Dennis Gruending

[Airline Industry, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, people all across Canada are becoming increasingly upset by their air service cutbacks. The Atlantic premiers complained to the Prime Minister earlier this week. My own city of Saskatoon is losing 40 flights a week this year, and those cutbacks are already beginning to do serious harm.

During the airline merger talks the transport minister promised that he would not allow Air Canada to use its monopoly to the detriment of smaller centres. What is the minister prepared to do now to ensure that Air Canada maintains adequate service to Saskatoon and to other smaller cities?

[Division No. 1286, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this spring the Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development released a study that exposed the government's failing record on climate change. The institute reported that Canada's worst polluters are spewing out more greenhouse gases than ever.

Nine companies, most of them petrochemicals, joined a voluntary program to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels. They did so following Canada's promise to do just that at the Rio de Janiero conference in 1990, but seven years later these companies were belching out substantially more pollutants than they had earlier.

It is not just the companies that are dragging their feet. The same report shows that of 88 measures passed by federal and provincial governments to combat global warming, only one-third of them have ever been implemented. Many of these programs are for public awareness or consultations and have fallen short of expectations.

This year our Canadian emissions of carbon dioxide and similar gases are expected to reach 694 million tonnes. That is 15% above the level Canada agreed to stabilize at 10 years ago.

It was in 1997 with great fanfare that Canada signed the Kyoto protocol. That committed us to a substantial reduction in our emissions of greenhouse gases. As of today, Canada has still failed to ratify that pact. In fact, it appears that we are backing away from our original commitments because of our failure to get there to date.

Amazingly the government continues to rely on the voluntary efforts of individuals and corporations. It refuses to promote alternative technologies which, according to the Suzuki Foundation, could reduce our country's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as half.

The government refuses to talk about the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and instead puts its trust in companies like Petro-Canada. Members may be aware that this company's new president and CEO said last week that his investors have put money into a company for its shareholder value and not “for us to solve a global problem”. It is going to take more than volunteerism here. It is going to take government action.

Climate change is no longer something for Canadians to worry about tomorrow. The changes are already with us today. The polar ice caps are thinning. Nearly 300 square kilometres of a large ice shelf in Antarctica have disintegrated since October 1999 because of steadily increasing temperatures. In our own polar region, Inuit hunters and elders report that hunting is becoming risky because of thinning ice and melting permafrost.

Weather patterns are also changing and the economic effects can be devastating. Earlier this spring NASA reported a shocking decline in the ozone layer over northern Canada. Despite a worldwide ban on ozone depleting chemicals, it is expected that ozone layers over Canada will take decades longer than we had expected to return to normal. Again this is because of greenhouse gases.

This is not good news for our children who already face high cancer risks. Climate change is upon us, yet the government refuses to take action. There have been consultations and talks and talks and consultations, but there is no national plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

Canadians are waiting for options to help reduce these greenhouse gas emissions. I urge the government to move beyond consultations, to ratify the Kyoto protocol and to set some targets to meet our promises.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

That is true.

I want to talk a bit about the fact that coal from Colombia is coming into Cape Breton. If we are importing coal, what about the mine in Cape Breton which has not yet been mined out and could produce a lot of coal, the Donkin mine which is shut in?

Canada Steamship Lines is delivering coal to Nova Scotia Power from Colombia. I have two things to say about that. Let us talk about the Colombian side of it first.

Last weekend the leader of a miners union in Colombia, Francisco Ramirez Cuellar, the president of Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Empresa Nacional Minera, was in Canada meeting with our party and the labour movement. He told us about the coal coming in from Colombia. He told us that coal miners in Colombia earn wages as low as one-tenth of what coal miners in Canada earn. He talked about Colombia's environmental protection laws which if they exist at all are not enforced in the coal mining industry. He talked about the labour which is used. The equipment is very old so people have to work very hard under very unsafe working conditions, which many of us simply could not think of working under. We take safety for granted.

As a result of all this, Colombia can sell coal at about half the price of what it is produced for in Canada. That is one thing. The conditions under which coal is mined in Colombia would make it rather attractive for a company which is going to buy the Devco assets but which would not mine the coal nor produce jobs in Cape Breton, to import the coal mined by people who earn effectively starvation wages. It gets worse. We were told that 80% of the union leaders assassinated in the world each year are Colombian union leaders. Government sponsored paramilitary squads frequently displace workers who continue to express an interest in organizing.

The situation here is that the Devco assets are up for sale by the government. There may be a company which is going to purchase those assets, but there is no guarantee that hole is going to be mined in Cape Breton. We may well see a further devastation of the coal mining industry in that province. Why? So that a private company which buys the assets from the government can simply purchase coal offshore to supply Nova Scotia Power.

This is the kind of thing which has not received the attention it deserves because the government has not been interested in having a full scale inquiry into what is happening. Rather, it has tried to write very circumscribed legislation and push it through the House as quickly as possible into committee where we would look at the legislation it has written but not at the wider context of what has happened and what is happening in Cape Breton. When I talk about the wider context, an example is what I have just been speaking about, Colombia.

