Gilles Bernier

[National Child Day, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus of Canada, I would like to draw the House's attention to National Child Day.

On March 19, 1993, the Canadian government proclaimed November 20 as National Child Day, in order to commemorate two historical events relating to children, the adoption in 1959 by the United Nations of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and, in 1989, of the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

When this day is celebrated tomorrow, I invite all Canadians to reflect on the needs of children as well as on how we can ensure that they receive all of the guidance and love they require to become responsible and healthy adults.

Let us take advantage of this day to express our respect, affection and support for all those who represent the true greatness of our county, our children. Let us also make it the opportunity to remind the ineffectual Liberal government that is in power at this time of the shockingly hard times still being experience by a growing number of poor children in our country, which is one of the best off in the world.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-238, which involves private mail contractors.

I have been involved with this issue almost from the day I was elected two and a half years ago. I have met with and discussed this issue with representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers and Canada Post Corporation itself. In addition, as a beneficiary of daily rural mail delivery, this is an issue that concerns me personally.

Canada Post became a crown corporation in 1981 by means of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and as such, its labour practices were no longer governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act but by the Canada Labour Code which allows dependent contractors to unionize, something not provided for by the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

Subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act provides an exemption to subsection 3(1) of the Canada Labour Code that deems mail contractors, including rural route mail couriers, not to be dependent contractors.

In 1981, under the guidance of the former postmaster, and at that time Progressive Conservative postal critic John Fraser, our caucus voted to support subsection 13(5) for a number of reasons.

First, this provision continued the historical relationship that Canada Post has always had with its mail contractors.

Second, it was felt that changing that relationship could potentially increase the operating costs of the corporation substantially with no corresponding improvement in service levels to the public.

Third, the nature of this change would have removed some of the flexibility for both parties to negotiate an arrangement particularly suited for each individual contractor. For example, under the current arrangement, contractors have the ability to subcontract while employees do not. Finally, this arrangement kept Canada Post on a level footing with many private sector companies who also use private contractors for their own deliveries.

For these reasons, our party continues to support subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and that is why we cannot support the bill.

That does not mean, however, that we are indifferent to the problems faced by private mail contractors in their dealings with Canada Post. In many conversations I have had with individual contractors, with representatives from the Organization of Rural Route Mail Couriers, CUPW and with some Canada Post employees, I have heard many horror stories about the contracting practices of the post office.

For example, at one point it was common practice that when a delivery contract was up for renewal, a Canada Post employee would phone up the contractor and tell them that they had received a bid from another source that was thousands of dollars less than what the contractor was currently being paid. Because Canada Post operates a closed bidding system, there was no way for the contractor to verify the claim of the postal representative. The contractor would then be faced with a difficult decision: undercut his or her own price by several thousand dollars or else lose the contract.

These and other bad faith practices by the post office have led others and myself into discussions with Canada Post. As a result of complaints from contractors and others acting on their behalf, the post office has introduced a series of new measures that I hope will alleviate a great number of the difficulties contractors have had in the past.

These include the following: one, rural routes will be contracted on an individual contractor basis; two, contractors who in turn subcontract out their routes at a reduced price, known as master contractors, will no longer be eligible to renew their rural contract; three, if a master contractor previously held the route, the previous employee or the subcontractor actually performing the work will be the first potential supplier offered the contract at renewal; four, rural contracts will be issued for five years with a five year renewal option based on satisfactory performance and tendered after ten years; five, a negotiated adjustment will be included for the five year renewal option to ensure that market conditions, such as inflation, are considered; six, a quality and performance component will be included in the contract renewal and awarding processes to recognize the past performance of incumbent contractors; and seven, the evaluation of tenders will be based on criteria such as experience, service performance, reliability, image and cost.

In addition, when contracts are up for bids, Canada Post will make contractors aware of the specifications of the routes they will be performing, such as the number of points of call, daily kilometres, number of stops for personal contact items and the amount of ad-mail they can expect to deliver. These numbers will be updated annually or more frequently if a significant change occurs and contractors will be compensated for these changes.

The post office has also prepared a handbook or what it calls a delivery reference manual for its mail contractors. The purpose of the manual is to provide assistance and guidance with a reference book and a phone directory of key individuals at Canada Post whom they can call when a problem arises. In conjunction with this, local supervisors and postmasters will be provided with an operator's handbook and support training material to assist them in working with contractors.

These measures probably will not prevent disputes from arising. They probably will not ensure that all contractors will be treated fairly and honestly by Canada Post employees at all times. However, I feel that the changes announced will bring much greater fairness and openness to the relationship between rural mail contractors and the post office.

