Charlie Power

[Canadian Forest Industry, November 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a serious issue currently affecting the west coast which has implications for all of Canada. International environmental organizations are waging an unjust campaign against the Canadian forest industry. The outcome of their efforts has been devastating to coastal communities in British Columbia.

Not only has the forest industry had to deal with a drop in demand caused by the Asian financial crisis, but European, Asian and North American consumers are being bombarded with one-sided arguments about Canadian forest practices while thousands of Canadians lose their jobs.

The Liberal government has done nothing to counteract this advertising campaign.

I ask the Liberal government to prove us wrong and prove that it cares about coastal communities and families that rely on our natural resources. Do something before it is too late to help the Canadian forest industry counteract this aggressive advertising campaign being waged by misguided environmentalists against our very vital Canadian forest industry.

[Bill C-68, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express the displeasure and disbelief of all law abiding gun owners in St. John's West and indeed all of Canada. This poorly thought out law, Bill C-68, which requires legitimate hunters all across the country to register their rifles and shotguns, is still subject to a supreme court ruling.

To continue to spend a significant amount of taxpayer dollars to advertise this program is absurd.

At a time when all policing agencies across the country are crying out for more money so they can do their jobs properly, government is spending an additional $1.3 million to advertise a law that will have no significant impact on crime. This advertising campaign is geared to rural Canada where crime rates are lowest, once again showing the absurdity of this law. This $1.3 million advertising campaign should be cancelled and the money redirected to fighting crime or, even more appropriately, to the victims of criminal acts.

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I know we only have about two minutes left in today's debate, but I want to make a few preliminary comments before concluding my comments at a future date.

First, I want to commend the member for New Brunswick Southwest for bringing in an excellent bill which would protect the rights of people who are involved in the traditional fishery all across Canada. In the 500 year history of the fishery in Newfoundland, never has there been as great a need to have the rights of fishermen protected.

All the member wanted to do when he talked about the rights of fishermen was to make sure that fishers have access to and are involved in the process of fisheries stock assessment, fish conservation, the setting of fishing quotas, fishing licences and the public right to fish.

If fishers are not allowed to be involved in that process then there is something very seriously wrong. Never has the need been as great as it is this day. We saw what happened in this House in the last month or so. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which had probably the best chairman that committee ever had, the Liberal member for Gander—Grand Falls, along with eight other Liberals on the committee, made a series of recommendations which were agreed to and passed by the committee. However, when those changes came before the House of Commons, none of them were allowed to vote in favour of their own recommendations.

The Liberals will say today that we do not need someone to protect the rights of fishers. Perhaps what I should do is bring in another bill to protect Liberals on standing committees. That bill would include a special provision to allow them to make all kinds of very serious recommendations and then allow them to come to the House of Commons and vote against their own recommendations.

A second provision of the bill might be to replace the nine members on the standing committee with nine codfish who would say more about what is wrong with the fishery than certainly the Liberal members on the standing committee.

[Air Atlantic, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister states in his waiver that whereas the minister is satisfied that it would be unduly prejudicial to Air Atlantic to provide 16 weeks notice, then the provision is waived.

The Canadian Labour Code is meant to protect workers, not corporations. In the area of the highest unemployment in Canada workers need all the protection they can have.

Could the parliamentary secretary explain to these 435 people and their families why the Government of Canada chose to protect Air Atlantic and not Air Atlantic employees?

[Air Atlantic, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

On August 26, 435 employees of Air Atlantic in St. John's and Halifax were given notice of termination as of midnight October 24. This is only eight weeks of notice. Under section 212 of the Canadian Labour Code there must be 16 weeks of notice of termination.

Subsequently the company applied for and was given a waiver. Now these employees out either eight weeks notice or salary in lieu of notice.

Why is the Minister of Labour taking money out of the pockets of these labourers and giving it to the company?

[Programs For Young People, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for giving me this five minutes to address an issue which is probably the most serious one that faces the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and probably all of Canada.

