Debates of June 5th, 2002

Pest Control Products Act

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members know the bill updates legislation that was approved over 30 years ago. Since 1990 actually, there have been several recommendations on how to update it. For instance, there were the so-called blue book, the purple book as well, and the 1999 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. They all formulated ideas and recommendations to improve the Pest Control Products Act, which we are now amending with the bill. All these efforts have been useful over time in producing the bill that is before us for discussion and in strengthening the old legislation.

I would like at this point in the debate to commend the chair of the health committee for not rushing through the bill, but for having listened to a wide range of witnesses and for adopting, with the help of committee members, a good number of amendments which definitely will strengthen the legislation.

It is a great pleasure for the members of the environment committee who worked on the committee's report entitled “Pesticides. Making the Right Choice for Human Health and the Environment”, which as we know was published about two years ago, to see the following amendments being passed by the health committee.

First, there is the fact that the words “acceptable risk” are clearly defined. Second is the inclusion, even if in a narrow scope and manner, of the very important precautionary principle, in clause 20, I believe.

Third is the fact that formulants are now included in the definition of a pesticide. It is a very important step and a breakthrough in committee. Fourth, the aggregate exposure and cumulative effect now have to be considered in the assessment of risk and in the re-evaluation and special reviews.

Fifth, there is a parliamentary review every seven years from now on. We also suggested a shorter period, nevertheless it is still good stuff. Sixth, the annual status report will also include registrations and lower risk products.

Seventh, the protection of children by way of a definition in committee is extended also to future generations, a general principle of capital importance. Eighth, the review of lower risk products will be expedited. Ninth, there is now stronger language favouring alternative products and also favouring strategies as defined in the preamble.

These are definitely positive improvements.

There are still some shortcomings. First, for instance, there is no statutory mandate given to the pest management review agency, which we very warmly recommended.

Second, there is no inclusion of the substitution principle, therefore there will be no requirement to deregister older products as newer and safer ones come on the market. Third, there is a broad definition of what constitutes confidential business information. It remains as it is in the old legislation.

Fourth, there is no requirement for a sales database, but I hope this will be resolved by additional funding for the chief statistician. Fifth, there is no requirement to label toxic formulants, contaminants or microcontaminants.

Finally, there is no phasing out of cosmetic pesticides, a measure that was proposed by our colleague from Montreal West, I believe, in her private member's bill, which actually was unanimously accepted by the House some months ago. It is another shortcoming of Bill C-53 that the cosmetic use of pesticides is not included, but one draws comfort from the fact that the supreme court last June set a precedent by saying that yes, the municipalities do have the power to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides, and yes, the public interest can and should be served by municipalities. Therefore the legislation somehow opens up or definitely makes room for the municipalities to take the initiatives.

It is very heartening to see that municipal elected representatives have not been bamboozled by the pesticide industry's public relations campaign every spring and that today over 30 municipalities across Canada have banned the cosmetic use of pesticides on private property and in some cases also on public property. It is also heartening to know that here on Parliament Hill pesticides are not used on the lawns.

In this connection also one has to say that the pesticide industry, in an attempt to introduce its products to the market, uses abbreviations and names which remove entirely the notion that what is being offered is actually a pesticide. We have fancy names like 2,4-D, which is a fancy abbreviation to convince the potential consumer that it is not a chemical that has danger for children and pets on the lawn and that it can be used safely. The fact is that every form of pesticide, whether it is described as mild or not, is a killer. If it kills insects, it contains substances that in certain accumulations and with a certain intensity can be very dangerous to human health, particularly to infants, to living beings of a smaller size and to adults in certain instances.

Therefore one can ask the question: What is wrong in having on the front lawn some beautiful, nice, yellow dandelions beautifying the landscape? There is evidently a cultural fixation here, particularly in suburban Canada, that the lawn has to be perfect and that it cannot contain anything but the blade. I hope there now will be a changing culture over time whereby we will see yellow flowers on front or backyard lawns and people will not consider them to be bad, considering that they are also part of the natural habitat and so on.

To conclude, the bill tells the manufacturers of pesticides that the government does recognize the fact that pesticides, which are euphemistically called pest control products, are actually dangerous substances and they should be used rarely and with extreme care. Particular care ought to be given to the training of the people using them, particularly in agriculture through the WHMIS program. It is good to know that in the bill there is a clause containing a measure that was firmly and in a very eloquent manner proposed by the member for Ottawa West when we had the hearings in committee when writing the report on pesticides a couple of years ago.

We hope that the industry will not spend money on promoting through advertising ideas that attempt to convince the public of the innocuousness of their products. I think that Canadians are now better informed than ever before.

Finally, let me say that the bill does have great potential. It is most definitely badly needed as an improvement over the 1969 legislation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we do not have a problem of co-operation and we are very happy to work together.

I would like to thank the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie for his work in committee. I have often had the opportunity to say that it is in parliamentary committee that members show their real potential.

I will have the opportunity to get back to this, but we were disappointed by the fact that, although more than 150 amendments were moved by the opposition parties and by the government, all the amendments moved by the opposition, except for a few, were rejected. I think that a public policy bill, I would even say a public health and environment bill, such as the bill on pesticides, should not result in the kind of rather petty and mean spirited party politics the government has resorted to, through its parliamentary secretary and this unfortunately too silent Liberal majority.

This being said, the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to quickly support passage of the bill. All members of this House know well that this legislation was long overdue, since 1969, in fact.

