Dave Chatters

[Berlin Conference, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is off to Berlin at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer to focus test his next election campaign. According to news reports, he will present a paper prepared by Eddie Goldberg and senior bureaucrats called “Progressive Governance”. If that is not an oxymoron, to have the king of status quo presenting a paper on progressive governance.

The Prime Minister will be talking about how he shares opportunities with all Canadians in all parts of the country. That should be interesting. How about how the Prime Minister maintains a high quality health care system, yet ours is currently 25th out of 27 OECD countries?

On second thought, taking his message to Berlin where the people do not know the seven year record of the government is probably much safer than trying to sell his message to Canadians.

[Fort McMurray Oil Barons, May 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my heartiest congratulations to the Fort McMurray Oil Barons, the recently crowned Canadian Royal Bank Junior A Hockey Champions.

As more than 2,100 fans looked on at the Thickwood Arena in Fort McMurray, the Oil Barons triumphed over their formidable opponents, the Rayside Balfour Sabrecats of northern Ontario. The 2:1 victory was not easily won and the Oil Barons' performance in the championship game showed the spirit, skill, sheer determination and courage that has characterized the Oil Barons' entire season.

On behalf of members of the House, the city of Fort McMurray and my riding of Athabasca, I would like to extend my best wishes to the players, coaches and the entire Oil Barons organization, as well as to the organizing committee and hundreds of volunteers who made this championship so successful and memorable. I would also like to congratulate the parents and families who supported the team on the road to victory. They should all be very proud of this marvellous accomplishment.

[Athabasca River, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the fisheries minister gave us the criteria for introducing a $15 million dredging program on the Great Lakes. I would like to apply that same criteria to the Athabasca River region.

The minister said that there were $2 billion worth of investment in the Great Lakes region. Well there are $35 billion worth of investment in the Athabasca River region. The Athabasca River has been a lifeline to the people of Fort Chipewyan for hundreds of years. His answer was an insult to those people.

What is the real reason for the difference between the two regions?

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

No, I do not think that. I think it is the absolute truth. Having got into this issue since sitting on a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee, we are the midst of studying the entire process of 100 named sponsors of a bill. It is becoming more clear that the whole system of 100 names to force a bill on to the order of precedence is not working, probably never will and will have to be scrapped. Then we will have to go back to the traditional lottery draw on bills.

This process has been in place for some time now. This is the first bill that has ever been in the House under the process of the 100 signatures. There are nine other bills on the order of precedence with 100 signatures waiting to come on. The truth is that any member who wishes to have a private member's bill debated in the House statistically has a better chance of getting it drawn in the lottery and debated than he or she would by getting the 100 signatures. I am sure that the system will not work.

As many of our members said and as the member who sponsored the bill said, being one of the 100 signatories to the bill means nothing more than that we thought the issue should be debated in the House of Commons. If that is all it means, why would a member not sign any other member's bill to come to the House?

The intent of the 100 signature rule was that if there were extraordinary issues the government refused to deal with which the general public or opposition members felt warranted serious debate, there should be a process by which the bill could be brought to the House. That was the purpose of the 100 signature rule. If it means nothing more than a member signifying a willingness to debate the issue in the House by signing the bill then the process is not achieving the purpose everyone envisioned it might and should be scrapped.

I guess the subcommittee will make its recommendations and some time in the future the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will make its decision to either change it to make the process meaningful in some way or scrap it and go back to the lottery draw where a certain number of bills are drawn. Then, if we are lucky enough to have our bills drawn, we get to debate them. Probably that is the fairest system and probably why it evolved over the years.

I am surprised it does not appear that the government will support the bill in its present form even after the member softened the bill to get support of the government backbenchers and to get the 100 signatures. The member has been chirping away over there, but he has to remember that we have a $100 bet that this bill will actually be proclaimed into law. In fact, if the government is not supporting the bill, I think my money is a pretty sure thing.

Maybe the 100 or 113 people who supported and signed the bill were simply supporting the concept that there would be an extensive review of the Access to Information Act, with substantive changes made so that we could get information, particularly on crown corporations and other organizations that are arm's length from government, that is not now available through access to information.

I have heard from my constituents about some of their experiences dealing with access to information. Under the Access to Information Act a person can apply for information and remain anonymous even to the people from whom they are acquiring the information.

A small businessman in my riding got a notice from the information office that someone had applied for some very privileged information on his business, information that would have put him in a non-competitive position if it was released. He objected strongly to the release of that information but was told by the office of the information commissioner that it had overruled his objections and had released the information anyway. The office told him that it had no obligation to reveal the name of the person who was asking for that information and that if he objected he had access to the courts to protect himself.

A process where one has to hire a lawyer and go through a court to protect privileged information about one's business seems to be a strange process. This to me does not seem reasonable. People should be able to protect information about their business or at least be apprised of who is looking for that information and why when the office asks if they are willing to let that information go. It is very difficult to understand why anyone would let any information go when the content of the request is not known.