It has been the contention of our caucus, ably represented by the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria and others in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, that we should have a real inquiry and a real look at this industry. We are extremely disappointed that has not happened. We are even more disappointed that the government, rather than have this issue debated fully, has moved closure for the 65th time in this parliament.

The coal mining industry has had a long and illustrious history in Cape Breton. There is a lot at stake here, people's jobs, their lives, their dignity, the health of their communities. The government has not consulted with them although it said it would. It has manipulated people and the process aimed at dissolution and divestiture.

This is why the NDP caucus is so opposed to closure and to what the government is doing. That is why we feel so strongly that the situation has to be studied. This goes beyond the rather narrow confines of the bill as the government has outlined it.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-11 which relates to the sale and dissolution of assets of the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

I wish today that I could say that it was my pleasure to rise to speak on this motion, but it is really not so. This motion really sounds the death knell for the jobs of many people in the community of Sydney in Cape Breton. It is never a pleasure to talk about that. Also, today the government introduced closure on this debate. It is never a pleasure to rise to talk about that and to talk in circumstances where the government has put us under the gun for the 65th time in this parliament.

My colleagues in the NDP caucus have detailed the situation in Cape Breton. I am not going into that in much detail. They talked about the history of mining there. They talked about the importance of mining to the local economy and to the provincial economy. They talked in some detail about the sordid history of how the government conducted itself in putting these mines and assets up for sale. On one hand the government wants to walk away from its responsibility of many years and sell off these mines to the private sector. On the other hand the government wants to do so in a way which does not fairly compensate the people who have worked in those mines for many years.

As a member for a constituency in Saskatchewan in the prairies and parklands area, I have not followed this debate perhaps as closely as I might have if it were grain transportation or the wheat board. I have left much of the heavy lifting to my colleagues in the NDP caucus, particularly those from Cape Breton. They have done a fine job of bringing the situation to light, holding the government's feet to the fire and standing shoulder to shoulder with the workers in the mines in Cape Breton.

Upon closer examination recently, I was actually shocked at what the government has done and what we often call the process. The process is often as important as the results.

Let us talk a bit about what happened. One of my colleagues has described what the government announced in January 1999 as a drive-by announcement, saying it was getting out of the coal business and closing the Phalen mine by the end of 2000 and beginning a process to sell the Prince mine as well.

My colleague from Sydney—Victoria made a convincing argument that the federal government already knew what it was going to do in 1995. It might well have delayed its announcement because of an impending election in 1997, but it knew what it was going to do. It had all sorts of time to consult with the community rather than engage in what my colleague called a drive-by announcement which pretty well took everybody by surprise.

Clearly, the government's severance and training support package is inadequate. The economic development package that came along with it which is in some way supposed to make up for the loss is inadequate. It was put together without consultation with the stakeholders despite the fact that the government said after the fact that it was going to do that. In fact, it appeared that the Minister of Natural Resources was not interested in meeting with the miners or with people in the community.

Let me briefly review, after about a year of frustration, what happened so that things could finally start to move a little. Last December there was a shutdown of the Phalen colliery. This resulted in a protest. A little later on in January there were wildcat strikes. The miners had finally had enough. They stopped operations and blocked coal shipments to Nova Scotia Power.

On January 8 several miners went underground and stayed there. It took that for the Minister of Natural Resources to start meeting with these people and getting serious about negotiations. That was more than a year after the announcement that the mine was going to be sold. We can imagine and understand why people in Cape Breton were so frustrated. It was that kind of heroic action that finally forced the minister to begin negotiating a pension settlement and agree to go to binding arbitration in the case of conflicts. It was said across the floor this morning that they had gone to binding arbitration. Yes, they did after the miners sat in, stayed in the mines and said they were not coming out.

I want to move on to something that I find particularly disturbing. I am going to focus my remarks for the last few minutes on this. Late in January this year reports surfaced that Canada Steamship Lines was hauling coal from Colombia and the United States to Cape Breton and that it was interested in Devco's assets. People in the House and in the country will be familiar with the owner of that company, a rather high ranking person in the House.

[Voice Mail Service, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief today in full support of the motion put forward by my colleague from Vancouver. She has brought it forward based on the bedrock principle of our party that people in society should have, if not equality because we know that is not a practical possibility, equality of opportunity. We should do what we can to provide that for people in whatever ways we can.

It is absolutely surprising and incredible as the hon. member and other members have said that in a country which is probably the most wired country in the world thousands of people do not have even basic telephone service. We are not only talking basic telephone service but about the ability of people, even if they do not have a telephone. The member is not saying that everybody has to, because that is a practical impossibility, but access to voice mail which is becoming almost as basic a service for many of us as telephones are. The member is asking that we look at a creative and inventive way for people to have access to voice mail service, even if they do not have a telephone. She has given some examples in her city of Vancouver where a project like this is under way.

I do not have to add a great deal to what other members have said about the importance of staying in touch. Let us think how important it is now to be able to access and use voice mail service and how great a disadvantage it would create to anyone who does not have that opportunity.

We are talking about equality and accessibility for people who do not now have it. We are talking about their ability to make improvements in their lives, which most people want to do. We hear stories of people moving to cities where they are actually working but the housing is so expensive that they cannot purchase housing. Calgary is an example.

