Brian Jean

[Canada Evidence Act, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. I do not support it as it is not at all well thought out because of what it does and, more specific, because of some of the ramifications relating to what would happen if the common law was codified.

I know the member has passion for this issue and has asserted it for some time. Like all members in the House, we are very interested in pursuing our own interests, and that is important. However, we also have to think these things through logically and thoroughly because of public policy considerations.

The codified version in the U.S. is in some sense a very well established principle, but it is not part of the common law, which Canada is guided by, the principles we follow and the different case law that has been decided over hundreds of years. My friend previously discussed some of the public policy considerations. I think he would agree with me that if this legislation were enacted, it would cause some circumstances that would not be in the interests of Canadians.

In particular, I had an opportunity to study media law. I studied it in Australia, so I have background in both the common law version of this type of legislation and codified law, which Australia has some semblance of as well.

What I noticed the most in studying and practising law in northern Alberta for some period of time and dealing with some cases like this, is the common law is a very good base. It takes into consideration hundreds of years of common law, and hundreds of common law cases that deal with this cannot be codified in such a simplistic manner. In essence, it comes down to that.

The idea is to have a new test for journalistic privilege. As I said, we should commend the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I do not believe it is in the interest of Canadians to rush through a bill such as this. We need to deal with this type of law on a case by case basis and journalists must prove a valid privilege before being exempted.

If we examine the case law and what has happened throughout the hundreds of years of history, we would find that it cannot be done logistically by this type of test. Very seldom have courts actually found a privilege worth backing and keeping.

American qualified privilege is a statutory test and has been effective. However, if we examine the case law, we will see that it has not been as effective as the laws in Canada under common law. This leads to uncertainty.

For instance, one of the main concerns I have with the legislation is it would override all other federal legislation. If that is the intent of the member, I suggest it is a disturbing intent and one that has not been very well thought out. It would also override provincial and territorial legislation that incorporates federal legislation.

I know I have never read all the legislation, but there are volumes and volumes of laws. I do not know if the member went through all of them, but if he did, and this is a work of art that has taken some 20 or 30 years, it would take a tremendous amount of time and resources in order to incorporate what is necessary and to review all the legislation, both federal and provincial.

I was just getting into the meat and potatoes, but I see I am out of time, which it too bad.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

That was a great question, Mr. Speaker. The member is right. The NDP member who asked the question earlier has not been at the committee as long as I have been there and certainly is unaware of what is taking place with this particular piece of legislation.

Indeed, the member is correct. It will not affect domestic mail at all.

To be clear, I had in my office not six months ago members from an association of remailers who have been in business for anywhere from 15 to 25 years. They have been doing the same business day in and day out. They asked me what they were going to tell their employees when they went home. What were they going to say to them when they could not feed their families?

There are small businesses and employees across the country who get their livelihood from this particular type of business.

The member is correct. Canada Post did not have an issue with this for over 20 years; it was only recently that it did. Indeed, the government's position is that we are going to take the best steps forward to help Canadians, to help small business and to help the Canadian economy. We are doing that. This is one step toward that.

Let me be clear. This is not in any way going to privatize Canada Post. Indeed, it only affects outgoing mail. It does not affect domestic mail.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and that is why some changes are necessary, but this will not affect domestic mail delivery anywhere in Canada. This will not do so. In fact our Prime Minister and indeed the minister have taken very positive steps toward confirming that rural mail will be delivered to rural addresses right across Canada. Indeed, we want to continue to do that and go back to a place where we were before, to continue to provide great service to Canadians with this Canadian icon.

I am from a rural constituency. I can assure the member that nothing is more important to my rural constituents than Canada Post and the delivery of the mail. We will continue to do that and take positive steps to help Canadians.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it would be to the member's advantage and certainly to the advantage of Canadians if he would take the opportunity to sit in on some of the standing committee meetings when we will be dealing with this particular piece of legislation.

What the letter was referring to was the lost opportunity that Canada Post did not have because Canada Post has not had this business for years. As a result of that, really there is no loss to it on a direct basis, only on a lost opportunity basis.

