36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 76
CONTENTS
Friday, March 31, 2000
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Marcel Proulx |
| EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
|
| Mr. Ted White |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
1100
| TAXES ON GASOLINE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| DAVID WILLMOT
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA GOLDEN BEARS
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
| CANADIAN CREATORS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| SOFTWOOD LUMBER
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1105
| ONTARIO WINTER GAMES
|
| Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
| CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| GASOLINE PRICING
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
1110
| STANDING NAVAL FORCE ATLANTIC
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| THE BUDGET
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA
|
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| AWARDS
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| EMPLOYMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1120
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1125
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1130
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1135
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1140
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
1145
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1150
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Casey |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| FRENCH LANGUAGE COLLEGES IN ONTARIO
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
1155
| BILLBOARDS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. David Iftody |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1200
| HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL ANNUAL REPORT
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Canadian Alliance
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
1205
| PETITIONS
|
| Divorce Act
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| Employment Insurance Act
|
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| The Senate
|
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Mr. Gar Knutson |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
1210
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1250
1255
1300
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1305
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1310
1315
1320
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1325
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
|
| Bill C-238. Second reading
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1330
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1335
1340
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1345
1350
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1355
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1400
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1405
| Division deemed demanded and deferred
|
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 76
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 31, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.)
moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Transportation
Act, the Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the
Air Canada Public Participation Act and to amend another act in
consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to
debate Bill C-26 which was introduced on February 17 as the final
step in the government's action plan to restructure Canada's
airline industry.
Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I want to thank
my colleagues in the opposition parties for agreeing to limit
debate at second reading so we can send this to committee at the
end of the day at 1.30 p.m. We have agreed to certain limits of
time. I know I am entitled to 40 minutes but I will try to
finish in about 20.
A lot has happened in the last few months but we have now
embarked upon a very exciting phase in this particular
restructuring process. It is far from perfect and certainly
improvements can be made, but we are now seeing the positive
signs of that restructuring.
[Translation]
With this bill, the government is addressing the challenges
arising out of a radical change in Canadian air travel: the
passage from two air carriers competing for customers to a
single dominant carrier with a total monopoly on certain routes.
The overriding objective of this bill is, therefore, to protect
consumers and communities from the effects of a monopoly and to
promote competition.
[English]
As I said, much has happened since we took the step last summer.
I will outline some of the things that led up to what happened
last summer.
1010
We became very concerned in the spring of last year about the
financial plight of Canadian Airlines. It approached us on a
couple of occasions to tell us how difficult the situation was.
It officially wrote to us and asked us to find a way to bring the
matter to a head. In so doing, we used section 47 of the Canada
Transportation Act. Air Canada also raised this in private
discussions with my officials.
I am not going to revisit the past but it was somewhat
controversial. For those people who believe that the government
was unsure of what it was doing from the start, all they have to
do is go back and look at the statements that I and my colleague,
the Minister of Industry, made on August 13 last year and read
the subsequent statements to know that we had a game plan. I
admit that in the game plan not every move could be anticipated.
In fact, what happened in the fall was very controversial.
There was a myth that we did not know what we were doing. That
was false. There was another myth that we somehow dealt the
commissioner of competition out of the action. That was false.
What we did was try to get private sector solutions to the
problems facing Canada's airline industry and it worked. In
using section 47, we did not deal the Competition Bureau out of
the action. In fact, the competition commissioner was very much
a part of the action. However, certain aspects of the
Competition Act had to be suspended for that period.
The commissioner sent me a letter in the middle of that 90 day
period with many suggestions. Subsequently, many of those
suggestions were part of the policy framework that I issued last
October in front of the standing committee. The commissioner of
competition very much had his say in this particular exercise. In
fact, the framework was the second step in the process. I asked
the committees of the House and the Senate to review the
framework and come up with ideas.
The committees of both the House and the Senate worked very
hard. They should be congratulated for putting in many hours,
many more than are normally spent in the course of deliberation.
They did this because they knew that restructuring the airline
industry in Canada was essential for the benefit of all
Canadians. I thank my colleagues in the House and in the Senate
for the work that they did.
It was encouraging to note the degree of consensus that we saw
between the two committees on the key issues relating to
fostering of competition and protecting the consumer. On a
number of issues it was clear that once we had seen the
committees' recommendations we could see the support for the
initiative set out in the policy framework.
As members know, the response to the recommendations of the
standing committee of the House was tabled, as is required by the
rules, on February 17. I felt it was useful to table the
government's official response at the same time as we brought in
our bill to restructure the airline industry.
I want to focus on the link between the October policy
framework, much of it rooted in the advice from the commissioner
of competition, and this bill which is now before the House, Bill
C-26. The policy framework outlined two overriding principles
and five key areas of public concern that I first spoke of last
September. The principles were that safety would not be
compromised and that the Official Languages Act would apply to
Air Canada or any future dominant carrier and be effectively
implemented.
The five areas of concern for Canadian travellers were the areas
of pricing, fostering competition, Canadian ownership and
control, service to small communities and a fair treatment of
employees. We also indicated that we would put in place a
special review process for mergers and acquisitions in the
airline industry and make the terms and conditions of approval
enforceable.
When it became clear that the Air Canada offer to acquire the
shares of Canadian remained the only proposal on the table, after
the withdrawal Onex last fall, our attention turned to trying to
see that the conditions for approval were fair, just and met the
terms and conditions of the policy framework.
We allowed this transaction, the acquisition of Canadian
Airlines by Air Canada, to take place based on undertakings
negotiated between the commissioner of competition and Air Canada
on commitments made by Air Canada to me.
These details were contained in an exchange of letters between
Air Canada, myself and the commissioner of competition that have
been made public. Again the whole notion that we saw in some of
the business press that the commissioner of competition and his
staff were not involved in this process was totally false.
1015
We are now engaged in the fourth and final step in the process.
That is the legislative step. It is the most important step
because it will give the statutory framework that will allow
implementation of our policy and will enshrine measures to
enforce the commitments and undertakings made by Air Canada to
the government.
Our goals in this legislation are to enhance consumer protection
and to foster competition. Our key objective is to ensure that
we effectively protect consumers from any abuse by the dominant
carrier. We have a number of measures in the bill to deal with a
wide range of issues including monopoly pricing, conditions of
carriage, market exit, official languages and monitoring.
On monopoly pricing, there is no question that there will be
some routes in the country especially in smaller communities
where there will only be Air Canada offering service. That is a
monopoly. We have to make sure that the people in those
communities are not taken advantage of. We will not tolerate
price gouging. That is why we are amending the Canada
Transportation Act by this legislation to ensure that the
Canadian Transportation Agency has the authority and the ability
to look at the prices on monopoly routes and has the power to
roll them back and the power to deal very rigorously with Air
Canada to protect the consumer.
The Canadian Transportation Agency can do this, not just as it
is now with a complaint from a member of the public. Many people
are upset about prices but they never take the time to complain.
They think that somehow their complaint will not be heard. That
is not true. There is a provision for complaints to be heard.
What we are doing in this bill is we are saying that the Canadian
Transportation Agency will have the authority on its own
initiative to monitor the prices, to audit the prices much like
national revenue audits taxation, audits taxpayers, to see where
there are abuses. That will go a long way in giving comfort to
the consumers.
Incidentally this will apply not only to passenger fares on
monopoly routes but also to cargo rates on monopoly routes.
Business of course will also have the advantage there.
We have also moved to some degree on what we call the conditions
of carriage. This is a complementary consumer protection measure
that will restore the Canadian Transportation Agency's authority
to review the terms and conditions of carriage on domestic
service which cover such things as compensation for lost baggage
or being bumped from flights. This already exists on
international services but now it has been restored to the agency
for domestic services.
There has been some discussion recently about a bill of rights
for passengers. I am very interested in looking at what happens
in the committee and hearing the views of members of the
committee. Perhaps there will be amendments offered to make sure
that we give comfort to passengers that they are not going to be
abused not just on pricing but on the terms of carriage, that
they indeed will have quality service which is fair to all.
Obviously a lot of the onus is on the airlines themselves. If
airlines do not give good service, then in the normal course of
events people can go elsewhere. They can do this with charter
companies; if they do not like a particular charter company they
can book through some other operator. It becomes of great
concern when we are going to a dominant carrier. That is why I
really do look forward to some of the suggestions that will come
from my colleagues on this front.
We always said that we were going to protect communities and we
are going to protect communities. As is known, in the deal that
was announced, Air Canada has agreed to provide and to maintain
services to communities that were receiving services by Canadian
Airlines for three years. That is a guarantee that smaller
communities will not be left out of this particular
restructuring.
1020
What we are also doing is amending section 65 of the Canada
Transportation Act to ensure that the exit provisions are
toughened up. Right now the last and second last carrier can
give 60 days notice before they exit but that is not good enough.
We are making it 120 days. I know some people will say to make
it longer but quite frankly, if we make it too long, no one will
venture into a market in the first place. If they feel that the
market might not work out, why would they get in if they cannot
get out easily? We are saying that 120 days should do the trick
in this sense.
Also we are saying in the legislation that there is an
obligation by those carriers that remove service to consult with
the local communities. That will be rigorously enforced.
The experience has been in the last 10 to 15 years even in the
most remote communities in northern Canada that wherever a
carrier withdraws, some other carrier comes in because there is
always a market to be served. It could be served in other ways
with smaller aircraft or with different kinds of frequencies.
Our experience has been that communities always maintain their
service.
There were four communities that unfortunately, because they
were served by InterCanadian, got left out in the cold recently.
I am pleased to note that in Stephenville service has been
restored by other competitors. Air Canada has agreed to go into
Charlo and provide some services. This shows that if a market is
there, it has to be served and it can be served by the dominant
carrier or it can be served by others coming into the field.
[Translation]
One thing that is very important to us in government is the
Official Languages Act. We also acknowledge the necessity for
consumers to be served by the national carrier in both official
languages.
For this reason, we are proposing to amend the Air Canada Public
Participation Act, in order to make it responsible for ensuring
that services provided to its customers by the carriers in its
group, both present and future, comply with the Official
Languages Act.
Air services provided by the regional carriers in its group
operating in eastern Canada should comply immediately after this
bill is passed. Subsidiaries in the rest of the country will
have a year to meet requirements.
Canadian Airline Internationals Ltd. would have three years to
comply, from the time they became a subsidiary of Air Canada,
with the possibility of a one year extension determined later on
a case-by-case basis.
However, when Canadian Airline Internationals Ltd. replaces Air
Canada or one of its affiliates on a route, they would be
required to comply as if Air Canada were continuing to supply
the service.
[English]
On monitoring, it is not good enough just to bring in the law
and make the changes that we are proposing today; all of the
measures here have to be surveyed. The consumer has to be
protected. We have to make sure there is some oversight. That is
why I will shortly be naming a very prominent person to oversee
the behaviour of the carriers, to make sure that consumers are
protected, to look at how the agency is handling the changes and
indeed the Competition Bureau and Transport Canada to make sure
that all of this restructuring goes as smoothly as possible.
The second goal of the bill is to foster competition. We are
doing this in a number of ways. I will not relay all of the
undertakings Air Canada has made to the commissioner of
competition and to the government. However, these undertakings
are indeed very important to foster competition: surrendering
slots at airports and facilities at airports; the selling of
surplus aircraft to other Canadian operators; to put Canadian
Regional Airlines up for sale, and that evaluation is now
ongoing; to provide access to frequent flyer programs; to provide
access to interlining and joint fare agreements.
In other words if they are not part of the Air Canada empire,
take First Air for example, they can book from Iqaluit to Los
Angeles through Montreal then on to Air Canada. There is no
discrimination. They get the full benefit.
1025
People do not understand that interlining allows for every
single carrier, whether it is First Air, Bearskin, or any of
these carriers, to feed in to the Air Canada network. They may
not get the frequent flyer points unless they make a deal with
Air Canada and agree to purchase them, but certainly it shows a
seamlessness of service so that there is no discrimination,
especially against smaller communities. It is okay for people
like me who live in Toronto. Those of us in big cities have
access, but smaller communities need to know that this
interlining will give this. And as my colleague from up the
valley has said, Pem Air is one of those carriers.
These are very important measures. We are also proposing to
change, by the deal that the bureau made, the way that override
commissions are paid to travel agents. There are also measures
for Air Canada to refrain from starting a discount air operation
in eastern Canada for a specified period of time.
Failure to comply with any of the undertakings made under this
particular agreement with the commissioner is subject to very
severe fines and imprisonment. Some people say we are being too
hard, but those penalties are in the Competition Act now. If
they are good enough for any other business person in Canada,
they have to be good enough for the people who run Air Canada and
the airline industry.
That certainly will help a lot to foster competition, but there
are other means. The commissioner has called for very strict
measures on predatory pricing. Quite frankly I wonder why we
have not done this before. When I say we, I mean the collective
we of governments in the past. We might not have been in this
situation today.
We have to make sure that predatory behaviour in air services is
properly identified, monitored and that actions are taken against
it, so that we do not see Air Canada, the dominant carrier, drive
the WestJets and others into bankruptcy by the use of predatory
pricing. This bill will give the commissioner of competition the
power to issue temporary cease and desist orders where he sees
cases of predatory behaviour in the airline industry. That is
very significant in protecting consumers and promoting
competition.
It seems that just about everyone in the business schools and
business newspapers says that the only way we are going to get
competition in the airline industry now is to let the Americans
in, to have reciprocal cabotage; let United Airlines with its
1,100 planes, American with its 900 planes, Delta and US Air with
hundreds of planes, come in and provide the competition. They
say that would be great for Canadian consumers.
What would that do if we did that right now? Air Canada would
go down the tubes. We have not gone through all the heartache
with Canadian Airlines over the last 10 years to now wash Air
Canada down the drain. We have to give Air Canada the chance to
establish itself. It is now the 10th world airline in terms of
size. We have to give Air Canada the ability to compete.
One airline industry analyst, Mr. Jacques Kavafian, who is often
quoted and is one of the few people I read, actually knew what he
was talking about. He said that if the American carriers applied
3% of their capacity to the Canadian market, Air Canada would be
gone within six months to one year. We are not going to allow
that.
For all those people who say that we have to let the Americans
in because that is the only way we are going to get competition,
what are they saying about Canadian businesses? What are they
saying about Canadian entrepreneurs? The government has faith
that Canadian entrepreneurs will come forward and provide the
service.
I could speak longer under the rules and there are a lot of
other things I want to talk about, especially about how we have
helped travel agents and other measures for the protection of the
consumer.
1030
I want to talk about the fair treatment of employees, because
one of the five principles that we had to make sure of was that
employees were protected in the best way possible. The way we
have done that is to entrench certain commitments in this law.
Air Canada is making commitments to employees that no more than
2,500 will be let go over the two year period, and not for two
years, and then only by attrition or by negotiated packages. I
assume that Air Canada will come forward with packages.
According to the newspaper this morning, a deal has been made
with the CAW, the two bargaining units for Air Canada and
Canadian, which is good. Pilots have made a deal and it is to be
hoped there will also be a deal with the flight attendants and
others.
We have made Air Canada commit to the protection of their
unionized employees. There is to be no forced relocation or
involuntary layoffs of employees of Canadian Airlines or their
wholly owned subsidiaries for a period of two years. It appears
that the airline is doing its best to meet those commitments.
I hope that hon. members will forgive me if I use a bit of
hyperbole. This was a tough file. I have had a lot of tough
files in my political career, but this was really tough. I think
it was an accomplishment for the government. This government has
had a lot of accomplishments, but this was an accomplishment
because in no other country the size of Canada, a member of the
G-7, a wealthy country with 30 million people, has a country been
able to take the number one airline and the number two airline
and put them together with minimum disruption to service, no loss
of jobs, no bankruptcy and not a nickel in subsidy or bail out by
the taxpayers. I say that is an accomplishment and we should be
proud of that accomplishment.
I hope that when the bill is finally passed and given royal
assent it will be seen as a landmark piece of legislation that
will give us stability in the sky. It has given Air Canada the
underpinning it needs to compete with the biggest and the best in
the world. Everybody will know that the Canadian airline
industry is in good shape.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that the minister
is taking all the credit for what happened. I think that the
companies involved deserve a lot of the accolades for taking a
bad situation and dealing with it to minimize the damage to the
travelling public.
I would agree that the legislation is a response to the airline
merger wars that we saw last year. The Standing Committee on
Transport and the Senate committee dealt with those issues and
heard many witnesses who shared with us their concerns and their
problems. I would not disagree with the minister that it was a
difficult file.
I do not think the preferred outcome that Canadians really
wanted was to have one dominant air carrier. I think many
Canadians, like myself, would rather have seen two Canadian air
carriers providing competition in the marketplace. However, it
was quite clear that the reality was that would not happen, that
either we would have a bankruptcy, which would put the one
dominant carrier in a monopoly position, or we would have a
merger. I think Canadians can be somewhat pleased that the
outcome was a merger rather than a bankruptcy. At least it is to
be hoped that will be the outcome.
Reality is that we now have a company which controls 80% of the
domestic market. That is the result of previous government
interference and involvement in the airline industry. Previous
government regulation is largely responsible for the situation in
which Canadian and Air Canada found themselves.
Years of poor legislation and regulation put those companies in
the very vulnerable position where they were unable to compete in
the international market. Given the situation of the industry
last fall, some would say that this bill is a reasonable response
to that situation. It gives Air Canada a period of time to
reorganize after the acquisition of Canadian Airlines and its
debt.
1035
Bill C-26 holds Air Canada to the commitments it made to the
government and to the competition commissioner in the letter of
December 21. Air Canada will be held to its commitments,
including the promise to smaller communities to provide air
service, at least for a period of three years, and the promise to
employees that there will be a controlled reduction of the
employee force after a period of two years, and that the
reduction will occur through attrition. We hope that this bill
will hold it to that commitment. It also agreed to give up slots
in some of the major airports and to sell the surplus aircraft to
domestic companies.
