NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 30, 2000

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)): Good morning, lady and gentlemen. Let's get started.

The order of the day is Bill C-11, an act to authorize the divestiture of the assets of and to dissolve the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

We're joined this morning, for no other purpose than to provide some background as may be required, or not, by two gentlemen: Mr. Robert Lomus, senior commodity specialist, minerals and metals sector, Department of Natural Resources—good morning, sir—and Mr. Norman Bayne, the senior counsel, legal services, from the same department—and good morning to you, too.

We'll go immediately to the bill. Well, no, we can't do that, not unless Peter has something to say... Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Chairman, knowing you to be the efficient chairman that you are, there is a matter of outstanding business, I believe, before the committee. There was a motion on the order paper at the last meeting that the committee hold hearings on Bill C-11 in the communities of Cape Breton, and more particularly in the communities where Devco has operated mines within the last three years. I believe that motion was filed on May 15 with the committee. It was on the order paper at the last meeting. Actually, the vice-chair was in the chair at the time we concluded that meeting, and it was indicated in the minutes that that motion would come forward to be dealt with at today's meeting. So I think it's probably procedurally appropriate that we deal with that first, since it's on the order paper, and then move to the clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: Is it the committee's wish that we do that?

Are you guys all on the same page or what? Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): If you would take us to a vote on that motion, Mr. Chair, I think it is certainly appropriate to do so.

With great respect to Peter, I'd like to say that considering the degree of consultations that have taken place so far, the number of consultative processes that have been put in place, the witnesses we've received here in Ottawa, and the need to deal with this bill expeditiously, I would argue that this committee travelling to Cape Breton would not be necessary.

The Chairman: My question was, are we prepared to deal with the question now? If we are, we'll deal with it now rather than at the end.

An hon. member: Call the vote.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini, I'm prepared to deal with the notice of motion now, even though it has been the committee's practice, at least as long as I've been here, to deal with other business at the end of the meeting. I accept what you say, Mr. Mancini, and if you're prepared to speak to this motion very briefly, I'd be prepared to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am prepared to speak to the motion.

I have great respect for what my colleague across the table said initially, and that is that some witnesses did come to this committee from Cape Breton, but I think it's important for us to look at the process under which they came to this committee.

This bill was referred to the committee in a very quick way. There was very little time for consideration. It's my understanding that the steering committee did not even meet to assess how we would deal with the bill. I think if we read some of the comments of all the witnesses who came here, with the exception I think of two, every witness who came before this committee said they had been given 24 to 48 hours' notice. That included the mayor of the municipality, the leadership of the unions, and I think Nova Scotia Power, who were added to the list at some point through the day. The witness list was changed hour by hour.

As those people came forward, each one of them said they didn't have time to prepare their submissions; they didn't have time to properly assess this. Kathy Baker is the sole income earner in her family. She's a waitress who earns $5.50 an hour. She gave up a shift to come here. The unions, who are in the middle of arbitration, as this committee knows, on this very bill, sent... I don't want to refer to them as the second ring of the union membership, but certainly many of the local officials couldn't be here because they were in arbitration.

• 1115

Every witness who came before this committee indicated clearly that they didn't have time to prepare. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but there are many people we didn't hear from. We heard from a few groups, but we didn't hear from the board of trade in the industrial Cape Breton area. The passage of this bill will have massive implications for their businesses, and they have said from the very beginning they're prepared to work with the government.

I remember in January 1998 when the minister came down and met with the business community. They said, we're prepared to work with you as long as there's consultation. For a committee that is fundamentally changing a contract with the people of Cape Breton, with the business community of Cape Breton, with the workers of Cape Breton... to not afford those people an opportunity to be heard before the committee is, I think, highly questionable.

The question has to be asked, are we under some kind of a deadline here? Is there a reason for this committee to get notice that it has to deal with a legislative bill, to have night sittings where supper is brought in, to give witnesses 24 hours to get here, and to spend money to fly those witnesses here? I dare say, Mr. Chairman, that the $2,000 it cost by way of a ticket for each of those witnesses to come on 24 hours' notice is far more expensive than had this committee, in a long-term plan, made prior reservations to travel to Sydney and save the taxpayers some money.

The question I go back to is, is there some urgency in this? The minister said, in answer to my questions to him in the House, that he doesn't want to frustrate the sale. But there's no indication that a bid has been accepted.

There's no indication that this bill will get through the Senate before the final sitting of this session of Parliament, so we may very well be back here in the fall dealing with the same piece of legislation, or the Senate may be back here in the fall. I fully expect the Senate will call witnesses before its committee.

So there's no indication that by ramming this through we're going to assist the sale in any way. There's no guarantee that by third reading on Friday, or sometime next week, that the passage of this bill will move through the normal process in the way it might.

I think we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity over the next three weeks, over the next month, to travel to the communities that have been affected by this. The motion reads that the committee travel to the communities of Cape Breton, and more particularly where Devco has operated mines. We could hear from the people who are directly affected. I've mentioned the board of trade in passing. There are businesses in Glace Bay. There are businesses in New Waterford. There are businesses in Sydney, in Sydney Mines in particular, that will be affected by the passage of this bill. There are workers. There are health care professionals.

When I left yesterday to come to Ottawa, there was an indication in the local newspaper of how many miners are attending stress-related health care workers. The system is overflowing. They can't deal with the number of people coming forward because they are awaiting the arbitration, the finalized decision.

So we would have an opportunity to hear from the social services that are being overrun as a result of this legislation, none of whom we've heard before this committee. I think it's incumbent upon the committee to hear from those people.

I cannot imagine that in another part of the country we would enact a bill that would fundamentally change what is essentially a contract between the government of Lester Pearson, albeit, and the people of a region. Can you imagine us changing the terms of union in Newfoundland without travelling to Newfoundland to even discuss it? Can you imagine us changing the marine Atlantic rates or the transportation agreement with Newfoundland without going to Newfoundland to discuss it? Can you imagine us not going to Ontario if suddenly the auto industry was being shut down? Can you imagine us not going to British Columbia if all of a sudden we were fundamentally changing the logging industry?

• 1120

Yet this committee, on very short notice with very few witnesses, is prepared to override the travelling. It's not a far distance. It's an hour-and-a-half plane ride to Halifax and 45 minutes from Halifax to Sydney. If the minister were kind enough, we might even take the Challenger—who knows?—and we could get there in a timely fashion.

We could line up witnesses. It would probably take two days, maybe three days. The industrial community is fairly close. People could travel. Even if they couldn't, it's no more than a 40-minute drive in any direction to hear from the witnesses I think we should hear from.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore think there's no rational reason as to why this committee couldn't travel to Cape Breton. If it's a matter of cost, we can apply to the appropriate authority for appropriate funding. It wouldn't even have to be the full committee, because certainly the full committee didn't sit to hear all the witnesses. I can testify to that. If it were in some ratio that we had the committee travel to Cape Breton, I think it would certainly be a sign of consultation.

I go back to what the minister said in January. He said there would be full consultation. I go back, Mr. Chairman—I don't want to go too far back, or I'll date myself here, but—

The Chairman: There's no need for you to go too far back, because you've already said “in sum”, and I'm waiting for that sum total to appear.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, we have a lot of additions to go through before I get to the sum total, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: But you're probably going to make a point soon, is that right?

Mr. Peter Mancini: I expect I'll make the point.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Peter Mancini: In a timely manner. I'm the justice critic.

The Chairman: Or as they say in Nova Scotia, in the full sum of time.

Mr. Peter Mancini: In the full sum of time.

The Chairman: All right, okay.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So I don't want to go too far back, Mr. Chairman, but the initial introduction... What we are doing with this bill is changing fundamentally a vision that Lester Pearson had of the role of government in a community that faces an economic crisis. I should not have to and I don't intend to lecture members of the Liberal Party on what that vision was; it's been set out many times. But it might behoove some members of this committee to read the parliamentary debates back in 1967 and see what that vision of Liberalism was at that point in time, when Lester Pearson talked about ensuring that the market forces be buffered to ensure that the social dynamics of the closure of the coal industry be softened and that there be economic diversification for the people of Cape Breton.

This act is a fundamental betrayal of that vision. Oh, I shouldn't say betrayal; I should say significant change of that vision. But at the time it was felt it was important to consult with the communities. The minister, when he said in January that he would come to Cape Breton, said “I will consult with the communities.”

I think we have to ask what consultation has taken place. Well, there hasn't been any. There's been an economic panel that was structured by the Senate, by Senator Boudreau, and the government that travelled around to talk about how to spend $68 million. It wasn't a panel that travelled across Cape Breton to discuss the impact of the closure.

I would point out that if there had been consultation, then we have to say that either everybody agreed with the bill in its present form, which I think from the scant witnesses that we had before the committee is unlikely, or the bill would have been changed. The bill today is in exactly the same form and the package is exactly the same offer that was made in January of 1998. It is without a single change, without a single nod, and without any consultation. But that's the minister's responsibility.

Surely this committee can act in a more independent way. Surely this committee, which has been charged with assessing this bill both legislatively... I know it's legislative, but I don't think you can assess the legislative impact without the social impact. Surely this committee can operate with some independence from the minister and determine that if the minister didn't consult with the people of Cape Breton, the committee can. The committee could travel to hear what those people say.

• 1125

You know, Mr. Chairman, we heard from the mayor, but we did not hear from the councillors directly affected. We didn't hear from the councillors from Glace Bay. We didn't hear from the councillors from Sydney Mines. And there's a reason for that: the Municipality of Cape Breton is so broke it can't afford to send the councillors here to present. We're talking about an area where the average income is about $13,000. This committee said we'd hear from one representative of each of the groups and from the mayor, and anybody else who wanted to come would have to come at their own expense—in one of the areas of highest unemployment in the country. So we've effectively shut out—

The Chairman: I have to interrupt you there, Mr. Mancini. I appreciate what you're saying, and I wanted to give you as much latitude as possible.

It's not for me to address some of the issues you've raised with respect to what the government's position may be on this, but you've raised now on I guess—I was trying to keep track—about 12 occasions what the committee is doing. So on behalf of the committee I think I should remind you of what some of the things are—just procedurally, from the committee's point of view.

The committee does not, did not, and will not take a position before a bill is presented to the committee from the House. However, it is a fact that the bill has been before the House for a substantial period of time and that all people who are affected by that bill were aware of it being debated in the House. In fact, they've made many representations to members of Parliament and to the Commons itself.