The resolution simply asks in a very non-partisan way to allow the House of Commons to assess, to evaluate and to appraise the 250 different programs to help young people get involved in the labour force in Canada.

I congratulate the NDP member for Vancouver East who had some excellent suggestions on how we should go about this. Obviously education is key to what any of us would understand as creating a higher employment rate in Canada.

The member for the Reform is a little misguided and could easily support this resolution. We believe, as does the Reform member, that there are better ways. Probably we could in a non-partisan way finds ways to help young people in Canada. The Liberal member obviously thinks that everything they are doing is absolutely perfect. That is just simply not the truth or the reality in Canada today.

There are a lot of good programs. I read a memo from the Minister for Human Resources Development the other day. It mentioned a whole range of programs and some with success ratios that are very high, like the youth internship program. Some 88% of the people who took part in that program are either presently working or are back in studies.

That is a very successful program, but we wonder if all the 250 programs handled by several different departments are as equally successful. We believe a review should be done. The review could be very simple. It could be done by an all party parliamentary committee of the House, or it could be done by an outside person who is non-partisan, just to find out if these programs are getting to the people who really deserve them.

Some of the programs are excellent. There is no question that in St. John's West this summer we had over 1,200 students working in student programs. The Government of Canada saw it as a high priority to make sure there was student employment so that some students could actually save money toward their education.

The training allowances for adults and young adults are very meaningful. In our office in Newfoundland the highest ratio of phone calls that we get is from people trying to get assistance in training and to get back to school. They have come to the realization that without better education there is not much chance of a better job or a better life.

We do not know what is the success rate of all the other programs. We would like to know and the Government of Canada should want to know. If we have 250 programs obviously some might not be as productive and some might not be targeted to the right groups.

Another concern in our caucus is that if there is 250 programs spread over six or seven different government departments, what are the administration costs? If $2 billion is being spent on 250 programs with several government departments, what are the administrative costs? Is it 10% or $200 million? Is it 30% or $600 million? We want a review to find out how much money is spent on administration and to make sure that as much money as possible is directed to the three groups of Canadians the programs are designed for.

When it comes to the labour force basically there are three groups in Canada. The first is young Canadians working within Canada who are contributing to our country, their provinces and their family. Many of these workers were assisted by programs such as the Canada student loans program and training allowances. Many are also so heavily in debt that for many years they cannot contribute fully to the Canadian economy. They will not be able to buy homes and new cars and start their own businesses. Maybe there is a better way to set up the student loan system to allow Canadians to get an education, to work here and not be so heavily in debt.

Another group of young Canadians are those who are working outside the country. Why are they working outside the country? It is because of the lack of opportunities in Canada, the high tax rate and those kinds of problems.

Another group I want to touch on, especially in Newfoundland, is the vast number of young Canadians who are living unemployed in Canada. Often they are undereducated and living on temporary assistance programs from the government which really become permanent assistance programs from their parents and family.

I had a call today from one of my constituents who contributed to the EI surplus and is now on welfare. That EI surplus could be used to help get Canadians back to work, which was the original intent of the EI program.

I am delighted to be able to second this motion to ask for a non-partisan evaluation of these 250 government programs and I seek the unanimous consent to make this motion votable.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of my colleague for Burin—St. George's.

The petition, signed by several hundred Newfoundlanders, is asking the House of Commons to reject any bills that would weaken the sponsorship provisions of the Tobacco Act, a petition that both the member for Burin—St. George's and I enthusiastically support.

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act, June 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak today on behalf of our caucus to support Bill S-2. It is an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make consequential amendment to another act.

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act was passed by parliament in June 1989. The act established an independent federal agency, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, or as it is commonly known the TSB.

The TSB has the mandate to investigate accidents into marine, rail, pipeline and air modes of transportation. A major feature of the TSB is its independence from the regulator, Transport Canada, and from all other departments of government. Its sole objective is to advance transportation safety, and this is indeed an admirable objective.