Bill C-26 makes a lot of these commitments enforceable. That is
important. There has to be some way to make sure that those
commitments which Air Canada made in its presentations to the
government, the standing committee and to Canadians are met. It
made commitments to Canadians, the Canadian travelling public and
Canadian taxpayers. I think it is important that there be some
way of holding it to those commitments, and Bill C-26 tries to do
that.
It also tries to make sure that those commitments made by Air
Canada are enforceable and that there is some way to make sure
the corporate entity responds in kind to those commitments and
promises.
Some would say that the $10 million fines and the five year
incarcerations are quite heavy. The minister has said that they
already exist in the Competition Act. Canadians would feel a lot
more comfortable if those fines and levels of incarceration were
also to apply to the government when it makes commitments that it
fails to follow through on.
The government is trying to hold corporate Canada accountable to
commitments it made, and that is a good thing. It would be nice
if it would expand that to include itself.
It also is an attempt to have some control over increased air
fares. The travelling Canadian public are very concerned that
now that we have a dominant carrier, which controls 80% of the
air routes, fares will rise to a level that they will no longer
be able to afford. The intent of this bill is to put into place,
through the Canadian Transportation Agency, the means to make
sure that does not happen, that controls and monitoring can be
imposed on the company without needing the individual traveller
to complain about these sorts of increases in airfares before
they can be dealt with.
There are problems with this bill. One of the problems that I
foresee, and I am sure others have as well, is that in giving the
Canadian Transportation Agency these new powers to do the
monitoring there will be a tendency to hire a lot of new staff
who will create work to justify their positions. In creating the
work to justify their positions, they expand and develop an
empire. That is something which the government must ensure does
not happen. There must be some control in the development of the
bureaucracy that develops the need to monitor beyond the point
that they really need to be doing that.
This bureaucratic empire will also create an equal response from
the airline industry, and not only Air Canada. It will not only
affect Air Canada, but any other small airline that is in a
monopoly position.
It will create an equal response from the airline. How many
people would they have to hire to react to this bureaucratic
empire which might be built? There is an onus on the government
to make sure that does not happen.
1040
The Canadian Transportation Agency must also determine which are
monopoly routes. Many of the monopoly routes flown in this
country will not be flown by Air Canada but by smaller airlines
like First Air and Bearskin Airlines. They will be brought into
this monopoly route situation with the Canadian Transportation
Agency overseeing them. I am not saying that should not happen,
but we have to make sure that it does not happen to the degree
that it overexceeds the need. This would result in the situation
where the smaller airlines would either start asking the CTA for
advice before they entered a route or before they asked for an
increase of the fare, or they would end up having to provide the
resources to those small airlines to compete with the demands
being placed on them by this bureaucratic agency which had been
given this new role.
There have to be controls and there has to be an understanding
of what is a monopoly route. We will have to be more careful in
that area.
One of the other problems is the inclusion of cargo in the fare
increase. Yes, there may be a reason for including cargo, but it
has not been made clear. Evidence has not been presented to
justify including cargo in the new agency's responsibilities.
This measure would concern many of the smaller airlines which
service the north. It is not realistic for any airline to be
expected to transport cargo below cost. It is going to have to
be shown through concrete evidence that there is a requirement to
include cargo in the provisions of the CTA.
The other area I have some concern with is the exit provision.
I know that with Inter-Canadien there were great problems in the
way it was handled. It created a discontinuation of services
which caused a lot of problems for the travelling public.
However, the exit provisions in the new legislation require a
carrier to give four months notice if it intends to withdraw
services, not only all of its services, but 50% of the service
provided to the community.
It is hard to test a market if the airlines have to be in it for
four months. It is expensive for a smaller airline to be
committed to four months of service. I wonder if WestJet would
have gone into Abbotsford, which was its first major test of the
market, if it had had to stay for four months. I am a little
concerned that this might eliminate competition in the
marketplace because it puts a heavy burden on the airlines.
The minister feels that the 120 days will not do that. I would
like to think that the committee would hear from smaller airlines
which might be concerned about the exit provision. I will take
the minister at his word that he will look at the amendments and
the recommendations that come out of the committee hearings to
improve the legislation.
The competition commissioner feels that the best way to ensure
reasonable airfares is competition. Airlines are extremely
expensive. They need a lot of capital to operate, buy equipment
and fly that equipment. The 25% limit on foreign ownership is
very restrictive. The 25% limit is a regulation that can be
changed at any time.
There is no commitment from the government in the legislation to
consider that in the future.
1045
I would like to think that the government will at least
entertain the thought that after a two year period the 25%
limitation on foreign ownership will be lifted to 49% to allow
more capital to come in to support Canadian carriers in providing
the competition that Canada will require.
The competition commissioner has also suggested that there be no
limitations on Canadian carriers as to foreign investment. I
agree that Air Canada should be given the two years, but at the
end of that two year period there has to be a commitment to
increase the competition if it has not been created through
Canadian carriers. Canadian carriers might be more able to
increase that level of competition with Air Canada if it had
access to foreign investment and ownership.
Another concern I have is that there is no mention or commitment
that the monopoly carrier cannot use its influence to restrict
access to airports for other Canadian carriers. Today we see it
might be an issue where a Canadian carrier is being restricted to
an airport by the airport authority. I do not think that should
be allowed. I do not think Canadians want to see an airport
authority having that kind of decision making ability and being
able to refuse a Canadian carrier access to Canadian airports. I
think that should be addressed.
There is another area the bill does not deal with to the extent
I feel Canadians would like. The Government of Canada should not
be involved in limiting Canadian ownership in Canadian companies.
In the Air Canada Public Participation Act the extension from 10%
to 15% just does not cut it. It is irrelevant. The whole issue
is that the Government of Canada should not have the right to
restrict Canadian ownership in a Canadian company. I would
suggest that needs to be addressed. It needs to be looked at and
removed completely from the books.
We know there have been problems with the acquisition of
Canadian Airlines by Air Canada. We are starting to see them
happen every day at the airport. I know it is difficult for Air
Canada to try to rationalize the service of the two airlines,
putting them together and getting rid of the overcapacity.
However, the complaints from the travelling public are starting
to get very loud.
Flights are being significantly overbooked. Fifteen or twenty
people were left standing at the airport when I flew to Ottawa
from Vancouver. They had arrived at the airport thinking they
had a seat on the aircraft. That is not acceptable and has to
stop.
Schedules are being changed with passengers not being informed.
Passengers are arriving at airports to find that the connecting
flight they were going to take has already left or has been
changed or that they have been rebooked on a later flight without
being told. Those sorts of things are not acceptable.
I am hoping that they are growing pains, that they are something
we are seeing in the short term and will be addressed in the long
term. My fear is that the public will only accept a certain
level of this kind of treatment. Seeing as how they do not have
a viable alternative, there will be a pressure for more
regulation. That is not a direction I would like to see the
government go.
The answer is not to get back into overregulating the airline
industry. The answer is to hold Air Canada accountable for being
a good, responsible corporate citizen and for being upfront and
honest in the commitments it has made to the travelling public.
1050
The difficulties we are seeing are not just with the travelling
public. They are also with the employees. The minister said
earlier that one of the conditions was that there would be fair
treatment of the employees in this transition period. I think
Air Canada made that commitment to the minister. He certainly
made that commitment to the Standing Committee on Transport.
There is evidence out there today that some issues have to be
resolved. Two unions have come to an agreement and that is good
news. Some of the unions are realizing that it is the new
reality and they have to come to an agreement. I do not disagree
with the company that the unions have to deal with seniority
lists, but there are still the issues of seniority lists and of
fair treatment of employees.
It is not just seniority lists. An incident happened in Ottawa
where the language requirements have come into play. I agree
with the minister that part of the legislation is that the
airlines comply with the Official Languages Act. The act is
quite clear. There are designated bilingual areas and there is a
percentage of population that is required in order for the second
official language to come into effect. I would like to think
that the requirements for the airlines will not be any higher
than the Official Languages Act stipulates, that there will not
be any additional requirement placed on the airlines that go
beyond the Official Languages Act.
The issue that came up in Ottawa was that 60 baggage handlers in
the Ottawa airport were given layoff notices apparently because
of an inability to speak French. One has to ask where was Air
Canada's commitment not to lay off employees for a two year
period of time. I would like to think that this will stop after
the legislation passes.
What happened to people being able to work in the language of
their choice? The argument from the bilingualism proponents is
that supervisors need to be bilingual in order to speak to the
workers in either language, but that is not the case here. It
has to be addressed with Air Canada that it cannot be allowed to
continue to allow one employee group to lord over the other ones
and to place expectations that should not be placed on them.
In conclusion, the official opposition will allow the bill to go
to committee because we think that is where it needs to go. We
will give it very close scrutiny in committee to make sure that
all players and all stakeholders have an opportunity to look at
the legislation, how it will affect them, and to make suggestions
on how the legislation can be improved.
The minister said in the House this morning that he would listen
to the recommendations from the committee and would consider the
proposed amendments. I take him up on that. I take him up on
the commitment he made this morning to give consideration to the
outcome of the committee.
The official opposition is quite prepared to play the watchdog
role with Air Canada to make sure that Air Canada meets its
obligation and the commitments it has made to the government, to
the opposition and to the Canadian travelling public.
As the dominant air carrier with 80% control of the domestic
marketplace Air Canada is close to a monopoly. If it becomes
disrespectful of the travelling public because of its position,
the official opposition will substantially increase its efforts
to increase the foreign ownership component in the Canadian
airline industry to provide real competition. We are prepared to
give Air Canada two years to make the adjustments to make the
merger work, but not if it continually abuses the travelling
public. I support the government in sending the bill to
committee for further study.
1055
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I could recognize the member
for Joliette, but since it is almost 11 a.m., I leave him the
choice. The member may begin immediately or we may proceed to
statements by members.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, I hope it does
not put my colleague in great disadvantage but the bill has to go
to committee today. To take five minutes now may force us to sit
later than 1.30 p.m. I hope he would not mind beginning his
remarks because we do have to get it to committee.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for Joliette
heard the minister's words. Is he prepared to start right away?
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, I could begin right away, but it
is clear that only four minutes remain. I have 20 to 30 minutes
to speak on the subject.
I see no reason not to start right away, except that the main
part of my speech will come after Oral Question Period.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette: Madam Speaker, not to be
difficult, I understand it is awkward and we have now eaten into
two minutes. As long as the understanding is that the bill has
to go to committee and we do not see the clock at 1.30 p.m should
we go overtime, that is fine. That is my only concern.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): If the hon. member for
Joliette wishes to begin, he may, otherwise we will proceed to
Statements by Members.
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Speaker, I think, if you will permit it,
that we will proceed to Statements by Members. The minister
need not worry, the bill may still be sent to committee, since
we will be supporting the bill, with a few reservations I will
express to the minister.
The Speaker: It being nearly 11 a.m., we will proceed to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, good economic
news keeps reaching us.
This morning Statistics Canada announced that tourism spending
by Canadians and foreign visitors totalled $10 billion in Canada
between the months of October and December. This is the fourth
quarter in which tourism spending reaches a record level.
This statistical figure should be looked at in a broader
context. The good news that we have been hearing for some time
now is the result of our government's sound economic and
financial management.
Indeed, the Liberal government was able to generate a climate of
confidence in spite of having to make some difficult decisions
at times.
I should remind the House that our country now occupies a
special place on the international scene.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, in 1995 the government passed its so-called employment
equity bill, which Reform MPs warned would result in employers
being forced to unfairly discriminate against job applicants
based entirely on race.
The chickens are coming home to roost. The Public Service
Commission admitted that it rejected a job application from one
of my constituents because she is a white woman.
In addition to legislating exactly the type of discrimination it
was supposed to prevent, the bill is badly flawed because its
compliance can only be accurately measured if minorities are
willing to self-identify. A department could be 100% composed of
visible minorities, but if the employees identify themselves as
Canadians the department is registered as non-compliant and must
immediately hire more minorities.
The government should put a stop to this appalling program of
state sponsored discrimination based on race. It should repeal
this disgraceful piece of legislation immediately following
question period today.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the recent death by suicide of Darrin White in Prince George,
British Columbia, has sadly brought to the spotlight the story of
an unrealistic regime of family law. How a father could be
ordered to pay twice his income for child support and be labelled
a deadbeat dad is a cruel indictment of a regime that is
unresponsive and broken.
This immeasurably sad tragedy illustrates the need to accelerate
change in laws that demand more money than can be reasonably be
paid and labels impecunity as deadbeat.
1100
Darrin White was not a deadbeat. He was a victim of a system
that cries out for fixing. Most tragically, his children will
never know a father who ended his life in a hopeless morass of
impossible financial demands.
I can only ask: What can parliament say to the children of
Darrin White today?
* * *
[Translation]
TAXES ON GASOLINE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Quebec government did not at all understand the proposal of
the federal Minister of Finance, who asked that the provinces
reduce their taxes on gasoline, along with the federal
government.
PQ minister Bernard Landry said that “nothing would prevent oil
companies from immediately pocketing the difference in price”. I
had been expecting such a statement for several days. The
Government of Quebec has been in cahoots with oil companies for
months. Let me explain.
Under section 12 of Quebec's fuel tax act, the tax must, for
each type of fuel, be indicated separately from the sale price
on any document or bill confirming the sale.
It is current practice among Quebec fuel retailers to not
indicate separately the fuel tax on sale confirmation documents.
The Quebec government is flexible in this regard and does not
force retailers to comply with section 12 of the Quebec
legislation regarding how the tax should be indicated. That is
the order given by Bernard Landry to oil companies, so as to
hide the taxes imposed by the Quebec government.
* * *
[English]
DAVID WILLMOT
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, David Willmot, president and chief executive officer
of the Ontario Jockey Club has been recognized for his exemplary
managerial skills. He has been elected President of Harness
Tracks of America; the first Canadian to hold this prestigious
position.
To say that Mr. Willmot has been a quick study of harness racing
would be an understatement. He and his family have been at the
apogee of thoroughbred racing for many years. His rapier mind
and work ethic have quickly vaulted Mr. Willmot to a position of
prominence in the horse racing industry.
David Willmot proved himself to be a man of vision by almost
single-handedly lifting the Ontario Jockey Club to a new plateau
by forging ahead with bold new initiatives.
In Mr. Willmot, harness racing has a friend, a supporter and a
respected administrator. There is no doubt in my mind that with
David Willmot's superb leadership qualities, harness racing will
sprint to victory in the competitive field of professional sport.
* * *
UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA GOLDEN BEARS
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the University of
Alberta Golden Bears for winning the CIAU championship last week
in Saskatoon.
I would like to make special mention of the tournament
all-stars: Mike Garrow on defence and forwards Kevin Marsh and
Ryan Wade.
The accolades do not end there, not for the Golden Bears. That
same weekend, forward Russ Hewson won the 1999-2000 Men's Hockey
Royal Bank All-Canadian Award for most outstanding player in
university hockey. Russ hails from Provost, Alberta.
Goalie, Clayton Pool, was also recognized for his talent and won
the Clare Drake Trophy for the CIAU rookie of the year. Clayton
joins the Golden Bears from Abbotsford, British Columbia.
Awards also went out to defencemen Mike Garrow and Dion
Zukiwsky.
Once again the University of Alberta defends its reputation as
both the top ranking academic and athletic school in this
country. Way to go, U of A.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN CREATORS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate Pascal Blais Productions and director Alexandre
Petrov.
Sunday night, they won an Oscar for best animated short film
with “The Old Man and the Sea”, a blending of Canadian, Japanese
and Russian talents in an exceptional work that has received
international acclaim.
This short film, which received funding from Telefilm Canada, is
a tribute to the excellence of its creators and places Canadians
on the world scene.
The award for best original sound track went to “The Red
Violin”, a Canadian-Italian co-production.
Canada can be proud of its creators.
* * *
SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
for International Trade must argue strongly in favour of
restoring free trade for softwood lumber.
This market has been hard hit by the Canada-U.S. agreement, with
its limits on increases in exports from the four provinces
affected by the agreement, which runs out March 31, 2001.
The future of the softwood lumber industry depends on the
complete liberalization of this market. The U.S. government has
indicated its full support. On behalf of the softwood lumber
producers of Quebec and Canada and on behalf of the regions
whose economy depends on forestry, the federal government has no
choice but to advise the U.S. government that it wants free
trade restored.
1105
The Bloc Quebecois fully supports the call by the Association
des manufacturiers de bois de sciage du Québec and the Conseil
pour le libre-échange pour le bois d'oeuvre headed by Tembec's
CEO to give Quebec's softwood lumber industry a chance to take
its rightful place in the market.
* * *
[English]
ONTARIO WINTER GAMES
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year the Ontario winter games were held between
March 16 and 19 in Sault Ste. Marie and brought together over
2,500 athletes in 26 sports.
The Gloucester Synchro Club represented eastern Ontario in the
senior's team category and won the gold medal.
[Translation]
As the member for Carleton—Gloucester, I am proud to pay tribute
to the efforts of the head trainer of the winning team, Lianna
Jeffrey-Sottile, and to swimmers Caity Briggs, Chelsea Côté,
Nathalie Dionne, Sandy Campbell, Amy Jo McKinnon, Lisa Courtney,
Véronique Moreau, Tania de Maurivez, Erika Scholz and Jennifer
Wing.
[English]
On behalf of Carleton—Gloucester, I congratulate the Gloucester
Synchro Club for its outstanding victory.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, it is not only prisoners who Correctional Service
Canada loses track of, we know prisoners can walk away, but what
excuse can there be for missing computers?
