Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2014

Canada Post

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I had the opportunity to ask the minister responsible for the Canada Post cuts whether there were any ways to continue providing service to Canadians with functional limitations. The minister said:

“...it will accommodate the situations it may be facing with respect to people with disabilities, or seniors. It does that already....”

She thought the service was already being provided.

Today, I can tell the minister that I checked with Canada Post and they told me that they do not do that.

We contacted Canada Post's customer service to ask whether measures were being taken to deliver the mail to seniors and persons with disabilities. They said no. Instead, Christine, the person who took my call, referred me to a 26-page document on the changes to Canada Post. There is no special mention in that document on how the changes to Canada Post will respect the different needs of persons with disabilities.

The changes proposed to Canada Post's services include the termination of home delivery, which will create more problems for all the Canadians who have reduced mobility or are visually impaired. Those changes will turn the simple fact of receiving mail into a difficult or costly task, making communications complicated and increasing dependency and social exclusion.

Currently, people with reduced mobility or a visual impairment might think that having to go to a community mailbox is impossible because of the distances involved.

The larger the geographic area, the less likely it will be that the mailbox will be within a reasonable distance for people with a disability. This means that more people will have to depend on others and will probably have to pay out of pocket to get their own mail.

This concerns people living in poverty as well, not only because some of them do not have access to the Internet, but also because of the cost of gas or taxis, or even the need to pay someone to get their mail.

As we all know, Canadians with reduced mobility or a visual impairment must use para transit to get around in their community. Will they have to use it just to go to their mailbox? This will overburden these services, which are already unable to meet the needs of their clientele in a number of communities.

The most vulnerable Canadians still rely on the mail. Taking that service away from them will make them more isolated and even more vulnerable. Taking something as basic as home delivery away from them will only limit accessibility and marginalize them. In addition, it will shift the burden onto them—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when people are speaking in the House, I remain silent because I know I must show them respect. I would like to be shown some respect today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member still has the floor. I would ask all of the hon. members who wish to continue their conversations to leave the House now.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Therefore, to deprive these people of something as fundamental as home mail delivery will only limit accessibility and marginalize them, as well as place an additional burden on these individuals by making them more dependent on others for something as basic as getting their own mail.

Where does this leave us? The minister is telling the public that the Conservatives have a plan to meet the needs of seniors and people with disabilities, but when we check, there is no evidence of any such plan.

In the minister's response to my question, she said that I could verify this five-point plan, and that is what I did. What I learned is that the government has no plan to provide adequate service to seniors and people with disabilities.

I therefore wish to repeat my question: will the Conservatives guarantee funding to accommodate people with reduced mobility, to help them access their mail?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by saying that Canada Post Corporation operates at arm's length from the government. In fact, since 1981, Canada Post has had a mandate to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis. It is also important to know that Canada Post is responsible for meeting that mandate in managing its own operations, including day-to-day business and financial decisions.

The NDP is refusing to see the reality of the Canadian postal system. Let us look at the facts. Canadians are choosing to communicate in ways other than sending letters. Due to the lack of demand, mail volumes have dropped almost 25% since 2008, and they continue to fall. In 2006, Canada Post delivered one billion more letters than it did in 2012. Put another way, that is one billion less in 2012 than in 2006. This is placing a huge strain on the corporation's finances. In 2013 alone, Canadian Post lost $129 million before tax in just the third quarter, despite solid growth in parcel mail. Transaction mail volumes fell by 7.3% in the third quarter compared to that same third quarter period last year. That represents 73 million fewer pieces in the quarter compared to the same period last year. The Conference Board of Canada projected that Canada Post could lose roughly $1 billion a year by 2020. It is clear that the traditional postal business model that worked so well in the pre-digital era is increasingly out of step with today's reality. Everyone may love getting mail, but who wants to keep funding antiquated business models that are only drifting further into irrelevance with the march of progress?

Canada Post recognizes that changes are needed to how it handles its business. Let me be clear: the Conference Board projected that Canada Post could lose roughly $1 billion a year just six years from now. This is a substantial amount of money, yet here is what the NDP member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca had to say last week on this issue. He said, “We definitely do not have a crisis at Canada Post...”. Only the NDP would think that losing $1 billion a year is not a crisis.

Here is the reality. Not only do we send fewer, if any, cards and letters, but bills, statements, and payments are being sent and paid digitally more and more often. Most companies and governments are actively encouraging Canadians to switch to electronic alternatives to save money and time and to increase security. Polling confirms that Canadians' habits are changing. Almost half of households say they now send two pieces of mail or fewer per month. This is reflected in far less business for Canada Post.