I continue to work with and listen to rural mail contractors to ensure that they are treated fairly and that Canada Post deals with problems that arise in a timely and equitable manner.

I am a person who has been in the contracting business for over 22 years. I have bid on a lot of contracts for the federal government.

On every contract on which I bid it never meant that I became an employee of the government. I was on my own. I was the employer and the people I hired to help me perform that contract were my employees.

I understand the intent of the rural mail couriers, but when they are under contract they are not employees. They cannot benefit from sick leave, vacations, and all that they would encounter. If they want to become full time employees of Canada Post, they should apply for a job when a job opens up. Until that job becomes available, they are contractors.

When a bid comes up, it is up to them to decide if they want to bid on the contract or not. If they are going to bid on a contract to lose money, that is their own problem. As a contractor myself, I never bid on a contract to lose money.

I sympathize with the rural mail couriers, but they have to understand that they are contractors and not employees of Canada Post. When it comes to the rural routes, if all those people became employees of Canada Post, imagine how much it would cost Canada Post Corporation. We would not be getting better service. For all the money it would cost Canada Post, we would be getting the same service, not better service. This is the taxpayers' money so let us put the money in a good place.

I hope that the rural mail couriers will understand that when we were in power we were the ones who put in section 13(5) to protect them and Canada Post employees at the same time. As I told many people in the mailing industry and even Canada Post itself, I will continue to support section 13(5).

Having said that, it is a good private member's bill and I have the greatest respect for the hon. member from the NDP, but I just cannot support this private member's bill.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party had a very nice speech. I have the utmost respect for this gentleman but I have one question. I listened to his speech. He said that this bill will be fully debated in committee. That is exactly what I said in my speech. He is just repeating what I said. I said that our party will support the bill at second reading. We hope that in committee we will be able to bring about the necessary changes so we can support the bill at third reading. If we are not allowed to bring about changes in committee, we will not have a choice but to vote against the bill at third reading.

I was surprised to learn that the hon. member opposite was a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. My staff was in contact with people in that organization just yesterday. They are very upset that this bill is being rammed through the House at this time, because there were no consultations.

Would the hon. member agree to give the municipalities more time to look at this piece of legislation in order for them to decide what they agree with or do not agree with? As the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, he should know how the municipalities work. The government should have used caution and not moved so fast.

[Municipal Grants Act, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on Bill C-10, the proposed changes to the Municipal Grants Act, or what will become the payments in lieu of tax act.

This might not be the most exciting legislation to be debated in the House this fall. Discussion of process and the internal mechanics of government are unlikely to make coverage of parliamentary debates one of the top rated shows on Canadian television, but it is certainly important legislation.

I will begin by bringing to the attention of members of parliament a concern expressed to me about the breakneck speed this legislation is being rushed through parliament. From there I want to review some of the history of the legislation, both the background and some of the most recent problems that have led to this new bill.

From there, I will present a brief overview of the bill from my own perspective and then dive into an analysis of some of the changes proposed, particularly with respect to the dispute advisory panel.

Finally, I will give hon. members my critique of the bill and I will try to persuade them that the legislation needs more work.

Yesterday, in conversations my staff had with representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or FCM, it was made abundantly clear that municipalities and their organizations do not appreciate having this legislation rammed down their throats.

Municipalities were not given any advance notice that this legislation would be introduced. No information, no background notes, no news releases, no summaries or other materials were sent out to municipalities. They have also not had time to study the bill and respond to it. In the case of FCM, it has not had time to consult its members on the bill.

This begs the question: If this is such a great piece of legislation, then what is the rush? We all know from experience that when legislation is rushed through the House, mistakes often get overlooked. Quick legislation is bad legislation.

As a member of the House and as a member of the committee that will attempt to clean up any mistakes in the bill, I call upon the government to allow more time for the House and the standing committee to work on the bill and more time for municipalities and other stakeholders to ensure the legislation will correct past problems without creating new ones.

Speaking of past problems, the very fact that we have a Municipal Grants Act is a bit of an absurdity of history in that the federal government does not officially recognize the existence of municipalities. Towns, cities and local service districts are not mentioned in the constitution. They have no official mandate. They are entirely creations of provincial governments. Furthermore, the federal government has a constitutional exemption from paying local taxes.

The problem is that the federal government, which owns property in almost 2,000 municipalities across the country, benefits from all kinds of municipal services such as water and sewage, roads and other infrastructure. Those services are not free. In spite of its constitutional exemption, the federal government should pay for those services like every other good property owner.