An audit obtained by Southam News revealed over $600,000 worth
of CSC equipment mysteriously grew legs in Ontario alone.
Kingston Penitentiary was missing a mere $30,369 worth of assets,
while nearby Joyceville Institution lost track of $167,691 worth
of assets.
However, the big prize goes to CSC's Ontario regional
headquarters where computer equipment accounted for 92% of the
$420,000 in missing assets.
It comes as no surprise that CSC offered a training session on
asset management but attendance by employees was, and I quote
from the audit, “minimal”.
This week's lesson for the solicitor general is to start
requiring CSC managers to keep track of both the assets and, for
God's sake, the prisoners.
* * *
[Translation]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, where
the protection and promotion of the environment is concerned,
collaboration between the federal and provincial governments is
not only desirable but necessary and essential, if there is to
be any significant outcome.
The following are two examples of measures announced in the
budget 2000, which call precisely for this concerted effort by
all environmental stakeholders.
First example: budget 2000 extends the climate change action
fund by three years. Its budget will be increased to $70 million
annually. Hon. members will recall that the purpose of this
fund is to finance the development of clean and economic energy
technologies.
Second example: the budget provides $60 million to create and
fund the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences, which will create a network among climate science
institutes and universities across Canada.
These are the types of active measures that involve society as a
whole, not one specific government, in order to safeguard its
own quality of life.
* * *
[English]
CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, April
1 is April Fool's Day, but it is also the fifth anniversary of
one of the cruelest jokes ever perpetrated on the Canadian
people. It is somehow fitting that five years ago the government
chose April Fool's Day to introduce the Canada health and social
transfer.
In 1995 the NDP tried to warn Canadians that the CHST would lead
to the erosion of federal transfers and social spending. We
cautioned Canadians that the CHST was the enabling legislation
for the federal government to withdraw from its obligations and
duties as a strong central government.
First there was the end of the EPF, the established program
funding, then we had the Canada assistance plan, then the cap on
CAP, and now the CHST, the act that the National Council of
Welfare calls “the most disastrous social policy initiative
since the war”.
Every one of these changes has taken us one step further from
having a strong central government, one step further from having
strong national standards in health care, post-secondary
education and social spending, and one step closer to the
balkanization of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
GASOLINE PRICING
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, everyone knows
that the Quebec federal Liberal MPs are first and foremost all
on the payroll of English Canada.
In June of 1998, five Quebec Liberal MPs toured across Canada in
connection with the oil industry. Amazingly, they did not
include Quebec in their travels.
1110
No way could Quebecers count on the hon. members for Beauce,
Laval West, Lac-Saint-Louis, Brossard—La Prairie, or Bourassa to
defend their interests.
In the battle for lower gasoline prices, none but the Bloc
Quebecois members have been battling for weeks to obtain
concessions from the Liberal government, in order to help out
consumers, truckers and the least advantaged members of our
society.
In the next federal election, Quebec will respond clearly to the
arrogance of the Liberals, by voting overwhelmingly in favour of
the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[English]
STANDING NAVAL FORCE ATLANTIC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in
welcoming one of NATO's key maritime reaction forces, the
Standing Naval Force Atlantic, which recently sailed into Halifax
Harbour.
Since April 1999, Rear Admiral David Morse had commanded this
force which currently includes ships from seven nations.
Our destroyers, HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Athabaskan,
each with one Sea King aboard, are alternately serving as Rear
Admiral Morse's flagships during a busy year of operations.
In the summer of 1999, STANAVFORLANT was deployed to the
Adriatic Sea at the height of the Kosovo crisis in support of
NATO's operational allied force.
As the command of STANAVFORLANT rotates to the United States
this Friday and our frigate, HMCS Fredericton, assumes its
role as Canada's STANAVFORLANT representative, let us express our
gratitude and thanks to our sailors and aircrew for their
outstanding service.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
once again I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of
National Defence that for over two years the Lannon family of
Truro, Nova Scotia has had an ongoing dispute with the Department
of National Defence regarding health benefits and assistance that
they feel is due to a member of the Lannon family as a result of
his service in the Canadian Forces.
I appreciate that the minister has met with me on several
occasions on this, but the fact of the matter is that this
situation is still unresolved.
The ombudsman for the Department of National Defence has
reviewed the file and, in his letter, has said “This matter was
reviewed and I have recommended to the minister that the matter
should be investigated further”.
The minister has to provide permission for the ombudsman to
investigate the matter, and in that regard I ask that the
minister give that permission.
The issue has been outstanding for far too long and I strongly
urge the minister to comply with the ombudsman's request to have
this matter investigated further. This is on behalf of the
Lannon family and just on behalf of common sense.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in the most recent budget, the government changed the
capital gains tax laws. Instead of including 75% of the capital
gains in our taxable income, it has now been reduced to some 66%.
That will cost the federal government about $445 million a year
and benefit mainly the wealthy people in this country.
An example of that is John Roth and Jean Monty, the CEOs of
Nortel and Bell Canada.
Mr. Monty has 440,000 stock options he can cash in. Mr. Roth
has 2,990,000 stock options he can cash in. If they were to cash
these in they could potentially have additional tax gains of
about $14 million next year over last year, thanks to this change
and thanks to the government.
What this government is doing now is giving millions to
millionaires instead of investing this money in health care,
which is exactly where it should be going.
* * *
FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
rise in the House to pay tribute to the Ford Motor Company of
Canada with headquarters in my riding of Oakville.
I want to commend Ford on a recent announcement. Ford is
offering its employees a computer, a printer and Internet usage
at home for a small fee. This provides a tremendous opportunity
for employees to familiarize themselves with the tools of
technology and e-business as these tools become increasingly
important in the workplace.
We are witnessing fundamental changes in our society and
economy. Ford is demonstrating how progressive companies are in
ensuring that employees and the members of their families become
comfortable with this technology right at home.
Canada is on the leading edge of a technological revolution that
is shaping the world. Now, more than ever, companies will
flourish through investments in their employees. I am pleased to
see Ford's recognition of this fact.
* * *
AWARDS
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, fresh off the glamorous Oscars comes another
glamorous award: the Teddies.
Recently the Canadian Taxpayers Federation presented the
heritage minister, Sheila Copps, with a lifetime achievement
award.
The Speaker: Order, please. I ask the hon. member not to
use the name of our members.
Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian
Taxpayers Federation presented the heritage minister with a
lifetime achievement award for her many acts of wasteful
spending.
The minister is up for best supporting actress for her recent
role in the CINAR film credit scandal, where taxpayers appear to
be footing the bill for tax fraud. That follows up her award
winning performance to fund a soft porn movie called Bubbles
Galore.
1115
Speaking of acting, let us look at the heritage funded Call Girl
Art Show at Canada's embassy in Paris. It cost taxpayers more
than $43,000 for an 11 week run, paying actresses to pose as call
girls and to talk about—
The Speaker: Order, please. On oral questions, the hon.
Leader of the Opposition.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, today the Prime Minister is down at a
Liberal convention in Cape Breton playing the old Liberal game of
handouts. He is promising millions of dollars of public money to
an American company to lure it to set up shop in Cape Breton.
Cape Bretoners are still reeling from Devco. That is the last
failed job creation scheme and now the Liberals are unleashing
another on those people down there. Is this really about jobs
for Cape Bretoners or is it about reviving Liberal fortunes in
that part of the country?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting her information
from the media, from the press gallery. That is the reports this
morning.
I am not about to criticize the press gallery. I have been here
long enough to know that the press, like the proverbial customer,
is always right. If in fact the press is right, it means a
thousand jobs from the United States to the economically
depressed area of Cape Breton. What wonderful news for Canadians
today.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister can try to sell it as
wonderful news, but in fact his own government has no real idea
how many actual jobs will be created.
In fact, I would like to quote from the industry minister. These
are his very concerns. This does not come from the press. This
is a direct quote. He said “When I first became responsible for
ACOA we talked about the credibility of these job forecasts. They
have proven to be lacking in credibility”. That was the actual
industry minister whose umbrella it is to oversee ACOA.
If the actual minister does not even trust those numbers, why
should Cape Bretoners?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the newspaper clippings are correct
this morning, if the news media are correct this morning, the
federal involvement would be about 12 cents on every dollar for
wages. If the jobs are not created in that five years then no
money will be spent.
What a marvellous formula to attract American companies to
economically depressed Cape Breton Island.
Miss Deborah Grey (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that when the ACOA
program was created in 1988 virtually everyone who was here on
the Liberal side of the House voted against it because they had
concerns about how much actual job creation it would give.
The Liberal government is manipulating Canadians. The minister
can stand and blame the press, blame the opposition, blame anyone
he likes, but he knows that Cape Bretoners are reeling right now.
The government is on record as saying that these programs do not
actually create long term jobs. Cape Bretoners deserve better
than this. I am sure the minister would agree with me that these
Liberal PR exercises are pretty hollow. Why do the Liberals
continue to betray Cape Bretoners and Canadians so that they can
just benefit politically?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if that party across the way, whatever its
name is, were ever to gain power it would cancel all the ACOA
grants and loans. It would cancel western diversification funds.
It would cut $3 billion from our senior citizens.
Canadians need not worry. That party will never come to power,
and that is according to its own past leader. It is not a
government in waiting. It is just a party debating with itself.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when the
government has no good answers it just misrepresents the
opposition.
1120
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member to stay away from the
word misrepresents.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been
caught in the act of accepting U.S. military waste and are now
trying to wiggle out of it with some belated tough talk.
Something else they have done behind the scenes is to give $1.25
million in job grants to a U.S. company—they seem to like U.S.
companies—to build a waste disposal site in Canada, even though
there were already existing Canadian companies doing the very
same thing.
Why are Liberal job creation boondoggles more important than
fair competition, or even protecting our environment?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that the newspapers are
correct today in what they are reporting, but according to the
newspapers the amount of money that is being lent depends upon
the jobs being created.
After five years, if the jobs are not there then the money is
not there. There is another party as well contributing to this
according to the newspapers: $7 million from a provincial
government. What political party? The same party the hon.
member wishes to unite with.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that had absolutely nothing to do
with the question I asked. It is an important question about the
environment, about fair competition and about giving Canadian
money to American companies to compete with our own operations.
Perhaps the environment minister would like to stand on his feet
and tell Canadians why our money is going into operations that
are unnecessary and jeopardizing our environment against the
promises that he made to Canadians.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member
opposite is referring to a company called Trans Cycle Industries,
an environmental firm that operates a facility in Kirkland Lake.
This facility dismantles and recycles electrical transformers.
It has received funding from us to help it at the beginning.
There have been $1.25 million allocated to this company. It
opened in Kirkland Lake which had an unemployment rate of 13.3%
and created 35 long term sustainable jobs.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear. With Globax and Techni-Paint, the rules were followed.
The scandal is with Placeteco. This is where the Prime
Minister's friends are. And it is with Placeteco that the HDRC
and Treasury Board rules were not followed.
We know that no jobs were created at Placeteco; jobs were lost.
So no creations, just losses.
If the minister is serious, what is her hold up in telling us
just how many jobs were created at Placeteco?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the two
companies being mentioned were built because of the one company
it started with. Our contract is with one company and now we
look at the project as a whole, not just one company vis-à-vis
another.
When the project was approved there were 64 people working at
Placeteco, 49 at Techni-Paint and 6 at Aérospatiale Globax. At
various times there were as many as 135 people working at
Placeteco. Now there are 170 people in total working—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, really,
the parliamentary secretary's doublespeak does not alter the
basic problem.
She is saying that Globax had two branches: Techni-Paint and
Placeteco. Placeteco was sold. It is no longer part of Globax
or of Techni-Paint. She must stop telling us what appears on
her documents. She must tell us the truth.
If she has invoices, let her table them in the House. We want
to know where the $1 million went. We have had it with the
answers she has been giving us.
1125
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
assure Canadians that our focus has always been to help
unemployed Canadians find work.
In this case we have invoices and documentation from the
companies on supplies and salary costs that support the payments
we made consistent with the terms and conditions of the TJF
program.
[Translation]
An hon. member: That is not true. No jobs were created. Stop
lying.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. Members know it is forbidden to use
words such as lying in the House. I would ask the hon. member
for Rimouski—Mitis to withdraw this word.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis to withdraw the word lying.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw it,
because we have had our fill of their answers. We have been
asking questions for three days and they always say the same
thing. We have had enough. Enough is enough. I will not
withdraw my remarks.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the much publicized and bragged about federal plan for
our national health care system is dead on arrival. The Markham
meeting of federal-provincial health ministers is ending without
resolution.
The reality is that while the federal government refuses to
invest in health care no progress can be made. While playing
hide and seek the government is only leaving Canadians in the
lurch, waiting and worrying about their health care.
Why is the government waiting? Why is it holding back progress
to improve health care by refusing to take the first step and put
cash on the table?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the NDP critic may not have got it
yet, but I think that Canadians have understood what is going on
in Markham.
The federal Minister of Health has undertaken a productive
dialogue with his provincial counterparts, giving both sides an
opportunity to explain their priorities and main concerns.
This meeting is still going on, and a few months of negotiations
leading to a complete overhaul of our health insurance system
would—
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, does the government not realize that the federal plan is
going nowhere and that the federal health minister's strategy has
collapsed?
The Markham meeting is dead. It has gone nowhere. While there
is no money on the table no progress can be made. The health
ministers are ending this meeting by calling for an immediate
first ministers conference on health.
Will the government respond immediately, call a first ministers
meeting now, and move forward with haste to preserve and
strengthen medicare, our most treasured—
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Health.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if more money were all that was
needed, why have certain provinces left the money they received
from the federal government languishing in bank accounts?
More money is not the answer. What is needed is a shared
vision, and money will help make that vision a reality.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the public
is concerned about how the government is fulfilling its
responsibilities regarding Placeteco.
It understands that, for this government, the creation of jobs
is not a priority and that we should no longer talk about the
transitional jobs fund but, rather, about a transitional fund to
salvage bankrupt companies in Saint-Maurice.
1130
Does the minister realize that, to save companies, she is
prepared to resort to any scheme, even illegal ones?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the creation
of jobs and the saving of jobs may not be a priority for the Bloc
Quebecois, but that is our priority.
If the member wants to make allegations of some illegal
activity, he should provide some evidence.
Program officials and internal auditors have reviewed the
project and confirm that the company did provide invoices that
support the payments made. Yes, there were administrative errors
that were done in good faith in an effort to save jobs, and 170
people are working thanks to HRDC's investment.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean to be
very careful with his choice of words.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us be
clear. The government set up a trust, appointed a friend of the
Prime Minister as trustee, agreed to the buyback of the company,
gave the money in spite of the anticipated bankruptcy and
waived its rights under the contract.
Is this not a long series of events that are not coincidences
but rather the outcome of a plan engineered by the Prime Minister's
friend Gilles Champagne?
[English]
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
question shows a complete lack of understanding of things that
happen in the business cycle and the risks that are understood by
everyone in the business world.
In this case the department had a choice: let a company and all
its workers falter, go under and have a higher unemployment rate
in Quebec, or move to assist. We decided to keep with this
company to assist it. As a result we have a net gain in jobs.
Those companies have achieved tremendous contracts for the future
with very large companies like Bombardier.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, is it
the intent of the minister of fisheries to expropriate licences
to provide for aboriginal entry into the east coast fishery?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, does
this mean specifically that the minister of fisheries guarantees
to the House that expropriation of licences will not be used to
provide aboriginal access to the crab fishery in zone 12?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I find it astonishing that a member who represents a
fishing area should be so misinformed about departmental policy.
The policy has been put forward time after time. It is very
clear. There will be some acquisition of licences to facilitate
access by aboriginal people to the fishery. The issue of
expropriation has never, never come up.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade
keeps justifying the billion dollars plus that EDC loaned to
Amtrak by claiming that these loans are creating jobs in Canada.
However, Amtrak's press release at the unveiling of the Acela
train, claims the trains are manufactured at Bombardier plants in
Barre, Vermont, and Plattsburgh, New York, and were tested in
Pueblo, Colorado.
Can the minister please explain to Canadians how putting people
to work in Vermont, New York and Colorado is benefiting Canadian
workers?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the role of the EDC is to guarantee loans
and to extend loans to foreign companies that purchase Canadian
goods and goods from Canadian corporations.
I understand that the Reform Party does not understand the new
economy. The Reform Party does not understand what the very
nature of a global company is, in which part of the production is
in one country and part in another country.
On this side of the House we understand what a real global
company is. We are proud that some of our Canadian companies are
really global.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I advise you that sometimes the
microphones are on at other desks and sometimes there might be
something said inadvertently that you do not want heard.
1135
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a difference
between helping Canadian workers and helping a worldwide
conglomerate like Bombardier. Only three of Bombardier's 21
transportation manufacturing plants are located in Canada and
employ only 16% of its workforce.
Can the government please tell Canadians why is it not only
exporting capital out of the country but also is exporting jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it quite remarkable in the very
week that Bombardier signed a contract creating 1,000 jobs in
Montreal by selling aircraft to Delta. It is about to sign a
contract in Valencia, Spain to sell aircraft as well which would
be made and manufactured in Montreal. Concerning ground
transportation equipment, every time I go to La Pocatière, I am
very pleased to see thousands of Quebec workers involved in a
great global company born here in Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
January, despite having to bend the law to do it, MOX from the
United States was flown in by helicopter to Chalk River. Now
spring is here, and we are waiting for Russian MOX to arrive,
this time via the St. Lawrence.
Can the Minister of the Environment make a commitment right now
to respect the decisions of the municipalities refusing to allow
the MOX to pass through their territory, and to prevent the
arrival of this convoy?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as is always the case, the hon. member, the House and
Canadians can be fully satisfied that any transportation of
nuclear materials is in complete compliance with the regulations
of the Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulations of the
Department of Transport and where applicable, all international
regulations such as those of the International Civil Aviation
Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency. All
rules and regulations will be fully respected.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people
need to be able to trust.
