Michelle Dockrill

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, following the annual NAC lobby on Monday of this week I hoped we would see a change in attitude from the Liberal government concerning the impact of its programs on women, especially changes to the EI program which have had a specific and serious effect on Canadian women.

The government's own figures show that women have been hardest hit by modifications to eligibility requirements. Today, 44% of Canadian women are not eligible for maternity benefits, placing a huge strain on families from B.C. to Newfoundland.

The decision the government has made is a simple one. It has placed the ideology of the collection agency ahead of human compassion and economic efficiency. I am sure hon. members are familiar with the term penny-wise and pound foolish. This is a concise summary of the government's policy. By attempting to balance the nation's books on the backs of the middle class, the working poor and the disadvantaged, the administration has decided to trade long term growth for the illusion of short term responsibility.

It is the equivalent of a family selling its house so it can pay off its debts. What good does a perfect credit rating do when everything that matters has been thrown away?

Employment insurance was designed to serve as a bridge to enable workers to survive while they are between jobs. Over the years that definition has become more and more restrictive. Now one has to live in a region that experiences a complete economic meltdown before one will be eligible. Even then, unfortunately, there are parts of the country where that meltdown has happened. I base these statements on fact. There are people who fall through the cracks.

When I recall the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development several weeks ago in the House, I am struck by the calmness with which she dispatched my question, the easy words about studies and about investigations into the problems we are facing with the system.

It seems once many people leave their communities and start to breathe the thin air on Parliament Hill they forget that studies, investigations and inquiries do not put bread on the table. Certainly the people of Cape Breton Island have learned that lesson well. We are aware that reports do not fill a child's stomach before he or she goes to school or goes to bed at night.

The parliamentary secretary said that they do not want to start making changes until they understand the whys and wherefores of the numbers. I was left wondering what was the problem. Before the government pushed through its changes to the system, there was no evidence that women were discriminated against by the system. Surely the answers to the government's questions are laid out for it in the old legislation which the government threw away.

I want to make perfectly clear that my comments are not intended to call simply for a return to the old ways. My party is the first to admit that system was imperfect and in need of substantial reform, but changes need to be based on an assessment of why a program was invented in the first place.

An unfortunate trend has come to dominate policy making since 1993, the tendency of programs to be examined, pared down or eliminated because of their impact on the year to year financial forecast instead of on their social utility. Using this model, programs like EI and other assistant agencies are portrayed as inefficient. That justification has been used to whittle them away until they are unable to function.

We have to act and we have to act decisively. Canadians will not reward parliament for indecisiveness or a lack of action. Whenever the reports or studies or whatever concerning the EI system are delivered to the minister, I hope the government will be inspired into action to do what is right for women and all other citizens of the country.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I commend my colleague from Dartmouth for her tireless efforts and hard work in doing what unfortunately our heritage minister has been unable to do and that has been to remain committed to maintaining our Canadian culture and heritage. I think that is a real shame.

I was in the House on quite a number of occasions when I heard the minister make reference to this bill. I remember one day specifically she made reference to the fact that she wanted to guarantee that her 10 year old daughter was able to continue to read her magazines.

Similar to the minister I also have a 10 year old daughter. I would like to hope that when my 10 year old daughter picks up a magazine and reads about Canada, that she is reading it from a Canadian perspective and not from the perspective of somebody sitting on a warm beach in Los Angeles. I differ with the minister with respect to wanting to guarantee what type of literature my daughter has access to.

My colleague from Dartmouth talked about the number of concerns she and the New Democratic Party have with respect to Bill C-55. Could she tell us what she feels is the most important issue, or what is the most important thing we as Canadians are losing with respect to Bill C-55?

[The Family, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago the minister realized, several years after everyone else, that this government's 1996 Employment Insurance Act discriminated against women. As usual, he promised to study the problem. The 56% of women who are ineligible for maternity benefits do not need a study to tell them what is wrong.

How much longer must they wait before the minister stops studying and starts acting?

