House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was military.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Sackville—Eastern Shore (Nova Scotia)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party, who comes from an area of the country where I grew up. I also do not believe this is about you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I plan to defeat the motion. I was going to defeat it the second it was brought forward.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned the frustration that we feel because of what the government is doing. He is a member of the official opposition. Imagine how he would feel being a member of the fourth party in the House of Commons, trying to get issues across.

One of the most eloquent speakers in the history of the country debated Bill C-20, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I believe he was speaking on behalf of all Canadians in wanting that debate to be extended. There are many people who have expert opinions and very wise opinions on Bill C-20, but of course they were not allowed to speak to it.

The member also knows that it is not just this government. From 1984 to 1993 we watched the Conservative government ram through legislation like the GST, the most hated tax the country ever saw. It was rammed through the House and then former prime minister Brian Mulroney stacked the Senate with his friends. John Buchanan from Nova Scotia was one of those appointed to the Senate. His whole purpose was to say yes to the GST.

The frustration we feel in opposition is quite evident, but the government backbenchers must be awfully frustrated as well. Can the hon. member shed some light on how backbenchers must feel when the government is controlled by the Prime Minister's office and not necessarily parliamentarians when legislation is brought forward? They do not get a chance to debate the legislation as well.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is absolute nonsense. The member was pointing out the fact that aboriginal people—and even the minister says that is not true—

Parliament Of Canada Act March 13th, 2000

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-450, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a bill on behalf of constituents and Canadians right across the country. It tries to prevent the merry-go-round that members of parliament do once in a while when they decide to cross the floor and join another political party.

I have never agreed that a member of parliament can just up and leave a party and right in the middle of a term join another political party. That decision should be in the hands of the Canadian people. This legislation says to a member of parliament that if he or she has a falling out with the party and wishes to leave and join another political party, then step down, run in a byelection under the new political banner and let the people in the riding decide whether or not the member is capable of flying under the new political banner.

It is a great privilege to thank the seconder of this wonderful bill. I am sure the bill will sweep across the country and be endorsed by all Canadians of all political stripes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member would understand the facts of what the member for Winnipeg—Transcona said—

Westray Mine March 13th, 2000

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House as a member from Nova Scotia to discuss the merits of Motion No. 79 put forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, one of my neighbouring ridings.

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the motion to debate in the House of Commons. I believe that health and safety is something that should be debated in the House of Commons on a regular basis.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, and on behalf of workers across the country, I would like to offer a solemn prayer and hope in our hearts for the wives and children of the 80 miners who were recently killed in a blast in Ukraine. I believe I speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons in sending our sincere condolences to everyone in Ukraine.

This motion works in conjunction with Bill C-259, a private member's bill which the hon. member for Halifax, the leader of the New Democratic Party, introduced concerning workers' health and safety rights and bringing those who are criminally responsible to justice.

What happened at Westray did not have to happen. Miners and their families are very concerned about their loved ones who go underground on a daily basis to earn their bread, and to pay their taxes so that we in the House of Commons can put forth legislation to protect them. For us to ignore their demands and wishes is a dereliction of our responsibilities and our duties. We simply cannot allow this to happen any longer.

There was an exhaustive Westray report which made some very serious and admirable recommendations, but that report is now three years old. What has the government done? Absolutely nothing. I wonder if it is waiting for the next mine disaster before doing something. Is it waiting for an election to be called before it enacts legislation? It seems that is the only thing that will make the federal Liberals move.

After a balanced and exhaustive report which was done to improve the lives and the health and safety of workers in the communities, especially in the extremities of the country outside Ottawa, the government sits on the report and does absolutely nothing.

Our party was founded on the principles of workers' safety and workers' rights. We started in the CCF, with J. S. Woodsworth, right up to the NDP led by the hon. member for Halifax. We have been fighting day in and day out with our provincial counterparts and our friends in the labour movement, with the CLC, to fight for and protect workers' rights throughout the country.

On average, three workers lose their lives on a daily basis. Three workers is three workers too many.

When I was growing up in Vancouver, 15 workers lost their lives working on the Portmann Bridge.