Can the minister make a commitment here in this House that all
Canadian environmental rules will really be complied with, on
all occasions?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
the additional money given to HRDC this year was $1.5 billion. In
the same year the same amount was given to the health care
system. While Canadians have consistently ranked health care as
their number one priority, the government's number one priority
obviously is its patronage department.
When will the government get its priorities straight?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely
delighted that the hon. member feels that health care is a top
priority. It is obviously ours as well. In the past budget we
increased it by $11.5 billion and in this budget we added another
$2.5 billion, an increase of 25% over two years.
The important discussions now going on in Markham indicate our
commitment to added funding but only on condition that there is a
long term plan which will preserve our health care system for our
generation and for generations to come.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the government obviously believes its own propaganda.
Day after day it continues to give us glib answers bordering on
arrogance. Today in Markham the provincial ministers are on the
receiving end of the same tactics.
How can the government sit here and say it cares about health
care when the health minister has gone to the meeting with
absolutely no intention of bargaining in good faith?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the present time, I believe the
public is calling upon the political parties, and the
government, to stop throwing figures around. What is needed is
the renewal of our health system.
With the tax points, the federal government has restored
previous funding. Now we must move ahead. What needs to be
done is not to stir up quarrels, but to find solutions. The
Minister of Health has initiated a process of dialogue and
exchange, which will lead to a renewed agreement.
* * *
1140
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a flyer
distributed this week to the public, the Government of Canada
states that “Health Canada has a strict process for evaluating
new foods developed through biotechnology. A thorough safety assessment
must be carnedout before they can be sold in grocery stores or on
the marketplace”.
How can the Minister of Health allow the publication of such a
statement when 200 scientists contend the opposite and say that
no Health Canada researcher is directly involved in the study of
GMOs?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with regard to the safety of any food in Canada, the
decisions taken by the regulatory agencies of the Government of
Canada are based upon the best information available both in
Canada and around the world, and the best available science. We
will ensure not only that that science continues to be strong and
sound, but also that all Canadians can have absolute confidence
in their food supply.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how can the
minister claim that GMOs are evaluated at each stage, from their
design to their marketing, when his records do not indicate
either the name of the company, the name of the researchers, the
test site, or even the names of the inspectors?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the
hon. member is very appropriate.
The government has set up a committee of experts who will make
recommendations precisely on how to regulate GMOs.
In its last budget, the government allocated $90 million to
regulate biotechnology, including GMOs. So, the government is
indeed carrying out its responsibilities regarding GMOs.
* * *
[English]
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have no problem using
HRDC to funnel money to their friends, however Canadians without
Liberal credentials are continually ignored.
For example, the government could save farmers $300 million per
year just by reforming the grain transportation system. Two
experts have recommended that the Liberals eliminate the Canadian
Wheat Board's stranglehold over farmers, grain companies and the
railways. When will the Minister of Transport introduce
legislation to implement these recommendations?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very complex process. We appointed
former Justice Estey to look at the matter. He brought forward
landmark recommendations that were then analyzed by a former
deputy minister of the federal government, Mr. Kroeger. We have
been analyzing those recommendations internally. We have been
discussing the various options.
I am still hopeful that despite the heavy legislative load the
House has, we will be able to bring in a bill after the Easter
recess. If we do, I hope that the opposition will co-operate
with us fully.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the Canadian Wheat
Board tail is wagging the Liberal dog. The presidents of
Canada's five major grain companies have joined the farmers' call
for transportation reform, including the role of the Canadian
Wheat Board. The savings from the grain transportation reform
would be $15,000 per year per farmer. This is $4,000 more than
the government's AIDA program.
Why is mismanaging money in HRDC and preserving the control of
the Canadian Wheat Board more important to the government than
farm families?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken great licence with the
facts here in talking about one subject dealing with HRDC and
another with potential grain reform.
Everyone is in general agreement that there must be a more
competitive system in the marketing and transportation of grain.
Certainly the role of the Canadian Wheat Board has been a very
important one to Canada's economy and will continue to be in the
years to come. The question is to what degree the board will
continue to have an involvement in the transportation of grains.
These are all issues we are looking at currently.
* * *
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
consumers, farmers and scientists are concerned about the long
term impact of GMOs, the Minister of Health claims that all
products undergo an exhaustive risk assessment.
How can the minister make such a statement when a study shows
that, out of 27 products approved as GMOs, only 10 were tested
for toxic effect, and none were tested for potential allergenic
effects?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government has mechanisms
in place to monitor food quality, which have always proven
effective and which Canadians trust.
1145
As I said, we have set up a committee of experts to prepare for
the future. The government has put in place a system to regulate
biotechnology, including GMOs, but the already existing system
has always proven effective and we will work to improve it even
more.
* * *
[English]
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
new Canadian Environmental Protection Act comes into force today.
Given that there is a shipment of U.S. military waste containing
PCBs destined for Canada, can the Minister of the Environment
tell Canadians how the new CEPA will strengthen the government's
ability to deal with this type of situation?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the new CEPA builds on the authority that we have to
issue regulations on the export and import of hazardous waste,
including hazardous recyclable materials. Specifically, we also
have the power under the CEPA for the import and export of
prescribed non-hazardous waste and, in addition, we have the
ability to develop more stringent criteria to assess the
environmentally sound management of transboundary waste between
provinces, as well as to refuse permits for import or export if
criteria are not met.
* * *
WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government is blocking a $300
million benefit from flowing to western Canadian farmers. The
majority of producers demand change.
In a recent letter to the minister, prairie grain buyers stated
that the status quo is not acceptable or sustainable. The only
thing blocking the required transportation reforms is the western
Canadian Wheat Board.
Why is the transport minister allowing the wheat board to
dictate transportation policy?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not in possession of the facts.
We have to find a balanced solution that deals with the rights of
producers, that deals with the efficiencies and the viability of
the grain companies. We have to look at the viability of the
railways. We also have to look at the role that the wheat board
has played in the last 60 years in ensuring fairness in the
system in western Canada.
It is unfair to talk about one particular component in this
debate without relating it to all of the others.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that particular component is the
largest single expense. What is killing western farmers is the
heavy duty freight rate. Half of the producer's cheque on his
produce goes to freight and elevation. That has to change.
Three hundred million dollars in gained revenues for farmers is
real money. It is not smoke and mirrors public relations money
that these guys always talk about.
Producers want to know who is in charge of transport reforms.
Is it the transport minister or the wheat board minister?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government works collegially, but it is quite
obvious from the tone of the questions that the Reform Party is a
mouthpiece for only a couple of the interests in this debate.
What it is doing is siding with the railway companies, siding
with the grain companies and it is not thinking about the
producers. This party thinks about the producers.
* * *
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the ship
containing 90 tonnes of highly toxic waste is now 24 hours closer
to the port of Vancouver. We have already heard in this question
period that the Alabama company, TCI, has received more than a
million from HRDC to extract domestic PCBs in the Kirkland Lake
site, not offshore PCBs.
My question is for the environment minister. Is this the
government's idea of good green job creation, which is disposing
of highly toxic waste that other countries will not accept while
endangering the health and the lives of Canadians in the process?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been. It is
well known from the questions that were replied to yesterday,
both in the press and also in the House, that the shipment in
question cannot go to the facility at Kirkland Lake as originally
proposed. That was the decision of the Ontario government. It
is there and it is clear for everyone to see.
It is also well known that we do not have a desire to import
this waste into Canada.
We obviously will not import this waste into Canada unless there
is a location to which it can be sent for proper disposal in
accordance with all Canadian environmental requirements.
1150
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, given the
minister's answer, why does he not simply tell the ship's captain
today to turn the vessel around and head it back to Japan instead
of allowing it on Canadian shores at the Port of Vancouver?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I really do like the powers that the opposition
assigns to ministers of the crown. I can declare that ships will
not come to Canada. If I could do that, we would have no problem
with illegal immigration. We would have no problem with toxic
waste coming to our ports.
When it comes within our waters, we will have some control. It
will not come here for another six days. We are currently
discussing, with the United States Department of Defence,
alternatives to the proposal that has been put forward to ship
this waste to Canada.
The hon. member simply does not understand that ministers of the
crown cannot, by waving their fingers, have ships turn around in
mid-ocean.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister for International Trade is aware that a company in
my riding, Oxford Frozen Foods, has been for some months seeking
relief from a duty that was imposed on February 28 on processed
cheese products. This duty is charged even though the binding
tariff decision in 1994 said there would be no duty and even
though an American product comes to Canada with no duty.
Has the minister resolved this situation, or could he give us an
update on it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Cumberland—Colchester for calling my attention to this very
important question. He had the courtesy to come to see me this
morning with his letter.
I want to tell him that I have already asked my department to
look into it very carefully. It is a technical difficulty around
a classification problem. I will get back to him next week for
sure because this is very important for us. My department is
already looking into the case of this classification difficulty
that Oxford Frozen Foods is encountering.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer and I appreciate his
attention. However, I want to emphasize how important this is
because the company has already lost a contract that would have
meant 50 full time jobs in my riding and it prevents the company
from an expansion which might develop 150 full time jobs.
I would ask the minister to commit the full force of his
department to this issue to get it resolved.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we are
very sensitive on this side of the House to job creation. It is
very important for us to make sure that Canadians have access to
export markets as well, because we have good products and
competitive products. One of our objectives is to have a good,
solid, rules based system by which everyone would abide.
I can tell the House that this government will commit everything
it can to help in this particular situation.
* * *
[Translation]
FRENCH LANGUAGE COLLEGES IN ONTARIO
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage recently cancelled a very
important funding announcement for French language colleges in
Ontario.
Could the parliamentary secretary reassure these colleges that
they will continue to enjoy the support of the Government of
Canada?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the
students and staff of the three colleges for any distress the
postponement of the announcement may have caused them.
That having been said, the delay in no way changes our
commitment to education for official language minorities in
general and to Ontario's three French language colleges in
particular. An agreement was signed with Ontario. Its contents
will be made public in due course and our support for these
communities remains undiminished.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
if a credit card is lost or stolen and it is reported to the
bank, the bank cancels it within minutes and the money stops
flowing. Yet, the Department of Human Resources Development
continues to allow missing social insurance numbers to be used,
costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars, even after
searching for them for two years.
Why is it so easy for the minister to dole out the cash but so
hard for her to account for it?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to assure the House that we have made significant progress in
cleaning up the social insurance registry to assure Canadians
that the system is well managed.
We have now verified some 5.4 million social insurance cards.
The number of files of citizens over the age of 100 has been
reduced from 311,000 to 11,000 and we are negotiating with the
provincial vital statistics agencies to further reduce this
figure.
1155
The bottom line is that HRDC has made significant progress in
addressing the concerns raised in the auditor general's report of
1998.
* * *
[Translation]
BILLBOARDS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
inform the Minister of Transport that, despite what he said in
the House, it is the Charte de la langue française that will
apply to billboards in Montreal, no matter what company puts
them up. He did not sign the contract with Mediacom and the
Government of Quebec's moratorium is still in place.
What is the minister waiting for to put the contract on hold,
work out an agreement with his counterpart in Quebec and avoid a
dispute over billboards?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, after being asked this question two days ago, I spoke
with the president of the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited.
He told me that I was right. The corporation is a federal body
and that the federal Official Languages Act applies. But in
this case the member is right, because the billboards are the
responsibility of a provincially regulated private company. In
this case, Bill 101 applies.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development.
The aboriginal healing fund is supposed to help communities
recover from the pain of abuse at residential schools.
Unfortunately, few aboriginal people in Manitoba have been able
to access the fund. Of the 104 projects funded by the Aboriginal
Healing Foundation, only two have been in Manitoba.
I know the aboriginal healing fund is at arm's length from the
government. That is why I have written to the foundation, asking
it to fix this inequality and fund more projects in Manitoba.
Will the minister join me in the name of healing and fairness?
Will he call on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation to ask it to
fund more projects in Manitoba?
Mr. David Iftody (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
two years ago the Government of Canada set up a healing fund of
some $350 million in consultation with first nations communities
across this country.
The existence of the fund is well known. A few months ago there
was a meeting in Vancouver involving all of the elders across
Canada and first nations people to discuss an implementation
strategy which would be sensitive not only to the regions of the
country, but to those particular victims who would be
participating in the fund.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Minister of the Environment's knowledge of the
fishery has not improved since he left the fisheries portfolio.
Yesterday, David Bevan from the DFO informed the fisheries
committee that expropriation would be used to provide aboriginal
access to Quebec crab if they could not buy existing licences.
Who is correct, the Minister of the Environment or those in the
know at the DFO?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has once again changed the terms of
his question.
To the original terms of the question the answer was no. He has
changed the terms of the question to have me comment upon
testimony made yesterday. I will be happy to do that, but I am
only allowed 35 seconds on the floor of the House. I do not have
time to do that. Let the hon. member go back to the committee
and pose the questions himself.
* * *
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Will the minister tell the House what are the implications of
the U.S. proposal for a national missile defence system on the
international law of nuclear disarmament, in particular the
anti-ballistic missiles treaty and interim agreement on protocol
of 1972, but also the non-proliferation treaty negotiations that
resume in late April?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, beginning this coming month the nations of the world
will come together to talk about the reinforcement of the
non-proliferation treaty.
The position we take in Canada is that we have to do everything
possible to encourage the nuclear states to live up to the
commitment to continue to disarm.
Anything that would interfere with that, which would suggest
that there is a retreat from that kind of commitment, I think
would have a very serious impact on our security as a country and
on the security of other countries, because one of the most scary
threats that we still face is the threat of nuclear
proliferation.
* * *
1200
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL ANNUAL REPORT
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table
the 1999 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Annual Report.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
CANADIAN ALLIANCE
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, some of the members on the government
side have not noticed that political events have moved passed
them and that we have formally and democratically changed our
name. I wonder if it would be appropriate for you to ensure that
our proper and appropriate name is used in the House in light of
the events that have just happened.
The Speaker: I would be happy to ensure that all proper
names are used for all parties in the House. If we could be
forgiven, we need a few days to get ourselves used to the new
name. The name of the former Reform Party in the House is now
recognized as the Canadian Alliance. That is how I would ask all
of you to address it.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I know you have done your utmost to clarify this, but I know
there is some confusion. When referring to the official
opposition as the Canadian Alliance, will that be the name on the
ballot sheet? My constituents are asking me and I do not know
what to tell them.
The Speaker: I do not have an answer to that but I am
sure the Chief Electoral Officer will make that decision. For us
in the House, the decision has been taken and I would simply
request that you follow the decision.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would take the point that this House has plenary powers,
through the Speaker, to determine the name of parties within the
House. The electoral commissioner and other officials have no
bearing on our decision.
The Speaker: I, of course, will take the advice of the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra because of his great experience
in this area. Until I hear officially, one way or the other, I
am apt to sit back and wait to see what happens. We can decide what
takes place in the House. I suggest that what takes place
outside the House is in someone else's purview. I thank the hon.
member for his intervention. It is always good to hear from him.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and
the member for Winnipeg Centre concerning the taking of the
division on Bill C-238 scheduled at the conclusion of Private
Members' Business today, and I believe you would find consent for
the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill C-238, all
questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading
of this bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested
and deferred until Tuesday, April 4, 2000 at the expiry of the
time provided for Government Orders.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 17 petitions.
* * *
1205
PETITIONS
DIVORCE ACT
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition signed by many Canadian constituents who would like to
see an amendment to the Divorce Act so that the grandparents of
children will be able to have custody of and/or access to their
grandchildren.
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure today to present a petition signed by 1,050 inhabitants
of the riding of Lotbinière who are calling on parliament to
review the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act concerning
the determination of regional employment insurance rates so as
to include the federal riding of Lotbinière in Economic Region
No. 40, Central Quebec.
[English]
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition today signed by
people all the way from Toronto to Kelliher and Leross,
Saskatchewan.
The petition calls on the House of Commons to take note that the
Senate of Canada is undemocratic, unelected and unaccountable to
the people of this country.
Because of that, and because of the fact that it costs around
$50 million a year, the Senate of this country should be
abolished.
BILL C-23
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions bearing the
signatures of more than 1,000 people from my riding and elsewhere
in Saskatchewan who wish to draw the attention of the government
to the importance of marriage as the union of one man and one
woman, to the exclusion of all others.
They note that the government has invoked time allocation on
Bill C-23 and will not allow a free vote on this fundamental
issue.
They therefore call on the government to withdraw Bill C-23,
affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in law and affirm
its uniqueness.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
response to Question No. 46 today.
.[Text]
Question No. 46—Mr. Rick Borotsik:
What is the total cost to taxpayers of the Prime Minister's task
force on the four western provinces announced on January 7, 1999,
including, but not limited to, costs for staff, travel,
advertising, room rentals and per diems for members?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister,
Lib.): The western task force was primarily funded by the Liberal Party
of Canada. Some expenses were also paid through the budgets of
individual MPs and senators. Some staff support was also offered
by the Liberal caucus research bureau.
The administration of these budgets is not the responsibility of
the Government of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADA TRANSPORTATION ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act,
the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public
Participation Act and to amend another act in consequence, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
speak to Bill C-26 and to tell the members of the House the few
reservations the Bloc Quebecois has with respect to this bill.
We will, of course, support the principle of this bill at second
reading. This bill amends the Canada Transportation Act, the
Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada
Public Participation Act and amends another act in consequence.
When we look at the context of the bill, we realize that it
follows on a series of federal government disasters in air
transportation. After putting the entire industry at risk and
leaving the regions to their own devices and after showing
political favouritism toward its Onex friends, Canadian Airlines
and American Airlines, the Minister of Transport was obliged to
accept the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois. It was high time and
we were very pleased at that.
