Lost his last election, in 2000, with 33% of the vote.
Canada Post November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, weeks after they had left their jobs at Canada Post, Sandra Ketch and Wendy Jamieson were shocked to learn that they were still post office employees and they were still on the payroll, just because Canada Post did not want to pay them overtime.
I realize that budgets may be tight at the post office, but is it really necessary to break the law in order to save a few bucks?
Will the minister stop this nonsense, launch a full investigation and punish those responsible?
Canada Post November 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, according to HRDC, an employer who falsifies an employment record is guilty of fraud. Yet recently Canada Post altered the records of some of its own term employees to avoid paying overtime.
Overtime hours were saved up and added on to the end of the workers' contracts long after they had left and paid out in regular wages without the employees' consent.
Does the minister condone this practice by Canada Post?
Nunavut Act October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question.
What I made reference to was that when we had such a debate in the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about that at the time. He was more interesting in talking about the Senate. That is what I was relating to.
Nunavut Act October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
In Canada we have many provinces and territories. We have provincial and federal laws. I am sure this new act will help the people of the north. I assure the hon. member that what he just asked will be studied in committee in the near future.
Nunavut Act October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence.
I reiterate the remarks of my colleague from South Shore who has been a strong and vigorous spokesperson not only on behalf of his riding but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.
I also commend the efforts of the hon. member for Nunavut. Although we do not share the same political affiliation, I know the member is deeply committed to achieving progress for her constituents as they enter the 21st century as residents of Canada's newest territory.
It was unfortunate to witness the Leader of the Official Opposition cynically using the debate of the Nunavut Act in parliament earlier to promote his own partisan agenda with respect to Senate reform. The Leader of the Official Opposition's lengthy diatribe against of the upper chamber, which at one time included his father, proved once again that while he can play opposition politics with the best of politicians he does not have the qualities to lead the country. The people of Nunavut deserve better.
Fortunately Canada had a leader with the foresight and vision to pursue an aggressive activist agenda. Canadians had the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney who set the wheels in motion to establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claim agreement in 1992.
The creation of Nunavut is one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion of the Order of Canada. Furthermore, under the previous Conservative government and the former constitutional affairs minister Joe Clark, who is re-emerging on the national scene, aboriginal people were full participants at formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian history.
Brian Mulroney remains a convenient scapegoat who the Liberals are happy to blame and denigrate in compensation for their shortcomings.
Nonetheless it cannot be stressed enough that the previous Progressive Conservative government gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the constitutional table, a voice through the royal commission, a voice in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a voice for Inuit people by signing the Nunavut land claim agreement.
Today we are debating yet another piece of legislation introduced by the government that is a proud legacy of the former Progressive Conservative government. I am not concerned, however, with what will happen when the Liberals run out of the policies stolen from the previous government. Canadians will simply turn to the Progressive Conservatives to achieve meaningful progressive change to improve the country. Although our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history once again has shown that by and large Progressive Conservative policies are for the betterment of all Canadians.
Bill C-57 deals with providing the best possible court system for Nunavut. There may be those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object on the basis of jurisdictional concerns that the bill would create an intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that the bill somehow violates the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I do not share these objections. Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit people will also form a strong majority of Nunavut's population: 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of Canada's size. Yet its total population is only 22,000 or less than one-quarter of 1% of the population of the country.
Let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden, and one-fifth the size of China.
Then we factor in population distribution. Nunavut has only one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of physical territory. Canada as a whole has nearly three people per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square kilometre. China has 120 people per square kilometre while Germany has 220 people for every square kilometre.
Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not only unique to Canada. They are unique to the world. For example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highway. Moreover, there is a disparity between communities. The largest community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call Iqaluit home. The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa. Its average temperatures range from -30°C in January to 15°C in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24 hours of daylight per day in June but find no more than six hours of daily sunlight in December.
On the other hand, Grise Ford is Nunavut's most northern community, a full 2,700 kilometres from Ottawa. Its population numbers around 130 people who experience an average temperature of -35° in January and 10° in July. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.
The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has experienced numerous challenges practising law in the rural area he comes from. He told me it was difficult for home to conceive how court proceedings, be they related to criminal civil or family law, would occur effectively and efficiently in such a broad jurisdiction with such a small population, with such a diversity of communities.
