Debates of May 16th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Pesticides

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

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

Vote #7

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto protocol

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made May 11, 2006, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the opposition motion standing in the name of Mr. Bigras.

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

Vote #8

Business of Supply

[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.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I asked the following question of the Minister of Transport:

Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that Canada Post is pursing injunctions against a number of small Canadian businesses that are in the business of international re-mailing, some of which have been in business for 20 years. Thousands of employees will lose their jobs, hundreds of businesses will close and Canada will lose $150 million in business.

What will it be: monopolistic abuses by Canada Post or vigorous competition from small business? Will the minister use his authority under the Financial Administration Act and tell Canada Post to withdraw its assault on small business?

The answer was as follows:

--it is a very important subject. I have received representation not only from members opposite but also members from our political party. We are looking at the issue now and we will be taking note not only of that issue, but we will be advising the House as to what we want to do in the coming days.

If we break down the answer, we see that it is very important, that MPs on both sides of the House are keenly interested in the issue, that the minister is looking at the issue, and that he is going to advise the House in the coming days.

I would suggest that the coming days have arrived and that the role of the post office is indeed quite inconsistent with what is good business practice. While the minister looks at the issue, the post office pursues its injunction remedies. All of these re-mailing businesses are therefore at risk. How can they carry on?

I do not know what experience you have had with small business, Mr. Speaker. I can see you shaking your head, having been in this chamber for many years and not having run a small business, but you can appreciate, however, that many small businesses are day to day operations and frequently do not have huge amounts of capital to go to on a rainy day. Here they are, at risk, and competing with a monopoly that has gross revenues of $7 billion and is using the best legal services that money can buy, frankly. It is trying to run them out of town.

We have a whole re-mailing business that is worth a total of $150 million, spread over quite a number of small businesses, versus a $7 billion monopoly. It is a bit of a David and Goliath situation. It would be interesting to know what the minister prefers. Does he prefer monopolistic abuse or does he prefer vigorous competition?

Even Canada Post, in its annual report, noted:

In the last 20 years, we have seen a fundamental change in the global communications industry. As mailers provide economic incentives for customers to switch to electronic communication, and consolidated invoices and statements, the concept of “exclusive privilege” is eroding. As a practical matter, the value of the exclusive privilege on letters, put in place as a means to cover the cost of providing Universal Service, has been lessened.

I see that I am being given the sign, so to speak, and, not to put a stamp on it, I will conclude by saying that the post office is using its exclusive privilege to effectively destroy these small businesses, and therefore we are calling upon the minister to make his decision now.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering why the member, when he was sitting on the government side just months ago, did not do something about this issue. The Ontario Court of Appeal came out with a judgment over a year ago. I am wondering why, if he had the opportunity to do so, he did not.

I currently own three small businesses. I have run three or four others in the past and I can tell the member that there are competing interests. We are taking this seriously because it is a very important issue.

On another point, I can assure the House that we are not going to take any lessons at all from the Liberals on how to run a business or how to run a government effectively in the best interests of Canadians. I am hopeful the member is not suggesting that we ignore the court decisions that have been rendered, including the Ontario Court of Appeal. I am certain it is not his wish that this government should ignore the courts.

I am happy to rise today on the issue of international remailing. I can assure everyone that this is a very important issue to this government. That is why we were taking some time to make an appropriate decision which will be in the best interests of Canadians, having regard to the universal postal service that all Canadians have come to love and enjoy.

Canadians receive and send mail all over the country for a mere 51¢, whether it be one block or 1,000 miles, by ferry or by other means of transportation. This government cares about rural, urban and remote Canadian communities. That is why the minister will make a decision which is in the best interests of Canadians.

Canada's geography, low population density, outlying isolated communities, populations and climate provide, quite frankly, a larger challenge to Canada Post than other countries. In fact, I suggest that we have more challenges than any other nation's post office both in relation to delivery and also in regard to the environment, and other issues that are hot topics today.

Despite these challenges, Canada Post, an arm's length corporation, which means in essence that we are not supposed to deal with its day to day operations, has a 96% on time delivery of mail. What a great record to brag about for Canada Post.

Indeed, when we look at the entire world, Canada has one of the lowest domestic rates for any mail in the world. That speaks volumes about the quality of service. We do this without receiving any tax benefits or funding from Canadians taxpayers. This is done on a profitable basis. As a result, we have to take a look at what takes place.

