Dick Proctor

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing here on the environment, something else that is very important to this party. We need to see something in energy on supporting expansion and use of public transit. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned on countless occasions, we need to retrofit buildings to meet higher standards of energy efficiency and we need a green screen. We need to encourage green industries and technologies, but we do not get very much, if anything, from the government opposite.

Something potentially very interesting is happening on this front in the province of Saskatchewan. One company is looking at building an ethanol plant in the prairie provinces that would use straw and other biomass which could produce up to nine billion litres of gasoline. This holds some hope for the future but it is not clear to me what, if anything, the government is doing to assist that process.

We seem to be stumbling toward Kyoto without our ducks being lined up, without knowing what it is that we will actually achieve on that front.

We want to promote fair fuel prices through an energy price commission and approve fuel price increases in the future in a transparent way. We want to reduce gridlock. We want greenhouse gases to be controlled, none of which is happening because of the higher prices that Canadians are paying at the moment.

In conclusion, with the deficit eliminated finally there is certainly no rationale to keep the surtax on. As far as it goes the motion is supportable by us, but we do so with the recognition and realization that it could have been so much better by way of a resolution to the House which would have included an energy price commission, a green screen and a rational way to absorb price hikes in the future.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this important but I would suggest relatively simplistic debate today. The motion before us talks about a portion of the oil profits.

Canadians have a difficult time digesting the oil situation, the cost of gasoline at the pumps and the cost of home heating fuel. They know that taxes form a small component in this regard. However if we were to ask Canadians their concerns with regard to the reality of the prices, we would be told that they are twofold. Well ahead of taxes is the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The second concern would be the high, obscene profits enjoyed by Canadian oil companies about which we will talk a bit later.

Those numbers in any public domain polling are far higher than the component of gasoline but they are not mentioned. Gasoline profits are not mentioned in the resolution before us this morning. In fact the reform alliance party never mentions this topic, obviously because it does not want to offend its friends in the oil patch in Alberta when the newly crowned leader of the party is looking to sell tables at $25,000 a pop or when he is meeting or has met with the Conseil du patronat and he identifies himself with the business community. I am splitting my time with the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

I was looking back this morning in preparation for this speech and I noted that there were 75 sitting days between February and June in the House of Commons. On any given day the reform alliance had an opportunity to ask about 19 questions. If my math is correct, and it may be suspect, that is about 1,425 opportunities.

How many questions were there on gasoline pricing? None, nada, zero, nothing, except to repeat the lines of the big oil companies. If we are not prepared to talk about oil profits and we are not prepared to talk about OPEC, we are not really dealing with the heart of the matter. I think Canadians understand that especially when they see that gas company profits for the last quarter have jumped by an average of $558 million or a percentage increase year over year for the second quarter of 2000 of over 500%.

Someone who has talked a lot about this topic in the House of Commons this year is my colleague, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. He has been indefatigable on the subject of fuel costs since arriving in the House some seven years ago. In fact 10 times in the past year he has had specific questions for the Minister of Natural Resources and other ministers on the subject of gasoline pricing.

He has warned the House that oil companies have driven down their inventories on home heating fuel by some 39% since last year and that the result inevitably will be sharply higher heating bills this fall. He has asked the Minister of Natural Resources to organize or arrange a summit with the oil companies and to put a plan into place. There is no hint of that in the motion before us today.

The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has private member's Bill C-488 calling for an energy prices commission, something that the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was asking about earlier in this debate. It is an energy summit to make the oil companies accountable for their actions. Because energy is the underpinning of our economy it is vital in a geographically dispersed country such as ours.

Energy price shocks have triggered rounds of inflation before that have ultimately put many Canadians out of work and have driven up the cost of living for everyone. Surely, if we accept the regulation of freight rates, drug pricing, stamps and cable TV, it is not out of line to consider regulating the price of a key commodity and economic input like energy that is used by virtually every Canadian family.

The member's private member's bill seeks to avoid unreasonable increases. On that topic, it was instructive for me, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre mentioned earlier in the debate, that Prince Edward Island is one province that has some form of an energy review commission.

When I was there earlier this year I noticed that not only were prices lower in P.E.I. than they seemed to be in other parts of the country but what was even more interesting was that the spread between premium and regular gasoline was about 4 cents a litre as opposed to the 9 cents or 10 cents a litre that the rest of us pay. When I asked an official at Petro-Canada about it some time ago he just dismissed it and said “That is our profit margin and we are not going to touch it”.

For those of us who are old enough to remember when it was sold in gallons rather than litres, the price spread was not anything like a 40 or 50 cents a gallon difference between premium and regular fuel.

