Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was post.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Progressive Conservative MP for Tobique—Mactaquac (New Brunswick)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997 December 2nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today on the debate on Bill C-24, the postal services continuation act, 1997, better known as the back to work bill.

I would like to talk about the strike that has been going on for two weeks at Canada Post, about how it is part of a long series of labour conflicts at Canada Post and about how the present government, far from bringing in a solution, has made the problem worse because of its neglect.

First and most important, I want to show how this work stoppage has hurt Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian charities.

Second, I will illustrate how a failure of leadership on this dossier is part of a pattern of this government which is failing to serve Canadians.

Third, I want to contrast the government's lack of effectiveness on this issue with how an earlier Conservative government dealt competently with a similar situation back in 1991.

Finally, I want to discuss what the future holds for Canada Post and the real need for leadership by the government in this area.

There can be no doubt by anyone who has read a newspaper, listened to the radio or watched television in the last dozen or so days that this postal strike has hurt not just Canada Post but most of the 93% of Canadians who still use the post office as an important means of communication.

For those who work in mail sensitive industries and who have either lost business or their jobs, the effect has been devastating.

Last Wednesday the Canadian Federation of Independent Business released a survey of its membership which showed that 96% of small and medium size businesses were adversely affected by the interruption of the postal service. Using conservative assumptions, the CFIB estimated that business losses are totalling more than $200 million per day.

What do these numbers mean? For Greg Dickie of Delong Farms in Truro, Nova Scotia they meant that he had to close his mail order Christmas wreath and gift business and lay off 100 people this season. For Robert Van Velzen of S.S.A. Incorporated in Markham, Ontario they meant that he lost a half-million dollar U.S. mail sorting contract and had to put a dozen people permanently out of work. Columbia House, which ships contact discs and videos across the country, had to lay off 200 people last week. Télémedia Publishing is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars a week.

The owners of Golfinn International, a company that distributes golfing equipment and accessories, Dave and Jane Finn, who make 60% of their sales at this time of the year, had to lay off 17 of their employees. A Saskatoon weekly, the Western Producer , which is distributed mostly by mail, did not publish last week and lost $250,000. According to Terry Robinson, of Sir Mail Order Sporting Goods Ltd., his company is losing $25,000 a day because of the strike.

Overall, the CFIB survey showed that almost 80% of small businesses are using faxes or higher cost couriers. About two-thirds are making their own deliveries or pickups. Half have had their cash flow interrupted and one in ten have lost orders.

The Canadian Direct Marketing Association estimates that layoffs in their industries are in the thousands. The CDMA includes many charities which estimate donations by mail have dropped $10 million per day. For example, the Welcome Home Mission of Montreal which provides food and shelter for 3,100 families each year receives 40% of its annual revenue by mail in the month of December. Their executive director wrote to us just before the strike began and said “I can attest that a postal strike will have disastrous effects on our revenues which will result in fewer services for our clients”.

He is not alone. The United Way of Greater Toronto estimates that it is out $1 million from its direct mail campaign this year. The Salvation Army reports that it too is hurting. Seventy per cent of its revenues come in the mail. The Canadian Lung Association's Christmas Seal Campaign is the country's biggest holiday fund raiser. Each Christmas it brings in $8 million in donations, representing 80% of the association's annual revenues. It is now in a state of near crisis. Likewise UNICEF Canada sells almost four million Christmas cards a year which would normally yield $1.5 million for them in earnings.

What are these organizations supposed to do this Christmas? These groups help hundreds and thousands of Canadians in need each year. Where was the Minister of Labour when they needed him?

Most of all, Mr. Speaker, this strike has hurt Canadians badly. As already mentioned, thousands have been laid off work because the government failed to act early on when it could have prevented the strike. For those most vulnerable in our society, those Canadians who depend on some form of government assistance for part or all of their income, this strike has been particularly difficult and the government has been particularly without compassion.

On August 12 I wrote the minister responsible for Canada Post and urged him to examine all available options for the dispersal of government cheques in the event of a postal strike. In response to this the minister signed an agreement with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to allow for them to continue to deliver employment insurance, TAGS, CPP and other cheques in the event of a strike. Unfortunately, for Canadians who depend on these cheques, the Department of Human Resources Development Canada decided not to honour this commitment and chose instead to implement its own cheque distribution system which at best can be called chaotic, at worst, cruel and without compassion to those who need assistance to provide the basic necessities of life for themselves and their loved ones.