The original Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act contained a provision in section 63 of the act that required the mandatory review of the operation of the act.

This review was initiated in January 1993 by the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act Review Commission and its report was tabled in parliament in 1994. Meanwhile the Moshansky commission of inquiry into the March 1989 accident at the Dryden airport had completed its work and made recommendations pertinent to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

Bill S-2 is the result of these changes suggested by both the Dryden investigation and by the Canadian Transportation Board Accident Investigation and Safety Board Review Commission. Bill S-2 proposes to do some tidying up of the already very solid piece of legislation.

Bill S-2 was introduced in the Senate on September 30, 1997. It went on to the Senate transportation and communications committee in which Bill S-2 received three amendments. One of these amendments was made by the Progressive Conservative senators whom at this time I would like thank for their hard work on this important piece of transportation safety legislation.

The Progressive Conservative amendment made in the Senate now allows the TSB to have two part time members. The current board consists of only four members and has one vacancy due to some trouble in finding a fifth full time member. The new provision is to allow part time membership as a positive step in maintaining a healthy TSB.

Liberal senators made two amendments to Bill S-2. One was a very good one and one was a very poor amendment. The first Liberal amendment was a transitional clause which ensures that pending or ongoing legal proceedings would be able to continue once the bill is passed. This is a positive move which protects against any gaps while Bill S-2 comes into force.

The second amendment made by a Liberal was not such a good idea. In fact it was so bad the Liberal government is now back-tracking and asking to have the amendment deleted. The amendment deals with the protection of land line recordings made in air traffic control systems.

The amendment was made without legal advice without transportation safety board consultation or, as far as we can tell, without consulting anyone about the possible the detrimental impact this amendment could have. The unintended affect of this amendment would deny the employer and the regulator access to information which the government has admitted is “necessary to ensure the quality and safety of some elements of air traffic service”.

The government in this case was asleep at the wheel. It should have been better prepared to deal with the bill. It has been a long while in the making. To let this occur shows just how little force that the government has had on the issue. It has been promised that the government will delete the amendment today. I hope it does that today because it is important that it should be done.

We are on top of the transportation safety issues in Canada and we will be ensuring that this legislation and any future safety legislation passed by the House will be positive step for Canada.

In conclusion, I should also like to note that our party's transportation critic, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester, has done an extensive investigation into the bill. It has been found to be solid and should warrant our support.

While it somewhat irregular for a bill which has been referred to a standing committee to brought back to the House without allowing the committee to do its work, hear any witnesses or perform the valuable work of parliamentary committees, we will be supporting this move today with regard to Bill S-2.

The reason for this is the need to give the transportation safety board the necessary changes to fine tune its operation as well as to make minor although important changes to the governing act. These changes will increase transportation safety for all Canadians. For this reason the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting a quick passage today.

[Taxation, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The number of American work visas issued to Canadians has increased over 50% in just four years. There is one major reason for this. Our government continues to follow high tax policies which drive our best and brightest south of the border.

My question is for the minister. When will the government offer real tax relief so that those Canadians who choose to stay at home and work will not at the same time be taking a vow of poverty?

[Hepatitis C, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the hon. Conservative member for Charlotte, on his vigilant pursuit of justice and proper compensation for all victims of hepatitis C. This government has shown contempt, not compassion, for the victims of hepatitis C.

My colleague's efforts have helped the victims believe that someone in Ottawa cares about their plight. While the Minister of Health spoke down to Canadians and declared that the file was closed, it was my colleague who spoke for Canadians, the victims and their families.

Conservatives have a history of doing the right thing for innocent victims. This week the Conservative government in Ontario came out in support of extending compensation to all victims. Federally it was the previous Conservative government that moved unilaterally in providing compensation to all victims of HIV tainted blood.

The Conservative member for Charlotte has been working on behalf of hepatitis C victims all across Canada, including in the riding of St. John's West, and for that we should all be grateful.