A committee can deal with the legislation only as it is presented to us. It is not the committee's job to go through every single item of debate. We're dealing with legislation. We've become a legislative committee, and as you well know, Mr. Mancini, that means we deal with the items in the legislation.

The committee has invited all members to submit lists of witnesses, and the only restriction on the number of witnesses who appeared before the committee was imposed by the consideration that we not invite individuals, but organizations. We invited any and all organizations. In fact, the largest single group of witnesses who appeared before the committee were presented by your party. There were only three individuals who were not asked to appear.

With respect to the costs, this committee has made efforts, both as a legislative committee and as a standing committee, to get finances appropriate for travel. Those funds have only just recently been allocated. Committee members will know that we have had to request funds on three separate occasions in order to get initial approval. The funds are probably better spent to bring witnesses here, and we endeavoured to do that. We endeavoured to minimize whatever expense may be incurred by witnesses, especially those who have a contribution to make, and a very specific contribution at that.

With respect to the business of consultation, this committee has always taken the approach that it needs to consult. That's why the committee went through great pains to contact all witnesses.

Now, did they get only 24 hours' notice? Did they get only 48 hours' notice? As I said, this committee knew the bill was coming before it sooner or later, and the House, in its collective wisdom, decided to send it to this committee when it did. All members here are members of the House as well. They all had a part in determining the time it would come to this committee.

Mr. Mancini, you know well that when legislation comes before the committee, given our Standing Orders, that becomes the priority, not any other study the committee is undertaking. And as a committee we have already done that on two separate occasions. We are not making a special case for Bill C-11 or any other bill. We have, I think, acted correctly in all instances, at least while I've been here—and, I'm confident, before I became the chair as well.

• 1130

So, Mr. Mancini, if you want to address the bill, that's great. If you want to address the issue of whether we should travel, which is I think the motion you wanted to speak to and have spoken to for a considerable length of time, you might wish to get a response from your other colleagues around the table as to whether they also would like to travel, or whether they also think it is necessary for the committee to engage in a travel mode in order to consider the amendments that have been presented to the bill.

I'll give you one more minute.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few comments, and I appreciate the direction the chair's given.

In terms of the bill being before the House, of course, Mr. Chairman, you are correct, the bill did come before the House. It was referred to this committee when time allocation was invoked. I think everyone on this side of the table voted against that. Everyone on the other side of the table voted in favour of it. So it did come before the committee in due process, but that process was dictated, essentially, by the governing party; I don't think it was a—

The Chairman: By the process.

Mr. Peter Mancini: By the process, which allows the governing party to dominate.

I am glad to hear the committee was recently allocated funds to travel. That makes one half of my argument successfully won.

The Chairman: No. As you know, all travel is specific to a particular request, so I said we had to request that three times before we actually got what we got.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, and I would be confident if the chairman were to request it again. In his persuasive manner, he would probably be successful.

Let me just say, in terms of travel on committees, the justice committee, of which I'm a member, has travelled extensively—it was a subcommittee—across this country to prisons dealing with corrections and conditional release issues. The committee on organized crime, which is a subcommittee again—not a full committee, a subcommittee—may very well travel across the country to hear from witnesses. So I think the precedent is certainly there.

With regard to the list of witnesses that came before the committee, the chairman is quite right, I recognize that it was my party—me and the member for Brador, Cape Breton—who submitted numerous witnesses, most of whom I think were called before the committee. My point is that there still may be many individuals who feel it's important they be heard before the committee, who for whatever reason weren't able to get in touch with us. We had, I think, only three or four days, including a weekend, to submit the list of witnesses to the committee. So essentially we did—

I don't know if there's a point of order, or...

The Chairman: No, I was waiting for the 60 seconds to elapse there. You're at 58.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'm at 58. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want—

The Chairman: Your time's up.

Mr. Peter Mancini: —to challenge the chair in terms of procedure on when someone's speaking to a motion, but it seems to me that when a motion is before the committee—unless this committee is different from others—there is a specific allocation of time unless the committee so desires.

The Chairman: This is a unique committee, Mr. Mancini, but I know you want to get to the point. Go ahead.

Mr. Peter Mancini: The point, finally, Mr. Chairman, is that the committee has essentially dealt with this most important bill in a very short time period. I think we spent two days in committee listening to witnesses. The witnesses were given five minutes. The chair did exercise great latitude at times, and the witnesses were appreciative of that, but they were told initially they had five or maybe ten minutes to make their presentations.

For a bill that will effectively shut down and privatize an industry that employs 2,000 people directly, and three jobs for every one of those, in an area of 50% unemployment, I submit, Mr. Chairman—and I appreciate that I've taken some time on this—that it is irresponsible for us not to go and see that. We dealt with assets; there were questions of assets raised. I don't think the people on this committee know what some of those assets even look like. I don't think they know what we're talking about.

• 1135

I know we're dealing with the legislative aspects of the bill, but section 17, which we are gutting—and I'll save that for debate when we come to my amendment—says that the Government of Canada... Essentially, we could be breaking the law as it stands. The Government of Canada shall—not may, not could, but shall—minimize every hardship possible before they change this legislation. That's the law of the land. It's black-letter law. Mr. Chairman, I know you're a strong supporter of black-letter law. I've watched your voting record on the justice issues. The Government of Canada shall.

At this committee, before we break the law—we may not be, but before we even hint at doing that—we should know what we're talking about. I don't think anybody on this committee has been to the Phalen coal mine. I don't think anybody here has been to Prince. I don't think they know what the railway cars look like. I don't think they know what the cranes look like. I don't think they know what the loading docks look like. All of these are for sale by the Government of Canada. So, Mr. Chairman—

An hon. member: Don't include all of us, Peter.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I won't include all of us. Some members have gone and seen those assets, but I would venture to guess that the vast majority have not. To dispose of a multi-million-dollar, perhaps a billion-dollar, corporation... The coal reserves in Donkin are a $1 billion asset of the taxpayers of Canada. If we're going to dispose of those and violate a law that says we shall make sure we minimize any hardship before we do that, then I think it's incumbent on this committee to travel to Cape Breton and hear from the people affected.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis, I hope your repertoire is not as...

Mr. Brent St. Denis: No, I'll take about 15 seconds.

Again, with respect to my friend across the way, he minimizes the importance of timeliness and getting this legislation through the House. I believe it's quite possible to have it all done and back from the Senate before we break in June. I don't want to minimize the importance of the timeliness.

In terms of consultation, consultations have been extensive. The first notice of this was 18 months ago. Letters and local consultations, including those with the minister, have been extensive. I would suggest that you take the vote, Mr. Chairman, and I would recommend that we not go to Cape Breton for the purposes of Bill C-11.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to put the question.

The Chairman: Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll be very brief, but I do have to take exception to some of the comments I heard from yourself and from the other members. Certainly there were some problems with one witness in particular who I had asked to appear. It probably was a combination of circumstances that caused that problem, not the least being the fact that when we started on this last November, I submitted his name, and unfortunately he wasn't asked to be here. So the idea that everybody who was submitted was asked isn't true.

The Chairman: You're right. It isn't true. We didn't ask everybody.

Mr. David Chatters: That's right.

The other issue that I think is important and that I want to get on the record is that I actually have been in Cape Breton and I actually did see the Prince mine and the Phalen mine and the railroad and all of the other assets that are in question here. I think there are larger issues around this bill than what are simply in the bill.

• 1140

Certainly I and my party support the idea of the principle of the bill, which is to allow the government to dispose of the assets of Devco. I think it's past time that the government did take this action, but there are some other major issues surrounding the procedure, the method, that the government is using to dispose of these assets that have to be resolved in some manner, some public manner. There has to be some accountability on the terms and conditions of this sale and all of those issues surrounding it. At this point in time, there doesn't seem to be any intention of the government, now or at any time in the future, to bring any clarity or any accountability to what they're about to do.

On that basis, unfortunately I can't support the bill in its current form, at least until some of the other issues that the witnesses brought before us are addressed and resolved. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chatters.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll speak directly to the motion. I think we've gotten a bit away from the motion a few times in this discussion.

Certainly the whole principle of precedent and procedure for any committee of the House is to look at the issue on the ground that is most affected by that issue, that bill, or that process. The committee has made a mistake by not going to Cape Breton Island and by not looking at the communities directly affected. There are other reasons to look at assets, especially the coal pier and especially some of the railroad cars. I think it is a little more difficult for people to make assumptions and judgments on the mines.

Certainly you need to look at the area and the assets in that area in relationship to the hundreds of millions of dollars we're going to be spending on economic development. It's very important to be on the ground in that area to be able to make a proper and clear judgment on that particular issue.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we have an obligation to treat this very specific issue of privatization of Devco in a serious manner and to ensure that the people affected have an opportunity to be heard. That's a precedent that's been set by many governments in this House and it's a precedent that's been set by all the committees of this House. I don't think we should be any different. So we should deal with this motion.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]

Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I would simply like to remind you that we had already expressed our intent to consult the people of Cape Breton on the ground. If, as you say, we do not have enough time left to do so, it means that the committee did not manage its priorities well. We know that we spend many weeks on Bill C-12, amending the Canadian Labour Code. None of this is justification for shirking our responsibilities and not to travel to Cape Breton.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intervention is merely to suggest that you put the question before the committee.

The Chairman: I think I've heard everybody. I'll put the motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini and others, I hope we can now go to clause-by-clause.

By the way, just before I begin, I think you all have before you a copy of the amendments.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

(On clause 2—Authorization)

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian Alliance): I guess I have an amendment to clause 2, or an addition to it.

The Chairman: We have an amendment by Mr. Duncan that clause 2 of Bill C-11 be amended by adding after line 17 on page 1 the following...

Mr. John Duncan: May I speak to it?

The Chairman: Sure, go ahead.

Mr. John Duncan: We were briefed as a party on this by the department. If you read the intent of clause 2, it is to suspend the Financial Administration Act. We understand the intent, because business confidentiality is a concern here, as is timeliness. You can't continue to refer everything back to the slow machinery when you're in negotiations. So we understand the concerns, but our concern remained that we didn't want the political level and the bureaucracy not to have a check or a balance in the act that would lead to disclosure at some point in the future.