Something else is noteworthy and could be done. When the energy price shock first hit after the Arab-Israeli war in the early seventies many Canadian provinces, perhaps all of them, implemented a program whereby there was no price increase. If the cost of a barrel of oil went up, they determined that there was a 60 day supply in the line and that no price increase could therefore take place at the pumps prior to 60 days. It seems to me that would be useful and worth exploring by the government.

As an aside, I am sure I would have the support of the hon. member from Labrador opposite who I recall was most upset last year about a tanker on its way up to Labrador in September filled with home heating fuel. The price was jumped while the tanker was in transit. Even though they had paid one price, they were to reap a windfall profit from the good folks in Labrador when it got to port.

Bill C-488 would reduce the risk of collusion by involving the Competition Act. We feel that the government has refused to take appropriate action and obviously the reform alliance has moved this motion on pricing—

[Petitions, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my petition is also on the matter of health care. I am delighted that the Minister of Health is in the precincts.

People from Moose Jaw are very concerned that the federal government is paying only 13.5 cents on every dollar for health care. If this is not corrected, we are on our way to two tier American style health care in Canada. There is also concern expressed about bill 11. We know what the good voters in Edmonton thought about that earlier this week.

The petitioners call upon parliament to stop for profit hospitals and restore federal funding for health care. I am pleased to present the petition on behalf of the residents of Moose Jaw.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in this important debate today on Bill C-34. My only wish is that we had more time to debate and discuss this. I think we all felt that it was terribly telescoped, which is not to take anything away from the witnesses who presented to us last week.

However, in all honesty and clarity, I must say that for the government to have brought in background notes, a major press release on May 10 and then require a full three weeks before the House, the parliamentarians and the transport committee ever got to see the legislation was, it seemed to me, a strange way to run a railroad, if I could use that metaphor in this context.

Before I get into the thrust of my remarks, I want to comment briefly on the remarks made by the transport critic for the Bloc Quebecois and also the remarks made by the transport critic for the Canadian Alliance Party.

I would just say, first to the Bloc member, that he seems to be saying, if I understood him correctly, that this is legislation or a bill for western Canada and nothing for the people in Quebec. I would say to him, with respect, that the Crow's Nest Pass freight rate agreement predated the entry of Manitoba and Saskatchewan into confederation. We in those provinces are a long way from tidewater, whereas in Quebec, I would submit that most of the agriculture that is carried out in that province is very close to the St. Lawrence Seaway system and, indeed, to tidewater. One of the problems we have always had in western Canada is getting our product to market, which is why we have needed help for more than a century in this regard.

With respect to the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, the transport critic for the Canadian Alliance, I congratulate him on getting the only amendment that anybody got through that committee last week, in the rush, rush, rush that we were in, that I do not understand. He spent most of his speech denigrating this bill. The words that he used to emphasize it were short term gain for long term pain. However, at the end of the day the Alliance appears to be going to vote for this bill.

We in the New Democratic Party caucus will not being doing that. We took the position at second reading that we oppose the bill. We wanted to see some amendments. As I mentioned we received none. Specifically the only amendment that was acceded to was the one by the member for Souris—Moose Mountain and his party.

We just do not feel that the bill is deserving of support, notwithstanding what the Minister of Transport said about the taunting about $178 million and how it would look if we stand opposed to it on behalf of the producers who will be supposedly in receipt of the $178 million.

One of our concerns is that the memorandum of understanding between the government and the Canadian Wheat Board was not part of this process. The joint running rights open access question to be negotiated involves the CTA doing a review of it. It will be another shoe that will drop later on, some months from now.

Everyone in committee seemed to get very exercised about the fact that MOU was not a public document. Everyone seemed to be upset and wanted to point a finger at the Canadian Wheat Board for the delay. I suggest that procrastination on the part of the government in bringing forward the legislation should not result in a crisis in terms of due diligence on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board on this very important memorandum of understanding.

With regard to some of the amendments we moved that were all rejected by members opposite, we note that there is no productivity gains sharing. It has been identified by usually reliable sources that some $700 million have accrued to the railways since 1992 as a result of more fuel efficient locomotives, larger hopper cars, and particularly a significant downsizing in the workforce of the railways.

Prior to the dismantling of the Western Grain Transportation Act those productivity gains, those windfall profits, were shared between producers and the railways. They have not been shared since 1992, and there is nothing in the legislation which suggests that they will be shared in the future. That is one of our major concerns.

Also no rate differential disciplines are mentioned at all. It is single cars on branch lines versus single cars on main lines and the 3% differential. We have some real concerns about that. We believe it will come back to haunt people on main lines. It does not deal with single cars versus multi-cars on main lines. There are darn few single cars these days loaded on main lines.