One man who has asked that I not use his name was unable to purchase insulin for his mother because his cheque was over a week late. Another women who had to rush her son to the hospital late one night last week ran out of gas. With no money for gas, she had to call on strangers for assistance to help get her son there. Fortunately he is now okay.

Normally this would be embarrassing enough for any government to take steps to treat its clients with a bit more respect, but not with this government. To add insult to injury Canadians who drove in some cases hundreds of kilometres to the nearest cheque distribution centre on November 20 were asked to sign a computer printout that had the names, social insurance numbers and the cheque dollar amount of everyone in their community who was receiving an assistance cheque. Acting on these complaints, my office was successful in asking the Privacy Commissioner to investigate and to put a stop to this Orwellian practice.

Why does this government choose through its own neglect to allow this strike to cause so much damage to the Canadian economy, to businesses, to charities and most of all to the Canadian public? This is not an isolated incident but a pattern within this government that shows a leadership vacuum beginning at the top.

In the lead-up to the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, the Prime Minister was asked many times to speak on this issue and to make a gesture of unity with the people of Quebec. He refused. It was not until the dying days of the campaign when the Prime Minister realized that all could be lost that he made some token offers to Quebec. Were it not for the generosity and spirit and sincere love of this country shown by Canadians at the Montreal rally, were it not for the commitment of the leader of my party and his willingness to put everything on the line for this country, all would indeed have been lost.

The Kyoto conference on climate change opened yesterday with all of the major countries having made their position known months ago, all except Canada. Our government waited until yesterday. Delegates from other countries and the organizers of this conference have remarked that Canada has lost its credibility on the environment.

Five years ago our Conservative government led by my leader, who was then environment minister, showed Canada's ability to lead at the Rio Earth Summit because we were prepared.

In 1993 on the advice of the defence department our Conservative government showed leadership and foresight by deciding to replace the aging Labrador and Sea King maritime helicopters with new EH-101 helicopters with made in Canada electronics and airframes. This helicopter purchase would have put Canada on the cutting edge of technology in this field with no additional burden to the taxpayers. The Liberal government, however, cancelled this deal at exorbitant expense. Now the old helicopters are five years older and Canadians are still waiting to hear what solution this government will have to replace them.

Everywhere we turn this government chooses procrastination over leadership, the same kind of failed policy that hurts so many Canadians in this postal strike.

The royal commission on aboriginal people submitted its report over a year ago. What has been the government's response? It has not finished reading it yet.

What about the year 2000 problem? What is the government's plan to overhaul its computers so that the system does not crash on January 1, 2000? It does not have one yet. It said “We'll write the cheques out by hand if necessary”. That is what the public works minister said just three weeks ago.

Then there is fish. It is not enough that the cod stocks are gone and this government could not negotiate lunch with the Americans, let alone a Pacific salmon treaty, but now the Atlantic groundfish strategy is about to run out of money and this government has absolutely no plan to deal with the thousands of fishers and fish plant workers who will be cut off next year.

Leadership, that is what successful government is all about. But we have seen that the Liberal government is devoid of anything resembling real leadership, whether it be on fish, helicopters, the environment, aboriginal peoples, the future of our country or on Canada Post.

Where can we look to for an example of real leadership? In October 1991 there was a Progressive Conservative government in power faced with a labour situation not that different from that faced by the current government. Back then Canada Post was negotiating to bring a number of unions each with their own collective agreements in with CUPW under one agreement. A series of rotating strikes in August had urged the government to do whatever necessary to allow the two parties to come to successful negotiation.

This took three steps. First, a very effective and experienced mediator, Quebec Chief Justice Alan Gold, was brought in to help the parties negotiate mini-agreements in a number of sectors. Unfortunately, Canada Post and CUPW were unable to conclude a global agreement at that stage, even though they had worked out partial agreements in many areas with Justice Gold's help.

Step two was to pass the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1991. With the end of mediation the two sides would soon be in a position to lock out or to strike and it was necessary for the government to prevent the damage to the Canadian economy that would result from a work stoppage just before Christmas.