The member for Windsor West says he was born in 1968. It would be a lie if I were to claim the same, but we know that the act has not been reviewed since 1969. There are 6,000 pesticides on the market, with over 500 active ingredients. It is understandable that all those who are interested in the environment have indicated some concerns.

What is the issue at stake? In Quebec for instance, we learned that one person in two uses pesticides for cosmetic purposes, for no other reason than to have a greener or more luxuriant lawn. The use of pesticides is bad for the environment. It has repercussions all along the food chain. The government's slowness to act is unacceptable.

There is one other significant figure. I read that pesticide sales for horticultural use between 1992 and 1996 rose significantly, by 60%. When the statement is made that municipalities and local communities are closer to the people, it is interesting to note that the movement to ban pesticide use for cosmetic purposes came initially from the municipal and local community level.

It went right up to the supreme court. Pesticides fall under several jurisdictions. Retail sales are a prerogative of the provincial government, but everything to do with registration, access by consumers and retailers, pesticide classification and labelling, is a federal responsibility.

The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie will agree with me that a number of witnesses who came before the parliamentary committee wanted us to know how dysfunctional the PMRA is, how inefficient it was, how much time it took to register products, and how dubious the judgment used in making decisions was.

There is, however, one positive measure. One of the reasons we support the bill is that I understand that, without a true joint registration process with the United States, when a manufacturer files a compliance notice and application for registration, it will be possible to avoid starting from scratch and to instead take inspiration from what has already been done, from studies and monographs which may come from the U.S. or other countries, instead of having to start from square one. We like to think of this as one element of many that will help speed up the registration process.

We want very much to see the registration process speeded up, because there is the whole issue of biopesticides.

We recognize that there are pests in the environment, that a certain number of them must be eliminated, and that products must be used. But we are saying that there must be ecological concerns, and the whole area of biopesticides could make it possible for environmental concerns to be better addressed.

I would like to speak about a number of amendments put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. Once again, it is rather sad to see the partisan antics of this government.

In this regard, I draw attention to the Minister of the Environment. There is one good thing about him; he trains at the gym with me. He is in fairly good physical condition, and he will need a lot of energy to convince cabinet to sign the Kyoto protocol.

The best thing he could do for the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, who celebrated his birthday yesterday, the best present he could give him, would be to convince cabinet to sign the Kyoto protocol without further ado. Let us make the connection between the Kyoto protocol and everything going on with pesticides.

First, a number of witnesses told the committee that there are products which have been around for 20 or 30 years and which have not been re-evaluated. We are therefore asking that these products be re-evaluated within five years. I believe that the amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois mentioned 2006 at the latest.

We were surprised to see this amendment defeated. This could put Canada and Quebec in an extremely unfortunate situation.

The Bloc Quebecois put forward several amendments, which would make it mandatory to re-evaluate by 2006 all pesticides registered before 1995, without exception. We understand the whole logic behind re-evaluating pesticides.

There are perhaps alternatives now on the market which would be less harmful to the environment. We understand that this may not have been the case in 1979, in 1983 and in 1988. But in 2002, with the help of technology and research, these are perhaps alternatives.

I know that one of the Scandinavian countries automatically requires that old pesticides be eliminated. The member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie could tell me whether it is Sweden or Norway. Nonetheless, there is one country which automatically requires that old pesticides be replaced by new ones, which are less damaging to the environment.

The amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois regarding this mandatory re-evaluation was inspired by what is being done in Scandinavian countries. Again, it is unfortunate that the government chose to adopt a totally partisan attitude, because the bill would have been greatly improved had the government voted in favour of the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois.

Regarding another amendment brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, we think that the act should be subject to a review. In fact, most acts that are voted on here are subject to a mandatory review, whether it is the Employment Equity Act or the Assisted Human Reproduction Act.

The assisted human reproduction bill contains a provision that requires a three year review of the act. It would have been interesting to see the government follow the same logic with this bill. It is important to review legislation in areas where technological advances occur at a rapid pace.

Initially, the government wanted a ten year review. However, a lot of things can happen in ten years. I think the parliamentary secretary will agree with me on that. Ten years is a long period. It is two mandates, or three mandates with this Prime Minister, since he calls an election every three and a half years. In any case, no one knows what the future holds. It will be interesting to see what happens in February.

In closing, we brought forward an amendment calling for a five year review. It was a good compromise between a ten year review and the yearly review proposed by the New Democratic Party. We were sad to see that the amendment was rejected. However, we will continue to work hard to improve this bill, which is very important for public health and for the environment.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of this legislation. I thank all hon. members who sat on the health committee with me for their work in making changes to this bill. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health for recognizing that members in the House saw that the bill needed some changes. The minister was very good to work with us in putting forward recommendations.

I would like to remind all hon. members that five amendments came from opposition members and were accepted by the government. They include the preamble, which encourages alternative approaches, and the mandate of informing the public, which we wanted to ensure was increased. We also accepted reviews from other OECD countries and the cancellation of the consultation on the policy codes of practice; and for greater certainty the protection for children that it extended to future generations.

Government members put forward amendments dealing with the definition of acceptable risk; the definition of formulas; expediting the evaluation of reduced risk pesticides; and the recognition of the importance of dealing with minor use pesticides and dealing with them expeditiously.

This committee work has showed that members of parliament working together can put forward amendments and put forward a bill representing the interests of all Canadians across this country, whether members of an environmental group or farmers. That is what this bill does.

The bill would aggressively modernize the Canadian pest management legislation. It would safeguard Canadians and the environment while ensuring that our nation's farmers would have access to safe pesticides which would ensure an abundant food supply and allow them to compete with other farmers around the world.