We are looking at what is best for Canadians, for Canadian consumers, and what is best for Canadian businesses. That is what this government is going to move forward with, what is best for Canadians.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government is the only government in recent history that has stood up for rural Canadians and mail delivery across this country. We will continue to do so.

Let us be clear as well that this is business that currently Canada Post has not been receiving and has not received for approximately 30 years, at least the majority of it. Canada Post actually thought that it did not have the exclusive privilege that covered this. Indeed, until recently Canada Post did not even take any court steps to do this. The impact on Canada Post should be small indeed.

I appreciate the member's input because he works very hard on the committee. Certainly, we will have a full and honest debate at committee. We will deal with this and hear from the public and all members.

The key is that this government will continue to support small businesses. We will continue to do what is in the best interests of consumers and in the best interests of Canadians.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a government committed to helping Canadian businesses compete internationally.

In Canada we have businesses involved in what is called remailing. Remailing is a business that most hon. members are probably not aware of. Indeed, remailers collect mail destined for international locations from large, commercial mailers. The remailer, or consolidator, then ships the mail outside of Canada to another country, a country with cheaper postal rates, ideally, a country that has been designated as a developing country by the Universal Postal Union.

The Universal Postal Union is an agency of the United Nations. It has been in existence since the late 1800s. Today, it has close to 200 members and deals with postal issues. It does not get involved in domestic postal matters. Its role is to act as a primary forum for cooperation among postal sector players. It actually sets the rules for international mail exchanges and makes recommendations to its members, “To stimulate growth in postal volumes and to improve the quality of service for customers”.

It was the Universal Postal Union that established a single postal territory for the exchange of international mail, which obviously is very necessary. This means that when we are mailing a letter out of the country, we can buy an international stamp to put on that letter.

Canada Post would keep the revenue from that stamp, but it would be a different postal administration delivering that letter. It is that other postal administration that is incurring the bulk of the cost for the delivery of the letter.

Therefore, under the Universal Postal Union system of international exchange of mail, Canada Post would need to compensate the country of delivery. This compensation is called a terminal due.

The Universal Postal Union has classified its member countries as industrialized or developed versus those that are developing. Obviously different countries fit into different categories. This classification affects the rate of terminal due a country is eligible to receive from another country for mail it has received and the rate it is obliged to pay another country for mail that it sent out.

It is a complicated issue, but remailers do not have to pay terminal dues and are therefore able to offer lower rates than Canada Post. The Universal Postal Union also allows remailing. There are other countries that allow remailing. However, Canada does not.

A few years ago Canada Post took a large number of remailers to court. The courts have rightly ruled, in reading the exclusive privilege of Canada Post, that remailing is an infringement upon Canada Post's exclusive jurisdiction. This exclusive privilege was granted to Canada Post through its legislation. This is legislation that was passed in the House of Commons over 20 years ago when the Canada Post Corporation Act was first enacted.

Since the exclusive privilege is set out in the act, the only way to adjust this exclusive privilege is to amend the act. It is only Parliament that can change provisions of the act, and only after public debate and discussion will that change be made.

The government is pleased to have introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, and the purpose of this bill is to remove all outgoing international mail from Canada Post's exclusive privilege. This would actually enable remailers to operate in Canada without infringing on Canada Post's exclusive privilege. They would no longer be breaking Canadian law. They would no longer be at risk of a legal challenge.

Although the bill is proposing something broader than just remail, its net effect on Canada Post is not expected to be any different. Indeed, the business model of remailers is to collect large volumes of mail from commercial companies. It is not interested in collecting mail from you, Mr. Speaker, nor I.

They offer Canadian businesses lower postal rates. This actually reduces the cost of those companies. This reduces the cost of their goods or services to Canadians, to consumers, which is ultimately a good thing for Canadians. This results in lower costs to the ultimate consumer of the goods or service.

In fact, there used to be many federal government departments and agencies that used the services of remailers for their mail going overseas. They had shopped around to find the lowest rates so that they could make effective use of taxpayers money.

