague did at second reading, that the NDP does not support the practice of introducing bills through the Senate. Canadians elected 301 representatives last June. They are sitting in this Chamber, not in the Senate.

I believe a majority of Canadians want major reforms to be made to the Senate and, although I oppose bills coming through the Senate, I will certainly use these opportunities to remind this government that it is ignoring Canadians. Although we do not support the practice of introducing bills in the Senate, we are in favour of this piece of legislation which is long overdue.

Bill S-4 is a part of the Canada Shipping Act reform. Parts of the Canada Shipping Act are old and out of date with today's reality. The NDP believes that it is time to modernize the Canada Shipping Act.

The revision of the existing limitation of liability for maritime claims is a very important step toward modernizing the legislation. The existing regime with respect to limits for general maritime claims in the Canada Shipping Act is largely based on the 1957 international convention relating to the limitation of liability of owners of sea-going ships.

The limits on liability set out there have naturally lost value as a result of inflation over the years. As a matter of fact, most maritime nations consider the limits of liability set out in 1957 to be inadequate.

The 1957 convention was replaced by the 1976 convention on limitation of liability for maritime claims and its 1996 protocol is the global standard for limitation of liability for maritime claims. Bill S-4 will permit Canada's accession to it.

The Canada Shipping Act amendments in Bill S-4 will also implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols to the 1969 convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage and the 1971 convention on the international fund for compensation for oil pollution.

The maximum compensation available to claimants in an oil pollution incident will increase from $120 million to $270 million, which consists of the shipowner's liability under the civil liability convention and a supplementary amount available from the international compensation fund.

When we know that tragedies such as the Exxon Valdez can happen, we know it is advisable to increase the liability of shipowners for environmental damage.

Just a few years ago we had the Irving Whale disaster. The company, a very large and well known company, did not pay in the project to refloat its barge. It is the Government of Canada, in other words the Canadian people, that had to spend millions of dollars.

Large corporations have to be more responsible. They have to be more accountable. It is our environment that has suffered and we must ensure its protection. We will be supporting the bill.