Bill C-53 furthers three important goals designed to benefit all Canadians and it respects what Canadians have been telling the government.

First, the Pest Control Products Act would strengthen protection for Canadians and their environment. This act would specifically protect segments of the population who are most vulnerable to health risks created by pesticides such as infants, seniors and pregnant women. It would also require the Minister of Health to consider a margin of safety, an increase of tenfold, when evaluating products designed to be used in and around homes and schools.

This bill would also place an extra premium on human health by requiring the Minister of Health to account for the cumulative effects of pesticide use and its exposure. This measure would ensure the protection of Canadians from all possible negative consequences of pesticide exposure and use.

Second, the act would strengthen the post-registration control of pesticides. Under Bill C-53, pesticide producers would be required to report any adverse health or environmental impact created by their products. The act would also require that older pesticides be re-evaluated 15 years after they were first registered. This re-evaluation process would ensure that we would continue to use the latest scientific information and data when determining which pesticide products remain on the market. It would also give the Minister of Health authority to remove products from the market when the producer or the pest management product fails to supply re-evaluation data.

The bill would also dramatically increases maximum fines for the most serious violations. Violations may be punished by up to $1 million in fines and I believe these penalties should deter people from using unregistered pest management products or registered products used in an unlawful manner.

Finally, the bill would make the registration process of pesticides more transparent. It would also encourages public verification of the work of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency. This is something for which all groups have been asking. The bill would ensure that we could watch over the work being done at the PMRA. It would also establish public registries that would contain detailed evaluation reports of registered pesticides and reading rooms where people could go in and look specifically at the data the PMRA uses to make its decisions.

This increased transparency will build public confidence and will provide Canadians with the knowledge that we have some of the safest food in the world and that we have agencies to ensure that that continues to be the case.

While the health committee recognized that the pest control products had potentially adverse human health effects, it also recognized that pesticides contributed greatly to the quality of life and the strength of the Canadian economy.

Bill C-53 and the regulations would provide Canadian farmers with better access to safe pest management products being registered in other developing and developed countries such as the United States, Great Britain and the OECD countries. Canadian farmers can compete head to head with the Americans but they need the same products to do so. The act and the regulations following it would allow Canadian farmers access to these products and allow them to do it in a safe and timely manner.

Directive 2002-02 of the PMRA extends the NAFTA joint review programs for reduced risk pesticides to submissions made solely to the PMRA. By adopting this reduced risk criteria used by the USEPA, the directive harmonizes and moves toward harmonization of the registration process between our two countries and will encourage more pesticide use within Canada and safer at reduced risk.

I want to conclude by saying that members of parliament were allowed to listen directly to their constituents and put forward their concerns. On my part that would be the farmers in my community and across the country. The government allowed us to make sure that those concerns were put on the table and to make the changes needed to ensure that all Canadians, whether an environmentalist or a farmer, had a voice in this debate.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to Bill C-53, and I am happy to be able to do so briefly today.

In any event, I believe that I will have the opportunity to come back to it and to express my opinion on the bill now before the House. I will probably have the opportunity to express my opinion and talk about my experience to those who are listening to us.

What I wanted to talk about today is my personal experience with pesticides, as I was the mayor of a municipality for a long time. I wanted to indicate what I have accomplished. That would have given the people who are listening today an actual example of this. I will, however, have the opportunity to come back to this.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will have nine minutes left when the House resumes debate on this bill.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

moved that Bill C-404, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail contractors), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in the House before my colleague, the member for Champlain.

In his riding, there are many letter people delivering mail in rural areas. We can see them, on rural routes, stop at every mailbox and put the mail in. This bill concerns these people specifically.

Let me explain my reasons for introducing Bill C-404 and the working conditions of these people, most of whom are women. In closing, I will describe how their working conditions are negotiated and their agreement with the Canada Post Corporation.

There are 6,000 rural route mail couriers and suburban service contractors in Canada and, as I said, most are women. Their swages is often below minimum wage. They have no job security and are not entitled to employee benefits. Because of subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, they are not entitled to collective bargaining. They cannot unite to face their employer.

At the outset, this is unhealthy and unusual. You will understand why, Madam Speaker, and I am convinced that, as a woman, you will understand the request that I am making here on behalf of the vast majority of women who work as rural route mail carriers.

What does subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act say? It says that for the purposes of the application of part 1 of the Canada Labour Code to the Canada Post Corporation and to officers and employees of the corporation, a mail contractor is deemed not to be a dependent contractor or an employee within the meaning of those terms in subsection 3(1) of the code.

What does that mean? It means that part 1 of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with the acquisition of bargaining rights and regulates the collective bargaining process, applies only to employees of the federal public sector, under the definition in subsection 3(1) of the code.

There court decisions deal with the status of rural route mail carriers as employees under the Canada Labour Code. In 1987, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, or CIRB, ruled that rural route mail carriers were employees.

However, the federal court later supported the position of the government and of the Canada Post Corporation by ruling that subsection 13(5) had specifically been included in the Canada Post Corporation Act to prevent rural route mail couriers from being considered as employees.

We can see what use the Canada Post Corporation has made of this court decision. In some cases, rural route mail couriers are treated no better than animals.

Why does subsection 13(5) deny rural route mail carriers such a fundamental right as the right of association, since the freedom of association is already protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Why is it that in their case, because of this legislation which favours a crown corporation, those rights are being denied?

In 1980, the then minister responsible for Canada Post, André Ouellet, who, by some strange coincidence—there are many happy coincidences—is now the president of the Canada Post Corporation, said that subsection 13(5) was necessary to preserve the financial health of Canada Post.

