House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament February 2019, as Liberal MP for Kings—Hants (Nova Scotia)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.

Statements in the House

The Budget March 29th, 2000

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member is very simple. As a member of parliament who was elected in 1988, although I am not absolutely certain of that, he is accountable not only for his current views but also for his views on issues and policies that were debated fiercely at that time and ultimately helped shape the country. The Economist magazine 1998 preview listed several policies of the previous government and indicated that those policies provided the current government with the ability to eliminate the deficit. I believe the article indicated that credit for deficit reduction in Canada belonged to the structural changes made to the Canadian economy by the previous government, the Progressive Conservative government.

It listed free trade, the GST, and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. More specifically it identified free trade and the GST as the two policies which most fundamentally allowed the current government to eliminate the deficit. Where did the member stand on the issues of free trade and the GST?

Canada Savings Bonds March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, outsourcing and privatization are fairly similar, but we are talking about the backroom operation of the Canada savings bond program.

Will the minister commit to referring this important issue to the Standing Committee on Finance for further evaluation before any final decision is made?

Canada Savings Bonds March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, internal Bank of Canada correspondence clearly states that over the next 12 to 18 months there are plans to privatize the administration of the Canada savings bond program.

Yesterday the minister said that the decision has not been taken and in fact it is not being contemplated.

Was the minister not only half right? While no final decision has been made, is privatization not being contemplated and have companies not been approached?

Canada Savings Bonds March 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, at least I admit my mistakes. This minister tries to cover his up.

The fact is that the decision has been made. I have an internal document from Roy Flett, the chief of GSS with the Bank of Canada, who said

I have been asked...to prepare Government Securities Services...to move the Retail Debt operations outside the bank. Achieving this objective will be my main preoccupation over the next 12 to 18 months.

If the decision has not been made, why is a senior bureaucrat devoting the next 12 to 18 months of his life to making it happen?

Canada Savings Bonds March 15th, 2000

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

Why is the Minister of Finance supporting the Bank of Canada's decision to privatize the Canada savings bonds program?

Westray Mine March 13th, 2000

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 79. I commend the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his commitment to this issue and his foresight in introducing this motion in the House of Commons for debate.

It is unfortunate that an issue of this importance—the issue of accountability for corporate executives and occupational safety—is not taken more seriously by the government. It is very frustrating for individual members of the House to pursue public policy issues with such vigour, initiative and vision on behalf of Canadians when they are continually shut down by the government. Instead of focusing on the types of important public policy initiatives that Canadians need into the next century, it is only focused on next week's polls.

The Westray disaster of May 9, 1992 continues to resonate as a beacon of what should be done to improve worker safety, not just in Canada but around the world.

Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester speak of the recent mine disaster in Ukraine. Canada can play a role in introducing changes to our criminal code that would be world leading in terms of their impact on occupational health and safety issues and corporate accountability, not just in Canada but around the world.

I remember the time of the disaster in 1992. I was on business in New York when I heard the news. It was one of the few times I listened to national public radio in New York. I was running in Central Park when I heard the news. It was one of the few times that I ever heard about Nova Scotia in the U.S. national media. It was a sad moment because, of all the positive things that we understand about Nova Scotia and Canada, it is often this kind of disaster that captures the U.S. media. The sadness continues to affect those families, whose lives have been forever changed by the disaster.

I am not surprised that the government is opposed to improving corporate accountability on occupational health and safety issues. This is the same government that ignores issues of accountability even for its cabinet ministers. One of the fundamental tenets of our democratic system and of parliamentary democracy is the accountability of ministers of the crown. The government ignores even the accountability of ministers in its own cabinet. For example, the debacle with the HRDC minister has focused the attention of Canadians on issues of waste in government in recent weeks. I guess it is consistent with this government that it continues to ignore issues of accountability, whether it is corporate accountability in the case of Motion No. 79 or ministerial accountability in terms of the government's malaise in effecting positive change with respect to the accountability of its own ministers.

The chilling message that came from the Westray disaster was that even today, in this day and age, occupational health and safety issues continually are ignored by companies, particularly, it would seem, in the coal mining industry, but in other sectors as well.

Increasingly executives are compensated based on stock options. While that can be very positive in terms of creating a synergistic relationship between the goals of the executive from a compensatory perspective and the goals of the shareholders by encouraging executives to maximize shareholder value, it can also focus the efforts of executives on very short term results which can often have a negative impact on the long term results of a company, whether it is corporate and financial, or in this case the safety of workers.

We cannot put a price on life. It is impossible to value human life on a balance sheet or on an earnings statement. Often companies are so focused on the bottom line that they forget the basics of humanity in terms of providing a safe work space for workers who, every day of their lives in the coal mining industry, in this case, risk their lives.

Government needs to provide a role in overseeing and ensuring that on an ongoing basis these workers are protected by changing the criminal code as recommended by the Westray inquiry. With this legislation we would ensure that government continue to play the very important role that only government can play to ensure that the corporate sector does its part to ensure the safety of workers in what is a very dangerous industry.