I believe there are some real problems for us as opposition members in getting information in a timely manner and within the rules. Our constituents also have major problems dealing with access to information and want some changes. Unfortunately I do not think the bill goes nearly far enough to solve those problems.

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-206 as I have had some involvement in it in terms of how it got on the order of precedence and came up for debate.

Our party would not argue that there is a real need to review and make changes to the Access to Information Act to make it work better for members of parliament. Our recent experience with the human resources department and its non-compliance with the act gives us great concern about how the issue of access to information is being handled and how members can get the information they need in a timely manner.

The bill proposes some changes that might help. In my view, from the time I originally signed the bill until the bill was put on the order of precedence, it has been substantially softened to obtain the support of a sufficient number of backbench Liberals to get their signatures. That was too bad.

The original intent of the bill was to change the Access to Information Act to open up access to information from crown corporations and to information around the issue of Canadian unity. It was a pretty good change and was important to our members. That was reflected by the number of our members who signed and supported the bill. However, for whatever reasons the sponsor of the bill changed it and got into all the trouble about changing it after getting the 100 signatures.

[Athabasca River, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in June of last year in the House, I asked the government why it had abandoned dredging on the Athabasca River, the only traditional supply route to Fort Chipewyan. The government's response was that it would get back to me.

Two days ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced, with all smiles and fanfare in the House, a $15 million program for dredging on the Great Lakes for the very same reasons that exist for the Athabasca River.

Why did the government abandon the people of Fort Chipewyan while at the same time announce new dredging programs on the Great Lakes?

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition containing about 200 names mainly from the community of Fort McMurray in my riding.

The petitioners ask the House to reaffirm a motion passed in the House on June 8, 1999 to reaffirm the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman exclusive of all others, and to reject Bill C-23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on this bill. Considering that I did not have an opportunity to finish my comments this morning on this issue, I would like to have a few minutes to further investigate the whole issue.

Certainly I think it is absolutely imperative that the bill be given time for adequate debate in the House and also time for adequate investigation of the whole issue in committee and to call all the witnesses that we need to call simply because of some of the mystery surrounding the whole bill.

There is a huge number of unanswered questions on the issue of the disposition of Devco's assets and the rumoured purchase of its assets, particularly by American interests, which seems curious. Clearly, Nova Scotia Power has the need for huge amounts of coal for the foreseeable future.

In spite of the need for coal and that coal exists in Cape Breton which will last for as long as Nova Scotia Power could probably envision using it, it makes no sense to me to shut down the mines in Cape Breton and essentially sell the contract to supply coal to Nova Scotia Power to an American interest, aside from the fact that the finance minister's ships are hauling this coal. Why have the Americans supply coal and have it transported to Cape Breton when the coal is in Cape Breton and can be mined as economically as it can be in other parts of the world? There is something really rotten about this whole deal.

There is not only the issue of whether whoever buys the mines would operate them for any length of time, but there is some real question about the intentions of the people buying it. What about the coal reserves that are available and strip mineable in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia? There is a substantial reserve of coal which is available without the undersea mining process that is taking place in the Prince mine and proposed Donkin mine. Those questions have to be answered.

There are the questions of drilling rights for the gas that is available, not only the methane gas in the coal seams in Nova Scotia but the other natural gas reserves that are rumoured to be available as well. All of those questions have to be asked.

There is the question of a lawsuit that is currently before the courts. It has been brought in by Donkin Resources Limited because of promises the government made to those people who were doing an assessment of the feasibility of opening the Donkin mine. It cut them off at the knees. There is that whole issue. How can it sell Devco before it settles the whole legal issue?

I found the suggestion by the member for Broadview—Greenwood interesting. He suggested that they set up a government board to oversee the pension fund and give Joe Shannon the chairmanship of the pension board on top of everything else. That was really interesting and really made a lot of sense. He did make some sense in the suggestion that a lot of these issues could be explored in committee with witnesses if the government allows us time in committee to do that. That is the question and one that has to be answered before we can accept that idea.

Because of all those reasons, the limited time of debate and the secrecy surrounding the suspension of the Financial Administration Act that guarantees us some transparency in this whole thing, it is imperative that we have the opportunity to get answers to these questions at some point in the process. It is the only way Canadians are ever going to understand what this deal was all about.

When I was in Cape Breton I met with the mine workers union. It showed me in black and white that obviously over a number of years the management of Devco was deliberating sabotaging the operation of the mines. We could quite clearly see from year to year where it cut off capital investment. Machinery was not replaced or repaired. There was down time from poor equipment. We could clearly see that, instead of preparing another coal face to be mined when the one that was currently in operation was completed was not done. When the operating face was mined out, the whole mine had to shut down while they moved and set up to do the process of preparing another face.

