Brian Jean

[June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question on behalf of the minister. I can say that playing politics is the expertise of the party opposite. After five years as a member and never having raised this issue before, I wonder why the member expects us in 103 days or 108 days to get it done when he himself had well over five years to try.

I am pleased for the opportunity to discuss this issue and answer the concerns raised by the hon. member for West Nova regarding the Port of Digby because there is nothing more important to the minister than this port.

In October 1999, Transport Canada actually transferred the regional-local Port of Digby in Nova Scotia to the Maritime Harbours Society in an effort to solve the issues that were plaguing it at that stage, which is what we see today. It was transferred pursuant to Transport Canada's port divestiture program, which is what the federal government has been doing for some time.

The Digby Harbour Port Association did not avail itself of the opportunity to take it over at that time. However, that does not mean a good idea has to go to waste today. The transfer included a $3 million contribution that was to be used exclusively for eligible expenditures directly related to the port's operation and management.

My understanding, which was brought forward by the member, is that the arbitrator found that there was no malfeasance and no problem with what actually took place with the $3 million contribution from the federal government at that time.

However, following the transfer, public concerns were raised concerning the management of the contract and the accountability of the Maritime Harbours Society. This was with respect to the operation of the port and the way federal contribution funds were spent.

As a result, Transport Canada entered into a lengthy process of audits and legal proceedings to ensure we could find out what was going on. This led to the arbitration and to the result that nothing bad took place. The department took these allegations very seriously and wanted to ensure these funds had not been used for any other purpose other than for what they were intended. It is for that reason that Transport Canada used all the legal recourses that were available under the circumstances to get to the bottom of it and find out what was going on.

The dispute with the Maritime Harbours Society concerning the use of the contribution funds provided when the Port of Digby was transferred is now concluded, as the member knows. The arbitration is on the Transport Canada website and I welcome anyone watching today in TV land to take the opportunity to look at the arbitration decision.

The Maritime Harbours Society now wishes to sell the Digby Fisherman's Wharf to the local community. The potential sale of this wharf by Maritime Harbours Society to the Digby Harbour Port Association would consist of a private sale between two parties, and this government does not interfere in a private sale between two parties unless our help is requested.

However, due to the contractual obligations of the initial transfer from Transport Canada to the Maritime Harbours Society, it still requires ministerial consent. Prior to the last election, the minister granted that approval to facilitate the ownership of the port by a community group.

I myself have issues with wharves in my riding and I can assure the member that this government and the minister will do all they can to help the community group and the people of Digby.

Concurrently, the minister made a proposal to release the Maritime Harbours Society from certain other contractual obligations. As the member knows, a lot of money is left over. The minister has stated publicly that he would honour this commitment. Department officials have met with the Digby Port Harbour Association as recently as April 5 and I assure the member that those meetings are ongoing.

I would like to reiterate that the solution for the Port of Digby's future has come from a local source. The minister and this government encourage that local source to get involved so it can take place.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Rural Mail Delivery, June 9th, 2006]

What happened was a private member's bill came forward and the government acted. The bill sought for the independent contractors to become postal employees. Indeed, Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, signed an agreement, resulting in more than 6,000 contractors becoming employees of Canada Post in January 2004.

The law rightfully places obligations as well on all employers across Canada to ensure that they have safe working conditions for employees. Under the Canada Labour Code, which the House passed, there are certain obligations on employers. Employers now even have further legal responsibilities to ensure that the health and safety of employees is protected.

Indeed, the House recently amended the Criminal Code, following the Westray Mine disaster, to impose a new duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent employees from suffering harm at work.

What could be more important than keeping Canadians safe in the job or at home?

In the past six months, more than a few hundred rural mail carriers have raised health and safety concerns. Some have even exercised their legal right to refuse to work under the Canada Labour Code. These employees have raised two areas of concerns.

The first, as has been mentioned, is ergonomic health, a complaint arising from the repetitive motion of stretching to deliver rural mail across a left-hand drive vehicle into a post box.

The second is related to road safety. This concern is especially prevalent in rural communities or on rural roads. These include, for example, high volumes of traffic and the increase in volume of traffic on rural roads. Sometimes these roads are not wide enough to allow a vehicle to pull off to the side to deliver the mail without having to worry about what's coming behind them. In some cases there are insufficient sight distances. For instance, roadways and hills cause a visual disturbance to somebody coming along behind them. Thus, they are unable to react quickly enough or to stop to avoid some form of accident.

