House of Commons Hansard #120 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drugs.

Topics

Canada Post Corporation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions by the hon. member for Mississauga South and his involvement. I hope he will convince his colleagues to join with us in stopping this bill because we can. At caucus meeting Wednesday I hope the member will do that.

I do not think there is any question that if there had been an easy solution it would have been found. If we look at the history of this, there was a period a few years ago when there was an attempt under a universal mailing union system to see if there could be a compromise that Canada Post could live with to avoid what the member is saying.

My understanding is that Canada Post did everything it possibly could, and others will disagree but that is what I am advised, but it could not find that agreement, which is why it ultimately took them to court. It seemed as if it would be the privatizer's way or the highway and Canada Post could not live with it.

If we do this, Canada Post will be in a financial crunch. Canadians in B.C. will not have the same service as those in downtown Toronto or the cost of postage will go way up or we will have to put in our budgets every year, which we do not need to now, a sum of money that is dedicated to subsidizing Canada Post. That is why this makes no sense.

Canada Post Corporation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, this issue goes right back to the establishment of Canada Post Corporation. I have a quote from the postmaster general of the day. André Ouellet was the Liberal postmaster general in 1980. He said that the Canada Post Corporation will have the monopoly to transport letters so as to have a guaranteed source of revenue allowing it to ensure the universality of services.

That is the very foundation of Canada Post, the requirement of the monopoly in order to allow universal services so that someone from B.C. can write a letter to Nain, Labrador for the same price as it costs for a letter to go from Toronto to Montreal. This is a fundamental principle.

Does the member think the Liberal Party has actually abandoned that principle or is there some other reason why the member thinks they may not support it?

Canada Post Corporation ActGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is a long list of reasons why the Liberals might not be supporting it but what matters to Canadians is that they are not supporting us in stopping the bill and staying with the tradition. They have a tradition and I will go so far as to say that it is one they can be relatively proud of in the past with Canada Post. Why on earth are they throwing that overboard to appease a handful of private interests in Canada? We do not understand.

I will read another quote from the 1996 review mandate. It states in part that private companies would concentrate on high density urban areas and ignore rural and remote markets “because the combination of sparse population, low mail volumes and numerous distribution points is one that offers little prospect of profitability”.

Canada Post is about providing an important service to Canadians. The private business interest is to make money. The two do not go together. Why are we denying Canada Post the ability to be financially viable without costing taxpayers a single dime beyond what they pay directly for the postal service?

The Liberals need to answer to Canadians on why they would even consider letting the bill go through and do that kind of damage to Canada Post?

Canada Post Corporation ActGovernment Orders

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the importance of rural postal delivery and the fact that we need to support it. It is not cost effective in some areas because it costs a lot to go to some places.

I am talking about the northern communities in particular, starting in my riding. We have a very big capital city of 23,000 or so people where delivery service is easy. It is very efficient and cost effective for any corporation. Canada Post provides good service and does that economically.

Then we have a number of very small communities. One, Old Crow, where the mail has to go on the plane because there are no roads. There are other communities that can be a four, five or six hour drive, such as Beaver Creek, Watson Lake, Mayo and Teslin, Pelly Crossing, and Keno. Some communities have very few citizens, a few dozen citizens, and it is very expensive to deliver mail to such communities for the few letters that are mailed at 54¢ a letter, the cost for delivery in Canada. We all want Canada Post to be self-sustaining and to at least break even. It needs to have revenues to deliver to those small communities.

In the Northwest Territories, the situation is even more costly. Large cities like Yellowknife and Inuvik have highway access, but there are many cities that only have air access. Mailing letters to places with only air access is very expensive. Those communities without roads in the Northwest Territories are tremendously costly for Canada Post. Canada Post needs to have support from revenue somehow. Some of that comes from the exclusive privilege.

Nunavut has virtually no roads at all. Everything has to be flown in to all the communities, even to the large capital city and all the small communities. It is very expensive. Flights are extremely expensive because it is so far north, so isolated, so hard to get to and such difficult climate conditions. Yet, these communities have a right to receive mail like anyone else in Canada.

Once again, it is a very costly exercise, but for the same amount of 54¢, they have the right to receive mail from anyone in Canada and it needs to be covered. The exclusive privilege is very useful in helping Canada Post. It is one mechanism that can be used to ensure that it can provide reasonable rates to all Canadians for mail to their communities.

