Catherine Bell

[International Aid, April 25th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of students from the Comox Valley signed a letter calling on the government to address issues of health, education and the rights of women in developing countries by honouring our promise to the world.

Canada committed to increase our foreign aid to .7% of our GDP. Today our contribution lies below .3% of GDP. That is not even half of the promised level of support.

The students at G.P. Vanier Secondary School understand the importance of advancing women's equality in order to improve living conditions in developing countries. In the words of Stephen Lewis, “All roads lead from women to social change, and that includes subduing the [AIDS] pandemic [in Africa]”.

The students at G.P. Vanier told me that Canada must share its wealth to be a real leader in the world community, something the Prime Minister and his cabinet do not understand. Any of these students would make a better leader than the current ministers responsible for foreign aid.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my Bloc colleague's comments about federal spending.

There are a lot of programs that the federal government should be delivering across the country, such as a national child care program. Quebec has a wonderful program. The rest of Canada would like to have that too. It would go a long way toward helping working families and single parents, moms and dads, to alleviate some of the costs that they face in bringing up their children when they have to go to work.

There are a whole lot of other things that I did not get to talk about with regard to spending that the government has failed on, such as foreign aid. We have actually seen the commitment to foreign aid drop. It is an embarrassment on the world stage for Canada when we said we would live up to a commitment of 0.7% of the GNP for foreign aid and we have actually decreased our foreign aid spending. It is a sad thing for Canada.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. colleague of the many things in our communities that ordinary Canadians were calling for, such as money for housing. There is a huge crisis across this country when it comes to housing. Whether people have jobs or not, it does not matter; they are having a hard time finding places to live.

There are people in my community who are living in campers in the park waiting for rental houses to become available because the vacancy rate is so low. My community is a small one. In other communities in my riding there are people who are in the same sort of situation. I hear on a daily basis from my colleagues across the country about the housing issues in the inner cities and larger communities, cities and towns. There are people who cannot find places to live. That has so many other implications for families.

For the government to completely ignore housing in the budget is outrageous. It has been such a big issue. People are calling for a national housing strategy. That the government left it out of the budget is beyond words.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, April 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today by painting a picture for my hon. colleagues about how this budget fits into the overall course that Canada seems to be taking under this Conservative government. This course is guided by its not so obvious agenda and if members read between the lines, they will see that it is there.

This agenda is also driven by five priorities: one, help the rich get richer and pretend the prosperity gap does not exist; two, privatize at all costs, including municipalities and their infrastructure; three, treat first nations with disdain and ignore their advice; four, invest as little as possible in social programs, no matter how big the surplus; and five, ignore the crisis situation in the forestry sector.

This Conservative agenda masquerades behind what it likes to call the harmonization of inefficiencies. This language is often used by the right as a kind of code. To the rest of us, harmonization of inefficiencies loosely translated means the alteration of policies to the benefit of rich corporations and to the detriment of ordinary Canadians.

This policy change ignores the ever-increasing prosperity gap, environmental conditions, food safety concerns, health care services and the control of our natural resources. Furthermore, this budget offers deep integration with the U.S. at the cost of our sovereignty.

This agenda of privatization by stealth has been going on for many years. This path has seen the rich get richer and the rest of us get the leftovers.

This budget is nothing short of deceiving. While the Conservatives beat their chests about standing up for Canada, their actions suggest quite the opposite to hard-working families. While they talk about a stronger Canada, they intentionally attack our public institutions; thereby, eroding the foundation of an independent Canada.

Allow me to elaborate more clearly what I believe the government's real priorities are. Priority number one: ignore the widening gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadians.

Surplus after surplus of hard-working Canadians' taxes have gone to tax cuts for large corporations. These surpluses subsidize the development of the oil sands at a time when the industry is making record profits. It gets to continue to receive subsidies until 2015. That is six years before it even starts to see a phase-out. But no money from the federal budget went to the thousands of Canadians whose families are looking for affordable housing.

In fact, affordable housing was not even mentioned in this budget. So, how is it that a profitable corporation can continue to receive subsidies but ordinary families are ignored? The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is widening and this government has no plan to correct it.

Priority number two: use privatization as a mantra for change. How do we start the process of privatization? First, we need to set up shop.