The proposed legislation is not intended to allow the mail to come back into Canada and that is very clearly a difference that should be re-explained. The addressee of the letter is to be in a foreign country. We are not touching domestic mail. The addressee is to be outside of Canada. Remailers that attempt to send mail back into Canada will still be in contravention of the exclusive privilege of Canada Post after amended.

We are not proposing to let other postal sector players put stamps on their mail while it is in Canada. Some other countries also allow an Extraterritorial Office of Exchange, which is defined by the Universal Postal Union as:

--an office or facility, operated by or in connection with a postal operator, outside its national territory, on the territory of another country. These are offices established by postal operators for commercial purposes to draw business in markets outside their own national territory.

If a stamp is put on a letter while in Canada, it should have a Canada Post approved stamp. If Canada is to allow these ETOE's, or the Extraterritorial Offices of Exchange, there should be a licensing regime associated with it. We are not going there with this proposal. We are not allowing other countries to operate postal outposts in Canada. We want to help Canadian businesses compete internationally and we are attempting to do that with this legislation.

The government has studied the issue. Canada Post has told us that it estimates it is currently foregoing revenues in the amount of $50 million to $80 million a year. This is an estimate based on what it has seen as a trend in its revenue stream since new rules were put in place by the Universal Postal Union in 2001. Canada Post does not know for sure how much business it has been losing to remailers operating illegally in Canada.

On the other hand, the industry itself has made claims of it being millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars. Because the courts have ruled remailing as unlawful, we cannot get data or information from the industry members that can be validated. These are small businesses often, and some large businesses, and usually located in places such as Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

Both estimates from Canada Post and from the industry itself are significant. They are also not very close. Some of the difference can be accounted for given that they are based on different premises and, of course, different expectations.

The Canada Post estimate represents the impact on Canada Post itself and is not a measure of the industry. The industry estimate is more of an estimate of economic impact as it includes supporting businesses such as envelope manufacturers and print shops throughout the country, as I mentioned.

Should this legislation get enacted, Canada Post estimates losing another $45 million to $50 million a year, so there are financial implications. Its employees will worry that this is a first step toward privatization. Let us be clear. This government will not privatize Canada Post and there are no plans to do so.

Canada Post is a very large institution. It is one of the largest employers in Canada. It has one of the largest retail networks in Canada. It provides services to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Some would argue that it is indeed a Canadian icon.

I would argue that in rural communities in my constituency there is no federal institution that is more important to my constituents than Canada Post. That is why this government is taking positive action for Canadians.

There are many issues and challenges facing this corporation. It would be easy to get sidetracked on any number of these issues. We just need to ask the previous members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. They had some discussions on remailers, as my friend across the way will confirm.

The members tabled motions and amendments to those motions. At the end, they reported back that they wanted time to study the issue. This government has decided that it has done enough studying. The government has decided it is time to take action and positive action will be taken.

The bill itself is targeted to this specific issue. We do not want to get sidetracked in our goal to address this issue. Indeed, we also do not want changes to Canada Post to be widespread. This government is not interested in destroying Canada Post or privatizing it. We are not opening up our domestic mail services.

This is not the first step in the privatization of Canada Post. I have said that three times. I can assure the House that we are sincere on that.

We are enhancing competition in the outbound international mail business to benefit Canadians, to benefit small businesses across this country, and we are going to continue to support Canadian businesses.

[November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, where have the Liberals been on this issue up to now? Where has the member been? I know he asked one particular question, but indeed, where was he?

On September 22, 2003, there was a press release by Environment Canada where the municipality of the city of Moncton pleaded guilty to federal environmental charges related to the decommissioned landfill. I go on to quote: “This is the first time that a municipality has been prosecuted by Environment Canada for landfill problems”. That is right. He was involved because he was the mayor of Moncton at that time and was in charge of such a disastrous thing. Do we want him to do that again? No. This government is acting in the best interests of Canadians and we will continue to do so in a fair and equitable manner.