On behalf of all Nova Scotians and working people throughout the country, I encourage all political parties, especially those in government, to take heed of this very special motion, as well as the bill of my leader, Bill C-259, to take very seriously the recommendations for workers' rights and safety and to ignore the concerns of people like Clifford Frame and Peggy Whitte who have absolutely no moral leadership in the country, who want to extract wealth at the cheapest price possible, including that of labour, and who leave the country when a disaster happens. There was absolutely no moral leadership, and for any government to support those two people over workers' rights is absolutely disastrous and scandalous.

I encourage the entire House to support Motion No. 79 put forward by my hon. colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Canada Post Corporation Act February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre who presented this very important private member's bill, Bill C-238, which would repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Act which restricts contractors from being treated as employees.

The reason the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre presented this bill was not only to represent the 5,000 people who do a superb job in delivering Canada Post's mail from coast to coast to coast in the very rural and very far-reaching areas of this country, it was also to correct a historical wrong.

Unfortunately these people have been restricted from obtaining any kind of furtherance in economic value by the restrictions which the Canada Post Act places upon them. They are not, in any way, shape or form, considered under the Canada Labour Code. Rural route couriers form one of the major sectors which is excluded from the Canada Labour Code strictly for economic reasons.

Maybe at one time in our history those economic reasons may appear valid, but they are no longer valid. I will read a subsection which asks why subsection 13(5) denies RRMCs, rural route mail couriers, their basic rights. Andre Ouellet outlined in 1980 when he was postmaster general that there were largely financial reasons for including subsection 13(5) which prohibits collective bargaining. He said that 60% of RRMCs worked fewer than four hours per day and if unionized would press for full time work. He also said that costs would escalate. That is absolute nonsense.

Today most RRMCs work eight or more hours a day. When they have a contract with Canada Post they are restricted from working anywhere else. Part of the contract is that they can only do that and nothing else. It restricts them in terms of their economic lives.

It is unfortunate that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and his party are not supporting this initiative. If he truly cared about the 5,000 RRMCs across the country he would go to the back lobby and instruct his party that this is actually a very good initiative. Perhaps he is afraid that these 5,000 people, heaven forbid, may want to organize themselves into a union.

That is not what we are pressing for. We are saying that if those people desire to organize, if they choose to organize, which they already are doing right now in terms of a quasi-group, an association to press issues forward through all members of parliament, they should have the right to do so.

We live in a democracy. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, whom I respect tremendously as a friend, should know that one of the key fundamentals of democracy is that workers have the right to organize. Whether or not he agrees with union principles is not the question. They should have the right to organize, and that is part of what this private member's bill will enable them to do if they so desire. The key point is for them to bargain collectively with the employer, which in this case is Canada Post, a crown corporation of the Government of Canada.

Canada Post in past years has made a tremendous amount of money in profit. A lot of it came from rural route mail couriers across the country. Pretty soon when the contracts come up Canada Post will contact the current holders of contracts, for example in Jeddore and Sheet Harbour in my riding or in areas outside Prince Rupert, in Yukon and in other areas of northern Manitoba or wherever, to say that the contract bidding time has come up and it expects them to lower their bid in the event they wish to be successful in furthering the contract. After working three, four or five years, depending on the length of the contract, they are being asked to work for less when inflationary pressures and everything else have hit them very hard.

I know you understand, Mr. Speaker, being from the great riding of Kingston and the Islands, that a large part of rural Canada is suffering under the weight of the lack of infrastructure, the lack of medical and educational facilities and the lack of business opportunities. These people are out in the dead of winter. Can we imagine delivering mail at 35 degrees below zero in northern Saskatchewan? That is a tremendous task and they are doing it for far less than the minimum wage.

Can we tell these people that for economic reasons they are not allowed to organize? I say no. The easiest thing the government could do, and perhaps it could sneak it into the budget today, is repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Act. We would all be happier for it.

Many Liberal members come from rural ridings. They must speak with these people on a daily basis, I am sure. They understand this is a very good initiative and would put the government in a good light with 5,000 people. We may even applaud the Liberals for their effort on this very rare occasion.