Mail is delivered to rural areas in Canada, to farms. In the Prairies there are some communities which have several dozen people and in the past were actually incorporated as a municipality. They need delivery. Rural post offices are very important places in Canada and we have fought to keep those open.

Time and time again, as the previous speaker said, we have a proud record in fighting for those rural post offices so that people in small communities have access, not simply for mailing a letter but to other services that Canada Post offers. In some small communities those other services could be delivered by no one else. There are no banks or other types of organizations in these very small communities. Canada Post can provide some services, and once again, this is not always a money-making opportunity for Canada Post. It has to have sufficient revenues to fund these services.

Another service is the delivery to the farms and the postal boxes that are on the highways. In particular, there have been some concerns in the last few years about the safety of the setup of the postal boxes and how those deliveries are made. In our belief, the answer is not necessarily to eliminate delivery to farms and rural people, but to improve access to where that mail person has to stop and make that delivery. Once again, these are expenses that could be incurred by Canada Post and it needs the revenues to pay for these expenses. One can see why this is important.

In some cases, a larger pull off the side of the road is needed. There could be a slot at the bottom of a hill so the postal car would not be stopping on the highway. However, we also do not Canada Post to cancel the service to that particular post office. If elderly people have been going to the end of their driveway for years to get their mail and then all of a sudden they are told that they are going to have to go out onto the highway and down the highway somewhere else to get that mail, one can imagine the potential for very serious accidents.

Elderly people could pull out on a very busy highway, especially in the winter. They may not see an oncoming car as clearly as they thought. The oncoming car, which could normally stop quickly, may not on an icy road. Once again, these provisions to ensure that the mail person is safe and that the farmer and the people living in these rural communities are also safe all cost money. Canada Post needs the type of revenue to ensure that these people are covered.

We now have a number of areas that are saving some money by having super-boxes. Mail is put into one location where everyone can go. It saves on door-to-door delivery. It is practical, but there are still a large number of stops in very rural areas. It costs a fair amount to deliver these many 54¢ letters. Canada Post receives some more revenue for larger letters, but of course they are heavy to carry.

It is a tenet of our Constitution that Canadians have the ability to receive services comparable to all Canadians no matter where they live. Certainly, mail is one of those types of services that all Canadians should have the right to access. It is a great binder of our nation and makes us all feel part of a country where we can all live in a great modern society and have those types of services that everyone should have access to.

Canada Post Corporation ActGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Order. When the House returns to this matter, the hon. member for Yukon will have 11 minutes remaining.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It being 6:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the question of privilege in the name of the member for Mount Royal.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Order PaperGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order. I wish to inform the House that in accordance with the representation made by the government pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), I have cause to be published a special order paper giving notice of a government bill and motion. This should have been tabled this morning, but here it is now and it is being tabled on the day.

I therefore lay the relevant document upon the table.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The question is on the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #138

PrivilegeGovernment Orders

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

7 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food a direct question relating to the government's response, or more so its lack of response, to the United States country of origin labelling legislation. I qualified my remarks that one of the defining characteristics of the Conservative government is to announce but never deliver.

As usual, the government claimed that it has taken action. It claimed that it raised the matter with the United States administration. On January 12, in a media release, the Minister of International Trade assured Canadian producers, and I will quote from the release, “I am pleased that key issues raised by Canada are addressed in these measures”. That was on January 12. That statement came after the United States published regulations in December 2008 for its COOL legislation. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was reported as claiming at the time, “We have gotten what we asked”--the United States Department of Agriculture--“to do”. It sounds like a success story does it not?

The same government issued a news release on November 19 of this year, in which the Minister of International Trade said, “Our assessments are showing us that COOL is having a negative impact on Canadian farmers and livestock producers”. Obviously. Is that not quite the revelation?

The success the government talked about in the spring did not happen. So much for the Conservative government's ability to gain concessions for Canadian producers. Its failure to gain results from the United States administration has been demonstrated by the necessity now of going to the WTO.

The reality is that the Conservatives' failure to take action, their failure to present the United States with a clear position in respect of countermeasures we might take has cost Canadian farmers. To a great extent we are losing the hog industry in Canada. Beef producers are in serious trouble. The Conservative government has to be held to account for its lack of action.