This paradox was resolved in 1950 with the passage of the first Municipal Grants Act, which has been updated and revised many times, most recently in 1980. Since 1980, there have been a number of issues pop up that the current legislation does not and cannot resolve. This is the basis of the bill we have before us today.

For example, a couple of years ago, I remember that there was a dispute between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and local municipalities as to whether the department had to make a payment in lieu of taxes on wharves.

Not too long ago, the federally owned Aeroports de Montréal protested a property evaluation by the city of Dorval. Ottawa re-evaluated the land at $100 million less than the property assessment and told the city that if it did not like it, it could contest the figure before the federal government appointed tribunal.

In my own province of New Brunswick, the provincial department of municipalities estimates how much municipalities will receive from federal payments in lieu of taxes and pays them that amount. The department then goes about collecting the payments from the federal government. However, it is only some time later that the federal government actually pays the amount due and in some cases the payment has taken years.

In 1995 the city of Halifax yelled foul when after increasing the evaluation of the Citadel for $15 million to $36 million, the federal government reduced its evaluation from $15 million to $1.2 million. Short of going to court, the two governments had no way of resolving this dispute.

In 1992, the Government of Quebec gave municipalities the right to replace all or part of their business occupancy taxes with a new real property levy. The result was a sudden $41 million increase in federal payments to Quebec municipalities.

In Ontario, the provincial government eliminated its business occupancy tax. To make up for lost revenue, Ontario municipalities increased their commercial real property tax rates by an average of about 45%. These reforms cost the federal government as much as $100 million a year more in payments in lieu of taxes and in leasehold occupancy costs. Furthermore, crown corporations are paying approximately $30 million more.

As well, a freeze on the payments from 1993 to 1995 made municipal governments distrustful of the federal government and made the current system unreliable.

Clearly, it is time to update the legislation to deal with these problems that have presented themselves in recent years.

The bill before us today proposes changes in a number of areas. The bill would change the name of the legislation from the Municipal Grants Act to the payments in lieu of tax act, while references in the legislation to “grants” will be placed with the word “payments”. This is to better reflect the nature of the program and the relationship between the Government of Canada as a property owner and Canadian and municipal governments.

The bill proposes introducing compensation for late payments by the federal government to municipalities. It would also give the authority to Ottawa to make payments when tenants on federal property default on their local tax bills. These are important changes under which the federal government accepts a position much closer to that of other property owners regarding its tax obligations.

It would establish a dispute advisory panel under the act with a minimum of two board members from each province and territory. The advisory panel would recommend solutions to the minister when disputes arise between municipalities and the federal government over the appropriate amount of payments.

Outdoor swimming pools, golf course improvements, outdoor theatres, residential driveways and employee parking improvements would be added to the definition of federal property and the bill would clarify the wording of the act as it relates to other non-building structures.

As well, Bill C-10 proposes to improve the predictability of payments for municipalities by clarifying how payments are calculated for federal farm property, how deductions are calculated when municipalities are unable or unwilling to provide the federal property with equivalent services to those received by similar private property or structures. It will also clarify the status of Parks Canada assets as federal property.

Although the bill does introduce some important changes, there is one important area where I have strong reservations. Other than in clause 4 of the bill, which states that the intent of the act, and which I think is a waste of space as it accomplishes nothing, I would say that 90% of the bill is an improvement over the existing legislation. The important exception is in clause 14, which would establish a new disputes advisory panel.

There are two major difficulties with this proposed new panel, the first being one of fairness and balance and the second being the composition of the panel.

Let us imagine a court trial in which the defendant got to pick his own jury, pay the jury and install himself as the final judge with no chance of appeal. How do we think the defendant would do? I suspect he would win just about every case. Would anyone describe the system as fair? I do not think so.

Yet this is exactly the kind of dispute settlement panel that the minister has proposed in Bill C-10.

Differences in opinion often arise between municipalities and the federal government over how much the crown owes for payments in lieu of taxes. These disputes are often based on the evaluation of a property or the definition and classification of a property.

What the minister has proposed is that he should establish an advisory panel composed of a minimum of 2 persons for each province and territory for a total of at least 26 members. The members would be chosen only by the minister. The minister will decide how qualified the members of the panel need to be. He will pay them $125 an hour plus expenses and they will report only to him.

The minister can fire any or all members of the board at any time for any reason if, for example, he disagrees with their decision. He can completely ignore any decisions of the panel if it suits his purpose and his decision is absolutely final. There is no appeal.

Not a bad deal. So much for fairness.

