Len Taylor

[Hopper Cars, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has put its fleet of 13,000 hopper cars up for sale and has begun a process to establish the criteria on which bids will be accepted. There are a number of things that should be considered.

First, the government has to realize that the critical issue in this process is the allocation of these cars. Although ownership is important, it will take an efficient system of moving those cars to grain collection points and then to port to make the issue of actual ownership relevant.

Second, since it is clear that producers are going to be asked to pay the full cost of the existing fleet as well as the replacement costs as the fleet ages, it is important for the government to realize that producers are justifiably correct in their demand to be included in the ownership and allocation process.

Third, it is important that the government indicate whether its intention is to make money off this sale or if its intention is to relinquish jurisdiction and influence over the cars.

The criteria for the sale and for the bidders will depend on the answer to that question.

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, last week, just after the Minister of Finance announced the federal government was harmonizing the GST with the provincial sales tax of three Atlantic provinces, but before the Deputy Prime Minister resigned because the Liberals had broken their election promise on this issue, I had the opportunity to question the Minister of Finance about the harmonization scheme.

The government knows this is the most hated tax in the history of the country, and Canadians remember well that in the 1993 campaign the Liberals campaigned strongly against it. We all remember well the candidates on our doorsteps, the literature in our mailboxes and the words of the high profile members of the Liberal Party stating that if elected, the Liberals would get rid of the GST.

When he announced the harmonization package last week, the Minister of Finance apologized to Canadians. He said the Liberals were wrong to promise they would get rid of the GST. With the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister we now have two senior government ministers acknowledging the Liberal's mistake. Perhaps it is time to acknowledge that the replacement harmonization program is also a mistake.

Harmonization is clearly a shift in the wrong direction. It shifts an even greater share of the tax burden from the corporations to the consumers.

New Democrats think it is time to acknowledge that what the country needs instead of harmonization is meaningful tax reform. In reality it is the consumers who need the tax break, not the corporations.

When I posed my question to the minister I pointed out he had already boasted that the GST harmonization would be good for business. At the same time I pointed out the provinces were saying harmonization would end up costing them money because at the present time the corporations pay provincial tax but under the new harmonization scheme they would not. In Saskatchewan that shift is pegged at around $400 million in losses to the province.

It has already been readily acknowledged outside the Chamber that harmonization is a fabulous giveaway to the large multinational profitable corporations doing business in Canada. For this giveaway the corporations have had to do absolutely nothing.

Did the corporations have to agree to lower prices? No, they did not. Did the corporations have to agree to create any new jobs or even maintain the ones that exist today? No, they did not. Did the corporations even have to promise to keep their profits in Canada for investment in jobs or investment in our communities? No, they did not. The corporations get this huge windfall for absolutely nothing.

When we look back at what the Mulroney Tories did when they first introduced the GST, we see they provided a great deal of documentation to substantiate their claim. Much of that documentation was subject to debate. Nevertheless the documentation was made public.

Today we have the Liberals introducing the harmonized tax but nowhere is documentation provided to substantiate the new claim. The Liberals say the economy will boom, jobs will be created and prices will be lowered. However, they have introduced or produced absolutely no evidence, no studies to back this up.

The Minister of Finance seems to want Canadians to trust him, to take him on his word on this one. Surely the minister understands that when he said he would get rid of the GST Canadians did trust him. When he said he was wrong, when he said he made a mistake, Canadians lost their trust in him. He must now rebuild and regain that trust, which will be very difficult.

Surely he has reviewed the issue of harmonization and the tax shift from corporations to consumers very carefully. Surely he has done his homework and has the evidence to support the claims he is making to the Canadian public.

Surely in the interests of public trust he can produce this material and at the same time outline for all Canadians to see how much of the current tax burden is being transferred from the corporate sector to the ordinary taxpaying consumer. That is what I asked in my question of last week.

Canadians are tired of being treated like uneducated, unthinking children. Let us admit that harmonization is wrong. Stop the process and begin to address the real issue of tax fairness.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed with the amount of support members have given to this motion. It begs me to ask, now that the debate is closing, that you may find it in order to seek unanimous consent that the question be put so that the members who have spoken in support of the motion have the opportunity to express that support in a vote. Then perhaps we will be able to see the flag flying at half mast three days from now in illustration of our will in support of these individuals.