• 1145

We think this amendment actually addresses both concerns. It retains the necessary confidentiality for the business interests, but it brings notice to the political level and to the bureaucracy that their actions on devolution shall be reviewed in the future and reported to Parliament. So we think it's quite sensible. It should be a non-controversial amendment, because it's simply bringing accountability and transparency to the exercise, in a way we think all such devolution of government assets should go.

That summarizes it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you.

With respect, Mr. Duncan, the Auditor General is already Devco's auditor, so clearly the auditor could not be placed in a conflict by passage of an amendment such as this. In addition to that, any sale would have to be approved by the Devco board and again by cabinet. So we feel there is more than adequate oversight.

In saying so, I don't support the amendment.

The Chairman: Very briefly, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: The point is this is reporting to Parliament as well as to cabinet. I don't see any conflict in what the Auditor General is doing. The difference is he's reporting to more than cabinet. Reporting to Parliament puts it into the public domain at some future date.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the first time I've seen the amendment, but it certainly seems to me to be one that, as the member from Vancouver Island North said, should be non-controversial. There is—and I can certainly speak with some authority on this, as the representative of some of the people involved in this—concern about the process. There is suspicion. There are questions.

Certainly the people of the community have been kept in the dark. They don't know who's bidding. There are all kinds of rumours about who's a friend of whom. I'm not in any way saying they're substantiated or justifiable, but the reality is this government is divesting itself of a major asset that will directly affect the lives of a hundred thousand people. Those people have concerns about the manner in which it's being done. They have concerns about the bidding process. They have concerns about whether or not friends of the government are involved in this.

This would be a clear way for the government to say, “Look, we're going to do this. We can't open the books right now. We're in the middle of a bidding process, and there is business confidentiality”—another reason, by the way, that we might have delayed this, but anyway, there is some confidentiality here. But I don't see any way in which this amendment creates any kind of conflict. The Auditor General should do his job, and that's it: report to the House of Commons and to the representatives of the people.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Just allow me to add that the Devco board, the corporation, must report to Parliament every year anyway. So presumably they would report on the disposition of a sale to Parliament. I'll conclude my comments with that.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I have a question there for clarification, since we have some individuals here, or maybe Mr. St. Denis can clarify it.

Once Devco is sold and is no longer a crown corporation, I guess what you're saying, Brent, is at that point in time in the next fiscal year, the Auditor General will report on the sale. After that—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: There's a board indefinitely until sometime in the future when everything is wound up. I will maybe ask for the help of my colleagues and my friends here, but the Devco board and the corporation could be in existence for quite some time after the disposition. Is that correct, Mr. Lomas?

• 1150

Mr. Robert Lomas (Senior Commodity Specialist, Minerals and Metals Sector, Department of Natural Resources Canada): That's quite right, yes. What is going on here is an asset sale. Since we're not selling the total corporation, it's an asset sale. So the corporation itself will continue to exist to deal with several issues that will remain a responsibility of the corporation, including substantial liabilities it will have to deal with. The suggestion that it could wrap up in three months is very, very unlikely. I would suspect it would be more likely years.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I simply want to call for a recorded vote at such time as we do have a vote on this.

The Chairman: We can have it right now.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: We just voted on the amendment, so now we're going to vote on clause 2.

An hon. member: Recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Excuse me, I did not hear your question. It is difficult to follow all that is going on.

The Chairman: You need to be very attentive.

[English]

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 3—Commencement of legal proceedings)

The Chairman: We have a couple of amendments to clause 3. You'll see amendment NDP-1 on page 2 is that Bill C-11 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 19 on page 1—and in French,

[Translation]

be amended by replacing line 19,

[English]

—with the following:

proceeding, including a proceeding before a tribunal, an arbitrator or arbitration board, in respect of an obligation or

Mr. Mancini, do you want to say something about this amendment?

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, I certainly do, Mr. Chairman.

You will recall, those of you who were here to hear the witnesses who did get an opportunity to testify before the committee, this recommendation came directly from the unions that are currently in arbitration. They were putting it forward on the advice and suggestion of their national office. I think it was actually Canadian Auto Workers and their employees who are currently employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, who will be possibly displaced when the government passes this bill.

The purpose of this—and again, it's in the transcript of the hearings of the witnesses—on the recommendation of the lawyers for the Canadian Auto Workers, is to protect those workers whose whole contract of employment is currently in arbitration with the Cape Breton Development Corporation as this committee ploughs through changing the law.

Their concern is a legitimate one. Again, for those of you who were here, I asked the chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation if there was a contingency fund to provide for the workers in the event that they are successful in even portions of their arbitration requests. The answer from the chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation was “No, we have no more money.”

So even if the unions are successful, even if an arbitrator finds that the package offered by the Cape Breton Development Corporation falls short of what was offered to other people—and we don't know what the decision will be, but it's likely to be Friday, I think—there's no money there, according to the chairman, to pay out the award of the arbitrator.

• 1155

So one can understand the concern and the nervousness on the part of the workers, who are watching the government operate on a deadline that coincidentally follows the line of arbitration. My understanding is this bill is scheduled for third reading on Friday. My understanding is the arbitration decision is scheduled for Friday. So the workers are asking us to provide them at least some protection by saying not only should any action, suit, or other legal proceeding carry on, but so too should any proceeding before a tribunal, an arbitrator, or an arbitration board in respect of an obligation.

This is a most serious amendment, and I ask the members to put their politics aside and think about what it means for those workers if this clause is not inserted in the bill. Some will say the current legislation will provide for that, because it says “other legal proceeding”, but if there's no fear that “other legal proceeding” includes arbitration, then why don't we say that? Why don't we include it in the legislation so that there's no ambiguity?

The last thing the workers in Cape Breton need is a court case following an arbitration hearing to determine whether or not an arbitration is a legal proceeding under the new Bill C-11 that will ultimately be passed by this government. We don't need any more of that legal wrangling in Cape Breton.

So let's make clause 3 clear. Let's say that whatever the arbitration award... And the arbitrator may not find in favour of the unions. The arbitrator may find the government offer is fine and dandy. That's what the government says. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we want to avoid any further litigation...

The people of Cape Breton have lived with this for eighteen months, if not longer. If we want to avoid further litigation in the courts, if the government believes its offer is fair, if they have faith in the arbitrator, and if in fact the acts says “other legal proceeding” means arbitration, then let's say so in a clear and decisive way.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd like some clarification from our members here of whether that really changes the legal position of the government or not.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, you're asking whether Mr. Mancini's amendment in fact changes what? Sorry?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: By including “before a tribunal, an arbitrator or arbitration board” in the amendment, does it significantly change subclause 3(1) on page 1? I would assume, without being a lawyer, that “an obligation or liability incurred by the corporation” already covers arbitration or an arbitration board, but I'd like further clarification.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Bayne.

Mr. Norman Bayne (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Natural Resources Canada): An arbitral proceeding would normally be included, but the problem is there is further language in the clause that deals with “any court”. So you would have to have an arbitral award to get you into that next stage.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you. I call the vote.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Recorded vote.

The Chairman: Just so that we do things without having to ask all the time, is it your intention, Mr. Mancini, to ask for a recorded vote on every single one?

Mr. Peter Mancini: It is.

The Chairman: I'll do a recorded vote on every one. All right.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: Amendment NDP-2 is that Bill C-11 in clause 3 be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2—or in French,

[Translation]

be amended by replacing line 2 on page 2—

[English]

the following... And you see it there before you.

• 1200

Mr. Mancini, do you wish to make a further comment on this one?

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

We've just had a ruling. There is some similarity between this and the previous motion. Again, we've had an opinion from the individuals before this committee to say that unless there is an arbitration awarded, it may not fit the legal definition of the act. I fail to see why the members opposite would prevent the workers who might win an arbitration award from the protection they should have under the laws of this country.

Mr. Chairman—and I'm not going to speak to the past motion, I'm going to speak to this one because it is similar—I think the suspicion I referred to earlier on the part of the people of Cape Breton may have some grounding when I watch the members opposite deny the protection that the union members might legitimately win in a fair arbitration by refusing to include it in legislation. No rational argument has come forward from any member who voted against the previous motion to explain why they would not include it, unless it is to avoid awarding what an arbitrator may award. There is no other conclusion.

I move this motion. I ask for debate, and I look forward to some defence from those members who would vote against it.

The Chairman: It looks as if you have some.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, I can't wait.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chair, again with respect to my friend Peter, the federal Interpretation Act makes it clear that in the case of a repeal of a section, if I could quote, it “does not... affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, accruing or incurred” prior to the repeal.

So the defence is simple. As other parts of Bill C-11 will state, any proceeding against Devco could continue. There is no ambiguity, so I can't support the amendment.

Mr. Peter Mancini: If there is no ambiguity, if it's included in the legislation anyway, what is the problem with making it crystal clear?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's redundant.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, I mean—

The Chairman: Okay, I think you've made your points.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'd appreciate Mr. Bayne's comments on this. I'm assuming he is our legal representation here.

The Chairman: Mr. Bayne.

Mr. Norman Bayne: It's quite correct that section 43 of the Interpretation Act preserves the rights that any party would have as a result of the repeal of an act, so that any ongoing proceedings would be carried forward under the provisions of the Interpretation Act. As I indicated before, the problem with this language is that it addresses the proceedings prior to the arbitral award stage and, as such, doesn't fall within the wording of “pending in any court” because at that stage the proceeding is not pending in a court.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Bayne.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I could ask for further clarification, then you would say that without adding “before a tribunal, an arbitrator or an arbitration board” the legislation may not cover that specific area.

I'm asking Mr. Bayne.

Mr. Norman Bayne: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: So we're all very clear on this issue, if we don't put this amendment in, will it cover proceedings before a tribunal, an arbitrator, or an arbitration board? Can you say that in your legal opinion it would cover that?

Mr. Norman Bayne: Once the award is granted?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes.

Mr. Norman Bayne: Once the award is granted, then it would be addressed by any suit or legal proceedings, because then it is capable of being brought before the court. Until the award is granted...

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If there's further clarification—

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: What I understand you're saying, Mr. Bayne, is that if the unions are successful in their arbitration—let's assume that—and the arbitrator makes an award, this legislation will not serve to enforce that unless the unions apply to the courts for some enforcement of the arbitration. The arbitration decision alone is unenforceable under this legislation unless the unions proceed to a court action. Am I right?