At the time, we all remember, Canada Post was racking up a deficit year after year of several hundreds of millions of dollars. However, we know that since 1995, Canada Post has been making a profit and is paying handsome dividends to the government. Between 1995 and 2000, $260 million have been paid to the federal government. Mail is a money maker for the sole shareholder of the corporation, which is the federal government.

Are Canada Post and the government not saying that rural route letter carriers are contract workers, and not employees? Letter carriers on rural routes are not contractors. I will explain why.

Their contract with Canada Post forbids them from working for other companies while they deliver the mail. Therefore, they are not able to deliver, in their car or truck, other products, other pamphlets, or ad-bags. They work exclusively for Canada Post. They cannot serve any other master than Canada Post.

Canada Post determines the sorting and delivery deadlines, and the delivery order. They cannot start their route at one end and return, or the opposite. The route is determined by Canada Post, and they must adhere to it strictly.

The number of returns to the post office and the way the mail must be handled and delivered are also regulated by the Canada Post Corporation. Letter carriers on rural routes must hire their own replacements, not because they are contractors who manage their own work, but because their contract requires that they find their own replacements when they are sick or on holiday.

Canada Post has complete administrative control over the daily work of rural route letter carriers. Canada Post does not simply give them the mail and let them deliver it as they see fit. It imposes a series of rules on how the work must be carried out. Furthermore, it also supervises them directly.

In some post offices—I am referring to rural areas here—even if it is not in their contract, they are told they must clear the snow around rural post boxes. They are not paid for it.

Often, when a Canada Post employee who is responsible for sorting the mail is absent, sick or not at work for some reason, the rural route mail courier has to sort the mail himself and prepare his delivery, without being paid for doing so, when this is absolutely not part of his contract. Otherwise, he might incur the wrath of the postmaster and often of the Canada Post Corporation immediately afterwards.

According to the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers, the president of the Canada Post Corporation, André Ouellet, is hiding behind parliament—and I believe they are right—by saying that he cannot do anything because the act that governs him prevents him from acting. We will remember that he himself introduced this legislation and had it passed when he was the minister responsible for the Canada Post Office.

The government's position is reflected in the answer given by the minister responsible for crown corporations, the current Deputy Prime Minister, to a question asked by one of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party on April 25, when he said “the hon. member knows that Canada Post Corporation is an arm's length crown corporation. I do not direct it as to how it manages its day to day operations”. He was talking about the corporation. It is not so much at arm's length, since the legislation that governs it originated from here and was passed here. The arm's length or non-arm's length relationship is highly questionable in this case.

We know very well that the federal government has always called the shots when it comes to the Canada Post Corporation. When the federal government got tough with the Canada Post Corporation in the past and told it to start making money, that it was tired of carrying it, the corporation had to knuckle under.

Suggesting that there is no connection between the Canada Post Corporation and the federal government is hardly an indication of goodwill and sincerity. We all know that Canada Post is the exclusive property of a single shareholder, the Government of Canada.

What are we asking for on behalf of these workers, most of them women, in Bill C-404, which I have introduced? The Bloc Quebecois is asking that rural and suburban route carriers be exempt from the provisions of paragraph 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

This would enable them to join forces, to take stock, which is perhaps what is scaring the Canada Post Corporation, that they are human beings, that they have a right to earn a decent living. In the world of today, in 2002, one cannot treat workers this badly, as though we were living in the 19th century. These people have obligations like everyone else: they must make a living, raise a family, feed their children, put a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.

It would seem that, for the Canada Post Corporation, these concerns simply do not matter. The only thing that counts for the Canada Post Corporation and its current president, and I really hate to say this, but it is true, is making money. Making a profit justifies everything. We on this side of the House cannot accept this.

About two years ago, a similar bill with basically the same object was introduced in the House. I remember that the bill was rejected by a vote of 114 against 110. Four government members had made the difference. As is often the case on their side, several government members had followed the example of their leaders, who had risen first. When a minister rises, the others follow suit without asking any questions, without even knowing what they are voting on. After the vote, everyone went home. On the way to the West Block, at least four members asked me “What did we vote on? What were the implications?”

I told them, and they replied “Ah, if only I had known”. But not knowing, they harmed people who have a right to earn a decent living.

The worst in all this is the malice displayed by the Canada Post Corporation when the time comes to renew contracts. I hope that the term is not unparliamentary, but it is totally disgusting.

The rural mail contractor who buys a car or a small truck must make payments over a four year period, but his contract is only a three year contract. Canada Post is well aware that the contractor has to make payments for another year. Before his contract expires, when it is time to renegotiate, the contractor is told “You know, there are seven, eight, nine or ten people who want your contract, who are eyeing it. If you do not take a pay cut, you will lose it”. Rather than lose everything and end up in dire straits, the contractor agrees to a pay cut.

At Canada Post, some people make it up the corporate ladder by stabbing in the back poor people who earn minimum wage. Allowing this is unworthy of a government. It is even more unworthy of a corporation like Canada Post, which is an employer. Such an attitude is unspeakable.

Unfortunately, by using their majority, the Liberal members of the government in office prevented this bill from being made a votable item and, unfortunately, it cannot be voted on.

However, today's debate may at least develop an awareness among Liberals who may be too cold-hearted these days, although not with their friends from Groupaction and Groupe Everest, where millions and hundreds of millions fly like there is no tomorrow. Yet, these same Liberals refuse to give the minimum to people who work so hard to make a living.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Madam Speaker, that is a long title and I am also the minister responsible for crown corporations which is one of the reasons why I am the guy in the barrel this evening to debate the bill.