This law precluded either Canada Post or the union from inflicting harm on Canadians through the use of a strike or lock-out. It also recognized and formalized the agreements already reached by negotiators during six weeks of talks under mediator Alan Gold. These included an immediate pay raise of $2.03 per hour for workers and a down payment on retroactive pay amounting to over $3,600 without having to wait for the arbitrator's decision.

The third step was to provide the parties with an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. The Postal Services Continuation Act did this with arbitration as is frequently used in the case of essential services.

With the Canadian public protected from a work stoppage, the gains negotiated by the union guaranteed in the new agreement with immediate financial compensation to the workers, and a way for the two sides to reach an agreement, CUPW and Canada Post were able to do just that in the new year.

The Postal Services Continuation Act is an example of true leadership on a difficult issue and should serve as a template to other governments. However, when we contacted the labour minister's office on October 30 of this year, as soon as it became apparent that the collective bargaining process had failed, we were told not to worry, that things would work themselves out. The fact that they did not is a testament to the failure to provide leadership by this government and by this do nothing, say nothing, sleepwalk his way to retirement Prime Minister.

Unfortunately the problem does not end here. Assuming that the government is able to pass this legislation, we still have a crown corporation and a union with a labour relations record that would make Jimmy Hoffa blush. Since postal workers were given the right to strike in 1967, there have been no fewer than 11 work disruptions. This is symptomatic of a government owned company that is utterly adrift and has lost both its anchor and its rudder.

The Government of Canada has no plan of action for the future of Canada Post. The Liberals have not designed for this crown corporation a plan that takes into consideration the new choices that Canadians have for the delivery of mail, including messenger services, electronic mail, fax machines and direct deposits.

The government has not defined any business strategy to ensure the continuation of Canada Post services for Canadians, it has not looked into the means available to develop new markets such as electronic data transfer and it has not decided once and for all whether or not it wants to privatize Canada Post.

The Minister of Public Works was not straightforward on this issue during the strike; first he stated that there would be no privatization, then he threatened the union with the privatization of that crown corporation, and then he changed his mind and repeated that he would do no such thing.

The fact that the Liberal government would allow a postal strike to occur shows that it has been sleepwalking through the last four years. Now more than ever, Canadians need a plan for Canada Post.

On November 24 in this House the minister responsible stated that the government had taken the Canada Post mandate review report, answered the report and given a new mandate to Canada Post. The minister went on to say, “I am sure with the negotiated settlement that mandate can be achieved”.

As the minister will know, the mandate review contained 31 recommendations about improving Canada Post. The minister has yet to deal with those recommendations appropriately as the vast majority of them were ignored by this government. Given the current crisis that exists at the crown corporation, it is time for him to revisit those recommendations.

The report of the mandate review released in October 1996 and the subsequent report conducted by TD Securities and released in April 1997 both identified serious concerns about the labour situation at Canada Post. The government has known about the pending labour situation for some seven months yet the government failed to take constructive measures to correct that situation before Canadians became burdened with this postal strike.

We know that this crisis at Canada Post is mostly due to the chronic lack of leadership from the present government. The public has certainly complained to a large number of members here about the hardships that this useless strike is causing them.

I already mentioned one of the measures used by the previous Conservative government to settle a serious labour conflict at Canada Post and how we could have completely avoided this break in services. You have heard the story about the continuing problems of a crown corporation that is receiving almost no direction from its shareholder.

The reality of course is that Canada Post is not actually owned by the government. It belongs to the people of Canada. This government owes it to Canadians to get down to developing a practical, realistic and comprehensive postal policy for this country instead of the piecemeal approach it has taken so far.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, CPP contribution rates will have to rise to adequate levels to ensure the long term viability of the plan.

These increased contributions must be more than offset by substantial reductions in other taxes like EI. This means more money going into the plan without asking Canadians to pick up the tab and without creating more threats to job creation. As a result, the CPP will get the funding it needs without increasing personal tax burdens.

Canadians need to know that never again will their pension funds be mismanaged the way they have been in the past. They also deserve a greater return on their investment. For this reason there must be a complete restructuring of the financing of the CPP to secure it for the future.

