Dick Proctor

[Grain Transportation, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, western Canadians are completely shocked with the 4.5% hike in freight rates announced for grain last week.

Short weeks after the wheat board minister promised more than 1,000 SARM delegates that they could expect $150 million in reductions this year in freight rates, the rates are actually going up by $44 million. It is unfair, unwarranted, unbelievable and the reaction across the prairies and in Saskatchewan particularly is unprintable.

Will the transport minister tell the House why he has not already ordered a suspension of this outrageous increase?

[Canadian Grain Commission, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, problems continue to mount inside the Canadian Grain Commission. The government has had to address a $20 million cost overrun recently.

There is an ongoing inquiry as to why 70 grain inspectors were off the job recently in Thunder Bay. One inspector is under a gag order for criticizing mismanagement at the place. Now unidentified grain inspectors are sending mail to members of parliament saying they feel stepped on, suppressed, silenced and, frankly, scared of management at the grain commission and the government. How has it deteriorated so much—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

If people are being discriminated against, then that is grounds for correction. That is what this debate fundamentally comes down to. It does not matter what the public opinion polls say. It does not matter what the petitions say. I am saying through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member that the fundamental matter should be what we are doing to protect the rights of minorities. That is the point that needs to be made.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the debate throughout the day and I agree with some of the previous speakers who talked about this as being a difficult and moral issue.

I do not for a minute believe some of the material that has been coming from the members to my left because I submit that the bill is not about special rights for anyone. It is fundamentally about fairness and equal rights. It is a recognition that homosexual individuals pay into benefit plans and, until very recently, have been denied the benefits that should flow from those plans.

A good deal of discussion on Bill C-23, the modernization of benefits and obligations act, has indicated that somehow this is a judge-made law. It is important to recognize that the charter of rights and freedoms, which was introduced in 1982 and came into full force and in 1985, was achieved by the prime minister and nine of the ten premiers in April, 18 years ago this month. It was later ratified by the House of Commons and all the legislatures, with the exception of the province of Quebec.

Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

As I say, that law was passed by parliamentarians in the provinces and in the House of Commons. Under our laws it is interpreted by the courts, which is fair. I think most citizens would find it reasonable that somebody has to interpret it and it is the courts and eventually the Supreme Court of Canada. Again it says that one cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, along with a number of other categories.

As was pointed out by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, in the case of M and H there was a court decision. The supreme court ruled eight to one that there should be a division of assets. In my opinion Bill C-23 will ensure compliance with supreme court rulings like that in M and H which call for an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court has ruled simply that where benefits and obligations are extended to common law heterosexual couples, these same benefits and obligations must be extended to Canadians involved in long term same sex relationships.

I was intrigued with a book that I picked up for the first time last night. Justice, Not Just Us is written by Gerald Vanderzande who is described on the jacket of the book as follows: “What he has to say is always moving and compelling. His words transcend the boundaries between denominations and faith communities. In urging us to do God's work here and now he demonstrates the true potential of contemporary religion. If only its practitioners learned to act in unison”.

Gerald Vanderzande has something to say on this issue and I would like to refer to it briefly. He writes for an organization called Citizens for Public Justice. He said:

Let us now consider Citizens for Public Justice's position on legal-equality rights for gays and lesbians. The government encounters a variety of human relationships in our society, including heterosexual marriages and other social relationships—. When a government does not recognize, in law or public policy, the reality of other, non-marital relationships in our society, then, whether we like it or not, the courts are forced to reinterpret the meaning and scope of marriage within the existing legislation. That means that other relationships, even though they are non-heterosexual and non-marital, must be defined—

He goes on to say in this interesting document:

—all people are treated fairly when it comes to the recognition of certain civil rights and freedoms and the provision of certain services and programs—. How can we, without discriminating against certain people—recognize the constitutional and other rights of people who live in other “permanent” relationships?

He goes on to talk about what has happened in the far distant past. We have had some references to that as well. Mr. Vanderzande said:

Let me remind you that, as I understand it, in the Old Testament Scriptures, most marriages were “common law”. There was not what we now call a civil ceremony ensuring that people had made a formal vow. There was not a public declaration of mutual commitment before a civil authority. In fact, in the Scriptures, the father (the patriarch) of the family often decided who was to marry whom. In a culture that has moved on under a variety of influences, the government now faces new social realities. Government is not there to decide what is theologically correct. It is there to decide what is publicly just.

He concludes in this portion of his book:

If we agree that religion (faith) is at the heart of life, and if we agree that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms rightly protects everyone's basic beliefs and every institution's religious or ideological convictions, and that the government should not interfere with a citizen's basic beliefs and an institution's freedom of expression, then can we not with respect to various human relationships provide equal protection in terms of public policy for those who live in a non-marital, non-heterosexual relationship?

In this important debate the words that Gerald Vanderzande has included in his book Justice, Not Just Us are very significant.