On page 162 of the budget, it states this government will, “establish a new federal office to identify and implement opportunities for public-private partnerships in infrastructure”.

Step two, then we have to make it mandatory. On page 169 of the budget, it goes on to state that municipalities, “seeking funding...will also be required to demonstrate that the option of undertaking the project as a public-private partnership has been fully considered”. This is simply bad policy and a waste of Canadians' money.

We have seen the experience of public-private partnerships when companies take over a public project. The focus shifts away from the public interest and meeting community needs to ensuring profit for the company's shareholders. Maybe the Conservatives should have consulted with the Federation of Municipalities who believe that this government should not be forcing a one size fits all policy down their throats.

Mandatory P3s are not the only privatization at play. People in Vancouver Island North, in my riding, are very concerned that this government is trying to privatize one of the largest common property resources in the country: our fishery. While it may not be part of the budget, the fact that the bill was introduced with no consultation with fishermen, lodge owners, recreational and sport fishermen, first nations or anyone else is a huge concern in my riding.

Then there is the issue of our forests. We in the NDP have spoken at length about the softwood lumber sellout and now we are seeing the result of that bad deal: raw logs exported at an ever-increasing rate and the government not willing to take a stand and implement a made in Canada policy to protect jobs in our communities.

Priority number three is that the Conservatives went out of their way to exclude first nations from the budget. This is one of the most outstanding and offensive omissions I have ever seen.

I have been meeting with many of the chiefs in Vancouver Island North over the past couple of weeks to talk about the budget. We have also spoken about many other issues of concern to their communities. The level of frustration and anger they are feeling because of what is lacking in the budget is very high.

The government announced $300 million for a housing initiative that allows them to buy their own homes, but it is a reannouncement of old money, nothing new. What the chiefs want to know is when they use the $300 million for housing and there is no new money, what programs they are going to lose to have to pay for it.

There was nothing in the budget for land claims and treaty settlements. First nations are ready to settle. They want to move forward for their communities, for their economic well-being, but they cannot because the government says it does not have a mandate to settle. The government underlined that in the budget by not putting any money in it for land claims.

Priority number four is that no matter how big the surplus, no matter how well our economy is running, the Conservatives invest nothing in social programs. This particular priority hurts every community and quite often the most vulnerable in our society.

A reintroduction of the same money the Conservatives introduced last year for child care, $250 million, will not help build a national child care program. That program would be helping ordinary working families and parents with escalating child care costs and a lack of spaces.

There is nothing in the budget for the arts. There is no mention of culture. It is not even on the government's agenda. There is nothing for art programs for kids and communities, nothing for artists and sadly, nothing for museums. There is nothing for pharmacare, home care or long term care for seniors. There may be some old money to address wait times, but the government said that last year and wait times actually went up. These programs are what made Canada a great country; at least my Canada includes them.

Priority number five is to pretend that a crisis does not exist in the forest industry. On the contrary, the current state of the lumber industry is a perfect example of how Canada is losing on trade with the U.S. The steady creep toward free trade and further harmonization at any cost is hurting this country.

Our timber mills are closing. Over 5,000 jobs have been lost since the softwood lumber agreement was signed. Ask the mill workers in my riding who have seen their jobs and their logs get trucked over the border on a daily basis. “Did this government stand up for Canada?” they are asking. I say no. Instead, in a rush to placate their Conservative counterparts in the south, the Conservatives ignored five international trade rulings in favour of Canada. They signed a bad lumber agreement and managed to give away $1 billion in the process.

This whole mess was done in the name of harmonizing inefficiencies. What is so efficient about losing jobs? The Conservatives may have made harmony with the U.S., but they sure left a heck of a mess behind in their wake. And to add insult to injury, the budget provided no funds to help struggling communities when our mills are closing.

The government cannot just ignore these problems and hope they go away. It has to take action to help these communities. The government has to stop exporting raw logs from federally regulated lands. Then it needs to clean up its act by providing aid and a comprehensive plan to help these communities and stop mill closures. But there is no plan. There is no stabilization funding. It cannot be found in the budget. The government needs to start making decisions that actually help hard-working Canadians.