I want to respond to some of the comments made by my hon. colleague about this issue. On the surface one might agree with what the hon. member has said if there was some validity to it in terms of the treatment of rural mail deliverers and rural postal workers. If we were to suggest that somehow they were being underpaid, undervalued, badly treated, not provided with proper training or supervisory skills, not provided with a proper wage, or proper compensation for fuel, then there would be reason to support the bill. There are those that would suggest that somehow that was happening, that Canada Post did not feel they were worth worrying about. However, that belies the facts of the situation. It is not the truth when it comes to the relationship that Canada Post has with rural contractors.

We should first understand the word contractors. These are people who use this to supplement the family income in rural Canada. They bid on a contract and they are awarded that contract. It is a part time job requiring about four hours a day. Often it is a job that can be done within reasonable proximity of their home so that they can deliver the mail and return home to tend to either the chores of the family or whatever it is that needs looking after. They need a little bit of flexibility. When we compare it to an urban mail service, it is not like they are walking down the street with hundreds of homes filling up mailboxes or in the case of newer communities, going to central mailbox delivery facilities within the community and filling up the slots.

We are talking about rural Canada where it is sometimes necessary to drive great distances to deliver the mail or get a parcel delivered. It requires a different approach. The real issue here is not the working conditions of the rural postal contractors. The bill should be renamed because it is a bill to increase the membership in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. In reality that is what we are talking about.

There are thousands of rural contractors in Canada. If they were all brought into the union and paid monthly union dues it would substantially increase the revenue for the union and increase the membership. In union politics, which I know a little bit about having been raised by a national director of the United Steelworkers of America and a vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress, I understand the importance of union dues and the importance of expanding the union base and membership.

In reality, that is what this is about. I do not have a problem with union officials trying to do this. I support the right of labour unions to be able to organize and to expand their particular area of membership whether it be in the same field or as in the case of the auto workers. Many of us had lunch today with Buzz Hargrove, he may be running for some obscure office, that announcement has yet to make the front pages, but one never knows. Only 25% of the people who are members of the Canadian Autoworkers union are in the automobile business. They have changed their approach recognizing the change in industrial and commercial Canada. They have gone after other industries where organization was not heretofore a reality.

I believe that organized labour adds tremendous value to our country. I support the right of men and women to work, to organize and to get together to fight collectively through bargaining agreements or, if they need to, through the use of work action and things of that nature.

There is an old adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I have yet to see anyone point out to me any rationale that would suggest that the system currently in use by Canada Post is broken.

Members should take a look at the success of Canada Post since it was made a crown corporation in 1981. It is quite a remarkable success story. Prior to 1981 the federal taxpayer had subsidized Canada Post by some $4 billion. That is quite an outstanding amount of taxpayers' money. Since that time Canada Post has returned to the government coffers in excess of over $300 million in revenue.

If I were a union leader in CUPW I would say that a lot of that is due to the hard work of the men and women in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I acknowledge that. A lot of it is also due to the change in style of management and that as a crown corporation Canada Post is able to go out and compete and find new ways of doing business. Few people realize that Canada Post is a 51% shareholder in Purolator. Canada Post is into the business world.

Members opposite, particularly in the official opposition, would scream if we did it any other way. I would as well. This has been a lesson in how government can work better and more effectively. I must say that when I put an envelope in a red box with a 48¢ stamp on it, and send it either across the street, across town, across the province, or across the country, and it arrives within a reasonable period of time in good shape, that is tremendous value for the dollar. It is a real success story.

Recently I had the privilege of travelling to Madrid to meet with the postal operations from Central and South America, Spain and Portugal, all these Spanish speaking countries who get together on a regular basis and share best practices and new ideas in postal delivery. The post office today is not the traditional way of delivering the mail. It is e-post. It has expanded into the electronic world. It is package and parcel delivery. It is just in time.

If hon. members want a fabulous experience they should go to Canada Post's head office right here in Ottawa and take a look at the operation. If they want to see the impact in rural Canada, there is an electronic map of Canada that is extremely large. For example, it shows when a truck breaks down on the Trans-Canada highway outside The Pas, Manitoba, or anywhere in the country. A yellow truck flashes on the map and a front-end vehicle is sent out to pick up the truck within minutes. It is astounding to see this operation. It is very high tech and something of which all Canadians can be proud. It even has 28 airports on the map. If there is a 10 minute delay it shows a yellow airplane flashing; if it is 30 minutes it is a green one. If the flight is cancelled it is red, so the mail can be shifted just like that and to ensure that it gets to where it is intended to go.

Canadians can be proud of Canada Post. The people who work for Canada Post, members of CUPW and management, can and should be proud of the success story. In Madrid, all of the postal operations from South and Central America, Spain and Portugal wanted to hear how Canada had turned this previously heavily subsidized corporation around and made it into a modern success story that is delivering its product at an extremely reasonable price, turning a profit in favour of the taxpayer. What a fabulous story. It is not broken. The bill would try to fix something that is not broken and is totally unnecessary.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do want to get into a discussion on the bill sponsored by the member for Chambly. I would like to give a little history lesson first because people see the bill differently in different parts of Canada.

My constituency has 87 post offices. Approximately 12 of them are located in houses, in small rooms with separate entrances, providing a service to a small community. There is no question in my mind that if we were to make those facilities compliant with the bill I am afraid that would cause Canada Post to close these small centres.

