1975-11-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of pressing and urgent necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have given the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) and the government House leader notice of this motion. As Canadians have now been denied postal service for 28 days and as the CUPW has denied its membership the right to a secret vote on the government's final wage offer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House urges the Public Service Staff Relations Board to direct the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to take a poll of its membership by secret ballot on the government's final wage offer, and that such a vote be supervised by the Canadian Labour Congress.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of this motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent, I shall put the motion. It is moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House urges the Public Service Staff Relations Board to direct the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to take a poll of its membership by secret ballot on the government's final wage offer, and that such a vote be supervised by the Canadian Labour Congress.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Eroadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Too late!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the motion was moved, because of the usual commotion at the commencement of proceedings Your Honour failed to hear any objection to this motion.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, could the question be put again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a most serious problem. If an hon. member alleges that he or others close to him withheld consent to the motion, and I missed that, it is a most serious situation. Previously, in such circumstance, the Chair has put the question a second time if it had been suggested that consent had been withheld. There is nothing dangerous about that precedent. When an hon. member has indicated that the Chair has missed a negative or dissenting vote cast either by that member or someone close to him, that has been sufficient for the Chair in the past. If this is the case, may I ask again if there is unanimous consent? Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion I just read can only be put with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Postmaster General who last week indicated he had sent a communication to the CLC regarding a vote on the government's proposal. Has the Postmaster General received a reply from the Canadian Labour Congress indicating that it is preparing to encourage the union in question to hold a secret vote on the government's final offer?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I recall last week replying to a telegram from the Canadian Labour Congress urging renewed bargaining and so on. I did reply, as the Leader of the Opposition states, asking the CLC to urge the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, who are members of the CLC, to hold a secret ballot to see whether the government's final offer was acceptable. I went further to suggest that the CLC supervise the vote. So far, I have not had any reply.

November 17, 1975
Oral Questions


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON TAKING SECRET BALLOT ON FINAL OFFER
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Last week the Postmaster General indicated he was prepared to at least give consideration to establishing some mechanism for a secret ballot on this proposal. Has the government reached any decision with regard to this? How long does the Postmaster General propose to allow the tie-up in service to continue before he makes a decision with regard to this matter?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: As we
heard earlier, Mr. Speaker, there has already been overwhelming opinion in the House, not from all parties-


Mr. Baldwin:: From the democratic, not the New Democratic.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -suggesting that this democratic right be provided to the workers as it is in civic, provincial and federal elections. As to when the government should move, as the hon. member knows, this is a very difficult question. It is a question of weighing the democratic right of the workers to remain on strike against the public interest. In a matter of several weeks, the House might be seized with the debate on the issue as to whether we have reached that particular point.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was clear in the question I put to the Postmaster General. He had difficulty understanding it. I will put it to him in this way. The Postmaster General and members on the government side having indicated a few minutes ago that they favour a secret ballot or vote being taken under the direction and supervision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, does the minister and the government propose to do anything about this?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The reason I favour it is because of the clear distinction between the government and the Public Service Staff Relations Board which is an independent body set up to supervise and administer industrial relations within the public service. This body is independent of government. Therefore, if it were to propose or initiate this move, we would frankly be free of any charge of interfering in the democratic rights of a particular union.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-CONSIDERATION OF NEEDS OF SMALL BUSINESSMEN
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In answers on Friday of last week, the Postmaster General claimed that he placed greater value on democracy than the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He explained how business and other people were keeping the mail moving. What consideration is the minister giving to the democratic right of the unheard majority of Canadians who cannot afford courier service for their postal needs and cannot afford to communicate their needs to the government by telegram?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy with the question the hon.

member has posed. It is all a matter of judgment-we cannot become too technical. It is an exercise which has to take place periodically when there are strikes on the railways, on the waterfronts and post offices when the private rights of individuals become public wrongs, and any government has an obligation to take action. It becomes a matter of judgment as to just when that moment is appropriate, and naturally the government would prefer to err on the side of caution in denying the rights of workers to be on strike legally as long as we can tolerate the effects without any real visible damage to the economy in general, though knowing fully well the impact on the fortunes of certain individuals.


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-ALLEGED RELUCTANCE OF GOVERNMENT TO RESUME NEGOTIATIONS
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Since the government has asserted that any wage settlement which exceeds the government's wage guidelines will be subject to approval by the Anti-Inflation Board, and since the union has stated its desire to return to the bargaining table, can the Postmaster General tell the House why he shows such reluctance to resume negotiations as evidenced by his statement last week that there is nothing more to negotiate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Before our socialist friends get excited, they should be making noises against Mr. Barrett who has legislated all labour legislation out of existence in his province. I have not said there is nothing left to negotiate. I said there was nothing left to negotiate in the $1.70 area or in the length of the contract. There may be other issues of a non-monetary nature which can be negotiated. Reading the newspapers and listening to television one gathers the impression that there seems to be a change of heart on the part of the union in the last day or so; they have indicated to the press that they are prepared to resume negotiations and we are prepared to do the same thing as long as it is fully understood that $1.70 is the limit they can possibly achieve in a 30-month settlement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATING CHANGE IN COLA CLAUSE
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can he expand the answer he just gave, particularly the statement that the government is not prepared to move any further on monetary issues? Does this mean, for example, that the government will make no change in its present position on the COLA clause question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We could not morally do anything with regard to the COLA clause by reason of the fact that it exists, or would exist in this collective agreement, only because it is in the letter carriers' agreement. More important, it is exactly the formula recommended by the chairman of the conciliation board, a man who was chosen by the union. I do not know anybody
November 17, 1975

more qualified to judge what is a fair COLA clause than the chairman of the conciliation board who is a judge of the superior court chosen by the union in question, and I am guided by his judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That item is only one of a number of other recommendations which were made; the government has not accepted all the others either. The minister well knows that the union might, for example, accept a COLA clause decision from the government-I say "might"; I have no private knowledge the minister does not have-in lieu of certain other considerations which they also have in mind. I should like to repeat my question because I am not sure of his answer. Is the hon. gentleman saying the door is shut on the COLA clause issue?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the COLA clause issue, yes. I would also say to the hon. gentleman, who understands these matters just as well as I do, that I am at a loss to understand why the union should think that a vote, or even acceptance of the government's offer, would involve a loss of face having regard to the fact they were able to negotiate the only contract in the government which provides full job security and maximum security against the adverse effects of technological change, which, according to the union, was the prime issue. This question has now been negotiated, it is initialed, it is a fait accompli and we must now ask ourselves how much the government can concede, even in the non-monetary area, while still maintaining managerial control over a service the people of Canada expect and with regard to which we have an obligation to retain managerial control and not cede it to certain union leaders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering the position taken by the common front of unions especially in Quebec and that individuals such as Laberge, Pepin, Chartrand and Charbonneau are asking their members to challenge the government anti-inflation legislation and to launch a general strike throughout the province, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is now considering that eventuality and if the government is considering the steps to be taken to spare Canada a dreadful economic disaster?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I share the view of the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada when he refers to an eventual disaster. I would merely like to indicate that the government still has confidence in the common sense of Quebec citizens. As for the government, we are ready to be very patient to explain the merits of the legislation which the House is now considering and to meet anyone, including labour leaders. If they are worried or have valid objections, we are ready to discuss with them because we are convinced that if the effectiveness of government action against inflation was understood by all, better co-operation would be obtained not only from union members but also from union leaders.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Did the Prime Minister and the union leaders discuss the opportunity to have any further meetings? Did the union leaders ask for an interview with the Prime Minister or a member of the government concerning this famous Bill C-73 in order to discuss its conditions and possible implications?


STRIKE OF INSIDE WORKERS-POSSIBILITY OF APPOINTING MEDIATOR
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister the following question. Given the importance of this issue, both in terms of the public's right to mail service and the union's right to strike when it is provided by government legislation, and given the fact that the negotiations clearly seem to be at the point of breakdown, with the negotiators on neither side seeming to be prepared to make a move would the Prime Minister give consideration to discussing with both sides the acceptance of a mediator in the circumstances?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the conciliation report, which is one that both parties have had time to examine and one which, I repeat, seems very reasonable in terms of its recommendations, is the step at which we should stop at this point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, several meetings between ministers-including myself-and union leaders have already taken place in various provinces. I must say there has not yet been any meeting with those mentioned by the Social Credit leader. However, I have indicated that I would be available to meet these people if they want to continue the discussion, and I repeat it publicly, if it is possible for me to meet them with government ministers, I would be very happy to do so.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the right hon. Prime Minister. When in April of 1970 the Prime Minister gave permission to his then principal secretary personnally to intervene in a matter involving large sums of money be-

November 17, 1975
Oral Questions
tween Sky Shops Export Limited and the federal Department of Transport, what were the instructions that he gave to his then principal secretary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure upon what the hon. member is basing his assertion that I personally gave instructions. My principal secretary was, in a general way, instructed to deal with constituents-by that, I mean not only people from my riding of Mount Royal but constituents across the country-who had some reason to want to see me. I could not make myself accessible personally to everyone, but he had instructions to try to deal with every reasonable request by any citizen of Canada, particularly if they came from the beautiful riding of Mount Royal, and to make sure they had access to government services, just as I am sure it is the duty of every member of this House to make sure that happens when they get requests from someone in their constituencies.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister advise the House why his department has awarded a contract for advertising the meetings leading up to the Habitat Conference next spring to the wholly-owned subsidiary of Ogilvy and Mather Inc., of New York instead of to a Canadian advertising agency?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that is a Canadian company or it is in the process of becoming totally Canadian owned and, indeed, that was the understanding in respect of any agreement involved there.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that is not my information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that this contract was awarded to the wholly-owned subsidiary of a United States corporation, I would ask if there was no truly Canadian company considered capable of handling this straightforward job, and what has happened to the government's professed policy of Canada first in this regard?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that major advertising contracts with any agency for which I am responsible are placed with wholly-owned Canadian companies, and it was my understanding that this company was in the process of becoming completely Canadian owned. If that is not the case, I appreciate the hon. member's comment and will certainly check into it.


HOUSING
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I understand that many communities in Saskatchewan have made application under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and have been informed that the hold-up seems to be with CMHC. Would the minister inform us why there is this delay in processing these applications as some of these communities are waiting with the hope that they will be able to get started before the winter sets in?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge these agreements have not been signed with all the provinces, and I am rather disturbed about this. I do not know if reports are coming out. I understand there has been a second change of the minister responsible for housing in that province. I have met with the past two ministers but I have not yet met the new minister. I hope he remains long enough so we get the chance to know one another.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate when he hopes to meet with the new minister since it can get pretty nippy in Saskatchewan, contrary to what happens in the Toronto area?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I understand we are to meet on the 25th for a nip.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the continued worth and the continued revelations in respect of the Quebec Police Commission probe into organized crime, will the minister inform the House if the government would withdraw its rather superfluous constitutional objections, which I understand are to be made on behalf of the Justice Department tomorrow before the Supreme Court of Canada, regarding this Quebec Police Commission probe?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. As I indicated to the House already if the hon. member had listened when this question arose, I have already put before the Solicitor General of Quebec and my colleagues possible amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that provincial attorneys general are able to carry on the type of inquiries they want to conduct.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of my understanding that the state of the investigation by this particular probe are now at a very crucial juncture, both to the staff and counsel, I wonder if the Minister of Justice would tell the House whether he has, on behalf of the government, yet given any assurances formally, informally, public or
November 17, 1975

private, to the judge conducting the inquiry and to counsel and staff involved, relating to the possible appointment of some people with the authority to conduct a similar inquiry under the auspices of the federal government itself?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper for me to communicate with the chairman of the commission. As I just indicated, I have had discussions about this question with the solicitor general of the province of Quebec.


STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP OF CHRONIC BRONCHITIS, SMOKING, AIR POLLUTION AND INDUSTRIAL OCCUPATIONS IN OTTAWA AND SUDBURY-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF REPORT
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the government sponsored a study into the relationship of chronic bronchitis, smoking habits, air pollution and working in industrial occupations in Ottawa and in Sudbury? If so, when will the government release this report?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, some reference has been made by the CBC to a so-called secret report. This is not the first time the CBC has mentioned a secret report that has been public, sometimes for many weeks. Sometimes the reports even have been tabled in this House. In this particular instance a survey was conducted by the Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine of the University of Ottawa. This was funded by the health grants program of the federal government for the Ottawa survey, and by a provincial government grant for the Sudbury survey. This was not in any way a federal survey.
Preliminary findings of the Ottawa survey were made public last summer at the meeting of the International Epidemiology Association in Brighton, England-I cannot understand why the CBC was not there-and will appear in the form of a scientific article in the December 6 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. I understand that a final detailed report is nearing completion and will be released by mid-December. This report was never suppressed by the federal government for the good reason that it does not belong to the government but rather to the researcher who made the survey.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment if I could get the attention of the minister. It goes back to the Syncrude project and the problem of pollution in connection with that project. There was a report on Saturday
Oral Questions
that the Alberta Minister of the Environment, Mr. Russell, is adamant that the 287-ton figure for pollution at that site will not be changed. In view of the fact that the suppressed index contained in the report to the Alberta government equated those levels with an environmental legacy that would pale Sudbury and the San Bernadino mountains of Los Angeles, and in view of the minister's own study of the environmental impact would the minister now give this House some assurance that she does not accept the 287-ton figure? Can she also give the House some assurance that we will be going back to the 40 tons that her original report provided for and recommended?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment for Alberta did not say exactly what the hon. member is reporting. He said he was looking at the situation. As to the amount that could be allowed, I think the minister is taking into account the data he has in order to say that the level is acceptable. We are looking into the situation and are studying the effects of the emissions in the atmosphere from the development of the tar sands. I can assure the hon. member that because the federal government is involved in the tar sands, through Syncrude, the effects on the environment will fall within the policy we have established for ourselves and which we would hope the government of Alberta will want to follow.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-MATTERS REMAINING TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH ALBERTA-REASON FOR FAILURE OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO REPORT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Dealing with the Syncrude project, would the minister advise what it is that remains unnegotiated between the province of Alberta and the federal government. Would he specify whether it is matters of environment which remain unnegotiated and whether that is the reason we do not have a report from the board of directors. Furthermore, would he advise why $100 million has been spent by the government and can he give us any assurance that this $100 million has been protected in view of the fact that we do not have anyone on the senior board of directors.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is on the management committee. That information was given in an answer to a question last week. As to the first part of the hon. gentleman's question, I answered that last week and the record will give him that information. On the last part, in respect of why we are spending $100 million with no one on the board of directors I can tell him we are confident we can conclude the agreement. We are on the management committee. I think we can fully protect the federal interest.

November 17, 1975
Oral Questions STORMS


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO THOSE SUFFERING DAMAGE IN LAKE ERIE REGION
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, this is a follow-up question to a previous question asked regarding the violent storm on the Great Lakes. It is directed to the Minister of the Environment. It relates specifically to the unprecedented storm damage on the north shore of Lake Erie. I should like to ask the minister whether the government has taken any initiative in approaching the province of Ontario, which is assessing the damage, with a view to declaring the north shore a disaster area in order that individuals, communities and small businesses which have suffered grievous losses will qualify for federal assistance.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the department has not taken the initiative because that initiative should come from the government of the Province of Ontario.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the reports of recent days of considerable persecution of members of the Roman Catholic church in Chile, the arrest of priests and nuns and even more recently the house arrest of Cardinal DeSilva, the head of the Catholic Church in Chile. I believe the minister has received a telegram of support sent by the Canadian Catholic Conference to the church in Chile and I am wondering whether he has had an opportunity to examine the deterioration of the situation in Chile and the increasing persecution of the Catholic people there.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked that inquiries be made concerning the present situation in Chile. I have not received a full report and would like to await that report before answering the question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, because there seems to be a substantial erosion since the September 7 ad hoc report to the UN on human rights in Chile can the minister indicate whether he is using other sources beyond contacts with our own embassy in Santiago, realizing the difficulty we have had in the past in getting a full and complete story.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we use other sources as well.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the recent developments in the matter of Westinghouse Canada and White Consolidated Industries of Cleveland, Ohio, over the use of the name and trademark of Westinghouse, and bearing in mind that Canada is a signatory to the Treaty of Paris in which, as I understand it, we have agreed to treat foreign-owned trademarks and patents on the same basis as Canadian instruments of the same nature, and noting that we are negotiating at GATT for expansion of international free trade, will the minister agree that Canada must live up to the spirit and letter of its international commitments, and in this particular instance should possibly reverse the decision of the Foreign Investment Review Agency by allowing takeover of Westinghouse Canada Appliance Division by White Consolidated Industries.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, clearly under the circumstances, since this matter is now in the courts in the United States, it would be quite inappropriate for me to answer the hon. member concerning yvhat our future course of action would be. In any event, it is always open to applicants under the Foreign Investment Review Act to reapply. This is not something which comes to them by any grace on the part of the government. My main concern at the moment continues to be to ensure that jobs in Hamilton are protected. The Minister of Labour, just a few minutes ago asked me if I would meet with the union representatives from Hamilton and I agreed to do so as soon as possible.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER EXAMINE SITUATION CREATED BY WHITE CONSOLIDATED BID TO TAKE OVER WESTINGHOUSE
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister, if I may apologize for interrupting his conversation. Bearing in mind that all parties agree the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has handled this matter with great skill and diligence but that it has moved into an area of the interpretation of international agreements versus domestic policy, will the Prime Minister examine the matter on a top priority basis and endeavour to resolve whether the terms and integrity of the Treaty of Paris in fact take precedence over a decision of the Foreign Investment Review Board and use his office to resolve the serious matter with all possible speed as the jobs of 2,800 people hang in the balance, not to mention a long established profitable business.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly consider the suggestion made by the hon. member and I certainly share his opinion of the high skill of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
November 17, 1975

Probably not even my office would do things any better than he did.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it is based on the fact that the life expectancy of the United Nations is in widespread doubt across the world in consequence of recent resolutions in the manner of certain member nations which have brought discredit on the votes of that institution. Has the government given any consideration to making it clear to some of these nations, which have been recipients of large amounts of assistance and of direct support from Canada, that Canada feels very strongly that they should realize that fact when they are voting in the United Nations, not in the determination of the exigencies of the moment but by the determination of a group of nations which have apparently ganged up?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would not take the same pessimistic view about the life expectancy of the United Nations that is taken by the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Some of the most influential press says so.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I still disagree with the diagnosis with respect to the United Nations. If the hon. member is suggesting that Canada should relate its development assistance to the votes of certain countries at the United Nations, then I think that would be introducing an entirely new element into our development assistance policy. We have made development assistance available to other countries on the basis of their needs, their state of development, the starvation, the poverty and the per capita income, and I think it would be a form of an unacceptable twentieth century colonialism to relate development assistance to votes at the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not believe that Canada should be a milch cow, for these nations, regardless of the irresponsible attitude that they are taking in the United Nations. I wish to ask the minister this question: what is Canada doing to ensure that some of these nations, which are the loudest in their outspoken criticism of Israel and in support of the resolution-many of them are virtually freeriders in that they are not making a proper contribution or paying their full and fair share instead of allowing the load to be carried by responsible nations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the right hon. gentleman will want to have it put on the record that, for example, not all the African countries voted for the resolution. A number of African countries voted against that resolution which we found so objectionable and against which we voted, and a number abstained. I believe that with the passing of time an increasing number of countries
Oral Questions
will understand the gravity of the decision which they took to support that particular resolution. It will be our intention to work toward bringing about a change in that attitude by such actions as I mentioned the other day, namely, our attendance at the conference in Ghana and our funding of any specific activities of the United Nations that flow from the acceptance of these totally objectionable resolutions.
Now, with respect to the countries which do not pay their share, obviously we will be urging upon them to accept their responsibilities as we are doing as members of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Not very successfully.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. T. Lefebvre (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Are socio-economic cheques ready for distribution and, if so, who sorted them?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, nearly 85 per cent of socio-economic cheque recipients already register their postal code on our index cards. It is because of this and with the help of my department's computers that we have been able to sort them. As for the remaining 15 per cent, we have had to do it by hand. This task was carried out within my department and of course with the assistance of the Post Office.


INDUSTRY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the genial Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it has to do with the option which the government has for the purchase of Canadair which, I understand, will expire early in December. In view of the statement made last year by his predecessor in an address to the Ontario Institute of Accountants that Canadair and its parent company, General Dynamics, has always put its own future ahead of the future of Canada, may I ask the minister if the government intends to exercise its option to purchase Canadair, and if it does, what will be its role? Will it be a merging of Canadair and de Havilland, which the government already owns, or some merging with a private air company?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, no decision with regard to the exercising of the option has yet been made, primarily because we are still examining the possibility of a reorganization of the air freight or the aerospace industry in Canada which would have the kind of linkages we

November 17, 1975
Oral Questions
anticipate that the hon. member mentioned, namely, de Havilland and Canadair perhaps working in some kind of corporate harness. This decision will have to be made, as the hon. member has said, within a matter of three or four weeks, I believe, but it is quite possible that if the assessment of the restructuring of the industry has not been finalized by that time, and there are certain other key questions which have to be resolved in that connection, namely, defence purchases and the like, we might very well seek a further extension of the option.


CANADAIR-POSSIBILITY OF CANCELLATION OF UNITED STATES ORDERS IF GOVERNMENT EXERCISES OPTION TO PURCHASE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister a question regarding reports that some officials of his department are alleged to have said that certain U.S. officials had indicated that orders to Canadair would be cancelled and no further orders forthcoming if Canadair became solely a Crown corporation and that such orders would only continue if a very major U.S. aircraft company were given a substantial equity in Canadair should the government decide to exercise its option.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have not been made aware of any such comments by American companies. I think that if the hon. member has been following such published reports as there have been, he will realize that a bigger interest on the part of U.S. companies is the acquisition of certain purchases within Canada of aircraft and the like in return for which certain undertakings have been suggested, such as that they would bring business to various Canadian companies such as Canadair. I think these commitments are of a sort that would not be provisional upon the ownership being government, private or for that matter, American. In other words, I do not think that is an issue on the question of ownership of Canadair.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since more than 75 per cent of the goods sold in duty free shops located in the various airports in Canada are imported, will the minister soon ask Air Canada to review its purchasing policy so that these stores sell articles made in Canada and foreign tourists be allowed to return home with truly Canadian products, souvenirs from Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to check the figures on the proportion of goods and treat the rest of the hon. member's remarks as a recommendation.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State. It concerns the circumstances surrounding and arising out of the decision by the CBC to cancel the program "Viewpoint". Is the Prime Minister aware that in an attempt to manufacture justification for the cancellation of "Viewpoint", which is not a popular move at all, the CBC has used the device of ordering Mr. Ian Murray to keep an appointment with a CBC appointed physician, made without Mr. Murray's knowledge or consent, and that even before the examination was to be held, ordered him replaced on the grounds he would be found in that examination to be medically unfit?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly bring this to the attention of the hon. Minister and look into it.


Walter David Baker: I thank the parliamentary secretary for that answer. When the hon. lady is advising her minister of the question, would she attempt to obtain an undertaking from him to inquire into the circumstances of a memorandum from Mr. Bill Stevenson to Messrs. Herndorf and Wright dated today, November 17, in which this apparent victimizing of Mr. Murray the producer, is fully set forth? Would she undertake to do that?


Coline M. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice arising from an answer given to the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. I wonder if he could tell the House and the country how he can justify and square his position of legally challenging provincial rights with reference to police commissions and other inquiries into crime when crime is on the increase and is one of the most important issues, which he himself admitted when he took over the portfolio.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to square the positions because they are not unsquare. Obviously, the position relative to crime in this country is an important one which I share with the hon. member. Consequently, that is why we are bringing forward very shortly important amendments to the Criminal Code. It is also for that reason that I have taken up with the Solicitor General of Quebec ways in which, should the Supreme Court of Canada find the present commission of inquiry in Quebec unconstitutional, it could


be clothed with constitutional authority. I find it unusual that the hon. gentleman should regard an intervention on a constitutional matter in the Supreme Court of Canada as reckless.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. In light of the fact that this government has continually refused to have any inquiry into the acceleration of crime, how can he justify and square, I will use the word again, his position with the fact that it is from this inquiry in Quebec that we got the information that bad beef was being sold to Canadians?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is because the commission in Quebec has served a very useful purpose that I am interested in ensuring, with the Solicitor General in Quebec, that any inquiry has a proper constitutional basis.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of his previous interest in Angola independence displayed in his recent tour of Africa, and considering reports which indicate that large numbers of foreign advisers, supplies and troops are being landed in that country with the consequent risk of civil strife there escalating into major conflict, has the minister made any representations to the United Nations urging that organization to use its influence to prevent foreign intervention in Angola?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any specific initiative at the United Nations in the way of resolutions or any move of that kind.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of which I have given him notice. On November 7, the Solicitor General told this House that habitual criminals and dangerous sexual offenders are not allowed out on temporary absences. As the minister knows, I told his staff this morning, the Canadian penitentiaries service publishes a computer printout every month. This computer printout indicates there are a number of dangerous sexual offenders and habitual criminals out on temporary absences. I wonder if the minister can advise this House if he has taken disciplinary action against the institution for allowing these people out against his wishes.
Oral Questions


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I did not say what the hon. member says I said on that particular day. I said dangerous sexual offenders were not permitted temporary absences. The Hansard was wrong and I made a correction in it. I did not say that habitual offenders were not-


John Douglas Reynolds: You changed Hansard.


William Warren Allmand: No, I never said that.


John Douglas Reynolds: You did!


William Warren Allmand: I did not say that.


John Douglas Reynolds: You did so!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Take him up the alley.


William Warren Allmand: All right. Mr. Speaker, Commissioners' Directive 228 of the Canadian penitentiaries service reads that an inmate declared by the court to be a dangerous sexual offender shall not be granted a temporary absence. If, as the hon. member suggested, certain people are being let out contrary to that directive, he should give me the names. He has given me one already and we are checking on that. If he has any others, he should give them all to me and we will check on those as well.


PENITENTIARIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than pleased to give the minister the whole computer printout. I do not know why he cannot get it. My supplementary question to the minister is to ask if he can advise the House whether the director of the Pittsburgh institution and the senior security director of the Pittsburgh institution have been suspended for allowing people out on temporary absences who should not be out?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that two officials at the Pittsburgh institution have been suspended for abuses of their responsibilities including abuse with respect to temporary absence passes but not, I believe, with respect to dangerous sexual offenders. I do not think I should say more about this at the present time because they have appealed their suspension and that is presently being heard.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of that fact that Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia, has the

November 17, 1975
Oral Questions
second largest ship registry in Canada, will the minister immediately re-examine his department's plan to close down this customs office today since this will require the 605 lobster boats and 1,587 motor vessels registered in this port to travel to some other port at great expense and increased fuel consumption?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, Barrington Passage is not being closed down, it is simply being redesignated as a vessel clearing station. Vessels will continue to use that port. There has been a transfer of one employee, however; it is not a lay-off but simply a transfer to another port in the area.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General who is reported to have said in a speech last week that he is now satisfied, after a two year study, that there is a direct relationship between violence on television and crimes of violence and that he has had discussions with his colleagues in the government. In light of these findings, what steps does the government propose to take within its jurisdiction over the CRTC and the CTC to change the present requirement and prohibit these kinds of programs or to arrange to have these programs shown at a late evening hour?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with the CRTC and the Department of the Secretary of State on this matter and it is still under study. We may have more to say when the Minister of Justice and myself announce our package on violent crime before the end of the year.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the minister's allegation that I heard him wrongly in the House. I point out that Hansard reports him as speaking of "dangerous criminals." After I heard his answer last week, I went to the Hansard office, saw the blues and noted that on them he was reported to have talked of "habitual criminals." I still think that what I say is correct. The Hansard reporter heard the minister say what I allege he said, and the minister or someone on his staff went to Hansard and changed that word on the blues.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is true that the blues said what the hon. member suggested. When I saw those words in the blues, I immediately sent a message to Hansard telling them that I had not said "habitual offenders." I am familiar with the law; a habitual offender can get a temporary absence after three years, but a dangerous sexual offender cannot. I would not say that habitual offenders cannot, when they can. I do not know how those words were reported by Hansard, but my people made the correction when they saw it, because it was wrong.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-416, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code and to provide for the suspension of strikes in essential services.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code, would provide for the suspension of strikes in essential services while the government's anti-inflation legislation is in force. It is a fact that Canadians are fed up with constant work stoppages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. This specific and important matter is the continuing absence of postal service which began four weeks ago and which shows no sign of ending in the near future.
The absence of this essential service is creating accumulating hardship for all Canadians, but particularly for those who receive their incomes and revenues by mail and those whose jobs have been terminated because of disruptions in trade and commerce. It has also ended the exchange of mail with other countries, a serious consequence of which is the present and potentially permanent loss of foreign trade. If acceptable, Mr. Speaker, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members no doubt are aware that the application pursuant to Standing Order 26 virtually repeats the application made by the same hon. member on Wednesday last when the Chair took some time explaining the difficult considerations which confront the Chair in situations of this sort. I indicated that, as activities within the ranks of the union involved might lead to a resolution of the conflict, it would be premature to grant the application made pursuant to Standing Order 26, but
November 17, 1975

that if the hon. member were to bring it forward in a few days if no further developments had taken place the Chair might be favourably disposed to granting the emergency application.
A few days have passed and I awaited notice from the hon. member of his intention to bring forward this application in the present sitting. However, I awaited developments during the question period for two reasons: first, to determine once more the importance of the matter, and it occupied, again, about half today's question period; second, to see whether information elicited during the question period would indicate that there is activity which will give hope for the internal resolution of the conflict. I think I would be an optimist if I were to take the latter interpretation from the facts described during the question period.
The same considerations apply today as I mentioned last Wednesday. It is always difficult to decide these matters. Since parliament has given public servants the right to strike, when the public service exercises that right and inconveniences the public, does that automatically become a matter of emergency? Standing Order 26 does not reflect on one side or the other of a question, but simply provides an opportunity for parliament to address itself to certain issues. Here we are considering a matter which is obviously bringing great inconvenience to the people of Canada and if it were not for the right to strike granted by parliament it would, obviously, in every way be an ideal subject for discussion under this rule.
This being the second application, and substantial activity not having taken place since the first application of five days ago, it seems to me that the Chair ought not to resist further the application for parliament to consider this matter objectively. Certainly, there is nothing pro or con in the motion. It seems to me that if the Chair were to resist the application a second time, it would be making a judgment about the situation that it ought not to make, and interposing itself between the desire of hon. members and the debate.
I might say that this topic was touched on forcibly earlier today. Since parliament has expressed the desire to debate the matter, it seems to me that the Chair ought to grant this application. Accordingly, it would be my intention to see the debate begin at eight o'clock this evening pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26. I qualify that in this way; it has already been ordered that a vote shall take place at 9.45 this evening on the opposition motion of Friday last. As well, debate is to resume today on the government order relating to Time and Reader's Digest. Approximately three hours remain before the time allocation order takes effect which means, presumably, that the second reading vote, all other things being equal, will take place shortly before the supper adjournment which, because of another special order, is to be at 6.30 p.m. and not at six o'clock.
There might be discussions about a convenient way to arrange these two votes without interrupting what will be an important debate which will be scheduled to begin at eight o'clock this evening. If suggestions are to be made, I will be glad to receive them. If not, I will be happy to return to the chair at four o'clock or five o'clock to make an announcement, because I am sure all hon. members will
Order Paper Questions
want to pay close attention to the timing of these two most important votes.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the situation you have outlined, it might be useful to convene a meeting of House leaders to discuss when these votes may take place. Tentatively, I think they could be held tomorrow and we could arrange a suitable time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of options open to us. I wonder if we could meet in order to discuss the question of when the votes are likely to be taken and, if necessary, when the debate will commence? I think we could probably discuss this matter and then communicate to Your Honour whatever decision is arrived at.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there have already been tentative discussions about the two votes. Now that Your Honour has ruled that there is to be a special debate tonight, I agree that it would be a good idea for the House leaders to meet formally and come to a definite decision about the timing of the two votes, the vote on second reading of Bill C-58 and the vote on our motion of last Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask if the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has the leave of the House to put the motion which has been proposed pursuant to Standing Order 26, in order that it can be debated at eight o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,115, 3,183, 3,206, 3,212 and 3,299.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	By year since 1970 to date, how many illegal strikes have there been in the Public Service?
2.	In each case (a) what group was involved (b) what was the duration of the strike (c) how many charges were laid as a result of the strikes?
3.	How many of the charges (a) were dropped (b) went to trial and what was the result in each case?
4.	In each of the charges that were dropped, what were the reasons for disposing of them in this way?

November 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: 1.	1970: 3; 1971: 5; 1972: 4; 1973: 14; 1974: 12; 1975: 7 (as of
October 22). Total 45.
2.	(a) 1970: Clerical and Regulatory; Clerical and Regulatory, Post Office. 1971: Post Office; Post Office; Firefighters; Post Office; Post Office. 1972: Electronics; Electronics; Post Office; Post Office. 1973: Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Nurses; Clerical and Regulatory; Post Office; Post Office. 1974: Post Office; Firefighters; General Labour & Trades & General Services; Data Processing; Radio Operations; Heating, Power and Stationary Plant; Radio Operations; Clerical and Regulatory; Primary Products Inspection; Most Employees (Sept-Iles); Education; General Labour and Trades, Heating, Power and Stationary Plant, Post Office. 1975: Heating, Power and Stationary Plant; General Labour and Trades; Post Office; Post Office; Post Office; Nursing; Correctional.
2. (b) 1970: 1 day; 3 days; 1 day. 1971: 1 day; 2 days; 3 days; 1 day; 8 days. 1972: 1 day; 24 days; 1 day; 12 days. 1973: January through February; 1 day; 1 day; 2 days; 1 day; 1 day; 5 days; 1 day; 1 day; 2 days; 6 days; 3 days; 1 day; 1 day. 1974: 17 days; 22 days; 1 day; 2 days; 2 days; 1 day; 2 days; 6 days; 2 days; 1 day; 1 day; 5 days. 1975: 2 days; 1 day; February 17 to March 19; 4 days; April 14 to May 27; 3 days; 1 day.
2.	(c) Charges of participating in an unlawful work stoppage were laid against the following groups of employees: 65 Radio Operations employees (October 1974); 225 Clerical and Regulatory employees (Air Traffic Control Assistants, October 1974); 912 General Labour and Trades employees (December 19-23, 1974); 543 Designated General Labour and Trades employees (February 17-March 19, 1975).
3.	It is impossible to provide accurate figures on charges that may have been dropped. Because cases must be heard locally in Provincial Criminal Courts, cases had to be assigned to regional lawyers of the Department of Justice and to local agents acting on behalf of the Crown. Many cases are still current and will appear in court over the next six months. Consequently, it is not possible to provide complete or accurate information. We have received reports of fines ranging from $10 to $100 (the maximum permissible) having been imposed in certain cases; in other cases, certain employees have been found to be not guilty by reason of legal technicality or lack of evidence.
4.	We are aware that some charges were dropped following legal advice that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction; in some cases, sick leave was accepted as an excuse for the employee's absence. Because of the geographic distribution of cases and the fact that they have yet to appear in court, accurate figures cannot be provided.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Did the Minister of the Environment state that only ten per cent of Canada's total land area is suitable for modern agricultural methods and that only one half of one per cent of our land has first class agricultural capability and, if so, what are the details in support of such statement?
(Mr. Schumacher.]
2.	Does this statement apply to the individual Maritime Provinces and, if so, in what way?
3.	Is action being taken by the Department of the Environment to develop an acceptable framework of land use principles and, if so, in what way?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes. This information is derived through the Canadian Geographic Information System from the Soil Capability for Agriculture Sector of the Canada Land Inventory. There are approximately
19,000	square miles (12,000,000 acres) of class one land out of Canada's total area of approximately 3,851,000 square miles.
2.	This statement relates to all of Canada; therefore, the
percentages do not pertain to individual provinces. There is no Class 1 agricultural land in the Maritime Provinces. However, New Brunswick has 13,262,030 acres of Class 2 to Class 5 land suitable for modern agricultural methods representing 73 per cent of the Province's total land area. Nova Scotia has 4,076,884 acres or 30 per cent of its land and Prince Edward Island has 1,306,363 acres or 94 per cent of its land area in Class 2 to Class 5.	,
3.	Yes, an interdepartmental task force has been formed to explore with the provinces, the possibility of producing a set of national land-use objectives and strategies. This task force is currently identifying and assessing the land-use impact of federal programs as they relate to land-use issues. Already reports have been produced by a number of federal departments involved in programs which affect land-use and these are under examination by the interdepartmental task force. Concurrently, federal-provincial discussions have been initiated with respect to the development of national land-use objectives.


Mr. Howie: How many firms in Newfoundland had loans guaranteed by DREE from April 1, 1973 to September 30, 1975 (a) what was the total amount of the guarantees (b) how many of the firms are not currently operating (c) what was the total amount of guarantees to the firms not currently operating?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: None, (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	(a) What was the total cost to the government for the official opening of Mirabel Airport on October 4, 1975 (b) what was the cost for (i) advertising (ii) security arrangements (iii) food (iv) liquor (v) hotel accommodations (vi) travel (vii) all other items?
2.	How many guests were invited by the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Based on the total cost for the overall four-day program (approximately $214,000) the cost for this one-day event is estimated at: 1. (a) $95,121. (b) (i) Advertising, No cost; (ii) Security Arrangements, $7,927; (iii) Food, $36,034; (iv) Liquor, $16,860; (v) Accommodation and hospitality for
November 17, 1975

foreign ministers, $4,824; (vi) Travel, No cost; (vii) Displays, audio-visuals, etc., $12,040; Rental of electronic equipment and installation, $8,456; Mirabel/Montreal bus service, $8,980.
2.	2,500 official guests and approximately 500 media
representatives.


Mr. Forrestall: Does the government intend to introduce legislation similar in principle to that proposed in Bill C-226, the subject-matter of which now stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communication, to create an independent transportation accident inquiry board as promised in the most recent Speech from the Throne and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Otto Emil Lang: The government does intend to introduce legislation to create an independent accident investigation board but the subject matter may be somewhat broader in scope than that proposed in Bill C-226.


Mr. Speaker:: Do the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period I indicated to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) that I would raise a point of order concerning question No. 3,081 which I placed on the order paper earlier this year. For some time I have criticized the practice of the Department of Supply and Services in not giving research and development contracts to the lowest bidder. These are awarded without tender. Accordingly, I put question No. 3,081 on the order paper to try to elicit further information about this particular practice. While I was at the United Nations last Wednesday, my question was called by the parliamentary secretary and it was ostensibly answered. Hansard for last Wednesday records that the answer given by the Minister of Supply and Services was as follows:
The question requires considerable research and the information will be communicated to the hon. member at a later date.
I am at a loss to understand the procedure that was followed. Obviously, the minister had no answer to give. I was astonished to discover that, following the non-answer by the minister, my question was dropped from the order paper. Apparently it is the government's intention, at some time convenient to it, privately to communicate information to me that I specifically asked, in the form of a question on the order paper, to be answered publicly and formally.
This is a very important matter. It is a totally unacceptable and quite improper procedure for the government to evade answering questions on the order paper by saying they will communicate the information to an hon. member privately at a later date. If I were to repeat the question and re-enter it on the order paper-and I am not sure whether that is procedurally acceptable-I would lose the
Order Paper Questions
priority I had, despite the fact it has been on the order paper for a couple of months. I therefore ask that my question be reinstated with its previous priority as question No. 3,081, and that the answer given by the minister last Wednesday, which was no answer at all, be disregarded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know if other hon. members have a contribution to make on the point of order. It is a fascinating point. The Chair will consider it and make a ruling, probably tomorrow.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek clarification from the Chair on a matter which concerns all of us with respect to second reading of a bill. Since the changes in the rules and the increased importance of committees, and so on, the meaning of second reading seems to have changed from its traditional meaning. I, and I am sure all other members, would like some clarification from the Chair on this point.
We have always considered that to vote for second reading was to give approval in principle to a bill. At the same time, when the bill arrives in committee we are in a position to propose amendments, and when the bill returns to the House at report stage we may also propose amendments. If one votes in favour of the principle of a bill, approving it in principle at second reading, he could hardly propose amendments at a later stage. On the other hand, if it is not a question of approval in principle but merely to vote in favour of sending the bill to committee, it seems that we require clarification on this point.
We shall have before us today Bill C-58 which is a case in point. Many members of this House agree with the bill in principle but would like to change it somewhat by amending it; they cannot accept the bill in its present form. Are they voting on second reading to send it to committee, or will their vote on second reading be, in effect, acceptance or approval of the bill? Not only with respect to this bill, but with respect to other bills which will come before us, members should know once and for all whether, if they vote on second reading in favour of a bill, they are giving it approval in principle or simply voting to send it to committee where it can be amended.