As a former labour representative, I understand the intent of these policies. Their point is to undermine local democracy and allow private corporations to benefit from government contracts. That is it. The result is there is a steady race to the bottom in the quality of work being completed while municipalities struggle to accommodate more and more needless bureaucracy.

While the government beats its chest about standing up for Canada, ordinary Canadians are beginning to recognize that the truth speaks louder than words. The truth is the prosperity gap is growing. The truth is our communities, infrastructure and natural resources are being privatized. The truth is first nations are being ignored. The truth is investment in social programming is abysmal. The truth is the forest sector is in crisis.

Canada's corporate CEOs are getting richer and richer. Ordinary hard-working Canadians are being left in the dust. They deserve better. They deserve fairness, and the budget does not deliver it. For those reasons, I cannot support the budget.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did not heckle the member when he spoke and I would appreciate it if he does not while I speak.

Again it is the age-old argument of pitting workers against workers. Farmers are definitely concerned about the strike, because if a train derails in their fields and spills toxic chemicals all across their fields, like it did in the rivers in British Columbia and in the lakes in Ontario, they are going to be seeing the effects of it for years to come.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is the age-old argument again. The Conservatives are just like the employers, pitting one set of workers--

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Halifax for her thoughts. As the past leader of the NDP, she has worked long and hard for fairness for ordinary working families and, because of her commitment to the cause of working people, she understands what workers are up against from coast to coast to coast.

As for the work atmosphere and the relationship between CN and its workers, I have to say that there must be a lot of tension in that workplace, because workers do not go on strike or take strike votes frivolously. They give it a lot of thought. Workers go to the bargaining table with just demands, seeking provisions that will make their lives and the lives of their families better. They seek to inform the employer about how those demands can be met and how, in most cases, they can have civil negotiations.

When workers come to the end of their rope, so to speak, or to the end of the tracks in this case, they decide that they need to take a strike vote to underscore it for the employer because the employer is not hearing what they are saying. They take that strike vote and go out there. I know that in the case of so many workers across this country they do not take this frivolously. It is a very serious issue. When they are out on strike, they do not get the same level of income. They could be out there for a long time, or not for very long, as the case may be. They have to be very serious about it because it impacts their family income. They take it very seriously.

It must be a pretty tense situation and the morale must be very low when the workers find out that the Government of Canada can impose back to work legislation on them that says they do not have any rights. It says they do not have the right to go out on strike and they do not have the right to free collective bargaining.

As well, what does that do to the labour movement in general? It puts a black mark on the history of Canada when we do this to workers, because in Canada we have a Labour Code that says we have the right to free collective bargaining. We take away those rights when we impose this kind of legislation.

When workers go to the bargaining table, all they are asking for is fairness, a level of fairness such that they can go to work, be safe and come home at the end of the day to be with their families.

[Railway Continuation Act, 2007, April 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to oppose this draconian piece of back to work legislation. I want to echo some of the comments made by my comrades and colleagues from Timmins—James Bay, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Victoria, Burnaby—New Westminster and Parkdale—High Park. Some of them talked about their families and their long and proud history of building this country. Their forefathers and foremothers who worked in the rail industry and other industries built this country.

I want to talk a bit about my parentage. My grandfather and father were loggers and built the small communities of northern Vancouver Island. They worked very hard to shape the industry that we see today. It is appropriate and relevant that I talk about this to underscore my opposition to this back to work legislation, as my colleagues have done before me.

My grandfather and father worked in the logging industry. They worked in small camps where there were a lot of health and safety issues. Everywhere they went they tried to make things better for workers down the line and people who were coming after them. They fought tooth and nail, and had to go on strike under really difficult conditions to make sure that workers' rights were brought to the forefront, so that people were not killed on the job, as many were in those days.

I grew up in a family that was very much aware of worker and workplace safety. I grew up in a family that was very political. Because of that, I became a union activist myself. I was very active in the labour movement for quite a long time advocating for workers. I was on bargaining committees. In my own workplace we went on strike and had been locked out. I know what it is like to be on a picket line with workers who are in adverse circumstances trying to make a difference for other workers and standing up for the rights that others behind them will enjoy because they may not. Those are things that labour activists do.