Many young people today are already sure they will not have the CPP when they need it. In my riding I see young people who have a lot of trouble finding jobs that would allow them to earn a decent living and plan for the future. The NDP amendments would let them foot the bill for us. The NDP wants all sorts of benefits and all sorts of goodies. That is just not right. I cannot support that. I cannot support putting my children's future on the line.

As the only effective opposition in the House of Commons it is our role to explain to Canadians that there are alternatives to the government's position. The government is trying to steamroll these changes through parliament and the official opposition party has been too inept to stop it. Canadians deserve real policy alternatives, not just opposition while the cameras are rolling.

It is with some dismay that we have seen the government suggest reckless changes to the CPP which would affect Canadians long after the government has been forgotten.

In good faith we presented a series of amendments to the legislation during the committee hearings. The government rejected all our amendments and then proceeded to introduce watered down versions of what we proposed. Its amendments are too little too late but show how effective opposition and effective policy alternatives can influence change to misguided government legislation.

Division No. 33 December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, there have been many amendments brought before the House over the past two days and many more to come that wish to improve this plan the government has developed to change the Canada pension plan.

Many of the amendments that are before the House in Group No. 6 would jeopardize the Canada pension plan because they refuse to admit that there is a problem with the CPP. They refuse to see that it is in a crisis situation. The sad fact is that if we do not fix the CPP, it will not be there for our children and our grandchildren. If we spend blindly now, we will be playing with the money of future generations. This is simply not acceptable.

Young people today are already facing huge student debts and fewer job prospects. Let us not saddle them with the responsibility of paying for our retirement. I know that this is not the legacy I want to leave to my children.

Canada's population is aging rapidly. This will put great stress on seniors programs in the years ahead. Today for every person of retirement age there are five persons of working age. In 20 years there will be one person of retirement age for every four persons of working age. When today's youth retire in 40 years, the ratio will be just one to three.

The strain on the CPP results from an aging population, a lower birth rate, increased life expectancy and a sharp rise in disability claims.

The CPP was set up as a pay as you go plan in 1966. Premiums were set at a rate that provided the fund with investments equal to at least two years of benefits. There is $40 billion in the fund. However, the cost of its promised future benefits totals $600 billion. Under the present Canada pension plan the premiums are expected to rise to 14.2% in the year 2030.

For Progressive Conservatives the CPP is a fundamental part of the Canadian social safety net, an obligation that government must honour. Let us make it clear, the CPP is worth saving. We believe that there is an urgent need to restore public confidence in the Canada pension plan so that Canadians will continue to participate in saving for their future retirement. Many of the amendments we are debating now will not restore the public confidence in the CPP. Far from it.

The CPP contribution rates will have to rise to levels adequate to ensure the long term viability of the plan, but these increased contributions must be more than offset by substantial reductions in our taxes.

Access To Information Act December 1st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to speak on private members Bill C-216, an act to amend the Access to Information Act with respect to crown corporations.

My party has always favoured more openness and transparency in government. It is important for taxpayers to know how their government is spending their money. It is important for Canadians to understand what are the priorities of their parliament and how the bureaucracy is implementing the government's agenda.

This bill raises a new issue. Should the Access to Information Act be extended to include crown corporations as defined under the Financial Administration Act? Some crown corporations are already subject to the Access to Information Act such as Canada Mortgage and House Corporation. Others such as Canada Post and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. are not. The argument made most often by these companies is that because they are subject to competitive pressures of the marketplace, they should be exempt from the access act. Their legitimate fear is their competitors will use the act to obtain sensitive competitive information which could be used to undermine the corporation's competitive advantage.

I phoned the information commissioner's office not long ago to try to resolve these competing interests. What I learned is that under section 18 of the Access to Information Act government institutions can exempt competitively sensitive information. Here is what the act says: “The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this act that contains (a) trade secrets or financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that belongs to the Government of Canada or a government institution and has substantial value or is reasonably likely to have substantial value; (b) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of a government institution”.

It goes on to also exclude “information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be materially injurious to the financial interests of the Government of Canada”.

Section 18 then may offer exemptions significant enough under the act that crown corporations would be able to comply with the act without having to disclose sensitive competitive information.

These are issues which must be resolved before a change to the Access to Information Act can be contemplated. In principle we support this bill subject to some changes which I foresee as necessary to protect the integrity of the crown corporations.

