Bev Desjarlais

[Pay Equity, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the students' manual published in 1988, which is still distributed today by the human rights directorate of Heritage Canada, there is a chapter on equal pay.

Canadian students learned that sometimes employers pay women less but it is against the law.

In its last annual report the human rights commission criticized the government's stall tactics on pay equity.

When will the Prime Minister make pay equity a reality for federal employees, or should teachers just skip that chapter on equal pay for equal work when teaching about basic human rights?

[Hepatitis C, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government announced an offer to compensate less than half of those who contacted hepatitis C through the blood system. Over 30,000 people will suffer in poverty simply because they went to a hospital for treatment and came out sicker than when they went in.

The Canadian Hemophilia Society said this is not a compassionate solution but a legalistic one. The Hepatitis C Society of Canada calls it a compensation plan created in hell. The government has forced hepatitis C sufferers to wait, to become embroiled in legal wrangles and has ignored the Krever report recommendations to compensate all victims.

The New Democratic Party urges the federal government to show leadership on this issue and put additional money forward to compensate all victims of this terrible tragedy equally rather than pit one group of ill and suffering people against another.

[Child Benefit, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on December 11, 1997, I asked a question to the minister of defence concerning the process taken for the rescue of survivors of the Little Grand Rapids tragic crash. I asked the minister to explain why his department had failed to enlist locally available helicopters in this rescue, as was the case with the Red River flood.

The twenty hour wait for a rescue plane endured by the Little Grand Rapids plane crash victims was a result of what I believe is botched decision making by search and rescue operations. Officials had access to helicopters at the Canadian forces flying training school in Portage, la Prairie. However, they chose instead to try to use a plane to rescue survivors.

Those same helicopters were used during the Red River flood. They could have helped this time too. Instead of using those nearby helicopters, the military sent helicopters from Cold Lake, Alberta which never made it to the crash site.

The end of 1997 did not go quietly. Another plane crash occurred in Fredericton, New Brunswick. It was a miracle that no one died in that crash. This incident has made people aware of how cuts and downsizing may be affecting airport safety. But let us go back to the Little Grand Rapids crash.

I have questioned the minister on the process of this rescue but that crash worries me in relation to other issues. There is no question that this fatal plane crash demonstrates the importance of having better landing facilities in isolated areas. When air is the only mode of transportation in and out of a community, it is an absolute must that the landing facilities be in the best conditions possible.

The landing strip in Little Grand Rapids had been described as the worst in northern Manitoba long before the crash. It is well known that its surface is uneven and gives pilots the impression that their angle of approach is too steep. The crash on December 9 was the third fatal plane crash to happen in Little Grand Rapids. The limited services to response measures in remote communities make it even more important to have a safe infrastructure. The plane was carrying one doctor and four social service workers who were travelling north to provide treatment for northern residents.

I was annoyed when the Reform Party suggested that a private helicopter went in to save the injured. It went in for one reason. He was taking in reporters to get a story. Had the intent been to help the injured, medical help should have gone with him, not a reporter. However, once they were there it only made sense to send out the most injured, and he is to be commended on that note.

Why did search and rescue workers not avail themselves of those local resources? Do they not have that flexibility? Lately we have received an alarming report concerning the rescue in Little Grand Rapids. The report states that the hercules rescue plane dumped more than 10,000 gallons of fuel at less than 600 feet within three miles of the runway. I understand the normal procedure is to dump it at no less than 5,000 feet. This is to allow for dispersion of the fuel and to decrease the risk of ignition. The fuel would be less concentrated on the ground or wherever it landed.

The minister mentioned in the House that this was done to save lives and that the weather conditions were not good enough to follow the guidelines. Nevertheless, when the dumping occurred the hercules had gone below the fog. It had cleared somewhat. The crew knew the ceiling had lifted and that the most critically injured had already been flown out. Was the option of taking the time to fly to the height requirement ever considered? Was the community informed that this was not the usual procedure?

The most critically injured were flown out by a private helicopter which landed before the hercules. The helicopters nearby could have landed as well and the injured would not have had to wait 20 hours to be rescued. Was the best option used during this rescue?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can make this brief. I am really disappointed. I had probably given the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca far more credit than he deserves.

As someone from the medical profession, I felt he would know in his heart and soul that nobody in Canada except the Reform Party wants to see a two tier system unless they can afford to get that other system. The bottom line is when you put public dollars into a system, the money is spread and goes a lot further. When you start to divide it a certain amount still goes to the private sector because it will claim it is unfair that it is not getting those public dollars, the same thing that happens with independent schools.

I am very disappointed that he would even suggest that. I will continue at some other point.

[Education, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, despite Canada's high unemployment rate we are experiencing shortages of qualified computer professionals and medical personnel. We have a shortage of experienced truck drivers. We do not have enough qualified marine inspectors to meet our present and future needs. We turn to other countries to fill these jobs.