Why did the government do these things? That is not an efficient operation. That, in my view, was a deliberate attempt to make Devco appear to be as uneconomical as it possibly could, so it would be easier to shut down when the time came. Someone has to answer for those things. We have to have a committee. Joe Shannon, the chairman of the board of Devco, has some serious questions to answer about his role and how he got a multimillion dollar contract to move coal as he sat as chairman of the board of Devco. That has to be a sweetheart deal. I do not know how he possibly could do that. He also has to answer why as chairman of the board with a vested interest like he has he is sitting and assessing the bids with Nesbitt Burns Inc. in Toronto. He again is clearly in conflict of interest.

We have to hear from the Donkin Resources group that put a bid in and was rejected, in their words, because it was a Canadian bid. Being a Canadian bid should not be the reason to reject it. It should have been the reason to move it to the top of the list.

I had breakfast with another individual who put in a wholly owned Canadian bid that was rejected for similar reasons. He had some very interesting proposals tied in with his bid for Devco in dealing with the Sydney tar ponds and a lot of other things we have heard talked about today. I would like to hear from that side of the issue at committee.

I think there is so much being hidden that needs to be revealed and needs to be discussed about the whole Devco issue and what the government has been doing and what the government's intentions are with this that I certainly support the NDP motion to hoist the bill and move it into committee before we are finished second reading. I think it is a valid proposal.

I do not really care which committee it goes to. As far as the amendment to the amendment, I am ambivalent on that. However, the idea of getting it into committee and having a thorough study of the issues that surround this I certainly would support. I think the whole issue has a bad smell about it that needs to be clarified. I hope the government will allow us to do that.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to again stand in the House to debate Bill C-11.

Since I last spoke to the bill on November 15, 1999, I have had an opportunity to visit Cape Breton and talk to the stakeholders in this issue. I met with union representatives, as well as two local bidders whose bids were rejected by Nesbitt Burns Inc. I also visited the mine sites, the coal wash plant and the old Sydney steel mill site. The visits certainly gave me a more indepth understanding of the issues surrounding the sale of Devco and how it will affect Cape Bretoners.

Despite the government's stated commitment to a speedy process for this bill, Bill C-11 seems to have totally dropped off the government's legislative radar until today. Everything else seems to be a priority for the government except for a bill that has so far-reaching and drastic effects on the lives of Cape Bretoners.

We might also suppose that a bill of such importance would be given due process and time, but no, yet again the government has decided to wait until the last moment before invoking time allocation to run the bill through the House of Commons as fast as it possibly can. After all, the government does not care to allow all members the opportunity to rise in the House and speak their concerns, or more important, the concerns of Canadians.

I can only wonder why the government is suddenly in such a hurry to speed Bill C-11 through the House. After all, it has always been acknowledged that before the sale of Devco could proceed, this bill had to be passed.

It makes me wonder if the rumoured American buyers are getting impatient to claim their prize. We know how chummy the Prime Minister likes to be with anyone south of the border. What else would motivate the government to suddenly move so quickly? Certainly it could not be the interests of Cape Bretoners and Canadians.

I am fully aware that Devco was created as a vote getting measure, despite the fact that as far back as 1957 it was recognized that the coal industry alone simply would not be sufficiently viable to sustain the entire economy of Cape Breton on a long term basis.

In 1966 the government announced a $55 million package to phase out coal mining in Cape Breton over 15 years, yet in the very next year massive expansion occurred within the region with the creation of Devco. Even as Devco was being created it was obvious that the coal mining industry in Cape Breton would not be viable if Devco had to accept the full liability of past generations of Dominion Steel and Coal Company employees who were abandoned when these ventures went into receivership. So began the government's involvement, what I would call interference, into the economy and viability of Cape Breton.

For the next 30 years the government continued to support Devco through a variety of subsidies and grants until finally in January 1999 the government announced that it was putting Devco and all its assets up for sale. That is 30 years of families coming to rely on the industry they believed would support them as they had supported Devco.

We are not just talking about a nine to five job that the miners can walk away from without any costs. A well known fact is the toll that coal miners pay with their health to work in coal mines.

Despite the costs, the miners went ahead and did their jobs believing they would have jobs in the industry which is all many of them have ever known. Yet the entire time the government has known differently.

Over the years through different governments which have come and gone, one thing has not changed regarding Devco. It simply was not working.

To sustain the economy, one could suggest to flow votes from Cape Breton to the government, the government continually sunk more and more money into Devco with the expressed intention of making the industry work. At the same time, an examination of the annual reports of Devco indicated that the government was intentionally manipulating the shutdown of Devco.

Because of that manipulation, Devco families have faced numerous shutdowns, failures to meet production targets, and stunning financial losses. It is those families in the Cape Breton community as a whole who are suffering from devious management manipulation.