Mr. Speaker:: Without considerable and extensive debate which probably should be initiated in our procedure committee, I do not want to decide the direct question put forward by the hon. member as to whether the traditional vote, certainly as it was known before the revamping of our procedures through the 1969 amendments, on second reading giving approval in principle does or does not stand. With due respect, the question is academic.
It is absolutely clear that the vote on second reading does not in any way circumscribe the ability of any member of the House of Commons to propose to vote for, discuss or vote against amendments put forward at the committee stage or at the report stage. Whether or not that vote is taken to be a vote in favour of the principle of the bill, the fact is there is no restriction on the power of members who have voted either for or against a second reading motion to propose or in any way to support amendments put forward at committee stage. That, I am sure, is absolutely clear.

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
That having been said, the actual construction that has to be placed upon a second reading vote becomes an academic point to that particular argument or in reference to the vote that will take place later this afternoon.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I gave a general outline of the application scope of Bill C-58. I would like now to discuss the consequences of the amendments this bill will make to the Income Tax Act, especially as regards Reader's Digest magazine.
The problem is on the interpretation of sub-paragraph 19(5) (a)ii)E) of the Income Tax Act which excludes from the application of section 19 a periodical edited or published under a licence granted by a person who is editing or publishing issues of a periodical which are printed, prepared or published outside Canada.
At first sight, this seems indeed to be the case since the very format of Selection, if not its presentation, is managed by the parent company which allows to use under licence the name and the characteristics of Reader's Digest international edition. Besides, this situation is not unique to Reader's Digest.
Other magazines thus use under licence the format and the contents of a foreign magazine, particularly in specialized disciplines where the interest of science and scientific discoveries are made available to members of the profession, notwithstanding political frontiers. That is the case of a magazine like MD Canada, for example.
On the other hand, the full realm of publications under licence is but an enormous crab basket in which Canadian or foreign authors and publishers, librarians and publishing pirates are struggling. Why? Because for the past ten years we have been wanting to amend substantially the Canadian Copyright Act-a typical example of vagueness and inaccuracy-but not an inch of progress was ever made in this area. The result of that exercise in aerobatic interpretation in which the courts engage was to plunge the Canadian publishing industry in a latent state of disgust and of I-couldn't-care-less whose main losers happen to be the Canadian authors themselves. But that is another story.

I wanted to refer to the Canadian Copyright Act because section 19 refers to publication under license and the meaning of those words must be properly interpreted to determine how Reader's Digest is affected by that restriction. And to interpret it, one must go the Copyright Act which on the subject of licenses performs wonders of vagueness, not to say contradiction. So it is a vicious circle.
May I be permitted to illustrate the present position of Reader's Digest on the editorial content by using once again an easy syllogism.
On the one hand, by repealing the restriction of section 19 on the publication under license, Reader's Digest faces indeed an enormous difficulty, the editorial context having to be substantially different from that of the parent company, particularly in light of the interpretation given by the Minister of National Revenue-80 per cent. Well, about that 80 per cent Canadian content we heard all sorts of criticisms from opposition members about the methodology, if not the questioning of the motives that lead the government of Canada to choose that percentage. A line must be drawn somewhere.
Can a magazine that plagiarizes the editorial content of a foreign magazine be truly Canadian? Where should the line be drawn: at 50 per cent, or 65 per cent? Perhaps at 30 per cent. I admit that the decision was made, arbitrarily, to set it at 80 per cent. But that has nothing to do with censorship. Why use so strong a word for what in fact is nothing more than a guiding line, a factor of interpretation, a simple instrument in the hands of Revenue Canada?
I can understand up to a point, the reservations about the 80 per cent figure of some hon. members, but not the vehement condemnations addressed to the government because of it. Once again, by its very nature Reader's Digest cannot meet that 80 per cent Canadian content requirement without losing its originality, that is, its international character.
On the other hand, if the restraint in clause 19(5)(a)(ii)(E) is maintained, the probable interpretation will be to consider Reader's Digest as a magazine publishing under a license given by another magazine, which is foreign-owned, for the use of its format, its pool of articles, its image. Then, even if Reader's Digest is to all intents and purposes a Canadian magazine, this subclause will prevent it from enjoying the advantages provided for Canadian magazines in clause 19. The situation will be reversed, because Reader's Digest will not be able to compete with the same weapons as other Canadian periodicals.
Thus, even if the act stays unchanged on this aspect of the question, Reader's Digest finds itself in a dilemma and all the good words by those who would like to make people believe that the magazines affected by Bill C-58 will be able to adapt themselves with a little goodwill, demonstrate a reluctance to get above the simple cultural or monetary considerations we are concerned with here. Once again, the problem is the following: Do we want to see Reader's Digest pursue its operation in Canada? If so, we must provide it with the instruments necessary to adapt itself to the new context of clause 9, which is cut out of subclauses 2 and 4. In order to do that, we must either amend the definition of the publication under license in the Canadian legislation on copyright, or define in a better
November 17, 1975

way that same concept by a rule from the Department of National Revenue.
To this purpose, comments have already been made by certain experts, like Mr. Harold Fox in The Canadian Law on Copyright and Industrial Designs, second edition, who says in this regard on page 106, and I quote:
It is obvious that there are two distinct copyrights in all works written by several authors, one covering the work as a whole the other covering each contribution by the individual authors. The author, and therefore the holder of the copyright for the whole work, will be the one who composes and edits the compilation unless, of course, he is employed by another person. Also, the author of each individual contribution to the collective work will the be holder of the copyright for the part he wrote, unless he is himself employed by another person.
Thus for a periodical such as Reader's Digest, the editors of the American equivalent of the Canadian magazine would hold the copyright regarding the title and the whole publication. The copyright for each article belongs to the individual authors. As Fox says in his book, on page 304, the right to reproduce a book under licence is probably limited to the reproduction of that book in a form substantially identical to the original edition.
The consequences of this regulation are as follows: The holder of an author's permit cannot use the literary work covered by the permit as he pleases. The reproduction of the work for which the permit was granted must be under a form substantially the same as the original. Therefore any provision which grants Canadian publishers the right to use, as they see fit, a work under an author's permit, must be worded in such a way as to protect the royalites of each individual author.
This is why it has been suggested that clause 19 pertaining to editing or publishing rights should allow Canadian publishers complete freedom when it comes to publishing a work covered by a permit provided the notion of copyrights is not tampered with. That is what the Canadian publishers of Selection mean by complete freedom. I will not indulge in vacuous oratory and shall leave the House with those legal comments so that the minister may consider them and make the necessary decisions to make the task of Reader's Digest easier, as we must admit it deserves a little consideration.
In conclusion, to keep a valuable perspective of the overall scope of Bill C-58, I would like to say once again that the purpose of Bill C-58 is to prune section 19 of the Income Tax Act to give it the original intent its promotors had in mind, that is solely to promote the creation of an industry of original Canadian publishing.
Therefore, I believe that Bill C-58 deserves careful consideration, for it calls for sound Canadian nationalism, but while showing such nationalism we should protect certain rights aquired by concerned people, by providing them with the same weapons as their local competitors, thus maintaining our reputation of referee and not that of killjoy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member who just concluded on Bill C-58, dealing more particularly with Reader's Digest and Time magazine.
I think he is quite right on the importance of measures to safeguard Canadian values and introduce a nationalist note. When we read the bill, it is clear pressures were
Non-Canadian Publications
brought to hear on the government to prevent Canadians from being caught, to help magazines such as Reader's Digest.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, Reader's Digest is wholly Canadian. It is an international magazine that is read throughout the world, millions of Canadians read because it gives courses on orientation, history, geography, administration, literature. It is a complete magazine which Canadian readers are most interested in. It would therefore be, and I think it is most unpopular among a very large majority of Canadians to cause the conveniences to the people who advertise in Reader's Digest. I said and I repeat that everybody runs for Reader's Digest every month, because it is not a magazine which attempts to impose the American ideology or any other kind of ideology. It is an objective magazine, which does not aim at any kind of political partisanship. Reader's Digest informs people.
Time is another cup of tea. Time seems to establish guidelines or consider itself the leader of public opinion, especially in the United States and Canada. You can read Time in other countries, but it is quite different. Time is different from Reader's Digest, but Reader's Digest employs and maintains thousands of Canadians who spend their money in Canada, who earn a living through the revenues from that publication, and I think, Mr. Speaker, Reader's Digest deserves as much consideration as any other magazine published in Canada. We do have magazines in Canada. Unfortunately, we have none of international scope. We have La Chatelaine. We have seen magazines like Relations which were restricted to the province of Quebec, and were edited by Jesuits.
We had, I believe, a magazine called Maintenant, which has probably disappeared by now. We have Maclean which is just as American as Reader's Digest. So why go for one magazine especially? Why should we try to cut down the rights of advertisers, the rights of people, or the rights of editors who work or co-operate with Reader's Digest?
Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-58, considering how it is presented now, is discriminating. I understand we have to put an end to our recurring discussions in the past few years on that matter, namely whether we should boycott those so-called foreign magazines in Canada. So, when you have the number of employees who worked on a magazine like Selection, one must be somewhat tolerant and admit that those people, the Canadians who area attached to it, our fellow citizens, do not work against the interests of Canada, do not work against the interests of advertisers, but work together to maintain a worthwhile magazine.
I said earlier that that Reader's Digest is a source of information that one does not find in other magazines. This does not mean that the other magazines are absolutely useless, no. Some are good, others not so good. But when you know Reader's Digest, I think there is not a single member in this House who does not read articles in Reader's Digest every month. Why? Because you learn something. That magazine serves educational purposes in many areas. That magazine acts as a yardstick or a barometer for economic gains or economic changes by informing us of what is happening in other countries while we have it available directly.

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
So, Mr. Speaker, the attitude taken by my colleagues of the Social Credit with respect to Bill C-58 is logical and honest. We will be voting against Bill C-58 when we are through considering it and we wish the government would reconsider its position to allow Reader's Digest-I am not talking about Time-to continue its beneficial impact across Canada as it has done for that matter in the whole world.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there are 40 air cadets in the gallery from No. 650 Vanier high school air cadet squadron who are returning from Toronto where they participated in the Santa Claus parade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications I hope it might be appropriate this afternoon, as this second reading debate winds to a close, to give some explanation in detail, as I understand it, of why these amendments in Bill C-58 are essential to the continuing health and viability of the Canadian television industry. In fact, the effects of this bill do not only relate to the over-all health of the industry but to the maintenance of Canadian culture and identity, with all the impact that television can have in Canada in helping to maintain and establish them.
As well, the bill will help further protect the availability of Canadian news and public affairs and competition within Canada of the different news bureaux and public affairs sources. Further, when communications is such a vital tool to a country like our own which is spread over a massive geographic area with a relatively small population, this legislation will, hopefully, begin to redress a problem that is threatening the very effectiveness and survival of that communications industry, certainly on the private sector side.

May I first of all discuss, Mr. Speaker, why the government has taken this particular form of action in order to encourage the Canadian television industry and give incentives for advertising by Canadian business, particularly on Canadian television. I should like to argue that this is a positive move to encourage our industry, not to prohibit Canadians from advertising on American stations. By removing tax deductibility for commercials placed outside of Canada but beamed back into this country, we are hoping to give to a Canadian industry which is now seriously disadvantaged under current circumstances a better competitive situation.
I should like to argue that it would not be feasible to try to sustain and help strengthen the Canadian television industry through tariffs. That is simply not feasible because of the particular and peculiar situation in the airwaves. It is also not feasible because we have international agreements such as GATT, and a very complicated and technical situation would arise if we tried to take this particular problem before a multinational conference. As I said a moment ago, I also want to emphasize that when you are dealing with airwaves rather than a particular material commodity, it is very difficult to legislate except by taking a positive step such as this and to offer incentives through taxation.
I should also like to point out that it is the view of the ministry that subsidies as a means of trying to strengthen and build the Canadian television industry would be inappropriate. Specifically, they would be inappropriate because there is some danger that subsidies from government going to the private sector, in an area that has such an influence over the public, would either be abused or be accused of abusing the right to independence of those broadcast outlets. So that approach cannot be taken. As I have said, this bill is simply providing an incentive for Canadian advertisers to deal more with Canadian TV outlets. Removal of tax deductibility simply improves the competitive position of Canadian TV times sales, and this bill does nothing to stop the purchase of U.S. time by Canadians in border marketplaces.
There is every justification for this action, Mr. Speaker, and even for further action. United States stations operating in border areas at the moment and penetrating severely into the Canadian audience do not have the social or content obligations of Canadian licensees. Canadian TV licences are granted on the ability of the area to support a licence. They are also granted if an area is large enough and there is enough revenue available in that area of Canada for more than one licence. That, of course, is why this legislation today is important; it is so because the Canadian Television Commission, as the regulatory body in Canada of the airwaves, is attempting to develop second private stations in major urban centres, and has in fact in one area, Toronto, already done so.
American border stations have no Canadian content restrictions. As I say, they do not have the same Canadian social obligations. The major Canadian stations that are in jeopardy at the moment because of sales to American TV stations happen to be in the major urban centres of Canada, which also happen to be very close to the U.S. border. Thus, I am sure hon. members can understand that with a nation of 260 million to the south, and a nation here
November 17, 1975

of some 22 to 23 million, Canada is hardly a threat to the establishment and dissemination of the American culture. But certainly, with no content rules, no Canadian obligation and no added costs, their penetration of our area can seriously threaten our identity and culture if that penetration undermines the very existence of healthy Canadian television. In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that to date the lack of action by Canada over the years since television first came into its own in the early 1950s has given the advantage to the much stronger United States stations to start with, who in addition operate without those controls that Canadian stations must face.
To leave the situation as it is would mean not just the failure of expansion, the kind of expansion that the CRTC is now attempting through, for instance, the awarding of a second private station in Vancouver to Western Approaches, or the development of the Global network in southern Ontario or City TV in Toronto; the continuing situation in fact threatens the ability of the existing stations I have just mentioned and the new ones, to survive. It will affect not only their ability to produce new, more costly and better programming, but even to maintain the programming level that Canadian television audiences now have.
Under Canadian licensing, TV Stations in major urban centres in Canada must have sufficient profits so that they are not only viable in Toronto, or Winnipeg, or Vancouver, or Montreal. Private stations must also profit well enough to help subsidize smaller stations along their network who still have a sizeable capital outlay for equipment and buildings and to meet the considerable labour cost necessary to run a television outlet no matter its potential audience. So it is not only a matter of threatening the viability of these individual private stations in the major Canadian marketplaces, but also their ability to assist smaller neighbours so that throughout Canada we can have a competitive and healthy television industry.
All major Canadian television centres-Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal-are seriously affected by the currently heavy sales and drain of commercial revenues which buy TV time in the United States rather than in Canada. Yet the TV stations in the major urban centres to which I have just referred must find the revenue not only to be healthy themselves but to pay for programming and network costs which smaller communities cannot fully support by themselves.
This legislation is so important really because of double jeopardy, and it is necessary not only to the survival of these particular border area Canadian stations but the survival of the smaller areas in Canada as well who rely on the assistance of these major Canadian television centres. Enactment of this bill as it relates to television advertising will simply give Canadian outlets a better competitive position, dollar for dollar, in dealing with competitors who are not licensed in Canada and do not have the restrictions of Canadian TV even though they are dealing directly in the Canadian marketplace.
I would also like to note that this proposed amendment, Bill C-58, as it relates to broadcasting was recommended by the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts in 1973. The bill itself does two things in the area of broadcasting. First, TV advertising
Non-Canadian Publications
will not be tax deductible if the commercial is broadcast by a foreign broadcasting undertaking to the Canadian market. You can still purchase in the United States, but you will no longer get the tax credit from the Canadian government by spending your money outside the country. Surely that seems reasonable enough when you consider that the Buffalo stations are putting our Canadian stations into real financial jeopardy.
Second, multinational corporations in Canada will not be allowed the deduction of commercial advertising costs when purchasing time from foreign networks or groups of stations. Once more, this is simply a protection and is based on stopping multinational corporations operating in both countries from using the deduction up here of many dollars spent in the United States, thereby saving the cost of paying for Canadian advertising as well. It is important to note that despite the very serious situation I am attempting to outline, this bill allows time for the United States industry to regroup and fill the United States role for which it was licensed. As I understand it, all contracts concerning advertising which would be affected by the passage of this legislation signed before January 23, 1975, will be allowed to run out as long as they do not go beyond 12 months from the date of the enactment of this legislation.
If I may, I would like to go into some of the problems faced by particular border areas. Let me set down, if I can, just what the situation is in respect of time sales for television in major Canadian marketplaces, in terms of money staying in the Canadian marketplace and money going to the United States. The latest figures I have are for 1972, although we have some updating as well. In Vancouver, in 1972, $7.3 million was spent on Canadian television advertising. In the same marketplace, in the same year, more than 50 per cent of that amount, another $4 million, went to United States stations which had no programming obligations, no Canadian content obligations and no additional costs in respect of the Canadian audiences they were picking up.
In Winnipeg, $4.9 million was spent on Canadian television advertising and $1.5 million flowed out to the United States. In the Toronto-Hamilton area, $33.8 million stayed in the Canadian market-place and $9.8 million flowed out to the United States, again without any commitments or obligations in respect of programming on these United States stations intruding into the Canadian marketplace. In Ottawa-Montreal, $35.7 million was spent here in Canada for Canadian television advertising, with $1.5 million going down to the United States.
The drain in 1972 of almost $17 million is estimated currently to be more than $20 million a year, yet these U.S. border stations have no Canadian content requirements, no Canadian social obligations and are not licensed to operate in Canada. In fact, they are licensed only to operate within their own territory in the United States and under that licensing procedure, as I understand it, they are considered by the Federal Communications Commission in the United States to be economically viable operating within those boundaries.


An hon. Member:: What about jamming?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: We will get to that. The advent of cable television in Canada has really revolutionized the situa-
9118

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
tion. There are more benefits and more dangers resulting from cable. There are more benefits in that Canadian audiences have a much wider spectrum of programming available to them, but there are more dangers because the same multiplicity of stations available brings about a fragmentation of audience, and once audiences of Canadian television stations become increasingly fragmented, more and more of these stations will have difficulty surviving, with much less opportunity for improving programming and spending more money on Canadian programming.
Canada has now, through cable, these multiple station markets, especially in the Toronto area, which are seriously affected by sales of commercial time in the United States to Canadian business. I want to point out that United States stations have not, as I said earlier, licence obligations in Canada, but through cable do have the tremendous advantage of this build-up in diversity of programming. Perhaps the most significant argument we hear from areas such as Buffalo about the great injustice of what is currently happening or potentially will happen is the jamming of commercials on Canadian cable.
Let me point out the situation at KVOS in Bellingham, Washington state. That station purchases programming from the American network of which it is a member. It pays only according to the United States audience it has, but pays nothing for the Canadian audience to which it also beams and from which it also picks up so much money, to the jeopardy of our industry. It pays not a penny for its programming to Canadians. That becomes especially incredible when you think of a station such as this which the Federal Communications Commission has allowed to move its transmitter closer to the Canadian border in order to further penetrate into Canada, yet its United States sales are only 15 per cent of total time sales-85 per cent are in Canada. You can imagine the impact this has on Canadian stations. The United States audience is only a minute part of the over-all audience, yet these stations buy their programming only in consideration for the United States audience.
If you multiply by 20 or 25 years the figures I gave earlier in respect of the current drain to the United States, about $20 million annually, directly for the purchase for particular U.S. TV markets of television time by Canadian businesses, you come up with a figure that is very conservatively estimated to be in the range of one-quarter of a billion dollars that has flowed to the United States since the early fifties. That money could have sustained our own industry, and surely it is enough to have built the buildings, purchased the equipment and paid for at least a few years for all the staff costs of these American stations. At the same time, they have yet to pay one penny more for their programming because Canadians are receiving it. They have not had to produce Canadian public affairs programs or Canadian news. They have not had to represent one area of Canada to other areas of Canada. They have had none of these obligations, yet they have received this massive windfall.
I think I pointed out a few moments ago that KVOS in Bellingham was selling 85 per cent of its time in the Vancouver market. The fact is that the FCC, which at the moment is considering a jamming recommendation for the

Buffalo stations, failed to say anything for 20 or 25 years and even assisted Bellingham by allowing it to move its transmitter closer to the Canadian border. The Buffalo stations, whose own marketplace is one half the size of the Toronto market place, have managed until recently to have almost twice as many television stations as there are in Toronto.
If one looks at the profit and loss sheets of the United States television stations in Buffalo, with one half the licensing area in the United States that there is across the lake in Toronto-and the situation in Bellingham is a minute fraction of the Vancouver marketplace-one will find that these are among the most profitable television operations in the United States. So is it unjust, even before Canadian licensing restrictions are considered, and when they have such advantages in programming and programming costs, that we should take this beginning step for the rescue of our own industry?
Over the 24 or 25 years that all these Canadian dollars have poured south of the border, these stations, to my knowledge, have never been questioned about their huge windfall gains by their own regulatory body, the FCC. Now, when we try to protect our own, we hear angry cries about the morality of windfall gains such as taking United States programming which enters our airwaves while rejecting commercials out of the United States. Surely, on moral and ethical grounds such indignation from the U.S. rings very hollow indeed.
For years their windfall gains have made them among the richest of the United States stations, despite the fact that they are among the smallest U.S. licensed stations serving urban areas. That windfall threatens our entire industry. If we in turn have United States programming and pay nothing for it, then under United States licensing not only are we not contravening any of their rules but also we are not costing them anything. In that case, what are we doing that is so wrong, and why do they cry so loudly and angrily at this point in time?
There are several unique situations, such as the border areas of New Brunswick, the area represented by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), where there are problems. As I understand it-and the hon. member addressed himself to this matter a few days ago-small businesses in that area have a problem in respect of the availability of space on radio stations in Canada. I would like to say that the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is aware of this situation and, as I understand it, already has had an expression of licensing interests from at least one source to operate in Canada and to alleviate that problem. But it is precisely this kind of area which will only be able to have truly successful Canadian broadcasting available, especially in television, if the larger centres are properly protected and encouraged and can thereby help offset costs, especially in programming in less populated regions.
In discussing Bill C-58, I have tried to outline broadly the very critical problem the Canadian industry faces. In doing so I have not only discussed the very real urgency of Bill C-58 but also some of the reasons further action such as commercial deletion is now being tested and considered. It is very important, however, for all hon. members to understand that on the issue of Bill C-58 as it relates to
November 17, 1975

advertising on television, there has been absolutely no criticism nor protest from the United States government. We are amending Canadian tax laws quite appropriately to aid and encourage our own industry.
Some have argued that Canadian advertisers cannot buy time on Canadian television. Such a charge is simply a misunderstanding of the current situation. When the CRTC allowed the expansion o.f second, private stations in major Canadian centres it then became especially crucial to try to limit the outflow of Canadian television advertising dollars. There is time available on Global and City in Toronto. For instance, in the British Columbia area, when the new private station owned by Western Approaches goes on the air in less than a year, positive action by the Canadian government such as the amendment in this bill will be absolutely crucial for its survival.
While availability of time and cost of time is very complex, suffice it to say that unless Canadian advertising dollars are concentrated here during prime time and nonprime time, peak seasons and non-peak seasons, we will not have good Canadian programs, much less programs that can begin to compete with the much more costly products of our neighbours to the south.
One aspect of the loss of television time dollars in Canada that few people have considered is the millions of dollars never spent here because multinational advertisers can purchase network spots in the United States and at no cost at all make a major penetration into Canadian markets. Aside from the approximately $20 million a year lost through United States television time purchases in particular American border station locations, millions and millions more are lost simply because those border stations in their national advertising and network operation reach millions of Canadians at no extra cost. I do not think it is unselfish to argue that corporations selling the same products to Americans and Canadians should be prepared to pay as much per capita on advertising to Canadians as they do to Americans. At the moment, that is certainly not the case.
I would like briefly to refer to news reports and opinions expressed by some of Canada's major media participants and critics on the subject. Global is one of the new Canadian television operations that began with the greatest of hopes as an initiator of new Canadian programming. They hoped, also, to give exciting quality aspects to programming that they argued had not been available in great quantity before. Now, because of the situation I have described, Global is in serious jeopardy and is accused of not meeting its Canadian content requirements. Yet what places it in jeopardy are the stations that have no Canadian content requirements and no programming costs relative to their Canadian audience. Perhaps I could quote the president of Global Television, Moses Znaimer, in his article in the Globe and Mail of November 5, 1975. He said:
From the American point of view, that's what the border war is all about: money, profits. The rest of the shouting about morality, about legality is a sham. Over the years, we Canadians have paid for every brick, every camera, every bit of technical facility in Buffalo's ABC, NBC, and CBS affiliates five times over. In the Toronto-Buffalo area alone, what's at stake this year is roughly $10 million: on a nationwide scale $20 million: in all probably a juicy $250 million since the porkbar-rel began.
Non-Canadian Publications
Znaimer also comments in the same article about the U.S. industry's reaction to this bill even before it has been adopted. He and others in the industry charge that some Buffalo stations have cut their rates and are, in a manner of speaking, dumping U.S. commercial time in Toronto. Znaimer says in the article:
It's a measure of the super profits that U.S. border stations have been able to generate, that they can cut their rates by 50, 60 and even 75 per cent on the Canadian side of the border only and still continue to do very nicely, thank you. Why not? As companies, they were created to be viable in their markets of origin. Everything else, all of Canada, is gravy. A free ride. (Buffalo opposite Toronto is a small, relatively unimportant market in U.S. terms. Bellingham opposite Vancouver is a town the size of a yawn. Yet, network affiliate stations in these towns have consistently, astonishingly, ranked among the most profitable in the United States).
Some of the Buffalo stations deny this so-called dumping and say they have cut their rates simply for seasonal sales reasons. The information available to me has put that claim in some doubt. Toronto Star television writer Jack Miller, on October 6, 1975, made a very good case by comparing how the FCC protects one American community from another but has no similar obligation and does not do so when a Canadian market is jeopardized. He wrote:
If this happened between two U.S. cities, it promptly would be vetoed by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington as grossly improper.
Say, for instance, that because of cable TV people in Rochester were able to see Buffalo stations as well as they could see their local one. Theoretically, the Buffalo broadcasters could go to all the Rochester advertisers and use the same argument they use in Toronto to pick up some outside business.
But no, says Washington, that's not the American way. The Rochester stations are licensed to serve Rochester and they are obliged to provide local newscasts and other local program services for Rochester, so in return for that service they deserve to be protected against competition from outside stations which don't do anything for Rochester.
Miller goes on later to say:
But as for protecting local TV, stations in Canada-well, that, of course is not Washington's business. It is something for Canada to worry about.
Miller, later in his column, shows the difficult problem Canadian television producers have. He says:
Whereas a U.S. network program 60 minutes long might have a budget of $250,000 for its production, a Canadian equivalent on commercial television might get $40,000 on a good week.
Meanwhile, remember that those U.S. border stations get that much more expensive programming at a cost spread over the much larger U.S. population and the border stations particularly only buy that much more commercial production according to the portion of their audience that is American.
Bill C-58 can only be a beginning, but an important beginning, in rectifying the situation for our own television industry as it is affected along our border with the U.S. If this so-called dumping is taking place, then we have U.S. border stations already attempting to circumvent the laws of this parliament before that law is even passed. Canadians have always paid their way, sometimes too dearly. In this particular situation, hundreds of millions of dollars in windfall profits have already gone to U.S. television operations which not only have more expensive pro-
29956-25V2

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
gramming but pay less for it per capita than our Canadian private stations generally pay for less costly Canadian programming. Meanwhile, those U.S. border stations do not even pay for the programming their Canadian audience receives. They do not have the same licensing requirements, the same content obligations nor the same social policy commitments as Canadian licensees. Surely, with all those advantages in mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that good things sometimes must end, especially when somebody else who can afford it much less has been paying the price.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I should like to inform all hon. members that the House leaders have met and agreed that when the debate on second reading of Bill C-58 has been concluded later this day, the vote will be deferred until 9.30 tonight, followed by the vote on the opposition day NDP motion. The bells will ring for 15 minutes. It is also understood that at the conclusion of both votes, the debate on the postal strike will resume and continue until its conclusion.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate let me begin by saying that Bill C-58 has no over-all policy with regard to periodicals published in Canada. If I were convinced that the removal of these tax concessions would truly help the Canadian publishing industry, I would find myself in favour of this bill, but that is not the case.
It would seem that the Department of National Revenue is in the field of journalism. This rather unusual situation is the result of proposed changes in the tax legislation which we are discussing now which will affect Reader's Digest, Time magazine, three trade publications and four newspapers in Canada. According to the former minister of national revenue, the Department of National Revenue will judge whether these publications will qualify as Canadian. The guidelines require 75 per cent Canadian ownership and content which is 80 per cent different from that in the parent publication. I can see some justification in having ownership and editorial control reside in Canada. However, there is no justification for a content quota. Tax authorities will not limit themselves to content, either; in each case they will decide if the publication's name and format must change.
What does the Canadian government hope to gain by this? It certainly has gained the favour of publications competing against Time, Reader's Digest, and the others. But does anyone really gain anything? It is fine to say that these publications must be 80 per cent different from their parent publications, but how is that difference to be judged, and by whom? Will difference in content mean that the stories used in the Canadian edition must be written differently? If so, is it not possible to change eight out of every ten words in a story to meet the 80 per cent limit? Does it mean that 80 per cent of the stories cannot be the same ones used in the foreign edition? That might involve dropping major news stories because they occur outside Canada. Will 80 per cent of the stories have to mention Canada? That is fine if we want to isolate ourselves from world events. Canada may be big and important to Canadians, but it is only a small power on the international scene.
Readers of Time want international news. If they cannot get a Canadian edition that gives them international coverage, they will simply subscribe to the American edition. Is the government then going to stop American publications being mailed to Canada? Just who will judge the content of the publications affected? Will it be a group of civil servants whose only contact with the print media is the morning paper thrown on the porch by the delivery boy, or will, perhaps, the Department of National Revenue ask the editor of Maclean's for advice?
Our Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is also in the game. He has set out a number of requirements designed to push up the cost of publishing these periodicals. The theory is that as advertising costs go up, more dollars will go to all-Canadian publications. Unfortunately, theories do not always work out. In all probability this money will go into other areas of advertising.
Why is that? Because readership, not nationalism, governs where advertising is placed. Increased readership will not come by killing the Canadian editions of the affected publications. It is a simple matter to subscribe to the American editions. Increased readership comes with improved quality. Senator Keith Davies, in his report on the mass media, was concerned about the poor performance of many newspapers because of lack of competition. It seems contradictory that he would recommend, and the government would implement, a step that would destroy any competition in the area of weekly news magazines. By weakening Time Canada there are high hopes that a new, all-Canadian weekly magazine will be created. But will it be a strong, truly national magazine, or will it be national solely because it is the only weekly news magazine published in Canada? We, as Canadians, will gain nothing from this government's move in this legislation.
The government is playing games with us by interfering with content, licensing agreements with foreign publications and changing the tax structure so it will work against these publications. The government is taking this action in the name of nationalism, but the evils committed in the name of nationalism are countless. Behind this smokescreen there is still censorship. I am sure that all hon. members have received a great deal of correspondence concerning this bill. I, personally, have received hundreds of letters on this one issue. There is one letter that I wish to share with hon. members today. It comes from a Mrs. Newnham of Box 52, Jarvie, Alberta, who writes:
Dear Member:
I wish to voice my protest against the legislation being proposed to abolish tax deductions for advertisers in the Canadian editions of Time magazine and Reader's Digest, which could possibly lead to the discontinuance of these publications.
Why have the people most concerned about the government's proposed action-the reading public-not been approached, to learn their views? And have the advertisers themselves been polled to see what their reactions would be were these magazines to leave the Canadian market? Would they immediately transfer their business to Maclean's or Chatelaine? I doubt it.
According to statistics, there are 1,500 Canadians whose livelihood depends on Reader's Digest, and possibly a like number employed by Time magazine. If the Canadian editions of these two magazines fold up, that means another 3,000 people out of work. That many more on welfare for the Canadian taxpayer to support?
And if it is bilingualism that the government wants to promote, why drive out Reader's Digest? These controversial tax deductions might

November 17, 1975

well be thought of in terms of money well spent on advancing the French language. Many students use the French edition of Reader's Digest to further their command of the language.
If the Canadian edition of Time were discontinued, Canadian subscribers would be deprived of much Canadian news which we get in no all-Canadian magazine, and-let's face it-Time magazine has a style all its own which no all-Canadian publication can begin to emulate. Time also gives us information on the workings of our own government, which we do not get in Maclean's.
With reference to Maclean's, I would suggest that the government institute a thorough investigation into the Maclean-Hunter racket-the way they train their agents to go out and exploit people, especially the elderly. I have experienced their high-pressured salesmanship tactics. I wrote a letter of protest re this to Maclean-Hunter about three years ago, but to date have received no acknowledgment.
If we must have Canadian content in our magazines, what value is there in such drivel as "Lives of Girls and Women" in the February, 1975, issue of Maclean's? Compare this with "The Women of Saskatoon" or "Women of Edmonton-Pattern Breakers" in the February and April issues of Chatelaine. Chatelaine is a worth-while magazine, but some of the contributors on the staff of Maclean's leave much to be desired. The Reader's Digest has them both beaten for interesting, informative content, and should the Canadian editions of Time and Reader's Digest be withdrawn, I, for one, will drop my subscription to Maclean's, at least, and subscribe to the American editions of the others, whatever the cost-and I know many other subscribers who would do likewise.
Yours sincerely,
Helen M. Newnham.
Here is a letter from a couple who have dedicated their services to Canada for many years. All they want in the later years of their lives is some good reading material. The thoughts expressed in this letter have been expressed by many thousands of Canadians across the country. As I said at the beginning, this bill in no way constitutes a periodicals' policy in Canada. It is a negative step instead of a positive one, and it is my hope that most members of this House will agree it is not the type of legislation we wish to pass.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost pleasure that I take part in this debate on Bill C-58. Needless to say, this legislation attacking magazines such as Selection du Reader's Digest and Time magazine will have disastrous repercussions.
These publications are basically for the average person and adequately meet the requirements of the Canadian people. This is clear from the numerous letters received from my constituents after the announcement, by the Secretary of State, of the impending amendment to section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to air in this House my constituents' views on the subject, especially since they asked me to do so. To that end, I would quote from certain of the letters received.
I therefore enter into the record some excerpts from a letter from a lady in Sayabec:
As I have been a faithful reader of Selection du Reader's Digest for about fifteen years, I want this magazine to continue to be available in our homes and schools. It is an interesting magazine since everyone wants to read it.
This same lady went on to say:
This magazine has international interest and can draw articles both from Canada and other countries and knows how to interest its readers
Non-Canadian Publications
in the fields of science, history, family and even recreation. There is nothing vulgar or distorting about this magazine and it could take the place of many others. Its publication certainly does not affect Canadian magazines and its loss would leave a great void for its French-speaking and English-speaking readers.
Another letter that I received from a lady in Mont-Job said, and I quote:
I believe that most of us would be proud to own a magazine such as
Selection du Reader's Digest.
Every member of the family likes to leaf through this magazine which contains a great variety of articles. This pocket-book type of periodical is very useful to me for school work, and I can also use it as a bedside book.
I am very satisfied about this publication in its present form, and moreover, Selection du Reader's Digest tries to meet our needs.
We can therefore conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that all the letters that I have received expressed the same opinion. It is easy to see that these people are concerned about the fact that the Canadian government is trying through this legislation to eliminate a publication like Selection du Reader's Digest, which contains excellent articles that anyone can read.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in general, all the letters that I have received from my constituents certainly favour maintaining Selection du Reader's Digest and are completely opposed to the passing of this bill. I can very well understand this, Mr. Speaker.
Indeed, Selection du Reader's Digest is very interesting and enables all classes of society to read marvellous articles. This magazine provides an opportunity to a great number of people to travel round the world at very low cost.
As for the contribution of the magazine to the Canadian economy, Selection du Reader's Digest has an annual turnover of some $30 million, 90 per cent of which is spent on Canadian soil. In addition, almost 500 Canadian employees take part in its publication.
As for its contribution to the Canadian culture, it is easily realized that the contents of each English or French issue is entirely written in Canada and that in addition some 80 editors, graphic artists and artists work to publish the magazines and the various books offered by Selection du Reader's Digest. Moreover, it is easily noted that many Canadians have had the opportunity of becoming acquainted through that magazine.
Mr. Speaker, considering the very high standard of those magazines, I am compelled to object to that bill, because I feel that it is essential to let the Canadian people continue to read those fine magazines which have already proven themselves.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?
The hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) seems to want us to believe that the government, through this bill, wants to eliminate Reader's Digest, and that Canadians, including the people from Rimouski and Gaspesia will no longer receive this magazine. Does he really believe this, because there is no question that Reader's Digest will disappear, is there?


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard). I suppose that some people read Reader's Digest in Bonaventure, as others do everywhere in Gaspesia and Magdelene Islands. I feel that Reader's Digest is being discriminated against at this time, and I cannot see how people could be harmed if we continued to apply the same policy.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member should join us and urge the government to decide at long last to take a position and to continue to favour a magazine such as Reader's Digest, that I read as well as my family, so that a great many people who live far from libraries and large centres, may know what is going on first of all in our own country and then in the rest of the world.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill C-58.


An hon. Member:: You would.