We are also concerned about who will get the price premium. Depending on the calendar and what commodity is being shipped, there is nothing to ensure that we will be able to deal with that in an adequate way.

We need clear rules for short line revenue sharing. I thought we needed something on salvage. The Canadian government and Canadian taxpayers have spent many millions of dollars on upgrading railways. When a branch line is being sold off we think it should be net of any federal taxpayer money that has gone into it. It was an amendment moved by our caucus but not agreed to.

There is much to say on the bill, but I will keep my remarks as brief as I possibly can. Another member wants to participate in this debate and I do not want to shorten his time.

During the debate a very interesting remark was made. Someone who appeared before the committee quoted William Lyon Mackenzie King and said that the problem with most countries was that they had too much history and too little geography. King apparently said that in Canada we had too much geography and too little history. Frank Scott, a great Canadian poet, also said that Mackenzie King never did by halves what he could do by quarters.

That is how I feel about Bill C-34. All members in the House are being asked to accept the bill on blind faith. The transport minister said they got it right. I am not sure that they got it right.

What if the five, six or seven major grain companies that are around these days go through a streamlining process and are reduced to two or three in the future? What if the two railroads are merged into one, perhaps dominated by the United States? How will competition work, which is the be-all and end-all according to the government?

We are very concerned. The minister responsible for the wheat board said that it was time to stop the bickering, that it was time most people agreed. Most of the expert witnesses that came before the committee had many concerns about the bill. I think the concerns are growing rather than diminishing.

I was also disturbed when the Minister of Transport said that they had it right but recognized that the railways and the grain companies were not very happy with it. Mark my words. We will be back here in a few months and there will be additional sops to those two institutions because they have perhaps not been treated as fairly as the government would want. It will be making the necessary adjustments to correct that in the near future. Those are my remarks. Our caucus will be opposing Bill C-34 at third reading.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2000]

It is a Trojan horse, as my colleague for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar reminds me.

The CTA is intended to regulate transportation providers with regard to rates and how those providers conduct business with shippers. The purpose of the CTA is not to regulate other pieces of legislation, such as the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Regulating the Canadian Wheat Board Act is accomplished through the regulations in the act itself.

The NDP caucus will not be supporting Motion No. 5, nor will we be supporting Motion No. 6 which says that by August 1, 2005 there will be a fully commercial system to move grain from elevator to port. In our opinion, that would obviously leave the Canadian Wheat Board with no role whatsoever in transporting western grain to port. We believe that this is another excessive gift to the railways and the grain companies that will ultimately be injurious to producers.

The wheat board cannot be an effective marketer of grain if it is unable to fulfill its sales contracts by ensuring an adequate supply of that commodity. This can only be accomplished if the board maintains a significant role in grain transportation from the country elevator to the port spout. There can be no protection for producers without wheat board involvement in grain transportation. We will be opposing that motion as well. I will have more to say on this at third reading.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I too want to rise at report stage on this group of amendments and run through the position of the New Democratic Party. I will be ever so brief.

With regard to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, these are fundamental to the whole debate. Implementation of either of these amendments would weaken the Canadian Wheat Board and result in more power to the railways. We believe that being recognized as the shipper is fundamental and a key for the wheat board to negotiate overall rail capacity.

We in this caucus believe that the Canadian Wheat Board does maximize returns for farmers through meeting sales commitments and by holding railways and grain companies accountable for their service obligations. The board can only continue to perform these vital functions if it remains the shipper. We are opposing those two particular motions.

We are, however, supporting Motion No. 4 submitted by the member for Brandon—Souris on rural prairie roads and what happens when railways exceed the revenue cap.

We recognize that the changes to the grain transportation system will increase the pressure on roads. Indeed, the government recognizes that as well and has announced that it will be contributing $175 million over the next five years to help to do something about improving the condition of those roads. It is noteworthy that Bill C-34, in and of itself, does not deal at all with funding for rural roads and this amendment simply implements the government's announcement concerning funding. We concur with that and will be supporting it.

With regard to the revenue cap, the amendment says that if and when the railways exceed the revenue cap in any given year the railways will have to pay to producers the amount of their revenue that exceeds that cap. This too will help producers, and we will be supporting that.