When I first rose in the House to speak to Bill C-11, I raised a number of concerns regarding the accountability measures included within the bill. As I have just mentioned, governments over the years have done little to ensure that Devco was not used as a patronage plum. I would hope that in the final days of Devco, the government could at the very least assure Canadians that their hard earned money was not going to waste in some Liberal crony's pocket.

On March 20 a committee established to suggest ways to spend the $80 million set aside to cushion the collapse of Cape Breton's coal industry released a report which stated the following:

Cape Breton Island has experienced poor economic conditions many times...but none can compare to the present day. People are showing a lack of confidence in the future. Immediate action is required to both illustrate government's understanding of the problem and its potential to help.

I would like to remind everyone that such a situation is exactly what was predicted back in 1957. Here we are on May 8, 2000 and we are still looking at second reading of this bill, albeit in a rather drastic hurry.

The report was released almost a month and a half ago and the government is just now realizing it had better hurry up and do something about the situation in Cape Breton. After all, the Prime Minister has promised an election within the next year. I question the timeline of the government and its dedication to providing due process and consideration for the miners and Devco employees affected by the sale of Devco.

Speaking of the sale of Devco, I have a few questions regarding exactly how the sale is taking place. Let me provide a bit of background.

Clause 2(2) calls for subsections 99(2) to (5) of the Financial Administration Act not to apply to the disposal or sale of Devco assets. Back in November when I originally spoke to the bill I voiced my concerns as to why the FAA needs to be suspended for this sale to go through. More important, what will replace those controls? The FAA ensures that a sale such as this happens in an open, accountable manner. If these restrictions are removed, what will control such issues as who gets the successful bid, was a reasonable amount paid for the assets, was the transaction made in the best value for money interests and will the money return to the public coffers?

Another concern I raised in November was that only bidders and cabinet will have access to the bidding process. No one else can get information about how much the assets are worth. How will we know if the final price truly reflects the value of the assets? The reality is that whoever takes over the assets will not just get non-viable leftovers. After having invested millions of dollars over the last 30 years and thanks to governments never seeing any kind of return on investment, Canadians at least deserve to know the terms and conditions of the sale.

I am sorry to state that I believe many of my fears regarding the process of the sale of Devco are being realized. Mr. Joe Shannon, currently on the Devco board of directors, was first appointed by cabinet on July 4, 1995 to be the chairman of the Devco board for a three year term. On July 26, 1995 cabinet authorized the board's decision to have Joe Shannon act as president of Devco. Mr. Shannon was reappointed to the board of directors for another three year term on August 26, 1998.

Mr. Shannon has obviously done fairly well through his appointments. At the same time he was leading Devco he was also president, director and chief executive officer of Seaboard Transport. While Joe Shannon was head of both companies, Seaboard Transport received a multimillion dollar contract to transport coal from the mines to the Nova Scotia power plants and the wash plant, a clear conflict of interest.

That is not the end of the story of Mr. Shannon. He is currently participating with Nesbitt Burns assessing bids for the sale and divestiture of Devco assets. Mr. Shannon clearly has a vested interest in ensuring his own interests are considered by whoever takes over. Judging by his lack of qualms in sitting on both the Devco and Seaboard Transport boards, I am doubtful that Mr. Shannon will suddenly find himself a conscience and act on what is truly in the best interests of Devco, Cape Bretoners and Canadian taxpayers.

Not only do I have concerns regarding the goings on in the boardroom, I have serious doubts regarding the bidding process for Devco and how decisions are being made as to who is seriously considered. In the March 20, 2000 edition of the Cape Breton Post a letter from Kevin Murphy, vice-president of the Cape Breton Miners Development Co-operative Limited, stated the concern of many Cape Bretoners that the bidding process for Devco is freezing out local bids. Mr. Murphy stated the following:

We feel that handing off the Nova Scotia Power Inc. supply contract to foreign suppliers is an unacceptable situation and we decided back in May to do something about it by forming a workers co-op and subsequently submitting a bid for the Devco assets through the Nesbitt Burns process.

Our bid was rejected, as was a bid put forward by Donkin Resources Limited, which is determined to press on with opening the Donkin mine with the support of the community and groups such as our co-op, which is ready to invest in the project to ensure that at least some of the NSPI coal is supplied by Cape Bretoners.

Mr. Murphy went on to question why the federal government would rather hand over a lucrative contract to a foreign company when the coal could be supplied locally. He concluded that “there is money to be made in the industry and that it should be reinvested here for the future of our people”.

I quoted extensively from Mr. Murphy because I do not think it could be said any better. Cape Bretoners are ready, prepared and anxious to rebuild their economy—

[Points Of Order, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is no disputing the value and legitimacy of the question raised by the member. If the House leader of the government has a problem with it, we would be glad to get together with all House leaders to talk about it.