The Canadian Pork Council, which represents a sector of the farm economy that is suffering from COOL, told the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food:

The introduction of mandatory country-of-origin labelling in the U.S. has wreaked havoc on a sector already suffering from financial losses. Since 2009, exports of live hogs are down 40% compared with the same period last year. This breaks down as follows: 30% fewer Canadian weaner and feeder hogs going into the U.S. and 65% fewer Canadian market hogs being exported to the U.S. On an annual basis this represents a loss of about $250 million worth of exports.

Instead of utilizing business risk management where it has spent $861,400,000 less than last year, instead of utilizing that program and re-profiling it so producers could survive in the interim, the government continues to fail Canadian producers.

I ask the parliamentary secretary why do the Conservatives not continue to take strong measures against the United States and why do they not support our producers in the interim?

7:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me state that when it comes to agriculture, our Conservative government puts farmers first in everything that we do.

With respect to country of origin labelling, our government is standing up to the U.S. on this harmful legislation and is formally challenging the COOL legislation at the World Trade Organization. Thanks to our efforts a panel was established by the WTO dispute settlement body on November 19, 2009. We have taken action to defend the interests of Canada's cattle and hog producers and we are confident that we will win our challenge.

The request for a special WTO panel is the most recent step in a lengthy dispute between the Government of Canada and the United States. In early December 2008, we launched the dispute resolution process at the WTO by asking for official consultations with the United States, thus indicating our determination to defend Canadian producers.

The ministers of International Trade and Agriculture are both actively engaged in challenging the country of origin labelling legislation and have shared Canada's concerns with their U.S. counterparts at every opportunity.

The Prime Minister has also made it very clear to the U.S. all along that if the discriminatory aspects of COOL are not removed, we would take this issue to the WTO.

With respect to the agriculture committee, I took the initiative, with the support of my Conservative colleagues, to move a motion for the committee to travel to the U.S. in order to meet with congressmen, senators and industry groups to defend our farmers.

Regrettably, the member for Malpeque and his Liberal Party are completely out of touch with Canada's farmers and would in fact have us abandon this challenge. Bob Russell, a former Liberal candidate for Edmonton—St. Albert and Liberal of the year in 2007 said that COOL appears to be an idea whose time has come and that our producers should meet this demand. That is what the Liberal of the year said in 2007. That is not the view of our Conservative government.

It is time the Liberals got onside with farmers and supported our efforts in challenging COOL.

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, putting farmers first is the Conservatives' motto; what a farce. They are the first to help farmers out of business, and that is a fact.

How low will they go? The Conservatives quote somebody who is in an agriculture committee in one sector of one province and then they say that is the Liberal Party's position. That is what that party over there is all about: messaging. No matter what the message is, whether or not it is the truth, that party tries to create a false impression.

These are the facts of the matter on putting farmers first: there are 861,400,000 dollars less than last year in farm safety nets; $101 million lapsed on agriculture and agri-food grants and contributions; $15 million lapsed on the environment; and $13 million lapsed on safety. How could the parliamentary secretary stand in his place and try to leave the impression that he is putting farmers first?

The Conservatives are doing nothing of the sort. They are selling out the farm community in this country. They should be ashamed of themselves.

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, shame on the member of Parliament. He rants and raves, but he does nothing for farmers. In fact, the member is on strike. He said that he is not going to ask any questions on the agriculture portfolio because he is not supported by the leaders of the agriculture industry. Why is he not supported? Because he is wrong in all of his positions. That is why they will not support him. Now he is on strike. He says he defends farmers, but he will not ask a question during question period, and in committee he is very ineffective.

When it comes to COOL, our government understands that COOL threatens our livestock industry. That is why we have taken our challenge to the WTO. This has been extremely well received by the industry. Let me quote Brad Wildeman of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, who said, “The negative impact of this legislation will only increase and that is why we appreciate”--the government--“requesting the dispute settlement panel at the WTO”.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, members may recall that on a number of occasions I rose in the House with regard to, unfortunately, alleged improprieties on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, and in fact made a complaint to the Ethics Commissioner.

