Michelle Dockrill

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. As I stated in my comments the tourism industry supports the change. I respect the individuals in the industry and their ability to decide what best suits them.

The industry supports the change. The provinces support the change. The staff supports the change. I would only have to question why members of the House would not respect individuals in the industry who should obviously know what is best for their industry.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to rise and replace my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

My colleague and I are both in agreement to support Bill C-5, an act to establish the Canadian tourism commission.

As many members will already know, the Canadian tourism commission was actually founded in 1992 after an extensive consultation with various stakeholders in the tourism industry across Canada. At that time, when the former government was trying to get the commission up and running quickly, government and industry agreed that the CTC should be created as a special operating agency instead of a crown corporation.

Special operating agency basically means that it has all of the responsibility and none of the authority. The CTC was responsible for running the program but it was the deputy minister of tourism who was responsible for the administration. Because of the speech with which the CTC was originally created, it missed a whole bunch of key points and operations were often held back because of the bureaucratic nightmare that was created.

There were some marketing operations that had to sit around for months because they were going through the bureaucratic sign-off process which required 13 signatures. By the time they got to their signatures circumstances had almost always changed.

One could spot the potential for problems a mile away. Government contract issuance processes were just too slow to keep up with the rapid changes that occur in the tourism industry. Business does not have to be allowed to move much more quickly whether it is in the private or public realm.

My colleagues and I in the NDP support the move from a special operating agency to a crown corporation provided that the government provide the tourism board the support it will require to fulfil its objectives.

The development and accomplishments of the Canadian tourism commission is a unique and promising model of a private-public partnership. The tourism industry currently provides over two-thirds of the funding for the commission's operations.

Labour relations will move from the Public Service Employment Act to the Canada Labour Code, and while existing bargaining units will be merged, there will be a one year transition in eligibility for public service competitions and grievance procedures.

The tourism industry supports the change, the provinces support the change and the staff support the change. I believe that today in the House we should be able to co-operate and put Bill C-5 through the House as quickly as possible. One only wishes every government policy with respect to tourism was as beneficial for the industry as this one.

I take this opportunity to remind the House of the sudden and hurtful changes which our two airlines made with respect to their commissions for international ticket sales. This change alone threatens some 7,500 jobs in small communities across the country.

Basically the two airlines got together to set the new commission structure and informed the travel agents. I repeat, the two airlines got together to set the new pricing structure. Then, when the travel agents' association wanted to meet with the airlines to discuss the rate structure, it was threatened with anti-competition charges under the Competition Act by the very same airline. In other words, the Competition Act could be used by the airlines to bully small businesses, but where oh where is that act now that the big airlines are in trouble? Talk about a Liberal double standard.

Another point that I feel I must make in this debate on tourism comes more in the form of a warning. The preamble to Bill C-5 sets out the vitality of the tourism industry to the social and cultural identity of Canada. While I do not wish to necessarily disagree with this statement, it must be somewhat qualified. It is not tourism that is going to safeguard our identity. Instead, it is our distinct social and cultural identity as Canadians that will safeguard the continued interest for tourists in Canada.

Tourism can never be more than and certainly never less than an integral part of our economy. A well-balanced and vibrant economy of scale cannot be built upon tourism alone. I make this point because it is extremely important for us in Cape Breton to remember this at a time when our federal government is telling us that tourism will be our saviour.

Tourism also rides economic roller coasters, the big economic ones and the smaller seasonal variations. It is important to note that while we acknowledge the increased dollar figures generated in Cape Breton, from $211 million to $230 million this year which will make tourism one of the important factors in rebuilding our shattered economy, it is by no means the only or the whole answer.

As some of my hon. colleagues may already know, we, the NDP caucus members from Nova Scotia, have been working with tourism operators across the maritime provinces. We are facing a situation of a monopolistic food supplier if the Sobey's-Oshawa group merger goes ahead. This merger could potentially spell disaster for the restaurants, bed and breakfast establishments and hotels that are price-takers from their food suppliers. If the merger goes ahead there will be virtually no competition in that sector. I think I could elicit support from just about any part of the House that a situation where no controls or competition is in place could spell disaster for the people who depend on these suppliers.

Nearly 77,000 people are directly or indirectly employed by tourism operators in Nova Scotia. The fact that the government has taken no initiative toward protecting the interests of small businesses that will potentially be hurt by the merger is yet another example of the federal Liberals abandoning the interests of working people.

While I feel I must support the passage of Bill C-5, I do not do this without some reservations with regard to the Liberal government's policies toward tourism and tourist operators. I do not feel that the Liberal government supports tourist operators, especially those who are small business owners and employees.

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, November 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of point. I understand appropriate discussions with other parties have taken place and I seek the unanimous consent of the House to complete the speaking period of my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

[Independent Truckers, November 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the government has repeatedly refused to face the truth about the economic and social crisis developing in Cape Breton. This crisis is the direct result of its inability to show leadership and provide a sincere commitment to the people of the island. Not only is there an obvious lack of commitment to Cape Bretoners but the government continues to allow misinformation about the reality of the crisis to permeate.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues in the House proclaimed last week during the debate on Bill C-11 that unemployment rates were declining in Cape Breton, the reality of the matter is that unemployment is rising in Cape Breton with unofficial rates of over 30%.