The government is failing Canadians by not providing affordable access to education and training. When will the government provide better training opportunities for Canadians so companies are not forced to recruit from abroad?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her comments.

The hon. member mentioned how the government had not put one additional cent back into the payments. The government cuts off one's leg and plans on cutting off the other one next year but then decides not to cut it off. This is supposed to make people feel good, that they are doing well and getting something back. If we want to make it obvious for the government, maybe it should look at it in that sense. To a lot of people that is what we are talking about. We are talking about their lives and their personal well-being.

The government says that it is doing things for education. There are RESPs where money can be invested. However I see the bottom line in my riding. For example, students employed by Inco, the major employer in the community, receive $1,500 in educational assistance from the employer if they have to continue their education outside the community.

In the past the students would claim the $1,500 as income or in some way, shape or form through the income tax process. In most cases students are not doing very. The government does not make a lot of money in tax dollars from students, so it decided that parents must claim the $1,500 of income instead of the students. It is trying to make a buck and bleed dry ordinary Canadians instead of addressing the real problem, the need for a total reform of the tax system.

Does the member have any comments about that? Does it identify what she has been saying?

[Banks, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the town of Lynn Lake is the latest victim of the Liberal government position: Let the banks decide.

The banks say bigger is better. They talk about providing better service at a better price.

Mayor Audie Dulewich of Lynn Lake and many in the community tried to keep services there. The bank, in spite of giving assurances to myself and the community, is not able to provide minimal service let alone better service.

Bank mergers, job loss, intimidation tactics, excessive surcharges, bank closures; what more does this government need? How many more communities will have to suffer the fate of the people of Lynn Lake before this government takes action and ensures that banks, in their privileged positions, have a responsibility to provide the service Canadians want?

[Canada Shipping Act, March 19th, 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 that it is time to bring some clarification to the Canada Shipping Act. We have all heard that the shipping act is second only in size and complexity to the Income Tax Act and could use some updating. However, the government is also taking this opportunity to bring forward some amendments that have raised concerns.

As I said, 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 the Canada Shipping Act to clarify its objectives, definitions and interpretations, and to lay out the roles and responsibilities of the ministers of transport and fisheries and oceans. Currently there is no introductory part to the Canada Shipping Act.

We understand that ministerial accountabilities must be clarified. Reoganization of the departments of the coast guard, fisheries and oceans and transport has resulted in a lack of clarity within the shipping act regarding ministerial responsibilities. There is need to clarify those responsibilities, those of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and to provide clear legislative authorities for the operation of their departments.

Questions have been raised with regard to that response. I will note some of these questions and concerns. Why are the powers divided between the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans? These powers have already been divided.

As it now stands, the Department of Transport is responsible for ship safety, but the Canadian coast guard is in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The result is that when ship safety officers from the Canadian coast guard have to board vessels, two departments, transport and fisheries and oceans, have to be involved, unless ship safety instead goes to the Department of Justice and travels to RCMP vessels or goes to the defence department and uses military vehicles.

It was brought to my attention that Bill C-15 replicates the wording of a certain international marine centre. In a paper, the executive director of that centre wrote about the primary elements to achieve competitiveness in international shipping: tax free status at the corporate level, a flexible manning regime and the application of ship safety standards that are genuinely international. I cannot help but feel worried that Bill C-15 could replicate the wording of this centre. A tax free status at the corporate level sounds familiar.

Second, it calls for a flexible manning regime. What exactly does that mean? I am almost afraid to ask. It is common knowledge that sailors' human rights are often violated on foreign vessels. We cannot accept in Canada the lowering of working conditions for sailors. We do not want a system, as in some countries of the third world, where sailors have no rights aboard a ship and where they are at the mercy of the company they work for.

Finally, it calls for the application of ship safety standards that are genuinely international. This would be acceptable only if those standards are higher than Canadian ones, and I doubt that.

An article in the Montreal Gazette noted that federal fisheries observers are afraid that some foreign ships they are assigned to are in such poor shape they could break apart and sink. We can expect that it is not only fishing vessels which are in bad shape. We should not be compromising the environment or sailors' lives.

The executive of the marine centre has suggested that Bill C-15 will allow vessels which are owned abroad to be transferred to the Canadian registry. Operating in international trade, these vessels would fly the Canadian flag but would not be taxed in Canada. They would carry non-resident crews who would not be covered by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. A Canadian flag of convenience deep-sea fleet would be an inexorable threat to domestic employment in the coasting trade. We need legislation from the government to ensure this does not happen.

Under language in section 18 of the new act, foreign built equipment could more easily be brought into Canada. The only restriction on chartering a foreign vessel and working it in Canada would be that it not be registered in another country while it is being bare-boated in Canada. Why would domestic operators use Canadian built vessels when they can charter or purchase those more cheaply abroad?