Motion No. 5, which was put forward by the Canadian Alliance, would ensure that the Canadian Transportation Act prevails over the wheat board. If implemented, we believe that the railways could argue through the CTA against the board's ability to provide grain transportation services to producers on a train, at a station or on a branch or shortline. The railways could argue, therefore, that providing these services affects its ability to meet their common carrier and level of service obligations. This too, we believe, would have a negative impact on the wheat board's ability to return the best possible value to producers through providing access to the system. The amendment attempts to use the Canada Transportation Act, in our opinion at any rate, to regulate the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

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

They will not come out of mine valley and work in Silicon Valley. This is the essence of what my colleagues in the House have been trying to convey to the government and to members of other parties.

We are striving to make sure that these workers, these employees and their families are treated as humanely and fairly as they possibly can be. It is important not to lose sight of that aspect of it. That is why we are holding up this bill. That is why we are fighting for these changes. We think that what has been offered so far falls short of what is fair and just to these folks. They have been dealt a very bitter blow.

There has been an absolute lack of public hearings. I know the Minister of Natural Resources was there, but all attempts to have meetings in Cape Breton to debate and discuss this issue have been brushed aside in a classic father knows best approach that they do not need to hear from the local people, that those in the Department of Natural Resources have all the answers and do not have to bother with hearing from the folks who are most closely affected.

The people of Cape Breton deserve a lot more than what they have been offered by the government in this bill. Again that is why we are so supportive of the important motions of the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria.

We are talking about the issue of the representation. We want to ensure that the proper associations are represented so that they can sit down with management and discuss the issues that can help the employees and their families to reach a proper, just and fair settlement.

This will be the last time I will have an opportunity to speak to the three groups of report stage motions. We discussed some of them at some length on Friday and adjourned the debate at 1.30 p.m. We have been dealing today with Groups Nos. 2 and 3.

Good mine safety is obviously an important issue. These motions would reinstate the requirement for the corporation and the federal and provincial governments to take all necessary steps to reduce the negative impact of the privatization or secession of activities by Devco and would reinstate the requirement for the corporation to take all necessary steps to reduce the negative impact of the privatization or secession of activities by Devco.

I will pleased to participate in the third reading of this bill.

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

I have no idea why anyone would vote against good mine safety and an employment requirement on behalf of the development corporation. Motion No. 14 in Group No. 3 reads:

That Bill C-11 in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:

“17. The Corporation, in conjunction with the Government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of these governments, shall adopt and continue all reasonable measures deemed necessary to reduce as far as possible the unemployment or economic hardship that is expected to result from the closing, privatization or reduction in the production of coal”.

This bill would reinstate the requirement for the development corporation and both the federal and the provincial governments to take all necessary steps and precautions to reduce the negative impact of the privatization or cessation of activities of the development corporation. Motion No. 15 in Group No. 3 reads:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:

“17. The Corporation shall adopt all reasonable measures to reduce, to the fullest extent possible, any economic hardship or unemployment that may result from the closing of any coal mine operated by the Corporation”.

Again we support this initiative because it reinstates the requirement for the corporation to take all necessary steps to reduce the negative impact of the privatization or cessation of activities of Devco.

The motions categorized in Group No. 3 are very important to what we are trying to develop not only in Cape Breton but in terms of what we want to see carried out from coast to coast to coast with regard to proper occupational health and safety for mine workers in particular and an employment requirement on behalf of Devco.

Regarding the notion that the corporation should adopt all reasonable measures to reduce to the fullest extent possible any economic hardship, obviously there is coal in the ground in Nova Scotia. The mine nevertheless will be closed. We will be buying coal offshore. Some of us are very concerned from where the coal will be delivered to Nova Scotia.

Some of the miners have worked for 25 years or thereabouts. It is tough to retrain those people after a lifetime of working underground. They will not come up and suddenly qualify for the new emerging technology, the infotech the other buzzwords that are so prevalent.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess they must have come out of the mine. I am pleased to rise on to speak to the Group No. 3 motions. I want to address myself to the contents of the bill again and to indicate the support I have for the two members from Cape Breton and from Sydney—Victoria. Motion No. 13 in Group No. 3 reads:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 4 with the following:

“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”.

This motion involves broadening the good mine safety terms and includes an employment requirement on behalf of Devco.

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

Madam Speaker, when we left on Friday we were dealing with Devco and here we are 48 hours or so later entering extended hours to deal with the bill yet again.

I congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst on a very emotional speech. He and others in the House are saying that before the legislation goes forward Cape Bretoners should have the chance to have their say. It is for this reason that we moved amendments that would allow for the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations to hold hearings in Cape Breton before the legislation was voted on at second reading stage. However, in their haste to ram the legislation through and shut Devco down, the Liberal majority opposite rejected that suggestion totally and completely.

