Debates of Oct. 7th, 2009

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. speaker, I ask that the vote be deferred.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The vote stands deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

moved that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to share my thoughts with regard to this legislation. The Canada Post Corporation Act needs to be amended. It is not the first time it has been tried. We have tried to bring this forward previously. I am excited about bringing this forward because the legislation will give the official opposition an opportunity to stand and support us as a government. We look forward to that because I know it actually will happen.

The members have encouraged me to bring forward the legislation because they see it as good thing. It is the second time it has been introduced. It died last fall, so we are reintroducing it now. It is a very simple legislation, which I will describe for the House so we understand full well what will happen.

It would amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, which we need to do because it is the only way we can change the legislation. It has gone to court. The courts did not rule on whether they agree with outboard or international mailing. What they did was interpret the act as saying that Canada Post had the exclusive right to outboard and international mailing.

The legislation would make outboard international remailing legal, which in the law today is the exclusive privilege of Canada Post. The industry is worth millions of dollars and employs thousands of Canadians right now. Those individuals need to know that in Canada we agree with competition. We agree that this exclusive privilege is not in the best interests of the country. Canada Post would perhaps argue the other way.

Things have changed over a number of years. I would like to explain why it is not needed at this time. This is not unique to Canada. It has changed in Europe. Most of Europe's international remailers have the opportunity to exercise international remailing. It has also changed in the United States. When one sees exactly what has happened internationally, we are just trying to catch up with other countries.

There are two kinds of outboard international remails. We need to describe those so members who will vote on the legislation understand the two ways that it can happen.

First, a piece of mail going to another country can go to a country with a lower regime cost. Bulk pieces of mail will go to foreign developing countries, such as Jamaica, that have a cheaper rate because of their costs of doing business in those areas. Then the mail moves on to a third country where the mail is actually distributed. It is not exercised that way as often, but that is one way that it can and would be allowed. This actually goes back to the ratification of the 1999 Beijing congress on the Universal Postal Union. That is one way that it can be done.

The other way, which is the way more commonly done in Canada, is when an outboard international remail occurs with remailers that collect the outboard international mail from their consumers. Usually it is sorted and bagged by a country of destination and then directly deposited in that foreign country.

That is most likely what would happen. It is most common with us because of our proximity to the United States. These bags are taken to the United States and distributed domestically. Domestic rates are always much cheaper than international rates and that is the reality of the situation. With the way the act is written and the way that the monopoly is given to Canada Post, that is illegal in the country.

It is important that we stay competitive with the United States. We do a tremendous amount of business with our neighbour. I do not know of two other countries that are more closely connected by business, by heritage, by relationships than the United States and Canada.

I have had the privilege of serving as the chair of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Association over the last two years. I work closely with both the U.S. Congress and the Senate. The United States is a great friend and a great ally on many fronts. It is important for us to ensure that we are not at a disadvantage when we do business across the border. We are in the same marketplace and it is important that we understand that.

The world is changing. Eighty-five per cent of our exports used to go to the United States. That figure went down to about 75% and then 70%. Last year it was 66%. We are seeing a trend where our exports are not going directly to the United States and that is because we are capitalizing on international markets.

That is why this legislation is so important. It would allow us to have a competitive edge internationally. One thing that the economic slowdown has shown us is how interconnected we are with the rest of the world and how we have to compete. The only way Canada will really win is by competing and by being better, smarter, stronger than our international competitors. That will give Canadians a competitive edge.

Becoming protectionist would be a recipe for disaster. That promotes lack of productivity not better productivity. As we move forward in the 21st century, only by creating better productivity will Canada reach its full potential.

Canada is a wonderful country. Our population is only 33 million. With the amount of natural resources we have per capita, I know of no other country that can compete with us. If our legislation is right, if our ability to compete internationally is right, we will out-compete any country in the world. Now it is important to make the right investments.

I listened to the opposition speaker before me talk about how, as a government, we have lessened the opportunity for Canadians by going into debt. It is important to understand that it was our government that paid down $40 billion of debt. It is important for that individual to understand that in the fall of 2007 we gave back $200 billion in taxes by dropping the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We also gave Canadians a choice in child care. We provided them with $100 for every child under the age of six. Our government dropped corporate tax, personal tax, small business tax, giving Canadians a competitive edge. At the end of five years, Canada will have the most competitive G7 tax regime of any of our major competitors.