[National Day Of Mourning, April 25th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate the National Day of Mourning for those killed in the workplace, a policy that is permitted under paragraph 13(d) of the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present for debate Motion No. 73 which calls on the House to express its will in support of flying the flag on Parliament Hill at half mast on April 28 each year to commemorate a national day of mourning for those killed in the workplace.

I point out that this important day, April 28, is only three days away. I cannot think of a better opportunity for parliamentarians to see immediate and direct results of our work here in this Chamber. Should we agree today that the flag should be flown at half mast then this weekend it is possible that our will shall be done.

I do not have to tell any member of the House that this is a very serious issue. Deaths in Canada from traumatic injury in the workplace are approximately 1,000 every year. If the number of deaths which occur from industrial diseases are added in, which by the way are not measured by Statistics Canada or Labour Canada, then the number of deaths jump to between 6,000 and 10,000 a year.

On the job injuries recorded by provincial workers compensation boards run between 80,000 to 100,000 a year. Of course the numbers do fluctuate from year to year. They are probably dropping right now, not because the workplace is any safer but rather because of the general drop in employment.

For all intents and purposes, on average one Canadian worker out of every thirteen is injured at work. Unfortunately, close to 17,000 workers between the ages of 15 and 19 are injured each year. Young people within our economy who we expect so much of in the future are finding themselves injured in the workplace due to circumstances beyond their control.

We have to understand that worker health and safety means money to the economy and our communities. Time lost injuries rose 1.4 per cent from 1993 to 1994. At the same time, Canadian workers were increasing the number of hours they were on the job. Experts tell us that longer hours lead directly to deteriorating safety standards.

This even is noticeable on the farm where many farm safety programs are run every year to alert people to the fact that long hours during seeding and harvest can sometimes lead to injuries in that workplace. Obviously the experience there carries over into the industrial workplace as well.

In 1993, workers compensation boards in Canada paid out $5.2 billion in benefits. That shows this means money. With the addition of indirect costs, such as training replacement workers when a worker has been killed or injured on the job, loss of productivity, damage to equipment and materials and lowered morale, the annual total cost of occupation injuries to the Canadian economy could be closer to $10.5 billion every year.

Members should recall that April 28 is already the national day of mourning. Royal assent of this act of Parliament took place in February 1991. Members will realize that I am not asking for April 28 to be declared a national day of mourning. It has already been declared a national day of mourning by Parliament. I am simply asking that in recognition of the day that the flag on Parliament Hill be lowered to half mast on April 28.

For the last six years there have been some attempts to have the flag on this building lowered to half mast to ensure that there is a visual representation of this important day. Over the years there has been a small problem in achieving that goal and that is why this motion is before us today.

Just to back up for a moment, we should thank a former NDP member of Parliament, Mr. Rod Murphy of Manitoba, whose private member's bill did lead us to this official declaration of a day of mourning. Mr. Murphy worked very hard to get this legislation passed in 1991. Now that it has been passed, we have the responsibility and obligation to take the inevitable next step.

I also want to mention that April 28 was chosen as the day of remembrance because it was the day that third reading took place for the first comprehensive workers compensation act in Canada. That first workers compensation act was proclaimed in Ontario on April 28, 1914.

The movement toward the official national declaration began in 1984 when on behalf of all Canadian workers, the Canadian Labour Congress executive council formalized the matter and began to work toward the national declaration which was finally achieved in 1991.

The aim of the day of mourning is to remember our commitment to fight for those in the workplace, as well as to mourn for those who have died.

It should be noted that the reason for this motion today is that despite the intention of Parliament to recognize the importance of the day, those who interpret the rules or protocol for flying the flag tell us that it cannot be flown at half mast unless we specifically ask for it.

I researched the issue and studied it closely. I have looked at the official protocol for flying the flag and discovered that according to the general rules for flying and displaying the Canadian flag and other flags in Canada, the flag can be lowered to half mast if we collectively ask for it to be done.