Why will we support this? Essentially, it is because, since
1993, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to stop
artificially buoying up Canadian Airlines International at the
expense of Air Canada, to the tune of hundreds of millions of
dollars. For six years, the Bloc Quebecois has been saying
Canada could not support two international carriers.
1210
The federal government's attitude has blocked the expansion of
Air Canada, and thus the economy and employment situation in the
Montreal region, out of political opportunism. We are therefore
in favour of the bill, because its purpose is to provide a
framework for the merger of Air Canada and Canadian
International Airlines.
Another reason is that the Bloc Quebecois has been involved
throughout its whole existence in decrying the lax manner in
which the Official Languages Act is applied by the federal
government.
The fact that this government was heavily subsidizing Canadian
International Airlines, which was not subject to the Official
Languages Act, was insulting. By allowing the merger of two
carriers under the Air Canada banner, this bill will ensure that
the new carrier is subject to the Official Languages Act.
This represents some progress, particularly since the bill picks
up the main thrust of the recommendations in the Bloc Quebecois
dissenting opinion, rather than those of the Standing Committee
on Transport. Compliance with the Official Languages Act,
however, requires more than merely making this carrier subject
to the act. It needs to be enforced, and it is the federal
government's responsibility to see that it is. We all know that
its record in this area is none too good. A careful eye must
therefore be kept on the situation.
The Bloc Quebecois will make itself the Official Languages Act
watchdog.
Another reason why we approve in principle of this bill on
second reading is that it also contains a whole series of
measures aimed at reinforcing competition. This is particularly
important because Air Canada will become the dominant carrier in
Canada and in Quebec.
Where international connections are concerned, there is not much
risk of a monopoly developing, because Air Canada will have to
compete with the other international carriers. Where the
regions are concerned, however, particularly isolated ones,
competition is far from assured.
The bill contains some worthwhile measures, but is far from
guaranteeing that these measures will be sufficient to provide
decent service at decent prices in the regions.
I will get back to this a little later on. It is one of the
reservations I alluded to a few minutes ago.
Finally, this bill contains provisions relating to the effective
control of air carriers in Canada. We know that, last fall, the
Minister of Transport, the minister responsible for carriers,
was prepared to sell both air carriers to American Airlines,
through Gerry Schwartz, a Liberal friend. It took a superior
court ruling to put an end to this folly.
The minister seems to have returned to a better frame of mind
with this bill, but it is difficult to understand why he wants
to increase the individual share ownership limit from 10% to 15%
in the case of Air Canada. We think that the existing limit of
10% has served Canadians and Quebecers very well. To increase
that limit to 15% seems to be a futile measure on the part of
the minister, who probably just wants to save face.
But the fact is that he could once again lose face instead.
With this bill, the minister maintains his power to unilaterally
amend by order in council the 25% limit on an air carrier's
capital fund that can be owned by foreign interests. This
provision is totally unacceptable and constitutes a denial of
our parliamentary institution.
If, some day, the minister decided that he wanted to change this
provision, why would he not introduce an amendment in the House?
The fact is the minister is giving himself or maintaining this
arbitrary power, because he knows full well that he has lost the
confidence of this House, of the air transportation industry and
of Quebecers and Canadians at large.
1215
The purpose of the bill is to provide a framework for the
restructuring of the airline industry following Air Canada's
acquisition of Canadian Airlines International and its
subsidiaries.
The bill is therefore necessary, but is flawed as it now stands.
Several problems remain, especially those having to do with
regional service.
First of all, let us take another look at the Bloc Quebecois'
dissenting opinion in committee.
In December, the Bloc Quebecois decided to present a dissenting
opinion to the Standing Committee on Transport in order to
express its disagreement with the majority report on the
following points: Air Canada's share ownership, foreign
ownership in Canadian carriers, airline safety, compliance with
the Official Languages Act, airfares, service to outlying
regions and, finally, the future of regional carriers.
I would like to take a brief look at each of the points in the
dissenting opinion. I will add one thing, however. When I
mentioned airline safety, I should point out that this is not
addressed in the bill.
First, there is Air Canada's share ownership. In its dissenting
opinion, the Bloc Quebecois recommended that the rule limiting
to 10% the volume of voting shares in Air Canada that may be
held by a single individual or group be kept.
The bill proposes raising this limit to 15%. The Bloc Quebecois
does not agree that this change is necessary. A 5% increase in
this limit, however, would not present an obvious risk of
control in fact being taken of Air Canada. A 5% increase is
clearly not huge.
However, if it is not a huge percentage, why is any increase at
all needed if the bill's definition of control in fact is not
amended?
The Carriage by Air Act contains a definition of control in fact
but it was not helpful in the case of American Airlines'
takeover of Canadian.
In the bill before us, the definition is strictly limited to 25%
of voting shares. This is not enough, because some recent cases
have shown that such a limit is not sufficient to prevent
foreign control.
The Bloc Quebecois is of the opinion that this definition must
include a reference to control of operations and investments.
For example, AMR held only 25% of voting shares in Canadian
Airlines International, and yet it controlled the company
through a service contract and a right of veto on important
decisions by Canadian Airlines International, which gave AMR de
facto control over the company.
Sadly, we must keep reminding the government, a nationalist
government that shows its colours everywhere, of this. It is sad
that the government has to be reminded of the Nagano games with
regard to its desire to be nationalist and to show it.
1220
Just think about the ultranationalist speeches the Liberals made
when we wanted to discuss the possibility of a continental
currency. Just think about the tens of millions of dollars spent
each year by the Liberal government to promote Canada in a way
that, more often than not, looks like crude propaganda. In that
context, is control of an international air carrier not of the
utmost importance?
Jobs in that industry are, for the most part, strategic, good
paying jobs that bring valuable knowledge. A healthy air
transport industry is essential to an advanced economy. Rhetoric
seems to be enough for this government. But it is not for the
Bloc Quebecois.
Last fall, we found ourselves in the rather ironical situation
of bearing, as the Quebec sovereignty party, the standard of
Quebec's interests of course, but also of Canada's interests,
against the Government of Canada, which was prepared to hand
over control of the industry to Americans. Ridicule does not
kill. That illustrates our basic positions. We are
sovereignists and we are proposing partnership with Canada.
This example illustrates our position perfectly, because in the
Onex-Air Canada matter, Quebec's and Canada's economic interests
were mixed. We got calls from Toronto, Ottawa, the Maritimes
and elsewhere in Canada. Canadians wanted us to continue our
fight. They were ashamed of their federal government and they
were right. The minister has to understand that and not start
this business all over again.
With Bill C-26, the minister continues to give himself the right
to amend the 25% limit by order.
As I said earlier, this is totally unacceptable. If the
minister wants to amend the rule sometime, let him do so in the
House. Let him introduce an amendment to the laws concerned and
allow it to be debated where it must, where the representatives
of the people sit to debate it.
I also want to return to the Official Languages Act. The
government adopted the Bloc Quebecois's position on official
languages. Our position essentially reiterated the opinion
expressed by the commissioner before the Standing Committee on
Transport.
We are satisfied with these legislative measures, but the Bloc
Quebecois remains somewhat concerned about the application of
these principles. Although, Air Canada has long been bound by
the Official Languages Act, its affiliated regional carriers
have frequently been lax in their application of this law.
It is not enough to pass legislation. Legislation also has to be
enforced. On that, this government's record is none too good.
I would now like to say a few words on the price of airline
tickets. These prices are often out of line, particularly in
smaller communities. To counter this practice, the bill
establishes some measures, based on competition and price
monitoring.
The two organizations responsible for enforcing these measures,
the Commissioner of Competition and the Canadian Transportation
Agency, have seen an increase in their powers and in the means
at their disposal. However, the bill should provide that an
assessment be made every year in the first three years after its
passage, to validate the results obtained through these measures and
to ensure that the commitments made by Air Canada management
have been honoured.
Fine promises have to be kept, and that requires regular checks.
1225
As far as the service to remote areas is concerned, the bill
deals neither with services provided or not provided by the
airline companies nor with the quality or diversity of these
services, except to require carriers to consult with elected
officials in the region before abandoning a regional route and
to inform them of their intention to do so. As well, the
minister reserves the right to reduce the 120 day period that
the airline companies have to abide by before abandoning a
route.
It is completely unacceptable, because it leaves to much room to
arbitrary decisions.
In this case also, the bill should provide that an assessment be
made every year in the first three years after its passage, to
validate the results obtained through these measures and to
ensure that the commitments made by Air Canada management have
been honoured.
When one feels one is being watched, one is always more careful
to comply with self-imposed policies and directives.
Canada is huge, and so is Quebec. People living in remote areas
need an efficient, affordable and well maintained transportation
network. This government's policy goes in the opposite way. For
this government, it would appear that regions are not
financially viable.
This is an inept way of dealing with the issue of regional
transportation. It is certainly not a coincidence that the
government has serious political problems in the regions.
The government has abandoned the regions, and this is best
exemplified by transportation.
Let us talk also about the future of regional carriers. This
issue is tackled only indirectly in the bill through the
provisions dealing with competition, mainly. The Bloc Quebecois,
in its dissenting opinion, was against the creation of a new
regional carrier under the control of a dominant carrier.
Since Air Canada has given up that project, we are satisfied
with the measures dealing with competition. However, the bill
should provide that an assessment be made every year in the
first three years after its passage, to validate the results
obtained through these measures and to ensure that the
commitments made by Air Canada management have been honoured.
The Bloc Quebecois is consistent in its positions. On three
occasions we asked that an assessment take place every year to
make sure the goals are being met.
I also would like to speak about the problems of service to
remote areas. The two main problems faced by people in remote
areas are high air fares and lack of frequency of flights.
Moreover the quality of aircraft and the use of French might
also be a problem.
The possible solutions, apart from strict regulation, all
involve increased competition.
Access to adequate air service must be looked at in the context
of the deterioration of the transportation infrastructure in
remote areas. These areas are increasingly isolated, which
hampers their economic development.
As we know, safety has been compromised by the minister. I would
like to say a couple of words on this topic to illustrate my
point.
1230
The crash of the Air Satellite plane, which killed seven people
on December 7 last year, only minutes after take off from the
Baie-Comeau airport, and the crash in Gaspé, which took the lives
of four people on April 13 last year, have brought back to the
fore the issue of air transportation safety, an issue the Bloc
Quebecois had already started examining.
It should also be pointed out that the air traffic control
system was privatized and sold to Nav Canada in December 1995
for $1.5 billion.
The auditor general underlined in his report of October 1997
that the value of this monopoly had been estimated at $2.4
billion by Transports Canada's financial advisers, while the
Department of Finance estimated it at $2.6 billion. Yet, it was
sold for $1.5 billion.
Before November 1, 1996, air navigation services were provided
by Transports Canada and mainly financed through the air
transportation tax paid by airline passengers. These services
are now provided by Nav Canada. Since November 1, 1998, they are
exclusively financed through fees paid by the airlines. The air
transportation tax has therefore been eliminated pursuant to the
Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialisation Act.
For Nav Canada, the customers or users are not the passengers
but the airline companies.
Therefore, Nav Canada's concerns are based on those of its
clients, whose natural imperative remains net profit. I would
not go as far as to say that passenger safety has become a
secondary issue, but the fact that Nav Canada is not directly
responsible to voters but to its corporate clients has an impact
on the way it perceives its role. This is why we fear that this
agency, in its decisions, might not fulfil its primary
responsibility, which is to ensure passenger safety with the
greatest prudence, diligence and even zeal.
Yet, a quote from Nav Canada's Internet site suggests that this
is not the case. I quote:
The corporation will be all the more successful in serving its
customers if it is able to allocate its resources where they are
the most needed.
This is why it has undertaken a review of the levels of service
provided in all its facilities, so that they will match the
volume and type of traffic in each location.
Here is another quote from Nav Canada found on Internet:
As a matter of fact, under the Civil Air Navigation Services
Commercialisation Act, we are only allowed to collect revenues
necessary for the provision of services, including the reserves
necessary to make investments and to maintain a stable financial
structure. This is what we have done. Any surplus has to be
given back to customers , in this case as deferments.
Consequently, Nav Canada last year returned $65 million to the
users of its services, mainly Canadian Airline Internationals
and Air Canada. It is clear that Nav Canada's interest lies not
with the passenger-user, but with its customers.
1235
Considering that Air Canada and Canadian Airline Internationals
recorded losses in 1998 of $16 million and $137 million
respectively, one can well imagine what happened, with the
airlines wishing to pay less, Nav Canada adopting a cost-benefit
approach, and the government being concerned about a company
disappearing.
Need I remind hon. members that Canadian Airline Internationals
could not have survived without the $20 million annual fuel tax
reduction, without the heavy dose of favouritism in awarding it
the most lucrative air links, without a great deal of
flexibility as far as the repayment of interest-free loans are
concerned?
By allowing the establishment of less costly standards for the
airlines, Transport Canada has played along with Nav Canada's
priorities. What are these priorities? Are they the right
priorities?
In a press release on September 30, 1997, Nav Canada stated the
following:
The company aims to reduce annual expenses by approximately
$135 million, in constant dollars, by August 31, 2000.
Last August, Nav Canada returned $65 million, as I have already
said, to users of these services, mainly to Canadian
International Airlines and Air Canada.
Would it not have been preferable to reinvest these amounts in
passenger safety? But the question is whether the right
priorities were selected.
Eliminating the Baie-Comeau airport control centre on April 1,
1995, which was not even replaced by a flight information
station, is not an example of promotion of air transportation
safety in the region, nor is the elimination of the flight
information station at the Gaspé airport in 1998 and the
threatened elimination of the flight information station in
Roberval.
Indeed, the presence on site of air traffic control specialists
or professional skywatchers, and take off and landing runways
help lower the risks.
On the subject of risks, we are focussing particularly on the
risks of being unable to detect quickly that an aircraft is in
difficulty or to locate quickly a crash site near an airport.
We are also focussing on the fact that, without a flight
information station at an airport, it is impossible to provide
pilots with precise weather information, in real time.
We note that the Minister of Transport wrote the following on
June 15 to our leader, Gilles Duceppe:
Nav Canada's aeronautical study must prove to me that
interruption or reduction in levels of service would not
unacceptably increase risks to air safety.
It would appear that the minister believes that there can be an
acceptable increase in safety risks. That is what he believes.
I would also like to say a few words about high prices.
The regular plane fare from Sept-Îles to Montreal is about $800.
This creates a vicious circle in that higher prices lead to
decreases in the number of travellers, and decreases in the
number of travellers lead to ever higher prices, until the route
is not longer profitable.
1240
What are the possible solutions?
The great majority of those surveyed believe the only viable
solution is increased competition. WestJet and, to a lesser
extent, Air Montreal, have shown that it is possible to offer
interregional services at low prices.
For example, Air Montreal offers a one way ticket from Québec to
Îles-de-la-Madeleine for $170 or from Québec to Mont-Joli for $125.
Most people believe that the solution lies in increased
competition. However, the various decision makers may consider
different solutions.
Among the other solutions being considered there is of course
the abandonment of regional subsidiaries by Air Canada. Others
believe that all regional carriers should have access to Air
Canada's network for reservations, transfers and airport
terminals. Some are looking at regulating airfares instead,
while others, including the Bloc Quebecois, are looking at a tax
reduction for regional carriers. Others yet are considering
allowing foreign carriers, including American operators, to do
cabotage.
On the issue of frequency, few solutions have been proposed so
far. However, the lower the airfares, the more people will fly,
thus making it profitable for air carriers to maintain a line.
I want to say a word on the duopoly of Air Canada and Canadian
Airlines International. This duopoly had flights at the same
times, with planes that were half empty.
We are of course talking about regional transportation. Many of
these lines were not profitable but the two carriers could put
up with some losses because they would make up for them by
transferring regional travellers onto their international
flights.
Let us take an example. As I mentioned earlier, a traveller from
Sept-Îles can buy a ticket to fly from Sept-Îles to Quebec City to
Paris for about $800. A company such as Canadian Airlines could
afford to lose $100 on the Sept-Îles to Quebec City flight, since it
was making $150 on the one between Quebec City and Paris. This
makes a difference of at least $50. The two companies had an
interest in losing money between Sept-Îles and Quebec City, since
the planes were full between Quebec City and Paris, thus
allowing them to make up the loss incurred during the first leg
of the trip.
If the two companies had merged, the planes would have been full
from the start in Sept-Îles and travellers could have enjoyed
even lower airfares.
That is why the two carriers were ready to run the domestic
flight in order to be able to take passengers on international
flights and make the passenger who only wants a domestic flight
pay a hefty price. This sort of passenger is not desirable.
The same logic applied when the two carriers dropped their fares
in order to maintain their duopoly over certain domestic
markets. The logic of the international market therefore played
against the logic of the domestic market.
We can hope that profits will enable Air Canada to lower its
fares but other measures will undoubtedly be necessary to
resolve this problem. The Bloc Quebecois will suggest some
solutions in committee.
That concludes my remarks on Bill C-26 at second reading.
We hope that the government will be receptive to any future
amendments the Bloc Quebecois may wish to move during committee
deliberations, so that insofar as possible we can find a long
term solution to this transportation problem, which is not new
in Canada.
1245
[English]
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, today
I am speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party in opposition
to the bill as it is. We have agreed that we will do what we can
to get the bill to committee as quickly as possible, recognizing
the seriousness of addressing the issues concerned with the
merger of our two major airlines and the reality of there being
one dominant carrier in Canada.
I must say that I was disappointed with the Liberal government
on this bill. As the New Democratic Party representative on the
transport committee I worked very hard on this issue as did all
the committee members from all the parties. Last fall the
committee heard from literally dozens of expert witnesses on this
issue.