[The Family, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, during the hearings of the subcommittee on taxation and families, witnesses from across the political spectrum spoke of the need to extend and improve maternity and parental benefits.

In view of the widespread agreement that clearly exists in the country, will the Minister of Human Resources Development commit his government today to extending and improving maternity and parental benefits for Canadian families?

[Workplace Safety, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate a bit on something my colleague from South Shore alluded to earlier when he talked about the initiative we are discussing tonight. We are discussing a motion that was put forward by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. With reference to the initiative by the New Democratic Party, I would like to declare that our initiative is of a legal nature. Although the motion will hopefully gain the willingness of the House, our initiative provides the legal means to do so.

When it comes to defining in one crystal clear example the principle which underlines this motion, the principle is clear in the Westray mine disaster of 1992. Seven years ago more than two dozen men went to work and died there. They died horrible deaths, deaths made more terrible because they were completely unnecessary and made more tragic because those men died, according to what some believe, to boost the company's profits.

In the aftermath of the disaster fingers were pointed by all sides, including the accusation that the men who died were found responsible for their deaths. The commission rejected that assertation, as well it should have, and pointed the finger of blame at a culture of greed which permeated the company. Ignoring the dangerous nature of the business, the owners tried to extract every cent they could from a workforce desperate for work, from a community where any job would receive 100 applications. I am providing these details because I believe they are critical to achieving an understanding of what truly occurred in May 1992.

I will always be the first to stand in support of good business, large or small, that treats its workers with dignity and respect. What I aim to do here is to expand the definition of a successful corporation to make it include the successful and safe guidance of any workforce through their working lives.

I believe this motion is based on one of the strongest foundations of our law which states that we are all responsible for our actions.

In recent years this basic rule of law has been stretched, twisted and manipulated. Some would say we must remember that those who stretch, twist and manipulate the law are individuals who make choices, who decide they will overlook flaws in their equipment, who will cut back on safety training, and who will knowingly send their workers into dangerous environments. Those individuals should be held accountable for those choices.

In the closing years of this millennium we have finally reached the stage of evolution in our civilization where we no longer allow the excuse of I was just following orders to stand as a valid defence for knowingly causing harm to others. When it comes to the behaviour of our military and our government officials, we now expect that every individual will make a moral decision based not on what they have been told but on what they know to be the difference between right and wrong.

We hope the motion will expand this welcome step forward and could possibly be a prelude to the legal initiative that has been put forth by the New Democratic Party, so that in the future it will not be possible for a mine manager to say that the company president forced him to order the alteration of safety reports or for his CEO to be protected from blame.

In addition to responsibility equality is a foundation stone of society. We may never achieve it but it remains a goal, an ideal toward which we all strive. By allowing one significant segment of our society to remain protected from our law is a flagrant violation of the principle of equality. Is a violation easily healed, a problem easily solved?

As I have said before, my party is not seeking a witch hunt as we have no desire to increase the cost of doing business. We all hope to achieve by the passage of the motion an increase in profitability as a small number of unscrupulous firms that keep their prices artificially low by exposing their workers to danger are forced from the market. That opens the way for responsible firms to increase their competitiveness and to increase not only their bottom lines but the standard of living of their workers, their communities and their country.

Whenever this measure is discussed or contemplated by anyone in the House, I hope the memory of those 26 men who died seven years ago in Nova Scotia will stay with them. There are those citizens and business people who can and do know what it takes to run a responsible and safe enterprise and who put those beliefs into practice every day.

As a parliament we have a responsibility to set the moral course for our government. When it comes to the motion before us I urge all members to support it for success and decency and to reject those who would cover their failures with the bodies of their workers.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general and the Commissioner for the Environment have identified contaminated and polluted sites as a major liability that is hurting Canadians and our children on a daily basis.

It is not only the health liability that is a concern, it is also the financial liability that drains millions from the government's coffers in the form of cleanup costs and increased medical bills for families and their children living in a contaminated zone.