• 1205

Mr. Norman Bayne: And that's true of any judgment against the corporation.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But the corporation could, if it wanted to avoid litigation, simply settle on the arbitration award and say “Yes, we agree, we'll pay it.”

Mr. Norman Bayne: Of course.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But unless we make the change that I've proposed, they don't have to do that, do they?

Mr. Norman Bayne: The change you've proposed wouldn't enforce that in any event.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So it does no harm.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini, do you want to meet him in court or what?

Mr. Peter Mancini: I probably will.

The Chairman: I'm going to go to the vote. I'll start with Mr. Mancini.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 5—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to on division)

An hon. member: I thought we were going to have a recorded vote.

The Chairman: I thought you wanted that only on the ones where there was an amendment.

(Clause 5 agreed to on division)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

The Chairman: Mr. Cardin.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: There is sometimes a small time lag when I listen to the translation.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, I'll go more slowly.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like to go back to section 5 to get some clarification.

[English]

The Chairman: I guess there is. I didn't see any amendments, so I just carried on.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: I would like some clarification on section 5, where it says:

5. The works and undertakings operated or carried on by the Corporation on or after June 15, 1967 are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

Does it mean that the government will maintain the jurisdiction it had when it was directly part of Devco's operations? Do I understand that the federal government reserves its right to legislate in the areas of industrial relations, health and security and labour standards, even if the Corporation is dissolved or sold?

[English]

Mr. Norman Bayne: Yes, that's correct. Under paragraph 92.10(c) of the Constitution Act, the federal government has the power to declare works and undertakings to be for the general advantage of Canada. Once the declaratory power is used under that subsection of the Constitution, what it does is transfer the jurisdiction of the company, in this case, from what might otherwise be provincial jurisdiction into federal jurisdiction and the federal laws apply.

So in this case the Canada Labour Code, with the safety provisions contained in it and the health provisions, carries forward to the successor operator of the assets.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: If the federal government withdraws from this industry and privatizes, provincial legislation would normally apply. I am concerned it will continue to interfere with provincial legislation in the areas of labour standards and health and security.

[English]

Mr. Robert Lomas: What is happening is that section 35, which exists in the current Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, is being carried forward, making it clear that there are no changes to the jurisdiction that results from section 35 in the existing act.

In terms of jurisdiction, we're into an area that's questionable in terms of offshore, and including this section makes it clear that the federal Canada Labour Code will apply following a successful sale. I should make it clear that this is something the unions were concerned about and asked for. As I say, it will continue the current jurisdiction that applies today.

• 1210

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Cardin.

Mr. Serge Cardin: It is fine, but I want to put on the record my reservations and state that the federal government goes against fundamental values and interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[English]

The Chairman: No, it's registered. I know that you asked for a clarification on the significance of that clause. That's fair. That's fine.

Mr. Mancini, did you... Is it on the same clause?

Mr. Peter Mancini: It's coming out of the answer from the witness.

In your answer, Mr. Lomas, you indicated that there is some dispute over the resource under the ocean. Can you clarify that for us?

Mr. Robert Lomas: It's not a matter that's in dispute today. There are various legal opinions as to ownership of offshore resources.

Mr. Peter Mancini: So will this clause survive if there's a determination that the offshore resources belong to the Province of Nova Scotia and not the Government of Canada?

Mr. Robert Lomas: This clause would survive.

Mr. Norman Bayne: Yes, in effect, this renders that issue moot, because this determines the answer to that.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you. I'll go on to clause 7. Clause 5 and clause 6 already carried on division.

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

(On clause 8—Staff)

The Chairman: I have a few amendments on clause 8. Amendment NDP-3 refers to page 4: that Bill C-11 in clause 8 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the following:

(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following...

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask if Peter would be agreeable to our doing them all in one round? The four amendments are roughly in the same general thematic area.

Mr. Peter Mancini: In the extensive cooperation that I've received so far, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I thought you had a lot of cooperation.

Mr. Peter Mancini: It's evident in the vote, of course.

Mr. Chairman, there was before the committee an individual by the name of Sam Boutilier, who represented an organization. I should say for the record that this organization, which is the Devco Pensioners, has been in existence for some considerable period of time. It is made up of former employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation who are in receipt of pension funds. That organization has, I believe, already commenced an action in the courts under the old legislation. So it will survive this, according to some of the witnesses.

Their suggestion is that the old legislation and the regulations provide for the Devco Pensioners Association to have some representation on the direction of the pension funds invested and administered by the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Of course, as the government passes this legislation, they will create another corporation that will be charged with the administration of those pension funds.

I might point out that none of those pension funds is invested in Cape Breton. They are not handled by an investment firm in Cape Breton. They are handled, I believe, by an investment firm in Montreal. The profits from the funds derive to another city.

It has been the request of the pensioners association to both myself and to this committee that since the government's changing the legislation, they make provisions in this legislation for those people who are directly affected by the pension funds to have some say in how those funds are directed. Even if they don't want to have a say in how they're directed, they want to at least have some assurance that they can have access to some open books to ensure the pensions upon which they rely for their livelihood are being properly administered.

To date, they have been blocked. To date, they have not been given the information they've requested. That is why they've taken an action in the court.

• 1215

They have no assurance or any indication of how those pension funds that they paid in the many years they worked underground or above ground as employees of the corporation are being directed. So they've respectfully requested from this committee and from this government, through me, that they be provided with a seat on any committee that would invest their pension funds. I've moved certain amendments to ensure that this would be put before the committee and before the government.

I can't understand it. Again, if anyone wants to vote against it, I'd be interested in hearing why people who have worked hard and paid into a pension fund should not have a right to say how that pension fund's invested or at least have an opportunity to review the books to ensure that it's being invested with proper growth.

There are some stories that the pension fund has grown at 1%. There are some that say it's grown at a huge percentage. Nobody really knows except the development corporation, and they're not sharing it with the people who are directly affected.

So that's the rationale behind the motion.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I am speaking against this amendment, Mr. Chair.

There's nothing in the act that prevents the appointment of any particular person to the board. It just does not seem appropriate to limit, by making a list, the appointment of any particular person or persons to the board.

Also keep in mind that if one reads the bill carefully, as the responsibilities of the board decrease over time, fewer members of the board will be needed. Hence the wording here later, “a maximum number of members”. So this would work against reducing the size of the board. So in saying so, we believe the current procedure for appointments is quite appropriate.

The Chairman: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak at this committee in favour of this particular motion.

I'm not sure whether it's true of the pension itself, and perhaps Mr. Lomas and Mr. Bayne might be able to clarify it, but my understanding is that the fund members would have access to audited statements. These statements would describe to them the performance of the fund and the investments of the particular fund, I would assume.

As well, Mr. Mancini talked about the benefits derived from the investments and because the fund was handled in Montreal the benefits were being derived by Montreal. I would suggest that the benefits of the pension fund actually will be attributed to the pension members, who, through the investment returns, would ensure that they have a pension that would continue.

So I would dispute the point made that the city of Montreal would benefit because there is someone in Montreal who is managing the fund. Rather, I would say that the actual pension members would benefit from any improvement or any rate of return they might receive.

I don't know whether it's the case with this particular pension, but in most other pensions I speak to... Some of the steel companies in my particular area also have elected fund representatives who are then involved in the negotiations or attend meetings, and they are kept up to date with respect to what the pension fund is actually doing.

Perhaps you could just comment on that.

Mr. Robert Lomas: Certainly the pension funds are audited regularly. I know that Devco does meet with some of its union members in terms of addressing those funds. I do not know specifically whether or not they've met with the Devco Pensioners Association. One member of the board is of course a former employee of the corporation. I think that's important to clarify.

Going on to overseeing the pension plans, I think it's important to understand that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has a role to look out for the employees in this case. The role of the Devco board members who are part of the pension fund investment committee is really to ensure the security of those pension plans for the employees. That's the role of that committee.

• 1220

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lomas.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment.

I think the principle of having pensioners represented by at least one person, as receiving moneys from that pension fund, and to have input into decisions made by that board is pretty simple and is something we should support.

I also think there's a typo in the next amendment, because both of these amendments read “line 22 on page 3... (1.1) of Section 4...”, and then we add a fourth proposed subsection. The next amendment adds a fourth proposed subsection as well, which should probably read a fifth proposed subsection.

A voice: I think it depends on which is passed.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'll speak first to a couple of points that were raised by Mr. Valeri.

First of all, when he talks about the benefit being... Mr. Valeri wasn't here to hear the witnesses when they testified before the committee, but there is a longstanding history in Cape Breton of pensioners assisting those who are in difficult needs.

There is reportedly some $7 million profit annually, perhaps more, on the Devco pensioners' fund. Many of the Devco pensioners would like to see that money directed to the communities that will be devastated as a result of the passage of this bill. So that's where the discussion comes from about whether the profits from the workers could or could not bring some benefit to the community. They have a long history of helping each other on that island, and those pensioners would like to see some of that money directed to those who will be hardest hit by this. That's to clarify that.

With regard to the other comment by Mr. Keddy, I think, Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of the passage of my motions, the numbering sequence may become important. So perhaps we can deal with those after it's passed.

The Chairman: That's what I like about you. You recognize that this still is springtime and therefore hope springs eternal.

I'll go right to the recorded vote.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Can I get a question in there?

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: This is to Mr. Lomas. I wanted to clarify the relevance of the audit procedures and the question of who conducts that audit. Is that the superintendent? You made a—

Mr. Robert Lomas: Yes, I know.

I think the audits are contracted out, but I'm not certain of that.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Just as any corporation would have independent auditors, there are public auditors.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'll proceed to the recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chairman: NDP motion number four, on page 5, Mr. Mancini, is that Bill C-11, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 3 the following:

(1.1) Section 4 of the Act is amended by adding the following:

(4) At least three directors shall be residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the history of coal mining in Cape Breton is a history of foreign ownership and exploitation. Anyone who took the time to listen to any of the debates on this matter, anyone who has taken the time to hear from the witnesses, and anyone who has taken the time to read from any of the number of works that deal with the history of coal mining in Cape Breton will know that part of the reason Lester Pearson and Allan MacEachen, under the guidance of Tom Kent, in 1967 enacted the Devco legislation was because of the history of the abandonment of the miners by foreign companies. That has led to a longstanding distrust of foreign ownership and foreign control and it is one of the things we have argued against for a long time. One of the hopes we have is that when the government walks away from us we will take some control of our own destiny.