That is a competitive edge. That is the greatest stimulus that we could provide for our country. Our economic action plan provides a wonderful stimulus of $12 billion. It was wonderful to do that.

We are capitalizing on the opportunity to use public dollars in a competitive way because of the bidding process that is going on.

I am directly responsible for the stimulus package going into Alberta and Saskatchewan. In Alberta competitive bidding is working extremely well. Projects that were projected to cost $9 million are coming in at $6 million. A project for an overpass that was projected to cost $300 million came in at $168 million. We are using taxpayer dollars to the advantage of Canadians.

It is important not only to get taxpayer dollars working to create jobs now and in a competitive way, but it is also important that we build the infrastructure that allows us to compete internationally in the 21st century. I am talking about solid water and sewer projects, good roads, good facilities that will allow us that competitive edge as we go forward.

Why am I bringing that into a speech on legislation on Canada Post? We have to understand what this legislation would allow us to do. It would allow us to push for productivity in the long run. It does not take away the rights of Canada Post to enter into this business, but it does not give it an exclusive right.

There is a competitive opportunity for all people to push Canada Post into better productivity, as well as to allow these international remailers who employ thousands of people, thousands of Canadians the opportunity to do it in a legal way.

A lot has changed in the last few years. Actually since 1986, profound changes have happened. Up until then the remailing industry was very small, but that is when the United States decided that they had to compete as well. At that time the United States actually handled half of the world's volume of mail. They decided that they would allow international remailers to start, and the industry began to grow in leaps and bounds, and that is what has happened over a number of years.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the European Union sought a consolidation of the market into a larger one, and the pan-European market allowed this to happen in Europe as well.

We are seeing what has happened in Europe and what has happened in the United States. This piece of legislation would allow us to be able to catch up and get into this in a great way.

I want to talk a little bit about how this came about and why we are introducing it. Canada Post is one of the Crown corporations under my watch. There was a panel struck that did a review of Canada Post and what should or should not happen in order to be able to revitalize it and put Canada Post in a very positive light in the 21st century.

There were 60 recommendations, many of which we are following through on. One is that they are recommending we remove the exclusive privilege of Canada Post in international mail and remailers. This is something that comes from a very close study.

Some people may argue that we have rushed on this piece of legislation. This group of three who are very astute and who have worked very hard for over a year heard from thousands and thousands of Canadians on the recommendations for Canada Post. This is very well researched, well thought out and very well supported with regard to where we are going with this piece of legislation.

CUPW, the Canada Post union, does not really like this, but it is actually going to be good for them. It allows them to actually compete. It allows them to be able to test themselves, as to whether they actually can be competitive as they move forward with regard to this.

We are not compromising Canada Post's universality in Canada. We want Canada Post. We demand Canada Post. In fact we have a charter and will have a contractual arrangement between the people of Canada and Canada Post that will insist they deliver mail in an appropriate time period from one side of this country to another.

We know they have committed to local delivery within two days, regional delivery within three days, and national delivery within four days. That is a standard that is set out in the charter that we announced earlier, in mid-September, between our government and Canada Post on behalf of the people of Canada.

No one needs to worry that Canada Post is going anywhere on their mandate or that we are going to compromise in any way the Canada Post Corporation Act. This is the only change that we are looking at or are considering.

I am looking forward to the support of members from all parties in this House because this is what will hold us in good stead as we move forward, long after this vote is taken, because it will allow for many Canadians to be employed; it will allow for competition and it will allow us to be able to enter the world in a way that we can be proud of as Canadians because we will compete with anyone, given the right tools. This allows us the tools to do that.

With that, I would entertain any questions the House might have with regard to this piece of legislation.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing his views on the bill, among other things. I too will speak to this bill, but I wonder if the House would indulge me for a moment or two to address the other issues that the minister put on the table.

I noted that he spoke about the bill for but a few short minutes. However, he took some time to talk about the economy and our competitiveness on external trade. I found that his understanding of that or at least what he projected to us is kind of a shocking revelation, especially in the context of his closing remarks which addressed the business of employment and job creation.