I was disappointed but not surprised that the Liberal government
and the transport minister ignored what Canadians had been saying
all these months. Instead it came up with a bill that fails to
address the key concerns of Canadians. Even the minister, I
know, recognized that the bill is far from perfect, but I do not
think there is anything wrong with our looking for that
perfection when we get to committee and fixing the bill where it
has fallen short.
The government still does not understand the basic problem
facing Canada's airline industry. Our airline industry has gone
from crisis to crisis since the Mulroney government deregulated
it in 1987.
Deregulation has been a disaster for Canadians. The cost of
flying in Canada has gone up massively since deregulation began.
Ticket price increases have been rising faster than inflation.
The overall cost of flying has gone up a whopping 76% since 1992.
That is not what was supposed to happen under deregulation. Bay
Street lobbyists said that deregulation would bring competition
which would drive prices down, not up. They said there would be
more airlines flying to more destinations than ever before. So
where is the competition?
It has been almost 13 years since deregulation began and we have
fewer airlines, not more. Deregulation has resulted in fewer
airlines flying to fewer destinations and Canadians are being
charged more for those tickets. This is what happens when we let
market forces take the place of smart public policy.
The New Democratic Party is not against markets. Often when we
criticize the government for pandering to the market, people say
we are against the market. That is not the case. We are not. We
recognize to have a strong country we need a strong market
economy, but a healthy market is not the only thing we need for a
healthy country. We need to balance a strong market with
sensible public policy.
That is not the ideology of the Liberal government. Call it
corporatism, call it laziness, call it lack of vision, call it
whatever we will. The Liberal government refuses to accept that
the market alone cannot solve every problem. When it comes to the
airline industry the government cannot see the forest for the
trees. This is what happens when we are dealing strictly with
that ideology. The Liberal government's uncritical faith in the
free market blinds it to that reality.
This is the reality. Under deregulation Canadians have less
choice and are paying more for flying. The airlines have cut
service to small and medium size communities across the country.
The government had to spend millions of dollars to bail out
Canadian Airlines and then it wound up collapsing anyway. There
have been job cuts and wage cuts for airline employees. By
anyone's standards deregulation has been a public policy
disaster. Yet the Liberal government still clings to this policy
with the blind faith of ideology.
I want to talk about the effect of deregulation on my own riding
of Churchill. Few areas of the country are more expensive to fly
to than rural and northern Manitoba. It costs more to fly from
Thompson to Winnipeg than it does to fly from Halifax to
Vancouver. Airfares have skyrocketed and passengers are not
satisfied with the service quality and availability. What this
demonstrates is the Liberal government's short-sightedness in
letting market forces replace public policy.
1250
Under the logic of the market, the airlines have made decisions
to maximize their profits by charging the highest fares they can
get away with without concentrating on service. This makes
perfect sense from a narrow market point of view but makes no
sense at all from a public policy point of view.
Market driven decisions in remote areas kill economic growth.
They deter people from moving to rural and northern areas and
setting up businesses there. If the Liberal government was
looking at the big economic picture, it would see this and do
what it could to keep airfares and the cost of doing business in
remote areas down. But the Liberal government is not looking at
the big picture. It is ignoring the fact that deregulation is
killing jobs and businesses in rural and northern Canada.
It gets worse. Not only has deregulation nailed ordinary
Canadians with higher airfares and less service, not only has it
killed jobs and hurt rural and northern Canada, it has not been
good for the airlines. From the minute deregulation kicked in,
Air Canada and Canadian Airlines were in a death match that has
taken a huge toll on both companies.
Competition can be a good part of the market economy or it can
be destructive. We have to distinguish between healthy
competition and destructive competition. Healthy competition
delivers low prices and better services to the consumers.
Destructive competition does the opposite and leads to
monopolies. Need I say more?
The competition between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines was the
destructive kind. As we have seen, it led to higher prices, not
lower prices. It resulted in less service to communities, not
more.
Healthy competition thrives in a stable market with rules and
boundaries. Under deregulation there are no rules and
competition turns destructive.
New Democrats want to see healthy competition in Canada's
airline industry. That is why in the minority report I called
for modern regulations to promote competition and protect the
Canadian public. I do not want to see a return to the kind of
regulation we had 20 years ago. Over-regulation is as bad for
competition as is deregulation. What Canada's airline industry
needs is the balanced approach. This bill does not provide the
balanced approach to Canada's airline industry needs.
The government's approach once again is selling Canadians short.
At best this bill is a baby step. We are facing a monopoly in
our airline industry, a monopoly caused by deregulation, and the
Liberal government will not let go of the very cause of the
monopoly. This monopoly is an unprecedented threat to Canadian
consumers. If there was ever a time to protect the public
interest, now is that time, yet the Liberal government has to be
dragged away from regulation kicking and screaming.
The transport minister has said that this bill would protect the
Canadian public. Sometimes something is so ridiculous that it
seems funny. This was one of those times. Saying this bill as
it is will protect the public from a monopoly is like giving
someone one boot when it is 40 below and saying it will keep his
feet warm.
That is not to say that this bill is all bad. Before I talk
about what is wrong with it, I am going to talk about what is
good about it. The bill implements four recommendations from the
transport committee that I supported and fought to have included
in the report.
First, it doubles the amount of notice an airline has to give
the community before it abandons it.
Second, it improves the official languages section of the Air
Canada Act.
Third, it gives travel agents the right to negotiate their
commissions collectively with the dominant airline. This will
help keep travel agents in business and continue to provide
affordable service to the public. One message which was loud and
clear was that travel agents are a critical and valuable link to
the air transportation system. As a committee, I was extremely
pleased that we all agreed and that the government implemented
this within the bill.
Fourth, the bill gives the Competition Bureau expanded power to
stop predatory pricing. I want to talk a bit about this fourth
point because I like to give credit where credit is due.
One of the big problems with a monopoly is the dominant airline
can crush any small competitors that come along and try to
compete with it. With broader powers to prevent predatory
competition, the Competition Bureau should be able to prevent
this from happening. This will eventually make it possible for
the market to correct itself and bring a return to some form of
competition.
1255
I recognize the minister in his statement indicated that if
there had been intervention earlier on, we might not have been in
the situation we are in right now. I commend the government for
this part of the legislation.
I also want to talk about the extended notice period for
community abandonment. This is also something I fought for in
committee and I am glad to see the government has accepted this
recommendation. However, extending the notice period alone does
not go nearly far enough to protect small communities. All it
does is give communities more warning before an airline pulls
out.
It is important that there be a mechanism to make sure small and
medium size communities in Canada have decent service. This needs
to be done in a way that balances the public interest with the
market. It is not reasonable to expect an airline to lose money
hand over fist serving a community.
At the same time, airlines have a public trust to make sure all
Canadians have reasonable service. The government has a
responsibility to make sure the airlines live up to that trust.
Operating an airline in our country is a privilege. The airlines
have a responsibility to serve small and medium size communities
even if they do not make quite as much profit as they do from
serving Montreal and Toronto for example.
The Liberal government is not making Air Canada live up to its
public trust with this bill. All it does is force Air Canada not
to abandon any communities for three years. After that it will
be open season for community abandonment. There is no review
mechanism to make sure these abandonments are justified. This is
another example of putting blind faith in a market.
The other area the Liberal government has bungled is that of
airfares. This is an area that most Canadians are concerned
about as a result of a monopoly. The anti price gouging measures
in this bill, if we can call them that, will only be in effect
for two years, possibly four. These measures are not even that
strong. The Liberal government is relying on the Canadian
Transportation Agency to regulate fares and is giving it slightly
wider powers to do it. This is not going to work. The CTA is
already mandated to control fares. It has been completely
ineffective until now.
Does the Minister of Transport think he can just wave his magic
wand and overnight the CTA will become effective? All this bill
does is it broadens the CTA mandate slightly and gives it the
ability to be a bit proactive for the next two years. Expecting
the CTA to stop this new airline monopoly from price gouging is
like sending one person with a shovel to stop the avalanche.
There must be ongoing measures in the bill to prevent price
gouging.
The third major flaw with the bill is in the area of labour
relations. I have often wondered if the government has had any
respect for unions or the democratic right of collective
bargaining. This government has used back to work legislation to
stop legal work stoppages more than any other government. This is
the government that fought like mad to keep from giving pay
equity, simple equality, to its own employees. It is no wonder
it has completely ignored the thorny issues that this bill
represents in the area of labour issues.
The bill needs to ensure that labour disputes, including the
issues relating to seniority, can be dealt with in a timely
manner. We need to ensure that airline unions are in a position
to bargain effectively during this restructuring. We need to
ensure that disruption in service with this new dominant carrier
does not bring the country to a standstill.
The Reform Party would suggest that we do not allow the airline
employees to have the right to collective bargaining or the right
to strike. We need to ensure that the present Canada Industrial
Relations Board has enough resources to give any disputes
resulting from this merger top priority without it affecting any
of its other cases. That is what we need to do to make sure that
this works.
At the end of the day this all comes down to priorities. All
that Canadians want from their airline industry is safety,
affordability and decent service to communities. If the Liberal
government shared these priorities, it would have done something
meaningful to address them in this bill. Instead the Liberal
government is turning an airline monopoly loose on Canadians with
little protection for consumers, workers and communities.
I cannot help but make a point of commenting on some of the
thoughts that came from one of my opposition colleagues and that
would be the Reform member.
An hon. member: There are no Reform members.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: My apologies. I do recognize there
are no longer any Reform members. In all fairness, Reform has
been somewhat critical of the people in the House but it has been
some time that things have been up in the air about that party's
name.
It may take some time before people realize that they finally
have come up with a finalized name.
1300
In all fairness to Canadians, they voted for certain people at
election time and they voted for them as belonging to a certain
party. When that party saw the need to change in midstream, one
wonders if perhaps people should have the right to change their
vote.
The member from the Canadian Alliance commented on the airport
authorities having too much power. I cannot help but reflect on
everything that has happened in the last number of years with
that party pushing the government to get out of regulating
transportation and to turn over the airports to someone else.
Now those airports have some authority and want to do things to
try to make things work. That party was hand-in-hand with the
government in divesting itself of authority over airports, but
now it is complaining, perhaps because some of its friends are
not making quite what they thought they would because the
airports are operating independently, trying to survive.
My hon. colleague as well mentioned that her party did not want
to see only one airline. Had it not wanted to see only one
airline in Canada, where the heck was the official opposition for
the past number of years as Canadian and Air Canada struggled?
Why was it not saying “Put some regulations in and get some kind
of capacity controls to make sure that these airlines can
survive”? Then we might have been able to see more than one
airline operate in Canada. We might still have Canadian and Air
Canada, ensuring competition.
There is the issue of increased foreign ownership. Is that the
answer to everything? American Airlines increased its investment
in Canadian Airlines. Did that save it? I do not see it here.
Has increased foreign ownership helped western farmers? Tell
western farmers how selling off the railways and increased
foreign ownership has improved producers' profitability. It sure
improved the profits for the rail lines.
The member also mentioned that passengers have to sit and wait
at the airlines because of overbooking. Some people do not get
on the plane if everybody shows up. The business argument is,
that is good business. They do not want to leave if the seats
are not filled.
Does anyone here want to reflect on all of the times the
Canadian Alliance members have commented that we have to do
whatever is best for business and that businesses should be able
to do whatever they want to make a profit? Sometimes we have to
eat our words and recognize that it was not the right way to make
things better for Canadians.
If my Canadian Alliance colleague is truly concerned about
passenger rights, I look forward to that party's support for a
passenger bill of rights and amendments to this bill which will
reflect those concerns.
Despite our opposition to this bill, the New Democratic Party
will make an honest effort to improve it. Canadians deserve no
less than for us to do our best to improve this bill in whatever
way we can.
I will be proposing a number of amendments to fix some of the
shortcomings I have identified to make this bill address the very
real concerns of Canadians.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments made by the hon. member for
Churchill. She is not happy with the bill and she wants to bring
forward some constructive amendments.
I would hope that she could show us a better way to deal with
price gouging than what is already in the bill. If she is
advocating a return to total regulation, then I would say that
the consumers would not benefit in the long run because prices
would be higher.
I will be looking very carefully at suggestions and amendments
that come from her party, because I think the best way to deal
with price gouging is that which is provided in the bill.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Madam Speaker, I think I made it
quite clear that I do not think the answer is to return to a
totally regulated system, but I think there has been recognition
through all of the committee meetings we had, 156 hours of
meetings, meeting with numerous witnesses and numerous people,
that there needs to be some regulation. Quite frankly, there was
no question that what was going on between Canadian and Air
Canada was not the answer to provide a stable airline industry in
Canada.
1305
These regulations could possibly be in the area of capacity, the
same way we regulate internationally. We have a very strong
international air service. Those things could have happened.
Then we would have competition.
Competition for the sake of competition is not the answer. If
that is the case, what we end up with is like the street markets
in Tijuana, where the competition is to get the item down to the
last penny. Canadians do not mind paying for a service, but they
want to pay fairly.
What appears to be happening now, and the CTA has not been able
to address it, is that costs have been going up. People have to
say that they are not getting the service. We know that wages
have not gone up. We know the workers took numerous cuts, right,
left and centre, to make things work. They still were not able
to bring down the prices. Part of that was because the foreign
investment of American Airlines had a stranglehold on Canadian
Airlines, which could not make some of the changes it should have
been able to make.
As well, Air Canada, in a cutthroat type of approach, did not
make any effort, so everyone dropped prices just to survive. No
one survived and ultimately we were left with a dominant carrier
that will be in a position to gouge the heck out of Canadians.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to take part in this debate.
I am going to focus on the impact on consumers. Many of my
colleagues have discussed several aspects of the bill and
referred to the committee work that we spent so much time on, but
I want to focus on consumers.
I feel that the bill has left out the interests of consumers,
considering that now there is a dominant carrier structure in
Canada, whereby consumers have no choice in most of their airline
service. It is not like it was a year ago when, if they were not
happy with one of the main airlines, they could go to another.
Now if they are not happy with the airline, it is just too bad.
I think that consumers need help to reach the parties that can
effect change and deal with their protection.
Recommendation No. 42 of the standing committee stated that an
ombudsman be appointed by the government to deal strictly with
consumer issues. That recommendation was completely ignored in
the bill and I believe that was a mistake. That recommendation
definitely should be followed and I intend to bring it to
committee. In fact, I have already submitted to committee that
the recommendation be made part of the bill, that the bill be
amended to reflect it.
My focus on consumerism stems from several issues that have
happened lately, from several observations I have made and from
constituents in my riding who have been affected by changes in
the airline since the amalgamation of the two main airlines.
Calls have been made to my office, as I am the transport critic.
I have spoken with other MPs and travellers who have experienced
new problems which they had not experienced before. I myself
have experienced a significant increase in problems, delays and
things of that nature, in the airline industry. I believe that
the appointment of an ombudsman is important.
As the vice-chair of the committee, the member for Thunder
Bay—Superior North said in his report on the committee report
that the Competition Act and the Canada Transportation Act,
through their regulatory agencies, are not accessible to the
average Canadian.
There is nothing accessible to the average Canadian without an
ombudsman. I strongly support the proposal to have an ombudsman.
I have a short term plan and a long term plan that I would like
to talk about today. The long term plan is the amendment to the
bill to make the appointment of an ombudsman law and a part of
the airline industry. I believe that has to be a part of it,
considering that there is no longer any competition to protect
consumers.
The short term plan is that I am inviting people to write to my
office through e-mail, fax or regular mail to tell me about the
problems they are experiencing now, especially if there is an
increase in problems. Some of those problems are delays with no
explanation, the cancellation of flights, technical difficulties,
overbooking, as mentioned by some of my other colleagues here
today, abrupt service changes, luggage problems and communication
problems.
I invite any consumer in Canada to write to my office. Contact
me and we will assemble these complaints and take them to the
appropriate party, whether it is airline management, the
Transportation Safety Board if it is a safety problem, or the
Canadian Transportation Agency if it is a ticketing or scheduling
problem.
We would be pleased to take them all to the minister's office.
We will do whatever is the appropriate thing to ensure that
customers' complaints are addressed.
1310
This is a short term, interim service that we will provide until
the legislation is complete. I will provide the addresses
further on in my remarks if anybody is interested.
The amendment I have proposed is exactly the same amendment
which was already passed in committee. It was passed by an all
party committee and all parties supported it. The proposal to
establish the ombudsman simply states:
Thus, the committee recommends that:—
42. The government appoint an independent ombudsperson to
monitor the commitments of a dominant carrier, to oversee a
public complaints process and report annually to Parliament and
to the appropriate committees of Parliament on the state of the
airline industry. This person must be selected in accordance
with a public and transparent selection process, and must possess
expertise in such areas as airline policy, public interest
advocacy, and regulatory legislative processes.
That is my long term goal and I believe that would address the
problems with consumers in the long term. But again, in the
short term I am making my office available to receive complaints
on any issue. Again, if it is a company policy issue or a
specific problem, we will take it to the airline. I feel
confident that they will address it, as they have with me in the
past on any issue we have brought to their attention. With
respect to safety issues, we will take those to the Canadian
Transportation Safety Board, and so on.
If anyone wants to contact my office with a complaint with
respect to the airline service they are experiencing now or have
recently, they can write a letter to Bill Casey, MP, House of
Commons, Ottawa, K1A 0A6. They can e-mail me at
caseyb@parl.gc.ca. They can fax me at 613-943-2295. Or they can
check our website at www.pcparty.ca.
Air Canada is not the only company that is involved with
aviation. One thing we learned at the committee is that there
are dozens of airlines in Canada. They are smaller airlines, but
there are dozens of them and they are all aggressive and all
entrepreneurial. Really, it is an exciting industry.