Frank A. Philbrook: That's right, I would; and you will see why in a minute. This bill seeks only to eliminate a few exceptions. It does not seek to discriminate against any existing policy. It supports the Canadian media industry but not the larger, foreign media industry. Canadians are justifiably patriotic but also international in outlook. We should value information from other countries, but not more than from our own country. There is a welcome place for foreign communications here, alongside strong and independent Canadian counterparts.
Bill C-58 covers television also, but let us talk first about magazines. My colleague, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), covered the television aspects this afternoon. Time and Reader's Digest are unquestionably the most widely read foreign publications in Canada. They have produced what they call Canadian editions and invested and operated in Canada to a greater extent than most foreign publications, which is to their credit. But they also profited well by the deal. Nonetheless, they are not, and will not be, classified as Canadian magazines until they are truly Canadian and meet all the criteria established by the government which represents the people of Canada; and they are not entitled to share in any special privileges granted to Canadian publications until they do so qualify. In recent times they have been given their chance to conform to our definition of Canadian publications but have not conformed. So, such exceptions are not justified. It might even make sense to put all publications, foreign and Canadian, on the same tax basis, but not at this time.
The small Canadian publishing industry historically has had some difficulty in competing with foreign publications. It has asked the Canadian government to support it until it is self-sufficient. This support has been given in the form of special tax concessions to its advertisers to attract advertising dollars to domestic magazines. To some extent this has helped, but not enough yet. Is any of this surprising for a young nation struggling among established powers?
Why do our own institutions need such help? Obviously, they need it partly because other countries have bigger, stronger and more established economies and home mar-

kets to support all their enterprises. Some Canadian apologists complain that our Canadian products are inferior and do not deserve the support of the Canadian government. "Let them stand up and compete like adults," they say, "and not be molly-coddled." Even if such criticism is true, Canada needs its own best communications and cultural systems and all possible steps must be taken to make it a reality. We are determined to be a sovereign nation, with all due regard for our giant neighbour to the south and the rest of the world power blocs. Therefore, certain key areas must be safeguarded. The media is certainly one of the most important. Most of us agree that the necessary ability exists here in Canada. We need a solid, concerted national effort to put that ability to full use.
One wonders why two major foreign magazines, plus a few minor ones, were ever granted the same privileged tax exemptions as Canadian products. Other foreign publications were not so lucky and yet have survived. Also, they had every right to complain of discrimination compared to Time and Digest. These exceptions do not make any sense at all. Time and Reader's Digest are rich, powerful companies. They are well established by now. Their American editions will continue to sell well here. If other foreign publications can afford to operate here without special tax concessions, why can't they? They can, but they obviously prefer not to. They are determined to keep their special privileges, as though they were Canadian, yet they would not expect the corresponding situation to be tolerated in their own country. The U.S.A. safeguards its own.
How did these exceptions occur in the first place? Was Canada so hard up for culture a few years ago that it would give up anything to get the most popular publications available at the time? Did we let the powerful U.S. government bully us into accepting these magazines on their economic terms? Did we just not think enough at the time about all the implications of being colonized in this way, socially, culturally and politically?
There are certain other irritants in the situation, certain subtle malinfluences with which we put up over the years. They are not the reasons for Bill C-58, but are relevant. They include Time's political propagandizing on behalf of the ultra conservative, right-wing philosophies of the publisher, Henry Luce, and his cohorts and Reader's Digest's red-baiting, intolerant lead articles. Both magazines were in business when Canada was trying to develop its own independent, moderate way of life and promote a more peaceful, tolerant world instead of stringing along with a pernicious cold war. Thoughtful students were aware of these insidious influences back in the early 1950s. Undoubtedly, too many Canadians were exposed to such early subliminal propaganda. The situation has changed. Now Canada is stronger, richer and more capable. We can profit from international exposure but must, at the same time, move forward with our national development of a dominant native press.
Some Canadians have charged that Bill C-58 simply represents crass commercial favouritism toward central Canada, Toronto in particular, specifically the Maclean-Hunter enterprises. Well, these Canadian institutions are there and open for the participation of all Canadians. If that is not enough, Canadians can start their own enterprises in the east or west, relieved of the burden of compet-
November 17, 1975

ing with two specially supported magazines in Canada, Time and Reader's Digest.
Some critics proclaim that most of their letters on the subject oppose Bill C-58. Of course they do; that is the kind of negative mail members learn to expect on any subject. But the polls were not opposed. Neither the professional polls nor small, private polls of the kind conducted by members showed that the people opposed Bill C-58, despite Time and Reader's Digest having mounted one of the biggest, most intimidating lobbies and publicity campaigns in Canadian political history. Last spring I conducted my own newsletter survey in Halton riding. Despite the work of the lobby, only 34 per cent of those answering opposed Bill C-58. About 44 per cent were in favour of the bill, and 22 per cent had no opinion. Even more significantly, fewer people answered this questionnaire than had answered other questionnaires. Clearly, the power lobby has created less interest in this issue than exists with regard to crime and labour strikes.
Some people take the pessimistic view that even if foreign competitors are helped less, Canadian magazines like Maclean's will remain bogged down with poor quality, little sales appeal and remain hapless nationalistic efforts. To some extent past criticisms were warranted. Articles and sections were weak, frivolous, dilettante, irrelevant, in bad taste or otherwise unworthy. Oddly enough, the bad stuff has existed side by side with good quality stuff. All the same Canadian writing and reporting has shown enough promise to warrant our support, and this is especially true at present. The new Maclean's news magazine format is a substantial improvement. I commend its capsule news highlights called "Preview", its large more comprehensive "Canada" section dealing with current events, its good international coverage in the "World" section, and the balance of feature articles, freewheeling interviews with important Canadians, and special subject sections.
Saturday Night has also made a strong comeback as a specialty magazine. Recently, a fine news magazine, Canadian Review, has begun publishing from Ottawa. These are truly Canadian magazines which will continue to grow and develop with our support and constructive criticism. I point out that already, in this new climate of interest and support, the Canadian magazine industry announced recently that it has enjoyed its best year ever. One of these days, our Canadian publishing industry and other media, like TV, may not need special support from our people. That will be a great day. Right now, our media need such support, which we will not hesitate to provide, without exceptions. Canadians will watch expectantly for results which will justify this support.
One of these days, Mr. Speaker, Canadian doubters and apologists will be proud and anxious to claim credit for Canadian media which have become distinctly Canadian, sovereign and as good as any in the world. They will be as proud of our media as they are of our Canadian film and music industries, Expo '67, the forth-coming 1976 Olympics and many other Canadian achievements. The fact is that Time and Reader's Digest will continue to function and to be welcome here, Canadian editions or not, Bill C-58 or not. Just this afternoon I received a telegram from Mr. Stephen LaRue, the president of Time magazine, as I am sure other members did, complaining about the 80 per cent
Non-Canadian Publications
Canadian content rules announced by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) here in this House of Commons as far back as October 23, 25 days ago-a dubious, last-minute manoeuvre on a very important subject. I read it and I must say that it did little to change my mind on the subject.
It is a privilege and an honour to speak in support of Bill C-58 and Canadian progress.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this matter has caused considerable debate, not only recently in the bringing forward of Bill C-58 but in the whole development in recent years about the degree to which Canadians can exercise some autonomy and activity within their own communications industry. One cannot be overly optimistic that this action by itself is going to bring the utopia that many people would like to see occur in terms of increased opportunities for Canadian self-awareness and opportunities for Canadian craftsmen and various aspects of the magazine industry to make their impact felt to a greater degree.
While the substance of this bill is extremely short in terms of amendments to the Income Tax Act, the implications and the symbolic value to Canadians are obviously great. If the minister were asked the question today, I think he would indicate that no issue with which he has been identified during his time in office has generated more public concern, mail and heat, both outside and within his caucus, than this particular issue. I am sure he is well aware that while the action itself, in terms of legislative change, is not overwhelming, the implications and repercussions are great.
This is a kind of classical Canadian situation. We are in an attempt, if you like, to redress a balance which has swung increasingly against us as a people. We take a means of communication which has been popular for many decades, that of magazines. We realize that increasingly we have lost the ability to publish and communicate among ourselves in this country, not through any diabolical intent on the part of any individual, organization or government but simply in a general situation which continuously confronts this country, that of being neighbour to and closely associated with the most powerful nation in the world, not in just a military and economic sense but in the way in which the American people have excelled beyond any other in their ability to communicate and to register their ideals and ideas.
In 1961 I took a trip around the world. I visited some countries that I thought were far removed and underdeveloped. I remember in particular one sunny afternoon travelling through the back streets of Bangkok. I thought that surely to goodness nowhere in the world, on that day, could be further removed from the civilization that I knew than these little water streets, canalways, that existed in the back areas of Bangkok in Thailand. Can you imagine my surprise when I looked inside a little thatched hut on the water's edge and saw two things that reminded me of the sheer weight and energy of the American civilization from which I came, a bottle of Coca-Cola and an American television set. There was an instant awareness in that Thai household of a whole value system, a whole sense of

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
identity that existed for a people halfway around the world. That was in 1961, 14 years ago.


Mr. Darling:: Wasn't there a copy of Reader's Digest?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I did not get close enough to see whether there was a copy of Reader's Digest or Time magazine. If there had been, it undoubtedly would not have been an English edition; it would have been in a language I would not be able to read.


Gerald William Baldwin: It was probably bought in the local Sky Shops.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I did not have a chance to visit there. It is perhaps interesting to note that since 1961 we in this country have been seized with two special committees of the other place, one headed by the esteemed Senator Grattan O'Leary and the other by the well-known and, in some circles, much respected Senator Keith Davey. They found themselves in substantial agreement that definite action had to be taken with regard to the deteriorating situation in the magazine industry in this country. I know that I am not going to contribute too much that is new, exciting and novel at this point in the debate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -but I will give it a good try. I will, hopefully, sum up and distil some of the wisdom that has pervaded this debate in the many days since its inception. Hon. members know that in 1950, in Canadian magazine circulation only 28.8 per cent of the magazines that were for sale or that were in circulation at that time were either of significant Canadian content or were Canadian-owned. What has happened in the meantime, in spite of the increased awareness and ability to communicate in other fields-I think of the expansion of television and the more recent expansion of feature film production in this country-has been a decline. The latest figures I have, which are for 1974, indicate that only 15.2 per cent of magazines currently in circulation in this country are what can be designated as Canadian. In total figures, in 1974 Canadian publications were some 29,467,000; American publications were some 193,288,000. That is not a fact with which Canadians can live very comfortably.
It is not a good thing to know that such a heavy aspect of one means of communication which serves as a major source of information for the development and further refinement of social and cultural values is so totally controlled by an outside source. I think hon. members know me well enough to realize I am not one who raises the flag of strident or superficial nationalism or one who feeds off a kind of virulent form of anti-Americanism. I simply believe that a country as mature and as sophisticated, and with the potential we have, should not have to rely upon or have the dependency that it does with respect to the magazine industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: If the figures that I have used with respect to the general circulation of magazines are disturbing, particularly the decline from 28.8 per cent in 1950 to 15.2 per cent in 1974, the general availability of

publications is even more shocking. In 1974, newsstand sales of magazines indicate that 97 per cent were United States magazines in origin, and 3 per cent were Canadian. That can only be considered a shocking situation, one that has to be resolved. I have to say at the outset that while I support the effort that the minister is bringing forward in this bill, I am very disturbed that there has been evidence of very little action with regard to the general availability of magazines in newsstand sales. I will deal with that a little later.
I do not think it is enough simply to apply this change with respect to the Income Tax Act unless we are going to deal with some of the related factors that can make a reality of what I am sure the minister and his colleagues are concerned about there.
I mentioned my own experience in 1961 with the kind of pervasiveness of the American communications industry. I should also indicate that while we have had the O'Leary and Davey commissions in the last decade and a half, in actual fact as long ago as 1922 the magazine publishers' association of that day requested a tariff on foreign publications. So what we are dealing with here is not something we have suddenly discovered during the last few years, or even since the end of the Second World War when many people talked about the developing sense of a Canadian identity. The problem, of course-and it has been put repeatedly, one might almost say ad nauseam-is that there has developed in recent years a considerable sentiment and affection for two specific publications which have received a kind of special status under the present Income Tax Act. I am referring, of course, to Reader's Digest and Time magazine.
The claims-and of course we have all received mail, phone calls and representations of one kind or another- have suggested that these are important Canadian publications, in spite of the fact that they are part of large multinational corporations which find their homes in the United States. The fact of the matter is that in the case of Time, up until 1974 only 18 per cent of the content of this magazine could be considered in any way as Canadian, and with respect to Reader's Digest about 24 per cent. I have not followed at all closely the actual percentages present in recent issues of both publications, but I am willing to suspect that they have increased somewhat in an attempt to head off what has been a very obvious commitment to try to redress the balance to a more satisfactory level.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that when we think of the possibilities for the Canadian magazine industry, an essential problem is the fact that roughly 50 per cent-50 cents in every dollar-spent on general magazine advertising in this country is spent in the pages of Time and Reader's Digest. That amounted, in 1973, as I understand it, to close to $16 million. I am not aware of the figure for 1973 or 1974, but realizing inflation to be a factor everywhere I presume it was substantially over the $20 million mark.
What is of interest to me-and I do not wish to get into a long tirade here regarding Time or Reader's Digest because I think they are big enough to look after themselves-is that with respect to Reader's Digest in particular they have indicated as recently as in their last annual report that
November 17, 1975

more than 50 per cent of their revenue is not from magazine sales. As a matter of fact, it comes from the mail order items in which it specializes-a variety of books, records and other items. Of course, these are well publicized in the monthly issues of Reader's Digest.
Some people have put forward the argument that we will be creating difficulties for both Reader's Digest and Time magazine in the changes being proposed. However, it seems to me that anyone who takes that position should be consistent, and since Reader's Digest has already indicated that more than 50 per cent of its revenue comes from mail order sales, then perhaps we should argue the same way for the Sears-Roebuck catalogue or for other publications which essentially want to advertise goods and services. That is really the kind of service being provided by Reader's Digest and I do not think it was ever the intent originally, when the amendments were made, to give a tax advantage for that purpose to these two publications.
I wish to make clear at the outset that I have been a long-time reader of both Time and Reader's Digest and expect to go on being so in the future, agreeing with them when I can and perhaps more often disagreeing with them, but in the main thinking that these are two publications which are worth having around because they do provide contact with a value system and sometimes an information system which is worth looking at. It is when it becomes so pervasive as to dominate substantially the Canadian scene that I think it becomes quite disturbing.
Quite frankly, I have never been happy with the fact that in the case of Reader's Digest the whole business of editorial content was one which was subject to approval by the parent office in the United States. Any company, regardless of the debate we may carry on respecting the percentage of Canadian content, which has to rely for a final content position on a board of managers of group of editors outside this country will have rough sledding with me in making that kind of an argument stick.
The basic question many of our people are asking is: Will the action the government is taking effectively make these two publications unavailable? While Messrs. LaRue and Zimmerman may have made certain noises in that direction, the facts of the matter are obvious; they are not going to stop publication, nor are they going to cease to be available, and they will not likely cease to carry Canadian content because they know that all these things sell magazines as well as selling the extras which go along with the magazines, and that they are part and parcel of being in the magazine business.
Two things may well happen. It may well be that some impact may be felt in subscription costs, but there has already been a substantial move in that area over the last few years and I do not expect to see much change. There may be some change with respect to advertising costs, but I am inclined to think they may be made a more attractive proposition to those Canadian companies who still think it in their interests to use the pages of these publications for some advertising opportunity. My essential concern is to equalize the opportunity for Canadian publications and, hopefully, to make the difference for some which are marginally or close in terms of being a make or break proposition.
Non-Canadian Publications
I noticed in recent days, and earlier too, a good deal of strife and reaction in some of the editorial columns of the newspapers of this country talking particularly about the freedom of the press. It seems to me they missed one essential point. There can be no freedom of the press if there is no press in the first place. They, above all others, should realize this and with the deteriorating situation respecting magazine publishing and distribution on a proportionate basis in this country, it is just unbelievable that newspapers which have themselves sometimes been put in an invidious position should show what I think is a very narrow and chauvinistic reaction to what is being attempted here.
A question of more basic concern, perhaps, is the degree to which revenues may be diverted to assist other Canadian publications. There have been surveys done, I believe by Canadian Facts Incorporated, indicating that most of the revenue diverted from Reader's Digest and Time would go either to Maclean-Hunter-which is considered something of a big, bad wolf in this proposition-or to other non-periodical media, essentially not to other Canadian publications.
In the first place, I would regard even that as a net gain, although I would have some concern if that were the sum and substance of if. But if in fact some of this advertising revenue does go to other forms of media, that will not be bad, in my estimation, because we are fighting some other battles in other areas and I think they could receive some assistance there. If it goes to Maclean-Hunter, I would have mixed feelings about it because I am not totally happy about having one very large centre of magazine publishing, not only in the sense of Maclean-Hunter which has a large number of trade periodicals as well as the sort of flagship in Maclean's magazine, but for two basic reasons. First, because I think any concentration of communication in one source may not be healthy for a country; and, second, because as a person who does not come from the centre of the country but from one of the so-called disadvantaged regions, I get somewhat upset at the degree to which everything that is happening in the country gets focused and interpreted by the people who walk up and down the streets of Yonge, Bay or Bloor. I think Toronto is not the beginning or the end of this country. Therefore, I hope that more than just this particular magazine empire will be assisted.
I think one of the reasons we have had a bit of imbalance with respect to the Canadian magazine industry, even with respect to the degree to which Maclean-Hunter is such a major publishing giant in this country, is that only a company as large as Maclean-Hunter has been able to resist the kind of overwhelming competition created by the Time and Reader's Digest situation. Quite frankly, I think development of alternative assistance and the availability of alternate moneys for advertising revenue will be of very great importance in terms of ensuring that there is some levelling out, some dispersing, if you like, of magazine activity across the country. I have every reason to believe that the assessment made by Canadian Facts Incorporated as recently as the last couple of years is not entirely accurate. It is no thanks to this government that there has
9126

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
been a good deal of improvement in the prospects for magazine publishing in this country.
I realize that we have passed the day and age when we will have a number of national, slick, glossy magazines similar to Life, Look, Saturday Evening Post-magazines that have all suffered a demise in the past few years. If they could not find support in the United States, which has such a large population base, obviously they would not survive in a much smaller market area like Canada. I think the magazine industry has turned the corner from its days of depression of as recently as a year or two ago, and that there is now reason to hope that regional publications, publications directed toward a particular interest group, will receive a new burst of life through a new method of encouragement. In saying that, I want to speak specifically about the distribution system. I mentioned earlier that it is really criminal that 97 per cent of magazine sales at newsstands are of foreign magazines, essentially American, with only 3 per cent being Canadian magazines.
This situation did not happen accidentally. It did not just happen that only 3 per cent of the publications produced in this country are sufficiently worth while to be purchased by Canadian readers. It happened quite deliberately because of the very real control that exists in the wholesaling and distribution of Canadian magazine publications. It is a known fact that 13 out of the 14 national magazine distribution firms are U.S. owned. When you realize, Mr. Speaker, that not only are we on the border, so to speak, of this tremendous outpouring of magazine material, but that we are a ready source of revenue for surplus editions of each and every one of those publications, you will realize that we are particularly vulnerable to the sort of thing that has been going on for many years.
What makes this vulnerability close to total takeover is the fact that the very agencies of distribution that ensure which magazines appear on which newsstands, and with what kind of prominence and return to the individual retailer, in 13 out of 14 cases are controlled by U.S. owners. Thus, it is easy to realize that we have been almost totally had in regard to the distribution of Canadian magazine publications in this country.
The minister has had a number of representations from different sources to take some action in this field. He has been urged by the Book and Periodical Development Council to adopt some kind of strategy to deal with this problem. More recently he has been attacked by them for failing to take any definite action. I hope that when the minister appears before the parliamentary committee to deal with the substance of this measure before us and to add further information, he will also give us his own plans for dealing with the whole question of the distribution of Canadian publications. It is not good enough for the minister to say it is basically a provincial jurisdiction, that it is the provinces, one by one, that will have to sort out the situation. It is a situation which the minister knows only too well can be used in a number of cases to divest ourselves of our own responsibility respecting the general impact of federal government policy in the cultural area.
I do not feel happy in saying this to the minister, but unfortunately there has been a tremendous failure to develop a feature film industry in this country. We have spent many millions of dollars assisting, encouraging and

ensuring that Canadian feature films are made; this has been done since 1967 under the aegis of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. But we have not yet found an effective means of ensuring that Canadians have access to these pieces of cultural material which are being produced.
Many years after the original establishment of the corporation the minister has managed to get some kind of agreement on a quota system for three major film chains, but unfortunately they did not fulfil the verbal part of the agreement. More recently, the minister entered into a second agreement, one that he assures us will be effective. But in my opinion this kind of registering of good faith and good will is a pretty weak gesture in terms of solving what is a fundamental issue.


Mr. Faulkner:: What is the alternative?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The minister asks me what the alternative is and I am glad he has asked that. It is really quite simple. I see he is amused at what I perceive to be a naive response to a difficult question. It seems to me it would not be beyond the creative ability or competence of the federal government to ensure that there is some stake on the part of each and every province in the country in effecting a workable distribution system that does not rely on the good will of any particular corporation, be it multinational, national or whatever.


James Hugh Faulkner: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Surely.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate the total support of the hon. member's remarks on the magazine side. I do not want to interrupt him, but he raised the question of the voluntary quota arrangement. I think he appreciates that last fall and on into this summer we visited every provincial capital and discussed a legislative quota. Our very best guess, based on those visits, was that no province other than the province of Quebec was prepared to accept a legislative quota. In view of that, what further steps would the hon. member propose that I take, as Secretary of State, given the fact that the provinces have jurisdiction over theatres? It seems to me that what I did after that, namely, get a voluntary arrangement with a commitment from the chains to produce and offer their co-operation, was about as good as I could get under the circumstances.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I thank the minister for his question. I think part of the basic problem is that the minister was canvassing the provinces with the wrong proposition. Perhaps we might get together on this at some point, but it seems to me from the experience of other countries, though not in every case federal countries where there is this divided jurisdiction, there is built in a definite economic incentive with respect to the exhibition of domestic production, and this makes sense to me. I mentioned the Eady fund in Great Britain which, to my mind, has functioned very effectively in maintaining a certain level of exhibition and distribution in that country. I hope
November 17, 1975

we will move to the point of being able to propose to the provinces some arrangements. I think that suggesting to the provinces, whether Quebec or any other, that they share in the establishment of a quota system is in a sense taking the same kind of political decisions that the federal government is taking. I believe in a variety of incentives, and to me this provides no real incentive for there to be exhibition.
Let us say that the quota system were to be honoured by various companies as being efficient or important to them. If I were sitting in the boardroom of any one of those corporations, my very first question would have to be, "What is in it for us?" These are business people we are talking with, not the heads of churches or some kind of good will or charitable organizations. Unless there is to be some definite return or economic incentive I think they will always find ways to avoid exercising any real responsibility in this regard. That is the way I have felt for a long time.
Not only is this not likely to be honoured; that is only part of the problem. There is nothing sufficient to generate active interest, if you like. I think we want more than just the impassive or almost unhappy acceptance of the quota principle the minister has enunciated and tried to have adopted by the provinces. I would hope he or his officials would try to work out something similar to the Ead's model if that is not totally transferrable to our system. Surely some modification of that principle would be of value.
This brings me back to what I was saying a moment ago. It seems to me that if we are to be concerned about the magazine industry in this country, it will not be enough just to be concerned about it in terms of ensuring that the advertising inequities that presently exist are removed. I have already expressed some of the difficulties that may exist in the actual transfer of that 50 per cent to be spread among Canadian publishers. We have to be concerned about the level at which the consumer or the reader will be able to make these publications available to himself. If the distribution chain is very heavily controlled by outside sources, then it is obvious we have not really solved the problem.
I suggest there are a variety of ways in which the minister could deal with this distribution system. There are some immediate ones he can look at. One would be an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether there is some measure of monopolistic practice that is preventing adequate access to Canadian publications. The second thing might be to throw open some of the government's own retailing operations, such as Info-Can, across the country. The first step that might be worth taking is to explore the possibility of making Canadian publications available through the storefront offices of Info-Can which exist in so many towns and cities in this country. At least this might be a transitional role to make sure there is access to various publications across the country.
I see that my time is rapidly expiring. I am prepared to support the measure that is before us, and I shall do so. The one major difficulty that has been raised during the debate
Non-Canadian Publications
is in relation to the 80 per cent content rule. It has received a great deal of flak in recent days. It is important that this be viewed in the kind of context in which there will be a certain amount of flexibility. As I understand this principle, and it has been applied in other similar situations, it will not result in a sort of issue by issue situation but will involve an over-all look at publications within a 12-month period.
I hope that at the committee stage we will not be so totally wedded to the proposal made recently by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) that we cannot look at some alternatives, perhaps similar to the one exercised by the CRTC of increasing the degree of Canadian content on a growth percentage basis with a view to reaching a certain goal in a fairly short period of time. I do not think we want to put ourselves in the position of doing what is right but not appearing to do what is right. I know committee members will want to spend a good deal of time looking at that particular issue.
In conclusion, I want to say that like so many other matters which have involved initiative by this government, whether in the area of energy conservation or regional development, the government has enunciated some good objectives but its implementation has been very deficient. The minister said back in 1973 that we had only scratched the surface of the problems facing the Canadian publishing industry. I want to remind the minister that he should not just use a back-scratcher when obviously we are going to require a spinal transplant, particularly for this Canadian industry which in recent years has become increasingly under fire and in need of an over-all study and strategy in order to be viable and available to all Canadians.


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I in no way want to become involved in a quota system debate. While it obviously plays an important part in the magazine industry, it does not really come into this particular argument regarding the amendments to the Income Tax Act in Bill C-58. Let me start by saying that perhaps the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and myself should have been involved in dialogue for a few minutes earlier, because I think we could have exchanged places and capably carried out our admonitions directed to members of the government or even to the opposition. I will develop that theme as I go along.
I address my early remarks to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I would like to tell him that we in the backbenches are not afraid to speak up and talk about the question directly. He has given me the opportunity to ask myself some very particular questions and I think that is the way it should be. That is what the debate we are having today is, in effect-an examination of the whole question. I, for one, as a member on the government side, would like to ask some of these questions out loud. Perhaps I should direct the really big question to the entire backbench. I am really asking this government to reawaken in me the feeling of doing the right thing, and removing the confusion that exists in my mind because of the feeling that Bill C-58 has put us in a bigger quandary than we have ever been in by creating the insurmountable task of answering those questions that have come before us. This question involves the matter of Canadian ownership and
29956-26'/i

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
censorship, and I am firmly convinced that we must first remind ourselves that in order to be a Canadian citizen one has to apply, one has to live here and fulfil certain requirements and contain himself within confinements respecting patriotism and loyalty to the country and the government.
This regimentation has been followed completely by Reader's Digest. Let me say quite emphatically that I am, and always have been, a supporter of Reader's Digest. The Flynn family has subscribed to this magazine for many years. I have always been particularly proud of the fact that I have been personally acquainted with, to my knowledge, the only graduate of Reader's Digest. I am speaking about a Brother "Robbie" who has-done such a tremendous job as the "hoodlum" brother in the Thunder Bay area. He has made a great contribution to the community in which he has worked, especially our native peoples. He is one of many Canadians who have been almost completely educated by Reader's Digest, and I suppose there are many more who use the magazine as a further supplement to their education. They are probably asking themselves, as many are, if they are going to get the same Reader's Digest, or is Reader's Digest being forced out of business or so completely changed in its format that they will no longer recognize it.
It is particularly distressing that we must look at this question from such a complicated viewpoint, because Bill C-58 comes under the guise of an income tax problem which completely compounds the confusion that exists around the total situation and the real question. There is a crisis and dilemma involved here that has caused perplexing feelings among the people in the whole community. I am sure all of us who have received enormous amounts of mail from our constituents over the past year concerning Reader's Digest, and have taken the time to answer in some detail the original question in good faith, did so in complete acceptance of the fact that in 1974, 24 per cent of the material used in the Canadian edition of Reader's Digest originated in Canada. We also accept the fact that by 1976 the amount of Canadian material will be 30 per cent, which will mean that the number of major Canadian articles carried by Reader's Digest will approach the number carried by all other leading Canadian magazines.
I agree completely that there may be a pressure group at work which has a vested interest in the publishing industry. Perhaps it is using this opportunity to eliminate competition. Unfortunately, it may have convinced some of the people who are probably very closely allied with the writing and drafting of this bill to create an impossible situation for Reader's Digest. I agree that without competition certain magazine publishers would continue to sustain their mediocrity if not deteriorate further.
One thing that further confuses me is that Reader's Digest is supposed to be taking all the cream off the top so far as advertising money is concerned. Yet as I understand it, Reader's Digest in 1973 took only 21 per cent of the gross advertising revenue going to other members of the Magazine Association of Canada. Those who took an equal amount and distributed it among themselves were Chatelaine, Miss Chatelaine, Maclean's, Le Magazine Macleans, TV Hebdo, Time Canada, Selection du Reader's Digest, the French counterpart, Observer Country Guide, Legion, and

Saturday Night, which recently suspended publication. Of course, these magazines in no way represent all magazines published in Canada.
I have no actual figures, but a guesstimate would put the Reader's Digest share of advertising placed in Canadian magazines somewhere about 6 per cent. That leaves out of the picture the advertising revenue placed in Canadian business publications, the whopping sum of $24,700,000. Take that figure and compare it to the figure for the newspaper industry, $427 million, in Canada. In West Germany it is $707 million, which really just tells us that in West Germany consumer magazines get about as much advertising as the newspapers and three times as much as television.
In Canada, consumer magazines earn a miserable one-fourteenth of the advertising loot. Someone has asked, "Why is this government presently spending, or having to spend thousands of taxpayers' dollars in persuading them to get off their fat backsides, out of their armchairs and into the playing fields of the nation?" Really, are all of us asleep while seemingly watching the government ruthlessly determining the efforts that we are now trying to make? I think that sometimes we are asleep. In this particular case I think we are asleep watching Bill C-58 go through to the detriment of many Canadians.
My friend, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), to whom I have spoken about this bill has recommended some changes. He will present them later and I shall concur in them. I think they are worth noting. They would form the substance of an amendment which would read as follows:
Subsection 19(2) of the Income Tax Act be repealed (as proposed) and the following substituted therefor:
19. (2) An issue or edition of an issue of any newspaper or periodical shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (1), not to be an
issue of a non-Canadian newspaper or periodical if it
(a)	is edited and published in Canada and its publication functions-typesetting, platemaking, printing, circulation, advertising, customer service, treasury and administration-are conducted in Canada;
(b)	is published by a Canadian corporation, proprietor, partnership or association incorporated or registered under the laws of Canada or one of its provinces;
(c)	is either
(i)	75% Canadian-owned, or,
(ii)	having a degree of Canadian ownership as defined in Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, publishes in Canada's two official languages;
(d)	is policy-controlled by a board of directors, at least three-quarters of whom are Canadian citizens;
(e)	is directed and wholly edited in Canada by a management and staff normally resident in Canada;
(f)	grants complete freedom of editing to its editors in Canada subject only to copyright law;
(g)	contains a proportion, excluding advertising matter, of editorial content to the extent of 30% or more which has not been previously published in a periodical outside Canada:
(h)	encourages the development of editorial material about Canada which could have an international appeal outside Canadian borders.
Mr. Speaker, while I have not made the profound contribution to this debate that has been made by many other members, I hope that in some way I have at least provided some thought-provoking material for members on the gov-
November 17, 1975

ernment side of the House so that they might think about what they really are trying to do. I ask the members on the government side of the House to request the minister respond to some of these suggestions.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn). I agree with most of his remarks. There is perhaps one exception. When I look at page 9035 of Hansard for November 13, 1975, I find that when the government ram-rodded its closure motion through the House to deal with this matter with very little debate, indeed his name is found among those voting yea.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: It is always interesting to watch a new member come to this House filled with a sense of independence as a government backbencher. However, gradually he gets filed down until he votes nay or yea on orders from the front bench.
I received a great deal of correspondence, as has everyone else, on this contentious bill and I, like the hon. member for Kitchener, discounted a certain amount of it as having originated from the tear-sheet which was put out by Reader's Digest. But I was amazed at the number of people from my constituency who wrote separate letters to me. They did not send in the tear-sheet with "I am against it" written on the dotted lines. I have here several hundred letters and they are not second hand from Reader's Digest; they represent and effort by my constituents to tell me why they want Reader's Digest and, to a lesser extent, Time, maintained in Canada. I will give you an example of this type of letter, and in particular I will call your attention to one aspect in them. I have here one letter which reads as follows:
Reader's Digest is only one of its kind, always informative, always human, always in good taste-a most delightful magazine. I have not seen any magazine which can compare. If this is discontinued in Canada, we have only vulgarity left. I subscribed to several magazines this year which I felt would be interesting for my family. I have been shocked. Now when they arrive, I toss them in the garbage. I am no prude but there is a limit.
This theme runs through my correspondence. I began to notice it after the first few letters and have since looked at several magazines, Canadian and others. While the minister responsible for this travesty of a bill, this travesty of a democratic process, might not feel offended by the language which one sees used in too many magazines these days, many of my constituents are offended. They are offended by the kind of language in Maclean's and in a flood of other magazines from the pulp industry which can get into one's home, if one is not carefuly, via the newsstands. I do not think I am particularly prudish but sometimes it is beyond my comprehension why certain writers who have gained popularity find it impossible to express their opinions without the benefit of four letter words.
I have received several hundred letters, but from among them I should like to quote one delightful one which found its way to my desk on May 13, 1975. I presume it arrived on the desks of other members of parliament because it was addressed to all members of parliament and senators. It
Non-Canadian Publications
came from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), and it read:
Dear Colleague,
Attached is my response to literally hundreds of letters from across Canada, primarily the west, opposing Hugh Faulkner's plan to rescind section 19(2) threatening the future of Reader's Digest and Time. This action, I feel, will also abrogate the right of advertisers, in our free enterprise system, to select the media through which to advertise. Only three of the letters favoured the Faulkner action.
I wish to quote from this letter at some length because, although I do not generally quote lengthy passages from letters, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway set out the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme quite fairly, and I would like to put it on the record. It is somewhat of a surprise to me, as it was to the hon. member for Kitchener. In this letter the hon. member said:
-I will continue my fight against the proposed action when it comes before the House of Commons-
Let me say again at this point that I was reading Hansard for last Thursday and I found that the hon. member was not present in the House when the vote was being taken, and she is not present here today. I know she was here earlier, but she was not in the House when the vote was taken. She went on to say:
-and if it comes before the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee.
In the second paragraph of her letter the hon. member wrote:
At the very time when free societies are being swallowed up in the communist thrust to achieve its proclaimed aim-world domination- this action is symbolic of a concerted effort to alienate an old and strong ally and Canada's closest friend, the United States. One wonders if we are not being used by the small but vocal Toronto-based antiAmerican clique.
That paragraph goes a little beyond what I would be prepared to say. It may be that a backbencher on the other side might think the government is inspired by communists, but I have never agreed with this thesis which was expressed by the hon. member when she said that free societies are being swallowed up in the communist thrust, and that this bill is symbolic of the concerted effort in that direction.
She went on to say:
Those who compare Reader's Digest with Playboy, Newsweek, the US News and World Report or other all-American publications are forgetting these publications did not offer or even try to provide ANY Canadian news or to set up offices in Canada or give jobs to Canadians.
I might say that from here on I agree with what the hon. member has said. She attached a letter which she used as a form letter to reply to her numerous constituents who wrote to her. It is undated. There is a blank space for the date and address to go in. This is what she wrote:
Thank you for writing to advise of your reaction to the announcement by the Honourable J. Hugh Faulkner, Secretary of State, that he intends to rescind section 19(2) of the Income Tax Act and its affect on
Reader's Digest.
I expect they had proof readers at the newspaper where the hon. member used to work.
She went on:
I had been openly opposed to this step. It is discriminatory and unjust-a threat to the life of a first class landed (corporate) immigrant for more than 30 years. Not only has Reader's Digest provided jobs and writing opportunities to many Canadians within a small industry-

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
magazine publishing-but more than any other magazine published in Canada, has provided features and news (mature and well researched) each month from all parts of Canada, linking this country.
I have already quoted the next lines which say that the hon. member will continue her fight against the proposed action when it comes before the House of Commons. This reminds me of the day when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was going to start wrestling inflation to the ground, and said that if this was a wrestling match, we had already been cheated on our tickets when we came through the door although we got them for nothing. I am looking forward to seeing this fight continue.
The hon. member went on:
Your letter is one of many others that I will forward to the Prime Minister with my own statement of concern. He and other cabinet ministers are well aware of my position and it is with gratitude that I receive your letter to help prevent the demise of Reader's Digest in Canada.
There has been an attempt by certain people-in some cases misinformed and in other, deliberate distortion-to convince the public that Reader's Digest is subsidized by the government. This is not so. It is simply a case of allowing free choice of advertisers in Canada by which to sell a product.
Obviously if they are penalized because they want to advertise in the magazine of their choice, they will not necessarily turn to a new media; many could send it out of the country to Digest, USA, or to newspapers, television, Maclean's and Chatelaine already over-weight with advertising, as opposed to news and feature content.
I also feel, as citizens, we all have the right to choose the magazine we want to buy. I appreciate the fact that Reader's Digest provides Canadians, not only with a good balance of national material, but with universal and international subjects.
I also prefer Time over Newsweek, US News and World Report, etc. for the same reason; Time provides good, concise, objective record of international news along with well written, depth, packed reports of Canadian interest.
This letter went on explaining in quite some detail all the disadvantages of this bill.
I would ask hon. members to note particularly this paragraph where the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway continued:
Personally, as a writer, I fear the action to eliminate a market for writers and allied industries, especially beginners in this field. If Reader's Digest closes out in Canada, this could eliminate jobs in Vancouver and Montreal, lose $5.2 million in salaries for 450 Canadian employees (including $700,000 in fringe benefits and $600,000 in profit sharing); $22 million in trade with Canadian suppliers; $1.6 million in taxes; $3 million in first class postage (not counting the magazine distribution itself). The company has $8 million invested in office, printing presses, and other capital equipment in Canada.
There is always a ray of light in the Liberal party, it seems to me. For a space of time when members first come here they act as if they have minds of their own, and have not yet learned to check their independence of thought at the door. This is a first class example of the thinking of the hon. member as recently as last April.
1 am not sure that I agree with the next paragraph although I have agreed with most of the points she made, particularly in the previous paragraph. She went on to say:
Unfortunately, a small pressure group under the guise of a "Committee for an Independent Canada", with vested interest in the publishing, are using this to eliminate competition. Without such competition-and quality this publication presents-certain magazine publishers will
(Mr. McKinnon.]
continue to sustain their mediocrity, if not deteriorate further. The Committee for an Independent Canada began with what seemed-on the surface-to have excellent objectives.
These are her words, not mine. She continued:
However, now they are distorted-more anti-American than nationalistic. In either case, I think cultural nationalism in our present Global Village, is foolish, and immature in the last quarters of the 20th century.
I have, and will continue, to oppose any attempt to end the life and public responsibility of Reader's Digest in Canada.
That is a death shaking oath is it not? Unfortunately it apparently did not extend to November 13. The letter ends:
Thank you for your letter and the support for the continued life of a very vital segment of what I believe is important to Canadian national maturity.
Sincerely yours,
Simma Holt, M.P.
Vancouver-Kingsway.
I am pleased to register her true opinions in Hansard for her constituents and her party to know. I am sure she will be here tonight in spirit, if not in body.
The bill before us deals with three segments of the media-magazines, newspapers and television. We have heard a great deal about magazines, and rightly so, but it is likely to have an effect on newspapers as well. One wonders how some newspapers are going to have an 80 per cent Canadian content. With all the world-shaking events that occur I would suspect Canadians would want more than 20 per cent of their news to come from outside our borders.
One thinks of the Vietnam war and the Watergate crisis which happened concurrently. One wonders if any Canadian publication should be limited to 20 per cent of nonCanadian news at a time like that. I think we could run into a great deal of difficulty when we try to monitor or censor our newspapers and publications to comply with this arbitrary 80 per cent rule. It seems to have come about rather suddenly, and to be much higher than anyone had anticipated. People thought we would have a 51 per cent rule, or a 60 per cent rule. The weeks and months dragged by until it was too late for the main publishers to do anything about it. They were suddenly faced with the statement that it was 80 per cent, which made it almost impossible for them to comply.
Incidentally they have gone to considerable lengths to divest themselves of their foreign holdings of stock. Both companies have sincerely tried to get Canadian ownership of their companies up to the required level. For these types of magazines then to be faced with what, for them, is an insurmountable problem of 80 per cent ownership, is rather unfair.
When we speak of this cutting into their publications to tell them exactly what they can publish, I should like to remind hon. members that the Davey commission on the mass media warned of the administrative horrors of legislation that attempted to set Canadian editorial content requirements for the printed media. It is a rare thing for me to agree with Senator Keith Davey about anything, but I believe he knew something about publishing at one time in his life so he probably was correct when he said that would be an administrative horror and he would rather not have anything to do with it.
November 17, 1975

Various polls and surveys have been taken and I should like to quote one. According to a survey conducted by Canadian Facts, Inc., in January, 1975, of Canadian advertising executives, the Canadian publishing industry will not benefit substantially from the removal of tax advantages for advertising in Time and Reader's Digest. Only 19 per cent of the revenues freed by this measure will go to the publishing industry. Of this 19 per cent, 58 per cent will go to Maclean-Hunter publications.
Maclean-Hunter will effectively control at least half of the advertising revenue obtained by the magazine industry. It currently controls 42 per cent of the total. I think it is a very dangerous thing to have one magazine in Canada controlling far more than half the advertising revenue. We have seen the effect in other fields where we have monopoly enterprises. They would be able to control the price of the advertising that goes into that type of journal practically without opposition. I worry about the long range consequences. There would be no need for them to put out a decent magazine and to hold down the price of advertising. They would have a monopoly, and I think all of us would as soon avoid that.
Many of my constituents have written to me and every letter is exactly the same-I do not mean that literally but they stress the same points-they want to have their reading material cleaned up. They say such things as, "If the CBC is any comparison, if such a book did appear on the market shelves I would give it a try and if it matched the CBC standards, which I think are sick, I would never buy another one."
Another one asked me to use my influence to have them appeal this bill saying:
I am in protest of this movement and ask that the Honourable J. Hugh Faulkner rescind the above-mentioned section.
I am Canadian born and want this magazine as it is. I enjoy it-all of it! How narrow can Canadians become?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is why he had to grow a beard-to cover up.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Another writer says:
In my opinion, the Reader's Digest gives us very clean, intelligent, informative reading, with thoughts to ponder indeed. It is wonderfully honest and fair to all countries in the world, and is my main source of wide perspective.
Everybody in this world does not like the same thing, but the elitists on the other side of the House have a habit of thinking that what they like must be good for everyone. This is my first experience in three years in this House of being faced with closure. I do not look forward to them having chosen this-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: They do it in Britain all the time.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Does the hon. member for "St. Boni-mouth" wish to take part in the debate?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: "Bonimouth" is right!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thank the hon. member for his interjection. As so often happens, it was made sitting down
Non-Canadian Publications
instead of standing up. We seldom hear him speak standing up.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: At least you can hear me.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I did not get the gist of what the hon. member had to say.