As has been already mentioned, Bill C-57 amends several existing federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to establish a single level trial court at the superior court level to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice.
It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judge of each of the territories. It amends the Criminal Code to provide the new structures and procedures for the Nunavut court of justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of the judges, summary conviction appeals, a mew statutory form of release, judicial interim release, and elections as to a mode of trial.
Finally, Bill C-57 amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure that structures and procedures for single level trial court are consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal Code.
I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that recognizes the unique conditions of the people of Nunavut. I look forward to working with my caucus colleagues from South Shore, Nunavut and other members and, most important, the people of Nunavut to critically examine this legislation at the justice committee.
We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the new course of justice. Let us continue to build on the legacy for Inuit self-government left by the former Progressive Conservative government.
Canada Post October 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, two years ago Canada Post proposed that every resident living in rural New Brunswick change their address. They argued that general delivery had to go and what everyone needed was a unique number and street address.
They sold this idea by promising that the province would implement a 911 emergency system in rural areas, so everyone agreed.
Now two years later we are learning the truth. This new addressing is being paid for by Canada Post customers. Canada Post is telling its customers that if they want to receive mail they must first pay a $34 change of address fee. Businesses and non-profit organizations such as the Volunteer Family Services Food Bank must pay an exorbitant $150 fee because Canada Post unilaterally changed their address.
This is outrageous. It is also wrong to ask seniors on a fixed income to pay this fee.
I call on the minister to extend the waiver period on these fees until rural customers have time to notify everyone of their new address.
New Brunswick Byelection October 20th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I am proud to congratulate New Brunswick leader Bernard Lord on his two byelection victories last night.
In Fredericton South, PC MLA-elect Bradley Green beat out his challengers to capture a riding that has been Liberal for 11 years. He replaces the former Liberal minister of health who left the health care system anything but healthy.
In Moncton East the leader of the opposition came one step closer to becoming the premier of New Brunswick. Bernard Lord won the seat held by former Liberal Premier Ray Frenette for the last 24 years.
New Brunswick has a Liberal government that is old, tired and has become arrogant. Most of all, it has lost its respect for voters and last night we saw the inevitable consequences.
Bernard Lord showed that if one has trust and listens to the people there is no limit to what one can accomplish.
Congratulations again to the entire PC caucus from all of us. As they prepare for next year's election, we wish them Godspeed.
Competition Act October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-235, a bill that if passed would have a profound effect on the way companies do business in Canada. The bill is sponsored by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, the chair of the Liberal caucus committee on gasoline pricing. Since its inception last September, the committee has conducted a number of meetings across Canada to receive comments on gasoline prices.
This bill is similar to the bill introduced by the same member in the 35th parliament. It was then known as Bill C-381. In reality the member's intent to adjust the Competition Act with this bill is born from the fact that in several complaints to the competition tribunal, independent retailers have been unable to prove either of the following infractions took place, predatory pricing or abuse of dominant position.
Instead of accepting that there is a competitive unregulated market, Bill C-235 seeks to skew the playing field in favour of the independents. Occasionally it is warranted for the Parliament of Canada to intervene in the marketplace. However, in this situation we have to ask if Bill C-235 as it stands is such a reasonable intervention.
In order to judge the merits of the bill we need to look at the potential impact of the bill. My colleague, the member for Markham, addressed the point that the infractions the bill seeks to address are already covered by the present Competition Act. Section 50(1)(c) of the act already deals effectively with potential predatory pricing. Section 61 deals with price maintenance. Section 78(a) addresses price squeezing by vertically integrated companies.
Now that we have established that the act as it stands already addresses the member's concerns, let us discuss what ramifications could result from Bill C-235. The fundamental problem with this bill as seen by the Progressive Conservative Party is its blatant manipulation of basic free market principles.
In this case the bill would create a regime whereby gasoline pricing would be set based on a formula that would include a combination of market forces and a provision for a minimum profit margin. Clause 50.1(2)(a)(ii) would allow the courts to interfere in what constitutes a reasonable profit. This situation is worsened by the fact that the bill would entrench certain conditions between vertically integrated suppliers and their customers. Whether or not governments should be interfering in that relationship at all is certainly a point for debate.