Advocates of unrestricted trade would argue that Canadians can compete with anyone, that technology and know-how are more important to market success than cheap labour, but this does not cut it in the shipbuilding industry.

This change would allow U.S. shipyards to build vessels for the Canadian coastal trade, but the Jones Act of the United States will deny Canadian shipyards the same opportunity in the U.S. market. As it is, U.S. shipyards have the competitive advantages that come from contracts for military vessels which effectively subsidize the overhead costs of commercial boat building.

On the west coast, the domestic fleet relies on cross-border trade for a significant portion of its revenue. Under the proposed changes, freighters or tugs and barges could be bare-boated from abroad, carry non-resident crews and compete for this international business.

On the Great Lakes, the loss of cross-border business could have even more dramatically negative consequences.

Has the government considered the implications for Canada-U.S. relations? Do we believe that U.S. coastal operators and unions, who aggressively defend their country's cabotage rules, would happily accept price cutting competition from Canadian flag vessels carrying low paid Philippine, Indonesian or Burmese crews?

We have heard concerns about the fact that ships under 15 tonnes will be exempted from mandatory registration under the act. Their registration will be optional under section 17. The department's logic is that registration of the large number of small vessels is neither practical nor necessary.

However, towboats of 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 vessels not only undercut vessels which meet standards, they are doing work which is hazardous to the environment and to other marine traffic. Often their equipment does not meet minimum standards. Their operators are often 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 marine transportation system and protect the marine environment from damage due to navigation and shipping activities. If the act is designed 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 field 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 in 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 might be under 15 tonnes. Are we going to put our tourists at risk on boats that were not duly inspected because they were less than 15 tonnes? Let there be no misunderstanding. I am not suggesting the small pleasure craft need to be inspected. I, along with my colleagues and the transport committee, will have to work against this.

Now, the inspections. I strongly oppose the government authorizing any person, classification society or other organization to conduct the inspections. This section is contrary to the stated objections 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 to do things the cheap way rather than the safe way. It is very worrying to think that the minister will hand over the inspection of ships from Transport Canada inspectors.

Were this amendment to pass into law, the job of inspecting oil tankers and chemical tankers operating in Canadian waters could become a patronage appointment. Even if the inspections were to be handed over to classification societies, there is still some cause for concern.

In 1996 Transport Canada marine safety branch inspected 1,184 foreign flag ships. Of these 10% were detained as being in such poor condition that they were not allowed to sail until they had done major repairs. Yet every one of these ships had valid certificates issued by a classification society. It is no wonder that each year statistically 10 bulk carriers sink without trace, usually taking their 25 person crew with them. Yet, as the crews are mostly from third world countries, we rarely hear of it.

It is very obvious that 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 the 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 will go down? We cannot put our safety and our environment in jeopardy. 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 and we are at a competitive disadvantage.

The United States has the Jones Act. The act is extremely protectionist. We do not have an equivalent act in Canada to protect Canadian interests. The U.S. with its Jones Act ensures the cargo that is carried between U.S. ports is carried aboard U.S. ships that are U.S. built, U.S. registered, U.S. owned, U.S. crewed and repaired and serviced by U.S. firms. So much for free trade.

In many cases the trade in Canada has become dominated by foreign flag vessels flying flags of convenience from low jurisdictions such as Panama. It is alleged by some in the industry that Canada Steamship Lines, the company owned by the finance minister, has made use of these tax evading measures.

It is time to implement a Jones-like act in Canada that would require minimum levels of Canadian content in shipping activity. Furthermore, it is time we insisted that ships traversing Canada's inland waters be Canadian built and Canadian flagged. There are many needed changes in the bill, but we can do better.

To conclude, my party will not support Bill C-15 as it is today.

[Petitions, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I present seven petitions from Canadians throughout the country.

They ask for parliament to reject the current framework of the multilateral agreement on investment. They ask the government to look at an entirely different agreement, one that will protect workers, the environment and the social interests of all Canadians rather than just those of investors.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great disappointment with the Government of Canada that I remind it of its responsibility to Canadians.

The Government of Canada in all its wisdom gave birth to a cycle of sickness, cultural genocide, incarceration, abuse and poverty. The aboriginal people affected by the government's actions have been fighting to regain their rightful place in society. They are fighting to be on strong social and economic ground.

The government has failed to recognize that in order to survive there must be a greater investment in aboriginal communities, investment directed to health, education, housing and water and sewer projects.

In Manitoba alone housing shortages in the thousands have forced one mother to place two of her children in a foster home. The home where they lived could not hold everyone. She was forced to leave her community and go to the city just to have a roof over her head.

The government's EI policy has forced hundreds of part time and seasonal aboriginal workers on to the welfare system: fishermen, guides and loggers. Most cannot travel the country looking for another part time job. If the cycle is to ever end the government must be willing to make a serious investment in aboriginal people.