I appreciate that because of time allocation, with which we disagree as well, time is running out. I did want to comment before I take my seat that I disagree fundamentally with my colleagues to the left and members on the Liberal benches opposite who talk about polls and that this is important because they have received hundreds of thousands of petitions stating that 68% of the people that were polled by Angus Reid are in favour of this. On something as fundamental as this we have to be seen to be doing what is right and not what is necessarily politically popular or unpopular.

[Foreign Affairs, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sidestepped the key recommendation in John Harker's report on the civil war in Sudan that would have placed oil profits from Talisman in trust. Instead the minister chose to refer it to the United Nations.

Last week, in spite of Canada's lofty perch as chair of the security council, the UN refused to discuss Sudan or Canada dropped its plans to have it discussed.

Why did Canada drop the idea of taking this matter to the security council, and what is the government doing about the unchecked oil revenues that continue to fuel the ongoing civil war in the Sudan?

[1911 Census Records, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate. I was not planning to do so but I have been listening to the debate and my own private poll would indicate the people with whom I have spoken recognize there was a law passed in 1911 and that not many people today understand why the law came into effect. Now there is an expert panel which has been appointed by the industry minister to try to resolve this by the end of next month.

I intend to be very brief in my remarks. I concur with the motion that is before the House this morning. I would hope that the expert panel chaired by the president of Carleton University would pay attention to what has been said here in debate by the previous speakers on this topic and those who intend to take part in it.

If I may just interject a personal note, my uncle wrote a relatively readable book on the history of his mother's family. They emigrated to Canada from the area of Virginia around 1776 because they supported the king in the war of the colonies. My uncle's book traced the history since then. I am sure he did that based on many of the tables that were available to him through the archives and other areas. Now we are told that beginning with 1911 the records are not available because a law of which nobody seems to know the history says the records will be sealed in perpetuity.

Privacy Commissioner Bruce Phillips, a former well-known television newsman, seems to have sided solely with privacy that would protect people into the grave and beyond. For the life of me I cannot understand why after 92 or 100 years there would be a real problem. If there are people or families who are concerned about this it would be interesting to hear them speak out on the topic but we certainly are not aware of them to the very best of my knowledge.

Mr. Phillips the Privacy Commissioner has said “People who give information to the government under penalty of law and an unqualified promise of confidentiality are entitled to expect that that trust will be honoured”. Nobody would disagree with that but the question must be asked for how long, for 92 or 100 years? At what point do these competing demands take effect and the interests of amateur historians, genealogists and researchers come to the fore?

The previous speaker mentioned the migration and immigration to western Canada that took part in the early years of this century. The prairies were filled out at that time and people want to know what happened in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba as well as the other provinces and territories.

I want to make it clear, and I am sure there will be differences of opinion in all caucuses on this, that this is a private member's motion on which it is everyone's right to vote. I will support the motion when we vote on it. At the same time I will be watching with interest to see what the committee of experts decides when it reports to the industry minister on May 31. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why we would not want to pass on information about our ancestors and allow it to be studied by those who are alive now as opposed to protecting those who have been deceased for some time.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, March 31st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bill. I begin by congratulating the member for Winnipeg Centre for introducing the bill, which is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. I also acknowledge the member from the Liberal Party who indicated that he was planning to support the bill when it comes to a vote next week and for correctly describing it as an anomaly. Rural route mail couriers are somehow treated much differently and much worse than members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and other employees.

I find it passing strange that a few short weeks ago we had a backbench Liberal MP stand to ask a pointed and loaded question to allow the cabinet minister responsible to highlight the new three year agreement between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. At the same time here we are two or three weeks later turning around and apparently not going to offer reasonable rates and working conditions to folks who are delivering rural mail.

I would like to dedicate this speech to a woman who is a long time friend of mine, Doris Woodbeck. For many years she was the rural route mail courier in picturesque Prince Edward County in the Bloomfield area. Doris Woodbeck was virtually a second mother to me. She delivered mail through snow and sleet and freezing rain and all other things that our mail couriers are expected to do. She is a wonderful individual.

The people who have followed in Doris' footsteps, perhaps in her snow tires, are having some real problems these days because of the wages and working conditions. Most rural route mail couriers barely earn minimum wage. Their working conditions are reminiscent of another era.

The Canada Post Corporation can terminate their employment with just 90 days of notice. There are no standard work rules. Some RRMCs have more than one route. They get paid for delivering certain products on one route although they do not get paid for service on another. Work rules are changed arbitrarily and often with virtually no notice.

During snow storms RRMCs are routinely forced to shovel out the group boxes on their routes, again without compensation. They have to train and pay their own replacements. They are provided with basic supplies. Postal workers at some offices collect used elastic bands and give them to rural route mail couriers because Canada Post refuses to provide such basic necessities.

I would like the members present to listen to what some mail couriers are saying:

With a working relationship like this, it's almost impossible for us to obtain better wages and working conditions on our own. And we're not allowed to bargain collectively like other workers. Section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act prohibits RRMCs from having collective bargaining rights. This is a denial of basic rights.

This the subsection the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to have repealed.