• 1225

This is a simple amendment. It provides that the majority of the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, as it invests pension funds for the people of Cape Breton, as it deals with ongoing actions that affect the lives of Cape Bretoners, be residents of Cape Breton so that they can have some understanding of the effects of the decisions made by the corporation.

I know from my previous motion calling for this committee to travel to Cape Breton that there's not a great appetite to hear from the people of Cape Breton. But I say and I put on the record that those who will control... It would have been most helpful over the last 30 years if everyone connected with the Cape Breton Development Corporation had had to live and die with the consequences of their decisions. They didn't. The people who live on the island have to live and die with the consequences of those decisions. So this is an effort to provide that at least in the future the majority of the decision-makers of the Cape Breton Development Corporation will pay taxes in the community, will live next door to the people they make decisions for, and will at least have some understanding of the community. It's a simple amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Very briefly, I make the same points as with the previous amendment in not supporting it. I'll just reiterate that the size of the board will over time be reduced in recognition of reducing responsibilities, so it would be difficult to limit that size by an amendment like this. We also feel the current process has worked.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I will rise to the occasion and would move a friendly amendment that the majority of the directors be residents. If your concern is that the number three will limit, as the number of directors reduces over time, I would be prepared to accept a friendly amendment that the majority of the members of the board of directors be residents of Cape Breton Island.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's still not appropriate, Mr. Chair. But that said, because the appointments process has worked over time—there have been numerous appointees from Cape Breton, including quite a number at the present time—the system has worked. As a result, we're not in favour of the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chairman: We'll go on to NDP amendment number 5, page 6: that Bill C-11, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 or, in the French,

[Translation]

that Bill C-11, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:

(4) At least one director shall be a member of the Devco Pensioners' Association or a former employee of the Corporation who was during the course of his or her employment a member of a trade union.

[English]

Go ahead, Mr. Mancini.

• 1230

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, the argument stands on this motion as well: that it would provide some input from those people who are directly affected by the decisions of the corporation.

I can anticipate the way the vote will go so I won't take up a lot of time, but again, I voice the concerns of the people and the witnesses who came to this committee. I can only say that people came here, people prepared, people put forward their ideas, and so far the government has rejected every single suggestion that has come forward, not from me alone but through me from the witnesses.

I await the vote.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Just the same comments as before, for the record—ditto—in speaking against the amendment.

The Chairman: We'll have a recorded vote on the amendment now.

An hon. member: The vote is tied.

The Chairman: Where's Mr. Bélair?

An hon. member: The chair can cast—

The Chairman: Yes, well, I guess the chair will vote nay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

The Chairman: Now we have NDP motion 6: That Bill C-11, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 41 on page 3 the following:

(4) At least three directors shall be residents of the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.

I'll go to Mr. Mancini first, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I didn't get it by the first time, so I'm going to try again.

I've made the arguments. Again, I think it has been demonstrated by witnesses who came before this committee that the Government of Canada has said repeatedly that Cape Bretoners have to take charge of their own affairs, that we are the people who have to define our own destiny, and that the economic development of the island and any progress is up to us. And certainly, by the passage of this bill, the government walks away from section 17 of the act, which directs them to provide some assistance. As they walk away from that, it's pretty clear that it is up to us.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking that the majority of the directors be residents of the Island of Cape Breton to ensure that we have the control necessary to determine our own destiny in the face of the Government of Canada's refusal to assist us.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk to this motion generically. We've run through five amendments up to now. It's very clear that the signal from the government is that there won't be any amendments to this bill.

I just want to say that a lot of these concerns coming from the opposition have been known for a long time. I view many of these as being pretty innocuous, pretty straightforward amendments. If the government has just a minor problem with an opposition amendment, maybe with the wording, I don't understand why they don't take a somewhat different approach and try to match the opposition's concerns with something that the government thinks they can do rather than rebuffing every attempt to amend a bill and keeping these bills in the form they were first presented without any change at all. I just can't understand why that's the government's posture.

What is the opposition to do when they know they have a stacked hand before they sit down? This makes a mockery of the whole process.

We're watching the dynamics of this committee, and we're watching one of the members, the parliamentary secretary, having private consultations during the meeting, to represent the interests of the minister as opposed to full, genuine, committee consideration on the bill. I think that's just highly inappropriate. I'm frustrated by the exercise. I just wanted to get that on the record.

• 1235

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Having been a parliamentary secretary once myself, I think the understanding, procedurally, is that the parliamentary secretary represents the minister at the table. It's the one occasion when a committee might have direct access through a parliamentary secretary to the government's position. I'm not sure that procedurally that's necessarily wrong, Mr. Duncan. Although looking around the table... I'm not sure that necessarily means there's a stacked deck.

But your point is well made, and of course it is on the record.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Chairman, following up on Mr. Duncan's comment, I would like to ask Mr. Mancini for how long the Montreal firm has been managing the pension fund.

[English]

The Chairman: The question is through the chair to Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, let me say that I don't know how many years. It has come to me through my meetings with the Devco Pensioners Association. This is the kind of information they have been seeking and have been denied. That's why I made the motions that I did to have those people included: so that they could access that kind of information. They don't know. They ask. They hear rumours. They seek the truth and they're denied the information. And now, by your own vote, you've cast them out of the process as well.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I know I should speak through you.

The Chairman: Yes. You meant to say through “his vote”.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, I did.

The Chairman: It's a change of pronoun.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes.

(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 4)

(Clauses 8 through 10 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 11)

The Chairman: On clause 11, Mr. Keddy has an amendment. Mr. Keddy moves that clause 11 be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:

(3) The by-law of the Corporation shall provide that if a person contracts pneumoconiosis as a result of the person's employment by the Corporation, the person and his or her dependants shall be entitled, for the remainder of the person's life, to the health insurance benefits that were provided as part of the terms and conditions of the person's employment.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is a pretty straightforward amendment. It's certainly something that the minister had said he would address in this legislation and has not been addressed in the legislation, and it's something that a number of the witnesses have spoken of, especially the miners and their unions.

I think we have to take some responsibility here for... that we put people working in the coal mines in a position that was hazardous to their health, and because we're closing down that corporation there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't continue to extend the health benefits to the miners who have had their health adversely affected.

• 1240

If they were working in just about any other vocation, they wouldn't have contracted—and I'm about as good at pronouncing this as you are—pneumoconiosis. Because they did contract a potentially fatal disease and there's no chance of their health improving, there's also no chance of ever having a clear bill of health declared so that when they go to another vocation, if they happen to, they're not going to be able to go there without a black mark on their health record. It affects not only the individual but also their family. If they had continued to work for the Cape Breton Development Corporation and had continued to have insurance coverage, that insurance would have covered not only them but also their families. So through no fault of their own they find themselves in a position of serious health deterioration and through no fault of their own not only their coverage but also their family's coverage would be stopped.

Since the minister said in Parliament and to this committee that he would address that very issue, and it hasn't been addressed in this legislation, I think we have an opportunity to address it here. We're not talking about hundreds of thousands or millions and millions of dollars here. We're talking about being responsible for individuals who through no fault of their own or that of their families have contracted a potentially fatal disease, which we need to incorporate in this legislation.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion is indeed one that is timely and important. The illness is not only terminal; the illness prevents many men who have worked underground from finding suitable employment if they are no longer employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. One of the reasons they will not find employment is because no other corporation will take on employees who carry the kinds of health risks and health costs that miners do when they come up from underground. The chances that a 45-year-old miner who suffers from this illness is going to be taken on by a private mining company, which will look at the costs associated with the drug plan and with health care, are remote at best.

This is one of the things the unions have fought for. It's one of the issues currently in arbitration. If you compare what other employees of crown corporations received as the government withdrew from those corporations, whether it was Marine Atlantic, CN, or Atomic Energy, in many of those cases the health benefits that were afforded the workers travelled with them as the government withdrew from the corporation.

That has not been the case for the miners in Cape Breton. The government's package does not provide for the continuation of any medical coverage or health benefits and does not provide for workers whose physical labour and the work they've done for 25 years will disentitle them from employment with anybody else. The reality is that if this motion is not accepted and if there is no successful arbitration, these men and their families will be left with no health coverage through any kind of corporation for the illnesses they received as a result of their work. So I would speak in favour of it.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Speaking against this amendment, Mr. Chairman, it's sad when anybody gets injured or sick from the workplace, but the safety nets that are in place are adequate. In fact, if an employee with pneumoconiosis cannot work, they can apply for the compassionate disability pension, and until age 65, when other pensions kick in, they will have medical coverage. I invite the officials to clarify that or add anything to it. But I believe the safety nets are there for them, Gerald and Peter.

• 1245

Mr. Peter Mancini: I'd like some clarification on that. Are we suggesting today that miners who find themselves suffering from illnesses will be entitled to the benefits they're currently entitled to as a result of the corporation in five years or eight years or ten years? Is that what you're saying?

The Chairman: Let me go to—would it it be Mr. Lomas or Mr. Bayne? Ah, the hot potato goes to Mr. Lomas.

Mr. Robert Lomas: The compassion and disability pension that employees can apply for if they're incapacitated by illness is part of the non-contributory pension plan, which is part of the Devco corporation. It's not clear at this time what will happen to those pension plans following privatization.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think some of the lack of clarity that surrounds a compassionate disability illness is a significant issue.

I would back up a little bit to my original statement that we have a situation here where individuals working for the Government of Canada, a crown corporation, contracted a debilitating and often fatal illness. In the early part of the century we didn't even know what black lung disease was. We knew that coal miners got sick, but we didn't understand why. In any other crown corporation in the country, we've provided for extended health benefits. This is a specific illness that affects people and their families in a dramatic way. I'm not sure that the compassionate disability illness clause covers their families as well. We're talking about people who will no longer have any opportunity for employment. We're not talking about everyone who ever got injured or who suffered a back injury or broke a hand or leg. We're talking specifically about black lung disease. It's a specific disease that most miners suffer to some degree.

I think it's something that we as a committee, and certainly as the government, have a responsibility to address, and it's not clearly addressed in this legislation. I'm not satisfied, as a parliamentarian or as a member of this committee, just to hope that some other clause of the bill picks it up. I think we need to very clearly state that we're going to address this specific issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I have a question on clarification for the witness.