The direction of change is clear and it is irreversible. It is clear that the status quo is simply not an option. Not only parliamentarians but all Canadians should be very concerned that the corporation is posting significant losses. Canadians expect us to be sound stewards of the government's finances. They do not want to be on the hook for the significant losses that have been forecast based on the current business model.

Canada Post's actions are in line with the global transformation of postal services; they are changing to meet modern-day demands. Strategies laid out in its five-point action plan will help to ensure the corporation is on solid financial footing and better reflect Canadians' choices and needs.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, I am not refusing to see the reality. On the contrary, I am well aware of how the budget cuts at Canada Post will affect people with disabilities.

I am almost tempted to invite my colleague to come to Montreal in the dead of winter and try to just get to a mailbox outside when the sidewalks are covered in snow. It is very disheartening to see that the government does not recognize the problems this is going to cause.

That said, when you use paratransit, you must provide a starting address and a destination address. In between, in many cases, paratransit asks you to wait in the same spot for at least one hour. If you have to wait outside in -25°C to go to the mailbox, that is a heck of a long time. I am not sure these people understand that.

Is there no way to set up a service so that people with disabilities can get their mail at home?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the first nine months of 2013, mail volumes declined by 184 million pieces compared to the same period in 2012. This trend has been ongoing since 2006 when Canada Post delivered one billion more letters than it did in 2012. This, I repeat, is placing a huge strain on the corporation's finances, which ultimately will become the financial burden for hard-working Canadian taxpayers unless action is taken. The NDP refuses to see this reality. Again last week when debating a motion in the House, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said, “We definitely do not have a crisis at Canada Post”.

The Conference Board has projected a Canada Post loss approaching roughly one billion a year just six years from now. Our government is concerned that it is posting significant losses and understands that the status quo is simply not an option.

The Environment

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the spring I brought up the issue of a sunken boat that is off the northeast coast of my riding. It is in Notre Dame Bay. It is off Change Islands, and it is called the Manolis L. It is primarily a paper carrier boat, and it went from the Port of Botwood to the open ocean and on to the high seas, and from there into the European markets.

The problem is that it sank around the mid-eighties. It hit a rock just off Change Islands. It was on there for a few days, and then it slowly slipped into the sea. It sits at about a hundred metres or so under the water. That was quite some time ago, as I said it was the mid-eighties. The problem now is that we are seeing oil washing up on the shoreline of Change Islands, Fogo Island, New World Island, and Twillingate Island as well, and that has caused quite a reaction among the local politicians and the citizens of the area.

Recently, the bird hunting season started and many of the hunters noticed that oiled birds were showing up. It was quite prevalent. I had public hearings in the riding in four different places, to ascertain how bad this is.

People said they could smell the oil before they could see it. They could see the sludge washing up on the shoreline; the birds were covered in it. We are just about to get into the sealing season and then the fishing season, which could cause many headaches, as this will get involved in the ecosystem. This is a grave situation.

I have brought up the question, but not in the context of what is now being done. Right now work is being done by the Canadian Coast Guard to provide band-aid solutions for the hull that has split open near the bow. They have created what they call a cofferdam. It is like a funnel that is turned upside down. It is put on the boat, and when the cofferdam fills up with oil it is extracted from that. However, it is not a long-term solution, and that is the sentiment there. The long-term solution that people are looking for goes to the Department of the Environment spearheading this thing. I had a conversation with the former minister of the environment in the spring, who said they were monitoring the situation and that something would happen, hopefully soon, at Treasury Board, to make this long-term solution come to fruition.

What bothers me is that it is has been handled mostly by the Department of Fisheries, which is fine, if I were asking about short-term measures. However, it is the long-term solution that the people of my riding are looking at. I should not say just my riding either; I should say the entire province, if not the entire eastern coastline of this country.

My question is, what is the long-term solution that is being offered beyond what is going on? We have one cofferdam. It was moved because it was damaged. It was put back. A new one was built as a temporary measure. Hopefully, over the next little while we can get a clearer picture.

If we want to permanently take the oil out of the boat, the capacity to do that belongs to several companies. It is a private sector endeavour. By way of example, there was a boat sunken off the British Columbia coastline called the M.G. Zalinski, and recently there was an operation to extract the oil from that boat. It was not like the Irving Whale in Prince Edward Island. They did what is called a hot tap. The oil is heated up within the boat and withdrawn, but it is a big operation. A Dutch company did it, and now tenders have to be issued. We have a short window because of the weather. I am fearful of what is about to happen. Is there a long-term solution?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend, the member of Parliament for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, for bringing forward again this issue relating to the sunken wreck of the Manolis L off the Change Islands. I know he serves his constituents diligently and is following this issue very closely. I may not be able to tell him very much new that he does not already know, but perhaps for others who are less familiar with the issue or for his constituents who might be watching, let me give the government's perspective on where we are on this issue.