In my home, Cape Breton Island, we know all about costs. The Sydney tar ponds, the largest toxic waste site in Canada, are endangering the health of our families and our children and putting a brake on attempts to energize the economy. Who wants to open up shop on contaminated land?

The New Democratic Party believes in green initiatives, that cleaning up industrial waste and other toxic sites presents not only a challenge that needs to be addressed but an economic opportunity to be grasped.

For people in Cape Breton the remediation of the thousands of acres contaminated by centuries of coal mining and heavy industry offers the prospect of stable work and the opportunity for Cape Breton to become a centre of excellence in the environmental cleanup industry. Excellence is an important word to focus on because it is essential that any of these projects that are undertaken from coast to coast be done to the highest standards.

Although I have just emphasized the economic benefits that can come from a sensitivity to environmental concerns, it is crucial that the quest to create jobs not obscure the main objective which is to make sure that the toxic sites are properly cleaned once and for all.

Too often contaminated sites have been cleaned up with a layer of topsoil and some daisies leaving the contaminants in the ground to endanger our future generations. Cleanups need to begin with a proper assessment of the situation at each site and the cleanup needs to follow a clear and transparent process from start to finish.

Many of the problems experienced during site cleaning are caused by a lack of communication with the public and with affected populations. For example, the recent and commendable decision by the Nova Scotia government to relocate residents living on two streets adjacent to the Sydney tar ponds has simply created more tension because the relocation appears to have been executed as a reaction to public pressure not as part of an overall strategy.

In Cape Breton a clear plan is essential as any errors made in a region with fractured bedrock could result in long term recontamination of the groundwater.

Just as we have fought the financial deficit, we have to address the environmental deficit. We cannot leave this debt for our grandchildren to pay, especially as the price will be paid in birth defects, disease and premature death.

Government after government has ignored the recommendations of the environment commissioner, covering their lack of action with warm words. I hope the government will have the courage to break that cycle and that we on the NDP benches will have the opportunity to work with the government and all Canadians of goodwill on this crucial issue.

Children are at special risk from the effects of pollution. To once again speak of my home, we have recently learned from a study released in Cape Breton that the rate of birth defects is much higher than the national average. Independent sources confirm that the true picture is much worse.

We have to make a commitment to our children that we will provide them with what the United States Environmental Protection Act defines “as areas that are reasonably accessible to children”. That means clean streets, clean soil and clean water.

As the mother of a 10 year old daughter and an 8 month old son, I owe it to my children and we as a government owe it to Canadian children.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, May 27th, 1999]

What is the total direct federal government funding to organizations and projects in the Nova Scotia Regional Municipalities of Cape Breton, the Town of Port Hawkesbury, and the counties of Inverness, Richmond, and Victoria?

Return tabled.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 12th, 1999]

What grants or interest-free loans have been provided by Human Resources Development Canada, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Industry Canada, Entreprise Cape Breton Corporation, Canada-Nova Scotia Infrastructure Program or Canada-Nova Scotia Cooperation Economic Diversification Agreement to Highland Environmental, Kevin Pembroke or Pembroke Project Managers Incorporated?

[Sexual Assault Awareness Month, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, May is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Sexual assault is a uniquely gendered crime. Overwhelmingly it is women who experience this violence. In Canada two out of three women have been sexually assaulted, one every six minutes.

Sexual assault is a serious crime and must be stopped. It has serious economic and political costs for women. The ability to live our lives free from gender based violence, free to walk down the streets is every women's right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Women cannot help but wonder that if two-thirds of corporate executives or lawyers were victims of assault we would be declaring a state of emergency. Instead we have the federal violence prevention strategy that leaves action to other levels of government or community groups with no commitment of resources.

Women want the government to know that failing to take serious action to prevent sexual assault amounts to tolerance of gender inequality. Canadian women are tired of platitudes from this government. They want action and they want it now.

[Division No. 414, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present will vote no on this motion.