Most importantly, we have a universal delivery service, which means that we cannot always deliver for 51¢. Obviously, a letter from here to Fort Chipewyan is going to cost more than 51¢ to deliver. As a result of that, we have to look at universal delivery, which includes what the courts have put forward as a jurisdiction that is within Canada Post's mandate. That jurisdiction means that it has the right for not only domestic mail but also international mail. The court has found that, and I am certain my friend does not want this government to ignore our courts.

We are aware, and many Canadians do not know this, that these international remailers are actually subsidiaries or associated with large foreign postal services. Indeed, these remailers employ Canadians, but Canada Post, of course, as everybody in the House knows, is the sixth largest employer of Canadians in Canada. These remailers actually collect the mail in bulk, ship it out of the country and then mail it locally at cheaper rates because there are cheaper rates available to them through foreign post offices. These--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his four minutes have expired. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bromides offered opposite are misleading, to say the least. The hon. member will recollect that the matter was before the courts up until just a few months ago. Now the decision has been made. The decision has been made on an excessively narrow interpretation of a particular section of the exclusive privilege of the Canada Post Corporation Act. Now we are pursuing remedies.

The answer is not that this was before the courts and we could not do anything. Canada Post is pursuing its remedies. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate the difference in law between remedies and the decisions themselves.

I am not asking him to ignore the courts. I am asking the minister to use the government's decision-making ability. The Government of Canada is the sole shareholder of Canada Post Corporation. It has a supervisory jurisdiction with respect to this corporation. It can override management. I am asking the hon. member and his minister to override the Canada Post monopolistic excesses here.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the member was in government months ago he had the opportunity to make the decision but did not, and now he brings that forward to us.

Now he is telling us that not only should we ignore the courts, but we should ignore the French interpretation that came from the judgment. It came from a French statute. There is an English and a French statute and the court interpreted the French statute as being more specific and more narrow.

Is the hon. member suggesting that we ignore the French interpretation? I would suggest not.

The minister will do what is in the best interest of Canadians. We have a universal postal guarantee across this huge country. The decision will be made but all members can be assured that the decision made by the minister, by the government and by the Prime Minister will be in the best interest of Canadians long term.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on January 11, in Woodstock, New Brunswick, giddy with the thought of power, the Prime Minister promised that a Conservative government would offer full and immediate compensation to soldiers and civilians who were exposed to agent orange or to other toxic defoliants at the Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick. He promised that veterans would be given the benefit of the doubt in their claims for compensation.

The Prime Minister made these promises at the height of a tight campaign with the express goal of winning key votes in New Brunswick ridings. Yet, after three months in power, the Conservative government has made absolutely no progress on this file. In fact, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is backing away from the Conservatives' campaign commitments by saying that he refuses to be pressured into compensating victims.

Veterans in my riding listened to the throne speech and read the budget with interest but agent orange was not mentioned once. There were no commitments to act on this issue and no funds were earmarked for compensation. Not a single penny was put aside.

When I raised this issue in question period on May 5, the parliamentary secretary shrugged off my questions. She claimed that the government deemed this as a priority and that it would deliver. Where are the details? Parliament does not have them. Veterans groups certainly do not have them. I cannot help but wonder if the minister made promises during an election that he had no intention of keeping.

When he made those election promises, the Minister of Veterans Affairs knew this file quite well. He was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs which heard expert witnesses from the Department of National Defence at two special meetings in June and November 2005. As a matter of fact, he was specifically sworn in as a member for those meetings, being otherwise an associate member, but was brought in because of his expertise on this file.

When he was in opposition he hounded witnesses at the committee and self-righteously dismissed their hard work on this file as a mere public relations exercise.

In June last year, the minister attacked the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee claiming that they were misleading Parliament and had not done their homework. He demanded that the witnesses draw conclusions about the health effects of exposure to agent orange before the Department of National Defence had completed its research.

At the committee meetings in November 2005, the current Minister of Veterans Affairs accused government officials of deliberately withholding information from the public. He asserted that the Department of National Defence could release the records of veterans who had been exposed immediately if they so desired. He berated their witnesses.