An hon. Member:: You did not miss anything.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I thought he had reformed when they made him whip. The extra money he gets for that job seemed to have a salutary effect on him, and I thought it was money well spent if it kept him quiet, but I guess we cannot be lucky in every respect.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) delighted me with his courage because in speaking for my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), he proved himself a very brave man indeed. Without question she can speak for herself, and there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that she will when she returns from the battle of British Columbia.
An hon. member opposite said recently during the debate that this is a bill affecting fundamental civil liberties in this country. It seems to me that the hon. member was somewhat heated over a simple amendment to the Income Tax Act.
This debate began with hon. members opposite making valid points, with many of which I agreed. But as the days wore on, something happened to my opponents opposite. The clouds began to gather; they became bigger, darker and heavier, and suddenly we began to hear obfuscation and then suggestions of a cover-up. We heard another big word, censorship. When that was uttered it created the biggest cloud of all. Indeed, we even heard of the burning of books! But I will not continue in this vein because I would be making complex something which is very simple.
Bill C-58 seeks simply to remove the special tax advantages currently enjoyed by Time and Reader's Digest magazines and certain foreign broadcasters, and that is all. This is an important issue, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the government's reasons for its proposed action.
In this country we happen to have a law called the Income Tax Act, section 19(2), of which permits the deduction, as a business expense, of advertising placed by Canadian companies in Time, Reader's Digest, and certain foreign television stations. The federal government proposes to remove this privilege so that advertising placed by Canadian companies in all non-Canadian magazines will no longer be tax deductible.
This is not a new policy. In 1965 the federal government passed similar legislation but decided to exempt Time and Reader's Digest-I believe in tribute to the good corporate citizenship of Reader's Digest on the one hand and, no doubt, to the outstanding corporate muscle of the giant Time. In a sense the 1965 legislation discriminated in favour of these two magazines, exempting them from the

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications
regulations which affected every other non-Canadian magazine.
What happened to the magazines affected by that 1965 legislation? Did they evaporate? Did they disappear, as hon. members opposite would have us believe that Time and Reader's Digest will disappear? No. They are all still available in Canada, either on the newsstands or by subscription, in exactly the same way as Time and Reader's Digest will continue to be. They will be as available and widely read in Canada once the proposed legislation comes into effect as the honest competition of Canadian publications given an infusion of advertising dollars will allow.
The government's action will not put Reader's Digest and Time out of business. It will simply remove from them their artificial status as Canadian magazines and the financial advantages accruing to them from that status. Discontinuing their Canadian content is not the same as removing these magazines from circulation in Canada. Both magazines will still be freely available and, as I said, Canadians will still be able to subscribe to Reader's Digest or to Time.
May I now read one of the many letters I have received in favour of this legislation, to answer the parade of Tory speakers who implied that only negative views were brought to our attention. The writer of the letter says:
I most certainly am not in favour of Reader's Digest and Time magazine receiving preferential treatment. I sincerely hope that Hugh Faulkner does not 'give in' to the request of these two publications.
Before I left for central America, I subscribed to Time magazine, hoping to receive news of Canada. When Time arrived, it was the U.S. version with the Canadian section omitted. I wrote Time complaining but received no answer.
I also hope the women are able to get some just laws enacted.
Good luck.


Mr. Paproski:: Who?


Iona Campagnolo: She was referring to women members of this House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Read another letter.


Iona Campagnolo: The federal government has, in introducing this legislation, weighed the economic and cultural value of the Canadian content of these magazines against their economic and cultural drawbacks. It has been decided that, in economic terms, the money the magazines and television stations oh the border spend in Canada does not outweigh the revenue gained for them by their special status and, in cutural terms, that the contributions they have made do not outweigh the stifling effect their dominant position has on Canadian magazines. Development of new broadcasting outlets in this country is similarly stifled.
Having made this assessment the government has decided to remove the special legislation which discriminated in favour of the two magazines. This is a decision which, as I said earlier, has been deliberately clouded by hon. members opposite with the absolutely outrageous distortion created by their false and misleading introduction of the idea of censorship.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite were trying to describe this debate with one word. I must say some of them were very witty. Let me try to coin a capsule description, as a

new and inexperienced member who has not yet learned to keep her mouth shut. Let me say that irresponsibility is the word which comes to mind to describe, in capsule form, the remarks of hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: "Irresponsibility" is the only word applicable for such careless manipulation of the public mind. No one is judging the merits of these publications, as to wholesomeness or lack of it; no one is talking about offensive broadcasting. There is no question of censorship in all this.
Hon. members may recall that several years ago the government imposed regulations, similar in intent, on recorded music in Canada. I was a member of the organization of broadcasters who were involved at that time; I was involved with the broadcasting industry and I assure you we struggled as mightily, as ferociously as do Time and Reader's Digest today, because we were sure we should be totally annihilated by the government's "iniquitous" rule. Do you know what happened? There are actually people who profited by the government's decision. There are now Canadian producers in this country, and talented Canadians who are making their names in this country, and not across the border.
When the government imposed those regulations on the broadcasting industry of this country there was considerable concern. But that concern was met head on, just as the present concern will be met. However, in fairness to Canadian content legislation, I must say that it has not prevented our hearing American music or any other music. And we have gone a long way to creating a strong Canadian recording industry in both classical and popular music fields, and to developing Canadian talent. I am convinced that the same will happen in the next few years to our Canadian magazine industry, our writers, publishers and broadcasters, without causing distress to readers of Time and Reader's Digest, or viewers of border stations; and I am speaking of stations which were originally set up to serve some other commercial market than ours.
One member of the official opposition yesterday intoned stentorially on Wednesday that "if they can't hack it on merit alone, it's too bad." He spoke of merit alone. Mr. Speaker, if one company can project a profit of $8 million from Canada alone this year, merit alone is not involved. How does merit alone involve the Canadian station just starting, out and anaemic from lack of money, because it cannot attract the required advertising dollars, the border stations having attracted all the business?
For a moment let us look at the broadcasting industry. Large, slick, American border stations erected scant miles from the major southern metropolises of this country cynically and deliberately planned to do one thing-make a healthy profit. There is nothing wrong with a healthy profit. What is wrong is that our tax act has enhanced that profit.
In this case the words of hon. members must be examined in the context, say, of KVOS-TV, a station situated near Vancouver, B.C. It is, in all respects, a decent corporate citizen, and honourable entity, in addition to being an appreciated signal within our borders. Its audience ratings are fantastic. Its BBM'S read like magic-time. I like KVOS,
November 17, 1975

but I would like it much better if it were CFOS or CKOS, or if its communication letters were of any Canadian designation and subject to the regulations of the CRTC, not the FCC, however honourable that body and KVOS may be.
Why do I feel strongly about this matter of television access? Why am I concerned, for example, that KVOS projects such a large profit this year, even if they have proposed to share half that profit with the emerging new station in Vancouver, Western Approaches Broadcasting, should the KVOS proposal be accepted?
Let us talk about places in this country that cannot luxuriate in multi-channel television access. Unfortunately there are still many parts of this nation that have no access to radio, let alone television. There are some that have no access at all and others who have one channel. At best they may have two. They have created together a transmitter which they have put on a mountain top and which receives a signal sometimes five times transmitted. This has been done by ordinary people like we are, or should be. These people cannot gain access for one reason. Access is not available because there are not sufficient funds in the broadcasting industry of this nation.
How can hon. members expect a person such as myself, who represents thousands of people without access to television broadcasting, and similarly hundreds who have not even radio, to get disturbed about someone who has access to ten or 12 channels? I can get disturbed, however, about that amount of advertising dollars given to a foreign television station when the people who sent me here are seeking primary access to broadcasting, access which has been denied due to revenue creeping across the border. Those dollars, all of them, belong here in Canada, enhancing the opportunities of Canadian broadcasters presently in operation and, it is to be hoped, new and enterprising groups of broadcasters in the future who will add to the Canadian cultural dimension in every corner of our country.
I hope to live long enough even to see the day when our children's and our role patterns will reflect something that is more Canadian then Rhoda, Maude, Phyllis, and Mary Tyler Moore. In respect to the hon. minister who is in charge of the status of women in this country, who has just entered the chamber, I will bow to the other gender and trust that future legislators will ensure other role models than Kojak, Petrocelli, McCloud and all the rest of those violent men, who inhabit our TV, but that is another question.
This is a simple matter, my fellow members. Magazines and broadcasters presently obtain tax privileges without being subject to any of the criteria of Canadian magazines. Foreign broadcasters can obtain special tax privileges without the slightest nod to the CRTC. Here I refute what was said by a member opposite, that special privileges do not exist. Special privileges exist, as in no other country on this earth, for two magazines and some border broadcasters of a foreign nation. In my opinion, we owe it to Canadians to change that injustice to them.
Because this is a very complex issue I wish to make a couple of final remarks. I do not want to leave any doubt in
Non-Canadian Publications
the minds of members opposite. The contribution made by Reader's Digest is appreciated; however, Canada has finally grown up and must have its own advertising dollars to continue growing in publishing and broadcasting. The government has no intention of doing away with, or unfairly penalizing, Time and Reader's Digest, and as for border television stations I submit they made their hay while the sun shone. The government's intention, as I have stated, is simply to remove them from an artificial tax advantage which they have enjoyed since 1965-which is awarded by no other country in the world-and to provide encouragement to the Canadian magazine industry and Canadian broadcasters.
I wish to make a last, simple, unclouded statement. Canadian firms advertising in Canadian magazines are allowed, in calculating income tax, to deduct advertising costs up to 100 per cent. Under the present law they can do the same for the cost of their advertisements in Time and Reader's Digest, which are foreign magazines. The government proposes to eliminate the latter deduction. The government has recommended to the House a similar amendment to the effect that no deduction against income be permitted for advertising time on any non-Canadian broadcasting station for an advertisement directed primarily to a market in Canada. These are very simple solutions to the clouds of protest that we have experienced these last few days.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my clouds will be thunder, rain, or snow. I agree with a lot of the comments of the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), but I must take exception to at least two. One is the distress over the part of the legislation having to do with "substantially different". The hon. member said that this bill only amends the amount of ownership that is required to become a Canadian magazine. The amendment is to the Income Tax Act. In the Income Tax Act it says "substantially different". The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) said that the substantially different part would be 80 per cent. It is to that we are objecting.
The other part is censorship, a word used by the hon. member. It is necessary that I repeat what the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) stated about the word censorship. He said, and I quote:
Perhaps the most overworked and misunderstood word in this entire debate has been censorship. I have listened to the charges and countercharges over this particular word and this particular issue. The minister and the government in defending the bill have repeatedly stated that censorship is not being employed as part of government policy.
The government is correct in saying that the regulations in the strictest terms are not censorship, and yet it is their attitude and their response to the charge of censorship that alarms me and, frankly, should alarm all Canadian people.
This should not be taken out of context. It must be kept in context. The people of Canada are of the opinion that this amendment will eliminate Time and Reader's Digest from the market. They are afraid of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Next the minister will want to get rid of multiculturalism.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 17, 1975
Non-Canadian Publications


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I have sparked some interest. I am pleased. The people of Canada do not understand these special privileges. They believe that Reader's Digest and Time have some special privileges over and above Canadian publications. That is not the case. They have special privileges as foreign publications. This has been stated time and again in this debate. It cannot be mentioned often enough.
My objection is to the content rule that has been laid down by the Minister of National Revenue and brought into this debate. Citizenship is O.K., but personally I disagree with the content rule. I have received many hundreds of letters, as I am sure other hon. members have, particularly from people concerned about Reader's Digest.
I sent out a questionnaire. One question was: "Do you support the government's proposal to abolish the special tax provisions for businesses advertising in Time and Reader's Digest?" Thirty-nine per cent said yes, 35 per cent said no, and 21 per cent were not sure. To me this means that the majority of people in my riding-and I would say they are average Canadians-are not sure what this bill will do, particularly to Reader's Digest which they hold so dear.
Many members have read letters into the record. I should like to read one from an old-timer in my riding. He says:
Many years ago a friend subscribed to the Reader's Digest for us. This was before there was a Canadian edition. The friend has long since passed on but we have continued to keep up our subscription over the years.
I feel that if the Canadian government now discriminates against this publication they are showing a small-time attitude. Are we as Canadians trying to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world? Are we trying to crawl into a gopher hole? It is quite a contrast to the place we have been taking in the affairs of the world. Hope you will do what you can to put down this small-time act.
The writer is concerned that Reader's Digest will no longer be in his mailbox at the end of the month. He is concerned also about our attitude toward world affairs. If we follow the 80 per cent guideline with regard to content, shall we be truly reporting world affairs in an objective way?
I do not believe we can help the Canadian publishing industry by making it so difficult for our strongest publications to exist. They may have to leave. The government's proposals do not guarantee that Canadian publications will take over the area vacated, in particular by Time in the area of world affairs.
I express concern too over the future of such publications as medical magazines, and magazines on agricultural research, for example. It seems to me that the 80 per cent content rule is unduly harsh. Any restriction based on content is wrong, in my opinion. Should I, as a Canadian entrepreneur, wish to publish a magazine containing, let us say, certain articles on agriculture from the United States I should be allowed to do so because my future will depend on whether people want to buy it. There ought to be no restriction on the basis of content. It is dangerous. It is a form of muzzling the press, and it may lead to very narrow reporting.
Then again it seems ridiculous for Canadian writers to be sent to other parts of the world to report various events, particularly when other magazines already have reporters in those areas. Have Canadian magazines the money to do this. Surely, however, it is within their scope to send reporters to write special articles on events of particular interest to Canadians.
There are other questions yet to be answered. If a Canadian publication hires a non-Canadian, does it mean that the report he writes is a Canadian Report? If an event is reported by a foreigner and is subsequently edited in Canada, is that report considered to be Canadian? How is it possible objectively to determine what is Canadian and what is not when it comes to words written on a piece of paper? We must object to this requirement based on 80 per cent Canadian content.
The main concern of the people of Canada is that they will not get Reader's Digest in their mail boxes at the end of the month although it is a publication they enjoy, and have enjoyed for many years. We in the opposition must see to it that this publication continues and that the 80 per cent rule is debated at length and, hopefully, amended.
Before I conclude I wish to quote a few words by Mr. LaRue of Time Canada, because I happen to agree with them.
News is what actually happens and you can't make it 80 per cent different by official decree. It must be admitted that the mere selection of news is manipulation of a sort, in which all publications indulge- and I can only plead that professional editorial decisions are more likely to serve the interest of the public's right to know than news selection by official decree.
I shall end by quoting two paragraphs of a newspaper article by Charles Lynch:
As a reluctant member of the Association of Radio and Television Artists I can tell him (the minister) that the activities of this union, in its efforts to close our orders to foreign talent, are self-serving in the extreme, and may well be contrary to the public interest.
As a member of the reading public I can take note of the fact that our bookstalls are increasingly filled with Canadian publications, and that many of them are raucous pamphlets disguised as literature, or just junk. It's a question of whether homebrew junk is better for us than the imported variety.
It should be our duty to help Canadian authors and Canadian magazines to put quality magazines on the new-stands, but I cannot agree we shall accomplish this by alterating the status of Time or Reader's Digest as is being proposed or, in particular, by bringing in an 80 per cent content rule.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Blais:: May we call it 6.30 p.m., Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary, so unless other members wish to speak it is my duty at this time to put the question to the House. The question is on the motion in the name of Mr. Sharp.
All those in favour will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
Pursuant to the order made earlier this day a division on this motion is deferred until 9.30 p.m.


Jean-Jacques Blais: May I now call it 6.30, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Shall I call it 6.30?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 6.12 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

@Acting Speaker: Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the continuing absence of postal service which is creating hardship for all Canadians.
Accordingly, the motion is as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, seconded by the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to inform the House that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the chairman of this party's caucus committee on the Post Office, is progressing well after undergoing open heart surgery last week. He will soon be out of the intensive care unit and I am sure that all hon. members would like to wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I should also like to express my hope that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mack-asey) is again in good health. I am sure he has been spending long hours in his attempts to get the mail moving again. In spite of the implication by the Globe and Mail that I was somehow responsible for bringing on the spasms that the minister suffered in the chamber last Friday, I can assure the minister that we on this side do not want to see
Postal Strike
his health suffer. The fact remains, however, that his attempts to restore postal service have failed, and the mail is still piled up all over the country.
Thinking of mail that is piling up, I am reminded of the countless bags of mail that have been carted to storage places in many parts of the parliament buildings. I am also reminded of the first paragraph of my twelfth news letter to constituents, which was dated October 30. It begins:
As I write this letter, I have no idea when it may be delivered to you because once again the labour problems in the Public Service of Canada have caused the movement of mail to grind to a halt.
Still quoting:
If these words have a familiar ring, it is because they are a direct quotation from my newsletter of February 21, 1975!
I have heard some incredible figures on the number of work stoppages there have been in the past months or years, and since I do not have exact figures before me perhaps I can ask hon. members to recall the last time that they remember a year free of labour problems in the Post Office.
Of course the problems are not restricted to the Post Office. Department of Labour statistics just received for July indicate that in that month there were 273 work stoppages in existence in Canada. The cumulative man days lost in 1975 to date were 4,700,000. Of those nearly 10 per cent, or 409,000 man days lost, were in the federal jurisdiction.
The official opposition has been sensitive to the problems of the postal situation. We have been keeping abreast of developments, and last October 20 when the strike began, and after the Postmaster General had become directly involved in the negotiations, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris asked for an indication of progress. Already the minister's feelings were showing through as he made reference in his reply to the "unrealistic attitude of the negotiating team". How sensitive a remark is that, I would ask?
The official opposition has also been sensitive to the problems of the customers of the Post Office. Nearly every day since the postal service ground to a halt four weeks ago we in the official opposition have been asking when the suffering users of the mails could expect action from their government. We were sensitive to the needs of those who receive their incomes and revenues by mail, to the needs of those whose jobs would be terminated because of disruptions in trade and commerce. We were sensitive to the needs of the elderly who rely on the mails for bill paying and needed outside communication, and to the needs of businessmen, large and small, who lost orders and now face the prospect of bankruptcy.
If you can ignore the impact on the Christmas season, with the lack of greetings and parcels in Canada, think of the loss of mail exchange with other countries, with its serious consequences of the present and its potentially permanent loss of trade. Think of the international embarrassment.
The other day the minister was suggesting that I was trying to make political hay out of an embarrassing situation. Well, Madam Speaker, I think it is an embarrassing situation. It should be more embarrassing for the government, but it is certainly embarrassing to me as a Canadian.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
A friend of mine who lived in Paris a year or two ago found that even then the French were laughing at the Canadian postal situation. The feeling was that a country that cannot keep its Post Office operating cannot gain much respect. I wonder, if it is any wonder, that Canada was not invited to the economic summit conference at Rambouillet in France. Or perhaps the invitation was mailed.
I heard it said on the CBC news tonight that the opposition had been paying little attention to the postal situation for the past four weeks. Apparently we are now just coming to life. I should like to ask hon. members whether the record of 44 questions put by members of the official opposition during the past four weeks would support that.


An hon. Member:: Don't believe everything you read or hear from the CBC.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Only during four days since the postal strike began were there no questions in respect of the Post Office posed from this side of the House. At least three motions have been put by members of the opposition in the same period, the last one resulting in this emergency debate tonight.
It may be interesting to note at this stage that this is the third time this year a motion under Standing Order 26 for an emergency debate has been accepted by the Chair. The first one was in March, presented by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser); the second was in April, presented by the hon. members for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and Joliette (Mr. La Salle) simultaneously. Those motions both involved work stoppages. The first was at west coast ports and involved a stoppage which put an end to all grain deliveries to foreign countries. The other one involved a work stoppage at St. Lawrence River ports which put an end to the movement of feed grains.
Instances will be recalled in past years of parliament being recalled or called upon to end labour disputes, such as in respect of the railway strike in 1973. I deplore the use of parliament as a labour court and I do not advocate that tonight. What I hope is achieved by this debate is an awareness of how the government has failed to act in any effective way to restore postal services. Let us see how sensibly the government has reacted during the strike. As of now the government has walked away from the bargaining table, and the Postmaster General has stated that there is nothing more to negotiate.
No action has been taken to end the work stoppage, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), although admitting that parliament must intervene at some time, has declined to make the decision that the public disservice caused by the strike outweighs the freedom of the right to strike itself. I should like to be able to canvass the country on that question. I think we would get some very interesting questions answered. But of course there is no way the ordinary Canadian can communicate with his government with this situation that exists at the moment.
Let me refer to several remarks made by the Prime Minister and other members on the government side. I would refer first of all to the Prime Minister's remarks in

Winnipeg on October 21. The postal strike had not even begun at that time when the Prime Minister was asked: Would you say categorically that postal workers will get no more by striking than they would if they don't strike?
The Prime Minister replied:
Yes, that's right. Whether they strike or not, and whether we make an agreement with them that is a little higher or a little lower, it will be referred to the Anti-Inflation Board in any case and they will judge if the government is acting within the guidelines.
He went on toward the end of this paragraph by stating:
If they get a wage which is higher than the guidelines, it's going to be taken away from them by way of taxes anyhow.
A few days later in Toronto, on October 24, the Prime Minister was asked what alternatives there are for the settlement of the postal situation, and he said:
Well, we've made that quite clear. The Postmaster General... has made that clear on behalf of the government. We've made them an offer which we think is fair, which is more than the 12 per cent because the bargaining has been going on for ten months and because historically they were on a par with the other half of the union and we said: "We think that under the exceptions provided for in the guidelines, we can give you more than the 12 per cent, a little bit more. If we're wrong, the Anti-Inflation Board will knock us down but we think we can."
I refer to those two statements because I think this illustrates that, whatever action the government takes, the buck is going to be passed along to the Anti-Inflation Board.
Let me refer to some answers made in this House during the last few weeks. The theme has always been that the government does not want to take any action. Certainly there has been enough urging from this side of the House.
On October 27 the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) was asked whether the government had decided on the length of time the postal strike would be allowed to go on, and the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister was no. He was then asked whether any settlement reached in the current negotiations would be subject to the approval of the Anti-Inflation Board, and the Acting Prime Minister replied:
-that will be the law as soon as this legislation has been approved by this parliament.
There is no conflict there. The next day the Acting Prime Minister said it was the government's view that postal workers should resume work when the settlement is reached. That was in response to a question asking whether the government might consider back-to-work legislation.
The government has been consistent in one position. The Prime Minister and the Postmaster General have often repeated that they have no intention of taking action to end this stoppage.
It is not usual for the opposition to provide solutions to the government's problems, but very often people ask us what we would do. Of course what we would do is not really relevant because we are not the government, and it is the government that must solve its own problems.


An hon. Member:: It is very easy to understand why you are over there and you will stay there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just quieten down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
November 17, 1975


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Let me present one or two ideas to gentlemen on the other side. It is only fair, when the government demonstrates its inability to come to grips with problems, that we should adopt a fair attitude and give some ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The best solution we could probably give, and this would follow from remarks that have been made, is that a secret ballot be held under the supervision of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. The Prime Minister indicated earlier this month that such an idea deserved some consideration and he would be willing to give it that consideration at some time, but we do not know when that will be.
A more practical solution, in my view, would be to pass back-to-work legislation. This would provide for the continuation of negotiations, and perhaps arbitration. I know a joint committee is expected to report on the right to strike in essential services before too many weeks have passed.
Back-to-work legislation has a number of advantages. First, it would restore services to post office customers. It would restore labourers' wages and take the heat off the postal workers and their families, especially now with the approaching Christmas season. It would allow negotiations to continue without either side having to worry about saving face. In fact I am unable to find any argument which would lead me to believe that back-to-work legislation would be intolerable.
Another suggestion is that the government could grant more money. The Postmaster General has refused to do this, and I understand his reasoning behind that refusal. However, I think it is well documented that whatever settlement is offered and accepted will go to the AntiInflation Board for approval. I think that has been amply assured by the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General.
I have another suggestion which I think should be explored. We should not follow our old practices just by force of habit. The government should consider altering section 8 of the Post Office Act. This section gives the Postmaster General the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, conveying, and delivering letters within Canada. This should be changed to allow others to share in the privilege of performing this service. This is not the first time the suggestion has been made.
On April 25, 1974-there was no postal strike at that time-I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House concerning a postal disruption, of all things. The motion was:
That this House give immediate consideration to taking whatever action is necessary to repeal the grant of monopoly to the Canada Post Office in order to allow private enterprisers to offer competitive service, thereby giving the people of Canada the opportunity, in a genuinely free and competitive market, to buy postal services they need from the most efficient supplier thereof.
I remember that day because it was the only time in my three years in this House that I was able to raise the then leader of the New Democratic Party right off his seat to shout "No". Before anyone thinks this is something I am
Postal Strike
making up and that it is a silly idea, I should like to say I do have a little support.
I think there are other things such as telephone services and radio services that are provided not only by governments but also by private enterprise. Barron's, a financial weekly in the United States, recently made a contrast on the performance of the United States Post Office and the privately owned Bell telephone companies. They noted that the per worker volume in the United States postal service increased by 56 per cent over the same period in which the Bell telephone companies had increased their performance by 169 per cent. It is also pointed out that while first-class postal rates have gone up by 400 per cent, Bell's long-distance rates have been cut by up to 50 per cent. It is also pointed out that the Post Office in the United States drained off $23 billion from tax revenues during the same period that the Bell telephone companies had put $54 billion into public coffers through tax payments.
I think the moral is that Ottawa and Washington should give serious consideration to how to relieve the taxpayers of the terrible burden they are presently being called upon to carry. I do not expect the government will pay too much attention to the solutions I am putting forward with some feeling tonight; however, the purpose of my remarks and this debate is to see whether the government side will finally appreciate, through the efforts of the official opposition and the help we offer them, that the people of Canada want their postal service restored. They deserve to have it restored. It is time the government did something. It is the government which must make the decision.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the member from my neighbouring riding says, "Quit picking on him". I do not need to say that. Considering the views of the majority of the Conervative and Liberal members, I think I would find myself in an abnormal position if they were not attacking me or, as he says, picking on me. I do not mind being in that position.
Before I come to the highly bizarre motion moved by the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon, I should like to say that the postal strike is an extremely serious and troublesome matter. It causes inconvenience for the vast majority of Canadians. No one would question that. It causes more than inconvenience for people who depend on pension cheques, people who depend on welfare cheques and people who depend on family allowance cheques. For all such people it is more than an inconvenience; it involves real hardship. There can be no question about that.
If the "experts" on labour matters to my right-the Conservatives-will be quiet, I will continue. In addition to these groups, small businessmen throughout the country have found themselves in an extremely precarious situation. There is no question about that. If I may say so, the postal workers know this also. I think it is very important for us to recognize that they are workingmen and women in this country who have the legal right to strike given to them by this parliament. A conservative member says, "By mistake". Presumably that represents the position of the Conservative party. The truth is that they have that right and, as is the case with other workers, they ought to have the right to exercise it, if it means anything.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
At a certain point in any strike, whether it is in the public or private sector, the public harm being done might well outweigh, in terms of responsibility, the right to strike itself and we may find ourselves at some point in the difficult position of having to support or, in the case of the government, having to recommend back to work legislation. However, this is something which should not be done lightly if we respect the rights of the workers in this country as well as the rights of the public.
Having said that, I want to come to the immediate situation in terms of the trade union and the Post Office authority negotiations. There can be no doubt there is now a deadlock, that progress is not being made. Equally, there can be no doubt that it is desirable that progress be made both for the public good and for the workers' good. In so far as those of us in parliament can judge, it appears that any contribution we make should not be one of interfering in a negative way in the collective bargaining process. Hopefully, suggestions will be made which will lead to a mutually agreeable solution.
I regard as a serious mistake the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon, supported by the government, which said that the the postal workers involved would have to reconsider their answer or reject the proposal made by the government and rejected by their bargaining committee. I find that is not a good approach. I say this in all seriousness to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). I shall be interested to hear what he has to say in the debate.
In respect of the traditional action of the employer who does not bargain in good faith, there is always an attempt to undermine the democratically elected negotiating team which is responsible to its employees. Normally, this attempt comes from the employer and not openly from the politicians. They try to say that the membership will reject its leaders. I say that because this motion would have led to putting to the membership a proposal, on parliament's initiative, which would represent only the government's position. This would be unfair to the collective bargaining process and therefore would be inappropriate. Quite apart from that, I wish the mover of the motion had checked the law and the authority of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, because it has no jurisdiction to conduct the procedures required by the motion and, of course, the CLC did not give its approval to be included in this motion. So the motion was wrong procedurally and wrong in substance. In short, it was destructive of effecting a settlement, and that is why I did not hesitate to make it clear, regardless of short run public reaction, that I thought it was a mistake, and I do not back down from that at all.
I was in the process this afternoon of making a suggestion to which I hope the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) will listen-if I could only get the attention of hon. members-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. At the present time the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has the floor and he should be allowed to complete his speech.


John Edward Broadbent: During the question period I made a suggestion to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which, I was pleased to see, he did not categorically reject. He said that he did not think the steps I suggested, and upon which I will elaborate now, need be categorically rejected in terms of being useful at any time, but he said they would not be useful now. I should like to make the following proposal to the Postmaster General, with the additional emphasis that it be done now and that we do not wait any longer.
I would like to ask the Postmaster General to get in touch as soon as possible with the postal workers to agree mutually upon a single mediator who could be called in now. Clearly we need such a person because, both in terms of the issues at stake and in terms of a certain personality conflict, I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Just a minute. I think we need someone who could deal with the issues and bring the conflicting personalities together. Second, this mediator would have the task of bringing the two sides together to try immediately to get a mutually agreeable series of propositions. Third, after 72 hours, if there has not been an agreement reached by the two sides, the mediator would publish his set of recommendations. Fourth, these published recommendations, after the 72 hour period if no agreement is reached, would be considered by the government and by the trade union negotiators. If no agreement is reached by a mediator, these proposals would then be submitted to the membership of the union for their consideration together with their trade union negotiating team's recommendation as to whether the membership should or should not accept the mediator's proposal.
It seems to me that that would be a constructive move at this time because it would not force acceptance upon the trade union membership of a set of proposals that their democratically elected membership has rejected. For me it has a very important element of fairness in it in that it recognizes-and I want to say something very briefly about the details of the points that are still in dispute-the possibility during the next 72 hours of getting a mutually agreeable solution, and that of course would be the best one by far because there are quite a number of clauses that are not in agreement yet.
The minister knows that once you get rid of the trivial matters there are, relatively speaking, a handful of issues at stake and I submit that concerning the handful of major issues at stake the positions of both sides are not radically different, that the two sides are not far apart on the important questions. Therefore, I suggest that the mediator could play a constructive role in trying to bring these people together.
What are a few of the basic issues that seem to be worthy of consideration, and worthy of some move both on the part of the Post Office and on the part of the union? First of all, there is the union's concern for a reduction in the work week. What the union wants is not something that is new; it is something that is possessed by many workers, in Canada, and indeed it is possessed in principle by over 60 per cent of the federal public employees. What they want is to reduce the work week from 40 to 35 hours. The govern-
November 17, 1975

ment will not budge, but I repeat that over 60 per cent of public employees in Canada now have 37 'A hours. That at least is a position somewhere between what the government is offering now to the postal workers and what the union itself wants. It is surely something in which a mediator could play a useful role.
Second, the trade union is concerned that the mail handlers' salaries be improved. I ask you, Madam Speaker, and I appeal to members of parliament to consider the point they are making here. There are approximately 2,500 mail handlers as compared to some 18,500 postal clerks. At present the mail handlers-that very small minority of the total-get some 36 cents an hour less than the postal clerks.
What the postal workers want is to remove that disparity between the two sets of workers involved in essentially the same activity, and it seems to me that that is a very reasonable request. They want for that very small group of 2,500 workers, to remove that 36 cent an hour differential which exists between them and the 18,500 postal clerks. I say that in terms of equity and fairness it seems a reasonable proposition, and that in terms of the cost to the Treasury it is infinitesimally small. So again I say that there is surely a role for a mediator to play. In terms of what the union wants it seems to me that a good case could be made for going all the way, but at least we could move some way in that direction.
Third, there is the COLA clause. The government, as hon. members may know-I am sure the Conservatives have looked at all the details with great care and consideration as they usually do in such matters-in terms of its COLA clause proposals will give 1 cent an hour for every 4 per cent increase in the consumer price index up to a total of 10 cents for three months.
The point I am making on the COLA clause is that the ceiling the government is putting on that clause should be removed, and I think it should be removed for other employees as well. Why have that cap on at all? As a general proposition it seems to me that it is good not to have a ceiling on it, but in particular in the context of the government's anti-inflation program, if it is going to be successfull, as it claims it will be in reducing the cost of living next year, it has absolutely nothing to fear in terms of the COLA clause proposal of the postal workers. So if its other government policy is successful, it will not lose a cent in removing the cap on the COLA clause. Again it seems to me that that is an item on which a mediator could contribute some advice to both sides.
There are two other issues, but I do not think I will go into details on them. I will simply assert that on the long service pay issue, and on the equal pay for part-time and full-time employees issues, the positions separating the union and the government are not wide apart.
If you look at all these major issues which separate the two parties-major in terms of their concern-you will find two things. First, they are few in number and, second, the distance between the Post Office on the one hand and the postal workers on the other is not great. It therefore seems to me, Madam Speaker, that the proposal I am making tonight for my party, namely, for the appointment of a mediator who would be given a 72-hour mandate to try to bring the two groups together, in the public interest, and to agree on something on a voluntary basis, is reasonable.
Postal Strike
If they do not agree, the mediator would then publish his own recommendations so that the public could make some judgment about the government's attitude and also, in fairness in terms of respecting the impartial nature of the mediator, the proposals should be sent to the trade union membership along with their own bargaining committee's assessment of them.
I think this proposal has a chance of working. I do not want to claim any more than that. It would interfere in a minimal way with the collective bargaining process, and perhaps would have a chance of getting the Post Office back into operation and the postal workers back to work under conditions they might find acceptable.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) for having moved this motion to adjourn to discuss that famous issue of the postal strike, whose study is essential and whose settlement is urgent for all Canadians.
For many years, we have been tackling disastrous strikes, more especially in the civil service. Why? Because we have forgotten the main thing, Madam Speaker, and personally, I have always been convinced that we have been elected to this House to protect the rights of the majority in Canada.
Now in this postal strike, a group of workers, whether they are 20,000, 22,000 or more, are trampling the right of 23 million Canadians to a postal service. The government should therefore require compliance with this right and refrain from walking on a tightrope. On one hand, we hear labour leaders repeat that the minister does not want to resume negotiations while the Postmaster General stated once again today in the House that he is always ready to negotiate.
In all this muddle, who is right and who is wrong? Will government try once more to sit on the fence while avoiding to take the steps that are called for the return to work and that would settle all these disputes once and for all, by creating an arbitration board granted with all appropriate powers of decision.
When will the government cease to make the public pay for its listlessness and its lack of leadership? Why not take a direct action to create and develop suitable and permanent mechanisms to ensure that such crises will not recur continually?
In the Post Office, more than anywhere else, especially in the large centres, due to the number of unions operating inside the postal service, one day we have the truck drivers' strike, another day that of the letter carriers, today it is the postal workers. It is an endless succession of strikes, and that has been going for many years, Madam Speaker.
Who is victimized by all these strikes? The Canadian public. Who could in fact settle all these strikes? None other than the government and union leaders, because they are the ones who have the ability to settle these strikes within the civil service. Madam Speaker, I suggest the government is more than any body responsible for all these strikes which are causing the Canadian economy to deteriorate. We have suggested to the government on a number

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
of occasions the logical and equitable way to clean up relations within the civil service.
But the government prefers to play the political game and let the Canadian public believe that all the wrongs are on the unions' side. I cannot completely excuse a number of union leaders because, when I consider what is going on, and having talked to a number of postal workers in my own area, I wonder if they really abide by the democratic law which they preach both in respect of the government and their membership, when they insist on a vote by a show of hands whenever the time comes for important decision making such as going on strike.
In order to demonstrate their sincerity, since they claim they are sincere, we can see them all day long on TV to demonstrate their sincerity. Why do these union leaders themselves not propose a secret ballot to the government which is too fearful to step in, Madam Speaker?
When I mention a secret ballot, I am reminded of the New Democratic Party's action. I was very surprised at hon. members of that party opposing the secret ballot. I believe that if there is a way to express one's view freely and democratically, it is through the secret ballot. I wonder why the New Democratic Party members reject such a policy. It is the only way to be fair to everybody and I am convinced-


The Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry I have to interrupt the hon. member-

There are so many private debates going on that the official reporters are having difficulty hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Perhaps if these private conversations could be held behind the curtains it would help the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, and I thank you very much because I was going to attract your attention to say that about ten groups wanted to deliver their speeches at the same time as me. It is annoying to have ten groups speak at the same time. I would like to be able to finish my speech quietly and my friends who are on the frontbenches will speak all night long if they wish to speak, because we may stay here all night long.
I am sorry; I would like to answer them but my time is too short.
If the minister asked for a secret ballot, I am convinced there would be surprises on both sides, and the Canadian people as a whole would know who is right and who is wrong.
Christmas and New Year are coming and I cannot conceive that the responsible persons on both sides are unable to act loyally, which would end the conflict immediately. Government and union leaders remind me of two teams of wrestlers eager to win but, unlike true professional wres-

tiers who fight legally in a ring, they fight at the expenses of Canadian taxpayers. Madam Speaker, this is what we cannot admit. You will agree with me that this fight is most disgusting. We note that both parties try not to lose face before their members or the public. We know that it might be humiliating for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) to introduce special legislation requiring postal workers to go back to work and we also know that the union leaders secretly hope for such action to disguise their defeat in front of a minister who finds their demands exaggerated. After all, an increase of $1.70 an hour would give postal workers an average hourly salary of $6.26 and this, solely to sort letters, Madam Speaker. To initiate a first agreement they were offered $6.26 an hour. This is acceptable to begin with and I know by experience that many postal workers are ready to accept it, but the leaders require $2.73 an hour, which would yield an average salary of $7.29 an hour.
Let me read you an excerpt from the newspaper Le Quotidien dated November 13 last. I quote:
On the other hand, there will be a waiting period until Mr. Bryce Mackasey returns to Ottawa, although he had not changed his stand on an increase of $1.70 an hour over 30 months. For its part, the union is asking $2.73 over 27 months. The average hourly rate is now $4.56 and the government proposal would increase the annual salary to about $13,000 from now till the end of 1976.
That strikes me as a reasonable start, until better can be achieved. In that way, the people would be given a chance. I go back to the quotation:
Mr. Joe Davidson, president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, returning from a visit to southern Ontario branches, stated Tuesday in Ottawa that his union was ready to resume negotiations ...
I believe Mr. Davidson is becoming more lenient. He claims to be willing to resume negotiations. I feel that may mean he will get his members to accept $1.70 initially, because he is convinced, as everyone else today, that most of the postal workers want the strike to end.
In my area, for instance, every rural post office is now open. Employees continue to get their cheques. In rural ridings you do not notice it too much but in large centres where there is no mail that bothers us a bit. Our post offices are open, they are ready, they want this to end and we are told that it is the union leaders who are too radical.
One only has to read the papers to see the number of people who want this strike to end. People say they are prepared to accept the monetary proposals. But there is a dictatorship from union leaders who want to defend the honour of their royalty over their subjects. Union leaders talk strongly about democracy and they are the first ones to care the least about it. Several members want a secret vote to get justice but union bouncers oppose it. Madam Speaker. Why? To develop their famous mail delivery service they set up at $1.25, $1.50 and $2.00 per unit. Will that result in money savings for our fellow citizens who already pay for the postal service? Madam Speaker, where are we going with such a mess? Who has the authority finally here in this Parliament? Would it be Mr. Pepin and all the others, or the minister and the government, or still the cabinet who has the authority? With that feverish fear of a possible reaction at election time, this government shirks all its responsibilities in all areas and we had a striking example of that the other day when we heard the Minister of Finance state that he had no power over the Bank of
November 17, 1975

Canada. How about that! Today will the Postmaster General refuse to take his responsibilities, to do what everyone expects him to do? Will all departments join that stampede? I hope not, Madam Speaker.
So tonight we are asking this government, in awaiting other solutions, to issue a back to work order and demand a secret vote when a strike is called to protect the individual freedom of all union members who often cannot express themselves at a general meeting for fear of reprisals. That is what I wanted to say to the Postmaster General tonight, and I hope he will take his responsibilities once and for all.
\English]


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, I join the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) in wishing the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), whose advice I miss, renewed health. May I also assure the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that he was in no way responsible for my illness last Friday. I have a personal responsibility not to sit in the House of Commons one minute longer than I must, if sitting here means wrecking my health. That much, at least, I owe my family.
I could take many avenues in discussing this matter. I could talk to the negotiating team sitting behind me in the gallery, waiting with baited breath for me, perhaps, to tear a strip off them, but that would be a waste of time and effort.
I listened with attention to the philosophy expounded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), much of which I support. We must consider why, in our type of society, we tolerate strikes. I think the Post Office strike has shown from the first week that our people have adjusted to it psychologically. It is amazing how people can adjust, if they think they should for the good of the democratic system. I suggest that is happening in Canada today.
Talking about strikes, I recall Kenneth Galbraith saying one day that the only strike which really bothered him was an elevator strike, because his office was on the forty-fifth floor of the Empire State Building. He said, "Of course, the problem was easy to solve." I asked him what he did. He said he went down to the street and rented an office on the bottom floor.
As someone properly pointed out, new technology is making the Post Office less important for a greater number of Canadians. People are using computer service, new technology, getting by with telex, and using the telephone. We are sending out senior citizen cheques. It is true that small businessmen and those in the direct mail business are badly affected by this strike, but it is remarkable that fewer than 50 of the 3,800 telegrams sent registered complaints.
Our greatest support has come from people in the direct mail industry. They say, "For goodness sake, let's have one good strike and get it over with, instead of having these illegal stoppages which have plagued the office for the past five years." That is my feeling, too.
The leader of the New Democratic Party, a good leader, tried to have it both ways, which is not unusual. He stood
Postal Strike
up and said that the suggestion of the Conservative party was ridiculous. I suggest it was not nearly as ridiculous as his suggestion that we introduce a mediator at this late stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He should know that if the PSSR Act does not permit the particular power that is suggested, when we pass legislation it will be an easy matter to include since parliament reigns supreme. I have philosophically no trouble introducing into the legislation, at the disposal of an independent body, which is the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the particular power that it may need in order to bring order out of chaos in the odd strike in the public service. This is quite consistent with the power they now have. It might be the answer.
The cruel thing about the suggestion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is that it leaves those workers, who normally would be quite satisfied with the settlement, once again with the hope that to hang on for another ten days or two weeks may bring them more.