On issues related to the composition of the panel, let us look at clause 14 in more detail. As I have said, subclause 1 proposes a panel consisting of no less than two members from every province and territory with relevant knowledge and experience. My first reaction was that once the bill passes, there are going to be 26 very happy Liberals across the country who will have brand new patronage jobs. After all, $125 per hour plus expenses is a pretty good day.

At present, the minister has an informal advisory committee that has a chairperson and two members from the three provinces where there are currently outstanding disputes with municipalities, namely in Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. On any particular dispute, the two members from that province and the chairperson meet to resolve the dispute. Once all the disputes have been dealt with, the committee of three is disbanded. In other words, this is a temporary committee brought together and paid on an as needed basis, and when the job is done everyone goes home.

What the minister is proposing is that we will replace this as needed committee of 3 with a permanent panel of 26 members or better. My question is that, for example, if no payment disputes arise in the territory of Nunavut in the next 30 years, why do we need to have at least 2 permanent members from Nunavut on the committee before they have anything to do? The same is true of any other province or territory. Why should the government undertake a rigorous search process and ask professional people to serve on a panel and then never give them anything to do? Would it not be better to wait until a dispute arises?

It is interesting to note that there is not upper limit on the number of persons who can be appointed to this panel.

Subclause 1 also does not define what is meant by “relevant knowledge or experience”. I assume this is also left up to the minister. There are several professional bodies of appraisers in the country, such as the Appraisal Institute of Canada and L'Ordre des Evaluateurs agréés du Québec. I do not think it would be too much to require members of the panel to have some sort of professional designation. Otherwise, we leave the system open for abuse and we start to see such things as a panel full of members who have no qualifications to hold office other than the fact that they are Liberal Party members or once gave money to the Liberal Party.

Subclause 2 sets out the mandate of the panel as being to advise the minister on disputes over payments with municipalities. However, there is nothing in the bill to indicate how the minister would handle potential conflicts of interest where panel members are concerned.

For example, it is reasonable to assume that since many of the experts on valuation of property work for or with municipalities, that at some point there will be panel members who might be employed with municipalities. How is the panel supposed to conduct itself if a dispute arises with a municipality, and one or more of the panel members who will adjudicate the dispute actually works for that same municipality?

Similarly, under subclause 5, the bill indicates members of the panel may be employed in the Public Service of Canada. What would be the approach if a dispute arises concerning the same federal department? It is clear that the legislation must indicate how the panel would deal with conflicts and potential conflicts of interest.

Subclause 3 sets out the duties of the chairperson as supervising and directing the operation and functioning the advisory panel. It does not, however, give a clear indication of the workload of the chairperson. Is this a full time job? Apparently, if the chairperson picks up the phone to call a panel member for two minutes, he or she can then bill the taxpayers for $125 plus expenses for an hour's work. These things need to be clarified.

Going back to subclause 1, it says that members of the panel serve at the pleasure of the minister. This is a legal term meaning that at any time and for any reason the minister can fire any or all members of the panel. As a result, panel members may be reluctant to give independent advice or to reach a decision on a dispute that they feel the minister might disagree with.

I would much rather see the phrase “good behaviour” used as it gives a much greater degree of independence to panel members to reach independent decisions without fear of repercussion from the minister. I feel that this would give better balance to the panel's decision and result in better settlements for taxpayers.

I will be working with municipalities and municipal organizations over the next two weeks in an effort to find areas where the bill needs to be fixed. I will also be looking for solutions to the problems I have enumerated today.

Looking at the bill in its entirety, it is generally an improvement over the present act, legislation of 1980. It goes a long way toward addressing some of the problems that have cropped up in recent years.

However, it is clear that this bill still needs a lot of work. I look forward to fixing the bill in committee. The bill should not be defeated at this point because it is imperfect. Nevertheless, the problems need to be dealt with.

My party and I call upon other members of the House to support the bill at second reading so that we can get it into committee and hopefully fix some or all of these problems. I also call upon the minister to be open to working with members of the committee to find ways to make the bill work better for him, for his government and for Canadian taxpayers.

Based on how well we do in committee, members of parliament can then decide at third reading if the bill in its final form is worthy of our support.

[Housing, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the $75 million is at the same rate as a bank loan and they cannot afford that. CMHC knew years ago that consumers in British Columbia were purchasing condominiums that would be worthless in five years but it continued to take money from young families buying their first homes and from seniors who are now faced with retirement, in poverty and have tens of thousands of dollars in repair bills.

When will the government compensate those victims?