As he probably knows, the Canadian Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for all ships, oil spills, or mystery pollution incidents in waters under Canadian jurisdiction. In cases in which the polluter is unknown or is unwilling or unable to respond, the Canadian Coast Guard will assume the overall management of the incident. In all cases, the Coast Guard will ensure an appropriate response.

Since March 2013, as my colleague has mentioned, when the Canadian Coast Guard first became aware of pollution off the Change Islands, the Coast Guard, Transport Canada, and Environment Canada have taken action to mitigate the threat of pollution. They continue to monitor and manage the site of the Manolis L and, in my opinion, have done a commendable job.

Since the first reports of oil on the water, Transport Canada has conducted aerial surveillance flights to provide information the Canadian Coast Guard uses to manage the on-water situation. In addition, the Canadian Coast Guard has worked closely with Environment Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service to manage the impact on wildlife and has installed a noise-making device to keep seabirds away from the area.

The Canadian Coast Guard has conducted several underwater missions using a remotely operated vehicle to survey the entirety of the wreck. During the first inspection, two small cracks were identified in the vessel's structure. The first was sealed with an industrial neoprene gasket; the second, due to extensive damage to the bow of the vessel, was covered with a cofferdam designed to trap oil that might escape from the hull.

On December 23, 2013, the Canadian Coast Guard again conducted underwater operations to reassess the Manolis L. This inspection confirmed that the neoprene gasket placed near the middle of the vessel is continuing to work effectively, but the cofferdam that was installed to capture oil from the second leak in the forward part of the hull had shifted four to five metres due to unanticipated heavy underwater currents in the area. The latest reports of oil were the result of this unexpected shift in the cofferdam. However, once again—and this is the good news, I think—the inspection did not find any new or additional cracks or tears in the hull.

On January 19 of this year, the Canadian Coast Guard installed a new, streamlined cofferdam that is capable of withstanding the strong ocean currents and containing any further leakage, along with scientific instruments to monitor the subsea environment. A complete survey of the vessel was also conducted, and no further leakage was detected.

The Canadian Coast Guard, along with its partners, will continue to monitor the area this winter. They will return after the ice season to remove any oil from the cofferdam and to conduct another full underwater survey to verify that the containment system is working properly.

Safety and protection of the marine environment are two of the Canadian Coast Guard's main priorities, and I am pleased with its prompt efforts to date in responding to this incident in a challenging and dangerous environment.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the parliamentary secretary for answering this question this evening. The description that he gives, the scene that he lays bare and describes in the House, is an accurate one. It is one that is of great concern, however.

Despite that, I want to commend the individuals who work with the Coast Guard and the work that they are doing in the tremendous weather that is happening right now. Let us face it: this area is iceberg alley, and it is called that for a reason. The weather is absolutely phenomenal, and they are out there doing it, so I want to join the parliamentary in commending the Coast Guard and what it does.

I have one very quick question. Does this cofferdam that we have been talking about, which in my opinion is a temporary measure, serve as a long-term solution for the potential of disaster? Just less than 500 tonnes of bunker C oil is within that ship. That is what went down with the ship. As well, there are just less than 100 tonnes of diesel fuel involved in this wreck, which sits on a ledge just beneath the waterline at several hundred feet. It is of grave concern.

Very quickly, is this cofferdam the long-term solution that we have to settle for?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. With respect to the Coast Guard and the work that it has done here, a resident of Fogo Island, Barry Brinson, said, "I think they've done an awesome job, I really do". I think we would all agree that it has really gone beyond the call of duty, in many respects, to make sure that this does not become a disaster.

The answer to the question is that the long-term solution is for the cofferdam and the instruments that are in place, and the inspections that will be done will continue to monitor this. If it continues to work, that will be the solution, but if at some point it is no longer working, other actions will have to be taken.

Veterans Affairs

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked last year of the Minister of Veterans Affairs concerning the Conservatives' treatment of our servicemen and women. I notified him at the time that Thunder Bay's mayor and city council had voted unanimously to condemn the closure of the Veterans Affairs Canada offices in Thunder Bay and across Canada, but the minister went ahead and closed the offices anyway.

I told him that I had received hundreds of messages from Canadians who are angry at the government's poor treatment of our veterans, but instead of reconsidering and ending the clawback of benefits to injured and disabled soldiers, the minister actually insulted and further outraged veterans who came to visit him.

One veteran that he insulted was my constituent. Roy Lamore is a World War II navy vet from the Branch 5 Legion of Thunder Bay—Superior North. I joined him last Friday at the Veterans Affairs Canada office in Thunder Bay, along with dozens of other vets and constituents, and we had a memorial service for the closure of this local office. Mr. Lamore was outraged that the minister had treated him and his fellow vets so badly, after coming all the way to Ottawa. He said it was a complete disgrace that the office that he and other vets depend on is closing. Many people I meet say the same thing.