Mr. Lomas, you said that there was a non-contributory pension plan. Just for the record, it was made pretty clear to us that was a contributory pension plan. The miners contributed their labour, although they didn't have money. What they did in the old days was they loaded extra cars of coal for no pay, and that was considered to be their contribution. They take some offence at it being called non-contributory.

Of more concern to me is your statement—and I wonder if you could repeat it—that it is not clear what's going to happen to these pension plans upon privatization. Can you elaborate on that for me? I think this is serious.

The Chairman: Mr. Lomas.

Mr. Robert Lomas: As I mentioned, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is in essence the regulator for these pension plans. With the current downsizing, which is ongoing, and with the potential for a sale, that office will become involved to make sure that whatever actions are taken with regard to the pensions plans, the workers are protected. What that will entail, at this time I can't answer that, but they certainly will be there to make sure that the workers and their pension plans are protected.

Mr. Peter Mancini: What does that mean? What guarantees are there for the workers that the plan will be protected? You're telling me that he will make every effort to ensure that they're protected. I'd like some further clarification on that.

Mr. Robert Lomas: Those plans are fully funded at this point in time. It will be incumbent upon the corporation to take action to ensure that those funds are secured for the employees they go to. Those are the employees of the corporation today and the pensioners.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But the corporation will have no means of raising revenue other than by applying to the Government of Canada for something like... I think there's a figure mentioned in the bill. Am I right?

• 1250

Mr. Robert Lomas: Well, the corporation has been dependent on the Government of Canada for revenues since its existence.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Under the old legislation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation could sell coal, and if the world market price went up, they had an opportunity to raise some revenue. When this legislation passes, there will be no opportunity for this corporation to raise any revenue. There is a limit in the new legislation, in terms of the amount of money they can request from the government at any particular time. I think I'm right on that. I'm not? Can they go to the government for any amount of money?

Mr. Robert Lomas: Yes, sir.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Are you saying the only means for them to ensure that the pension fund is fully funded is through government revenue?

Mr. Robert Lomas: The pension plan is fully funded, so it isn't an issue of whether it's funded or not. If we had a sale tomorrow, there should not be an issue around the pension plans. They would be looked after.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Your earlier answer was it wasn't clear what was going to happen to them. So you're prepared to say to this committee that those pension funds are safe and guaranteed for the workforce. Is that right?

Mr. Robert Lomas: I will say you have a regulator who is involved in ensuring, to the extent possible, that is the case.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Is there a possibility that they are not safe and secure for the workers?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Point of order.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, this is a most important issue.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's not a question this witness may be competent to answer. It's not that he's incompetent, but you either trust OSFI or you don't. Peter doesn't trust OSFI and the witness does—or let's suggest he trusts OSFI, which acts on behalf of federally regulated pension holders across the country. It's an odd question.

Mr. Peter Mancini: It's in response to a vague answer.

Mr. Robert Lomas: Devco's pension plans are audited regularly. The audits show that those funds are fully funded today. They cover all of the future benefits that have accrued to employees to date. That is the situation with the pension plan today.

That was not the situation five or ten years ago, for example. The corporation had to make contributions of up to $20 million a year, in some years, so those plans would become fully funded. That was at the direction of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

The Chairman: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a quick question to hopefully clarify the amendment. Devco at this point still has employees. If an employee of Devco went to the medical officer in the health department there, or to a hospital, and was diagnosed with black lung disease, what would he be entitled to today?

Based on your response to a number of questions, is it fair to suggest, since you cannot, going forward with complete certainty, articulate what the employees of this corporation would be entitled to, that any employee of Devco should either receive a clean bill of health, or if they have a claim, make sure that claim is put forward, so the insurance carrier, or whoever provides the health benefits, is on risk?

My understanding of that particular type of relationship is that once you are accepted as a claimant on a long-term disability plan, or programs of that sort, the company cannot cancel benefits. You are essentially on long-term disability until you are deemed not to be on long-term disability, as a result of an improvement in your health, or your ability to carry on some other type of employment. I just want to clarify it.

I know what the amendment is attempting to say. I'm asking if we can reverse that and say, “Since we cannot say with certainty what will happen going forward, is it fair to suggest to those employees of Devco that they go in and make sure they have clean bills of health, and if not, make sure they get claims in?”

• 1255

Mr. Robert Lomas: It's up to the employee to take action in this case. All I can really say is if he is incapacitated from this particular disease, he can apply for a compassion disability pension that will provide him with a disability pension to age 65, when his normal pension benefits will then kick in. During that same period, it will provide him and his dependants with medical insurance.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: On that, Mr. Chairman, in fairness to this witness, he's not a doctor, but it's my understanding that there are many occasions when black lung disease can develop and be detected years after the person's infected. So an employee could go in and get a clean bill of health today, and five years down the road start coughing up black phlegm and be affected.

I'll leave it to Mr. Keddy, but what I like about this amendment is that it says “if a person contracts the disease as a result”. That provides for some security in the future for those who contracted the disease in the past, while working for the corporation.

Mr. Tony Valeri: The point in my intervention was if I were an employee and worked in that mine, I'd want to make sure, before any transactions were complete, that I saw a physician and was either diagnosed with black lung disease or not, given that there is some certainty to the present situation.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: On Mr. Valeri's comment that there is no certainty, that's the reason the amendment is there. We're not trying to paint this with a broad brush; we're trying to be very specific with this amendment, to treat a very specific disease and the complications that ensue from it.

Rather than have someone apply to a board for clarification and go through the entire debate of whether they have this disease or not, we're saying if you have been diagnosed by a doctor or a panel of doctors and you have black lung disease, part of the bill—with the amendment—very clearly addresses that, and gives some security to those individuals and their families.

This is not talking about going to the compassionate disability onus. This is not talking about appearing before some board and maybe or maybe not winning your case. This is not putting the onus on people to have a clean bill of health tomorrow morning. This is stating very clearly that if you have contracted this disease, the bill, this piece of legislation we're about to vote on, will offer compensation for that.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings )

(Clause 11 agreed to on division)

(On clause 12—Public consultation)

The Chairman: I have two amendments for clause 12. The first is from the Canadian Alliance.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to discuss the one submitted by Darrel Stinson.

The Chairman: Amendment CA-2 on page 9 states that Bill C-11 in clause 12 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following:

17. The corporations shall, alone or in conjunction with the Government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of those governments, take all reasonable measures to reduce the unemployment or economic hardship that may result from the closure or reduction of coal mining or related operations.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: This amendment is the exact wording taken from the existing act and brought forward into this bill. The signal the government is currently sending is that they want unbridled freedom to direct the disposition of the assets of Devco. There are lots of signals, certainly in today's debate and discussion as well. We know there have been two bids at least on the assets that we don't feel have been seriously treated. There's the issue of something as straightforward as provisional coal for pensioners that's no longer in the act.

• 1300

So the real question on the disposition of assets is whether or not the government is prepared to put any obligation on the new ownership in respect of concerns for the workers. The clear signal the government is sending is that the answer to this is no, they're not. So I think this amendment would carry forward that obligation of the government and put an obligation upon them to ensure that on any disposition of assets there was provision to look after the worker interests. We think that is appropriate.

The Chairman: Comments. Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I'm not sure if I understood John correctly, but you're not talking about obligating a new owner, you're talking about maintaining, in your view, an obligation with Devco. Yes or no.

Mr. John Duncan: No. Clearly we think that the government gets to set some standards or provisions for the new ownership, and we think that the obligation should probably not remain with the government but should be passed on to the new owner. There's no provision for that in the act, so we're going on good faith that the government would do that. I don't think that's good enough.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't think we want to hamstring the negotiations in that way. But that said, the section to which this amendment refers was made unnecessary many years ago when the ECBC was created as the economic development arm spun away from Devco. I know at least one witness said that all of this means that ECBC will disappear eventually. It's not true. It will not disappear; it will be there for the economic development purposes of Cape Breton and all of the entire area.

Very simply, this is not necessary in Bill C-11. It's as simple as that.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I have a question to the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Chairman, you've indicated, and I accept it, that he is here representing the minister and he says that he doesn't want to hamstring the negotiations and that should this amendment apply to any corporation that was successful or thinking about bidding on the assets it might prohibit that. Yet the understanding of the people in Cape Breton, the miners and the employees of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, is that they will receive as a result of this bill a severance package, a pension, or employment with a new owner. That is one of the guarantees the minister made in his representations to the employees.

I need some clarification here. Is the parliamentary secretary saying that the government can or cannot, will or will not, bind the successful purchaser to some employment standards for those people who are displaced?

If we can't do what my friend is suggesting because it might hamstring a new owner, if he's suggesting that we can't do that, how can the minister or the department guarantee employment to those individuals who will not have a severance package and who will not receive a pension?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Stinson's amendment, to which Mr. Duncan spoke, wouldn't accomplish that anyway, so it's moot.

Mr. Peter Mancini: But my question is you made it very clear that you're not going to hamstring the corporation, so is there a guarantee for those people who won't have a job that they will have a job with the new corporation?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I don't think that when you're negotiating the sale there are any guarantees. You try to negotiate the best deal you can for the communities, for the workers, and for the country.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. I wasn't going to bring it up again, but Mr. Mancini just said, I believe—I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth—that he accepted the fact that the parliamentary secretary is representing the minister.

• 1305

Mr. Peter Mancini: I said that was the ruling of the chair.

Mr. John Duncan: This opposition member accepts that the parliamentary secretary is a liaison to the minister, but he doesn't represent the minister. I think that has been made clear in some other committees I've sat on. I think there's an essential difference. I want to get that on record. I don't need a ruling.

Thank you very much.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

The Chairman: The second motion is NDP-7, page 10. Those of you who will have read it by now will notice that there is a similarity. I did not judge them to be the same. The Alliance motion came first, was submitted first, and we dealt with it as a motion that was first. Even though there is a great similarity in the two, I'm going to treat them as two separate ones.

Mr. Mancini, I'm sure you'll want to say something to this motion that Bill C-11 in clause 12 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 5 the following from section 17.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. However, it's 1:10, and is it the intention of the committee to continue sitting for some period of time?

The Chairman: Yes. We'll continue until two o'clock. I've ordered something for people to eat. It should be up here momentarily.