The government's best effort to create jobs has been to encourage the conditions that often create low paying, part time, contractual jobs with no benefits. Nova Scotians are falling deeper into poverty with the average poor family living almost $6,000 below the low income cutoff level. The Nova Scotia report card issued yesterday by Campaign 2000 reports that 67.8% of families without full time, full year employment are living in poverty. The same report card states that Nova Scotia children are doing better than the average Cape Breton child. Thanks to the Liberal government's generous cuts to EI benefits, less than half of Nova Scotians who are unemployed receive EI benefits.

Sadly, the government's inability to act has been the only consistency in the lives of the children of Cape Bretoners since 1993. We continue to face a crisis of increasing proportions. Coastal communities have suffered greatly from the devastation of the ground fishing industry. Devco's being shut down has already caused the loss of well over 1,000 direct jobs. Rural Cape Bretoners are being stripped of jobs, the most recent example being the reallocation of HRDC jobs from Port Hawkesbury to more urban areas.

This is the reality the children of Cape Breton face every day: poverty, job losses, a government that just does not care. What else could possibly explain why Cape Bretoners have been made into economic refugees at the hands of their own government?

The government would have us believe that the road show masquerading as a fair and fully participatory panel that is to decide the future of Cape Breton is somehow going to make everything rosy again. The government cannot really expect that the people of Cape Breton will accept this rushed and obviously partisan panel as an appropriate response by the government that is legally obligated to take all reasonable measures to reduce economic hardship. This crisis will not be solved overnight.

Given that the policies of the government continue to put their parents out of work, what other message does this send to the sons and daughters of Cape Bretoners except that in the eyes of the Liberal government they just don't count?

[Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak in support of the efforts of my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre in terms of ensuring that Bill C-13, which aims to establish a new framework for health research, becomes an effective piece of legislation that will be able to redress some of the problems in linking health research to practice in Canada.

Along with my NDP colleagues, I applaud the efforts by all those who worked to create the new legislation. However, along with my colleagues, I have several reservations about the legislation and hope that these will be taken into consideration when this bill reaches the committee stage.

In order for the bill to achieve its goal, it requires a considerable amount of political will to ensure that the research that will be conducted in the 10 to 15 new health institutes will indeed reach the hands of health practitioners throughout the country. While the bill acknowledges the need for this commitment, it does not ensure that the government will remain committed and be one of the driving forces in achieving the goals of Bill C-13.

The bill talks about increasing links, but it does not go as far as to enshrine the will to accomplish these links. In light of the continued cuts to transfer payments, I have to wonder how the government intends the CIHR to achieve its goal.

Since 1986 federal cuts to health care funding have totalled approximately $36 billion. The amount transferred via the CHST to my home province of Nova Scotia has been steadily decreasing since 1993 when this government came to power.

The bill does little to take into consideration the consequences of these cuts in transfers. These cuts have led to a diminished capacity of the health care system to care for its patients and new research findings have not been able to get off the ground and be applied. Because of these transfer cuts, problems have arisen throughout the country.

Take for example the tar ponds on Cape Breton Island, a toxic wasteland which has wreaked havoc on the health of the people in the local area and on the environment. People have died as a result of this toxic sludge. People have reported arsenic bubbling up in their backyards and basements. An entire residential street had to be bulldozed because it was considered extremely dangerous to one's health to live there. Even the government has recently committed another $37 million for a clean-up effort, but still no toxic sludge has been removed from the tar ponds.

Even though all of this money was provided to alleviate a major health concern, it has not translated into a healthier step forward for the communities affected by the tar ponds. Study after study after study have shown the ill-health effects and have shown the dramatic increase in the incidence of cancer. The government, however, has lacked the political will and commitment or health infrastructure to act upon this.

The CIHR needs a clear mandate to intervene in these types of situations where hard research has proven that adverse health conditions and/or effects exist. The government also has to provide a real commitment to ensure that sufficient funding exists. I sincerely hope that this issue will be examined in depth at committee. The CIHR will only be effective in working with its health practitioner partners if sufficient funding exists in the core health care system.

One of my major concerns with the proposed CIHR is its lack of clear commitment to an approach or framework of health care and service ethics. In this day and age with rapid increases in innovation and health care technology, it is absolutely essential that the ethical effects of medical research be given a high priority. Bill C-13 barely acknowledges this need.

The challenge we are faced with today is to ensure that, as with health care, we engage in preventive ethics, not just curative ethics. What I mean by this is similar to that old saying about an ounce of prevention is worth two of medicine. We need to be actively engaged in encouraging that ethical concerns are a priority in any new and ongoing health research and practice.

Today there are many ethical dilemmas in health research. I will highlight a few that relate to women.