The question is whether or not there are fairness and equity in today's government. We have now passed into the new millennium. It is really unfortunate that as we turned the calendar we left 5,000 people and their families behind. It is an important initiative. I encourage all members of the House to look into themselves to see if it is fair to discriminate against 5,000 people who do yeoman's work every day out there.

Many people in rural Canada do not have access to the Internet. They do not have access to the technologies of today. Their major link to government is through Canada Post, through the mail system. The first people they see are those people whose basements have been transformed into a postal outlet. Or, the first person they see is the one at their mailboxes on rural roads who delivers the mail sometimes in very treacherous conditions. To them they represent government and the best part of government, a warm body. They actually get to speak to someone who is working for the government through the Canada Post Corporation. The average person out there thinks of these people as employees of the government when in reality they are not. That is most unfortunate.

The bill should have been presented many years ago. Thank goodness the member for Winnipeg Centre had the foresight and aptitude to understand this was a very serious issue and presented it for debate today.

I mentioned before that their contracts with Canada Post prohibit them from doing work for other companies while performing their post office duties. Canada Post controls the timeframes for sorting and delivering the mail, the order of delivery on routes, the number of returns to the post office, and the manner in which the mail is sorted. Rural route mail couriers have to hire their own replacements, not because they are entrepreneurs who control their own work but because their contracts require they find replacements when they are sick or on vacation.

Canada Post has total administrative control over the day to day work of the RRMCs. Canada Post does not give them the mail and leave to them how they wish to deliver it. Rather there is a whole set of rules that determine how RRMCs do their work and there is direct supervision.

Basically what do RRMCs want? They want subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act repealed so they can bargain collectively. Letter carriers of Canada Post do the same work in other ways and they have collective bargaining rights. Private sector workers who deliver parcels in rural areas also have collective bargaining rights as do rural route postal workers in the United States.

In this day and age of free trade, globalization, NAFTA, et cetera, why would the so-called great democracy below us, the United States, allow its rural route mail couriers in its many rural areas to have the ability to bargain collectively for their rights? Why is it that Canada excludes that? The reason is subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Act, which needs to be repealed.

I could go on at length about this issue but what we need to do is quite clear. It would make the government look good, especially at budget time. The Liberals could even use it as an election ploy. I am sure they would love to use something to help them out after the recent HRDC fiasco, et cetera.

On behalf of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and all members of the New Democratic Party federally and provincially across the country, we are proud to stand on behalf of over 5,000 rural route mail couriers so that subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Act is repealed and these people are included in the Canada Labour Code and have collective bargaining rights for themselves and their families.

Shipbuilding Industry February 8th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member, my good friend from the Liberal Party, is insinuating that I made comments for vote getting. If that is the case, I guess J. D. Irving will be voting for the New Democratic Party as well.

Shipbuilding Industry February 8th, 2000

Unfortunately, the truth sometimes hurts. The reality is that the government has completely ignored the needs of the 10 premiers of the country who have said that they need a national shipbuilding policy. It has ignored the needs of thousands of Canadians. It has ignored the needs of hundreds of communities in the country that rely on shipbuilding for their livelihoods.

What will the government tell these people when those yards eventually shut down? What will happen then? Oh, I know, there will be a traditional transitional jobs fund grant. That should be good. Maybe that is what the problem is.

The shipbuilding industry should go to the human resources minister for money and grants. That way it would not have to file any papers or anything. It could get the money or whatever it needs right away. Maybe that is what the NHL should have done. Instead of going to the industry minister it should have gone to the human resources minister. There is all kinds of money for those initiatives but absolutely not one shred of concern for this country's shipbuilding industry and that is an absolute disgrace.

I could go on and on. People like Les Holloway of the Marine Workers' Federation and many other communities across the country are asking for leadership. They are asking the government to listen to them, to work together with the industry, the communities and the workers to come up with a comprehensive policy that will make the shipbuilding industry what it once was in Canada. Our workers and our industry people are the finest in the entire world when it comes to shipbuilding. We can be proud of that instead of having rusty shipyards throughout the country.

Shipbuilding Industry February 8th, 2000

Yes, in Taiwan, an Asian country. He could not even build his own ships in this country. This is from a man who wants to become the leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister of the country. It is not much of a commitment to working people in the country.