At 3 p.m. last Thursday, I received a letter from the Ethics Commissioner in which she said, “I am writing to inform you that I have completed my preliminary inquiry in relation to your request of October 5th, 2009, for an inquiry into an alleged contravention of the Conflict of Interest Code by the Minister of Natural Resources. Based on the information before me, I believe that an inquiry is warranted. The basis for my decision is outlined below”.

It is clear now that the commissioner is satisfied that there are matters which appear to be in contravention of the Code of Ethics for members, as well as under the Conflict of Interest Act, at which she will be looking. One of the things we have asked for is that during the period in which the minister will be subject to a formal inquiry by the Ethics Commissioner that she step aside until that inquiry is complete.

It gets even more complicated because consequential to this, Mark McQueen, the chairman of the board of the Toronto Port Authority, which is implicated in these alleged wrongdoings, was appointed by the current Minister of Transport, who is responsible for the port authority. He has been pleading for the government to allow the Auditor General to come in to clean up the mess, to look at the problems and to try to deal with them.

When the chair of a board of a federal agency asks the government to take action, action should be taken. This is the second time the board has asked for an investigation and an inquiry to be done and the government continues to say that it is beyond the Auditor General's mandate.

One of the things I learned in my review of this matter is this. Section 41(1) of the Canada Marine Act, which is the act under which this port authority operates and which guides the Minister of Transport, in terms of his responsibility, says that it must have a special report, a special investigation at least once every five years. It also says that the minister has the discretion to have one as often as he deems is required.

At question here are things like doctoring board minutes, political interference, gross mismanagement and dysfunction of the board to the point where it cannot discharge its responsibilities.

My concern at this point is that the Toronto Port Authority, a federal agency, is not able to discharge its responsibilities. I am asking the minister to order a special investigation to clear the mess up.

7:10 p.m.

North Vancouver B.C.

Conservative

Andrew Saxton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking the member for Mississauga South and the chair of the ethics committee for his intervention today.

Our government takes the allegations seriously. This government prides itself on accountability and ethics. That is why we strengthened the powers and responsibilities of those arm's-length agencies that are charged to investigate such matters.

The Minister of Natural Resources continues to co-operate fully with the Ethics Commissioner. The minister is following, and will follow, the commissioner's ruling and guidance.

The issue is still being examined by the Ethics Commissioner and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the minister has the authority to call for a special investigation by a third-party accounting firm, not the existing auditors, to come in. That is the request of the chair of the board, who was appointed by the transport minister. The transport minister is authorized under section 41(1) of the Canada Marine act.

This has nothing to do now with the Ethics Commissioner or with the Minister of Natural Resources. It has to do with the chairman of the board of directors saying, “We have a problem. We need somebody to look into it to clear the air. We need to be able to do our work, but there is a cloud hanging over our head. It is interfering with our ability to do our jobs”.

The minister has the tools. There is nothing the Ethics Commissioner can do to help him. He can go in and take responsibility for this, get someone to give him the information and determine what solutions there may be so we do not have a dysfunctional Toronto Port Authority.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, our government takes the allegations seriously. This government prides itself on accountability and ethics. That is why we strengthened the powers and responsibilities of those arm's-length agencies that are charged to investigate such matters.

The Minister of Natural Resources continues to co-operate fully with the ethics commissioner. The minister is following and will follow the commissioner's ruling and guidance. The issue is still being examined by the ethics commissioner and therefore it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, I have raised the fact that the United States is putting out oil leases in the Canadian Beaufort Sea and there is no response from the government. It waxes eloquent about protecting Canadian sovereignty. There have been all sorts of speeches and a number of announcements, most of which have not come to fruition. Yet, when there is a serious dispute, where is the government?

The Beaufort Sea has a disputed area. Canadians say that it goes from the 141st meridian. The Americans use another aspect of international law on a perpendicular to the shoreline, resulting in an area four times the size of Prince Edward Island and larger than some countries. What we claim as Canadian, the Americans claim as the United States. Yet, when they threaten our sovereignty by putting out oil leases, what is the response? It is very mild. Nothing has been said to Canadians about how we protected or dealt with that.

I put in a question on the order paper earlier this year and I received the answer. I asked what was happening with this dispute with the United States. It is the one serious major dispute at this time about Canada's economic property, with tens of millions of dollars worth of resources. The government said there is no dispute. It said that it was simply “a well managed disagreement”. It is not very well managed if the United States keep infringing on our potential economic interests.