I noted that in one breath he wanted us to agree with him that there has been a diversification of our export component to the GDP, but I think he said initially when the Conservatives became government that trade with the United States accounted for some 85% of total trade, and now it is down to 60%.

That is a shocking number. It really is a shocking number, because it means that there has been a diminution of economic activity to the tune of $148 billion annually. It is the first time that the government has admitted that under its watch we have lost another $148 billion in trade with the United States.

Where has that been replaced? Could he tell us who is giving us that $148 billion—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The minister of state.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a little delusional. If he examines what I said, it is that we are not as dependent on the United States for our international trade as we once were. The reason for that is that we are competing internationally. We have China, India, South America, the Caribbean and many other countries around the world. We are competing and developing those markets in a much more aggressive way than ever before, particularly under the watch of the past government that did virtually very little on that side of it.

What we are actually seeing is free trade deals now with Colombia, Panama, Peru, EFTA and others that are coming along. In fact, a piece of legislation we are going to be voting on very shortly will facilitate international trade.

International trade is where we need to go. As I said, and what I tried to explain, although maybe my hon. colleague was not here or was not listening closely enough, was that we can compete with any nation, given the right tools to do it. This piece of legislation allows us to go one step further in getting the tools to be able to compete.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Transport) himself told us earlier that this would push Canada Post into better productivity. That is what he said. He also said that it would give us a competitive edge.

But Canada Post is a corporation that has a specific role, which is not the same role held by the companies it is competing against. Furthermore, it has a universal responsibility.

Could the Minister of State (Transport) tell us how this will increase competitiveness and productivity at Canada Post?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I addressed this piece of legislation, I explained and I pointed to the charter that we have just brought in. Through that charter, the people of Canada, who actually own Canada Post, give Canada Post the mandate to have an effective universal system that is going to be run as efficiently as possible.

When we say “as efficiently as possible”, we are not taking away the opportunity for Canada Post to deal with remailing. All we are saying is that it does not have an exclusive right. That will keep it sharper and more aggressive. It is going to compete in that business and will have the opportunity to do so.

We encourage Canada Post to capitalize on the remailing business as much as it possibly can. There is no monopoly by the private sector on this. We are saying we should see if it can do it.

Canada Post's mandate does not really necessarily give it an exclusive right to international remailers. The world has changed. It has an exclusive right and a responsibility to provide mail for Canadians from coast to coast to coast in an appropriate time, in an appropriate way and at an appropriate cost.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the bill was going to be good for CUPW, yet he admits that CUPW is against the bill. So how does he feel that it is going to be good for the CUPW workers?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any time that people become more competitive at whatever they do in this country, they are putting themselves on a more solid footing, in a better spot. This will allow CUPW and Canada Post to gauge themselves against competitors that are doing this business as well. It is not taking it away from Canada Post. It is saying if it is going to be in the business then go ahead and be in it, but it will have to compete. That will make CUPW stronger. It will make the union strong. It will make Canada Post strong. It will make the country stronger and that is what I believe we should be doing.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit surprised that we find ourselves here debating the bill. The bill is 21 words long, and if the government were convinced that this was an important initiative that was going to improve our competitiveness and help Canadians find jobs because of these things, the bill would have been referred to committee before second reading, where we could hear from those experts who would bring some of the details.

We are going to go through a lot of debate here and it just does not seem to be an efficient way. The member dismisses the loss of $148 billion worth of trade with the U.S. as not a big deal because we are going to deal with Colombia, which is presupposing that we will have the deal with Colombia, based on the debate we have had in the House. I do not think he should take it for granted.

Why does the member believe that our relationship with the United States is not still significantly the driver in terms of overall competitiveness, and in fact the future recovery of Canada, which it is so inextricably linked with? Why does he dismiss it just because we are looking at Peru and Colombia to make up some differences?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has it all wrong. I do not believe for a minute that we are ever going to divorce ourselves from being competitive and working with our friends to the south. As I said, I have worked very closely with them over the last number of years and that will continue. All I have done is stated some facts on international trade, and that is not bad.