Employment Insurance November 26th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, at human resources development offices across the country people who are going in to pick up their cheques are getting something extra. They are being asked to sign a computer printout with the names and cheque amounts of everyone else in their community getting a cheque.

The privacy commissioner has already started an inquiry.

Will the minister put a stop to this practice immediately, launch a full investigation and prosecute those responsible under the Privacy Act?

Finance November 25th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, we have just learned today that the Bank of Canada has announced a quarter per cent rise in the prime lending rate, supposedly justified by our overheated economy. In this so-called overheated economy there are more than 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.

My question is for the finance minister. How could he support a government policy guaranteed to create more unemployment?

Canada Post November 20th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, this week the government told Canadian charities that they would have to run out of money. It told small businesses that they would have to put some employees out of work. Yesterday the government ran out of time and now it is clear that it is out of ideas.

Does the government have any clue how it will end the postal strike, or will it leave Canadians wishing that they had thrown the government out of office?

Employment Insurance November 19th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, we have received dozens of calls from Canadians who depend on government assistance cheques but who have not received them this month. One gentleman said that he did not have enough money to purchase insulin because his EI cheque did not come. Last night a lady from St. John's had to rush her son to the hospital but did not have enough gas to get there.

How does the minister plan to immediately deliver these urgent cheques, or is he hoping that Santa Claus will deliver them?

National Defence November 6th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, the 1993 deal to purchase helicopters included an ironclad guarantee that at least 50% of the components would have been made in Canada and 10% of every EH-101 sold worldwide would have been Canadian made. This would have meant jobs for Canadians, new technology for Canadian businesses and a substantial increase in tax revenues for the Canadian government. These helicopters would have paid for themselves.

Will the minister of public works explain why Canadians have to pay extra money for his helicopters—

National Shipbuilding Policy October 29th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, on October 7 the auditor general released a report chronicling serious deficiencies in the internal controls regulating the use of government credit cards, also known as acquisition cards.

Since 1992 the use of acquisition cards has grown from 2,000 to over 20,000 this past year, representing $172 million in purchases in 1996 alone.

The idea behind the use of acquisition cards is sound. They reduce the need of individual departments and public works to process numerous cheques and purchase orders for small purchases and thus save the government badly needed dollars. I believe any idea that can save taxpayer money is definitely worth looking into.

The problem with these cards, however, arises with the implementation and administration of a proper control system and, as documented so clearly the auditor general earlier this month, the government has been at best sloppy, at worse apathetic, in implementing such a system.

For example, in his report the auditor general noted that credit cards are not issued based on need and that the the credit limits on cards seldom reflect the use of the cards. People who do not need cards are getting them and people who should have cards are not.

Further, employees do not accept responsibility for cards and are not required to follow regulations. Employees are not properly instructed on the use of acquisition cards. When an employee leaves, cards are not properly cancelled. Even more alarming is that government organizations do not monitor and follow up card accounts that are inactive or that are suddenly used after lying dormant.

Organizations do not monitor, verify or audit their employees' purchases even though Treasury Board requires them to do so. Often an employee can certify the payment of their own account without management double checking to ensure that all purchases are valid ones.

The auditor general also observed that cards were being used to make unauthorized purchases. In many cases it was difficult to tell if the card was actually being used by the employee to whom it was registered or used by some other unauthorized person. There was even evidence that items had been purchased on government cards that were for non-government use.

The report went on to condemn the fact that quite often departments do not know how many credit cards under their control have been lost or stolen.

Finally to add insult to injury, during three months last year the government was so shabby with its record keeping that it racked up late payment charges of almost $80,000 because the government could not pay its credit card bills on time.

I own a small convenience store in Tilley, New Brunswick. I can say without prejudice that if I ran my store the way this government goes about its business without proper control over expenditures, I would certainly have been out of business years ago.

Last week the minister stated that he felt there was not a problem yet and that eventually the government would get around to fixing it. If you have a leaky roof, is it good enough to say that since it is not raining you do not have a problem?

Let me ask the minister once again. What steps is he prepared to take to stop this reckless use of acquisition cards and thereby save taxpayers from having to foot the bill for the government's carelessness on this matter?