It carries on. A couple of weeks ago, on November 9, the state of Alaska put out a 437 page document entitled “Beaufort Sea Areawide Oil and Gas Lease Sale”. Once again, in spite of any diplomatic letters we have written in the past or any mild complaints that the Canadians have not really heard about, the Americans keep on putting out leases on Canadian property. We should be sitting down and working out this dispute instead of allowing the Americans to go ahead and threaten our sovereignty in these ways.

The next issue that came up was the fisheries. The Americans have decided to put a moratorium on Canadian fisheries in our part of the Beaufort Sea. Once again, what is the response other than a letter? We hear nothing about sitting down and working this out. This area of the Canadian Beaufort is also managed by six Inuit communities in the western Arctic on the terms of the 1984 Inuvialuit final land claim agreement.

Not only all Canadians, but specifically and legally the Inuvialuit, have a big interest in this area. We sent a letter on April 27 saying that this was not acceptable and that this was our territory. What was the result from the United States in this well managed disagreement? On August 27, Secretary of Commerce Locke announced that the Americans were going ahead and doing it anyway, once again ignoring Canada's claims.

Finally, one suggested solution was that Canada would also put a moratorium on our side. As opposed to challenging the United States, we would do what we want by passing our own law.

7:15 p.m.

Calgary East Alberta

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States have a history of strong bilateral co-operation in the Arctic, and we will continue this co-operation. For example, Canada and the U.S. are implementing an ecosystem-based approach to oceans management in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere. In addition, we are co-operating in the scientific work to delineate the extended continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea.

Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic lands and waters is longstanding, well established and based on historical title. This government will continue to protect our sovereignty. There are three exceptions to this, found on the outer edges of our Arctic: the 1.3 square kilometre Hans Island claimed by Denmark; a 65 square nautical mile maritime boundary dispute with Denmark in the Lincoln Sea; and our dispute with the United States over the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea. All three of these disputes are well managed by all involved.

The Canada-U.S. dispute in the Beaufort Sea is north of the Yukon and Alaska. To be clear, this is an international maritime boundary dispute between two nations, not sub-national governments like the territory of Yukon and the State of Alaska.

The disagreement that exists between the United States and Canada regarding the maritime delimitation of part of the Beaufort Sea is well managed and is not a major bilateral irritant.

Our position is, and always has been, very clear on this matter. Canada's consistent and long-held position is that the 141st meridian is the proper boundary between Canada and the U.S. in the Beaufort Sea. This is based on the 1825 Anglo-Russian treaty, which also set the international land boundary that falls between the Yukon and Alaska. Canada and the U.S. have managed the dispute for many years and will continue to do so.

Our position is clear. This government continues to reject any measures taken by the U.S. government that would infringe upon Canadian sovereignty.

We would like to find a resolution to this dispute but, of course, in the meantime, we will assert our right to enforce Canadian law in our territory. This matter will be resolved when Canada and the United States deem it necessary to resolve.

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just said that Canada stands by the border at the 141st meridian. He then went on to say that the dispute is well managed, but the Alaskans have once again put out oil leases on Canada's side of that 141st meridian. How well managed is that?

Canada sent a diplomatic note to the U.S. in April saying that the U.S. could not put a fishing moratorium on our side of the 141st meridian. What happened in August? The American national government went ahead and provided the moratorium on the Canadian side of the Beaufort Sea. How well managed is that?

Both the State of Alaska and the United States federal government are challenging Canada, and the Conservative government is not answering that challenge or protecting the Canadian Beaufort Sea.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was advised in June that no formal discussions between the governments of the United States and Canada have been held in recent years regarding resolution of the Beaufort Sea maritime boundary. This is because neither Canada nor the U.S. has found it warranted to resolve the issue at this time.

The member is right in noting that the United States and Canada have both issued oil and gas exploration licenses and leases in the disputed zone in the Beaufort Sea. The area may have oil and gas potential, but nobody knows for sure. Traditionally, neither country has allowed exploration or development in the area pending resolution of the dispute.

Canada and the United States have a strong history of engaging in bilateral and multilateral co-operation in the Arctic, and we look forward to continuing this co-operation.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:24 p.m.)