We are talking about the safety of employees and the safety of residents in rural Canada.

Human Resources and Social Development health and safety officers have been called in to investigate a number of the work refusals. They have determined, in some cases, that the workplace conditions do constitute a situation that must be immediately corrected: safety concerns. The government is committed to the safety of Canadians.

Canada Post is committed to protecting the safety of all its employees. The corporation immediately upon receiving these decisions implemented a series of measures to mitigate these concerns.

There are a limited number of safe alternatives to roadside mailboxes, and Canada Post understands this. This may include delivery to a central point, such as a local post office or a community mailbox. Millions of Canadians, including rural Canadians, already receive their mail this way and have for some period of time.

Where Canada Post has received a Human Resources and Social Development decision or direction relating to road safety or where delivery is clearly unsafe, quick action has been required and quick action has been taken. In these cases, customers have immediately been moved to alternative forms of delivery.

In each case Canada Post is working closely with the community because the community is what drives Canada Post, and it understands that. It is working closely with the community to ensure that convenient delivery is maintained through locations where both employees and public safety is protected, the very thing to which the member's motion speaks.

At the same time, Canada Post has engaged various experts, including traffic safety experts at the National Research Council, to evaluate and advise Canada Post on the working conditions of rural mail carriers. The findings of these experts will provide guidance moving forward as to how Canada Post can comply with the legal requirements and its obligations to its employees.

Some of the more practical solutions Canada Post has already moved on are flashing yellow lights to ensure these vehicles are visible from behind and reflective signs. They have already been passed out and delivered to all 6,000 rural route drivers.

Just as the government takes seriously the safety and the ergonomic concerns raised by Canada Post employees, we are insisting that Canada Post maintain a rural mail service. The government recognizes that issues have arisen with respect to rural mail delivery and are in part due to labour issues, but also are in part due to safety issues.

The Prime Minister and the minister responsible for Canada Post have recently met with senior officials of Canada Post. As a consequence, Canada Post has reiterated its commitment to taking steps to ensure quality rural mail delivery.

The government is supporting the spirit and intention of the motion.

[Rural Mail Delivery, June 9th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, my comment is for my friend, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I would like to find out more information about the community of Beaverdell. My brother lived in that community and I visited it many times. My father helped build the mountain road back in the fifties and sixties. I would be happy to help in any way I can. It is an absolutely gorgeous community, and I congratulate him for having it in his riding.

On behalf of the government, I would like to give some good news to the member opposite, who put forward the motion. I take the opportunity now to tell Parliament that the government will be supporting the spirit and intention of the motion. Congratulations.

I can assure the member that, as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a rural area in northeastern Alberta, I am very aware of the concerns of rural Canada. I also am very aware of the importance of a reliable postal service, as are all members on this side of the House. I am very proud to be a member of a government that will support rural Canadians.

I want all members of the House to understand that the government recognizes the important role that the post office plays in communities across Canada. Thus, in addition to supporting a quality rural mail service, we are also fully committed to maintaining the moratorium on rural post office closures. It is great news again from the government.

Of course there are unavoidable situations such as fires or deaths, where something happens that cannot be avoided and where the operation of a rural post office in a small community can be affected. In such cases, Canada Post always consults locally with these communities to explore any option that is possible and available to meet the obligations and needs for ongoing postal needs for that community.

It is important to note that many of the concerns regarding disruption of rural mail delivery services are reported to be of a safety and ergonomic nature, as my friend across the floor brought forward.

However, today's motion focuses directly on rural mail delivery. I think it would be helpful for members to know why the motion was presented and why the Conservative government supports the spirit and intention of the motion.

Some members may be aware that there have been recent health and safety concerns expressed by postal employees delivering mail to roadside mail boxes in rural areas. Canada Post has in fact briefed members who want information on their areas. It has been very cooperative in providing briefings to members regarding those ridings that have been affected.

The member for Oak Ridges—Markham as well as the member for York—Simcoe, a member from this side of the House, are very aware of the situation because they have safety concerns relating to the Newmarket area ridings. For those members who have not yet been briefed on the issues that impact rural mail carriers, I am here today to provide some background information, which I hope will be helpful for them.

First, Canada Post delivers some 40 million pieces of mail per day to more than 12 million addresses, and it does so in a number of different ways. We are all familiar with the resident's door and delivery of mail that way. We are also familiar with the community mailboxes that have become commonplace in Canada. Finally, there is the mail delivery at local post offices.