I have heard in the House other hon. members talk about the age old argument, which we just heard a few moments ago, of pitting workers against one another saying, “We have to resolve this because others are suffering”. That is an age old argument that has been used by employers and managers for many years. It does not wash. It is a bogus argument. It allows employers to get off the hook and not have to do the right thing, which is bargain in good faith.

Again, my history as a labour activist is very relevant to underscore my opposition to this back to work legislation. Back to work legislation is never the right thing to do. I and my NDP colleagues oppose this. We oppose replacement worker legislation or any other kind of legislation that undermines the fundamental right to collective bargaining.

Railway workers are locked out. This is a legal labour dispute. The government had a choice. It could have chosen to send CN back to the bargaining table, but it did not. Instead, it chose to deny workers their right to free collective bargaining. If the government were really concerned about the economy, it would order CN back to the bargaining table to get serious about bargaining. Instead, CN is given the green light by the government to take advantage of workers once again.

Canadians are concerned about worker safety just as much as they are concerned about the economy. The economy should not take precedence over worker safety. We have seen this scenario all too often.

Back to B.C. and the forest industry. Last year there were over 40 deaths in the woods. Those deaths were the result of workers having to work in unsafe working conditions. Fatigue brought on by long hours at a dangerous job in dangerous conditions is a remedy for disaster for forestry workers. Because of the way the industry has been restructured, that is the only way that workers can make ends meet. Workers fought for and got commitments from the provincial government to look at safety conditions and working conditions. However, I have to ask, why? Why does it always take deaths of workers to wake up our governments?

Governments have a role to play in forcing employers to follow safe work practices by legislating and enforcing strict rules for workplace safety. We have seen the scenario in our mining industry. We like to think that those days of the canary in the coal mine are over, but all we have to do is remember the Westray disaster where miners were killed not very many years ago because the employer did not follow safety rules.

We see it every time a worker is killed because an employer in an effort to increase the profit margin cuts corners and puts pressure on workers to take risks. Too many families have lost husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, wives and sisters because workplace safety is thrown out the window or down the shaft or derailed in the interest of the economy.

However, the economy is not in jeopardy because of this dispute. What is in jeopardy is workers' rights, public safety and the environment.

There have been over 100 derailments in Canada since 2005. Let me just mention seven of them here, only seven, and these seven just happened this year in 2007. It is only mid-April, the fourth month of 2007, and we have had seven derailments. That is two a month. I guess we can expect another one any time soon unfortunately.

On March 12, 2007, about 3,000 VIA Rail passengers had to board buses on the first day of March break after train service in the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa corridor was disrupted after a CN freight train derailed near the station in Kingston.

On March 10, 2007, rail traffic along CN's main freight line through central New Brunswick was disrupted until the next day by a 17 car derailment in the Plaster Rock area.

On March 4, 2007, grain was spilled near Blue River, B.C., two hours north of Kamloops when 27 cars of a westbound train fell off the track. How does a train fall off the track?

On March 1, 2007, a CN freight train derailment near Pickering, Ontario disrupted VIA service on the Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa corridor and commuter rail service in the Toronto area.

On February 28, 2007, hydrochloric acid spilled from one of five cars of a CP Rail train that went off the tracks in the Kicking Horse Canyon in southeastern British Columbia. Emergency crews managed to contain the spill and none of the chemical went into nearby waterways. Lucky for them.

On January 14, 2007, a derailment near Lake Minisinakwa in northern Ontario dumped more than 30 cars, one containing paint-related supplies, into a swamp. Officials said there was no sign of leaking but train traffic was blocked at Gogama while the accident was being cleared.

On January 8, 2007, 24 cars of a 122 car freight train derailed in Montmagny, Quebec, about 60 kilometres east of Quebec City. There were no injuries, but the accident occurred in a residential neighbourhood and one rail car came to rest about 12 metres from a home.

It seems to me that derailments are harder on the economy than any kind of labour dispute that anyone might find themselves in.

As I have read, some of these derailments have had devastating impacts on communities. I have heard from some of my other colleagues who have talked about some of the derailments in other provinces. People have had to be evacuated because of toxic fumes and there have been devastating impacts on the environment because of toxic spills in rivers, lakes and watersheds. Millions of fish and other wildlife and their habit are gone.