Mr. Julian Reed: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there are some of us who have commitments that began ten minutes ago, because the schedule appeared to—

The Chairman: The schedule didn't say we were stopping at one o'clock. I gave you an indication that we were going to extend it—

Mr. Julian Reed: Mine does.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mine does too, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: The committee's schedule was going to be, as you will recall, we were going to sit through clause-by-clause with maybe an interruption for question period and that's it.

So I appreciate that everybody else might have other priorities, but we're working on this one.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. In the notice of meeting that I have it indicates that this meeting would go from eleven o'clock until one o'clock. I would ask you to check the notice of meeting. I think that's exactly what it said. I don't think it said it was indefinite.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to suggest that as important as this is, I have a justice committee meeting to go to. I know other members have committee meetings to go to, and that's the notification of the meeting, from eleven until one. I think the committee is bound by what it says. That's how it set its agenda.

I'm going to suggest that we—

The Chairman: No, Mr. Mancini. The committee is bound by whatever it wishes to be bound by. When the notice was supposed to go out, it was supposed to go out to keep it open-ended. Unfortunately, it went out as eleven o'clock to one o'clock. That's an unfortunate thing. But if it is the committee's wish to end now or to go through until next Christmas, the committee is master of its own timeline. So it's not going to be bound by it.

I'll just ask right now, is it the wish of the committee to continue until two o'clock, and if we are not finished at two o'clock, to then continue at 3:30? Those in favour of that, please express your favour. Six. Those against? Okay. We're going to continue until two o'clock and then we'll go on at 3:30. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Mancini, you wanted to say something about your motion.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do intend to speak to this motion. I intend to speak to it at length.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini, I want to draw to your attention the fact that you're getting a lot of cooperation, at least from the chair. The chair did not rule the two amendments to be similar because the chair wanted to ensure that all debate on these items was going to be a full debate. I hope you take that as an indication that there is cooperation, not antagonism.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will also take note that you've received cooperation.

The Chairman: Good. Let's stop there.

Mr. Peter Mancini: All right.

The Chairman: Thanks.

• 1310

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, this motion, which is in some ways similar to the previous motion but not identical, re-enacts in this bill section 17 of the previous Cape Breton Development Corporation Act.

Every witness who appeared before this committee and was asked about this—and I think every witness except two were asked about this—requested the Government of Canada to reinsert section 17. Those witnesses included the mayor of the regional municipality, the leadership of every union, and the community organizations that appeared.

Mr. Chairman, if this committee wants to send a signal to the witnesses that they heard them, this motion takes on some importance. This is not just my motion. It comes, as I've said, from every single witness who was asked—and that is 99% of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

I referred to it earlier, because what it says is:

the Corporation shall ensure that all reasonable measures have been adopted by the Corporation to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship

I quote—and I've quoted this before—the policy statement that set up the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It's the statement of Lester Pearson. It says:

The federal government realizes that the Cape Breton coal problem is essentially a social one.

That has not changed.

It is because of its awareness of, and concern for, the well-being of individuals and their communities that the federal government is prepared to assist, on a massive scale, the transition of the areas from dependence on a declining natural resource to a sound economic base.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, unless we adopt this motion, that has changed.

The government of that day felt compelled to assist the people of Cape Breton on a massive scale. The way they gave life to that policy was through the insertion of clause 17.

I will refer to a man who should have the respect of this committee—I'm sure he does. In his writings, the Honourable Allan MacEachen, former Liberal member of the Senate, quotes Lester Pearson in the same way. He says—in his own memoirs—that he recalled the statement made on December 29, 1966, by then Prime Minister Pearson in setting up the Cape Breton Development Corporation:

It is because of its awareness of, and concerns for, the well-being of individuals and their communities that the federal government is prepared to assist, on a massive scale...

Mr. MacEachen goes on to talk about who puts bread on the table, and he says in some cases it has to be the role of the government.

A deal was struck between the people of Cape Breton and their government, and to ensure it was as clear as could be, the government of the day put the policy in law. They didn't leave it to interpretation. They didn't leave it to policy statements. They made it the law. To break that law is as much an offence as to break any other law of this country, including the Criminal Code.

The people of Cape Breton have relied on this section to ensure that they can make the transition the government says it wants to help them make. It is the embodiment of an idea.

That's why the word “shall” is in there—it says that the people can have faith in their government to assist them in the transition. Gutting that from this legislation effectively breaks faith with the people with whom the contract was made. And there is no guarantee... The mayor of the municipality—this was referred to earlier—said “We have a concern that ECBC will then be put away”. The parliamentary secretary says no, you don't have to worry about that.

• 1315

The difference between this legislation and Bill C-11 is that the law says in the old Devco act that ECBC will survive. And that's the clause that makes it survive. There is nothing—and I challenge anyone at this table to show me—to guarantee government assistance in the transition in the creation of ECBC. There is nothing there.

I know this is a contentious motion, Mr. Chairman, but it has been the request of every witness that it remain in the legislation. And the test is here; this is the test. The proof is in the pudding today, right now, on this vote, whether or not this committee heard those witnesses, whether the Liberal members of this committee are true to the vision of Lester Pearson and Allan MacEachen, or whether we've turned a corner.

Mr. Valeri laughs.

Mr. Tony Valeri: No, I'm not laughing at that.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Well, I don't know what he was laughing at, but I challenge him to read the words of his own party.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Mancini, you can challenge me to whatever you'd like. If you'd like to send that to my office, I would be prepared to read it.

Mr. Peter Mancini: I would have hoped you'd have read it already, being a member of this committee.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Mancini, given the fact that members are carrying on conversations, I respect your privacy.

The Chairman: Mr. Mancini, Mr. Valeri, I'm sorry I let the exchange go where it did. Mr. Valeri was coming from another conversation when he attracted your attention. It's unfortunate this will all be recorded, but I'm sure he was smiling at a conversation he had just left—at least that's what I saw.

Mr. Mancini, I'm hoping this will put that over to one side. I'd ask you to continue with your presentation.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll pick up where I left off, and that is that if this committee wants to show faith in a democratic process with the people who appeared before it, then I don't see how they can vote against this motion. What is the point of a legislative committee hearing from witnesses their recommendations on how to make the legislation better if it ignores the advice of 99% of the witnesses? There are people around this table who've been in Parliament longer than I, but I don't know of any other committee—certainly not ones I've been part of—where not only the majority of witnesses but almost every witness, without exception, has suggested a change and the committee dismisses it.

If this is a democratic process, if we're to hear from the people and respond, then this vote will be telling.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to Peter's comment, I appreciate his passion and his efforts to represent his constituents. But that said, as with the Alliance motion previous to this one, the reintroduction of these phrases to the bill is totally unnecessary. I think what prompts this amendment is concern over the standing of a grievance that is out there by the union related to economic development. I can assure this committee that this grievance process, whatever the outcome, would not in the least be affected by the non-inclusion of this amendment in the bill.

In fact, this is in the order of a housekeeping matter that would have, I think, been dealt with some years ago at a previous time of cleaning up the bill. It's vestigial, if I could use that word. So I would argue that, Peter's comments notwithstanding, it's unnecessary for the bill.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I would like to say I think this motion is much more generic than just reference to a single arbitration that's out there at this point in time, and goes back to some of the debate on the previous motion. But to say it's unnecessary is taking a government point of view, not a legislative point of view. So I would urge committee members to support this motion.

• 1320

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 12 agreed to on division)

(On clause 13)

The Chairman: On clause 13, the first motion is a PC motion.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You're not going to deal with it without me here.

The Chairman: Okay, we won't deal with it.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll present it in the House if I have to.

Gentlemen, it's a quarter to two. Question period is starting.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: It's 1:21.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I like that. I can stay.

An hon. member: You're on Newfoundland time.

The Chairman: The amendment is that Bill C-11 in clause 13 be amended (a) by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:

18.(1) The Corporation shall by by-law pro-

and (b) by adding after line 23 on page 5 the following:

(2) The by-law referred to in subsection (1) shall, as a minimum standard, provide that a pension shall be paid to a person referred to in that subsection who has been employed for 20 years or more by the Corporation and who becomes unemployed as a result of the reduction or closure of any of the Corporation's coal mining operations or any of its related works or undertakings.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I think there have been volumes of debate on this specific issue, and quite honestly it's not my intent to spend an inordinate amount of time on this issue, but I would like to speak to the simplicity of it. Again, every precedent that's been set in this country... when we've divested ourselves of crown corporations, we've put in a reasonable pension plan. Twenty years' service will get you a pension in just about any business in the country, certainly, whether that's political or non-political. Yes, it will. And when we divest ourselves of crown corporations, we have, again, a responsibility as parliamentarians to put a reasonable pension plan in place.

We have people working in the mines in Cape Breton for the Government of Canada with 28 and 30 years experience and years of seniority who will not get a pension. They will not receive a pension from the Government of Canada. It's obvious to those of us who have looked at it, I believe, at least, that the pension plan as set out in the bill now is inadequate, because there are too many people falling through the cracks. If you put the 20-year rule in, you'll pick up another 240 people—240 people who need, quite frankly, this pension.

Again, I'm not looking to waste the Government of Canada's money. I'm looking to be fair and equitable with all the players involved. Mr. Chairman, if we don't put this in, those 240 people are going to have their severance pay and, many of them, very little hope for the future. There's just simply not another vocation they can go to. There's no guarantee they'll be kept by a private corporation when they take over the Phalen, the Prince, and perhaps the Donkin. There's no guarantee for their future whatsoever. If we can remove ourselves from the magic number of 75 and go to the magic number of 70, we will just simply cast a net that will catch a lot more fish and be fair and reasonable and responsible in our position as parliamentarians.

• 1325

We've addressed this in debate. We've addressed this with the minister. There's been no action coming forth from the government.

When CN was privatized, there were people with six and seven years who got very good packages. It's on the record. You can check it out.

We have a situation here where someone who went in the mines at the age of 20 and may have worked there for 30 years is not pensionable. You have to ask yourself the question, why. It's an obvious fault in the legislation. It's just simply something that we have ignored, and we can't ignore this any longer. We have to address it. A 20-year pension plan for anyone who has worked in the coal mines of Cape Breton Island is not irresponsible on our behalf as parliamentarians.