John Edward Broadbent: Three days.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member in his excitement wants to have the best of both worlds. Just relax a little.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We did not hear him scream when the NDP government in British Columbia took the right to strike away from the workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: His little suggestion that the mediator by settling three or four clauses would end the strike is not new. One would only add 12l/2 per cent to the 38 per cent already on the table, bringing the total-


An hon. Member:: How do you know that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is easy to calculate. The hon. member does not know that to reduce the work week from 40 hours to 35 is 12 XA per cent of the wage package. He cannot figure that out! The hon. member also said that we should reduce it to 35, and perhaps call for 37 Vi since most people in the public service have a 3714 hour work week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I did not interrupt the hon. member; perhaps that was because he did not say anything to excite me. Then he complained about the formula of the COLA clause. There are about 68 on record. He did not point out that if the union were to get the COLA clause it would be only the second bargaining unit in the public service to get it. He also used the reverse argument that they should work 371/2 hours because virtually everybody in the public service is doing that. In other words, he wants comparability when it suits him, but he does not want to follow the general pattern of the public service where it does not suit him.
The hon. member need not think for one minute that I am the least bit worried about face saving. I have a better

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
suggestion than a mediator. It would save 72 hours. That is that we put out to the membership tomorrow the conciliation board chairman's report, a chairman who was selected by the union, a chairman who is a member of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. Probably the solution to this is not to take the government's last offer, but to take the report of the conciliation board chairman, submit it to the membership of the union and see if they are satisfied with it. The hon. member may turn around for advice to those who are more knowledgeable behind him, but if he looks this way he will learn a little more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: He might learn that in the conciliation board chairman's report is no inclusion for part-time workers of week-end premiums, something we gladly included, and not through hard bargaining but because it was a social right for regular workers and therefore a social right for part-time workers. This was not included in the conciliation board chairman's report but we extended it to 5,000 part-time workers.
I will be very happy to take that report, which is a very neutral report by a very learned judge, one who was named chairman by both parties, union and management. Perhaps our mistake was trying to improve on it through negotiations instead of simply taking it at this time of anti-inflation, submitting it to the membership, and suggesting that they, like all Canadians, have the good sense to practise a bit of restraint and follow the recommendations of the judge.
Just in case some members may think that the judge's recommendations were harsh, he suggested a 40 hour week, and $1.70 over 30 months with a COLA clause, the same as the other unit. In addition, he introduced a principle that took a lot of persuasion to accept. The principle is that if you regularly work Saturday and Sunday, not overtime but regularly, you are entitled to a premium of 75 cents for Sundays and 60 cents for Saturdays. I wonder how many bus drivers, streetcar drivers-who had to wait around for 15 hours to get in five hours-railway workers, airline workers, or cab drivers get an extra 75 cents an hour for working Sunday and 60 cents an hour for Saturday. This was recommended by the judge. I accepted it in principle. I did not accept the amount, but in negotiation we gave that to the union.
Possibly the main breakthrough in the report of the judge was the clause on automation. The irony is that the Postmaster General who is now being classed as reactionary brought in that particular clause in private industry.
The union said they had to have this clause if they were going to continue working in the Post Office.
We all remember "Boycott the Postal Code". That was the slogan. We all remember the union leaders telling us how effective the boycott was, and how they had nullified automation. They are sitting up there. They will tell you they were able to offset automation by boycotting the postal code. It is significant that, despite the fact that nowhere in the public service does such a provision exist, this judge felt it logical, proper, and moral in this day and age that workers be protected against the effects of technology, a view I share.

It is significant that Treasury Board in its wisdom agreed to include in this collective agreement complete and utter protection against the effects of technology when introduced by management, namely, a clause which says you must notify them, the union, in writing in ample time so that they can prepare to accept or reject the right to negotiate and then, if after so many days no settlement is reached, the matter goes to arbitration. I think there is a limit of 15 days within which the arbitrator must bring back a settlement, as in the case of the railways.
So in addition to the COLA clause which is unique in the public service, in addition to the weekend premiums which are unique virtually anywhere in Canada, you have this unique provision protecting public servants against the effects of automation. Indeed, they have complete security against lay-offs due to lack of business. I would like to include one day in our collective agreement provisions which would allow the Postmaster General of the day to have his work staff fluctuate with the volume of mail which comes in. Then you might get an efficient Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I might remind the postal workers and the union leaders that they have lost the equivalent of 3,500 man-year positions due to their illegal work stoppages over the last five years. They have yet to lose a single job through automation. Are we asking these workers to make a sacrifice? Do you think negotiations began in October? The hon. gentleman has gone to lick his wounds, but that is all right.
I want to make it clear that my objective is still to arrive at a negotiated settlement. On November 9, on television, in answer to a question I said on the issue of part time workers, which the hon. gentleman mentioned tonight, that we could begin negotiations there and then, that very evening. The trouble with this negotiating team is they never know when they've got a good bargain or when they have a good deal. They cannot seem to understand there does come a moment where there is just no more money to give them. If they think they are going to sit down tomorrow with a mediator, the Postmaster General or anybody representing the government, and end up with a settlement for less then 40 hours a week, or more than $1.70 an hour, for a shorter period than 30 months, they are dreaming in technicolour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is true whether the strike lasts a day, a week, a month or a year. It is a matter of principle here. We argue in this House sometimes about private enterprise. I think we all agree that sometimes there is bad management of business. You can get bad landlords, which means rent controls. You can get bad leadership.


An hon. Member:: And bad government!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This has been going on since last January. Just in case anybody thinks that the bargaining unit- and I am not including myself as Postmaster General- cannot negotiate, take the case of the other union, the
November 17, 1975

letter carriers. They began bargaining in January. They bargained for a certain period of time, they went to a conciliation board, they bargained and went to mediation, and in June they arrived at what they considered to be the best collective agreement they had ever obtained, an agreement which was ratified by 82 per cent of the membership.
This union came in in March with a demand emanating from a union newspaper. Coupled with this demand were certain prerequisites, as they called them. Before they would even start negotiating we had to convert the Post Office into a Crown corporation. They also wanted an immediate raise of $1 an hour before they would even begin negotiating, plus one or two minor items. Finally, after getting through the conciliation officer stage in June, which at least brought in their demands, they got to the conciliation board stage in September-October-about then-and, as I mentioned, the Public Service Staff Relations Board named Jules Moisan of the Quebec Superior Court as chairman. This was after getting both parties to agree to the judge.
Because so little had been accomplished as a result of this harassment, this demand that the Post Office become a Crown corporation before negotiations could take place, it took that poor gentleman eight weeks of constant discussion with both parties in order to arrive at what is known as the Moisan report-the report of the chairman of that board. It was not a unanimous report; it was not even a majority report in the sense that we agreed only in principle to the weekend premium without putting any monetary value on it. It is wrong to say our position was inflexible since our first position was $1.15 for 32 months and did not include weekend premiums or specific benefit for part-time workers. We were very flexible, Madam Speaker.
I realize there are others who wish to speak, and there is a vote coming on pretty soon. I do not wish to continue afterward, but I might say that by April 24 there had been no less than eight meetings with that union. Finally, in July, they met with the conciliation officer and it was July 21 before they even sat down to hear the terms of reference. The conciliation board worked from August 18 to October 7 and negotiated from October 16 to November 6. People might ask, "How come there was a strike?" The answer is very simple. While we were negotiating in good faith, the union, because it did not have a strike mandate- and I say that publicly and as an honourable gentleman of this House-arranged in the dead of night with the minority in the major cities to set up picket lines so that the silent majority, the older workers, the responsible Canadians who only want to earn their living like anybody else, found themselves confronted when they went to the workplace with picket lines they did not dare cross.
What was the advantage to the membership to go on strike in the middle of negotiations? We in the government have no right to lock out. There was no particular advantage other than frighten off the majority of workers who were more than happy with the report of the conciliation chairman if through some legal means they could have had an opportunity of expressing that opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Postal Strike


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. minister may continue with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I presume somebody else on the other side will be able to take up where the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) left off. I do not want to escalate any controversy tonight; I hope to make a quiet contribution, if I may. It did seem to me that the Postmaster General was threshing over some recent history rather than telling the House what he proposes to do in the present emergency. We start off from a common position.
Mr. Speaker, if some of those fellows with louder voices and keener minds would keep quiet for a few minutes, we could perhaps make a little progress. I might suggest that this is the kind of controversy in which a little reason and a little less heat might produce a little more light.
We start off with the position that parliament has given the postal workers the right to strike. But all parties in the House recognize that there comes a point when the public interest must prevail and that the right to strike should be curtailed or modified in the particular situation. I think we agree that serious damage is being done as the strike continues. There is great inconvenience; there is perhaps irreparable harm being done to certain agencies, such as that well known charitable agency that depends very heavily upon the sale of Christmas seals. There is no need to document the damage that is being done.
I might remind the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) that not everyone is in the position in which John Kenneth Galbraith found himself, that when he could not reach his accommodation on the fortieth floor he went down the street and rented some other accommodation. It is not everyone who can make up for the lack of a postal service by sending telegrams or using the telephone. If I may borrow a phrase commonly used by the Postmaster General, res ipsa loquitur.
The strike is continuing, with the main issue being the demand for rates of pay-I want to make sure I state it correctly-which are higher than the government says its anti-inflationary program will permit. In other words, the government's guidelines do not restrict the right to strike in this instance, but the government's anti-inflationary guidelines certainly circumscribe the scope of collective bargaining. So that when the government says it is a question of balancing the public interest against interference with free collective bargaining, we in this House must take note that the government, in the name of the public interest, has already taken a position in its fight against inflation and introduced legislation to limit increases in pay for which any labour union can bargain. I say it is

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
proposing limits on the right to collective bargaining for a far longer period than I find acceptable.
The union is seeking increases that are higher than the government says its guidelines will permit. The purpose of the continuing strike essentially is to persuade the government to accept a bigger increase than its guidelines permit. So it is really pretty silly, if I may speak frankly and bluntly, for the government to say that it does not want to interfere with the collective bargaining process, because it has already done that.
I also say it is pretty silly for the government to refuse to restore the postal service to the Canadian people, pretending that it is preserving the legal right of the union which it has already modified. Leaving aside for a moment the question whether the right to strike in essential services should be modified, and leaving aside for a moment all the difficulties that any such question raises or that any such position brings forward, the fact is that the anti-inflationary guidelines have been adopted by the government indicating a firm determination by the government to limit the scope of collective bargaining in so far as wage and salary increases are concerned. In these circumstances, it surely is close to hypocrisy for the government to say that it will not ask parliament to order a return to work, when the government has already decreed there is no way in which the union can get the higher wages it is striking for.
I have to ask myself whether there is not another motive for the position that the government is taking. Is the government refusing to ask parliament to intervene because doing so would in some way take the union off the hook? Is the government insisting that, despite all the damage being done to the public, the union has to be made to learn that it has to accept responsibility here? Parliament would not be letting the union off the hook if there was a back to work direction given by parliament, because any such order would be within the anti-inflationary guidelines of the government.
If the government is serious about holding to its guidelines it, the government, has to place the union on the hook-if we are going to talk about someone being on a hook. It is not a question of parliament taking the union off the hook. All of us in the House, including the government, have to recognize that the government has, by adopting its guidelines, placed the union on a hook and proposes to keep it there during the life of its wage and price guidelines program. So there is no question of taking the union off the hook.
Is the government's concern that parliament might take the union executive off the hook? The leaders of this union may not be very popular. It may be popular for the government to attack them; I do not know. But the public is certainly fed up with disruptions in postal service. Surely it is not our business in parliament, and it is not the business of the government, to try to break a union executive and to put the public to great loss and inconvenience in the process.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition but it being 9.30, pursuant to the order made earlier this House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the

motion for second reading of Bill C-58, and on the motion pursuant to Standing Order 58 (9) (a) standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent). May I remind hon. members that it has been agreed, also, that the bells will ring for 15 minutes only. Call in the members.




Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House rejects the government's anti-inflationary program because it is totally unworkable in terms of controlling prices, because it provides no effective control over profits or professional incomes, and because it is completely unfair to wage and salary earners in Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.		
Motion (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made today the	
House will now	resume consideration of the motion of the	
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke). Before		

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
doing so, however, the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) rises on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might take advantage of a pause in the deliberations to announce the business for tomorrow and the rest of the week.
In the interest of getting as many bills forward into committee as quickly as possible I propose that we deal with the following bills, hopefully by Friday, Thursday being an opposition day: Bill C-75 dealing with government annuities, Bill C-61 maritime code, and Bill C-71 dealing with amendments to the Criminal Code.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE STRIKE OF POSTAL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House do now adjourn.
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the bell for the vote I was emphasizing that the government had already substantially restricted the scope of collective bargaining as a result of its anti-inflationary program, and that consequently it was very close to hypocrisy for the government to refrain from taking any action or put any measure before parliament, on the grounds that this would interfere with a right given to the postal workers by parliament when, as a matter of general policy, the government had expressed its determination that the scope of collective bargaining would be limited during the course of its control program, and had made it very clear that there was no way in which the union could get more than had been offered to them.
I therefore had to ask myself what the real motive was for the government's failure to act. It cannot be explained on the ground that a return to work order by parliament would take the union off the hook, because the government has already placed the union on a hook that will last as long as the control programs are in place. I had to ask myself therefore what the reason was for the government's behaviour, the reason for the Postmaster General's reiteration of the position here tonight that a good long strike would be a good thing. I do not want to misquote him or misinterpret him, but that is what I understood him to say-that a good long strike would be a good thing for the country. In the circumstances I had to ask whether the reason for this was the desire of the government to break the union executive, and incidentally to put the public to great loss and inconvenience in the process.
There certainly have been cases of government intervention in the management and operation of unions. In some

instances unions have been put into trusteeship. Is the government in this instance trying to accomplish through the pressure of a long strike what it is not prepared to do openly? If the government lets things go on until Easter, if the government encourages continuance of a strike of these postal employees until Easter, as the minister says he is prepared to do, the government may very well destroy the union executive, and perhaps the union itself, and would certainly also destroy a lot of Canadian people in the process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While John Kenneth Galbraith may be able to look after himself, there are a lot of Canadians who cannot look after themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There has been discussion about the advisability of a vote. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) put forward a constructive motion this afternoon which the government accepted. The leader of the New Democratic party this evening suggested that was an unwarranted intervention, that there was no legal authority to do it in the first place, that it was an unwarranted intervention in the affairs of the union, and he then proposed a modification of this which the Postmaster General, in his turn, ridiculed. I had the impression from what has been said, and from my own background, that any question could be put to the membership of the union either only with the approval of the executive or by a change in legislation. That would be the case whether it is the proposal of the leader of the New Democratic Party or the proposal of the hon. member for St. John's East and legislation would be required.
The leader of the New Democratic Party did not indicate whether the union accepted his proposal. I assume he was not speaking with the authority or approval of the union. I want to say I feel certain that, if there is a way of getting a vote of the membership on a reasonable proposition within a reasonable period of time, parliament and the people of Canada would be prepared to wait for that.
I do not want to be unfair but I do not think the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) indicated this evening that he would take constructive action to settle this issue. He had plenty of time, although there was not enough time for him to review the last ten years of postal negotiations and tell the House what he intends to do.
In summary I say, as my time is nearly finished, that we should do all we can to bring before the membership this question in a fair way, in order that there may be a vote. If that cannot be done, if legislation for accomplishing that purpose must be introduced, then in the national interest the government should ask parliament to order a return to work, with a provision for continued negotiation for limited time. I repeat what I said several times previously. It is sheer hypocrisy, or close to it, for the government to say it cannot do that because it would be an intervention in the collective bargaining process; after all, the government has already intervened drastically. It has limited the scope of
November 17, 1975

collective bargaining by adopting and being determined to enforce its guidelines.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the contributions of members of the opposition parties in this House, and I listened to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). I ask again what do opposition members say to the government should be done at this stage?


Walter David Baker: Get off the pot.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I will try to be fair and analyse the statements made so far. The mover of the motion, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some noise in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the co-operation of all hon. members. I hesitate to invite those talking too loudly to leave the House, as we want as many hon. members as possible to remain. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has the floor.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion proposed three courses of action: he suggested that the government should consider back-to-work legislation, which is the sum and substance of his leader's recommendations; that the government should pay more money, although in the next breath he said that this must be approved by the Anti-Inflation Board, which is hardly a suggestion he could make in good faith in light of the clear guidelines proposed; or that we should do something with regard to section 8 of the Post Office Act which would mean, in effect, the dismantling of the department. Surely that was not a serious proposal.
Clearly the sum and substance of the recommendations of the official opposition are that we should consider back to work legislation as soon as possible. I want to examine the implications of that.


Walter David Baker: That is not so. You are only putting part of the case.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am drawing my own conclusions, having listened attentively to official opposition spokesmen and NDP spokesmen.
What is the position of the NDP? They favour free collective bargaining but say that under present procedures strikes now and again must occur. Further, they say that the Postmaster General, in his dealings with the union membership, is showing bad faith as an employer. That was the expression the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) used. Then the NDP suggested that we should appoint a mediator who would look at certain
issues. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby elucidated his position in the clearest terms.
He suggested that the work week should be reduced. That would have added 12 per cent to the package of 38 per cent.


John Edward Broadbent: You did not listen.
Postal Strike


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The reduction of working hours is the same as an increase in pay. It is one or the other.


John Edward Broadbent: You did not listen.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member can talk all he wants. He cannot get around the fact. Then he talked about a small thing, the elimination of the differential with the letter carriers, a mere matter of 35 cents an hour. That was nothing really. The government should be able to do that. In addition, the cap should be taken off the COLA clause. That was not much; why, any self-respecting government should be prepared to offer that much. There were a couple of other small items. The hon. member mentioned long service pay, equal pay for full and part-time employees, and one or two other matters. I did a little arithmetic. My mathematics, which are not the best, say that the hon. member would have offered those on strike between 55 per cent and 60 per cent more. The government has offered 38 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am trying to analyse. He did not quite say that he would offer that much, but he did say that a mediator should look at these things. I suggest one can draw only one inference from his wishing to appoint a mediator again, and that is that the union should expect to get more; otherwise there is no point to the process.


John Edward Broadbent: Some more; that is precisely right.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member admits my point.
What did the hon. member say about inflation? I think he made on reference to the Anti-Inflation Board. He said he hoped that the solution, whatever it may be, would be arrived at voluntarily, and would be referred to the AntiInflation Board. I do not know with what sort of tongue in cheek he spoke at that point. I did not hear him say a single critical word about the conduct of the union or its executive. All his criticism was reserved for the government. In his books the union had not done one thing wrong. Not one word did he say about other's rights and about the way this strike has been conducted.
I hope the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will confer with the hon. member seated immediately to his left, for that member sits on the joint committee of this place and the Senate on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. This spring there appeared as a witness before that committee the leader of the union now on strike, Mr. Davidson. I call the attention of this House to something Mr. Davidson said in testimony. He said that there is one thing wrong with the Post Office-its managers do not have the guts to charge enough for their services. He said that first class letters should cost 25 cents to send. I ask, what will this do to the pensioners, the people about whom the hon. member's colleague-I give him full marks for his concern-is worried? Will he support a union whose leader says that first class mail in this country should cost 25 cents to send? Is he prepared to see that done? Is he prepared to side with the union whose leader has said on tape and in front of the television camera, "The public be damned!'' Has the hon. member not one critical word to say about that union?

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike


An hon. Member:: Ask him where he holds his membership.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That is a good question but I do not propose to add it to my list. I simply say this: the hon. member's party must show responsibility. It cannot say one thing to the old age pensioner and another to the rest of the population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I call this an irresponsible strike, a challenge to parliament's attempt to deal with inflation. There is a danger that the public will force parliament to pass legislation which will be a reaction to this strike, and that would be unfortunate indeed. The members of this House and of the other place who sit on the special joint committee have a serious responsibility in weighing recommendations to be made, for we must avoid that situation, and make sure that legislation is passed only if it is absolutely necessary.
I made the suggestion to the committee that before a legal strike could take place the Public Service Staff Relations Board should conduct a vote on the final offer of the employer and that the board should be responsible for certifying the results of that vote. I know there are problems with any suggestion of this nature. I know it will be opposed by members of the New Democratic Party, among others, but they have to answer to the people of Canada what we are going to do to stop a union executive that will not allow the employer's final offer to be voted upon in a free and secret ballot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: In the constituency I have the honour to represent there are many small businessmen who are being hurt, and badly hurt by this strike. There are many people who are being inconvenienced, but I have been most encouraged by the calls that I have received. To a man and to a woman, they are saying the government has to set an example in this fight against inflation. There is no way in which it can capitulate before this kind of union and this kind of activity, with its clear, open defiance of the program of the government in these circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) who, just a few moments ago, indicated the proposal he made to the joint committee on employer-employee relations. I do not want in any way to detract from the hon. member's interest in that subject because I know it is sincere. However, it is my understanding that that proposal was first made in a public way by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who cannot be here this evening. Whether that is right or wrong, it is a very important consideration. As a member of the committee, I commend him for that.
When the opportunity comes to deal with the matter, which I hope will be shortly, I intend to support it. That kind of principle will guarantee that which I suspect has

not taken place within the postal union, that is, the opportunity for the rank and file of the union to consider in a free and open way the offer that has been made to it.
I want to talk for a few moments about the speech made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). He talked about mediation. It may be a useful exercise, perhaps not. The hon. member asked us to consider the position of the union. He castigated the government. Not once did he ask us to consider the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The emphasis of his speech was the preservation of the right to strike. That is an important right, but it should not override the public interest. We should not lose track of the importance of that.
I do not want to suggest that in terms of attitude the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is the only one who can be faulted. Some blame has to be laid at the feet of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey). It was he who said in this House "Let's have one good strike and have it over with." In effect he was saying small business be damned, senior citizens be damned, people who depend on investment income be damned. I put him in no better position with respect to that statement in terms of leadership than the president of the union who said the public be damned.
A few moments ago some speakers called for leaderhips. I do not want to be unkind to the Postmaster General. In the history of this whole matter with regard to the bringing together of the parties and the settlement of the dispute there has been at least a modicum of a lack of leadership on both sides.
The purpose of the motion tonight is not to call one another names. That is not productive. It is to give encouragement to the government on one hand, and to the union members on the other, with regard to the settlement of the dispute. It is to say to the leadership of the union that this parliament does not approve of any tactic which deprives the members of the union of the right to deal with an offer that has been made by management. That is a very important matter.
The hon. member for Ottawa West did not mention the complete position put forward by this party to-night. I call his attention to the admirable speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) who made it clear that this party wants, first of all, that the union membership have the right to a free vote. I do not think that there is any doubt about that in this House. If there is, let that member stand up and say so. The government ought to take this into consideration, not in two weeks, but now. If that fails, having regard to the importance of the public service and the postal service in the public interest, it is important that the government face up to the fact that the alternative, which we would all regret, is putting the union back to work. That position was put fairly carefully by the two people who have spoken thus far in this party.
This evening I received a call from a member of the postal union in the town of Prescott. There are seven members in that bargaining unit. The scrutineer called and told me that a vote was taken on October 10, 1975. They had two ballots, one of which asked "Do you accept the
November 17, 1975

proposed collective agreement?". The second ballot asked "Do you support the recommendations of your negotiating committee?" or words to that effect. They were told that they were not to use the first ballot which would have put before that local, which is symbolic of a number of locals in this country, the question as to whether the government offer was good. This is what I have been told.
Still, they were told to vote on the second question, whether they supported the recommendation of the negotiating committee which was not to accept the offer made by the government. So they voted, this small local; there are seven of them in it. Six voted not to support the recommendations of the negotiating committee, and there was one spoiled ballot. That local was immediately decertified.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who decertified it?


Walter David Baker: They were told that as a result of that vote the union was authorized to continue in the position it had taken, because they had the executive committee and the negotiating committee authorization to deal only with the minority report. But the first question had never been submitted to the union membership, that question being: Do you accept the government's offer? That is the position of the local at Prescott. If that is the position of the local at Prescott, the question in my mind is: what is the position of locals across the country, and what would be the result if the government decided to move in the next little while and presented its last and final offer to the union membership?
In my submission, it would do two things: it would preserve democracy in the union, which is self-evidently not there at the moment, and it would probably lead to a return to work or at least to an overwhelming vote to return to work. I think this is worthy of the government's attention. Parliament is always in the position of being able to legislate them back to work, in any event.
What we see here is a spillover which could affect the public service far behond the right to strike in the postal service. I hear people suggesting we should do away completely with the right to strike in the public service, even though some of those who talk about such an eventuality cannot define what an essential service is; it is an extremely difficult area and one which the Finkelman committee is presently considering. I would point out that the record as far as public service bargaining is concerned has been pretty good except for the Post Office. I, for one, do not want rights which were given by parliament to be taken away unceremoniously, or even to hear people demanding that this be done because of the irresponsibility of the leadership of one union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not think there is any person in this country connected with the union movement who wants this to happen. I do not think the members of the NDP want it to happen, but they have got
Postal Strike
themselves locked into a position which is intellectually dishonest and they do not know how to get out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly. The minister knows I regard public service bargaining as a complex matter, one not to be trifled with by people who wish to make a big show going around the country saying, "Let's get rid of the right to strike." The right to strike and the process of collective bargaining have been sanctioned by parliament. Before we take it away, I think we should let the main beneficiaries, in this case the postal workers, cast their votes-and if it takes a bill to do it, bring one in-on whether to accept the offer made to them by the government. I do not know whether that offer is right or wrong, too high or too low. In any case, it is subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board. The minister nods his head.
Subject to all these considerations, to the extent it can having regard to the government's program, the membership ought to have the right to decide and the government ought to move quickly to give them that right.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, like many backbenchers on this side of the House I am glad to speak on the motion before us tonight. I am particularly happy to speak on the motion, first, to put my own views squarely on the record and, second and more important, to demonstrate the extent of the support members on our side of the House are giving to our Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), a man who has endangered his health and who has put his career on the line in the interests of achieving a fair, equitable settlement for a group of workers who have seen their incomes fall drastically behind over the past few years.
The first fight in this battle took place last spring when members of our caucus supported the Postmaster General in his attempt to convince Treasury Board that the letter carriers deserved a general salary increase. We agreed with him and argued that postal employees must be given the financial remuneration they had historically earned in the interests of restoring a measure of pride and dignity to an often maligned vocation. We won that fight and the leadership of the Letter Carriers Union is to be praised for its responsible deportment throughout the negotiations and for its part in arriving at a settlement.
It goes without saying that this general settlement should be extended to cover the other half of the postal employees, the inside workers as they are known. But here the problem became complicated. The minister was faced by an irresponsible president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers-I hope he is still here tonight to hear what some of us feel about him-and an equally irresponsible chief negotiator for the union. He found himself dealing with two men whose personal ideological and political views superseded the best interests of those they were supposed to represent at the bargaining table. As a result we face a situation in which a fair settlement is sitting on that table, the majority of the postal workers across the country ready to accept its generous terms, yet their leaders are afraid to submit the package to a national vote. If there is a better example of trade unionist
9150

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
totalitarianism and demagoguery, I defy members of the House to show me one.
Members on this side of the House are not anti-union. In fact if the members of the NDP did their homework they would find that two out of every four labour votes in this country go to the Liberal party. We have, historically, spoken for the workers. We are not anti-union, but we are against the demagoguery, the totalitarianism and the irresponsibility we find in our trade unions in Canada today.
The trouble is that Mr. Davidson is a product of a political culture which is radically different from the political culture in this country. He is a product of an anarchist strain evident over the past century on the Clydeside docks. As Freud saw everything through sexual eyeglasses, Mr. Davidson, like his mentor, Karl Marx, sees all political debate through the eyeglasses of class struggle and social strife.
There has been no tradition of class warfare in this country. We are all equal. We are all workers, not members of an upper class, middle class, or working class. Workers and management should be able to use the collective bargaining process without manipulation from those like the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who try to impose their own political values upon a reasonable attempt to settle this dispute.
I feel I can take Mr. Davidson to task, Mr. Speaker. I was born in his country. I have studied in his country and I have worked there. I have seen the havoc wreaked upon the British economy by irresponsible trade union leadership, the trade union leadership elites that we see today. I do not want to see the same values, these destructive beliefs, transferred to the labour situation in this country.
What of the chief negotiator for the union, a man whose obviously unbending views cannot but lead one to the conclusion that he has an interest in sabotaging not only these particular postal negotiations but also the collective bargaining process in general. Perhaps-I say "perhaps", Mr. Speaker, because I am loth to utter this-he seeks to subvert the very essence and very fibre of the total political structure in this country through his ruminations and histrionics at the bargaining table.
The negotiators have asked for a 71 per cent salary increase. This has been scaled down. The Postmaster General bargained in good faith. Before monetary matters were to be discussed, the union wanted to discuss the effects of automation, and we negotiated. They wanted to discuss electronic surveillance, and we negotiated. They wanted to discuss casual labour, and we negotiated that too. Then when we wanted to get down to monetary matters, the bread and butter issues-as the Postmaster General has said, the average member of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the average worker in this country, just wants enough money to eat and give him a good standard of living-the union came along and threw in yet another bone of contention, a cost of living clause and a reduction in the work week. How many more minor issues do we have to settle before we get down to the principal issue of money?
Consistently this bargaining team has avoided the very generous settlement proposed. I need not go into the

details, but it is 38 per cent, $1.70 an hour over 30 months, a settlement that exceeds the government's anti-inflation guidelines. What is this team negotiating? What is it avoiding? Why, as has been said earlier, do they not submit this settlement to a national vote?
I see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) is not here to face the rest of the music this evening, but he castigated the Postmaster General for advocating a deviation from normal bargaining procedure by wanting the union membership to vote on the pay offer. He is right; it is a deviation from the normal bargaining procedure. But the union and the union's negotiating team have deviated from the normal bargaining procedure from the very beginning of these negotiations. In fact the chief negotiator and his associates have been downright devious in their behaviour throughout.
So we have the spectre of these two gentlemen, a latter day vaudeville team or Pied Piper team, going on their own merry way without regard for the thousands of helpless members they are leading into debt each day this dispute continues. It is the spectre of two men on full union pay of some $18,000 to $19,000 a year, twice as much as an average postal worker makes, hob-nobbing across this country, flying, I am told, in first-class accommodation on Air Canada, eating and drinking from an apparently inexhaustible expense account paid for by the sweat of the members whom they dare say they represent. What a charade! What an injustice!
This ineffectual motion before us expresses timid concern but shies away from a substantive recommendation. I see the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has also left. He is a hard-working fellow. He is amiable-I know him well-and he is respected by many in this House. However, tonight it appears that he and the others of his party who support this motion are ambivalent.
My colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), analysed the motion and asked what members of the opposition really wanted. What do they want? Do they want to give the workers more money? Or are they asking the government to introduce legislation forcing the postal employees back to work? The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) talks about showing concern for the public interest. That is a lovely phrase. But because they do not have the obligation to govern, hon. members opposite do not have to be specific and tell us what we should do. If they want the government to shoot holes in its anti-inflation program by awarding the postal workers more money, let them say it. If they want back-to-work legislation, let them say it. But let them not introduce a namby-pamby, wishy-washy motion like the one before us which is keeping us up well past our bedtime.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, why the members on this side are firm about not legislating the workers back to their jobs. We do not want to give the union bargaining team and its leadership the easy way out; it is as simple as that. This strike could have been avoided. We did not want a strike. The president of the Toronto local is one of my constituents, a very reasonable fellow. I have been besieged by calls from members of the union. They do not want to strike, but they are intimidated. That is what we have today, Mr. Speaker. It is not a question of fighting against trade unionism. You would have to be a fool to
November 17, 1975

argue the merits of trade union activity and the benefits trade unions have brought to society.


Mr. Patterson:: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) is here now.


David Michael Collenette: Good; I hope he is listening. What we are really arguing about is the subversion of the trade union movement, and inadvertently the subversion of democracy. We do not only have to talk about this dispute; we can talk about the longshoremen's dispute where union leaders in this country defied parliament, or tried to defy parliament. Once we settle this dispute we have to get down to serious thought about improving labour relations. But I stress this can be done only after we settle this dispute. As far as I am concerned-and I am sure I speak for most of the members on this side-it will be a long way to go before we want to give parliament a job that it should not really be doing by legislating the postal workers back to work.
The real solution here lies with the workers. As each day passes, I am sure that more of them will go back to work. More will decide that to work and earn a living and accept a generous settlement is better than sitting on the sidelines while their leaders provoke great dissent and discussion across the land at the cost of the average worker. There is no doubt that the Postmaster General's stand has the full support of the people in the metropolitan Toronto area from which I come. It is also quite evident to me that workers in the Toronto area, and probably in other parts of the country, do not want to stay on strike any longer; they would love to accept the wage offer.
I could go on and on but would only be repeating what has already been said, and I know there are more speakers. If this union's leaders really had the guts to submit this offer to its workers, then they would be worthy of showing leadership and could be praised. But they are not giving this kind of leadership. They are not interested in a settlement. As I have said before, I hope members of this side hang tough over the next two or three weeks, or however long it takes.
You can talk about small businessmen over there as much as you like, but they are learning to adjust.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: We all have small businessmen in our ridings. The Tory party does not have a monopoly on small businesses. Small business has been one of the backbones not only of the country but of the Liberal party as well, and small businessmen can adjust. This is a red herring you throw out every time. You always talk about small business being hurt.


An hon. Member:: You should talk to them.