Part of the issue as well is temptation. Far too often in areas like Atlantic Canada that have seen significant economic issues and a downturn over the last 30 years, in the haste to attract and to maintain industry there is a tendency to turn a blind eye to some of the health and safety issues. That very short term focus is going to have some very negative long term results.

The Government of Canada can play a proactive role in the same light that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is playing a proactive visionary role in introducing this motion. The government can play a proactive visionary role in actually supporting legislation to ensure that there are not different sets of health and safety standards for different regions of the country. Just because a region has some economic downturn issues, the workers in that region should not have to suffer with poorer occupational health standards.

The legislation proposed in the motion would effect change in the criminal code which would actually ensure that across Canada corporate executives faced the same stringent level of accountability. Atlantic Canada would see, whether it is in the coal mining industry or another industry, a greater level of protection for workers. They go to work every day and struggle to make ends meet, to try to build a better future for themselves, for their families and for Canada. They should not have to live under the pall of a daily unnecessary threat to their lives and their safety because of corporate negligence.

I encourage all members of the House to support Motion No. 79. I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for proposing very sound legislation in the motion. We need to ensure that occupational health and safety issues are dealt with in the same way that environmental issues are dealt with strongly by the criminal code.

Corporate executives must be responsible not just to their shareholders but to Canadians at large, to the workers who toil in the mines, to the wildlife that depend on a clean environment. We need to ensure that environmental standards, health and safety and occupational health issues are dealt with appropriately.

The only way to deal with these issues in the economically driven and globally competitive society we live in today is through strong changes to the criminal code to ensure that all workers are safe in their workplace. All corporate executives must do everything they can to ensure that Canada has the highest standards in occupational health and safety in the world.

Division No. 1159 March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something. I inadvertently voted, perhaps because of voting fatigue, with the government on this legislation. I want to make it very clear that I remain fundamentally opposed to the legislation. I voted against the legislation and I continue to be opposed to it.

The Budget February 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the proposed hockey bailout was a significant indicator of the degree to which the government has lost touch with Canadians. At a time when Canadians have seen their take home pay drop by 8% in the 1990s and have seen Americans enjoy a 10% increase, $100 million for hockey was not the right step. There is a homeless crisis in Canada. Children are suffering. Child poverty is a very important issue that has not been addressed by the government in the budget.

It is appalling that the government wanted to spend $100 million on professional hockey. When we look at it, the hockey players and teams in Canada are like the canaries in the old coal mines. They would put canaries in the coal mines and if the gases became toxic or noxious, the canaries died. They would then know they would have to change the environment.

The tax system and the oppressiveness of our tax burden is killing Canadian industry. It is hurting the high tech sector and the hockey players. Instead of dramatically changing the environment in Canada, rather than this tax tinkering, the government is putting gas masks on the hockey players. The rest of us need to breathe and succeed in this country too. All Canadians need broad based tax relief and tax reform, not just hockey players.

The Budget February 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. I believe the hon. member was elected in 1988 during a campaign in which he railed against free trade. As a member of parliament he has subsequently railed against the GST. He has railed against the deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. He has fought all those structural changes that were implemented by the previous government. He fought against every single one of those cornerstones of the new economy.

There was an interesting article in The Economist magazine's 1998 preview. It said that credit for the deficit reduction in Canada belongs to the structural changes made in the Canadian economy by the previous government. It listed free trade. It listed the GST. It listed deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. I would like to know why the hon. member when he was in opposition fought against all those changes and why now as a Liberal government member he is taking credit for the results.

The Liberal members are the patron saints of hypocrisy if they believe they can sit in the House today and attack the Conservative record. Those Conservative changes have enabled the present government to eliminate the deficit with the help of Canadians who have seen their taxes rise and their services slashed.

The Budget February 29th, 2000

The government is focused on five year plans. As my hon. colleague just mentioned, five year plans did not work in the former Soviet Union and they probably will not work here either.

The government is constantly playing catch-up and unfortunately Canadians are trailing when we should be leading.

On the capital gains tax regime, the hon. member opposite boasted that the government has reduced the inclusion rate from 75% to two-thirds. If he had been listening to my speech, he would have heard me reiterate the PC Party's position of reducing it to a 50% inclusion rate which would have provided an effective capital gains tax regime equal to that of the U.S. Instead the effective capital gains tax regime after the government's budget will still be 13% higher than that of the U.S.

The member believes that he should be boasting about a system that is 13% more oppressive in Canada than in the United States. Capital gains taxes impede productivity. They hurt initiative. They punish entrepreneurs and they damage the Canadian economy and the potential for us to grow in the future. And he is satisfied with a 13% disadvantage in Canada. He may be satisfied but I am not satisfied. My party is not satisfied with that and Canadians will not be satisfied with that kind of response in the next election.