The local Thunder Bay office served a vast area, all the way from the Manitoba border to past Sault Ste. Marie. It served over 2,000 veterans and their families and employed 10 hardworking, skilled people. On Friday, the Conservative government closed that office. This shows a complete disregard for the needs of our veterans, the opinions of the people of Thunder Bay—Superior North, and all of our servicemen and women.

It is ridiculous to say they will get the specialized support they need through a 1-800 number or some byzantine website. They are now supposed to go through Service Canada, which in Thunder Bay—Superior North is already way overworked after deep cutbacks and layoffs there. My own constituency office is now doing much of the work that Service Canada is supposed to do, and now my two hardworking staffers, Shannon and Vicki, will have to try to replace the services of 10 expert, laid-off Veterans Affairs staff. Our veterans have specific needs that require specialized training, yet Conservatives think that a general Service Canada employee, who does not have the knowledge or the experience, will be good enough as a replacement.

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent has called for the government to rectify failures in supporting veterans. He found that veterans who sustained serious and permanent injuries are all too often left with little or no support and are at high risk of falling into poverty. Vocational rehabilitation programs for those under 65 are deficient, and families left to care for wounded or addicted soldiers are left without the necessary resources.

In short, the Conservative government is leaving our servicemen and women in their time of need. It is shameful. What is even worse is the tragic rash of suicides by veterans over the last two months. One can only imagine how abandoned they felt. There has never been a worse time to abandon our vets. Things are so bad that veterans have actually sued the government for disability support. Imagine, not only has the government been derelict in its responsibility to veterans, it is actually arguing in court that no such responsibility even exists. The government feels that there is no special obligation to veterans who were injured in Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan or World War II. That is incredible.

I ask the minister, will he stop fighting our veterans in court, reinstate the disability supports, and replace vital services, or will he resign?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but after having heard the comments made and the question asked, I find it unbelievable how much misinformation is loaded in them. It is extremely unfortunate.

I would encourage the member opposite, first of all, to familiarize himself with the different benefits available for Canada's veterans. I also point out the fact that he is a former member of the New Democratic Party. Virtually every single initiative this government has brought forward to assist Canada's veterans, the NDP has voted against. The hon. member was a member of that party and now he sits as an independent member. He was also part of that voting process, and has continued to vote against the government on different initiatives that we have brought forward.

Just to give members an idea, since coming to office in 2006, our government has invested almost $5 billion in new, additional funds in services for our veterans. We will shovel their snow. We will cut their grass. We will clean their home. We will deliver meals to their front doors. In the event a veteran is unable to drive to a district office, if he or she is seriously injured, we will also send a registered nurse or a case manager to the comfort of the veteran's home to assist him or her and the necessary assistance will be provided.

We will continue to do all of these things for our veterans because we recognize the tremendous sacrifice they have made for our country, and for the freedom we enjoy. This is the commitment that our Conservative government has toward all men and women in uniform, all veterans who have served our great nation.

As another example, this fiscal year we are investing $785 million in additional funding compared to 2005, for instance, when the Liberal Party was in power and the Liberal government was in place.

Also, with regard to the district offices that are being merged with Service Canada offices, five out of eight of those district offices are in the same building as the Service Canada office, so there is really no change. A couple of other offices are within a kilometre. There is only one office, in Thunder Bay, that is approximately four kilometres away

I would encourage the member opposite to recognize the fact that we now have 600 additional points of service across this country. So veterans across this great nation now have the benefit of going to a Service Canada office and receiving the information and assistance they need so they can be helped.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very different story than the one I hear directly from veterans in Thunder Bay—Superior North, and I know whom I believe.

Almost nothing the Conservative government does surprises me any more, but this is a new low. For years, the Conservatives have wrapped themselves in the flag and pretended to be the best friends of the Canadian Forces. However, doing right by their duty means more than just pretty words, patriotic rhetoric, and wasting $20 billion on F-35s.

Our servicemen and women deserve action and not just words. Unfortunately, the actions of the current government have done our veterans a great disservice. Veterans have served us well, but the Conservatives refuse to serve them. We owe it to our veterans to have proper support for them when they return from duty with serious injuries, mental health traumas, addictions, or any disabilities.

So I ask the question again, will the minister take responsibility and rectify this big mistake, these gross errors, or do the honourable thing and resign?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I agree with the hon. member opposite on is that actions speak much louder than words. There is no doubt about that. That is exactly why our government has brought forward initiatives and has invested billions of dollars so that our veterans can be looked after with the services and benefits we provide. That member and all opposition parties can continue to vote against them. Our commitment is that we will continue to stand up for Canada's veterans, and we will do that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. 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 7:19 p.m.)