I have never talked to any individuals who operate these small post offices who had ever indicated in any way that they wanted to do anything else but place a tender and operate out of a small room. There is no demand out there, as the hon. member from the government side has just said, to make changes to that. None whatsoever.

We still have contracts for those people who would carry the mail in these remote areas. When these contracts go out people bid on them and the lowest bid is not always accepted. The Bloc member said that somehow they are told that they would have to lower their bid in the bidding for Canada Post contracts. That is absolutely false. I know it as I have helped many of these people prepare their bids.

The conditions of the bid include the mileage, the route, the time and everything else. They know how long the contract will be and when the contract will come to an end. They can either reapply and re-tender it. The idea that was raised in this House that somehow the tenders are looked at first and then negotiated to take the lowest tender after the tender process is absolutely not true.

The hon. member who just spoke from the government side did raise an interesting point. He said that we get the mail in reasonable time. I would like his definition of reasonable. I used to get mail from Ottawa delivered to my home more quickly when the CPR carried it than at the present time, so let us not say it is reasonable.

I have great fears that if we were to take all of Canada Post and put it so that all employees, even for only a few hours a day, came under a contractual arrangement we would ruin service to the rural areas. I am sure that would happen. Instead of having a daily mail service, it would perhaps be cut down to two days a week.

While the idea of the bill may have some merit, speaking from rural area Saskatchewan and speaking on behalf of the smaller post offices, I am afraid we could not support the bill even though it was votable.

The people who render the service in rural Saskatchewan do a tremendous job. The poolrooms are no longer the social centres. The post offices in rural Saskatchewan are the social centres of the community. For that reason, to destroy the operation of the post offices that now exist, at least in my area, under different contractual operations, would be a blow to the communities.

For that reason of course I cannot support a change in the present arrangements that Canada Post has with the smaller areas.

In the larger areas, I am not disputing, in any way, CUPW's operation. I am not disputing the arrangements that it has for mail contracting. I am not disputing the arrangements that Canada Post has with airmail or having the trucks deliver to central points.

What I am disputing is the government, or Canada Post as a corporation, trying to put something in these smaller areas that simply will not work in rural Canada. I know it will not work because I live in rural Canada and smaller areas are not asking for it. I have lived in a rural area for years. We have 24 truck deliveries and about 80 post offices. No one has ever asked for a change in what we now enjoy.

For rural Saskatchewan, those places outside the city, and for smaller places from coast to coast to coast, all the bill would do, if it were a votable bill and it came into effect, is cause Canada Post to bring poorer service to rural Canada, including Saskatchewan. Therefore I cannot support the bill.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here once again to debate this important issue of providing rights to rural route mail couriers.

As was mentioned in previous speeches, I had a private member's bill that was virtually the same. It was debated in the last parliament. I was very optimistic at that time that the bill had support on all sides of the House but in the final vote, as some members may remember, the count was 114 against and 110 for; in other words, at that time we lost the vote by 4 votes. Two people voted the other way. We were very disappointed but we were committed not to let the issue drop.

In spite of what the member from Mississauga would have us believe, the issue is about the workers' rights, not about any one union trying to expand its membership.

Rural route mail couriers are the only group of workers in the country who are specifically barred from free collective bargaining. I should point out that free collective bargaining is a right and a freedom guaranteed to all Canadian workers under the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all international conventions and covenants of all sizes, types and shapes. Therein lies the rub.

When the Canada Post Corporation Act was implemented in 1980, the corporation did not want these employees to be viewed as employees for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act so it put in a clause that would specifically bar this group of workers. It says that even though for all intents and purposes these people look, walk and act like employees, because in fact they are employees, from here on forward they will be considered independent contractors and therefore not subject to the Canada Labour Code.

That is simply not true. I have been in labour relations for much of my working life and there are a series of tests in law that one must meet to be considered an independent contractor. At best, these workers are dependent contractors, wholly dependent on one source for all of their earnings and income. What makes it completely unfair is that the Canada Labour Board ruled in their favour and said that they were wholly dependent and therefore employees. However because of that one clause, that one provision in the Canada Post Corporations Act, they could not avail themselves of all the rights that other workers enjoy.

It is a complete red herring to say that it is CUPW trying to expand its membership on an organizing drive because nothing in what the rural route mail couriers have said even mentions any specific union. They might form their own association but they do want the right to bargain collectively, and implicit with that right comes protection under the Canada Labour Code regarding strikes, lockouts and the use of arbitration and mediation. All those rights stem from the definition of being defined as an employee.

I worked very closely with the rural route mail couriers over the course of these many years. I opened up my office to them so that they could come to Ottawa and lobby on the Hill. They worked out of my office for two weeks while they came and visited members of parliament to try and explain to them the inherent unfairness of this. They are the only group of workers in the country who, for purely economic reasons, are barred from the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively and all the other rights that stem from that.

There is no justification for that other than economic. André Ouellet, the president of the Canada Post Corporation, has admitted that it was the corporation's motivation in 1980. At that time, the Canada Post Corporation was hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. I do not think its operating deficit was that much but it did have an accumulated debt of that much. It was simply trying to streamline its operations by not paying fair wages in rural Canada.

Fair wages benefit the whole community, whether it is a rural community or an urban community. No one can deny that it is unions that have elevated the standard of wages and working conditions to create the middle class which makes Canada great today.

Even the member from Mississauga grudgingly admitted that the unions had played a role in elevating the standards to the middle class, but yet we now have a disparity. We have a group of employees delivering mail in the city who are making, on average, $17 or $18 an hour, about $35,000 a year. It is not a fortune but it is a fair and living wage. However we have a group of employees in the country whose average take home pay, under the current contracting system, is less than the minimum wage paid to a McDonald's employee.