Let me just read from the protocol rules so that all members of the Chamber and the public watching will know exactly what I mean. Originally published by the Department of the Secretary of State, the document is called "General Rules for Flying and Displaying the Canadian Flag and other Flags in Canada" .With regard to half masting, section 13(a) of the protocol reads in part: "subject to (c) and (e) or special instructions listed under (d)"-which I will come to in a moment-"the flag on the Peace Tower of the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa is flown at half mast on the death of-". The protocol goes on to list a number of individuals for whom the flag can be flown at half mast, for example, the death of the sovereign or a member of the royal family, the Governor General, a member of the Senate or a member of the House of Commons, et cetera.

However, section 13(d) of the protocol says: "Flags flown at federal buildings and other locations are also half masted subject to special instructions on the death of-some other person whom it is desired to honour". That is the specific section I refer to in the motion before us.

The key words are the flag can be flown at half mast "on the death of some other person whom it is desired to honour". We in this Chamber would be proclaiming that "some other person" could refer to those who were killed in the workplace.

Therefore, I ask that Parliament recognize this important distinction. If the Parliament of today agrees, we would have a declaration which would result in a visible illustration of our feelings.

There are many examples throughout the country of how worker health and safety has been overlooked or abused. It is very important that as members of Parliament we express the feeling both verbally and visually that lack of worker health and safety protocol can no longer be condoned.

In this regard I have also followed the public inquiry into the the Westray mine disaster in Nova Scotia. With every news report of that inquiry, my resolve to deal with this issue increased. The Westray story shows us in a most unfortunate but dramatic way that everything the deregulators and the right wing in this country tell us about business can result in loss of life.

When an industry is deregulated and the people responsible do not take these matters seriously and do not act quickly on health and safety issues, people in this country can die. In fact, they have died. As those numbers at the beginning of my presentation today indicate, too many workers in Canada lose their lives in the workplace doing the jobs that we want to have done because they increase the productivity of our economy.

I look at other news and view the world around me with this in mind. I cannot help but notice a lot of other things that affect this issue. I see in the quest for deficit reduction and in reaching international trade agreements, a constant move toward less government regulation, less involvement of government inspectors within workplaces and less enforcement.

Many workers, hammered by the constant threat of job loss through plant closures, privatization, restructuring and layoffs, are reluctant to speak out against unsafe working conditions simply because they are afraid of losing their job or losing the jobs of all of the people they work with. We must ensure those people feel comfortable with saying this is an unsafe workplace, we have to do something about it. Government has to be prepared within a more regulated system to step in and say: "This has to be improved. We cannot afford to allow these unsafe conditions to continue".

In this regard, Canadians need to continue to work together to gain better protection in the law. We have to be better informed about what presently exists. I want to quote briefly from Rod Murphy's comments in the House of Commons in October 1990 when he first introduced the motion that made April 28 the national day of mourning. Mr. Murphy argued that economic progress in Canada could not be achieved at the expense of the health and safety of workers and that by recognizing the day of mourning we were reminding ourselves of that fact regularly.

Mr. Murphy said: "I am sure that hon. members will agree with me that we are no longer in the era of the beginning of the industrial revolution. We no longer accept sweatshops. We no longer accept child labour and we can no longer accept unsafe working conditions for our citizens. We must all take the steps we can to promote safer working environments. We believe that the health and welfare of our people matters a great deal to all of us. Let us ensure that on April 28 every year we prove that".

As members can see, it is not a day of celebration. It is a day to look around to see what we can do to ensure that those who have died or who have been injured in the workplace have taught us the appropriate lessons. What can we be doing to reduce the number of people who die or are injured in the workplace? What can we do to ensure that our workplaces are safer? We can answer those questions as we look at the workplace with those questions in mind.

If we know that April 28 is the day of mourning, we can think about it. If we do not know the significance of April 28, if we or our friends in the media notice that the flag on the Peace Tower is flying at half mast, we may ask why. By answering the question as to why the flag is flying at half mast, more people will understand and perhaps will be motivated by the purpose of the day of

mourning. That is why it is not only important but also useful to fly the flag at half mast this Sunday and on every April 28 thereafter.