There are people who are actually working but cannot afford housing. From where will they get their telephone service? How will they have the opportunity, if they are looking for new work, to have messages left for them so that they might apply for that work? How will they have the opportunity to stay in touch with loved ones and take messages, if they have moved across the country from Cape Breton to Calgary to work but do not have a telephone?

My hon. colleague is trying to find a solution to this problem in an inventive and compassionate way. There has been mention this morning of various problems which might be associated with this kind of idea. I urge members, rather than simply looking at something and saying there are problems and asking how we can do it, to spend more of their time on the how and begin to talk and look at exactly how we might put something like this into place.

The motion as it reads is not prescriptive in that way. That would come later once members of the House pass the motion, as we hope they will. Then we can begin to work on approaches to the CRTC and perhaps approaches to telephone providers to see how such a concept might come into being.

Basically I find this to be a very exciting and inventive idea. I offer my hon. colleague my full support. I urge other members of the House to think about it again and to give that support as well.

[Petitions, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by people in Saskatchewan and Ontario related to child poverty.

The petitioners remind us that one in five Canadian children live in poverty, and that on November 24, 1989 the House unanimously resolved to end child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

The petitioners tell us that since that time the number of poor children in the country has increased by 60%. They therefore ask parliament to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children. I wholeheartedly concur.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in March a panel on Canada's national parks released a landmark report which called for the re-establishment of ecological integrity as the guiding principle for parks management in the future. Rightly so.

National parks were originally created out of a desire to preserve some of our natural beauty for people to enjoy. In fact it was in 1885 when Canada established one of the first national parks in the world, Rocky Mountain National Park or Banff as we call it today.

The vision and the commitment of countless Canadians to preserve some small part of our natural heritage is best put to words appropriately enough by the authors of the first National Parks Act which was passed by the House of Commons in 1930:

Parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education, and enjoyment....Such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Sadly, this vision has become clouded. The value of our parks and their natural heritage has been reduced to a matter of dollars and cents by the government in particular. Our parks have suffered as a result.

The drive to generate revenue from park services puts an emphasis on the development of things like golf courses, hotels and even movie sets. At the same time services like park guides, wardens and the upkeep of camping facilities have been cut to the bone.

I want to use the example of Prince Albert National Park. In Prince Albert National Park the Narrows campground is a popular spot where many people take their families to camp each summer. Liberal government cuts have diverted resources away from the campground to the point where it is now in a shambles. The park has struggled to keep up the campground but last winter people were told that this summer they might have no modern toilets or fresh water.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage embraced the blue ribbon panel on parks. She told me that we have to get our ecological house in order before we go to the Minister of Finance for more money. She told me that in the House earlier this year. That is fine and good but I sincerely hope the minister is not simply using this report as an excuse to delay reinvestment in services. Services consistent with the spirit of ecological integrity should have their funding restored and restored right away.

The expert panel's report acknowledges that the concept of human use and enjoyment is fundamentally linked with national parks, but this human use and enjoyment is under attack. As I have mentioned it is under attack in the Narrows campground where people are not going to get even the basic services which they really deserve and have used for years. This is not an attack on the integrity of the park. This use has coexisted with the integrity of the park for many years. Why should people who are prepared to make responsible use of the park have to wait for basic maintenance?

The minister has not issued an edict to stop the use of pesticides on golf greens or hotel lawns within the borders of the parks, nor should she allow Liberal cutbacks and neglect to shut down simple campground services.

One wonders what the minister might be waiting for. I certainly hope it is not another federal election and more red book promises to provide funding required to begin the process of preserving our parks for future generations.

Responsible use without abuse and experience in the parks are goals we all share. Ecological integrity must be our long term goal and it must come before profit, before greed and before politics.

[Plutonium Shipments, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in January the government quietly granted approval to allow weapons grade plutonium into Canada. Now we hear about plans to import an even larger amount from Russia, something which may well be illegal. The Americans who are part of this deal are being up front about it, but our government is less forthcoming.

Can the minister tell us how much plutonium is coming from Russia? When is it coming? How will it be transported to Chalk River? Will the public be consulted if the shipment is larger than that approved last year?

[Petitions, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have a petition signed by approximately 750 people in the Saskatoon area. It relates to two families, the Irimie and Kutas families who suffered persecution in their country of origin and who fear that will happen to them again if they return home. They have exhausted all appeals and ask the minister and the House of Commons to please allow them to stay in Canada. Many people in Saskatoon have written to say that these people are model citizens and ask parliament that they be allowed to stay in Canada.

[Endangered Species, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see endangered species protected from extinction and they do not want to entrust that task to Liberal cabinet ministers.

For example, if the beluga whale is in danger of extinction because an aluminum company is polluting its habitat, the beluga whale should be protected, period. This bill leaves the door wide open for that company to lobby Liberal politicians not to protect the beluga whale and its habitat. This is wrong and the Liberal chair of the environment committee, that famous socialist, says it is wrong.

Will the minister, despite his comments, admit the error of his ways and allow scientists, and not politicians, to decide which species are to be protected?