The current contracting system has been abused. The member from Saskatchewan, who spoke just prior to me, claimed that he knew of no abuse. Well many of the almost 7,000 rural route mail couriers on contract have come to me with graphic examples and illustrations showing how the contracting system has been abused, in that for the same contractors to keep their contracts they get a phone call from Canada Post telling them them that there is an awful lot of interest in their contracts and that for them to be guaranteed their routes they had better lower their bids a couple of bucks, and so it is jacked down again.

Those contractors have to pay for their own fuel, gas, insurance, car and all the other expenses that an independent business person would have to pay. They do not receive any benefits. They do not pay into a Canada pension plan, UI or worker's compensation and they receive no sick days, and it is all because they are not deemed to be employees for the purposes of the act . However, instead of their salaries going up with the cost of living and cost of inflation, they are being negotiated down. That is not a free tendering contract system. That is interference, dominance and abuse of power for Canada Post to call the people and tell them that if they want to keep their contracts they will have to take a little less.

When the Canada Post Corporation Act was first created over 20 years ago some of the rural route mail couriers were keeping their heads above water. However some of them are getting less now than they were then, for heaven's sake. Clearly the system has failed them. It is like it has been l throughout history. When a group of workers did not get to share in the benefits of this great nation, they were motivated to come together, to act collectively and to form their own association.

The rural route mail couriers have never said that if they were granted the right to organize and to bargain collectively that they would join the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. They may join the Canadian Autoworkers Union or form their own inhouse association for collective bargaining purposes. We do not know. It is a complete red herring to assume that it is just the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that is trying to expand its membership.

I thank the member for Chambly for raising this important issue on behalf of working people around Canada. It is at their request that we are keeping the issue alive. I am disappointed that the reason the vote on my bill lost was because of deliberate misinformation being spread by that side of the House. Everyone knew that we were only talking about rural route mail couriers being allowed to organize and bargain collectively. They took it to mean that all mail contractors would be included, in other words airline and trucking companies that had been contracted to carry mail on behalf of Canada Post.

That was never the purpose or the point and we had made that abundantly clear. However at the 11th hour, even though we had enough Liberal MPs willing to vote for us, especially those from rural Canada who knew the reality of rural route mail couriers, they were interfered with and misinformation was spread that it would have been a huge complicated thing that would involve trucking companies, shipping firms and airlines. That was nonsense and tripe.

All we are talking about is an issue of basic fairness to correct an historic injustice perpetrated by André Ouellet himself. We want the minister to intervene and to order and direct Canada Post Corporation to extend to rural route mail couriers the same rights and privileges that all Canadian workers enjoy and the protection of the Canada Labour Code. It is the very least we should be able to expect. It frustrates me that year after year goes by and we have yet to make this important step.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Chambly for bringing forward the bill. I also want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre who just spoke and had the same bill in the previous parliament, which at that time was votable. It is unfortunate that this bill will not be votable tonight.

In fact, if you listened carefully, Madam Speaker, the last time this bill came before the House as presented by the member for Winnipeg Centre it lost by only about four or five votes. There is a big interest in this issue, rightly so. I guess there is that interest simply because there is a great injustice out there in terms of how employees are treated within the same corporation.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Not employees.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

The parliamentary secretary had his say. I will go into a bit of a rant on what he had to say a little later if he would be patient enough to listen to me for a minute.

Perhaps I will get into my rant now while he is on a roll. As for the parliamentary secretary, imagine: this is the city mouse delivering a message on rural mail couriers. This is a member who represents Mississauga West, one of the richest ridings in the country. He would not recognize rural Canada or rural poverty if he stumbled over it.

I want to take exception to a few of the things he said. To begin with, the people who deliver mail in rural Canada are hard working and do a good job. There is absolutely no difference between what they do and what the urban couriers do in that place called Mississauga West which the parliamentary secretary represents in the House of Commons. The only difference is how they are paid. The rural mail couriers are basically working for minimum wage. I have some facts, Madam Speaker, which I will table in the House with your permission to prove that.

I want to refer to a ruling by the Canada Labour Relations Board. It was a decision in 1987. The decision emphasized the point that while Canada Post has divided its operations into urban and rural services, the evidence brought before the board showed that there were no clear boundaries. Not only are RRMCs, the rural route mail couriers, “integrated into the overall post office mail delivery and collection plan”, but also nothing “greatly distinguishes the manner in which they perform their function from the manner in which the functions are performed by letter carriers”. That reference is from the CLRB decision, board file 530-1218, rural route mail couriers. On April 29, 1987, this decision was rendered.

I guess the rest is academic. We only have to listen to members on this side of the House, who I think have really grasped this issue and understand it.

Again to go back to the parliamentary secretary, and this is something that he will learn not to do, he is used to shooting from the hip. We do give him credit. He is a great performer, but when one is representing a minister in the House and the Government of Canada that person should not be shooting from the hip. That individual should use a little bit of fact to emphasize the point if there is in fact a point to make.

Listen to this one. I will quote the member with regard to rural mail couriers. There are 5,000 of them out there and, by the way, two-thirds of them are women. The parliamentary secretary stated in the House that they are out there only to supplement their incomes, saying that they work perhaps, and that is the word he used, perhaps, four hours a day and do reasonably well financially.