In this regard and in concluding my remarks today, I ask members to give their complete attention to this issue and to support it if they can. Perhaps at the end of the allotted hour today we could by unanimous consent pass this motion as presented.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while the Reformers are counting up how many promises the Liberals have broken over the GST and the Liberals are counting how many times Reformers have changed their minds on the GST, New Democrats are counting up how much the Liberal expanded GST will cost ordinary Canadians.

The new Liberal tax is one more burden taken off the shoulders of corporations and put on to the shoulders of ordinary taxpayers.

In Saskatchewan the finance minister estimates that harmonization would cost average families $400 million because they would have to pick up the share of the provincial retail taxes now paid by business.

As a result of all of this, Canada is now tied with Britain as the two countries with the lowest corporate taxes in the G-7. The Liberals have, in fact, kept one promise on the GST. They have kept their promise to Canada's corporate leaders to protect them from any obligation to fulfil their civic responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes.

[Canada Labour Code, April 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, last week when I rose in my place to ask a question about the future of Canada's national parks and historic sites, I was very concerned about what the Liberal government seemed to be doing. I was aware that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the minister responsible for the national parks and historic sites system, was about to implement a plan developed by the bean counters in Treasury Board called the employee takeover program.

I was convinced that anyone who had had any experience in our national parks or at our national historic sites would never have agreed to proceed with this foolhardy program which called for one-half of the existing staff of Parks Canada to either quit their jobs or wait to be fired and then if they wanted, to form a business company, come back and bid on the contracts which would be let out on their old jobs.

There are of course numerous problems with this proposal, not the least of which is the threat this privatization makes to the entire parks and national historic sites system throughout Canada.

This scheme came to our attention during committee study of the government's spending estimates. There the members of the committee learned that the Department of Canadian Heritage wanted to reduce its workforce to 2,000 employees from 4,000 and remove roughly 24 per cent of its budget. The employee takeover plan was the scheme to achieve both goals.

Obviously people who worked in the parks system knew that this 24 per cent saving, or roughly $98 million over four years, was going to come at their expense. When they looked at the services they were providing to the public, they justifiably pointed out that the system would also result in lost services to the public.

Since then the dedicated people who work for Parks Canada have reviewed what little information is available to them. Almost unanimously from all parts of Canada they have reacted very negatively to the minister's proposal. In addition, neighbouring communities, their businesses and their leaders have commented negatively on the impact such activity would have on them.

I had said previously, and my words were coming back to me from these communities, that this scheme would result in increased costs, reduced service, lower wages and lost jobs for hundreds of dedicated long term employees of Parks Canada.

I had also said in a letter to the minister that similar situations were in existence in parts of British Columbia and the United States and except for the odd success story the overwhelming result of these existing experiences was failure.

I was concerned that should this scheme fail, which I was sure it would, there would be very little that could be done to correct the mistakes and that our parks and national historic sites were much too important to leave to chance. I asked the minister to postpone the plan to implement this scheme as of July 1 of this year and study much more carefully the implications of its failure.

I was pleased that the minister, who has a good understanding of the parks system thanks to her term as Minister of the Environment, said the program would be slowed down to look at other options. At the same time I remain concerned that the bottom line for the minister and the government appears to be the reduction in spending rather than the provision of services in a section of our economy that does not have much ability to generate its own revenue.

I appreciate the fact that the department will take some additional time to examine options other than the employee takeover program, which does nothing to address the circumstances in the parks.

I urge the minister to review the mandate of the parks system, establish a clearly understood plan to ensure the ongoing operational and development success of the parks and national historic sites and to put in place the type of funding that is necessary to secure the long term protection of our historic and environmental heritage.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said yesterday that the harmonization of the sales tax programs would be good for business. The provinces have already said that the harmonization plans will cost them revenues because today's corporations pay provincial sales tax but under the new harmonized system they will not.

I assume the Minister of Finance has reviewed this carefully. Can he tell the House and the people of Canada how much of the tax burden is being transferred from the corporations to the ordinary taxpaying consumer?

[Farm Credit Corporation, April 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the federal Liberals are planning to turn the future of farm financing back to the banks. Liberals in the Senate, particularly those on the banking committee, have released a report calling for the shutdown of the Farm Credit Corporation.