David Michael Collenette: Where is Mr. Bullock and his 35,000 member association? What does he say? They are riding this out because they know it is about time we settle this business of strike in the Post Office once and for all.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, as the proposer of this motion I rise on a point of order. I listened very intently to the remarks of the hon. member for York
Postal Strike
East (Mr. Collenette). He said some disparaging things about the content of this motion. Let me suggest that he might read the motion and the Standing Order under which it is proposed, since the purport of the content of the motion is simply that this House do now adjourn.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the credit must of course go to my party for making it possible to take part in this emergency debate this evening. On the other hand it is a sad state of affairs indeed when parliamentarians once again have to digress from the regular day-to-day proceedings of the House of Commons and force themselves to discuss the problem of yet another strike. I say sad, because if the government had a half decent policy to deal with strikes in general, particularly those in essential services such as the Post Office, it would not have to depend on any special motions or Standing Orders such as this, and a majority of work stoppages could be prevented.
It is clear to see that the government not only does not have a half decent policy relating to work stoppages, but it in fact has no policy whatsoever to deal with these destructive strikes which bring many of our industries to their knees, and just as many small businessmen to a tragic end.
I do not have to expound on the fact that a strike like the one we are facing today threatens the very existence of small businesses in Canada, the existence of which has become a vital part of our over-all economy, as it is the small businessman who forms the backbone of our economic and industrial way of life, regardless of what the Liberal speaker before me said.
By allowing this strike to continue and by not presenting a comprehensive program encompassing the whole, general, broad area of exorbitant union demands, we will only assist in the complete destruction of the economy of this country. I should like to point out, however, that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has at least taken the honorable step of sticking firmly to his final monetary offer as far as this strike is concerned. Whether we legislate the CUPW back to work, which I personally would support wholeheartedly, or we wait for events to run their own course, or whatever, there is no question but that after much suffering by all Canadians, including the union members, at one point or another the mail will again flow and we will be back to square one. That is the sad thing, Mr. Speaker.
We will be back to square one waiting for another union, perhaps in the same service, to bring the nation to an economic standstill once again. We will be back to square one without having solved one solitary long-term issue, and that is my point. That is what is so frustrating about the government which deals with a problem on a temporary basis while at the same it allows unions to build long-term unprecedented strength. The only ones who benefit are those tough union leaders, some of whom are here this evening, who receive their incentives from who Knows what infiltrators.
It would not be as tragic if, as a result of union power, the productivity in our country were increased, but unfortunately the fact of the matter is that while increases in labour wages continue to rise higher than any other wages
29956-27*/2

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
in the industrialized world, productivity in Canada has decreased by nearly 10 per cent per year. What better example could there be of inflation? The deficit in the Post Office, with all the union demands, can only be matched by that of the mayor of Montreal and his Olympic Games. In 1973 the Post Office had a deficit of $90 million, and in the last year that increased to over $320 million.
Again this would not be as serious if the postal service were at least adequate, but it seems to me the original natives of this country hundreds of years ago had a more reliable system of communication with smoke signals than we have through the Post Office today. I believe this is an obvious case of taking advantage of those who cannot fight for themselves but must depend on strong government intervention, intervening fairly on their behalf.
I am referring not only to small businessmen, whom I mentioned earlier, but to the two-thirds of the Canadian labour force which is not unionized. What about the large portion of the union membership who do not approve of their leaders, and there are many, and are either afraid to disapprove openly or who, in more cases than not, find their union votes are usually misrepresented and sometimes not counted at all because of the all too obvious voting irregularities that exist in a great many union halls in Canada today?
What seems to be the problem? There are many, and the first one is quite obvious. Look at the number of unions within some of the essential sectors of our economy. The Post Office, in fact, has five different unions. The problem, as I say, is obvious. Any one of those unions can force a strike within its own sector, just like the present strike by CUPW now taking place within the Post Office. It is an unfortunate possibility that after a settlement is finalized and the Post Office re-opens, the letter carriers will perhaps see fit to go on strike and thus bring the Post Office once again to a standstill, and we will have accomplished nothing.
The same is true in respect of the air transport industry with 15 different unions; 16 unions are involved in handling grain in this country, 21 different unions are involved in the rail service, and 35 at various ports.
Keeping this fragmentation of union power in mind I was happy to introduce a bill last July for the purpose of having union groups in a single public service sector bargaining with the Treasury Board simultaneously, and having contracts negotiated to run for a duration of three years. This would assure the taxpaying public that each essential public service sector would be strike free except for the possibility of a walk-out every three years.
In this regard I was pleased to note in a confidential memorandum to cabinet, prepared by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) some months ago, recommendations along the line which I proposed in that bill. I would be more than pleased to withdraw my own bill in favour of a government bill dealing with the subject matter or, indeed, any legislative proposals that would help keep our economy on an even keel, but it seems quite obvious that the government is not prepared to move at all, let alone in that direction.
Even with the concept of single sector bargaining, however, further steps could be taken to limit labour disrup-

tions while at the same time preserving fairness to labour. Therefore last March I presented another private bill based on the Taft-Hartley Act. This bill would give the Governor in Council the right to bring a strike or lock-out to an end on a temporary basis if such a strike or lock-out, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, would adversely affect the national or public interest if it continued. Such an order would naturally expire upon the execution of a collective agreement, and the strikers would be free to walk out on the expiry of their own agreement.
Lastly, I was able to introduce a bill today which in plain and simple terms would on a temporary basis, and I emphasize "temporary basis", take away the right to strike in the essential services of our economy for the duration of the government's Anti-Inflation Act, now at the committee stage.
If anyone thinks the anti-inflation program enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last month can work on its own merit without amendments, he or she had better think again. Unless there are a number of changes made during the committee state I, for one, will be forced to vote against that bill when it comes back to the House.
There is no question but that the time has come for decisive government action regarding the multitude of strikes which continue to plague our country. The time has come not just for a temporary end to one strike but for a comprehensive program to deal with the loss of productivity due to strikes and walkouts on a long-term basis. We will not exist much longer as a viable industrial nation if we continue to take this ad hoc approach to strikes that the government is asking us to accept as a way of life.
In the last fiscal year, for example, there were 177,000 man-days lost as a result of strikes in the Post Office alone. That figure has already more than doubled as a result of the current work stoppage in the Post Office. In the last two fiscal years there were over 100,000 man-days lost in air transport, close to one million man-days lost in the rail service, and over l'/2 million man-days lost as a result of strikes solely by employees under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This, Mr. Speaker, cannot be and is not a healthy sign of things to come under the present Liberal administration.
My fervent wish as a member of parliament and as a concerned citizen of this great country is that we parliamentarians get off our butts, leave party politics on the sidelines, and resolve a just and comprehensive settlement to this and future labour disputes that would benefit all Canadians.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the best proof members of parliament could have that a new start must be made if a settlement of the strike is to take place is the speech the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) made tonight, because if ever there was a speech in which a minister was inflexible, obstinate, and self-righteous, this was it.
The minister preened himself on the fact that he has never made a mistake and is right in the final offer he made about a month ago, even though two months ago he was not prepared to offer a whole host of concessions
November 17, 1975

which he offered in the final days before the strike started, and in the three or four days after it started. So if ever there was proof that the minister has lost his ability to be objective in an effort to settle the dispute which is inconveniencing all the people of Canada, and which is causing great difficulty to so many people in Canada, it was the speech the minister made. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the minister say the public is adjusting quite easily to the strike and that people are not suffering.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


David Orlikow: Yes; he said precisely that. He said the people have not been disturbed by the strike which has already gone on for a month. He said the strike could go on until Christmas, and indeed until Easter. On Friday, because my plane was late leaving for Winnipeg, I had to wait at the airport. While I was there I sat beside a businessman who told me that he is spending $100 a day on courier service. I did some arithmetic. I admit that my arithmetic is not very good but, calculating it on the basis of roughly 200 working days, it seems to me that that businessman has an expense now in the neighbourhood of over $20,000 a year. I think he is doing reasonably well, but he is not in a position to carry a burden of that kind. If the minister is talking about a strike lasting until Easter he is talking about a figure close to half that sum.
I also spoke to a businessman in my city. He has a mail order business. He deals in electrical appliances, radios, washing machines, and similar equipment. He has done virtually no business for the last month. It is all very well for the minister to say that businessmen are adjusting. It may be that Eatons, The Bay and Simpsons-Sears are adjusting quite well, -but that businessman in Winnipeg, and I am sure many others like him, are not in a position to do business.
My friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), just told me about the people of Vancouver Island who grow holly for sale in places like California. They usually receive their orders by mail and send out their holly C.O.D. by mail. They are not receiving any orders, and if they did they would not know how to fill them. The Postmaster General has made up his mind that people can live with the strike for six months. He can manage. The government has a telephone system, a telex system and couriers. It can manage. That does not mean the ordinary citizens can manage. It certainly does not mean they can afford the effect of a strike which need not have occurred, and which ought not to be continuing.
We heard a very impassioned speech by the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette). He talked about what "we" had done to try to settle the strike. I suppose he was using the word we in a loyal party sense because I did not know that backbench members of parliament, especially government members like him who sit so far back I can hardly see them, were involved in the negotiations. I do not know how he knew that the President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is a stubborn man. He may be; I do not know. Neither of us were involved in the negotiations.
I suggest it takes two stubborn people to make an argument. If the union leaders have been stubborn, and they may have been-I have not been involved in the negotiations and do not know what they are doing but I do know
Postal Strike
what the Postmaster General has been doing-I know the Postmaster General has been very busy both inside and outside this House. If ever a cabinet minister curried favour of the representatives of the media it is this Postmaster General who sees them every half hour if he can, and gives them his side of the story. That is what we get through the media.
I do not say that the government is wrong or the union is right, but if ever there was a campaign to vilify a group of people it is that carried on by the Postmaster General against the union. One would think that the Post Office has been generous, that it was quick in making an offer, that the offer was a good offer, and that the union and workers rejected it out of hand.
We could go back almost ten years to the first stoppage. It was an illegal stoppage because there was no legislation permitting a strike in 1966. In 1966 the postal workers were illegally on strike. Any strike in which they would be involved at that time would be illegal. The Liberal government of the day appointed a judge from Quebec, Judge Montpetit, to look into the operations of the Post Office. There are several recommendations which were made by Judge Montpetit in 1966 which still have not been implemented by the Post Office under the leadership of this so-called friend of labour in 1975. Is it any wonder the postal workers, and not just their leaders, are unhappy with the government and the department?
Let me refer the parliamentary secretary to the Globe and Mail issue of Monday, November 10, which on its front page has the lead story entitled "Interference by other departments hampers Post Office, memo says". Who is the memo by? Not by that flaming radical, the president of the postal workers, not by the vice-president who has been heading the negotiation. It is written by the assistant deputy Postmaster-General, Mr. J. E. Uberig.
Let me just put on the record a couple of paragraphs from that report which he made to the Postmaster General and which the Postmaster General, in his desire to fight the postal workers' union probably filed in the not-to-be-read-for-a-year-from-now filing cabinet. I want to read that because some of us say that the Post Office Department and the minister are not entirely free of blame for this impasse to which we have come. The article in the Globe and Mail reads:
Post Office Act states that the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Post Office.
This seems to be a simple enough authority, but a number of other acts have superimposed effects on the operations of the Post Office, so as to give certain authorities to other ministers of the government or to limit severely the ability of the Postmaster General (and through him the department) in dealing with problems-
Problems arise not only with wage arrangements for blue-collar workers (e.g. reluctance to entertain concept of buy-back of sick leave accruals), but also with management (e.g. tardiness in establishing new pay rates for managerial exclusions-
The article goes on:
-"the needs of a major portion of the postal employees who are in a blue-collared, industrial-type setting" because it does not allow bargaining on such items as technological change, classifications and other issues.

Postal Strike
The author of the memo is saying this in connection with his analysis that the postal worker should come out of the jurisdiction of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and be included among the workers who come under the provisions of the revised Canada Labour Code.
I could go on, but there you have evidence from a senior official in the Post Office Department that the Post Office in its present set-up cannot do the" job which it is required to do. Let us not talk about what this man says, or what Judge Monpetit said. Let us go back to about a year and a half ago when the operation of the automatic sorting machines was coming on stream.
What was the rate set by the Public Service Commission for the people who would be sorting the mail with automatic machines? They set it at 50 cents an hour less than for people sorting mail manually. I am not a expert on job classification, but one would have to be an idiot not to accept the fact that a person watching letters spewed through the machine at the rate of thousands a minute must concentrate a lot more than a person working at it manually.
That is what the Public Service Commission and the Post Office Department wanted to impose unilaterally on the employees. The employees had to threaten a work stoppage before the Post Office Department and the government relented.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: May I ask the hon. member a question?


David Orlikow: Yes, if it is not taken off my time.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure the hon. member would not want to use the word threaten. There was a work stoppage, I think the hon. member made that point, but perhaps he would want to explain what happened as a result of the strike.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to debate all these questions with the Postmaster General at the time when the estimates are brought before us and both he and I have time. The Minister said the government has gone as far as it can and that there is no more money. One would think that the offer which the government has made was made at the beginning of the negotiations. The fact is that there was little meaningful negotiation until the workers took a strike vote.
The minister suggests that they took the strike vote surreptitiously and that they went on strike surreptitiously. The fact is that they went on strike when the minister instructed his officials that there would have to be a settlement in an hour or there would be nothing to talk about. If anybody precipitated the strike it was the minister. What happened in the days after the strike? In the first few days after the strike they settled 128 clauses which were in dispute. Why did they not settle them before they went on strike? The minister said that they settled the question of casual workers. Of course they did. When? Either just before the workers went on strike or just after.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned casuals. I apologize if the hon. member misunderstood me. I said we settled the issue of automation before they want on strike, and I said we did not settle the 128 clauses the day after they went on strike.


David Orlikow: What I am saying is that a substantial part of what had been agreed to when the strike started or just after it started was agreed to not in the months when they were negotiating with a fair amount of good will but only with the threat of a strike, or after the strike started. We can talk about this when we have time. I say that the question of casual labour was not settled until very close to the time, either just before of just after the strike started. I say that the question of shift premiums was not settled until that time. I say that the question of premiums for part-time employees on weekends was not settled until that time.
What I am saying is that if the Post Office Department had been generous and fair, and if it had indicated it wanted to reach a settlement on some of those issues which go back more than ten years, and if the union leaders are everything that the minister says they are and everything that the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) says they are-I do not know, I am not involved in the negotiations and I am not a member of the union-then I have enough faith in the common sense and good judgment of the oridnary worker to know that they would oust the leaders who are not doing a job for them, and elect others. But that is their business and they will handle it in a democratic way. They do not need me and they do not need the minister to tell them how to run their business.
Let me conclude by saying-I think the minister was not here when I said it at the beginning-that it is obvious to me that the minister's position has hardened to such a point that there can be no settlement with this minister because what he is saying to the workers-I am not discussing at the moment the merits or demerits of their case-in that he represents the Government of Canada which has given these workers everything they can get, and that if they want to stay out six months, they can do so, but they will not get any more. I say that this is not bargaining in good faith.
The minister may feel badly, he may be insulted, but I say he is anti-labour, he is as stubborn and mean as the management of the aircraft plant in Longueuil which kept its workers out for months, or was it years? I think the minister is trying to be fair, and he honestly believes that he is a friend of labour, I say to him-not that he is 100 per cent right, or that the union is 100 percent right-that he has become so emotionally involved in this question that he can no longer look at it objectively or rationally. He outht to remove himself voluntarily from the negotiations at this point. That is why we suggest that with the agreement of both sides a mediator should be appointed to look at the whole question and report back to both parties.
Maybe a mediator would say that the government has given everything it has to give, but both sides could make a fresh start on this strike. The minister says it is not causing great hardship, but it is. It is causing difficulties and trouble for thousands of ordinary people in Canada. Maybe after that action has been taken the strike could be brought to a conclusion with justness and fairness to both sides.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time that I have been here I think most
November 17, 1975

members of this House have come to realize that I am a very conciliatory person, a very reasonable person. I suppose most members know that I am from a constituency where most voters are union members. But I also happen to be in a rather unusual situation of not only having a very strong labour representation but I am one of those people to whom the two previous speakers kept referring, a small businessman. I rather basked in the warmth of their concern for the small businessman because I realized that I am one of the few in this House.


Mr. Gilbert:: Bryce doesn't worry about it.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I had a nagging doubt about whether it was the small businessman they were concerned about. As one involved with accounts receivable which are normally sent through the mail, and upon which I depend for my survival in business every month, I have found alternate ways of receiving the funds. We no longer mail them out; we use the phone, an invention which has been around for quite a while. We telephone people whose accounts are receivable and ask them to come to the office instead of sending cash by mail. People do pay their bills when informed of the amount, and most small businessmen have phones-at least in British Columbia.
It seemed to be indicated that a high cost was involved with the use of the telephone and courier services, but it is very interesting to note that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is a government run institution, is providing an excellent service. We pick up our mail from their claims office and, not only that, but they are willing to pick up all the mail for the other independent companies and provide that service. So, Mr. Speaker, business people are perhaps being used as a political ploy to bring into this House the issue of the postal service, in order to have it said that we cannot exist without it.


Mr. Alexander:: Be serious.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am being very serious.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Most small businessmen would agree to a fair and just settlement-they would put that before an immediate profit for a few months or a few weeks. Most small businessmen are responsible-I wish some other people were as responsible.
We have had the occasional strike in British Columbia. Unions such as the IWA have been known to strike, but I cannot recall an occasion when the IWA did not inform their membership of the packet that was being presented by management. I have sometimes had doubts as to when strikes should be called and people go out on strike because, from a humanitarian point of view, the wage earner is the one who ultimately suffers.
Although I can appreciate the concern that was expressed by several other members for the public and for business, may I say in all honesty that the person who suffers most is the worker on strike. He cannot afford to lose wages because he is not one of the high wage earners in our economy.
Postal Strike


Mr. Hogan:: What are you suggesting-that we do away with strikes?


Hugh Alan Anderson: There are several other reasons why I believe the strike was unnecessary. First of all, the mediation report was accepted by the government and, second, the same contract that was offered to the inside workers had been accepted by the outside workers.
I think it is fair to say that historically the two unions have run in tandem. Those who suggest that the inside workers should receive more than the outside workers would only sow seeds of discontent for the future. The IWA and the CPU in British Columbia generally get exactly the same wage settlement because of the type of work they do. Anyone who suggests we should start bringing imbalance in there would be sowing the seeds of discontent for future negotiations.
Third, Mr. Speaker, on October 13 the government brought in guidelines. The union must surely realize that to stay out for six weeks, two months, or whatever period, would be fruitless unless we as a government decided we would not abide by our own guidelines-that we would scrap the program and go into some sort of anarchy. It is the responsibility of the minister in this first test of how we consider the guidelines to make sure that they are followed.
There is the mediation report, parity with the outside workers, and the guidelines. To go on strike and not refer back to their membership is irresponsible leadership, and is not the fault of the inside workers.
As I said earlier, the strike was unnecessary and simply weakens the bargaining position. The government cannot lock out a union. There was no necessity for the strike, and every union member on strike is losing approximately $40 or $50 per day.
There are going to be no winners, Mr. Speaker. Business will not win, the strikers will not win, the people of Canada who depend upon the mail service will not win. Everybody is a loser, but the biggest losers are the strikers. Regardless of any final settlement, they are going to lose money. I wish more members would think about them rather than the people who might not be able to write to an aunt in Regina. That is an inconvenience, but it is not something we cannot live without. The strikers are not highly paid and they can ill afford to lose money. That is a tragedy in a fruitless, unreasonable, and stupid strike.
So far the average inside postal worker has lost $1,000. In order to gain 20 cents an hour they would have to work
5,000	hours. I do not think the minister is anti-labour any more than I am. I am concerned about the workers, not the negotiators who, like most negotiators, can take care of themselves. Mostly I am concerned about the sorters who do the work.
The minister has fought hard to include the automation clause in the negotiations. He has done an excellent job, considering the existence of the guidelines, the settlement of the outside workers, and the matter of the arbitration hearing.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
Hon. members, I think, are not concerned about the Post Office workers' right to strike. They want to see inside workers presented with the facts of a settlement. If they do not like the settlement they can refuse it; no one says they should not refuse it if they so choose. Many postal workers, especially in my area, do not know what the package contains. That package should be made known to them for study, and acceptance or rejection.
I have been in touch with many Canadians; their message is loud and clear: if the government is serious about fighting inflation, do not give in to blackmail; do not be coerced, because the people of Canada can put up for some time with not getting mail. The people do not expect the government to give in to unreasonable demands.
I hope that those who are losing money can vote on these questions. We live in a democratic society. Surely the workers in the union should decide their own destiny. After all they are losing money and they should have a voice in accepting or rejecting the settlement. I think the government can live either with an acceptance or rejection. The workers must be free to decide. I therefore hope that the minister will find some way of ensuring that they can decide their own destiny.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, the government should have initiated this debate a couple of weeks ago to obtain a consensus of the House, as most of us are fed up to the teeth with the utter nonsense involving the Post Office. Now that we are debating the issue I hope the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) will stop straddling the fence and take steps immediately to get the mail moving.
I know that the government does not want to do anything to help the bandits in the postal unions save face, and I know that the two birds who are holding up the works would like nothing better than have us order the postal workers back to the job. Then they could say that they were only trying to get the posties a better deal but the government would not go back to the table. No matter what we do to get the mails moving again, those two birds, the squeaking, howling parrot, and that Scotch buzzard, Davidson, should be sent packing. Both are no better than blackmailers, and I know that the majority of Canadians are as fed up as I am with this kind of blackmail.
I was really surprised when the great champion of the working man, the leader of the NDP, earlier refused unanimous consent for our motion under Standing Order 43 which called for a national referendum, by secret ballot, on the government's final wage offer. The leader of the NDP must surely know that there is a division in the ranks of the CUPW and that the only democratic way it can be resolved is by a secret ballot vote. Perhaps the hon. member's sentiments are with the union chiefs, not with the workers. It could be that, like Joe Davidson, he is afraid to allow the workers to vote in a supervised, secret ballot referendum.
This afternoon I was speaking to the radio station of my area and was told that in southern Ontario the following post offices are now open; Alliston, Borden, Aurora, Huntsville, Keswick, Midland, Orillia, Penetang and Bradford. This represents 56 per cent of the workers of the area, but does not include Toronto.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget Elmira and Orangeville.


Stan Darling: Yes. As I say, that does not include that postal monstrosity on Front Street, Toronto.


Mr. Nystrom:: I didn't know you had bought real estate.


Stan Darling: I have not. I talked to the radio station in my riding. There happens to be one in Parry Sound-Muskoka.
It is high time the Postmaster General put aside his fears that he might offend someone if he orders the postal workers back to their jobs. It is time for the Postmaster General to stop worrying about whether or not he will help Davidson and Parrot save face. It is time for the minister to save the postal service; then we can take any other steps necessary to prevent this sort of thing happening every couple of months.
The minister has been saying that the mail may not move again until Easter. Although this may be true if we sit by and do nothing, I think we have given the union chiefs time enough to resolve this matter if they really have it in their mind to settle the strike. It is obvious from all the grandstanding that Davidson and Parrot have been doing that they do not have any intention of acting responsibly. They seem to be basking in the attention they are getting from the media, and when I see them prancing and preening on television I cannot see that they have anything on their minds except themselves.
Some NDP spokesmen have said that the Postmaster General has behaved like a prima donna on television. Certainly he has appeared on TV, but he does not take a back seat to Parrot. I have watched Parrot for some time, and the only time his mouth did not move was for the three or four hours he sat in this gallery with his henchmen listening to the debate. Now I see that he has vanished, like the Arabs.


An hon. Member:: Should that not be henchwoman?


An hon. Member:: Or hench person?


Stan Darling: Let's call them hench people.
It is a matter of record that my party has done just as much to further the cause of collective bargaining as those so-called champions of the little people over on my left. It seems ironic to them, I would think, that those solid citizens they are so pleased to call the little people, trimmed the sails of the NDP in the last election.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not in the Ontario election.


Stan Darling: The working people are pretty big people and it begins to look as though the wallop they pack in the polling booth is giving the NDP a sore jaw. The next time the NDP leader refuses to allow a simple motion an Standing Order 43 to pass, to give those people a chance to vote on whether they want to work, perhaps his own supporters should take him behind the woodshed for a little heart to heart talk.
I have always defended the right of workers to bargain and have a direct hand in deciding their wages and working conditions. This extends to the right to strike when their employers will not bargain in good faith, and to any
|Mr. Anderson.)
November 17, 1975

other reasonable grievance. However, the inside postal workers have been offered a reasonable wage increase. They have also received other concessions from the government. We have come to the point now where we have to decide on just whom we want to run the Post Office, the unions or the Postmaster General. I think the choice is obvious. After all, collective bargaining means just that. It does not mean that the unions demand and the government gives.
If we have reached the point where any union, whichever one it is, will not accept any less than it demands and will withdraw its services until all its demands are met, we have already exhausted the collective bargaining process. It is not bargaining any longer, it is blackmail; and I will not sit still and allow anyone to blackmail me or my constituents.
I think that the time has arrived when we should take a close look at where we are with respect to the matter of collective bargaining and the right to strike, especially in the area of essential services. After all, we have come a long way from the days of the sweat shop, the 14-hour work day, and the rest of the horrors of the early years of the industrial revolution. We have grown up, and in most cases it must be agreed that management and labour have grown up together.
We have labour legislation on the books concerning almost every aspect of the labour market. We have laws governing safety measures on the job and other working conditions, laws governing minimum wages and laws that compel management to deal fairly with labour in disputes. It is time to decide just how much protection we should legislate for the forgotten Canadian, the innocent victims of strikes when essential services are withdrawn by arrogant and thoughtless union bosses who feel that they can get everything they want by denying the public their services.
We have to devise some system of mediation or arbitration whereby workers in essential services are given every light to bargain, but where they are not given the right to strike, or threaten to strike, in order to force a settlement. At the present time, for instance, aside from the fact that Canadians are not able to write or receive letters from friends and loved ones, the entire national economy is being adversely affected by the postal strike, a strike by ' the way that should not have been called in the first place.
Businesses are suffering through not being able to send bills or receive payments for goods and services supplied. Some businesses have already failed, and others are having a tough time trying to wait out this latest postal strike.
I have not kept score on the work stoppages, slowdowns, strikes, and other interruptions of the postal service in the past ten years, but I have heard other people estimate that these things occur every five or six months. Even if it were only once every year, or every two years, it would be too often. We have stumbled along now for several years with a postal service that is not only slow and in other ways
Postal Strike
inefficient, but is completely inoperable every few months. I say to this House that we must make a decision, and we must make it soon.
Either we are going to continue to fund a postal service that is so inefficient that it is the laughing stock of the western world, a postal service run by a handful of union bandits instead of by the Postmaster General, or we are going to decide to take a new direction. Our Post Office has gone down about as low as it can go; in fact it is at a standstill. And that seems to be the accepted posture of the Canadian Post Office. Now I believe that it is time for us to start looking up. We have an opportunity to take matters as they stand now and work out a plan as to what we want in the way of a postal service in Canada. If we decide what we want, we can get it.
Since the present strike started I have been forced to send my weekly newspaper reports to my constituency by bus. The cost of doing this is a great deal more than if I had access to the federal postal system, but a package sent from my office on Thursday evening arrives at my constituency office the following day. That is service, the kind of service we could and should get from our Post Office, but it has been many a year since we have had that kind of service from our Post Office.
I am afraid that we are past the point where we can reasonably expect to get first class mail service again, at least not in the foreseeable future. The only way we will ever have an efficient mail service, one that does not shut down every time there is a minor dispute between the unions and the Postmaster General, is for this House to give the minister a mandate to clean house in the Post Office and establish once and for all that the Postmaster General is in charge of the Post Office. Anyone who does not want to accept that simple fact should be told to seek employment elsewhere. Right now the postal employees are turning up their noses at a wage increase that will bring their annual income to above $13,000 per year and, believe me, I challenge each and every one of the people who sneer at that salary to try to find a job anywhere else that will pay that kind of money for doing what they do in the Post Office.
Joe Davidson has a lot of his members believing that he can get them that kind of money for working only 30 hours a week if they will just hold out and refuse to sort mail until the government gives in. I think that the temper of this House is about the same as the temper of the Canadian people at this point. The majority of us are fed up with Davidson's and Parrot's posturing and primping. It is past time for us to serve notice on them that their tactics are not going to work any more, not for another day or for another hour.
They have shown us that they are not interested in anyone else except themselves. Davidson has said on public television "to hell with the public". Only a few days ago he laughed and said that he guessed that he would have to live with that remark. You bet he will have to live with it. I say to Davidson, "to hell with power-hungry, irresponsible and arrogant union leaders." Perhaps "holy Joe" believes that he can bring Canada to its knees and that he can keep sticking the knife in and twisting it until he gets everything he wants. The trouble is that even if he gets everything he demands today, he will be back next
2995 6-28

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
week or next month, until we finally run out of patience, and run the arrogant so and so out of the country.
I think we should take this opportunity tonight to let the Postmaster General know that the vast majority of people favour his stand not to give in to Joe Davidson's blackmail tactics. I would like to be able to say that the Postmaster General has my unqualified support, but to get that he is going to have to do more than just stand pat. The minister accepted the Post Office portfolio, and the portfolio carries with it a responsibility to maintain postal service in Canada.
Standing up to Davidson's bombastic posturing is a good start, but it is only a start. To get the show back on the road the minister must take the necessary steps to see that the rank and file of the CUPW are allowed to vote in a national, secret-ballot referendum, under proper supervision to ensure that the union executive is not able to rig the election. At this point in time I do not have one iota of faith in Mr. Davidson's integrity. I think that it is very important to allow the union members to vote without fear of retaliation from the thugs in the union.
I heard on tonight's radio news that people have been threatened in different parts of the country and have had threats made against their families. That is not the way decent people conduct business. That is the way gangsters and thugs do business, and it appears that that is the way Joe Davidson would prefer to do business.
In conclusion I would like to call on all of my colleagues, on this side of the House and on the government benches, to let the Postmaster General know that we have had enough of the nonsense that has paralyzed the Post Office and that we will support him in any positive steps he chooses to take to restore postal service in Canada. I do not hesitate to remind the minister that there are hundreds of thousands of people looking for jobs in Canada. If the people in the Post Office do not want to work, then fire them and hire people who want to work.
Let us stop playing games and let us keep in mind that the Post Office belongs to the Canadian people and that it is an essential service. To the Postmaster General I say: let us get the show back on the road.
Some hort. Members: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am sure the hon. gentleman and his many assistants in the department are reading the editorials in the newspapers, hearing from the little people who are urging him, 10 to 1, no, 100 to 1, in these terms: we have had enough of catering to the unions; cater to the people of Canada who thought, at one time, that they had a good postal service. I am sure the Postmaster General would like to see a return to those standards.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask him whether, in his speech, he was expressing the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down!
(Mr. Darling.]


Stan Darling: In answer to the very knowledgeable member of the New Democratic Party, may I say I have been expressing the policy of, probably, 90 per cent of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I have also been expressing the policy of a great many other people, and it is a policy I have favoured from the very beginning.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the hon. member permit a further question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. This is not a question period. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones).


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my remarks this evening will be very brief. The subject of debate tonight is of great importance to the nation, all sections of which are at the mercy of certain hardened attitudes and certain individuals.
The long term effects of the continued breakdown of collective bargaining will cause substantial damage not only to those directly involved but to the economy generally; indeed, the effect might be to drag the nation to the ground.
I have a great deal of respect for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) mainly because at one time he happened to live in the constituency of Moncton. But the remarks of the Postmaster General tonight have done nothing but add further fuel to an inferno which is already spreading great damage and causing irreparable harm. Likewise the union representatives have in the past done and said things which should have been left undone and unsaid. Communication via the news media is no way to carry on collective bargaining.
The nation needs a postal service, and the provision of a postal service is a responsibility of government and of parliament. Most nations pride themselves on their postal services. It is time we put our postal service in place. This affects not only business but every home and every individual. The postal strike has gone on long enough now, and we can no longer allow our citizens to suffer because of the personal attitudes of the individuals concerned. There is still a chance for collective bargaining, and if both parties are still concerned about the public interest, then whether through the appointment of a mediator, or by an immediate return to work voluntarily, or by legislation parliament should concentrate, by every means possible, on getting the postal services back into operation.
This is no time to rehash history. We must look to the future, the future of the postal service, the future of our industry and commerce, the future of our people. We must put a stop to the damage and inconvenience which the public is experiencing. We have a responsibility; we must accept it, and take positive steps. We have a job to do, let us get on with that job. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of both parties. We should attempt to resolve the problem once and for all. If the Postmaster General does not intend to bring in back-to-work legislation immediately, then I would suggest, if he and his colleagues are agreeable, and if the union repre-
November 17, 1975

sentatives are agreeable, that as an independent member of parliament I would be willing to sit down with both parties, not in Ottawa, but in a faraway, neutral, friendly territory, namely, Moncton, New Brunswick, in a sincere effort to help resolve the postal strike forthwith.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular subject which I am very concerned about because it concerns all the people of Canada, not just certain segments of our society. I am always concerned and always quite dumbfounded by some of the statements made by members of the New Democratic Party, supposedly, those strong supporters of labour.
I was going over today, while I was looking over my notes, some of the background of some of these strong supporters of labour. Perhaps I may just go through them. The leader: University of Toronto, London School of Economics.


Walter David Baker: Socialist hotbeds.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles): Brandon College, United College and McMaster University; the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin): Radley College, England and Osgoode Hall; The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom): University of Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Finally, I foUnd one man, half way down the list, who was labour-oriented-the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), a former CPR man and a man well respected. I am sure his background must have been Liberal because in the old days everybody was Liberal in the CPR and the CNR. I continue with my list- the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt): University of British Columbia; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who is a strong fighter for labour: Laurentian University and St. Stanislaus College; The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas): McMaster University and Chicago University.


John Gilbert: This is the best speech of the evening!


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: We find yet another in this motley crew of strong labour advocates-the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters): the only one I could find in the list who is proven labour because, of course, he was an organizer for the International Woodworkers Union. I go on to the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman): University of Waterloo, and Wilfrid Laurier. The next one is the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that staunch labour man: University of Manitoba. The next one we come to is the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn): the University of Western Ontario.
Then we run into one who maybe has found the secret of labour, the secret of human kindness, the secret of humanity, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) who previously had to do with native relations, who knew the meaning of socialist justice and has proven it. How he fell off into the area of the New Democratic Party I do not understand. We cannot all be right all the time.
Postal Strike
Then there is the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes): Lakehead College and Queen's University. Finally, because I do not want to leave out any of these prodigious gentlemen who fight for labour so strongly with their strong labour background, there is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan): St. Francis Xavier and Boston University. Obviously hon. members of this House and, I hope the people of Canada realize the strong and entrenched element of labour in that party. It makes me feel very strong that people should realize the strong labour background of that strong, labour-oriented group.
[DOT] (Midnight)
Is it not wonderful to know how to work in a factory, to get one's fingers dirty? Not too many of the members of that group know that. They are the saviours of labour; that is the only way to go. They tried to save labour in my riding, but thank God we won the people back, some 2,000 in that area. If they follow the example they have shown in the first 18 to 19 months of this parliament, we will win an even bigger margin next time.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) said the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) was straddling the fence. I am sure everyone in this beautiful country of Canada realizes that the Postmaster General has never straddled the fence from the beginning of his political life to the present day, so I feel that the hon. member's remarks were not appropriate at this time. This gentleman is fighting for all Canadians in making sure that the fellows in the labour movement who at the present time are causing problems do not give the labour movement a black eye, as they have been trying to do in the last six to seven months. This disgusts me and everyone involved in labour.
These supposed gentlemen from CUPW-I give them the benefit of the word gentlemen, though I see the leader of the NDP shaking his head-I will leave that up to him- these gentlemen are now starting to bring the movement back to the point where my father fought for it in the thirties. People are classing the labour movement as one group, but not all labour leaders are irresponsible. In most cases labour unions are responsible. They have a responsible motive in trying to get a fair wage for hard work. These supposed labour leaders are putting down the drain all of the things my father and grandfather worked for, and I do not like that. They are turning over things for which they worked very hard. You remember the thirties when-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he must address the Chair, not members opposite.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: I apologize, Madam Speaker. My grandfather, my father, and I have been in the labour movement, and my grandfather would turn over in his grave at what is taking place. It was a fight at the beginning, but through the democratic process they were able to sit down with management and come to an agreement without civil strife. This is not what the gentlemen who are leading CUPW are doing today. They are forcing division in the labour movement and in the country, and they are losing
29956 - 28)4

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
the opportunity to put the labour movement ahead. I see the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) smiling. I am not sure what his background or his father's is, but my grandfather fought for the labour movement. He was on the railroad, which is why I have such great respect for the hon. member.
I hope every member of the House will go into the lunch room and find out what people in the labour movement are thinking. They have now reached the point where they are losing faith in their leaders. When they lose faith in their leaders they lose their direction. When they lose their direction it could be time for revolt in the labour movement. I do not want to see that, and I do not want any member of this House or anyone in the galleries to be responsible for it. If they are, then they will have to answer to a lot of people who for many years have worked to make the labour movement what it is today.
I appreciate the views of the Postmaster General. All Canada is looking at what the government is going to do now. Is it going to stand firm and strong, or is it going to back off? Certainly I would support the Postmaster General in his efforts, because I think the key to this country over the next 15 years is what we do right now.
| Translation\


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join all those who have spoken on the motion before us and depending on one's point of view in the debate, we all seem to be a little right since, the situation being what it is, we must confess that unfortunately once more it proves to be disastrous and shows beyond any doubt that we are not yet mature enough to find appropriate ways of preventing it from happening.
I should like to take some time to deal with that particular angle, so that we can realize once and for all the need to discover normal ways of arriving at settlements agreeable to parties concerned, not only in the Post Office, but also in all sectors of economic activity in the country, thinking precisely that that strike will end one day and we will immediately embark on another one somewhere else.
That is the most deceiving and unjustifiable thing, Madam Speaker. How come indeed, in 1975, we are still obliged to resort to extreme action to solve problems? That is not good enough. We are not living in the Middle Ages. Communications today have developed so much that, as I said, it is unacceptable that an agreement cannot be reached, that it is impossible to talk, discuss and reach a decision. That is not good enough! And moreover, we find that those means which should be used in the last resort are in current use. They are now commonplace, as it were. We live with that. We accept the fact, we admit it and are ready to go on like this.
This is so true, Madam Speaker, that after the first indications that a strike was possible and could last a certain time, already arrangements were being made to . cope with this strike and try to deliver the mail just the same, to settle the most urgent problems, such as the delivery of old age pensions, family allowances and unemployment insurance benefits. I found it quite strange that steps were being taken even before the strike. This means
|Mr. Condon.]
that we find quite normal to resort to a contingency plan which should only be considered in an extreme situation.
Madam Speaker, it is very sad indeed to find that we have reached such a point. I would not want to decide who is right and who is wrong, but rather I wonder whether the time has not come to seriously consider ways to settle the major problems that strikes have become. Why not once and for all stop to think and find mechanisms which would make strikes useless? I would not say that the right to strike should be taken away, but I say that we are irresponsible if in 1975 we fail to find a way to prevent strikes.
Of course, as others have stressed before me, very often workers resort to this extreme method, the strike, to win their case, but that does not always reflect the views of the workers as a whole in a given area. I agree with those who advocate a secret vote and not a vote by a show of hands, so that every worker may be allowed to voice his real opinion, namely, whether he wants to resort to strike or not. It is quite obvious that, unfortunately, many union leaders seem to want to justify their role and their job. To acknowledge that fact is not being anti-labour. Unfortunately, such are the facts.
It seems therefore that these union leaders or important labour associates justify their positions. In order to prove to the rank and file that they are necessary, useful and essential, they cause or provoke troubles artificially, for, as indicated by one of the previous speakers, it is something of a paradox that while there are hundreds of thousands of workers who are anxiously seeking employment, others are not satisfied with the jobs they have. Quite a paradox!
I feel it is necessary, however, to take into account the situations as they are, and to find accordingly a solution to the present conflict, but especially, as I stated in my opening remarks, devote some time seriously considering final solutions to all the conflicts which are troubling the Canadian economy, concerning society and demoralizing our people. Let us not deny it: we have reached that stage.
Madam Speaker, the Postmaster General, the government and this Parliament must absolutely decide to put an end to that postal strike and, overmore, to find a way to avoid strikes once and for all. As I suggested through a motion under Standing Order 43, when we have found a way to avoid that strike, it will have become obsolete.
It has often been suggested, and I say it again, that we will finally have to set up labour courts, similar to our courts of justice. Those who would be called upon to judge will, of course, be chosen very objectively. They would have the same authority as ordinary courts. That is the solution towards which we must strive, which we must achieve so that, when there is disagreement between employer and employee, after discussions have been held, if no agreement has been reached then both parties can go before one of those labour tribunals who will pass objective judgment on the worthiness of the claims of the employee and the value of the objections of the employee. The judgment once passed, would then be irrevocable just as that of our courts of justice.
Madam Speaker, these abnormal situations must be done away with; I would even call them childish. I have four little boys, the oldest is 13, the youngest six; they say at
November 17, 1975

home: If you do not give me this, I shall do that. This is childish.
We are adults and we are discussing simply to get to blackmail: give me this or else I stop working, give us that or we do not distribute mail any more. It is terrible to have to resort to such procedures in 1975. It is childish.
It is absolutely necessary to find a solution to ensure that these things do not happen and this is why I do insist on a basic agreement, a major settlement for all conflicts which are likely to happen; this way, it would not be necessary to discuss repeatedly a settlement in a given area.
I think that this should be taken into account and that we should move towards an immediate review in this field. True, others have talked about it before me. To whom are those strikes most harmful? The first ones to bear the brunt are the strikers themselves.
It is unfortunate that this should be so. They are those who will be the first victims. Evidently the whole society will also suffer the consequences of their action, but I believe that as representatives of the people we cannot let this go on unchecked for long.
Therefore, in my view, the minister and the government are under obligation to settle this conflict immediately with whatever means are at our disposal. But we should also endeavour to find real solutions to those problems so that they never come up to the House again.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I am certainly surprised that a member of this House, especially the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) who spoke recently could be so narrow minded that he would think everyone in this country could use the telephone and would not need mail service. I am surprised at the intelligence of such a member of this House.
I have a story to tell. I want every member of this House to picture a small, remote, northern settlement which has no television, no newspapers, and depends on airstrips and the mail as its means of communication with the outside world. The story I have to bring to the attention of this House is not fiction. It is an indication of how some people try to cope with government bungling. In November of 1974 a little old lady in a remote area of Manitoba was visited by her doctor who prescribed medication for the treatment of her ailment. The nearest drug store was some 236 air miles away. This lady is a senior citizen. She is dependent on her pension. Her pension is her only means of support.
She had the problem of making arrangements with the drug store some 236 air miles away to send in her medication by mail each month on the same plane that brought in her pension cheque. The arrangements were completed and everything went well until the postal strike of last February. At that time, as we all know, the mail came to a complete stop. This really hurts the people in remote areas because the mail is their only means of communication with the outside world.
This little old lady was not going to be caught without her medication. She scurried around and made arrange-
Postal Strike
ments to have her medication brought in on the sched-runs which are part of the class III operations of the air carriers in the north. These are weekly runs into the various communities. Everything was arranged. She was to have a parcel shipped in a little package. It would come in on the sched-run. In this way she would receive her medication. Thankfully the strike was settled without too much delay and she was able to have her pension cheque to pay for the medication.
But this little old lady did not intend to be caught without her medication again, so she continued to receive the medication in the little package on the sched-run. She did not intend to depend on the Post Office to bring this much needed medication to her. This practice worked fine until, lo and behold, the Ministry of Transport in July made a decision. There are five airstrips in northern Manitoba that are served exclusively by air. These communities found that their airstrips were taken out of the class III operations and they were virtually left with an air system by which there would be only charter aircraft coming into their area.
The residents of northern Manitoba wondered just who would make a decision like this to cut off not only their mail but their only means of transportation. They came to the decision that the person responsible was probably some bureaucrat sitting in a comfortable office in Ottawa who had an all-year round airstrip at his service, and who was not thinking of the people in the remote areas.
Now, back to the story. After the bureaucratic ruling was made that these airstrips were not up to the national standard necessary for air carriers to operate a class III service, the operation was suspended except for charter flights. This was the second blow to strike this little old lady, but she was determined to live and cope with the decision of this great government. She made arrangements with the pilot to bring in the medication on the same day the pension cheque arrived. At last she could rest; but not for long, because, lo and behold, by the middle of October another postal strike was under way.
This little old lady was not going to give up. She had ten months of fighting with the government. She tried to outsmart the government. She was bound she would fight with the government to obtain the medication she so desperately needed. The medication had helped her regain strength so she walked down to the local post office which had remained opened. Although the post office was open it was only handling local mail. After she had arrived at the post office she spoke with the local postmaster who really did not have much to do because there was not much mail to handle. The mail was not coming in from the outside to this remote area.
After jawing for a while with the postmaster she asked if he had anything that she might read. Time was very heavy on her hands now. He said "Yes, we have some material here. On the last plane that came in before the strike we received 700 copies of the government's latest shiny new edition of 'How the Tax Dollar is Spent' ".
The citizens of Canada have no one to bargain on their behalf. This lady has no one to bargain on her behalf. She is caught in the middle. She does not belong to a union and therefore has no one to fight for her. She has no communication with the outside world. She depends entirely on the

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
mail service to bring her news of the outside world and the medication she so desperately needs. I cite only this example. This situation could be duplicated many times if we think of the parts of Canada other than the great corridor running from Montreal to Windsor.
There is another part of the country in which people are suffering because of the mail strike. I say, let us get the mail moving again. Then we should start working on Canada's postal service in an effort to bring it back to the excellent high standard of efficiency it once had. In my estimation at one time Canada had one of the best postal services in the world. I would certainly support the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) in his efforts to get the Post Office back on the right road because it is Canada and the people who live in this country who suffer.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, before saying a few words about the Post Office I should like to make one or two corrections. An hon. member made a statement to the effect that the minister is not aware that people are suffering. He quoted the minister as having said that. I think this is very improper.
The minister made it very clear that he is well aware of the fact that people are suffering and are suffering a great deal. These people who are suffering are writing to him saying, "I am suffering, but I am behind you", and that is a very different thing from saying that the minister does not know the people are suffering. He is very aware of that.