We are always going to be trading with our friends to the south, and we will capitalize on that even more through this piece of legislation, because we will not destroy the competitive advantage that our businesses working here in Canada will have in being able to get their mail to those international markets, particularly into the United States, in an effective and efficient way. Actually, just the contrary to what the member was suggesting, I believe this piece of legislation will help us be competitive and will actually enhance trade with the United States.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on January 27, 2009 and to implement other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-51.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #111

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the subamendment of the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan on the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-23.

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

Vote #112

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

Oral Questions

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to clarify. There was a misstatement made in question period where I referred to the leader of the NDP as the leader of the opposition.

I want to assure the House that there has been no coup d'etat in the opposition. In fact, the leader of the NDP is still the leader of the NDP and I misspoke in question period.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sure the House appreciates that.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Employment Insurance Act

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved that Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to introduce at second reading Bill C-395, which aims to amend the Employment Insurance Act so that people who have lost their jobs because of a labour dispute, be it a lockout or a lengthy strike, can qualify for EI.

Because of the changes the Liberals made to EI in the 1990s, it has become ineffective, because it is not very accessible to thousands of workers in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

In fact, according to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada figures quoted here in the House, more than half of unemployed workers do not have access to the plan they have paid into.

Given the current, ongoing economic crisis and the thousands of jobs that have been lost all across Quebec, the Bloc Québécois maintains that the current Employment Insurance Act is not meeting its objectives and needs comprehensive reform.

Clearly, the bill before us today does not dramatically change the employment insurance plan. That is not the aim of Bill C-395. Its purpose is to correct a major gap in the act that penalizes workers when a company closes because of a labour dispute.

Currently, the Employment Insurance Act establishes benefits based on a given salary over a given qualifying period. The qualifying period is defined in section 8 of the Employment Insurance Act. Only hours of insurable employment included in the qualifying period are used in calculating the claimant's benefit period.

Although the qualifying period can be extended to a maximum of 104 weeks if a claimant is ill, in prison, in training or on preventive withdrawal, the standard qualifying period is one year, and it is based on the claimant's insurable income. Two criteria are used to determine the benefit period and level: the number of weeks worked in the previous year and the contributions made to the plan based on employment income.

Consequently, an individual who does not work during the qualifying period obviously does not contribute to the employment insurance plan and is not covered by EI, unless he or she is ill, in prison, in training or on preventive withdrawal.

But what happens if there is a labour dispute? “Labour dispute” is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Employment Insurance Act as follows:

any dispute between employers and employees, or between employees and employees, that is connected with the employment or nonemployment, or the terms or conditions of employment, of any persons.

That is the definition set out in the act. This definition serves to justify, in section 27, the fact that if a worker is unemployed following a labour dispute, he or she cannot access the system, which is not right.

So a striking or locked out worker cannot receive employment insurance benefits.

In other words, employment insurance benefits will not be paid to a striking worker or the victim of a lockout. So, what happens when the company closes the day after a labour dispute?

Obviously, if the labour dispute is short, less than 52 weeks, the worker could receive employment insurance benefits. However, what happens to that employee if the labour dispute lasts a long time, that is, longer than the qualifying period set out in the act? Even if he or she has paid into the fund for many years, that worker will simply be forced to turn to social assistance, because he or she would not receive employment insurance benefits.

According to the Quebec department of labour, from 1995 to 2004, there were 966 labour disputes, of which 39 were considered long-term, that is, disputes that lasted between 361 and 721 days. What is interesting is that when we compare that data with the numbers from 1985 to 1994, we note that the number of labour disputes dropped by nearly half, from 1838 to 966 for all disputes, and from 52 to 39 for long-term disputes. Thus, the number of long-term disputes has gone down.

In Quebec, on average, we have just under four long-term labour disputes per year. In most cases, these disputes are resolved without job losses, as was the case with the Journal de Québec after more than 14 months. But as I was saying, that is not always the case. The employment insurance system does not cover long-term labour disputes that end with a company going out of business.