In fact, the current Minister of Veterans Affairs went so far as to suggest that recommendations made to the Department of National Defence were sufficient to begin compensating those whose health was affected as a result of exposure to agent orange.

If the Conservative government was so sure that it knew the right and responsible thing to do when it was in opposition, why is it so unwilling to act now?

The parliamentary secretary's assurances that the government is taking action to develop proposals to deliver on its commitments rings hollow. If I were more cynical, I might wonder whether this whole charade was a public relations exercise to win an election.

Had we only seen this type of thing with agent orange perhaps we could explain it, but we know well that with hepatitis C, we have heard and seen the same thing: a lot of talk but zero action and not a penny.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that keeps its promises. We have kept our promise to give hard-working Canadians a break and cut the GST by 1%. We have kept our promise to give families a choice in child care. We have kept our promise to introduce legislation to crack down on crime and make our communities safer. We have kept our promise to put government on a path to real accountability and restore Canadians' faith in their government. We will keep our promise to respond to concerns raised by members of the Canadian Forces, veterans and area residents about the health effects of defoliants used at CFB Gagetown.

The Government of Canada will not wait for the resolution of the class action suit to provide that response. Veterans Affairs Canada has taken the lead role with regard to compensation issues. Departmental officials are currently examining policy options for government consideration and this work is progressing well. This matter continues to be handled on a priority basis as we work toward a timely and appropriate response.

The fact-finding exercise led by former New Brunswick health minister, Dr. Dennis Furlong, is continuing. In this work, Dr. Furlong is supported by the advisory panel made up of academics, scientists, stakeholders, including veterans.

We are working with the Department of National Defence to identify all current and former civilian and military employees of CFB Gagetown and to determine what defoliants were used, when and where. Studies are also under way to determine the impact of defoliants on the environment and people's health.

The independent experts conducting this research are doing everything they can to advance the work as quickly as possible, and this is an open process. The results of this research will be passed on to the public.

In the interim, we invite veterans who believe they may have an illness associated with exposure to agent orange or other herbicides at CFB Gagetown to apply for a disability award through Veterans Affairs. These applications are being reviewed on a priority basis, and the department is doing everything it can to help those who apply for an award gather the information they need to support their claim.

Any new research findings will be incorporated into our decisions on these applications and any application or decision on awards that may be affected by the research will be reviewed automatically.

All cases where veterans, who served at Gagetown in the mid-60s, have a condition related to agent orange exposure, including cases that have already been adjudicated, are being reviewed to ensure nothing has been overlooked in pulling together evidence to support veterans' claims. When we weigh that evidence, the benefit of the doubt is being applied to ensure fairness.

The government remains committed to resolving this matter as quickly and as fairly as possible. That resolution will be based on facts and fairness, not on political expediency.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize and understand if you have that look of déjà vu in your eyes. That is not very much different than the answer we would have had by the previous government, which that member, and especially the Minister of Veterans Affairs, would have said was totally unacceptable, that the cheques should be rolling out right away.

We heard this with hepatitis C, that we should not be working with the lawyers and negotiating and identifying who they are. The cheques should be going out right away, but they are not.

Some might call that hypocritical when we promise one thing, but deliver another. I do not think I can use that word in the House. It would not be parliamentary. However, it is the same as when I heard that all cabinet ministers would be elected and that we would have an elected Senate. I was duped, as were all members. I never realized it would only be the Prime Minister who would vote in such senatorial elections, that we would have members of cabinet elected from the Senate and that we could not hear from the Department of Public Works. I know I cannot use the word “hypocrite”, but the definition seems to fit. The actions are different from what we were promised.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The hon. member cannot do indirectly what he is not supposed to do directly.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the member opposite would use a serious issue such as agent orange to play partisan games in the House, but I am not responsible for his actions, he is.

The difference between the previous government and this government is that we are going to do what we say. The government will keep its promise. We are doing the research and we are moving forward. As we proceed, we are doing everything possible to ensure veterans are aware of their rights to submit applications for disability awards.

We are helping veterans make those applications as complete as possible. We are ensuring that any new evidence, which may add to their applications, is included. We are reviewing those applications on a priority basis. We are not waiting for the completion of the class action suit.

The process is moving forward as quickly as considerations of fairness and good science permit. To ensure fairness, we must have the facts. And the fact is, the government will keep its promise.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:26 p.m.)