The Chairman: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Actually, there are a couple of things.

I'd like to ask the proponent a question. Was it the intent of the motion to put an age of eligibility down—in other words, age 55 or 60 or anything like that—or was that just assumed? In other words, if they're 45 now, was it the intent of the motion that they would be pensionable at age 45?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, there was no intent there whatsoever, Mr. Duncan. I think the youngest age that would be caught in this is 43, or something like that, and it's a handful of people. The majority of them are 50 years of age and older and are quite frankly not employable in many other vocations. Many of them suffer from black lung disease and other physical problems.

When you look at the money we're going to spend, look at it from another direction, economic development. Here are an additional 240 people who have some security for their future. It's important.

Mr. John Duncan: The other clarification I'd like to get is from the witnesses. Could you maybe explain how the current pension works and how it would change?

Mr. Robert Lomas: Devco has three pension plans. Our people participate in three pension plans. They have what's called—and I heard Mr. Mancini earlier—the non-contributory pension plan. That provides benefits to people at age 65 and that is funded through the corporation. As with any pension plan, I believe they can take a reduced benefit up to ten years before pensionable age. That would be down to age 55. They have people in what is called a contributory pension plan, which is somewhat similar but not exactly the same as the federal government employees' pension plan. The contributions are shared both by the individuals who participate in the plan and the corporation. Then the corporation have some members who participate in the public service superannuation plan, and again, that's a shared contribution.

Everybody is eligible for “a pension”. What we're really talking about I believe here is whether you expand the early retirement incentive package. Today, the early retirement incentive package, the one that's available till December 31, 2000, is available to employees who are a minimum of 50 years of age and have a minimum of years plus age of service of 75. So a person at age 50 with 25 years of service would be eligible for what they call an early retirement incentive plan. That would carry them through until age 65, when their normal pension plans would kick in.

Mr. John Duncan: So for the 240 members Mr. Keddy talked about, what would their current status be? What would they receive?

• 1330

Mr. Robert Lomas: I believe the number is actually higher than 240. It would be substantially higher for those who have 20 years of service or more.

Mr. John Duncan: But they don't meet the 75?

Mr. Robert Lomas: Yes. If they don't meet the 75 points, depending on where they are on the scale and their seniority, they would either be one of the people who would be eligible for a severance and training package, the 650 that we talked about, or they would be one of the ones that we still see employed.

We had three groups. We had the early retirement incentive plan. That dealt with about 340. You have the 650 who were eligible for severance packages. Then you have the middle 500 that Devco's business plans still show employed.

Mr. John Duncan: But they would also be eligible for some kind of pension?

Mr. Robert Lomas: Everybody would be eligible for some kind of pension. They have pension benefits accrued in the plans today, and those are not affected.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This issue, the issue of pensions and who qualifies and who doesn't, is something that was brought to the attention of the minister and the government well before the announcement of January. I shouldn't say it was well before; it was leading up to the announcement of January of 1998 in a letter from myself, from the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, and from two MLAs: Helen MacDonald, who at that time represented the Lakes; and Frank Corbett, who represents Cape Breton Centre in the provincial legislature, which is a mining town.

We wrote a lengthy letter to the minister indicating to him that there would be serious complications and problems if the retirement pension package wasn't renegotiated. The reason for that is that this pension plan was never contemplated in the terms of negotiation between the union and the corporation. It was never negotiated in contemplating the closure of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It was always negotiated in terms of workforce reduction. There has never been an opportunity to reopen that since the federal government announced that the corporation would in fact close.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on the record that certainly the government knew this was a contentious issue. It has been a contentious issue for the workforce since the announcement. There are some people who have more years of service in the corporation but who don't meet the magic age and will not get a pension. There are individuals who are 50 years old but don't have as many years as other individuals, and they will get a pension. So it's seen as a divisive factor by the workers. It's been seen as an unfair factor by the workers.

I would support the motion because it leads to some sense of fairness for the people who have put their time in the mines. As I've said, there will be some individuals who come out of there at 55 without the years of service who won't qualify for a pension. They may get a severance package, but if you can tell me where they're going to get a job, I'd hold you to it.

I think the motion is in order. The unions have put forward plans that provided for a phase-out of the workforce over five years. They were reasonable plans. This motion goes some way to addressing that.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

• 1335

The Chairman: I'll go to the NDP amendment 8, which is on page 11 of your sheets. It's moved by Mr. Mancini that Bill C-11 in clause 13 be amended (a) by replacing line 13 on page 5 with the following:

18.(1) The Corporation shall by by-law pro-

and (b) by adding after line 23 on page 5 the following:

(2) The by-law shall provide that a person selected by the Devco Pensioners' Association shall be a member of the board or committee that is charged with managing the pension fund.

Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Once again, this is an effort to give some local control to the people who are most directly affected by the changes in this legislation. The Cape Breton Development Corporation will essentially be a shell corporation of its former self. If you read Bill C-11, you'll see that the fundamental functions of the corporation will be to administer pensions and to deal with any ongoing litigation.

Once again, I think it's straightforward. I'm not even sure why I should have to argue the merits of it, but it becomes increasingly clear from the voting pattern that I do have to argue the merits of it, even to get them on the record. It becomes increasingly clear that the people who are involved and who will be the recipients of the pension want some control and information about that pension.

Mr. St-Julien asked me a question about the pension fund earlier. I indicated to him that these are the kinds of questions the pensioners themselves ask and can't get answers to. They have always argued that the regulations of the old act provided for them to have a say and that those regulations were ignored by the corporation.

This would give them some guarantee as the corporation winds down, as Mr. St. Denis has said it will, over the course of the next few years. It will give them some control over at least the information flow about where their pension moneys are going, about how it's being invested. It will provide some security for those employees who, in their old age, will depend upon the pensions they receive.

It seems to me fairly straightforward. It seems to me that it's fairly democratic. It seems to me that all it does is provide transparency for those most affected. I would move it on those grounds.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

(Clause 13 agreed to on division)

(On clause 14)

The Chairman: On clause 14, I have amendment NDP-9 by Mr. Mancini: that Bill C-11, in clause 14, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 5 with the following:

and meetings of the Board shall be held there.

Yes, Mr. Mancini.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Mr. Chairman, once again I go to our history, because it may be difficult for members to understand this. This proposed section as it currently reads provides that:

The head office of the Corporation shall be on the Island of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, but meetings of the Board may be held in any place in Canada that the directors may decide.

My amendment would ensure that the meetings be held in Cape Breton.

This is a corporation that was set up under the original act solely to deal with the divestiture of the coal industry in Cape Breton and with the economic development of Cape Breton Island. The new act provides for the government to walk away from that, but still retains a corporation that is of sole interest to the people of Cape Breton.

The new corporation will not receive a whole lot of tax dollars. It could be argued that the shareholders of the old corporation were the taxpayers of Canada, so consequently, there was some argument that other regions of the country might be interested in how much money went in, what the operations were, etc.

Let's face it: the new corporation, as Mr. St. Denis said, will essentially govern the winding down of whatever responsibilities the old corporation had. Those responsibilities will apply only to Cape Bretoners unless there's a court action pending from somebody outside of Cape Breton Island. I think the only court actions we can see pending deal with the Donkin Mine and a group that says there's a letter of intent that gives them authority to own it. There may be some court action pending from the arbitration.

• 1340

All of these are localized in Cape Breton, so why in the name of God would we have a corporation that only deals with Cape Bretoners meet anywhere else in the country? What possible objection could there be to stating in the legislation that the meetings of the board of directors of the Cape Breton Development Corporation will take place in Cape Breton?

The money is there to do it. There are financial resources. Had my earlier motions been accepted such that the majority of the directors would come from Cape Breton, it would have been easier.

I mean, this will be of no interest to anybody else. Let's be pretty frank about that. The rest of Canada, through its representatives, has signalled that it's not interested in what's happening on that island. At least leave us with the dignity where those who will wind down the affairs will meet in the community affected.

The Chairman: Mr. St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chairman, with great respect to Peter, it's not as draconian as he is suggesting it is.

For example, if the board wants to have a teleconference call, it would be allowed to do so with this. With Cape Breton being so beautiful, I'm sure whenever the opportunity arose the board would want to meet in Cape Breton, but flexibility is needed, that's all, given the nature of business these days.

So we don't support the amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Are you sure that wouldn't preclude teleconferencing? Teleconferencing is not necessarily a board meeting. Teleconferencing can be over and above, and anything besides a board meeting. The way I look at the prospective amendment, board meetings specifically would be held in Cape Breton.

The Chairman: Mr. Lomas, did you have an opinion on that?

Mr. Robert Lomas: I think a meeting of the board can be via teleconference, and the amendment would exclude that, I would believe.

Mr. Peter Mancini: On that point, Mr. Lomas, if the head office was located in Cape Breton and that was the centre from which the teleconference took place, couldn't it be argued that this in fact took place in Cape Breton? I mean, you wouldn't say the meeting took place in Montreal or in Ottawa. You would say the meeting took place where the head office was, where the centre of decision-making was.

I mean, it could argued, but it's fairly nebulous, isn't it?

Mr. Robert Lomas: I think the meeting would probably record that the meeting took place via teleconference as opposed to anything else.

An hon. member: Cyberspace.

An hon. member: Nowhere.

An hon. member: Everywhere.

An hon. member: News from nowhere.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

(Clauses 14 to 23 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Mr. Peter Mancini: Can we have a recorded vote on that?

The Chairman: Sure, we'll go with a recorded vote on that.

• 1345

(Bill agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2)

The Chairman: I declare the bill carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: There's no need for us to order a reprint for use at report stage.

Gentlemen, colleagues, I thank you very much for your—

Mr. Peter Mancini: I have a question, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the reporting of the bill to the House. There will be, I think it's pretty clear, some dissenting opinions on that. When do we expect the bill to come before the House?

The Chairman: I don't know. You know, I heard you say earlier on that you thought third reading was going to be on Friday.

Mr. Peter Mancini: That's my understanding.

The Chairman: I haven't spoken to our House leader, but until I report it to the House I can't imagine they would even start debate on report stage. So I really don't know. You have information that's probably a little bit more current than my own.

Mr. Peter Mancini: Okay.

The Chairman: I thank you all very much for your assistance. Obviously there will be no need for us to meet this afternoon.

I adjourn the meeting to the call of the chair.