[November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize the importance of the Petitcodiac River restoration project to all interested parties involved. The decision to authorize the project's construction, as this government has done, did not come without a thorough review of the legislative requirements under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and the Fisheries Act. Accordingly, Transport Canada worked closely with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on arriving at a Government of Canada position on the project.

It has been a lengthy but essential process for the people of Canada as Transport Canada had to take into consideration the relevant factors associated with the project's options put forward by the province of New Brunswick and the findings of the province's extensive environmental impact assessment report.

As I mentioned, this report, done in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, took approximately three years to complete. The purpose of the report was to evaluate and compare the potential environmental effects of the project options, all of which included an alteration to the current state of the river.

Naturally, any substantial change to the existing state of the river needed to be fully examined, which is so important, especially after the 40 years that this project has been in that particular state and 13 years of neglect by the previous Liberal government. This had to be carried out prior to making a decision to authorize the project under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and in the best interests of the people.

Furthermore, the province announced in August of this year its decision on which of the four options it preferred. The provincial government opted to replace the existing causeway with a bridge, which of course is within its jurisdiction to decide. With the preferred option identified, it was necessary for the department to ensure the specific legislative requirements under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the 280 metre long bridge for the province.

Upon completion of the application and authorization process, the department issued a formal approval of the construction of the bridge on November 7, 2007. The province is now responsible for the implementation of the project requirements, including the terms and conditions associated with the authorization including those outlined in the province's own environmental impact assessment report.

Regarding the request for funding for this particular project, Infrastructure Canada officials have met with Premier Graham. Given the information that we have provided, the Petitcodiac River project is ineligible for funding under the building Canada fund. This type of project does not fall under the categories of core national highway system projects, which is so important across the country, or under the locally owned road projects. As such, funding for the project rightly rests with the government of New Brunswick.

[November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there is a choice. We cannot dictate the U.S. law, just like we expect the U.S. not to interfere in our internal laws and programs.

The U.S. Congress and the executive remain concerned about a repeat of 9/11-type attacks. Overflights, they fear, could be used to launch this type of attack.

Again, I will repeat. International law permits each state, including Canada, to control its land and air borders and establish security rules to govern flights going over its air space.

I am certain the member is not suggesting that Canada give up its rights to borders and air security. Is that the case?

[November 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, all I can think of is that the member must misunderstand the situation.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Davenport regarding secure flight, a proposed United States aviation security program that would ask air carriers flying within the United States and over the United States to provide basic data on passengers. I would ask that he listen to that sentence again: that would ask air carriers flying within the United States and over the United States to provide basic data on passengers.

International law establishes the right of every state, including Canada, to control its borders, including its airspace, and determine security requirements related to entry by land or by air into its territory. The proposed United States program exists within this context in its air space.

The proposed program applies to all overflights, not only those from Canada. The principle that each state, including Canada, controls its own border and airspace is one worth respecting since we, as a sovereign state, want to keep those rights intact for us, for our families, for all of us.

How are we to respond to a proposed program that, while consistent with international law, raises issues of concern?

Instead of trying to oppose established international principles and law, we are working with the United States to mitigate any negative impacts that the proposed program would have on Canadian travellers or Canadian businesses.

Developing comparable aviation security programs that respect each country's laws and citizens, including passenger protect, a made in Canada solution that this government launched last June, has helped to achieve an exemption of 80% of Canadian flights from the proposed rule.

We are in discussions now with the United States on the remaining 20%.

If it turns out that any Canadian flight will be captured by the rule, and remember that this is a proposed rule not a final one, it will be important to focus on the collection, use and disposal of personal information for air travellers.

It will be important that people know and agree to share their personal information and that they will know the objective of requesting it and how it will be handled. It is an issue of safety and national security.

In security matters, as in many other sectors that relate to the United States, this government is standing up for Canada in a way that respects international law, protects privacy and contributes to productive relations with a key neighbour and trading partner.

Any other course of action would be counterproductive and contrary to Canadian interests and Canadian law.