These days simply because the technology exists, many women who would otherwise not be able to have children can have them. This is a fantastic gain for so many. However, there are ethical concerns about how these reproductive technologies are being implemented by health practitioners. These concerns need to be widely debated. They are already hot topics for researchers but so far, because the government has not acknowledged the need for ethical responsibility in medical services, they have not come under serious discussion and consideration in the public health care system in Canada.

It would be much more beneficial if we acknowledged this need for ethical responsibility now rather than later. The CIHR could provide for ethical responsibility by engaging in a little of what I call preventive ethics. It will be so much easier to deal with ethical concerns if they are enshrined in the legislation and recognized by health researchers and practitioners.

The last point of concern I raise is a simple one. It has long been acknowledged that men and women have different health needs. What has been harder to acknowledge and achieve is a balance in health research to ensure the particular differences and the needs of women and their bodies are taken into consideration.

My suggestion for the committee that will be examining Bill C-13 is that we ensure it is not just the universal male body that is used in all of the interesting and exciting research to be done in Canada in the future. There is certainly room within the legislation to require that one of the 10 to 15 institutes be a women's health institute. All of the institutes created as a result of Bill C-13 should ensure that their boards and committees have gender parity and ensure gender analysis is a major priority.

I reiterate that in principle I believe Bill C-13 is a very good start on the road to linking research and practice throughout the country. However to date, the government has done little to make me believe that it will provide a considerable amount of support including the political support that will be required to ensure the success of the Canadian institutes of health research, and that it is not just another empty handed gesture.

I call on all hon. members of the House to get the message to the government that we are serious about the need for a holistic approach to health care in Canada. We need a commitment from this government that it will provide an adequate budget and significant and stable funding for health research.

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as my fellow colleague from Sydney—Victoria mentioned, both of us represent ridings that mirror each other in terms of urban and rural.

When I talk with farmers in my constituency they talk about the lack of commitment and leadership. Unfortunately for us in Cape Breton we have been affected by the government's so-called commitment to fishermen and its so-called commitment to farmers. What we are told is that maybe we should broaden our tourism base. I can see it now. We will have a tourist attraction where rich Americans can drive by and look at our abandoned farms and the way things used to be.

Some would say that there is and has been for a very long time a serious attack on rural communities by starving them to death. Does the member believe that the recent results of the byelection in Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a clear message to the Liberal government from rural communities?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way and I want to clarify for him the position of New Democrats. What we have been saying is that because the initiatives over the course of the last 30 years have been ridden with patronage they have not worked. Our position is very clear. We do not feel that the mistakes of this government and governments over the past 30 years should be buried and carried on the backs of the Cape Breton miners. That is our position.

My question to the member is very simple. He refers to the $68 million, which, if allotted properly, could prove to be successful. He uses words like leverage, which are the kinds of buzzwords we have heard for the last 10 years on the island of Cape Breton with respect to wages, things like ACOA, the ECBC and the CBCEDA.

My question is very specific. Given the fact that over the course of the last 10 years leverage with respect to ACOA money and ECBC money to the tune of $352 million has landed Cape Breton with the highest rate of unemployment, I would like the member to tell me, as well as those Cape Bretoners who are watching tonight, some real specifics in terms of how he sees a mere $68 million being allotted as being successful when this government was not able to accomplish it with $352 million?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, he has spent some time in Cape Breton and really has a good sense of what is happening on the ground.

I just have a simple question for my colleague. He has been in the House a lot longer than I have and has seen a lot of legislation come and go. He has seen a lot of initiatives on the part of governments that have not in fact benefited the citizens that they are supposedly intended to help.

There seems to be a perception that continues to permeate from the Liberal government to central Canadians and some western Canadians that what is happening in Cape Breton is really Cape Bretoners' own fault. I am wondering if the member sees any responsibility over the course of the last 30 years in how the economy has been on a steady decline not with the people of Cape Breton Island but with the governments of the day.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member across the way, when he throws a name at me like Keith Brown it makes me realize exactly how not in touch with reality the government really is.

It is because of such individuals that any economic development over the course of the last 30 years has not worked. He did such a terrible job in the industrial development sector of Devco running a golf course that the government gave him the vice-presidency of a crown corporation. That is what happens when one has a vision according to what the government's vision is.

As I sit and listen to the member I wonder when was the last time he visited Cape Breton and actually talked to some of the real people.

Recently I was present at almost all the presentations at the so-called Liberal road show that they are referring to as the adjustment panel. The former premier of Nova Scotia, who was a former member of this Chamber for 17 years, said one important matter the panel had to take into consideration before the decision with respect to Devco was the crisis that the Cape Breton economy was in and the reality of the fact that the unemployment rate was 30%. That was fact he said. On top of that we will have now an increase in that unemployment and an economy that will continue to be on fast decline.

Is the member telling us and the House that the former premier and the former member of parliament for 17 years was wrong in the numbers he quoted on Friday?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, November 15th, 1999]

And going to the food banks.