His interpretation of the world is based on that old movie On Golden Pond . He is a cottager up in Muskoka where the steaks are thick and the beer is cold. If he accidentally runs into some of the rural poor driving down the highway, he would not--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Well, Madam Speaker--

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Shut up and sit down.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will not shut up and sit down. I do not think that personal attacks are appropriate here.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Would the hon. member please sit down?

Colleagues, I think we all know what language is appropriate for the House. I do not think that I as the Chair should be the one to tell you what language is appropriate.

We will resume debate on the private members' business that is before the House, please.

The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, the beer is cold and the steaks are thick on golden pond. That is exactly where his cottage is and he cannot deny that.

He said that the workers work perhaps four hours a day. They are reasonably well paid, he said. Then he said they can attend to their chores when they return home, because most of them are women and they go home to do chores. That is an insult to rural mail couriers, because they are hardworking. In fact they are the working poor. The evidence is here that will prove that. He got on to this tirade about how this is just another union movement. That is absolutely false. It has nothing to do with a union in a sense. It has everything to do with fairness for workers who basically do the same job as their city cousins. That is it.

The previous critic, from the great riding of St. John's West, who is now sitting behind me, wrote to André Ouellet, the president and chief executive officer of Canada Post. I will tell members what he said, because this is the basic honesty that I think can come only from the Conservative Party. I, along with this member and others, am taking credit for this, for changing our position on this, because at one time we had a ridiculous position on it, which the government now maintains. It is the position it inherited from us, among other things, which it kept and did not change.

The member basically made three points to the president of Canada Post. He wants the rural mail couriers to be entitled to “more fair and equitable wages and allow”--fairer, that would be a grammatical error that I did not commit; I am just quoting from the letter--“collective bargaining...to improve wages and working conditions”. Remember, this is authored by a man from Newfoundland.

A third point, and the most important, is the repeal of subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act. That would eliminate the disparity between the city mouse, as exemplified by the parliamentary secretary, and the country mouse that we on this side of the House are attempting to defend.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that you carefully read the blues tomorrow yourself to realize how far off base the parliamentary secretary is on this issue and reflect on what we are saying on this side of the House, because our parliamentary language was concise, was precise. Nothing unparliamentary was said. Government members simply do not want their own words thrown back at them in the House during debate. That is what the issue is.

The fact of the matter is that we come to the House to defend citizens of this country when they are being treated unfairly. One might say that internationally we do that and we have a proud history of doing that. When we see an injustice or unfairness in Canadian society being exercised by Canada Post, it is incumbent upon us as elected representatives to do something about it, to bring it to the attention of the House and to bring it to the attention of the government so that the Canadian public understands the level of unfairness that is being exercised by Canada Post.

Canada Post has had some success stories. That is one thing I do agree on with the parliamentary secretary. It has had some success.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Get your own material. Quit using mine.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

You shut up.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

The fact is that in the 21st century the way it is treating rural mail couriers is not right. It is not fair. There is a sense of fairness in Canada which I think has to be exercised by that crown corporation. It is something that can be done and it should be done. We support the rural mail couriers and we want the government to do the same.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I think this legislation is very well intended. My fear is that however well intended it is liable to do damage to the very group it is trying to help.

I do come from rural Canada. I live in a small village in rural Ontario and I am very familiar with the rural mail couriers. I am very familiar with the fact that they are overburdened. The proliferation of direct mail advertising, for instance, particularly after the changes in legislation in the last few years, has resulted in an enormous burden on the rural mail couriers that operate out of my village.

However, there are two things I would like to point out to the member who is promoting this legislation. One is that in my community not all the rural mail couriers are in favour of what is proposed in the bill and the effect that would occur. The whole idea of this amendment, which would essentially allow rural mail couriers to organize, is in fact resisted by many of the people in my community who actually would prefer open competition. Their complaint is basically that Canada Post has been applying a very hard-nosed attitude to rural mail couriers.

I think another way should be sought to treat the rural mail couriers more fairly, primarily because the rural mail couriers are an important part of the character of this country. In every province, Quebec, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, or wherever, the rural mail couriers delivering the Queen's mail are an important part of our national identity and we need to support them.

The difficulty I see, Madam Speaker, is simply this. If the bill were to go through it would make the delivery of rural mail more expensive. I think what would happen is that Canada Post would get out of the business and it would go to independent couriers who would undercut and deliver the mail at a much lower price and the rural mail couriers would disappear altogether.

I have a lot of difficulty. I express my support for the intention of the legislation but I am very worried that it would have a negative effect.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the members for Winnipeg Centre and for New Brunswick Southwest and, above all, I would like to thank them for their support. I thank them on behalf of the rural mail contractors, for the sympathy and the compassion they have shown toward their fellow Canadians. It is to their credit.

I will not speak of the member for Mississauga West. I will not say what I think of him. I will not quote his words. Because it would not be parliamentary language, I will not say that I think he is a boorish man. I will not say so. I will not say either that he is a mercenary who has always defended the indefensible. I will not say that he supports all causes, even the most objectionable. I will not say that. I will not say that is heartless. I will not say what he is.

Referring to him, the member for New Brunswick Southwest referred to a city mouse and a country mouse. As far as I am concerned, we can forget about the city and the country, and I would not have referred to a mouse, but to another rodent.

Having heard this man talk on and on and throw tantrums for the nine years I have been in the House, and considering that I am a member just as he is and that we sit in the same parliament just makes me sick. It really makes me sick. He does not have any sympathy for other human beings. He only has one rule, which is to defend a party that is indefensible. He would never have said to his constituents during the election campaign what he has just said now. He would not have dared to say to postal carriers what he said a while ago.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The same thing.