However, the issue that most disturbs me is that this bill completely disregards any efficiencies that arise from vertically integrated companies. For example, Imperial Oil would fall under the definition of a vertically integrated supplier. It operates refineries, it has its own retail outlets and it sells to independents that are its competitors. Under the terms of Bill C-235 it would not be permitted to pass on savings realized by its economy of scale to its customers without doing two things. First, it would have to ensure that its price reduction was in compliance with Bill C-235, a decision that would have to be adjudicated by the competition bureau. Second, it would have to make a corresponding reduction to any competitors that buy from it.
Advocates of this bill have come to the conclusion that this is fair and proper. However, I respectfully submit they are living in a fantasy world. A more reasonable expectation would be that Imperial Oil would make a smaller price reduction if any were made at all. That way it could remain compliant, the independents would receive a small benefit and the consumers would lose. This point needs to be stressed.
Different spokespeople for Bill C-235 have tried to sell it as a bill that would protect independent retailers as well as consumers. The harsh reality is that consumers would only be victims under this bill.
I want to go a step further with my analogy. Another possible outcome of the situation facing our analogous company, Imperial Oil, could be a decision on its part to discontinue supplying independents altogether. If it is no longer a vertically integrated company, it would not have to deal with the Competition Bureau every time it wanted to lower its prices, offer coupons or give away a two litre bottle of pop. This is not an unreasonable outcome to predict, and it would be the exact opposite effect of what the bill's sponsor is trying to achieve.
My party has spoken to many stakeholders on this issue and through those interviews we have come to learn a great deal about the whole industry. Several years ago Canada and its provinces began moving from a regulated to an unregulated gasoline industry. Instead, we have preferred to maintain general rules of competition, as embodied in the Competition Act. This situation does not exist in the United States and as a result rules change from state to state. I am sure my hon. colleague can understand what kind of inefficient marketplace this creates.
There can be no doubt that the result of Bill C-235 will be to increase gasoline prices across this nation by creating an artificial profit margin. This quite frankly is legislated protection of inefficiency.
Up to this point my comments have focused on the oil industry and I have done so for a reason. This bill has been developed to specifically target that industry. Unfortunately, just as indiscriminate tuna nets catch dolphins, this bill will impact many other industries.
One aspect that should disturb us all is that if passed we would enter a new retail environment, one where wholesalers and retailers would be encouraged to communicate and agree on retail prices in order to comply with provisions of the bill. The result would be an increase in the likelihood of illegal price maintenance clauses. That is not my opinion but instead the reasoned opinion of the president and CEO of the Stentor Company.
The letter also goes on to concur with what my colleague, the member for Markham, said in this House previously. Bill C-235 will create another level of bureaucracy with inefficient, burdensome compliance regulations. The following point bears repeating. The courts will be used to determine prices and margins and not market forces. This would have to be the case because no definition exists for the bill's provision of what constitutes a reasonable profit.
The last point I want to make is that we have in existence right now a comprehensive world class Competition Act which was enacted as such by the previous Conservative government in 1986. I take this opportunity to assure my hon. colleague that the foresight of that government saw to it that necessary protection for all sizes of companies was implemented.
The act covers perdition, pricing with the express purpose of destroying a competitor. It covers below cost selling. It covers abuse of dominant position.
In short, there is nothing in Bill C-235 that is not already effectively and fairly addressed by the act. Legislation that benefits only special interests and not the whole marketplace cannot be supported. Therefore we will be voting against Bill C-235 in its present form.
Canada Post October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has announced that on December 1 it will slash the earnings of its retail franchise owners from 17% to 5%.
This will force many of the franchisees out of business and the remainder will have to drastically reduce service to their customers.
The reason the franchise system has worked at Canada Post is the stores are not owned by the corporation but by small business people who understand and meet the needs of their customers.
Why is the minister so intent on reducing customer service and driving the franchises out of business?
Canada Post October 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, recently Canada Post announced changes to postal services in New Brunswick to accommodate the 911 emergency services.
Residents of the town of Bear Island have always been well served by the nearby post offices in Nackawic and Keswick. However, the proposed changes mean that postal services are being moved to Burtt's Corner, a great distance from Bear Island.
Can the minister assure Bear Island residents that Canada Post will restore full postal services in their area?