[Housing, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the general manager for CMHC in British Columbia says the corporation knew in 1992 that there was a problem with leaky condos but the corporation still continued to insure leaky condo mortgages which thereby exposed taxpayers to risk. It did not inform consumers who were seeking CMHC backed mortgages.

CMHC has admitted guilt. Is the minister ready to compensate leaky condo owners for this government wrong?

[Remembrance Day, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last year a member of this House said publicly that we should do away with Remembrance Day. When I heard that I decided to send a letter to the natural resources minister of New Brunswick asking him to ban hunting on November 11 to remember the supreme sacrifices made by our veterans so that we can enjoy the freedom which today we sometimes take for granted.

It really does not matter whether they ban hunting for a whole day or for a half day until noon, our hunters can take to the woods but at the 11th hour on that day the intent is to lay down the weapons and pause for two minutes to remember those Canadians who did so much for us. Without them, we might not have the hunting season at all and we might not have a country called Canada.

From the goodness of my heart I hope that all Canadians, young and old, will not forget to take two minutes just to remember. We will not forget.

[First Nations Ombudsman Act, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Whitby—Ajax, on her appointment as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. I look forward to having many vigorous debates with her.

That being said, I express my profound disappointment with the government's malicious neglect of what has become Canada's national homeless crisis. In particular, I want to voice my absolute horror that the member from Moncton, who in the past did so much for impoverished Canadians and showed so much promise when she was appointed minister responsible for homelessness back in March, would turn out to be such a train wreck as a minister.

On March 25 she promised to have a strategy in place with new money to help the homeless within 30 days. It has now been 224 days and there is no money or plan in sight.

Also in March she vowed in the House that “every child in Canada will have a safe bed to sleep in”. Here we are eight months later and most places in Canada have already had their first snowfall, and the minister has done nothing to prevent thousands of homeless children from spending another winter freezing on the streets.

Last spring her government passed Bill C-66 which will divert $200 million from social housing programs, after cutting $55 million from CMHC's social housing budget last year. The minister opposed many of her own Liberal colleagues and voted down Bill S-11 which would have prohibited poverty as a legal grounds of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In June she refused to meet with Lifeline Centre, an Ottawa organization seeking help to set up a new and innovative facility to assist homeless men who are addicted survivors of trauma.

This summer when the city of Toronto asked the federal government for emergency assistance to provide short term shelter for the city's homeless, the Liberals offered the use of the Fort York Armoury and then sent the city a bill for $250,000. It is sad to note that the Liberals made a hefty profit on the backs of Toronto's homeless.

The minister claims she has been working day and night seven days a week to come up with a plan for the homeless. Yet the week the throne speech was delivered and other parliamentarians were coming back to work the minister was jetting off to Mexico.

In May the minister hired 18 new bureaucrats at a cost of over $1 million to taxpayers in salaries, benefits and office space. Her new million dollar staff includes three new correspondence assistants even though as Minister of Labour she already had six letter writers and six new program assistants even though she has no programs to administer as the homeless minister. Instead of putting up a shiny new office that million dollars could have provided emergency shelter for 30,000 homeless Canadians.

The minister was given the mandate to find a solution for Canada's homeless. She made a lot of promises to a lot of people but now she is backing away from her commitments. She has recently been quoted as saying that she cannot do anything but pass along a few ideas to cabinet and hope that something gets done. The minister now says that it is not her job to produce a strategy, that it is not her job to find new—

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the band members of the Tobique First Nation are fed up with the inaction of the former and current Indian affairs ministers on the serious financial situation at Tobique.

Two months ago I wrote on behalf of band members asking that third party management be established at Tobique. Does the minister plan to act or is he paralyzed with the fear of starting some kind of domino effect?

[Fisheries, October 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, for years tensions have been escalating over who has the right to participate in the lobster fishery.

The historic 1990 Sparrow decision recognized the rights of aboriginal people to conduct a food fishery. This important supreme court decision should have forewarned the federal government of the likely success of further aboriginal challenges based on the 1760 treaties.

It would seem to me and most Canadians to be totally incomprehensible that the Liberal government would not have had an alternative strategy prepared in advance to respond to the recent supreme court ruling in the Donald Marshall Jr. decision.

The Liberal government had well over six years to prepare for any possible supreme court verdict and the fact that it was ill prepared for the violent reactions that were witnessed within New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland is nothing less than a dereliction of its duties.

The federal fisheries minister has a duty to protect the industry and as such the future livelihoods of both native and non-native fishers. His failure to act decisively and impose new regulations that would address the supreme court decision has led directly to the violence we witnessed over the past few weeks.