An hon. Member:: How did they send the letters they wrote?


Paul Edmund McRae: I have heard suggestions in the House and outside it that would put collective bargaining back 50 years, with people who have said, "Get those posties back to work and give them 10 per cent, that is all they are worth".


An hon. Member:: You have not heard that here.


Paul Edmund McRae: I said not necessarily in here. Then I have heard other suggestions, particularly from the NDP, which would give away the public purse completely. I think that between these areas there is something worthwhile to be said.
The problems of the Post Office today are not something that just happened in the last three or four weeks. They are very long term problems which go back to the early 1960s and the relationship between employees and employers and between the management and some of the local post offices and their employees. Sometimes this situation has been described as open warfare.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is perhaps the one person who is most aware of that. I talked to him many times before he was given this post and I know he understands these problems. We are talking about relations that in many cases are really deplorable. When he came to this job, and I talked to him about it at that time, his ambition was to get a good settlement for the postal employees and give them a feeling that they are somebody, that they are important, and to develop relations in the Post Office

which would result in a decent postal service, the kind we had in the early 1960's and before. That was his aim then, and that is his aim today. So what did he do? He sat down with the Treasury Board, he sat down with the Letter Carriers Union of Canada, and he got a good settlement, far more than the Treasury Board wanted to pay.
This settlement with the letter carriers was ratified by 82 per cent of the employees, and they are a satisfied group.
Now we sit down with the other group, the CUPW. This is a group that has perhaps more problems. They do a job that many people do not want to do, it is a repetitive job, there are conflicts inside. The outside workers can get out more and when they finish their day, they can leave their work. These postal employees are good people, good, solid Canadians, the backbone of our country. They are not wild radicals, but they have problems. So what did we do? We talked to them about all kinds of problems. One of them is the fear of automation. They were concerned about automation and about their jobs and their stake in the community. This is an important concern. We talked about those concerns.
I can tell you there are all kinds of other areas in this country where that has not been the way things have gone. We have said that we would protect these peoples' jobs. We talked about casuals. We were not just talking about what to do when an extra employee comes in, but we talked about that letter sorter who knows 1,500 routes and streets and where the letters went. We talked about that skilled man. When we said we would keep casuals down to a minimum we were saying that that particular full time employee is an important person, and we will pay him time and a half before we bring in a casual because he is important, he has valuable skills, and he can produce for us.
These are the kinds of things that have gone into this settlement, the kind of things that this minister and I want to see happen. We want to see a better postal service. We know that if you give these people a better chance, they will produce, because this is what everyone does. I say to you that that is the kind of settlement we wanted. There are limits, and the limit clearly is the amount that was given to the LCUC. This limit was the 38 per cent monetary settlement. For all kinds of reasons this is the limit, and the only reason we can get this through the Anti-Inflation Board is because historically there is a relationship between the letter carriers and the inside workers.
What concerns me tonight is the suggestion I hear from the NDP that we must have more mediation. To me mediation means one thing, it means getting someone who will find a middle ground between the union and the management. In this particular area there is no middle ground, and 38 per cent is the limit.
The second thing I heard from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was that he would like to see the postal workers' day cut from 40 to 35 hours. That is a very desirable thing, but when you suggest that you will take a 38 per cent increase and then you compound that by a 12 per cent increase, you end up with about 52 per cent. That is far more than the Treasury will bear, far more than the guidelines will allow, and in general it is not acceptable. These are the suggestions I have heard this evening.
November 17, 1975

I have heard others say that we should legislate the postal workers back to work. I think that today in this country there is a lot of support for the Postmaster General. He has suggested that in the next 24 hours he will put the content of the Moisan report to the people of this country and to the employees of the Post Office. He is saying that the content of this report has been basically accepted in the collective bargaining. It is the hope of the government, of the minister and of myself, that the employees will look at this, see that it is fair and, with the power they have within their union, will go back to work.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Madam Speaker, it has been suggested that one's life is somehow enriched by every new experience through which one passes, but I have been wondering just how my life has been enriched by the new experience I am having tonight, because never in my life have I endeavoured to preach a sermon or make a speech at half past one in the morning. I prefer a different time in the day for it in ordinary circumstances. But I do rise tonight to add my voice to the call for immediate and decisive action to bring to an end a strike in the postal service that has seriously affected and is seriously affecting the whole country.
It is not my intention to deal with the circumstances leading up to this stoppage in postal services, nor will I attempt to attach blame for the situation in which we presently find ourselves. I think sufficient has been said tonight to indicate that it has been of long duration, it has been stormy, and it has not resulted in satisfactory solutions to the problem. We are still in the position where the country is deprived of what we ordinarily consider to be a service that is vitally important to the nation.
I should like to say that the time has come, and actually is overdue, when the public interest must be taken into account and something tangible done to assist them. No doubt there are legitimate grievances behind the postal workers' decision to strike. No matter what the suggestion of leadership, I cannot imagine a group of responsible people putting the country to the inconvenience and hardship of a strike if there was no ground whatsoever for discontent and unrest.
Listening to the discussions that have taken place and the questions asked in this House and answered by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), it seems to me that the government has not been sufficiently sensitive to the causes of concern, frustration and desperation that these workers have experienced.
As we consider the national interest tonight I would say the time for decisive action has come to get the postal service functioning again, and to remove inconvenience and hardship from the Canadian people who have not contributed to the situation.
What we are having tonight is perhaps the continuation of a debate carried on over the past several weeks. The question has been asked; is the postal service an essential service? Without getting too deeply involved in that aspect I would say there is a relationship between that issue and the reason why the strike should be settled forthwith. To the people of Canada who have some degree of social
Postal Strike
mobility and a measure of economic freedom, the Post Office might not be essential. To large corporations which have ways and means to circumvent the Post Office, again the institution may not be essential.
I might say here, however, that there are many Canadians with whom I come in contact who are not getting along fairly well without regular mail delivery. I was amazed to hear some hon. members speaking tonight and playing down the serious effect the strike is having on certain sectors of the economy. Millions of Canadians and thousands of small businesses look upon the mail service as an essential service, and they are facing real difficulty these days.
We have been assured that provision has been made to get social security and other pension cheques into the hands of those who require them, but that may not be as easy as is pictured. There is the prospect of some people not getting their cheques for some time and many of them are dependent on the cheques coming right on the dot. If they do not they will have difficulty surviving for a week or two. I think the postal service is absolutely necessary to those people.
Hundreds of small businesses, in my constituency and all across the country, are experiencing problems in collecting accounts and sending out invoices and so on. I was amazed to hear a member from British Columbia, who is a small businessman, say that he was getting along very well thank you. He played down the difficulties facing small businesses. Perhaps I have been speaking to smaller businessmen than he, but they say they are facing real problems. We had better not play it down. These sectors of our economy view a dependable mail service as an essential service. Most of them are not big enough to hire their own courier service, or get around the Post Office by some other means.
Numbers of non-profit organizations in this country provide humanitarian services for thousands of people and they depend on regular donations to keep functioning. They face difficulty now, however, and as a result many people are going to suffer because these humanitarian enterprises cannot carry on. That aspect of the situation should be considered.
Another aspect that warrants consideration is the undemocratic nature and dictatorial attitude of some of the union leaders in the strike. Right from the beginning the union leaders have been unwilling to submit the government's proposal to the membership for a vote. The reason is that they know the members do not want a continuation of the strike and would probably ratify the government's offer if it were submitted to a vote.
I understand that violence has been precipitated by union people at various areas across the country. In Ottawa last week an inside postal worker went on radio station CKOY to plead for support for a return to work and to clarify the government contract to his co-workers. I am told his life was threatened by the union on the open line show.
In my riding individuals who returned to work were harassed and theatened by a group who came from Vancouver. They were presumably sent on union orders to intimidate those who had returned to work. This type of

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
conduct, if advocated by the union, amounts to an antidemocratic and dictatorial attitude. As members of the House of Commons and on behalf of the citizens of the country, we should reject outright this type of activity.
I have a telegram here and I did call the officials concerned to ask if I could read it into the record. They told me to go ahead, but still I hesitate to do so. I would not like to think that reading it into the record would bring harassment, threats, and intimidation upon them. The gist of the message is lack of responsible leadership on both sides. A request has been made for the government to legislate the union membership back to work. There is some indication of a wish to have the outstanding issues submitted to binding arbitration. That is the message coming to us from a local postal union and it indicates the attitude of many postal workers.
The Postmaster General should be commended for saying in the House that workers suspended by the union can still work in the Post Office. The statement will help to alleviate the fears of some postal workers. A union official indicated to me that workers have been threatened with the withdrawal of union cards, with the take-over by head office of their union, and with loss of jobs, pensions, and other benefits accruing to them from years of service in the Post Office.
I support something definite being done to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, because the sorts of threats to which I referred cannot be reconciled with the union's professed concern for the welfare of Post Office employees for that attitude, if it exists, is more reprehensible than injustice from which workers may have suffered.
The Postmaster General is not without blame, as his comments have generated resentment instead of good will. He has failed to act decisively in resolving the longest postal strike in our history.
All this points to one thing, the necessity for negotiating and concluding negotiations before the expiry of the contracts. Why should the parties wait until a contract has expired and then go through the motions of negotiation, conciliation, or whatever may take place? I think these matters ought to be considered before the present contract expires; and the process can be carried on by negotiation and mutual agreement between the two groups concerned. Perhaps it ought to be brought to final arbitration and a settlement imposed in the interest of the national economy.
I appreciate the opportunity for placing my views on record at this early hour of the morning and trust that action will be taken to resolve the strike, return the workers to their jobs, and reinstate our postal service.


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, let me say with all the strength of my feelings that I am proud to associate myself with the Postmaster General's actions thus far. Probably I shall be proud of his actions in future. We are dealing with an existing situation, not with a situation which may exist in the future. For that reason we must be careful to consider the best way of dealing
(Mr. Patterson.]
with this matter in the present in order that we do not adversely affect events in the future.
His past actions show the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) to be a most human and interested person. He has been worried about what might happen to workers with the advent of automation. His concern was apparent when the huge plant at Mississauga was erected. He wondered if the workers' social adjustment had been taken into consideration, if their physical amenities like showers and recreational facilities were adequate, and if there was opportunity for them to socialize after work. In my presence, and on television, the Postmaster General has indicated his concern for Post Office workers, and I am confident that he, being a most human, warm Canadian, will do all he can for them.
I cannot forget what a great part the postman played in my growing up. The pension cheque was important in my household, my father being a totally disabled veteran. I remember the old postman sometimes coming to my mother and telling her not to worry, that he would speak to the sorters and bring the cheque as quickly as possible. Today, when so many people live in apartment buildings, postmen put the mail in mail boxes without ever talking to the people they serve. Yet the letter carrier can still show strong interest in those he serves. I think the Postmaster General understands all this.
Let me tell hon. members a story about the Postmaster General which he probably does not know I know. But, after all, little happens in Verdun that is not known fairly soon in places far away. Recently I was speaking at the anniversary of the church in the riding, and I learned that the Postmaster General was speaking that same evening in that city. All this took place before the present strike.
At that time we were witnessing a slowdown of the mails, and I understand that the Postmaster General was on the way home from his speaking engagement at about the present time of day, in the early hours of the morning. He turned to his driver and asked if anything of interest had happened in the constituency. He was told that a family in the constituency was expecting an important registered letter from Toronto; the family was anxiously awaiting it but it had not been delivered.
Apparently the Toronto office had clearly indicated that the letter had arrived at the old post office on Church Avenue, Verdun, but had not been sorted. The Postmaster General said, "Well, I guess we had better go down there." His driver said, "Is it not a little late? Should we not go home?" The Postmaster General said, "No" and went down to the post office.
You can just imagine the Postmaster General walking in the door of the post office in his tuxedo, and the surprise of the people behind the wicket. The Postmaster General asked about the letter, but was told that there had been so much mail that the letter probably had not been sorted. So the Postmaster General took off his evening jacket and said, "Let's look in that pile; perhaps we shall find it."
In the meantime the telephone rang. Apparently the manager in charge of the post office, realizing the urgency for the person concerned, had looked for the letter and delivered it by hand. So the Postmaster General put on his
November 17, 1975

coat, looked up and said. "If you ever need any help, give me a call and I will be glad to help you any time."
That shows you how human the Postmaster General is in his relations with the workers. He does not order, does not demand, but sets an example. He shows how the people should be served.
That is the kind of person I know the Postmaster General to be. I am not ashamed to speak this way, because when I was a young man at university and he was an alderman, he hired me to work for him. So I have had some strong experience of the man and that is why I have so much confidence in him.


An hon. Member:: Yes, and I have a tear in my eye.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I am not interested in the hon. member's tears. I am interested in his listening, and in his saying something important, if he has anything important to say.
I have become convinced in the debate tonight. I have heard almost everyone stand up and say in a very sincere way what they think should be done. I did not get the impression that anyone stood up just for the sake of speaking. In my way I have spoken strongly to indicate that there are some people who have a close relationship with the Postmaster General and believe in him. That is my purpose in saying what I have said. Other members have stated ways in which they think the situation should be solved.
The major opposition has said, "Legislate them back to work to solve the situation." The NDP in its way has said, "Start bargaining all over again." The government, through the Postmaster General has said in very clear terms that we are on the beaches. That is what this is all about. This is what this war on avarice is all about.
We are on the beaches. We are speaking tonight as Canadians. Postmen, opposition, members of parliament, small businessmen, whatever your lot or your background may be, we are on the beaches. We do not feel embarrassed at standing there very firmly and saying we take the stand that the time for patriotism has come.
This is indeed a war of avarice. It must start at some point. We are fortunate that in our front echelon we have a Postmaster General who has taken that stand. That is the stand he has taken. If you listened to his speech you will note that he not so much wanted to tell you about the past but to do something now and, in doing something now, we might save the future.


An hon. Member:: Say something, Gus.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I have made no remarks about your university education. I think it would be worthwhile thinking of that factor and not continually saying what might or should be done. I saw many of us standing together in the fight against inflation tonight as we have done since I came to this parliament. I say we should enjoin the Postmaster General, accept his stand on the beach and accept his call which is, "Join me in the fight." In this case let us stand and say to all of those who would utilize any method of power, "Slow down the situation
Postal Strike
which has become so serious in this country." I still have to conclude that because I am not getting through to the backbenchers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Just get off the beach.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Actually the beach was a very important place to be when there was only one beach left and only one island. We should not forget it. It was indeed a very important beach. If a certain man had not said we face the most terrifying of times, if he had not believed that he should stand all alone and wait to give time to those who had poor eyesight to get half ready-


Walter David Baker: There is not a dry eye
in the House.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: -unless you are willing to accept that, we are not going to attack the situation properly. If members opposite think that this is just a parliamentary discussion on whether or not we should legislate on a strike, we should not be speaking at this time of night. We are speaking on a very serious principle, whether the government at this moment is doing what it thinks is best for the good of this country and attempting to succeed in doing that without being delayed by many forces. The forces that will come after the Post Office will be many more. We are only facing one such night of debate.
I hope we will be standing here some night when I am hoarse, bedraggled, and worn, still saying one more chance. The Postmaster General is saying give those workers another chance to speak to their leaders. Let us give those leaders another chance to believe.


An hon. Member:: What leaders?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: They' are union leaders like I presume myself to be a leader in my constituency. They too are important. This the minister doesn't forget. That is the important aspect of what he is doing, with no concern for himself, his health or his person, but with a great deal of concern for people. I ask members very strongly to support him in this matter. I hope that a great deal of strength will come, not only from this side but the opposite side of the floor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), for moving the motion that is permitting us to have this special debate on the postal crisis this evening. Because it is already one o'clock in the morning I will try to be as brief as possible. This is an extremely serious matter that we are discussing, and Canadians have been wondering why parliament has not been more active before now in dealing with the strike.
The government has indicated that nothing concrete will happen at the conclusion of our debate. Tomorrow the strike will still be continuing and the millions of Canadians who need adequate postal services will continue to be denied them. What the debate will do is to allow us to put on record the fact that our constituents are demanding an

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
end to this strike and that the time has come for the government to act.
My colleagues and I in the Progressive Conservative party for several weeks resisted pressures upon us to call for a legislated end to the strike because we believed that the collective bargaining process should be given every opportunity to work without parliament's intervention. It must be clear by now, however, that the strike will not end without parliament's intervention, and the time for us, to take action is now.
Every day that the strike continues brings more suffering for those least able to cope with its effects. For hundreds of thousands of retired Canadians this means that dividend cheques needed to pay for their rent or food are prevented from arriving, and that many of them with families abroad or long distances away have lost contact with their relatives.
For Canada's small businessmen the strike has cost millions of dollars already and the bill continues to mount each day the strike drags on. Before long many small businesses will be forced to close their doors because they simply cannot continue to carry unpaid bills for many more weeks. The cost will be high in terms of lost jobs and a declining rate of recovery from the present recession.
For the postal workers the strike has already cost each of them a considerable amount of money. One of the previous speakers used the figure of $1,000. For every Canadian, the added cost and inconvenience caused by this continuing strike will be great, and I believe that the protection of the public interest demands that the workers be sent back to work.
During the time I have been in Ottawa I have had a number of occasions when I spoke to protest the enormous inefficiency of the Post Office and the constantly increasing cost of this government department that is providing steadily declining levels of service. I have received hundreds of complaints from constituents about lost or delayed mail, or about the staggering waste of money spent to improve the public image of the Post Office. What is remarkable, however, is that virtually none of the complaints I have received has involved discourtesy or sloppiness on the part of the workers in our area. My experience is that our local workers have done more to enhance the reputation of the Post Office than any number of striped mail boxes or slick advertising campaigns.
What is disturbing is that morale among these workers has been declining along with the deterioration in the general level of service provided by the Post Office, because no amount of work on their part can make up for the breakdowns which occur in the postal system in our large cities. It is there that the greatest problem exists. My constituents feel the time has come for a complete re-evaluation of the Post Office and its activities. They are fed up with their mail being delayed for weeks on end. They are sick of receiving envelopes and parcels which have been torn open in transit and separated from their contents. And they feel there are better ways to spend the millions of dollars of taxpayers' money earmarked for advertising by the Post Office.

What the small businessmen in my area find particularly galling is that a government which is constantly picking their pockets, or showering them with miles of forms to fill out, or invading their businesses to scrutinize their books, or devising one new regulation after another, should prove so totally incapable of running its own operations. The simple fact is that if any businessman ran his operation the way the Post Office is being run, the government would have put him out of business long ago.
It should not be necessary to point out that the Post Office is an essential service in Canada. There is simply no other way of delivering the volume of parcels and messages that should be delivered by the Post Office if it were functioning. The reason for this is that the Post Office is the largest monopoly in the country and that, unlike the private monopolies and cartels which the government is quick to condemn, it is a coercive monopoly, one which enjoys the power of the law to protect its position. It is ironic in these circumstances that the former postmaster general has progressed from leading the country's largest monopoly to becoming Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), a responsibility he discharges by travelling the countryside denouncing cartels and monopolies and threatening to jail businessmen.
The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot continue to maintain its monopoly position and then allow the essential services it is running to be shut down for long periods. Already this strike has been the longest in our postal history and no end to it is yet in sight. If the government is serious about ensuring that Canadians receive the service they deserve it will have to take a serious look at the alternatives available for the future. I say this because the average person will not stand for continued breakdown of the Post Office. Either the government will have to encourage private competition with the Post Office, or else it will be obliged to find new ways of settling labour-management disputes as well as dramatically upgrading the efficiency of the department.
Just this afternoon I was talking on the telephone with a small businessman in my constituency. He told me he wished he could find some method of getting his mail delivered that he could afford, because the delivery services presently operating are too expensive for small businesses to use. He was just one of thousands of cases where small businesses are being paralyzed by the postal strike.
I have spoken strongly in this House in support of civil rights which are being threatened. My stand on human rights is on record and I will continue to speak out in the future when I feel they are being infringed upon. But I have never believed that to deny the vast majority of people their right to essential services constitutes the human right of anyone, nor have I felt that a situation in which one party to an issue-in this case the government- could be Crown attorney, judge and jury, is one which can best lead to the solutions of our problems. When the welfare of our citizens can be held to ransom by a small group in an essential service there is no right to strike or lock out-there can only be the privilege to strike or lock workers out. It is time for that privilege to be withdrawn in the present situation, and for a fair and rational substitute to be put in place.
November 17, 1975

Over the last several months I have talked to a number of postal workers in my area. They are dedicated and hard-working; they did not want to strike. What they wanted was the opportunity to settle their differences with the government in a fair way without leaving their jobs. They were vexed by the fact that no negotiations for a new contract had taken place before their old contract ran out, and they were disturbed by the escalating war of words between the Postmaster General and the union leadership. They felt they deserved an increase in their salaries, those salaries having been eaten away by inflation and no longer being in line with those of people in similar jobs. I believe they were justified in seeking an increase.
They were also concerned about deteriorating working conditions in the Post Office and the sagging morale of the workers. Once again they were right in their worries, and they were correct too in deploring the use of television cameras in new facilities to monitor workers as though they were presumed to be thieves even before anything was missing.
What they were looking for was a way to solve their differences with management without having to engage in a strike which would gain them little and would serve only to enrage an increasingly hostile public. They knew that if they went on strike the government would be able to legislate them back to work on its own terms, but they could see little alternative to doing so. Already many of the people in my area have gone back to work. The Elmira post office, for example, re-opened on November 7, and the Orangeville workers have also returned to the job. I believe the workers would like to go back throughout most of Ontario and I think the union leadership is aware of this fact. Surely this is the reason they are doing whatever they can to prevent their membership having the opportunity to vote on the government's latest offer.
With the irresponsible and arrogant attitude of the present union leadership it is clear the postal workers will likely continue to be denied their right to vote. That is why I was disappointed that the leader of the NDP today prevented the House from accepting a motion which could have resulted in the rank and file of the union having the opportunity to decide what course of action would be followed now.
I listened to the hon. member's rationalisation on the radio this evening and I was disappointed that he should have sought to justify his opposition to the motion on the grounds that he saw it as a means of undermining the union leadership. He knows very well that such a vote could only bolster their position if they enjoyed anything like the support they claim to have. A vote on the contract could damage them only if they had been inflating the support they claimed from within the membership. I suspect that the leader of the NDP is aware of that fact, which is why he raised his voice in objection. In doing so he did a disservice both to the union membership and the Canadian public.
The government has the power to end this strike and it should do so before more time is lost. However, hon. gentlemen opposite must also demonstrate that they are aware of the more fundamental issues underlying the strike. They must recognize that negotiations for a new contract should begin long before the old contract expires. And they
Postal Strike
must recognize that the privilege of striking and locking out in essential services must, if the public interest is to be protected, be replaced by binding arbitration which would be fair to both workers and management and, most important of all, be fair to the Canadian public.
The government must show itself willing to deal with its workers on the basis of mutual trust. The closed circout television cameras now being used to spy on the workers should be removed from work areas. What is even more important, the government must show moral leadership both in the fight against inflation and in the restoration of a belief in the importance and dignity of work.
The government has created a social climate in which work thrift, and restraint are looked upon as a sucker's game. It has asked the working people to show restraint at the same time as it raids their earnings to pay for wasteful projects such as the senseless advertising campaign for the Post Office, costing more than $400,000, which included that meaningless advertisement showing a rural doctor mailing blood samples to the city. When I saw this advertisement I was shocked by this waste of money and I put a question on the order paper about it asking how much it had cost. The Postmaster General replied that it had cost $435,000. It included the suggestion that the Post Office feels "our mail is vital".
I asked the Postmaster General how many complaints of lost or damaged mail had been received by the Post Office in 1974 and his answer was that about 125,000 complaints had been received. I asked a further question-whether the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) was looking into the possibility of suing the Post Office for fraud, since it had claimed that the safe handling and delivery of Canadian mail was vital. The answer to that question was, no. It seems that fraud in government is quite different from fraud in the private sector; government would have acted more quickly there.
The Postmaster General should take a close look at the $2 million spent by the so-called public affairs group in the Post Office who are in fact nothing more than overpaid P.R. men for the Post Office.
If the government is to restore the work ethic in Canada it must also start to look at the unemployment insurance system which all too often subsidizes clever frauds at the expense of the working man, at the very same time as people who need help because they are sick or injured are refused it by the government. It should be remembered that, when we look at the malaise in the Post Office today, it was in the unemployment insurance program that the minister worked his last magic before turning his attention to the Post Office.
This strike must be ended now, and work must begin on overhauling the Post Office to turn it into a modern and efficient means of communication between Canadians and a rewarding place to work for the thousands of people it employs. Canadians are disturbed-as indeed they should be-by the fact that while the Post Office deficit has more than tripled in the past three years the quality of service has deteriorated badly. They have a right to demand leadership from the government, and if our efforts here tonight result in the re-appraisal of government policy toward the Post Office we will have achieved a great victory for the people of this country.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, much has been said here tonight. Words have poured undaunted from the mouths of many of my learned and very dignified colleagues.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Hear, hear!


Crawford Douglas: But what do all these words mean? How many of the words spoken here tonight will be remembered when the lights are finally dimmed in these spacious surroundings? Will they all go for naught? Will these words, as so many times in the past, fall on deaf ears? I know they fall on deaf ears here. We look around from time to time and wonder who is listening.


Mr. Peters:: We are listening.


Crawford Douglas: I hope members on this side listen to what is said from the other side, and I hope that from time to time members over there stop hollering for long enough to listen to what is said on this side.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Get the whip to get your boys out.


Crawford Douglas: If there are so many of you who want to speak, there is no time limit on the debate and it can be allowed to go on until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon, in which case I am sure all will have their turn.
It is so easy for us here tonight to do what we are doing now, to wage political war on each other. What do we accomplish by this? Yet the words spoken in these political battles will be forgotten as surely as many of the words said here tonight will be forgotten within 24 hours.


An hon. Member:: You are turning it into a political arena.


Crawford Douglas: If you want to do that we can start right now. I do not have to repeat the message that has been repeated time and time and time again, both tonight and during the course of various stages of debate in the House of Commons. It is the voice of Canadians crying from one corner of the land to the other for reason. It is a voice crying for reason whether in this House, whether in the Post Office in the isolated outposts of the far north, in the far flung farms of the prairies, the fishing villages on both coasts, or the mighty metropolis up into the heart of Canada. What we are hearing throughout this debate is the cry to stop for a minute, listen, and look at the future.
There was a message on television tonight saying that the Canadian Labour Congress will start their $500,000 campaign to combat the government's anti-inflation measures tomorrow. I understand there will be buttons and ad compaigns, and the question we will be asked, which is one that the political leaders and the postal workers should take to heart, is: why me? That is the question that I think the letter carriers and every member of the postal workers' union is asking right now-why me? The answer is a very simple one.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They should ask that question in Toronto.


Crawford Douglas: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) mentions Toronto.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am telling you what the facts are.


Crawford Douglas: It is nice to hear the facts from so learned and well educated a gentleman. I am sorry I do not have those qualifications. The answer to all of this has been fully revealed in our debate tonight. Each and every one of us is a Canadian concerned about the future of our country. If the postal workers ask why they should accept the package put forward at this time by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), my answer to them and to the CLC, when they ask why me, is: because they are Canadians and their future depends on it. The future of this country depends on it.


Mr. Horner:: Which side are you on?


Crawford Douglas: You will never know. We are all concerned about the small businessman. Were the postal union members, in rejecting this contract, showing any concern for the rural mail carriers? I have not heard any member speak of them tonight, yet almost all of them depend upon the delivery of the mail to their areas. They are ready to go to work, and many of them are still at work. The previous speaker mentioned that a couple of postal stations are now open, and I commend them for that. Listowel has also been added to the list recently, and there are many others in western Ontario. Those of us who represent that part of the country can be proud of the fact that the people there take pride in their citizenship and in the fact that they want to work for a fair wage under reasonable conditions. But they do not ask the impossible.
Mail delivery in this country is something we could have been proud of over the years. Many members remember the importance of mail during the war years. Delivery of mail is important now particularly to small businesses in rural areas that not only do not have mail service but transportation to get mail delivered.
To the leaders of the postal workers I offer this old adage: By your actions you will be known. Let us look at some of the actions of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. They want to be known as responsible citizens of this country. Is it responsible to hold 28 illegal stoppages of work in 30 months? What is responsible about that? What have they achieved by going out illegally 28 times in 30 months?
I think the one message we must take from the debate tonight is that there has been a response to the question: why me? Why should the union accept the contract? The answer is: because it is a good contract. It is a contract equal to one accepted by the letter carriers, one that in many respects is above the inflation guidelines.
Why cannot the government offer more? Simply because, as has been stated many times, we cannot afford to offer more. Many times people from my constituency-I am sure it is the same in other constituencies-have asked me when are we going to say no. Now is the time to say no, and there are many more times in the future when we will also have to say no. We must show determination and deliberateness by our actions tonight, and back up the Postmaster General in saying no. We must show him that
November 17, 1975

members of parties on both sides of the House are determined to back him up and continue to do so in the future. The answer for tonight, the answer for tomorrow, and the answer for the future, when someone asks "Why me?" is: because they are Canadians and it is their future we are talking about.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the debate and I would like to add a few remarks.
The hon. member who spoke before me indicated, as other members before him and the Postmaster General himself, that the current offers are final. If the government decided they could do no more, we now ask for a decision to call those people back to work. For two or three years the situation had been deteriorating. Tonight's debate is concerned with postal workers. Not so long ago there was another postal strike. In other areas, proposals came quite short of meeting the Canadian people's needs and remedy both problems and inequities.
The minister explained he could not solve the problem because of exaggeration on the part of the union. But on the other hand, the postal service has been paralyzed for five or six weeks. We recognize this is an essential service. How long are we going to ponder the issue of essential services and the public interest? Such in my view is the question every member should ask himself. I realize the minister made every effort to reach a settlement.
We recognize the public is faced with serious difficulties because of the postal stoppage. This afternoon again we received representations, as so many others did. In my village, the manager of a very important business firm in the area indicated he was establishing a collection service for the twelve hundred accounts to be collected during the month. There are a large number of such firms across the country.
Last week I was concerned that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) announced the introduction of an emergency service to move correspondence and also family allowance and old age security cheques, and I wondered whether the government was preparing to maintain the status quo for a long time, and that service will apparently cost at least $700,000 a month. Up to what point will that service enable the government to maintain the status quo?
However, we believe that considering all the efforts the minister made and the objections of the union, the government should take responsible action. We were asked in the evening what the opposition wanted. We want the government to take responsible action, to meet the needs of the public, and we sincerely believe that dispute could drag on for quite a long while. Some hon. members suggested mediation, we suggested a free vote of all the workers interested considering the present government offers. If all that fails, we shall then be willing to consider special legislation to bring workers back to work with a mind to public interest.
Postal Strike
Mr. Speaker, I will with your permission quote some editorials and especially the one by Claude Ryan who recently declared:
However, that is not the fundamental question the Canadian people put to the Postmaster General today ... The only question that should interest them is in fact this one: How long can the country be sensibly left to live without a postal service in the name of public interest?
That is the question we are trying to deal with tonight.
As long as a strike is liable to produce better results than bargaining, and as the public weal can put up with it more or less, a government may be justified in allowing a work stoppage affecting a great public service to go on. But neither condition is present in this dispute.
First, according to the government itself, there is no chance postal workers will get higher salary offers than those about which they have already been told. For over a month, the government has stood firmly by the recommendations of the Moisan report. Since they already go beyond the guidelines of the anti-inflation program, any further increase would be an unthinkable blow at this time to the credibility of the government.
Second, there is also the incalculable damage that the strike causes to thousands of individuals and businesses. Many undertakings, either by the very nature of their business or because of their abundant financial resources, can quickly learn to do without the Post Office. However, this is not true for hundreds of others for whom the Post Office is an absolutely essential service. A newspaper like Le Devoir used to have nearly 20,000 mail subscribers; the famous reform launched under Mr. Kierans was to make it lose several thousands. But those it still has face for the second time in less than a year a deprivation of service directly attributable to the paralysis of the Post Office. Now what about the incomes of hundreds of businesses? In a large number of businesses called upon to transact with hundreds and thousands of individual clients, the near totality of accounts receivable are usually collected through the mail. For a newspaper, this is true particularly for subscription renewals. Is Mr. Mackasey unaware that for the past three weeks cash receipts have been reduced to their simplest expression while salaries and suppliers still have to be paid?
If postal workers cannot expect anything more from an indefinite prolongation of their work stoppage and the damage done to the public good by their strike continues to increase, there remains only one solution to the dispute: the government must reaffirm without delay the priority of the general good over the exercise by a particular group of a right whose effectiveness in this case has now been reduced to nothing.
Mr. Vincent Prince stated in turn:
It must not be forgotten that certain normative clauses have considerable financial implications and that this expedient should not be used to win gains that would go against Ottawa's new salary policy.
Indeed, this bargaining is the first significant test of the austerity measures. We can take it for granted that the federal government will be specially watchful.
Moreover, an extended strike would not affect the public and postal workers alone. The mailmen and drivers of postal vans laid off, because they were temporarily useless, will apparently have to be satisfied with unemployment insurance. They will become part of the majority taken as hostage.
I would like to quote some comments that I find much to the point. In today's La Presse, Mr. Guay states:
The Trudeau government has set a ceiling on price and income increases. If it is consistent with itself, it need not tergiversate about granting wage increases to postal workers as to all other government employees. In the interest of business, taxpayers and the majority of postal workers, the government has the responsibility to order the strikers back to work. In fact, it is unworthy of a government to allow a strike to last this long to break a union. Moreover, it is an absurd mistake that reflects a superficial analysis of social realities. Unions are not broken today as they were fifty years ago. On the other hand, government must set the example to play fair and to display dignity. It must not lower itself to the level of some union leaders' demagogic maneuvers. Even though the postal workers' union leaders are apt to

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
use the government's order to return to work to save and even consolidate their prestige with their members, the government must not be distracted by such mean considerations.
Those are comments I consider appropriate, Mr. Speaker. I find them relevant, because we have reason to wonder if it is not that fight that drags on between the recognized union and the government. Which one could lose face? I wonder how far should be put away the responsibility or the theory of the face loser, considering the importance of the conflict.
I must congratulate the mover to have proposed the debate to the House, considering the problems involved. We ask the government to bring back order to the postal service. We are not accusing the minister of not having tried, but we think that the time has come for those workers to go back to work. For a very long time, we have been asking ourselves very serious questions in the public sector. We must surely think about the matter of essential services. As for essential services, Mr. Speaker, I have very personal opinions on that subject.
In the eventuality of a refusal on the part of the unions, I feel a special act should be passed to stabilize and restore an economy which is now seriously ill in Canada. How long will the government hesitate to meet that need, and answer the representations we have made this evening?
The government assumed the responsibility of giving a leadership that will encourage Canadians. We spoke of the pessimism of Canadians a while ago. We said that Canadians were concerned about the future of this country, that it was completely normal to worry about the future of our country, if we look at what has been going on for the last four or five years and consider the hesitations of the government to commit itself with regard to various measures. We are up against the problem of inflation and we are still waiting for steps to remedy the situation.
Moreover, we are hit by those strikes that harm our economy and take place in the public sector. Parliament gave the unions the right to strike. The government side always accuses us of being against the right to strike, but every time there has been a strike in the public sector, that paralyzed our economy, which harmed and hampered our society, a special act has always been introduced. If that is not denying the union members the right to strike, I wonder what is.
Let us be honest, let us not be hypocrites. I feel the time has come to reflect seriously on the right to strike. Will we have to reconsider privilege granted the union members, to the extent where they abuse it? I am asking this question both to my colleagues and hon. members opposite: Have we seriously considered what services are really essential? Mr. Speaker, we would need to establish new ways and demonstrate creativity to offer union members a fair treatment. Someone has mentioned a labour court. I am thinking about offices with a permanent bargaining court. I feel that we should think of necessity about the establishment of new procedures, because those we have now lead us too often into dilemmas such as the one we are in today.
If, on the one hand, unions show a lack of good will and refuse to co-operate in the interest of Canada, every government, including this Parliament, not only has the right but the duty to react by offering an alternate solution, so that we are now asking ourselves serious questions. I, for

one, am asking it, together with many in my constituency with whom I have talked about this issue. People often ask: What is the government doing? What is the government doing to do? We are sick of these problems.
Is it necessary to remind the government of their responsibilities? Is it necessary to remind the government that we will support any measure which could reduce the difficulties faced by Canadians now? Is it necessary to be sure that the government did more than their best to find solutions? But given the ill will of some individuals, of some spokesmen for groups who definitely do not represent the interest of the community, I think the time has come to take decisions, and this evening or more precisely, this morning, we ask the government to react quickly to this matter which annoys so many Canadians. And we think that the government should react immediately by proposing mediation or by passing special legislation if the mediator's report were unacceptable to the union members, while hoping that the government would accept the report of a mediator who, in the short term, could find the solution. This would enable both parties to end the conflict and save faces. Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because other colleagues have some remarks to make, but I hope that the problem will be settled and that we will think more in terms of the future. Taking into account the experiences we have been through, we must consider seriously these new mechanisms, and I feel it is up to the government to study carefully this matter and find solutions. And inasmuch as those solutions will respect individuals and meet the needs of a society we would like to see better, I am sure the government will listen attentively. That is, Mr. Speaker, what we want most.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, never before have I heard so many members speak on a subject about which they do not know anything. Regretfully I say I join that class.
While you and I, Mr. Speaker, have had some experience with labour, I think we would be very presumptuous if we decided we could look at a situation affecting a union with which we have never been directly involved, and about which we know very little, and say we have a solution which would be satisfactory to anyone.
I am surprised at the attitude of the Progressive Conservative party which seems to be: let us pass legislation and put them back to work and that will solve the problem. That would not solve the problem. Part of the problem is that the workers have never had sufficient guts to go on strike or in any way involve themselves in a collective agreement until the past few years. These people, in many segments of our economy, are not accustomed to negotiating contracts and co-operating with each other. They have never been very much involved with the idea of unionism which, to some extent, is represented by the phrase you are your brother's keeper and only through solidarity can you help to achieve what you wish.
Frankly I have been surprised by the attitude of so many members who believe they can legislate a settlement to this problem which would produce a reasonable mail service in this country. I do not think this can happen. I have listened to many of the remarks that have been made.
November 17, 1975