Air Canada has the vast majority of business now and any time I
have brought a problem to the attention of Air Canada it has been
addressed very quickly, and I appreciate that. In fact when I
called the offices of Air Canada yesterday to tell them that I
would be proposing this interim ombudsman office just to get us
through until the legislation is passed, to my surprise their
reaction was that it was a great idea. They were very positive
and they agreed to work with us. If there are problems, with
that company at least, they have agreed to address them and work
with us to solve the problems.
Some of the typical issues that we get in our office concern the
increased delays in flights. That is only part of the problem.
The other part is that the consumers who are victims of the
increased delays are given information which is wrong, delayed or
incremental. They say that the flight is delayed 15 minutes, and
then after 15 minutes it is delayed another half hour, and then
it is delayed another half hour. Instead of saying at the
beginning that the flight will be delayed two hours, or whatever,
and give the consumer a choice of whether to go home or take a
different mode of transportation, they seem to keep consumers at
the airport by giving these incremental news briefs and
information in little pieces, which I do not think is correct.
That should be addressed and it should be changed.
There are inconsistent explanations as to why planes are
delayed. In one case I was given three different explanations. I
was told it was an equipment problem, then I was told there was a
crew shortage and then I was told there was a storm. I do not
know what the truth was, but I was given three different
explanations. I believe that consumers are entitled to an
explanation if their travel is delayed or interrupted. If the
airline knows what the problem is, it owes it to consumers to
tell them exactly what is the problem.
On Monday I was at the Montreal airport and I met a constituent
of mine. When I asked him what he was doing there, he told me
that his flight had been cancelled. When I asked him why it had
been cancelled, he told me that he had no idea because they would
not tell him. He told me there was hardly anybody on the plane
and he thought they had cancelled it because there were not
enough people. As there was another plane at 5 o'clock and there
would not be many people on that flight, they just cancelled my
constituent's flight and made him wait four hours. I believe
that consumer is entitled to an explanation. I would like to
have an answer too, and we will be seeking an explanation.
Another thing happened to me this week.
After flying into Montreal, I went down to get my luggage. Before
I even got to the luggage carousel, I was paged to go to the
luggage counter where I was told that my luggage had not arrived,
that it was not on the plane. I could not go to Ottawa because I
did not have any clothes, other than the jeans and the sweater I
had on, so I went home. I was told to call the Moncton airport
the next day to find out the status of my luggage.
1315
The next morning I tried to call information for the phone
number of the Moncton airport and I was told that it was an
unlisted number. I did not know what to do so I called the 1-800
number. I could not get through that number so I called my local
travel agent. My travel agent said that there was a special
number for luggage and she gave me the number. I called that
number and had to go through the code business. I got a neat
recording which said “We are sorry, but this call will take
longer than we anticipated, but do not hang up because you will
lose your place in the line”. That was all right. I waited for
awhile and got another recording to that effect. I then got a
recording saying “If you hang up and go to the Internet you can
check on your luggage there, but do not hang up because you will
lose your place in line”. The point I am making is that I
waited 25 minutes before I was able to speak to a person.
The person finally came on the line and I explained that I had
lost my luggage in Montreal and that it was supposed to go to
Moncton. He said “No, I do not think you have lost your luggage
because it is not on the computer”. Anyway, this went on and on
and on. The system and the service just was not good enough.
I challenge the president of Air Canada, Mr. Milton, to apply
his standards to his own company and to pretend that he is a
consumer of Air Canada. Would he go on hold for 25 minutes to
find out where his luggage is? Would he accept that level of
service? I do not think he would. I would challenge Mr. Milton
to review and fix that problem on the luggage communication
system. People are already upset when they lose their luggage
and they do not need that system to make it worse.
Last night a lady called me and told me that she had spent two
days trying to get through to the frequent flyer program. She
said that she was on hold for more than an hour on one occasion
and still did not get through. The only way she said that she
finally got through was by trying at 7 o'clock. on Sunday
morning.
Again I ask the senior management of all airlines: “If you were
trying to get a product or to check on the service of your car,
would you accept a one hour wait on the phone, or even 25
minutes?” I do not think so.
I ask the senior management of the airlines that have 1-800
numbers to review them. I propose that they put in a standard.
If a customer has to wait for five minutes he or she should be
told that the call will be so many minutes, whether it is 25
minutes or an hour or whatever, or it should just ring busy.
However, do not play tricks on people and get them on the line,
hold them there and lead them to believe they and their problems
will be dealt with shortly when they will not.
My approach is not adversarial on this issue. I think it is
important for the airline management to know what is going on. In
the turmoil surrounding the transition, with all the plane
changes, the union negotiations, the scheduling and everything
else, I believe consumers are getting left by the wayside in this
whole issue. My goal is not to be adversarial with the airlines.
My goal is to help them realize and understand what their
consumers are going through. I hope that if people register
their complaints with me I can then seek assistance and relief
for these problems from the senior management of the airlines. I
am confident that I can to that.
Air Canada was recently recognized as the best airline in the
world. That was because they have superior service. It is
important to me that Air Canada maintain that standard as the
best airline in the world because Air Canada is in many respects
our ambassador all over the world. It is the most tangible
symbol of Canada that is ever seen in many countries.
Having the best airline in the world reflects well on our
country. My goal is to help Air Canada and all other airlines to
maintain the very highest standards of customer service and
safety. If I get good responses from my invitation to receive
complaints and if they are addressed properly, the airlines will
be able to maintain those high standards. My goal is to help
them maintain their reputation.
My experience with Air Canada and all other airlines is that
when I go to them with a problem they act extremely quickly at
management level, but consumers do not have that access. They do
not have access to anything other than a 1-800 number, which is
extremely frustrating. I believe in the long term the ombudsman
would serve to make sure that the airlines are aware of what
their customers and consumers are going through. In the short
term, I would like to provide that service myself until the
legislation is passed.
My proposal is to act as an interim ombudsman through my office
until the legislation is passed.
It not only refers to Air Canada, but also to airlines such as
WestJet, First Air, et cetera. No matter what airline consumers
are using, if they have a problem I, and I am sure the minister
and the company itself, want to hear about it. We guarantee that
if we get a complaint we will see that it goes to the proper
authority and the proper company, whether it is the company
itself, the Transportation Safety Board, the Canadian
Transportation Agency or the minister's office. We will monitor
the complaints and make sure they are addressed.
1320
I offer anyone who has a problem or complaint with the aviation
industry to write to me, Bill Casey, MP, House of Commons,
Ottawa, K1A 0A6, or e-mail me at caseyb@parl.gc.ca, or fax me at
613-943-2295, or check our website at www.pcparty.ca and all that
information will be there. We invite everybody to send us their
remarks and we will share them with the appropriate body.
For the long term the ombudsman must be there. If Mr. Milton,
the president of Air Canada, for instance, has a car problem and
is not satisfied with the service he gets at the dealership, he
can go to another dealership. However, if Canadian consumers,
who use most of the airline's service, are not happy there is no
place to go and there are no options. I think it is important to
have an ombudsman who will make sure that Air Canada is aware of
consumer complaints and that they are dealt with in an
appropriate fashion. In the interim, we would be pleased to
provide that service.
I encourage people to communicate with us. If we have a good
response, if there is a substantial problem or a consistent
series of complaints, then it will help us to get this amendment
through for the ombudsman to be added to Bill C-26. A poor
response will of course indicate that there is no need for it,
and I can live with that as well.
I believe there is a problem and that consumers are frustrated
with overbooking, cancelled flights and delayed flights. There
is a big problem in communications with the major airlines. If
those complaints are filed with us then we can do something about
them. I am sure that the all-party committee, which has already
supported the amendment I am proposing today, will again support
it in the House.
In closing, I want to say that if anybody wants to contact me my
address is caseyb@parl.gc.ca for e-mail. My fax number is
613-943-2295. Check our website at www.pcparty.ca.
I look forward to this bill going to committee. It has been an
enlightening experience for all of us on the committee. It was a
tremendous experience to go through the debate about the airline
merger. We met some incredible people in the industry. We were
all impressed with the industry officials. I look forward to
this coming back to committee and dealing with all the amendments
from all the parties. I am sure that we can come up with a good
bill that will protect consumers, the industry, the airports and
the minister.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague's
speech and I am not sure it is appropriate for a member of the
Conservative Party to use the vehicle of a debate on a bill in
the House to solicit memberships by offering his phone and fax
numbers. I am just wondering if the fortunes of the Conservative
Party are such that it has to resort to this.
I would like his assurances that if he is inundated, as I think
he will be with all manner of consumer complaints for having
repeated this three times in the speech, that he will not come
back to the Speaker or the House administration to request
additional resources.
Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the
minister would suggest that there is a big problem out there, but
I appreciate his support for my proposal. If he is correct and I
am inundated with complaints, then there is a problem. That is
good for all of us. We should all know that. The airlines
should know it. The minister should know it. The Transportation
Safety Board and all the agencies should understand this.
I believe there is a bottleneck in communications between
consumers, the airlines and the agencies involved. The
vice-chair of the committee said that consumers have no access to
the system, which is what I propose to provide.
I propose to provide access to the system so consumers who have
problems can approach either the airlines through an ombudsman,
through my office, through the Transportation Safety Board or
whatever. If anyone wants to join our party, it is
caseyb@parl.gc.ca.
1325
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m. so that we could proceed to
Private Members' Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-238, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act
(mail contractors), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
just want to speak very briefly to the bill. I know we cannot
ask questions in Private Members' Business so I will make a
speech with a question in it.
If the sponsor of the bill, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who
I believe will get a few minutes at the end of Private Members'
Business to wrap up, could listen to the question, he perhaps
could work an answer into his remarks.
I personally will support this legislation. I have had a lot of
contact with the rural mail couriers in my riding. It does seem
to be quite an anomaly that mail service in a rural area would be
treated differently than in an urban area.
Although I agree in principle with the intention of the bill, I
am wondering if anywhere in this process there are safeguards or
guarantees for the existing contractors who are conducting the
service presently. I was on the phone with them this morning and
I know they are very supportive of the bill. However, my fear is
that what might be happening here is an expansion of the
membership of the postal union, and these particular contractors,
having fought for the right to be part of the bargaining unit,
may very well in the end not be the actual people who end up
getting these jobs.
I realize that concern could be addressed in committee, but
hopefully the sponsor of the bill would reflect on that a little
and perhaps outline some options or processes that we might want
to take a look at to make sure it is not necessarily a thinly
veiled attempt to push these contractors out; that they will
actually be the ones who are in the queue and have access to
these more secure jobs.
I again congratulate the member for bringing the bill before the
House. I look forward, if he gets a chance, to his speaking to
that issue in his rebuttal at the end of the hour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-238 put forward by
the member for Winnipeg Centre.
The bill basically is an act to amend the Canada Post
Corporation Act to repeal section 13(5) of the act dealing with
rural route mail couriers.
What section 13(5) deems is that rural route couriers are not
dependent contractors and are therefore not eligible to
collectively bargain or form an association so they can negotiate
contracts with Canada Post. In other words, they cannot form a
union.
Repealing this section would allow rural route couriers
basically to join the public workers' union. Although we agree
with the concerns that the bill highlights, we do not agree with
the solution.
Currently rural route mail couriers must submit a tender for
their jobs and then negotiate with Canada Post.
1330
The problem is that Canada Post does not have a tendering or
contract guideline to ensure that the process is fair. This is
the crux of the problem that the rural route couriers have. Many
members in the House have rural areas in their ridings, as I do,
and have heard about this issue many times.
As a result, many rural route mail couriers feel they are
working under extremely poor conditions and substandard wages.
For example, Canada Post officials are forcing independent
contractors to lower their bids in order to maintain their
contracts. Unfair limitations are being placed on their ability
to act as independent contractors. These problems need to be
addressed.
Four years ago when the Canadian Alliance was the Reform Party,
I was critic for public works. George Radwanski tabled an
exceptionally good report dealing with Canada Post issues. A
couple of the issues are quite relevant to this discussion. One
is that Radwanski found:
The corporation is not subject to any adequately effective
accountability mechanisms. Neither the minister responsible for
Canada Post, nor any branch of the government, nor even the
corporation's own board of directors has any way of providing the
sustained supervision necessary to ensure that its priorities and
behaviour are fully consistent with the public interest.
This is the crux of the matter. We have people in Canada Post
who are running their own show. It is supposed to be a
corporation for all Canadians, yet it is not being run in that
manner.
We agree with the member that rural couriers are being done in.
They are not being treated fairly. However, where we disagree
with the member is on how to deal with this problem. We feel the
mechanisms within Canada Post need to be addressed rather than
unionizing those postal workers.
Radwanski also found that Canada Post businesses practices were
aggressive and unfair. It is no surprise to hear the concerns of
the rural route couriers coming forward. However, as I have
said, we feel that repealing subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post
Corporation Act, as proposed in the bill, is not the answer.
Eliminating subsection 13(5) will eliminate the tendering
process and prevent anyone other than a union member from vying
for the job of a rural route mail courier. We think that is
wrong. In other words, the bill overreaches what we feel is the
stated intention.
Bill C-238 creates an ungainly situation where several unions
may be competing for the same members. The bill may also lead to
a conflict of interest between what a dependent contractor is and
what their employers are. We feel that there are other options
available. As it stands, the tendering and contract process is
not fair, not honest and is simply not above board. The way to
go is to fix that problem and the rural route problem will be
fixed.
The basic issue is that we need a mechanism that obliges Canada
Post to conduct fair and open tendering processes within its
contracts. Everyone needs to know what the conditions are. This
is the principle of the issue we are facing today. If we could
fix the contract tendering process I believe we would solve the
problem. As well, if the mechanism is not put in place to
guarantee these conditions, the Canadian Alliance will
investigate the possibility of making treasury board contracting
policy applicable in this case.
In summary, we agree there is a problem that has clearly been
identified by the member. We disagree with his manner of solving
it. We do not believe that eliminating the section is the
solution. We believe the solution is to deal with Canada Post to
get fair tendering processes in place which will solve the issue.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to the bill. I begin by
congratulating the member for Winnipeg Centre for introducing the
bill, which is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
I also acknowledge the member from the Liberal Party who
indicated that he was planning to support the bill when it comes
to a vote next week and for correctly describing it as an
anomaly. Rural route mail couriers are somehow treated much
differently and much worse than members of the Canadian Union of
Postal Workers and other employees.
1335
I find it passing strange that a few short weeks ago we had a
backbench Liberal MP stand to ask a pointed and loaded question
to allow the cabinet minister responsible to highlight the new
three year agreement between Canada Post and the Canadian Union
of Postal Workers. At the same time here we are two or three
weeks later turning around and apparently not going to offer
reasonable rates and working conditions to folks who are
delivering rural mail.
I would like to dedicate this speech to a woman who is a long
time friend of mine, Doris Woodbeck. For many years she was the
rural route mail courier in picturesque Prince Edward County in
the Bloomfield area. Doris Woodbeck was virtually a second
mother to me. She delivered mail through snow and sleet and
freezing rain and all other things that our mail couriers are
expected to do. She is a wonderful individual.
The people who have followed in Doris' footsteps, perhaps in her
snow tires, are having some real problems these days because of
the wages and working conditions. Most rural route mail couriers
barely earn minimum wage. Their working conditions are
reminiscent of another era.
The Canada Post Corporation can terminate their employment with
just 90 days of notice. There are no standard work rules. Some
RRMCs have more than one route. They get paid for delivering
certain products on one route although they do not get paid for
service on another. Work rules are changed arbitrarily and often
with virtually no notice.
During snow storms RRMCs are routinely forced to shovel out the
group boxes on their routes, again without compensation. They
have to train and pay their own replacements. They are provided
with basic supplies. Postal workers at some offices collect used
elastic bands and give them to rural route mail couriers because
Canada Post refuses to provide such basic necessities.
I would like the members present to listen to what some mail
couriers are saying:
With a working relationship like this, it's almost impossible for
us to obtain better wages and working conditions on our own. And
we're not allowed to bargain collectively like other workers.
Section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits RRMCs
from having collective bargaining rights. This is a denial of
basic rights.
This the subsection the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to
have repealed.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems is in the tendering process,
as has been acknowledged, because the mail couriers have to bid
on their routes. When they submit their bids they are often told
they must accept the contract for less than they were making
before.
The argument is that if they do not like it they can always
quit. As a rule mail couriers find it difficult to complain
about their working conditions because they know that their
contracts can be pulled on 90 days of notice. With a working
relationship like this one it is almost impossible for them to
obtain better wages and working conditions. They are not allowed
to bargain collectively as other workers are.
In 1986 the Canada Post Corporation applied to the Canada Labour
Relations Board to review the structure of bargaining units at
Canada Post. The Association of Rural Route Couriers applied for
a standing at those hearings. A year later the labour relations
board issued its decision which noted that the definition of a
defending contractor included two basic criteria: economic
dependence and an obligation to perform duties for another
person.
These criteria are reviewed from the perspective of
administrative control and integration.
1340
The CLRB decision was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal
on the basis that while mail couriers may meet the requirements
of employees under the Canada Labour Code, the CLRB exceeded its
jurisdiction when ruling that subsection 13(5) did not apply.
The federal court recognizes that without this section the
employees concerned would have benefited from all rights provided
in the code. The federal court notes that subsection 13(5) is
legal fiction designed to set aside reality. It also clearly
recognizes that the purpose of this provision is to deny these
workers the right to collective bargaining.
We move forward to today and the Liberal government did not
ensure that the RRMCs were protected and that their conditions
were improved. It simply denied them the right to protect
themselves and to improve their conditions through collective
bargaining.
Depriving collective bargaining rights is a denial of basic
rights; a violation of the principles conveyed and promoted in
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into
effect a full 15 years ago now; a violation of our international
commitments including the North American Free Trade Agreement;
and a violation of the ILO, which the government proudly
frequently says was one of the first signatories and which
concerns itself with freedom of association and protection of the
right to organize in the international covenant on civil and
political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.