Rural mail carriers deliver to approximately 843,000 addresses through roadside rural mailboxes, usually located at the end of people's driveways. Canada Post employees have not always performed this work. Prior to 2004, this work was done by private contractors.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. I have practised as a criminal lawyer in the past and several times today I have asked questions in the House when I just could not help it. I practised as a criminal lawyer for 10 years and I must tell members that many times I saw criminals, and I say criminals, laughing as they walked out of the courtroom. They were laughing at the inability of the court to give them a sentence. It was shameful. I was embarrassed with the results that I saw many times.

I have two questions for the member. I think the member's attitude and the attitude of all the members of the House who are opposed to Bill C-10 would change if it were their daughter, mother, father or son who was killed as a result of walking down a street and being the subject of gunfire that they had nothing to do with.

First, what better suggestions does the member have on how to curb the increase in gun violence? Second, how many more innocent victims must die until there is enough evidence to convince him?

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga South mentioned statistical data saying that long gun crime had gone down. I was wondering if the member could table that in the House because that is not my understanding of the statistics.

Also, the NDP member who spoke earlier suggested that long arm guns had killed half of the police officers, or something like that. Automatic weapons are long arm guns. They are included in those statistics.

I worked in the trenches. I was a criminal lawyer. I worked for the other side of justice. I believe that this legislation is necessary and it is long overdue. It will solve some problems. It is not going to solve all of them and certainly we have more of an obligation to society than what we are putting forward as a culture, but this will be a good first step to solve it.

It was mentioned earlier by a member opposite that said TV has changed our culture. I remember when I was in Australia, and I mentioned it earlier, every day for the first week I was on the beach because I love the beach. Then all of a sudden within a month I did not go to the beach at all. Within three years I probably showed up there once every two or three months.

The reality is people get desensitized. That is what happens with judges. We can see statistics that show when they become judges they are hard; they are fast. They make sure that the person does time for crime. Unfortunately when they hear that every day, just like when people see murders on TV, just like when people go to Australia and see the beach every day, they become desensitized.

That is why we as a group, as a body of Canadians, must represent those people back in the constituency who want some answers and want some changes. This bill will do that. This will set a template for judges to follow and make sure the judges follow the guidelines of Canadians.

I would like the member opposite to comment on the desensitization of judges.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

One in twenty.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on a particular story that I would like to tell.

I have a nephew who is an aboriginal Canadian, actually a treaty member of a band in northern Alberta and a good friend of mine. While I was practising criminal law in northern Alberta, he had occasion to put together about two pages of rap sheets, something in the neighbourhood of between 8 and 12 or 14 criminal convictions. Finally, thank God it happened, he went to jail for two and a half years for a simple assault. As anybody would know who has been involved in the criminal system, that is very serious time.

He went in as a 120 pound crack addict and came out as a 200 pound strapping young man who today has a job, and a family of four beautiful kids living with him. Thanks to the day the judge who sent him away to jail for some serious time for a serious crime. so he has a life today.

I talk to that nephew of mine once every week or two and he is a totally contributing member of our society. I am so proud of that person. I am also proud of that judge for sending him to jail.

I would like the member to comment on that aboriginal nephew of mine from northern Alberta.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and ask a couple of questions of my friend. I noted his comment that our incarceration rate is 20% higher than that of some other countries. First of all, I wonder if he noticed the geographic differences. Australia and the United Kingdom are actually surrounded by water and do not have the United States right next door, which of course has the largest gun owner population in the world.

I had an opportunity to attend law school in Australia and volunteered some of my time in Australian jails. I can say with certainty, after being a criminal lawyer in northern Alberta and spending considerable time in Australia, that they are very different systems. They are very different places, and indeed, the people are different. I am wondering if he would comment on that.

Some years ago I had a client who had been caught with a loaded .357 Magnum under his car seat. When he was stopped by the RCMP, the weapon was found. He came before the court. He received a 30 day conditional sentence for carrying that loaded weapon under his seat. Would the member comment on whether or not he thinks that is sufficient time to deter that gentleman from doing it again?

I am a gun owner, but when the law came into effect, I turned in my .38 special, which had a short barrel, to the RCMP for destruction. I felt it was not appropriate to have it at that time. I was not a target practice shooter. I wonder if he would comment on that.

We are different countries and we require different things. We need to make sure that those people who are going to commit crimes and carry weapons such as these, which have only one purpose, do serious time in order to deter them from doing anything again.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.