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is in the tendering process, as has been acknowledged, because the mail couriers have to bid on their routes. When they submit their bids they are often told they must accept the contract for less than they were making before.

The argument is that if they do not like it they can always quit. As a rule mail couriers find it difficult to complain about their working conditions because they know that their contracts can be pulled on 90 days of notice. With a working relationship like this one it is almost impossible for them to obtain better wages and working conditions. They are not allowed to bargain collectively as other workers are.

In 1986 the Canada Post Corporation applied to the Canada Labour Relations Board to review the structure of bargaining units at Canada Post. The Association of Rural Route Couriers applied for a standing at those hearings. A year later the labour relations board issued its decision which noted that the definition of a defending contractor included two basic criteria: economic dependence and an obligation to perform duties for another person. These criteria are reviewed from the perspective of administrative control and integration.

The CLRB decision was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal on the basis that while mail couriers may meet the requirements of employees under the Canada Labour Code, the CLRB exceeded its jurisdiction when ruling that subsection 13(5) did not apply.

The federal court recognizes that without this section the employees concerned would have benefited from all rights provided in the code. The federal court notes that subsection 13(5) is legal fiction designed to set aside reality. It also clearly recognizes that the purpose of this provision is to deny these workers the right to collective bargaining.

We move forward to today and the Liberal government did not ensure that the RRMCs were protected and that their conditions were improved. It simply denied them the right to protect themselves and to improve their conditions through collective bargaining.

Depriving collective bargaining rights is a denial of basic rights; a violation of the principles conveyed and promoted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which came into effect a full 15 years ago now; a violation of our international commitments including the North American Free Trade Agreement; and a violation of the ILO, which the government proudly frequently says was one of the first signatories and which concerns itself with freedom of association and protection of the right to organize in the international covenant on civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights.

Two years ago in the first budget, which I had the honour and privilege of being in the House of Commons to hear, the federal government promised us that it would “look at new ways to deliver information and programs so that rural Canadians are full participants in Canada's future prosperity”.

We hope the government's promise to look at new ways of delivering information and programs is not just another way of saying that it will find cheaper ways of exploiting rural Canadians who deliver information and programs.

To date we feel the Liberal government has dodged the thorny issue of subsection 13(5). Postal critics for the Bloc, ourselves, and the party to my left have already sent letters on the issue to the minister responsible.

In conclusion, it is generally recognized that subsection 13(5) is a denial of basic rights, which helps Canada Post keep the wages and working conditions of rural workers at an unfair and impossible level. There is growing consensus that it should be repealed quickly. It is time that rural route mail couriers had access to collective bargaining rights which would allow them to protect themselves and to improve their working conditions.

Getting rid of subsection 13(5) would allow RRMCs to do this in a variety of ways. It would allow them to have access to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code. It would give them time to change the system by which they are forced to sign long term contracts. It would enable them to establish reasonable work rules so that CPC managers no longer respond to complaints by saying that if they do not like it they can quit. It would provide a method of submitting grievances when rules surrounding workloads or starting times are arbitrarily changed. Most important, it would end the pattern in which the financial objectives of Canada Post have been pursued by driving increasing numbers of rural route mail couriers into poverty.

For Doris Woodbeck and the 5,000 rural route mail couriers who are currently on the job, we wish them well. We trust that when this comes to a vote on Tuesday there will be a clear majority in the House of Commons to repeal subsection 13(5) of this act.

[Environment, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, given the minister's answer, why does he not simply tell the ship's captain today to turn the vessel around and head it back to Japan instead of allowing it on Canadian shores at the Port of Vancouver?

[Environment, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the ship containing 90 tonnes of highly toxic waste is now 24 hours closer to the port of Vancouver. We have already heard in this question period that the Alabama company, TCI, has received more than a million from HRDC to extract domestic PCBs in the Kirkland Lake site, not offshore PCBs.

My question is for the environment minister. Is this the government's idea of good green job creation, which is disposing of highly toxic waste that other countries will not accept while endangering the health and the lives of Canadians in the process?

[The Budget, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Simcoe—Grey. I think I got his constituency correct, which the finance minister failed to do in Oral Question Period this afternoon.

The member helped to make the argument which I was endeavouring to make with the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore when he referred to the jobs that have been created in the car plant in his constituency. What I was talking about were the head office jobs that are being lost and what is referred to by some as the hollowing out of Canada as the NAFTA kicks in.

The point the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore was trying to make was that there somehow is a balance between our foreign investment in other countries and incoming foreign investment, which is simply not substantiated by the facts.

I would point out that Statistics Canada numbers, after a decade of relative balance of inflow and outflow, in the last two years have been staggering. Last year the imbalance was in excess of $30 billion. A lot of that money is flowing into the country as a result of our cheap Canadian dollar. What we are losing is significant in terms of head office jobs, lack of critical mass and forcing some of our youngest and brightest people to other countries, with the profit flows going out of the country as well.

That is the point I am trying to make on foreign ownership and I would welcome the hon. member's response.