Two years ago in the first budget, which I had the honour and
privilege of being in the House of Commons to hear, the federal
government promised us that it would “look at new ways to
deliver information and programs so that rural Canadians are full
participants in Canada's future prosperity”.
We hope the government's promise to look at new ways of
delivering information and programs is not just another way of
saying that it will find cheaper ways of exploiting rural
Canadians who deliver information and programs.
To date we feel the Liberal government has dodged the thorny
issue of subsection 13(5). Postal critics for the Bloc,
ourselves, and the party to my left have already sent letters on
the issue to the minister responsible.
In conclusion, it is generally recognized that subsection 13(5)
is a denial of basic rights, which helps Canada Post keep the
wages and working conditions of rural workers at an unfair and
impossible level. There is growing consensus that it should be
repealed quickly. It is time that rural route mail couriers had
access to collective bargaining rights which would allow them to
protect themselves and to improve their working conditions.
Getting rid of subsection 13(5) would allow RRMCs to do this in
a variety of ways. It would allow them to have access to the
provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would give them time to
change the system by which they are forced to sign long term
contracts. It would enable them to establish reasonable work
rules so that CPC managers no longer respond to complaints by
saying that if they do not like it they can quit. It would
provide a method of submitting grievances when rules surrounding
workloads or starting times are arbitrarily changed. Most
important, it would end the pattern in which the financial
objectives of Canada Post have been pursued by driving increasing
numbers of rural route mail couriers into poverty.
For Doris Woodbeck and the 5,000 rural route mail couriers who
are currently on the job, we wish them well. We trust that when
this comes to a vote on Tuesday there will be a clear majority in
the House of Commons to repeal subsection 13(5) of this act.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Madam Speaker, I
certainly want to engage in this debate and to comment on what
the hon. member was saying and on some of the faults in the
private member's bill he brought forward.
1345
It is obvious to those of us who live in rural Canada that rural
mail couriers are not treated fairly and that the tendering
system has numerous and obvious faults in it. However our
argument would be that unionization of rural mail couriers is not
the way to deal with this issue specifically. There are a number
of issues.
The hon. member's bill forth not only allows for unionization of
rural mail couriers, it also allows for unionization of numerous
other postal employees. They are all lumped together in one bill.
For that reason mainly the bill is extremely flawed.
The member speaks specifically to section 13(5). Section 13(5)
is why the Conservative Party still supports rural mail couriers.
Some people have argued that this section discriminates against
rural mail couriers. I remind hon. members that the Federal
Court of Canada ruled on May 29, 1990 that there were no grounds
for a claim of discrimination on the basis of gender or
differential treatment between urban and rural residents.
We know that this bill is not the answer to the shabby treatment
rural mail couriers have received from Canada Post. As much as I
appreciate and support the efforts by the member for Winnipeg
Centre to deal with this issue, he really has not dealt with it.
What can we do?
MPs from my party, especially the member for Tobique—Mactaquac,
have met on numerous occasions with individual mail contractors,
with representatives of the Organization of Rural Route Mail
Couriers and with representatives of Canada Post to try to
resolve some of these outstanding issues. We have made a
difference.
Earlier this year the post office introduced a series of new
measures which I hope will alleviate a great number of the
difficulties contractors have had in the past. These include the
following. Rural routes will be contracted on an individual
contractor basis. Contractors who in turn subcontract out their
routes at a reduced price known as master contractors will no
longer be eligible to renew their rural contract. If a master
contractor previously held the route, the previous employee or
the subcontractor actually performing the work will be the first
potential supplier offered the contract at renewal. Rural
contracts will be issued for five years with a five year renewal
option based on satisfactory performance and tendered after 10
years.
Many other changes have been instituted as well. A negotiated
adjustment will be included for the five year renewal option to
ensure that market conditions such as inflation are considered. A
quality and performance component will be included in the
contract renewal and awarding process to recognize the past
performance of incumbent contractors. The evaluation of tenders
will be based on criteria such as experience, service performance
and reliability, image and then cost.
In addition when the contracts are up for bid, Canada Post will
make contractors aware of the specifications of the routes they
will be performing such as the number of points of call, daily
kilometres, number of stops for personal contract items and the
amount of ad mail they can expect to deliver. These numbers will
be updated annually or more frequently if a significant change
occurs, and contractors will be compensated for these changes.
The post office has prepared a handbook, what it calls a
delivery reference manual, for its mail contractors. The purpose
of the manual is to provide assistance and guidance with a
reference book and a phone directory of key individuals at Canada
Post they can call when a problem arises. In conjunction with
this, local supervisors and postmasters will be provided with an
operator's handbook and support training material to assist them
in working with contractors.
These measures probably will not prevent disputes from arising.
However I feel that the changes announced will bring much greater
fairness and openness to the relationship between rural mail
contractors and the post office. It also does not preclude
additional changes to be made to further affect rural mail
couriers to give them a better opportunity to make a living and
earn a fair wage. It certainly does not preclude changes being
made to the act in the future.
1350
Our party will continue to work with and listen to rural mail
contractors to ensure that they earn a fair wage, that they are
treated fairly and that Canada Post deals with problems that
arise in a timely and equitable manner.
In closing, we have to move away from the tactics that Canada
Post has employed against rural mail couriers in the past.
Frankly, many of those tactics would have been better off in
Chicago in the 1930s than in Canada in the 21st century. We
obviously have to make a change.
If the member reviewed his bill and made some fundamental
changes to the way it was written, it would be a better piece of
legislation. It would be something that would actually help
rural mail couriers, and would not confuse the issue of rural
mail couriers with a lot of other issues and a lot of other
subcontractors at Canada Post.
We can continue to provide service in rural Canada. I depend
upon a rural mail courier. He is a very good friend of mine. I
have to cross the road to reach my mail box. I understand the
difficulties facing mail couriers. The weather is only one of
the things they face. The other thing is that quite often my
mail box may not be shovelled out as well as it should be. I
appreciate the extra work that all Canadians get from rural mail
couriers.
We can continue to support rural mail couriers. We can continue
to look for opportunities for them to make a better living.
Bill C-238 is not a bad bill, but it has some serious flaws and
that is why we will not be supporting this piece of legislation.
I would certainly encourage the hon. member to review the bill,
to improve it, to take some of the obvious mistakes out of it and
to bring it back to the House. We would then take another look
at it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I too want to say a few words on the private member's
bill put forward by the member for Winnipeg Centre.
It is a very enlightened bill in that it is fair minded and very
balanced in terms of dealing with the basic rights of people who
are being discriminated against compared to other letter carriers
in the same business.
I want to say at the outset that I was very disappointed to hear
the member from the Reform Party and the member from the
Progressive Conservative Party say that they would not support
this bill which would allow rural mail couriers to unionize as
letter carriers in the city who do similar and comparable work
can unionize. I ask those hon. members, where is their sense of
fairness and their sense of balance in terms of a basic
fundamental human right, the right to organize, the right to free
collective bargaining and the right to have equality in the same
company or the same corporation? I am not so surprised that the
Reform Party will oppose this bill, but I am surprised to hear
that the Progressive Conservative Party, which tends to be a bit
more enlightened on these matters, say it will oppose this very
positive bill.
An hon. member: It is the new Canadian Alliance.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Madam Speaker, maybe there is a new
alliance. Certainly there is on this particular issue, unless
that member was speaking only for himself and not for his party.
The member for Winnipeg Centre wants to repeal section 13(5) of
the Canada Post Corporation Act. That section explicitly
prohibits 5,000 rural mail couriers from forming a union.
Forming a union should be a basic fundamental human right in a
country with a modern constitution and a modern charter of rights
that talks about the freedom to associate, the freedom to
assemble and the freedom of speech. This is a modern country in
the 21st century which is still denying the basic human right of
organization into a trade union for 5,000 employees in the public
domain. It will be very interesting to see how individual members
of the House vote on the bill which is about this basic human
right.
As has been said before, rural route mail couriers are a very
important part of the link between the people in rural Canada and
the rest of the country. As a small child of four, five or six
years old on our farm in Saskatchewan, I remember waiting twice a
week for the mailman to deliver the mail. We were some 20 miles
from the nearest village.
This was an event that connected us to the rest of the country
and the rest of the community. It is very important that this
link be there.
1355
What most people do not realize is that many of these people are
really underpaid, in some cases it is not much more than the
minimum wage. Their salaries are much lower than those of the
letter carriers in the city. They do not have the benefits that
people in the city have. They sign a contract and if they are
not there to deliver the mail, if they want to take a holiday or
go to a funeral or to some family function or event, they have to
hire someone to take their place. They have to pay the person
who takes their place a salary or a stipend for that day. It
does not come from Canada Post. They can also be dismissed with
90 days notice, if I recall.
There is no protection. There is no association. There is no
seniority. There is none of that stuff for the rural mail
couriers in this country.
What we have here is a bill that speaks to basic fundamental
human rights, the right of assembly, the right to organize, the
right to free collective bargaining, which should be a basic
right for each and every citizen of Canada. It will be very
interesting to see how members across the way vote on this bill.
I suppose I am making this appeal to people who do not want to
support the bill at this time. I wonder if they would be willing
at least to send the bill to committee. If this bill went to
committee, we would have a chance to study it further, maybe make
some amendments and minor changes. We could call as witnesses
many rural mail couriers from different parts of the country so
they could tell their story about how they are discriminated
against in terms of benefits and salaries, working conditions,
the lack of protection, the lack of seniority, the lack of basic
rights that most people in this country take for granted.
At the very least, let us vote for the bill at second reading so
it gets to committee. It could then have the proper study. These
people would have in the proper forum the podium from which to
state their case. If they stated their case and told their story,
I am sure all members of the House of Commons would agree that
they deserve the same basic fundamental rights of every Canadian
citizen, which are the right to organize and the right to free
collective bargaining, the right to a decent salary and the right
to decent benefits in all parts of the country.
Once again I congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre. I
appeal to the House to support the bill. It is a positive step
forward in basic human rights.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
will just take a couple of minutes because I am somewhat
disappointed that anybody in the House would not support sending
the bill to committee.
I had the opportunity about a year and a half or two years ago
to go with the Minister of Labour to Chile to meet on labour
issues. We were meeting with different ministers from the
Americas, the secretary of state for labour in the U.S. and
numerous ministers from the Americas. I am talking about South
America and some of the countries within it that have not the
best labour standards in the world.
One of the things the Canadian group and the Canadian minister
presented was that countries need to look at being able to
address the changes in workforces where more and more workers are
contract workers and are not protected with the same rights that
workers who are under collective bargaining agreements and unions
are protected. One of the declarations made was to look at ways
of getting those contract workers the opportunity to be part of
associations and collective bargaining. Once again we were
seeing a situation where the government and the country were out
there saying “Do as we preach, not as we do”.
I look to members within the House to support the rights of all
workers, of all Canadians to be treated fairly and not to make
rural workers second class citizens in this country. Give them
the same rights as all other workers.
Let us send the bill to committee and give it the opportunity to
be discussed. Let us not be afraid to let Canadians make the
decision.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Since no other member
is rising on debate except for the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre who is the sponsor of the bill, I want to make sure that
everybody understands that his will be the last intervention on
the bill.
1400
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker,
Bill C-238 seeks to remedy an historic injustice. In 1981, when
Canada Post Corporation was formed by virtue of the Canada Post
Corporation Act, the drafters of the bill knew that it would have
one specific impact on labour relations. The employees would no
longer be covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act and
would be covered under the Canada Labour Code. This new crown
corporation would fall under the Canada Labour Code.
The postmaster general at the time, André Ouellet, realized that
under the Canada Labour Code the definitions of dependent
contractor and independent contractor are different. As
postmaster general he realized that rural route mail couriers
were definitely dependent contractors under the definition in the
Canada Labour Code.
He had to take speedy measures because he thought it might cost
money. If this group of people could be considered employees or
dependent contractors they would have the right to bargain
collectively. They did not want that so they specifically took
measures to deny this group of workers the right to bargain
collectively. That is where the source of the problem we are
trying to deal with today lies.
Rural route mail couriers are the only group of workers in the
country who are specifically barred from the right to free
collective bargaining by legislation, strictly for economic
reasons. Other groups of employees do not have the right to
strike if it is an issue of confidentiality, national security,
or some reason to that effect. However there is no reason in the
world to deny this group of workers the right to bargain, the
right to organize, or the right to withhold their services other
than sheer monetary issues.
Other speakers have pointed out that in the U.S. rural route
mail couriers are allowed to bargain collectively. In Mexico
rural route mail couriers are allowed to bargain collectively.
Even private sector rural mail couriers, people who deliver mail
for instance through Zipper or one of these places, are allowed
to bargain collectively and have formed unions to better
themselves. Yet this group of 5,000 employees in Canada are not
allowed to do so.
As pointed out by the previous speaker, the right to free
collective bargaining is one of the basic tenets of a free
democratic system. We find it galling that the government of the
day took specific measures in 1981 to deny these workers their
rights. Given the opportunity to correct this historic
injustice and given the speeches we have heard from the other
side, it sounds like it is not prepared to do it at this time.
Rural route mail couriers are very well organized. They are
very committed and very dedicated. They have been lobbying on
the Hill trying to garner interest on the issue. One item raised
by the Liberal member who spoke today was a misunderstanding of
what Bill C-238 would do to eliminate subsection 13(5) with
regard to labour relations.
If I may answer the question put in that speech, if the
employees are allowed to form or join a union it may not be CUPW,
the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, but a completely different
union. They may form their own independent association. Even
if they joined CUPW there would be no bumping as such. They
would be considered an independent bargaining unit, a separate
bargaining unit represented within the corporation.
To alleviate any fears, there is no danger of existing mail
couriers losing their jobs by virtue of being bumped, should they
join that organization. There is again no guarantee that they
would choose to join any one union. It is just that they would
have the right to bargain collectively. History has shown us
that the only way working people can move the terms and
conditions of their employment forward is by bargaining
collectively. It is a given.
It is my best hope that the House would allow the bill to go
forward to the committee stage, at which stage I would like to
move some amendments to the bill that I consider to be friendly
amendments.
1405
We must make sure everyone understands that we only seek to
alter the relationship for rural route mail couriers, not other
mail contractors. We have no interest in trying to cloud the
issue about trucking companies that may be contractors for Canada
Post or the airlines that have contracts to carry mail, et
cetera. We are talking about them.
We do have language drafted now which would clarify the matter
that the only people we are seeking to deal with are rural route
mail couriers. Should members of the House see fit to allow the
bill to go to committee stage, it is our intention to co-operate
with amendments that would clarify any misconceptions in that
regard.
In argument to show why these actions are necessary, it is
useful to hear what some rural route mail couriers have told us
in the previous months leading up to the bill. Many have told
stories of finding it more and more difficult to do their routes
and make any profit whatsoever. The tendering process has been
so corrupt, flawed and loaded against the employees that they
found it impossible to raise their bidding price with the cost of
living. As such all their costs and expenses are going up as all
our costs and expenses are going up. Fuel costs, car insurance
and the things they have to pay are through the ceiling, but they
are unable to obtain fair compensation through current tendering
practices.
I have a quote from a female rural route courier who said:
I have been serving rural Canada customers for 17 years. After
that much time, I gross $70 a day, out of which I have to pay
average expenses of about $30 a day for things such as gasoline
and car repairs. I have hurt my back at work. I don't have any
sick benefits. For a while, I was able to work half time.
She had to hire someone to do the other half of her job and had
to pay them $50 a day. For the period of time that her back was
injured and she could only work half time she had to pay more
than she earned in a day to hire a replacement. She could not
hire someone for half a day for less than $50. By the end of
last year she was unable to work at all and her replacement was
getting the full $70 a day.
We can see the difficulty. I know rural jobs are hard to come
by. In many places these are off farm jobs that provide a second
income for a farming family, but there is no reason why there
should be a huge gap between the conditions for delivering mail
in the city and the conditions for delivering mail in the
country. It becomes a rural-urban split and a rural-urban bias
which these people are starting to resent. Another women said:
I haven't had a holiday since I started at Canada Post seven
years ago. I can't afford to take one. I gross only $87 a day,
out of which I pay all my operating expenses. When it came came
time to renew our contract I was told by Canada Post that I had
better lower my price or I won't get it again this time, so I
actually bid myself down.
That is not a fair tendering practice. I am from the building
industry and I know about contracts and contract letting. One
does not put out a tender, phone people back and shop the price
around saying that their price was pretty good but somebody else
was lower and if they want it they had better come in lower. In
the industry I come from we call that crooked. It is offensive
to hear that it happens in this regard. She went on to say:
Since I got the contract, I have on many occasions had parcels
that would not fit into my car, especially after loading all my
other mail. I have had to make extra trips to be able to deliver
those large parcels. That means extra costs and more work time
for me, but I don't get the additional compensation.
With take home pay of $900 per month after expenses, I could
stay home and make more money on welfare.
There are pages and pages of stories of anecdotal evidence which
leads us to believe that something has to be done. Rather than
try to impose some solutions on these workers, let us listen to
what they are asking us to do. What they want is the right to
collective bargaining, not to try to put band-aids on a tendering
system that is actually broken.
I appeal one more time to members of the House to vote for the
bill at second reading so that we can get it to committee. I
will have the bill amended to alleviate many legitimate concerns
that were raised. I think we could do a service for these 5,000
employees and meet their concerns about their jobs.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 2.10 p.m. the
time provided for the debate has expired. Pursuant to order made
earlier today all questions necessary to dispose of the motion
are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded and
deferred until Tuesday, April 4, 2000, at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
[Translation]
This House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2.10 p.m.)