We will be seeing the negative effects of that for years to come. A recent safety audit at CN expressed huge concerns about management's approach to safety measures. Why is it that management had to be told by Transport Canada to clean up its act?

We keep hearing the mantra that they are responsible corporate citizens, that business has our best interests at heart, but when we see an audit that found a number of safety defects, a significantly high rate, 54% to be exact, on locomotives with problems ranging from brake air defects to too much oil accumulated on locomotives and fuel tanks, we know that corners are being cut and public and worker safety is at risk. Every time there is a derailment, the environment suffers.

The goal for the workers at CN is workplace and railway safety. CN workers are put under tremendous pressure to produce. There is a fear of reprisal if workers blow the whistle on safety issues. What kind of a message is the company sending when safety concerns are ignored?

CN is trying to turn back the clock by forcing its workers to accept increased hours away from home. They are already working up to 80 hours a week. The union is fighting for better rest provisions and an end to the 16 hour workday. They are hard-working men and women. All they want is fairness.

Some are saying that this strike is all about money and that workers are asking for $70,000 a year. For persons working 16 hours a day, that works out to about $12 an hour. That is not very much money per hour as far as I can figure. These are not outrageous provisions to ask for, but what is outrageous is the salary of CN CEO Hunter Harrison, who made $56 million in 2005. At 16 hours a day, that is $9,580 an hour. Tell me, how many people in Canada make that kind of a wage? It is outrageous and it is relevant because there is a growing prosperity gap in the country and workers are feeling the brunt of it.

Why is it that when it comes to labour legislation, to fairness for workers, the government talks the talk, but does not walk the walk? Why is it that the Liberals side with the Conservatives every time when it comes to fairness for workers? They say they support free collective bargaining, but they will vote for back to work legislation. They say they support free collective bargaining, but they voted against legislation that would ban replacement workers.

Why is the Conservative government playing into CN's hands and introducing closure on this bill? The government could have made a better choice. It could have chosen to send CN back to the bargaining table instead of sending the workers a kick in the teeth.

The government appointed a negotiator but did not give the negotiator time to find a solution. Everyone wants to find a reasonable solution and get back to work. Everyone wants what is best for Canada: safe working conditions for railway workers, safe transportation of goods, and a strong railway system for a strong economy.

Unlike some in the House, the NDP believes a strong economy includes fairness and safety for workers, safety for the travelling public, and safety for our communities and for the environment.

Let me conclude by saying that I and my NDP colleagues vigorously oppose any back to work legislation, or any legislation that undermines the fundamental right to collective bargaining. Decent hours of work, needed work breaks, and safe working conditions to protect the well-being of railway workers so that at the end of the day every worker can get home safe with their families, that is what we stand up for.

I ask all members to consider the ramifications of letting CN continue its business as usual approach. There is much more at stake than the economy. I am proud to stand and oppose yet another affront to workers' rights and vote against this back to work legislation.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 16th, 2007]

With regard to the 1992 decision of the government to seize fishermen's assets to pay for loans offered under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, will the government take action on the following requests from the Fishermen's Redress Committee to: (a) appoint a representative of the Prime Minister to enter negotiations with the Fishermen's Redress Committee; (b) compensate the fishermen in their loss; and (c) offer an apology for the many years of suffering they have endured?

[Lumber Industry, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the practice of exporting raw logs from my riding of Vancouver Island North and beyond is costing jobs for our forest dependent communities. The practice is completely unsustainable and is causing deep concern for loggers, mill workers, environmentalists, first nations and local businesses.

The future of our economy is on the line. That is why I introduced Motion No. 301, calling upon the government to drastically curtail the export of raw logs and to promote domestic processing and value added manufacturing of forest products.

The Minister of Natural Resources says that I have his commitment, that he is aggressively pursuing this to keep jobs here. However, his government signed away our capacity to process lumber and sold out forestry workers when it signed the softwood lumber agreement. There is nothing in the 2007 budget to help affected communities. Over 60% of raw logs exported from B.C. come from federally regulated lands.

The bleeding of jobs can and must be stopped. The government must promote value added manufacturing in B.C. Save our logs, save our jobs and save our communities.