MPs in our caucus from across the country have stood up for Cape Bretoners. Over half my colleagues have spoken to second reading stage, led by our leader, the member for Halifax. All New Democrats from coast to coast to coast recognize that if the government is allowed to treat Cape Breton this way, it can do the same in every other region of the country.

On the other hand, the Liberals have quashed the debate on Devco at every step along the way. They ended debate at second reading stage of Bill C-11. They decided to end debate before a settlement had been reached on the issue of miners' pensions and severance packages. Before it was announced whether the buyer of Devco's assets would even continue mining in Cape Breton, the government simply sold off the assets. This was before any decision had been made about the remediation of mine sites or long term economic development to replace the jobs that would be lost.

It should be noted that only eight Liberal members even bothered to speak to Bill C-11 at second reading. Should Cape Bretoners be grateful that the Liberal government provided limited economic assistance after shutting Devco down? The committee process was a sham. Less than six hours were allocated to hear from witnesses. The witnesses were given less than 48 hours notice to appear and no time to prepare. The majority of government committee members were scarcely in attendance throughout.

The Liberal majority voted against all the amendments put forward by the opposition on behalf of witnesses and the people of Cape Breton. The NDP motion called for the committee to hold public hearings in Cape Breton among the people affected to allow the people hurt by the legislation an opportunity to be heard. The Liberals voted against it.

We also proposed a motion to ensure that health benefits for workers and their families who suffered from mining related illnesses would be allocated. Again the Liberal majority government voted against it.

We asked that representation for workers and pensioners on the pension board be ensured. This was denied. We asked that there be some representatives on the board of directors who actually lived in Cape Breton. This was denied once again by government members opposite. We asked for assurance that some of the representatives on the board of directors were from the Devco pensioners association. That too was rejected by the Liberal government opposite.

The other opposition caucuses have been generally supportive of the bill. Both right wing parties have been supportive of it, but why would we be surprised with that?

The enactment provides the necessary authority for the disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and provides for the dissolution and winding up of the affairs of the corporation.

The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable a private sector operator to acquire the mining assets of the corporation so that the federal government can exit the coal mining business in Cape Breton and to provide for the continuation of the existing jurisdictional regimes for labour relations, occupational safety and health, and labour standards.

The NDP will propose that the bill be withdrawn and that the matter be referred to committee, for three main reasons.

First, the unions representing Devco employees have taken the corporation to court for failure to meet its obligations under the legislation and seek to have clause 17(4)( b ) included in any new legislation.

Second, we want the committee to be able to institute a process of full public consultation in Cape Breton in order to develop a long term strategy for the economic development of the region in order to offset the effects of possible privatization.

Finally, the uncertainty created by the recent court decisions with respect to first nations treaty rights and the repercussions on mining rights must be clarified.

There are a number of very excellent proposals in the Group No. 2 motions. I appreciate the fact that we dealing with them. The member for Sydney—Victoria and the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton suggested that at least one employee representative should sit on the Devco board of directors. We also ask under Motion No. 7 in Group No. 2 that clause 8 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the following:

“(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

(4) The majority of the directors shall be residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia”.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria urged that the majority of the directors shall be residents of the island and that there be residency requirements to ensure that a majority of the directors live on Cape Breton Island in the communities affected by the corporation's decisions.

Surely that would be a minimum. I am baffled to know why government members opposite would not be interested in having a minimal amount of protection and assurance that decisions taken in that region of the country shall be taken with the full knowledge and support of people who are actually resident on Cape Breton Island.

Motion No. 11 in Group No. 2 is certainly one that I endorse. It ensures that one-third of the directors of Devco are representatives from the employees' pension association. This is critically important.

My colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked what would happen to those miners 45 or 50 years of age who have been working underground all their lives? Suddenly the mine closes. We buy imported coal from Colombia or wherever with miners' blood from that part of the world all over it. Cape Bretoners are thrown out of work. Jobs are very difficult, if not impossible, to come by. That is why having representation from the employees' pension association makes all the sense in the world. It would ensure that workers and their families are treated in the very best way.

The final motion in this group, Motion No. 16, would replace line 13 on page 5 with the following:

“18.(1) The Corporation shall by bylaw pro-”

It would also replace line 23 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) The bylaw shall provide that at least half of the members of the board or committee that is charged with managing the pension fund are selected by the Devco Pensioners' Association”.

This in effect would give the Devco pensioners association the right to select at least half of the membership of the body designated to manage the workers' pension fund. It also makes great sense that the local people would manage affairs as they wind down this corporation.

In closing I want to say that I am very pleased to have been part of this important piece of legislation and on the Group No. 2 motions. I would urge all members, not only the NDP caucus as we know where they will be, to support these reasonable changes.