One case in Quebec involved Domtar workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon who were laid off and denied employment insurance even though they had contributed for years. In December 2008, the 425 Domtar workers at the Lebel-sur-Quévillon plant found out that they were going to lose their jobs and collect no employment insurance benefits. They had been locked out since November 24, 2005, and on December 19, 2008, Domtar finally announced that it was closing its Lebel-sur-Quévillon plant permanently.

Because the lockout lasted longer than 104 weeks and workers had accumulated no hours of work during that period, they were not eligible for employment insurance. After that long labour dispute, they received no financial assistance, so they had to resort to social assistance and welfare even though they had contributed to the fund for so many years.

To summarize, although the Domtar workers were locked out for over three years, they were still considered employees, but they were no longer contributing because they were collecting money from a strike fund. Under section 27, they were therefore not eligible for employment insurance. As soon as the plant closed, they were no longer considered employed and would have been eligible for benefits had they contributed during the reference period, which of course they had not because the dispute lasted longer than 52 weeks.

I am looking at my NDP colleague because I believe he asked some questions about this yesterday. This bill requires further explanation. It is an exceptional situation, but this is a major shortcoming in the Employment Insurance Act that must be corrected as soon as possible.

We must do something to help these workers who have been abandoned by the federal government. I want to thank the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for having initiated this bill and wanting to support the workers affected by this lengthy labour dispute in his riding.

In light of this situation that has to be corrected, Bill C-395 proposes excluding from the qualifying period the period covered by a labour dispute. It is as simple as that. It is not complicated.

That way, a worker who loses their job when a company closes following a lockout or a strike would have their benefits calculated based on the 52-week period preceding the dispute. It is simple. These people have paid premiums for a long time and then gone through a lockout or a closure following a labour dispute. If the company closes following such a dispute and the workers cannot go back to their jobs, they will be entitled to employment insurance instead of having to go on social assistance, which is all too often the case.

I think this is a quick and effective way to resolve what seems to us to be a simple omission in the legislation for a problem, let us not forget, that is quite rare, but immensely unfair to these men and women.

As I was saying at the beginning of my presentation, this bill is one measure being proposed by the Bloc Québécois to change the program.

We need to completely reform employment insurance—many questions have been asked in this House to that effect and various bills have been introduced by the Bloc—in order to ensure that the program can fulfill its main mandate of providing benefits in a fair manner to all and for a period of time that allows people to live with dignity.

We must not forget that there is a relationship between poverty and adequate government support in the form of an employment insurance program.

I would like to point out that 19% of Canadian citizens live in poverty, compared to 11.4% in Sweden, 14.1% in France, 16.2% in Belgium, 17% in the United Kingdom, 17.2% in Germany and, at the bottom, 23.9% in the U.S. With a rate of 19%, we have some work to do. Improving the employment insurance program is one way of helping.

It is quite simple. The lowest rates of poverty are found in countries that do more for their population. That is why it is vital that the federal government adopt a true policy for supporting its citizens who often find themselves in need and unemployed.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a complete overhaul of the employment insurance program, including improving accessibility and eliminating the waiting period. I presented to the House a petition signed by almost 4,000 people from Berthier—Maskinongé who also want the waiting period to be eliminated.

Bill C-395 does not make sweeping changes to the employment insurance program. However, as I already mentioned, that is not the objective of Bill C-395. This bill will correct a major shortcoming of the Act, one that is immensely unfair to certain workers who lose their jobs because of a work stoppage caused by a long labour dispute.

Therefore, in the interest of justice and fairness, I invite all members of this House to vote for this bill, including the New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc Québécois, who will support it because it is one of its initiatives. I urge them to think about those people who have worked for so many years and who, because of a lockout or shutdown, can only turn to social assistance.

They find themselves in poverty.

We would like the House to support this Bloc Québécois initiative, which is one of many.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for agreeing to introduce this bill, which was sorely needed by 425 workers in Lebel-sur-Quévillon who lost their jobs. The shut down of the Domtar paper mill led to the closure of a number of surrounding sawmills.

Lebel-sur-Quévillon is a single industry town, and the closure of this company has caused the population to decline. Now, when workers learn that their plant is closing after a strike or lockout, they have no choice but to abandon their town.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether it is possible for someone in a single industry town to qualify once again for EI benefits.