I was very impressed by the young hopeful of the Ontario Liberal party, the federal member who claims he intends to seek the leadership. I owe him a vote of thanks because I never really looked at my own colleagues in terms of their being different, but they certainly are. The number of degrees that my colleagues have, surprised me. I suppose that from now on I will have to pay them more respect because of their great educational achievements. But I was surprised that he did not know several things.
For instance, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was a member of a union for 50 years or so, and he had been active in that union. He participated in it, and is still paying his dues today. I would think that when he pays those dues he must give some consideration to that union. Another one of my colleagues has been active in union work for a number of years and has been connected with a number of unions in the clothing industry. I think he probably has a little experience in it by now. But because we have had some experience does not mean we really know how to solve this very vexing problem.
I have great respect for the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) but it has surprised me that he has taken it on himself to solve a problem that has been developing in the Post Office over the last 30 or 40 years, and is trying to solve that problem all at once. I am not only referring to money-I will mention that in a few moments. The Postmaster General has tried to solve these problems in a very forceful way, and he has acted as a true employer in some ways when he said that that is as far as he will go. He has issued that ultimatum on television a number of times. He has forced the workers to look at the situation, and I think this was a good idea.
He has been sympathetic with regard to some of the aspects of the situation which have been mentioned but that are worth mentioning again. One of them is the changes in the Post Office. One of the young members today mentioned the skills of the postal people. In the past they used card boxes and filing cases. They knew the routes and the streets. It is a highly skilled occupation and they are proud of their skill. Then we introduced automation. We paid absolutely no attention to the downgrading of the person who had been doing that highly skilled job, and we substituted a machine for him.
I do not know whether the postal code works. I boycott it because I do not believe it works. I do not believe that a machine can sort out a code written by pen, or pencil, or ballpoint, in whatever style of writing you have. It would have to be written in a specific place on that envelope with a certain kind of ink, because that is how cheques work in a bank. I know that the postal code could be typed and that that could work.
The worker in the Post Office has been very concerned about whether or not he will have a job and, much more important, whether than job will be important and will give him a sense of accomplishment. In my opinion the Postmaster General has given this problem some attention. He has also given attention to the problem of surveillance.
It seems to me it is going a little far to have workers going to the washroom surveilled, unless you are making
Postal Strike
blue movies. I think that with the use of other methods and with greater trust we can develop a better class of person who will no longer need to be spied upon and treated in a less than humane way, and then the job will be done that much better.
There have been an immense number of grievances in the Post Office which have never been dealt with, or at least only at negotiation time. This is happening all across the nation. Everyone is upset because teachers are going on strike, postal workers are going on strike, and garbage collectors are going on strike. All these people have been treated as less than human beings. They were part of the machine. You, Mr. Speaker, and I who have been in major craft unions were treated as individuals and we were proud of the jobs we did.
I was an underground hard-rock miner for many years. It was the top job in the mine, one of the most dangerous and best paid jobs. It was a job I was proud of doing. When I went home at night I knew I had done a good day's work. For that one had the respect of one's employer and one's fellow employees, and everyone in that industry did a good job or they did not stay very long. I sat on negotiation committees for years. The members of those committees were as interested in the guy who was the powder-monkey or the old chap who was working on a pipe fitting gang. They were as interested in the lowest paid person in the plant as they were in the best paid or the highest skilled, simply because we knew that solidarity was the name of the game and we had to stick together.
We are doing something else right now with regard to the Post Office. I would like to ask the Postmaster General whether he could guarantee on behalf of the government, if the union agrees to a supervised vote on the Treasury Board's final offer, that if it is rejected no government action will be taken but that negotiations would be reopened through mediation or in any other way, and a settlement reached. If that happened it is quite likely that the postal workers would get no benefits from it because it would have to go before the Anti-inflation Board which may well reject it because it might go beyond the guidelines and beyond the historical relationship with the other agencies, but it would be fair and in that way the workers would get as much as they can get.
I am surprised at the free enterprisers in the House who always talk about free enterprise. That is what the labour movement is in the north American context. It is a free enterprise operation. The company makes as much money as it can make, and the union demands as much money for its workers as it can. They are not taking a moral position and it has nothing to do with the co-operative idea. You get from the employer as much as you can on behalf of the people for whom you are bargaining.
I suggest that what we are doing now is to put this union-and this will apply to other unions in the future- under double jeopardy because we say they should vote on the government offer, but if they take that vote and if it turns out that the union accepts the vote, everybody will be happy, except perhaps for the leaders of the union who may not have recommended it. If they reject it, what do we do then? We pass legislation and put them back to work.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
I suggest if we ask them to do this-if the government asks them to conduct a vote on its last offer, then the government should be prepared to say that if the offer is rejected it will continue the negotiations to arrive at a settlement, and then the Anti-Inflation Board can look at it. It could reject it or accept it, but we would have concluded negotiations in the normal way.
It seems to me that the statements that have been made about how this strike is hurting small businesses and individuals are very important. It is a fact that businesses are in very serious difficulty because of this strike. I am sure this is true of any strike, certainly of those in the public sector. I think I agree with a statement the Postmaster General has made on a number of occasions, however, to the effect that when this strike is over the relationship on both sides should be good enough so that we can really start to negotiate with the Post Office employees. It should also be good enough that the postal service will return to the standard it gave previously.
We hear of sabotage, of theft, and all sorts of things in the Post Office today. It would appear to me that if we took the motion that was proposed earlier and legislated these people back to work there would be a deterioration in our national mail service. In my opinion, we cannot afford to have it deteriorate any more. The settlement will have to be acceptable to the average Joe working in that operation otherwise it does not matter whether it satisfies the government, satisfies the union leadership, members of parliament, or some little old lady in the Pas who cannot get her medicine. I do not think this really matters.
If we are going to achieve reason on both sides, from that will come the machinery with which to make the changes that have to be made in the Post Office. For instance, junk mail should not be given to carriers on Monday morning when they have the Friday, Saturday and Sunday mail. Only the first class mail should be taken out on Monday morning instead of everything, as one postmaster insisted on doing recently.
It seems to me that we can provide a decent service in Canada but we have not been getting it. I strongly recommend to members that forcing the strikers back to work will not accomplish our objective of a better mail service. We should have that even if we have to pay for it. Equating our money with that of other countries, a 12 cent first class postage charge would not be unreasonable-providing we could supply the standard of first class mail service we had 20 years ago.


Mr. Prud'homme:: May I ask the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) a question? He has twice put a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), and if the minister would answer it then some of us might not have to make our contribution if we were satisfied with the answer. Would the hon. member put his question to the Postmaster General again?


William Arnold Peters: Could the Postmaster General guarantee on behalf of the government, if the union agrees to a supervised vote on the Treasury Board's final offer and it was rejected, that no action would be taken-I am thinking of back-to-work legislation-but that negotiations would be

reopened to reach a settlement? It may well be that the anti-inflation legislation would disallow that settlement, but that would not be a specific action directed toward the inside postal workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Do
we have the consent of the House for the minister to answer the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the government but I can speak for myself. First of all, we would have to supervise the vote. Perhaps this supervising could be done even by members of the press gallery or somebody neutral who would see that the vote was properly held. We would have to make sure that there was proper explanation of the settlement to the workers, namely, that if they put in the hours they have over the past three years they would earn anywhere from $14,000 to $17,000. If the vote went the way of the leadership, obviously the leaders would come back to the bargaining table in a much stronger position.
I would not want to mislead the House and say there does not come a moment when you have to put public interest above private interest, or that we would never legislate them back, but I can guarantee we would get back to the bargaining table.
I have no knowledge of which way the Anti-Inflation Board would go if, through that additional strength, the unions were able to bargain more money. I was impressed with the hon. gentleman's speech but I should like to ask him a question: you cannot compensate with money for bad conditions, or does he think you can?


William Arnold Peters: I am in total agreement with that, Mr. Speaker. There is always a conflict when negotiating the conditions of work-hours and holidays and other things. You relate fringe benefits to the package that money is in. I agree entirely with the Postmaster General that money will not compensate for the other things. I think the rancour that may be created by back-to-work legislation would do the same thing-that rancour would be very difficult to overcome. Even if money were available subsequently, the damage would be such that the postal service would not be adequate or what we anticipate.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, at this time of morning hon. members may wonder if a debate like this serves any useful purpose. Having listened to a good deal of it, I think it has been a useful debate with useful contributions from all sides. I cannot say that I agree in total, or even in large measure, with some of the things said this evening, but I think in totality the House has gained a good deal of insight with respect to this difficult situation. I think we have also given the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) a number of specific points to consider as well as those involved on the union side.
It was mentioned earlier that some of the senior negotiators were here this evening. I know they will read with interest the totality of the debate. I am not going to add too much new information but I want to focus on three or four areas of great importance and of some controversy.
November 17, 1975

One point in particular seems to be the importance of the strike itself, or the importance of the loss of postal service. Partly because of the fact that this is not a new experience, that there have been, I think, 16 postal strikes since 1967, it has been possible for the Postmaster General and others to say that people have become used to the situation. I think what has really happened is that people have been in a constant state of traumatization. They never knew from week to week, or month to month, whether they were going to have a postal service that would function.
The minister said that the direct mail business people are in favour of a long strike to clear the air. I presume that if many have expressed a similar opinion there is support for that point of view. But let me utter a word of caution. I am not sure that the confrontation approach, this talk of clearing the decks or, to use the phrase of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), of being on the beach, is valid or convincing. I think the hon. member was using a war analogy. I am too young to be fully cognizant of its meaning. At any rate, such military-type solutions will do little.
Some talk of "if and when" the strike is settled. I think there is more at stake than simply allowing people to go to the wall. Some think that once we have driven people to the wall, once we have gone through the valley of the shadow, as it were, somehow everything will be set right. I am sure that is not the minister's position. He has had much experience ironing out labour-management problems, and I am sure that is not what he means.
I am disturbed by statements made inside and outside the House that, somehow or other, the strike is not serious. We have embarked on some crazy debates about small businessmen and others, but never said a strike is not serious. This is the second largest country in the world, although thinly populated with some 22 million people. We are all linked, on economic, social and cultural terms, with a basic mail service. Suspending mail service for four weeks does basic damage to the fabric of our country.
Perhaps all our people are not overly concerned. Perhaps those living in an urban community, to whom most amenities are available within a few square miles, can get along without postal service. They have available newspapers, radio, television, courier service, and can travel from place to place in their limited geographic locality. But this does not hold true for a large percentage of our people. I represent a part of the country which depends greatly on mail service. We depend on the Post Office day by day, week by week, and do not want to be without the service one hour, one minute longer than absolutely necessary.
Frankly I deeply resent arguments made inside and outside this House that this going to the wall, this knock-them-down-once-and-for-all strike, will resolve all the difficulties the Post Office has experienced in recent years. I do not think that is true. It is a simplistic position at best. At worst it is exceedingly dangerous, as such a position involves the denial of a basic service provided to the citizens of this country. In all honesty I must ask why the Postmaster General in this instance has adopted a position highly unusual for the government.
Postal Strike
As hon. members know, I have been here ten years. During those years when there were work stoppages in this country's public service the government ended the work stoppages through legislation. This was done with grain handlers, seaway workers, and railway employees. The minister suggested we have never done this with our own employees. We have always done it, so to speak, as disinterested third parties when employees of Crown corporations or other entities have been involved. Technically, he is quite right, but the technical argument carries little weight with me because I am not a lawyer. My training is that of a theologian, which may not always be useful in solving some of the problems we encounter in this House.
Why is the minister advancing basically a lawyer's argument? Usually he does not adopt such rationale. Why is he doing it with respect to the Post Office, considering his great experience as Minister of Labour in the settling of difficult labour-management negotiations? Why, in a sense, is the government adopting a new position on this particular strike?
True, a number of times he said, "We will not legislate our own employees back to work." But I do not find his argument convincing. Surely his decision is based on something more substantial than a legal nicety. There are two possibilities, one of which was referred to long before this evening. I do not want to sound unpleasant, but it seems to me that the minister wants to discredit the leadership of CUPW.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They do not need my help.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: My colleague has put it even more strongly. My suggestion might be part and parcel of the minister's position; I hope he will explain if that is so. Others conclude, and perhaps this is closer to the mark, that the minister wants to work within the government's anti-inflation program. After all, he had considerable experience as Minister of Labour in bringing about settlements; perhaps he thinks the time has come to alter a basic aspect of labour-management relations in the public service, the legislated settlement.
Apparently the minister wants to change the sort of thing that happened in the past. In the public service we have witnessed negotiations, the breakdown of negotiations, the appointment of an outside mediator who filed a report, further discussions and, finally, a strike. The strike continues sometimes for five or ten days, or two weeks, after which there is a legislated settlement. Employees in the public service have become increasingly aware of the possibilities of a final, legislated settlement. They know that if they go on strike for a few days they will not be without pay long enough to be badly hurt and that parliament will finally legislate them back to work. If the minister is trying to cure that mentality through this particular strike, I say he is playing a dangerous game. He is, in a sense, trying to deal with questions concerning labour-management relations in the Post Office without going to the root causes, to which reference was made earlier this evening.
I think the minister is too much imbued with his previous role as Minister of Labour, when he was successful in achieving strike settlements. He operated as a kind of lone gun who could wait them out if necessary, going into all

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
night bargaining sessions in shirt sleeves, ready to strike when the iron was hot, ready to pull a settlement out of the fire. It was very much a kind of "by the seat of your pants" operation. He received favourable credit for being a success at it.
The minister has reached the point now where he may be well over his head. He may well be playing fast and loose with a vital service service such as the Post Office which will find it very difficult to recover from this kind of "High Noon" treatment. I do not say this with any kind of enthusiasm, but quite frankly the minister has reached the stage where he better accept some serious counsel from other people who understand the two or three issues he is trying to deal with at the same time and in the same capsule.
It strikes me that the game the minister is playing is such a dangerous one, and one that is so uncertain of being successful, it has to be one he should not pursue at any greater length unless he believes there is absolutely no other route to follow. I do not believe that is true.
There have been a number of suggestions. They have been made by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Quadra (Mr. Clarke), who put before the minister this evening a number of possibilities that are well worthy of consideration. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) made a suggestion which deserves more than summary disapproval of the minister. A few moments ago the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) made a further suggestion to which the minister should give some consideration.
The time has come for the minister to realize that to use this device of this strike, either to reorganize the authority structure of CUPW, or to establish new precedents with regard to legislative intervention by this parliament, is not the name of the game with respect to the restoration of postal service. The time has long since passed for the minister to confer with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues and to say that there are two or three options which will achieve a conclusion to this very difficult and very costly strike, and they must be acted upon here and now.
If there is anything useful to the special debate we have had this evening it is that the minister will realize at the conclusion of the debate, which will come in the next hour or two, that the time for sitting and hoping for other than these things to happen is not going to occur. The time for him and his colleagues to exercise their responsibility has arrived. A number of options have been placed before the minister this evening. It is his duty and the duty of the government to act upon them, and to act upon them now.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the clock I feel we have good cause to ask ourselves what we are doing here at this hour. Our very presence here at this time, dealing with this subject, is the strongest and most convincing argument I can imagine of the importance of our present debate.
The Post Office is in real trouble. The Canadian public expects us to do something about it. That is why we are here. We should express our thanks, all of us, to the hon.

member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) for precipitating this discussion.
In order to understand the full significance of our presence here and our discussion of this matter, we must go back to a few real basics in the matter of collective bargaining. For example, I read in an article in the May 3 edition of the Montreal Star that the failures in collective bargaining created a need for a new approach. That is a sort of beginning.
The basics that we really must be looking at start with the concept that the Public Service is hired by the public to provide a service to the public. It is almost a tautology to say so, but it is essential we understand that is what it is all about. When that service is withdrawn or offered in offhand manner, the public feels cheated. The public pays for the service. When it is deprived of it, it is quite understandably annoyed, frustrated, and wants something done about it.
The reasons for withdrawing the service have to be determined. It may be the intransigence on the part of the union or intransigence on the part of the spokesman for the public.


An hon. Member:: Or both.


Donald W. Munro: It may be a mixture of both. Let us remember that there is a proxy in both cases. There is a surrogate spokesman; a surrogate for the people offering the service and a surrogate for the people demanding the service. These people think they are interpreting their constituents. They should not necessarily think that they are always correct in this.
When the public interest is seriously affected he who is in the wrong has to be brought to task, the union or the government, the negotiators on one side or the other, in order to restore service to the public, which in the final analysis is the employer in this particular situation. The determination may not be easy, but it is one that has to be made.
Much has been said in this debate this evening about strikes and the right to strike. I would like to say a word or two about another aspect of strikes that must, in my opinion, be brought to a halt. It is not inherent in any right to strike. To my way of thinking it is an aberration. I refer, of course, to picketing. Picketing is a denial of man's right to make individual decisions and carry them out. Picketing can be used to draw attention to an alleged grievance. That is a legitimate form of picketing. However, when picketing is carried to the length of causing harm to people who legitimately want to return to work, it becomes, morally anyway, unlawful. It should be made unlawful. We are the people who can do so.


Mr. Benjamin:: No way.


Donald W. Munro: I hear "no way". Just you wait. In this morning's paper I read that a woman in Montreal legitimately wanted to go back to work. She was hurt as she tried to go through the picket line to go back to her legitimate job. She has every right to do that. She wants to earn her wage. Why shouldn't she? Why should a picket stop her from doing so?

We have been talking about abridging the right to strike, putting brackets around it or limiting it in some way. We must also consider that there is no right to picket and keep people from doing the job they have been hired to do.
As to the strike itself, the strike, we all remember, is one of those elements in the collective bargaining system which was granted by an earlier Liberal government-I notice there is no applause-against the advice of the chairman of the Civil Service Commission of that day. The Heeney Report advised strongly against according the right to strike to the public service. The government of the day in its "wisdom"-and I put that word in quotation marks-decided there should be a right to strike written into the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and there it is. I have never understood just why it should be so.
I was a member of the public service at that time. I never asked for it. I would be ashamed to exercise it. I do not think it needs to be there. However, as a means of upholding the public interest in these circumstances and recognizing in the final analysis that the public is the employer, I have tried since I have been in parliament a variety of routes in the Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service to see what now needs to be done to reduce the damage which was done by extending the right to strike to the public service. That right is there, but it needs to be fenced in; it needs to be limited because obviously it has not worked properly.
I tried a variety of forms, a variety of propositions. One of them was to suggest in the committee that we withdraw the right to strike from the public service. I was told I was dreaming in technicolour-the expression was used earlier today but it was another member of the Committee who used it on that occasion. Obviously I would not be able to obtain majority support for that notion, so I tried another approach. It involved an elaboration of the Public Interest Disputes Commission which ended up in arbitration. This did not attract much approval so I tried a third approach.
My third approach had to do with liability, the notion being that, once it is determined who is responsible for the service being suspended, that entity should become liable for the damage done to the individual, to the person who wants to service; that the government on the one hand, if it is responsible, or the employee, the employee's union on the other, should be held liable to be sued for the damage which has been done to the public-to individual members of the public.
We have all heard this evening about the various kinds of damage to the public caused by a strike of the present nature. This idea, I was told, was so complicated that it would tie up the courts endlessly from now until the end of the 21st century. Again I was informed this was a no-starter.
Then there was a suggestion from one of our members who was not able to be there. A discussion was prompted and it brought forward the notion which was mentioned this evening by one hon. member, which came to the point of suggesting that we should have inserted in the law-and I am breaking no confidence now, he broached the matter earlier-provision for a secret ballot not only on the strike but on the decision to hold a strike vote. I think this ought
Postal Strike
to be done also, because there is always too much danger to an individual member of a union should he stand up and say, "I oppose a strike." He may oppose a strike, but when he gets home he finds his windows broken. Unfortunately this happens. I am not suggesting it is happening to a marked extent in this situation, but it does happen. The individual must be protected.
Too little has been said this evening about the damage which has been done to the public which has been paying for the service. The damage has been grievous. It would have been serious at any time of the year. It is even more serious at Christmastime when, for example, the United Appeal campaigns are in full spate. Christmas seals are being sold and other community welfare campaigns are operating. Many of our local community services are likely to be severely handicapped in 1976 as a result of this strike.
Many of the small businesses across the country are running into difficulties. One case immediately comes to mind, because when I was home over the weekend I happened to drop into a variety store where a man had bought his stock of Christmas cards. He has $3,000 worth of Christmas cards on his hands and nobody is buying them. He is only one of thousands who had ordered supplies in plenty of time-they were delivered by transport of one kind or another. So he has either to service the debt to pay for his purchase or he must take it out of his capital stock. This is a serious matter for the man affected by it, but it is only symptomatic of the damage being done to businesses.
It is true arrangements are being made to distribute social security cheques. But travellers, and those who are looking for their passports are greatly inconvenienced. How many of us are carrying passports back and forth? I hope we all are. I am. The purchasers of Canada Savings Bonds are having their problems. Some people who bought Canada Savings Bonds did so as a form of immediate saving intending to cash them as soon as they were delivered. But they are not being delivered. I know a person who wanted to put down a number of bonds as a down payment on the purchase of a house on November 1. He could not get them. I am still looking for them. He probably missed a chance to get that house, or else he was obliged to pay a much higher mortgage rate.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the public interest is deeply affected and that it is the duty of the government to restore the service and see that it is maintained. This could be done by back-to-work legislation for which we have called. I would point out that we have not pushed this point of view too hard, realizing that delicate negotiations were in progress; we did not want those negotiations to be destroyed or thrown out of balance. Nevertheless the time has come, not only for back-to-work legislation but for legislation accompanied by a requirement for a vote of confidence in the executive of the union and for the negotiating team which worked out the settlement. In this way we could restore the postal service to what it should be and then, when the time comes, when the report from the Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations comes down, we hope we shall be given legislation which will restore proper working relations between the government, as proxy for the public, and the unions so that relations between those two important aspects of our society may be restored.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, in determining whether I should speak in this debate and trying to assess whether or not anything any of us could say would make any impact on the government, what determined me to make a brief speech even at this later hour was a phrase the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) used when he began his speech. He said that people can adjust psychologically to this strike.
I think the key to the thinking of the Postmaster General is contained in the word psychologically. Surely asking the Canadian people to make such an adjustment in a service which, as we have heard so many times tonight, is an essential service, one that the Canadian people not only have a right to but have a great and in many cases desperate need for, is to give the Canadian people the kind of government that they do not deserve. The Canadian people deserve a parliament that is not spending its time legislating grain handlers, air traffic controllers, longshoremen, airport firefighters, and now, because of hopeless deadlock, the postal workers, back to work.
The Postmaster General has said that people are not complaining, that they can make adjustments. He ought to come to my office in Edmonton and hear the personal complaints of businessmen and people who need the mails. If he did, he would not have such a lacklustre attitude.
I am not going to dwell on this point; it has been made many times tonight. I merely say that if there is insecurity, uncertainty, alienation, and frustration in Canadian society today, it is because of the absence of strong leadership by a government that will take the economic situation in its grip and do something to help businesses and people maintain economic stability.
How much longer do we need to have a strike before convincing the government that without strong action on its part the postal service will not be resumed? For reasons somewhat surreptitious, as the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) said in his intervention this evening, the government has decided not to bring into the House at this point back-to-work legislation. It will not even bring in legislation calling for a mandatory vote by the membership of the union on the government's latest offer.
We have said enough tonight to satisfy ourselves that without the continued protests of members of parliament, who are doing their best to convince the government it is on the wrong course, we would be remiss in our duty. This is why so many of us have stood up tonight. The government seems to be concerned with protecting the democracy of a few union leaders at the expense of the democracy of the Canadian people.
We have as much right to the continuation of essential services as the union leadership has the right to try to hold a gun at our heads. There will come a time when the Canadian people will finally rear up and resist the continued breakdown of society as a result of strikes. I believe that in the interdependent society that Canada has become from east to west and all through the various reaches and avenues of our life, the strike has become an outmoded weapon. The best union leaders of North America themselves are saying that the strike is outmoded.

Why then do we persist with paying tribute to the alleged sacredness of the strike? I suggest it is time we go far beyond that. I think it is why we in parliament ought to be thinking beyond the mere settlement of this strike. I have heard this kind of speech before from members of parliament. They say "Let us get by this strike situation we are in, and bring in better legislation so we will not get ourselves into this box again." But when are we going to learn? Having said that strikes are outmoded in essential services, I go on to suggest that strikes be prohibited. The Canadian people want an end to strikes in essential services.
Just what is an essential service can be defined by a public commission. Let some of the best people in the country be appointed to a commission to determine what is an essential service. Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, the money we pay them would be more than repaid by what will be saved by preventing continued economic disruptions because of strikes in essential services. With such an arrangement surely our bargaining process would reach the point where, if there were failure to agree on the terms of a contract in a declared essential service, the dispute could be sent to a labour court, a public commission, or an impartial arbitration body empowered to make a fair judgment.
I believe such a system is worth a try. It certainly is not new. Many people have talked about it for years but no one in this country will do it. The Canadian people deserve far better treatment than they are now getting. They deserve a sense of urgency on the part of government. They do not deserve to be told by the Postmaster General that they can simply adjust psychologically and start using telex and the telephone, and life can go on. Life cannot go on in the way Canadian people want it to go on, and it is time the Postmaster General was told that plainly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My colleagues are anxious to hear from me. I listened carefully to the speeches for most of the night, except for the odd occasion when I might have been absent, and I have three or four things I want to say. I hope to be brief.
First, I want to say to my friends to the right who talk of essential services that they have yet to define what is an essential service. In every case where an essential service is organized and recognized as a bargaining unit, having become an essential service demands are then placed on the government by my friends to the right for an end to that which has now become an essential right. I have seen this happen with grain handlers, longshoremen, railroaders, and now the postal workers.


Henry Perrin Beatty: We think that essential services are
essential.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sure that if the people who deliver their lobster tails or pheasants under glass were on strike, my hon. friends to the right would consider them an essential service. I wish the minister were here and I hope
November 17, 1975

that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) has gone out to get him.
There is more to this than the particular strike, and I wish my hon. friends to the right would remember that. If they would think about the largest post offices in their own ridings they would know why we are in the mess we are in today, and I think they would be very hesitant about taking away the right to strike. This difficulty lies in the historical relationship between management and employees of the Post Office, and goes back a lot of years.
In the case of the Regina post office there is a lady employed there who has been with the Post Office classed as a casual for 12 years. There are two other ladies in that post office, I want to tell the Postmaster General, who have been there for eight years and one for nine years. He called them casual.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The union won't let them in the union.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me tell the Postmaster General that the union has been trying to get these three cases settled for five years now, since before he was the Postmaster General. If he wants the members of the union in Regina to vote to go back to work he should not only settle the cases of these three casuals in the post office at Regina, he should also look into some grievances, some of which are four years old.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There are no casuals in the union, and you know it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course, and that is what I said, which you would know if you had been listening.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Let them look after their own members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You see how the Postmaster General sloughs it off. He allows that dumb management he has got to get away with this crap they have been getting away with year after year. They have been getting away with it since he took over the Postmaster Generalship.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When this Postmaster General took over he was going to be the great knight, the great hero from the trade union movement. He was the great sympathizer with the trade union movement. He was not going to take a backseat to anybody, but was going to be on the side of labour. Where the hell has he been since he has been Postmaster General in so far as dealing-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -with several hundred women in his department? With or without the union-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is not good language.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: With or without the union I expected that this Postmaster General was going to tell management that it must settle these grievances, some of which are very picayune, but some of which are three or four years old.
Postal Strike
Some members of the union are wrong, but they cannot meet with the Postmaster General. He sits there being the hero and the white knight for labour. I am not an expert like the Postmaster General.


An hon. Member:: And that's for sure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not consider that a detriment in my own case.


An hon. Member:: But we do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to tell the Postmaster General that I have sat at the bargaining table, as he has, and I have been on the side of management as well.


An hon. Member:: Good for you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is not the only person in this chamber who knows something about bargaining. I want to tell him quite frankly that his stagemanaged operations over the last few weeks have not helped collective bargaining. If he is correct, and I believe that he is, about how good collective bargaining is, then let me point out that his stagemanaged operations have not helped this bargaining one bit. Even if he was 100 per cent right-


An hon. Member:: You would still say he is wrong.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -which he is not, he should still go back to the bargaining table. I am happy the minister has the strength to stay up all night tonight. I am very happy about that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What constructive criticism have you brought forward?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the Postmaster General would look into a lot of the things that have led to this strike he would find that many of them have nothing to do with the $1.70 cents an hour, and nothing to do with some of the other things he has been talking about, but rather relate to historical problems between management and employees of the Post Office Department.
All the minister needs to do is casually walk into a medium or large sized post office anywhere in Canada and try to get waited on, or ask question and try to get answers, and he will find out why his employees are so fed up and prepared to go to any lengths.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go lick a stamp.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister should do this. I have done it and I have found out. The other thing I was going to say-no, I had better not say it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will go on to the next point I want to make.


An hon. Member:: And that will be your first one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) put a suggestion forward. I did not hear all of it.

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike


An hon. Member:: Go and ask him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would like the government and the Postmaster General to agree that we place the union and the Postmaster General under trusteeship so that we can look at his books and records, including those of his management people and all the memos he has received from them, some of which must have shocked him rigid. If the minister would like to propose that, I for one would be prepared to support him. Put them under trusteeship. If the minister thinks his case is that good, he would agree to make the offer to the Post Office employees to appoint an arbitrator, a conciliator, or a trustee. He should accept the idea of appointing a trustee. I would be very interested to know what the trustee might find out.
Every member of this house has had correspondence and surreptitious meetings in private with Post Office employees, and we know those people are scared silly to go to anybody, including the union, with their problems, but this great white saviour of the union movement, this fellow who is all for collective bargaining is not prepared to go to that kind of length.
I happen to think the postal union is not 100 per cent right in this instance.


An hon. Member:: What a concession!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think the Postmaster General is perfectly right in not wanting to get into the same kind of box some of his colleagues are in by paying one group of workers more than another group. You cannot do that without getting into a mess, and I happen to agree with the Postmaster General in that regard.
The Postmaster General should realize that one of the reasons why the employees are prepared to go on strike has nothing to do with dollars and cents. Even with a settlement on the basis of the offer by the Postmaster General, there are still thousands of employees in the Post Office Department who are being put upon, who are fed up, who do not have any protection, and over whom the union has no jurisdiction at all.
The Postmaster General sits back and accepts memos from the Post Office brass, but he does not go out and talk to some of the people who have been casuals for eight, nine and 12 years. These people are not casuals, they are casualties of the Postmaster General. I thought he was to be the one to correct these things. We have waited all these months for him to do something. I am sure the Postmaster General would be very happy if a vote could be taken that did not support the union, and the leadership was dissipated overnight. I am sure he would be very happy about that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Would the hon. member permit one question? Does the hon. gentleman know that one of the requests of the union at the bargaining table is to eliminate all casuals?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yet he is telling me at the same time that they are fighting for more casuals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, that is not what I am telling you. The Postmaster General was not listening. I am telling the

Postmaster General there is dissatisfaction in the union ranks in the Post Office Department, and whether the grievance involves casuals or part time employees, if he would check the records of management and of the union right across the country he would find that there are thousands of cases still unsettled. That is what I am telling him. Whatever agreement he reached with the union in respect of casuals, they do not trust him or believe him. I would seem to me he might do a few things about some of the old cases that are on the books.
If the minister wants to earn the trust not only of the rank and file members of the department but of the union leadership he will kick the ass out of some of his management types, and get the old things settled and out of the way. When is he going to do this? I get sick and tired of him telling us he has been a union member, and so on. It seems to me he has forgotten where he came from and that he has forgotten why he is here. Some of the men and women in the Regina post office tell me they look upon him as the typical free enterprise bureaucrat with a great big "B". They have some picayune grievances. They are not big things, but they are angry about them. Where has he been? He serves ultimatums. He is the big wheel who has forgotten about the bargaining process.
Until the Postmaster General returns to where he came from he will continue to have grievances in the Post Office Department, just as his predecessors had. I have not seen much improvement since he took over the portfolio from his predecessors. I submit to the Postmaster General that if he would get a lot of these things which add up to much anger and frustration among his and other employees out of the way, he would receive co-operation from the employees of the Post Office Department.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak tonight but I shall do so for two or three minutes because of the speech of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) asked earlier, "Will they learn"? I wonder when the members of the NDP will learn that they cannot have everything the way they want it. They tell us we cannot put the postal workers back to work. We have had a very responsible debate started by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).
We have asked the government to bring in a free vote which I believe the people of Canada want to see, but the NDP oppose this. The premiers of their own party, including the premier of my province, put the meat people, the food people, and the wood people back to work. The premier of British Columbia must believe in the collective bargaining process because he has the support of labour. But he put them back to work because this was the responsible thing to do for British Columbia and Canada at this time. What this party is asking is that the postal workers be put back to work because this is what the people of Canada want, and it is what the majority of the postal workers want.
Some of the postal workers have spoken to me. I told the minister about one man who was harassed when he wanted
November 17, 1975

to go back to work. I hope the minister listens to us and not the diatribe coming from the members of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate tonight with some trepidation. It is after three o'clock in the morning.
Like most members of the House I am torn between the political expediency of a short-term solution as opposed to the long-term best interests of Canadians. I, perhaps among all members of this House will suffer more, as well as my constituents, as a result of the recent postal strike due to the fact that I have the largest mail order business in my riding. Five per cent of the industrial work force in my riding could be eliminated by this strike. My constituents, including those who possibly could lose their jobs because of this strike, are strongly in support of the stand taken by the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey).
I think the Progressive Conservative party tonight has demonstrated real strength behind the Postmaster General, particularly in the motion moved by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), which asks for a free vote. What we want as parliamentarians is that they have a free vote.
I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has shown irresponsible leadership in trying to have further confrontation. Perhaps he should read the speech of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), one of his colleagues, who probably gave the most intelligent speech given by any member of that party.
I think the Postmaster General is for labour. No one can deny his role as a spokesman for labour. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) question the track record of the Postmaster General.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is getting bored with the whole operation.


Edward C. Lumley: I do not think so, I think he is showing leadership. I do not think 28 work stoppages in 20 months, 25 of them illegal, are an indication of leadership on the part of the union. These are the types of points that have been brought out tonight except by certain members from one particular party.
I do not think that forcing these people back to work is the solution to the problem. There is no question that we must develop some long-term solution. I think the Postmaster General has stood his ground and has not taken the easy way out. He has not recommended to this House or to the government that the workers should be forced back to work. I think that is real leadership. I am surprised tonight that with the track record of the Postmaster General, when for the first time he takes a very tough stand, all of a sudden everybody should attack him. I do not know anyone who more than the Postmaster General has stood his ground in very difficult times.
It is very late, Mr. Speaker. I have appreciated some of the comments that have been made tonight. I am sure consideration will be given to those who have made very conscientious and worthwhile contributions. The contribu-
Postal Strike
tions of others which have been critical, negative, and very irresponsible will show up on the record.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is now 3.11 a.m.


An hon. Member:: 3.12.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I just wish first to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) for bringing the motion before the House this afternoon. It was a simple motion to the effect that this House do now adjourn.
It seems to me that all responsible members have taken the opportunity to bring before the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey), who certainly is a very sensible person in this regard, their concern about what has been happening over the past 29 days.
I should also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your gracious hospitality in seeing that members on both sides of the House were treated royally through the provision of sandwiches. We want to thank you for looking after us by giving us sustenance to carry on, and we thank my young colleague, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), for seeing to it that hon. members received apples.
But most important we should give singular recognition to the staff who periodically become stuck in this sort of situation. Their devotion to duty is much appreciated and warmly received. We appreciate their steadiness, their reliability, and their understanding. This includes, of course, Hansard reporters and all of those who are still working in such magnificent form.
I can see that the press too is awake, God bless them. Usually at the end of a sitting around 10.30 p.m. or eleven o'clock there is only one member left in the press gallery. Now we have four. It shows you how important this debate is and how concerned they are about its result. Surely we all would dislike being here at this hour if nothing were to happen in the long run.
I say that collective bargaining is being questioned. With all our collective wisdom on both sides of the House and outside the House we have been talking about the collective bargaining process and the time honoured right to strike. We have been talking about the recent lock-out, and somebody spoke about the final offer, compulsory arbitration, and voluntary arbitration. We on this side submitted recommendations about implementing the proposal of the public disputes commission. We have heard about labour courts, and now we have the Finkelman investigation into the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I hope that this time they will look into the definition of essential services. This is something we have to be concerned about. The Canadian people are exercised over it; they want to know what the essential services are and what we should do to maintain them to protect the public interest.
I will not be much longer, Mr. Speaker, but I must chastise the minister, friendly as we may be. I think that this strike can be divided into two situations. One is the matter of public interest and the maintenance of essential service versus the collective bargaining process and all it stands for. Unquestionably sooner or later governments have to move in order to protect the public interest, and in

November 17, 1975
Postal Strike
our view the time has arrived to do so. The government says that in its judgment this is not the time.
Surely we all realize that some 17,000 letter carriers are losing something like $700,000, and that there are 22,000 inside workers losing $800,000 a day. We have this peculiar situation where 22,000 people govern the destiny of this country. This is what people are exercised about; they do not understand how it can happen in a democracy and how the government can be so insensitive to the needs of the public. The minister may say that people can use the courier services and telex. Let me tell him that these are restricted to only a few, but there are countless thousands of people who want the mail service to operate for any number of reasons. That is one situation.
The other situation-and I think the minister will respect me when I say this-is that the minister is out to break the union, particularly the executive. We all know that. We see an ego trip here. The Postmaster General is smiling because he knows I am right on; he is smiling like a Cheshire cat. He is on an ego trip. It is a declaration of war between the Postmaster General and Mr. Parrot and Mr. Davidson. Did you ever see such a confrontation in your life?
Usually the Postmaster General is a very smooth operator. This time he likes what he is doing, and I do not blame him, but what I do not like is that he is putting the whole load on the backs of the Canadian people. With all respect, that is shameful. Anyway, who will win in the long run? Because even if you break the back of the postal union you have not solved the problem. Apart from the union in Montreal we also know there is a radical movement in Toronto. Are they next? I am not throwing this out in the hope that it will happen, but we all know there is another problem in Toronto, the minister and I know it. He has tackled Montreal first, but is it fair, is it just that this battle take place on the backs of the Canadian people who rightly deserve the service for which they pay?
The minister has impeded the collective bargaining process as a result of the government's introduction of its policy under Bill C-73. I remember the shades of 1974. What is happening? As a result of the imposition of this
policy there can be a bargaining process at this time, but in any event it is a myth, because unlike the private sector those in the public sector can only go so far. If they think they have the bargaining process at hand they are mistaken. It is a myth, because when the public interest is adversely affected we have to step in and say, to heck with the collective bargaining process. This is being realistic and pragmatic.
I hope the minister will not carry on this battle with Davidson and Parrot much longer because he will not win and the unions will not win. I am also afraid that those who will really lose will be the Canadian people because the public interest cannot continue being affected so adversely. It is the minister's judgment. He was elected to lead. But surely the minister cannot be that insensitive to the needs of widows, of those who have families overseas, and to our overseas commitments and our trade.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What about casual workers?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you go to sleep as you have been all night, except for that last minute speech?
All I say is that we are looking for solutions. I do not have them. I put forward several alternatives. All sorts of things are happening in terms of what we can do to make the collective bargaining process work that much better.
The minister has the ball. It is up to him to catch it, carry it, and score a touchdown, as he has in the past. Let me say in conclusion; stop the theatrics with respect to your colleagues on the other side of the fence. The Canadian people appreciate what the minister has done but there comes a time when the public interest takes precedence, and in my view the time is now when provision of essential services is paramount.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 13 of Standing Order 26 I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded, and I therefore declare the motion carried.
This House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 3.22 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 18, 1975