While there has been warranted criticism of the FCC, which has yet to be properly addressed, there is no question about the need for an understanding and supportive farm lender. The banks have demonstrated that they would rather make outrageous levels of profit than provide service. They cannot be trusted to be the sole lender in the farm community, especially with respect to the needs of the primary producer.

The Liberals are using the back door, through the Senate, to get this issue into public debate and to continue their undermining of our agricultural support institutions. In response, the Liberals should be told that there is a role for a public sector lender with a

farm background and that there should be no support for the shutdown of the Farm Credit Corporation.

[Parks Canada, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister, responsible for Canada's national parks and historic sites, is about to embark on the implementation of a new employee takeover program that will only result in increased costs, reduced service, lower wages and lost jobs for hundreds of dedicated, long term employees of Parks Canada.

Since she knows that these employees are not supportive of this plan and that if it fails it threatens the very existence of some of our parks and historic sites, is she prepared to postpone these foolhardy plans at least until such time as she has clear evidence of support for her proposal?

[Financial Administration Act, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, all is not well in the agricultural sector. Despite higher than expected grain prices and the usual spring optimism that all of us prairie folk experience at this time of year, there are many things that concern us. I cannot begin in the short time available tonight to describe everything that is of concern but I have to raise the issues relating to international trade, particularly the activities of the United States government in the marketplace.

I originally rose on March 14 with comments about the U.S. farm bill and grazing fees for cattle. At that time I expressed concern to the minister that not enough was being done to represent the interests of Canadian producers.

Here in Canada we are virtually disarming ourselves in this international agricultural trade war. We have abandoned our long time financial commitment for the transportation of grain to port. We are in the process of deregulating the transportation sector and we have undermined the stability of the supply managed sector. In each case we as a nation have left our farmers and the communities they support with less support than the farmers in the countries with whom we compete in the world marketplace.

Despite our rush to eliminate agricultural subsidies or commitments to the orderly marketing of our products, the United States does not think we have gone far enough. The Americans continue to pressure us, to reduce the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board just as they continue to pressure us to remove more quickly the remaining tariffs that exist for our supply managed products. The Americans do not have a leg to stand on. Their facts do not add up. They are wrong, but that does not stop the Americans from complaining and seeking remedies to their perceived problems.

Canadian farmers ask: Where is the Canadian government? Where is the minister of agriculture? Where are our complaints against the American government which continues to play financial games in the world agricultural marketplace, which again penalizes Canadian producers? Where is the Canadian argument designed to protect Canadian interests?

For example, on March 14 I pointed out that the collapse of the U.S. farm bill means that the Americans have to revert to an old farm bill, which provides massive subsidy levels for corn and price guarantees for wheat. Corn can be subsidized to $7. Wheat can be guaranteed to $9. What Canadian farmer, even at the higher world prices we are receiving today, would not want to see their government guarantee the price of their wheat at $9?

These are the people we are competing against in the international marketplace and our producers cannot do it on their own. It is unfair and the Canadian government has an obligation to stand up and strongly oppose situations like these.

The other example I gave on March 14 was the indirect beef subsidy. The U.S. government owns a lot of grazing land. It leases that land to cattle producers in return for a certain lease payment. The U.S. government just reduced the lease payment on that grazing land by 20 per cent. Is that not another agricultural subsidy we should be addressing?

On supply management, the U.S. has instigated yet another challenge that has made Canadian poultry, dairy and egg producers very nervous, all this despite the fact that the Canadian case before the NAFTA panel is clear, strong and correct.

Canada is doing more to eliminate or reduce agricultural subsidies than any of our trading partners or competitors. In most cases Canada is doing more and doing it more quickly than is required by NAFTA or GATT agreements.

In conclusion, we are spending all of our time defending ourselves against petty political U.S. accusations. Perhaps it is time we made some accusations of our own and forced the U.S. to account for some of its unfriendly activities.

Will the minister of agriculture assure Canadian producers and the communities they support that he will not only defend Canadian interests but will also challenge the U.S. violations of our negotiated trade agreements?