1977-05-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that seven years ago CMHC funded the YWCA of Yukon in Whitehorse, in light of the fact that they have been given notice of the appointment of a receiver on May 24, 1977, and realizing the critical nature of the roles of the YWCA in the lives of the people of the Yukon at a time when the aluminum industry development is certain and with a strong possibility of a pipeline, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House direct the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to immediately launch a full investigation into all aspects of this issue with the view to provide adequate funds to ensure the continued viability and operation of the YWCA of Yukon.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation pursuant to Standing Order 43 of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficulty still being faced by about 200 spouses every month who, before they reach 65, become widows and lose their allowance and in view of similar difficulties faced by other persons of single status between 60 and 65, I once again ask the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 for consent to present a motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urges the government to introduce without delay an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to provide for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance to be paid as well to widows, spinsters, widowers and bachelors between the ages of 60 and 65, provided they are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POSSIBILITY OF OPENING AND ADJOURNING SESSIONS AT FIXED DATES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a very important matter.
Considering that once more this session is running the risk of being extended into the middle of summer; that it would be greatly advantageous for all Canadians if sessions of Parliament were held at fixed periods of time; and that most parliamentarians, if not all, approve this idea, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House instruct the Committee on Procedure and Organization to hold a meeting as soon as possible to consider the advisability of holding sessions of Parliament at fixed periods of time in the future and also to set dates for holidays and other statutory holidays to allow parliamentarians to be with their families during holidays and thus have a better organized life.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.

May 18, 1977
Oral Questions


NEW ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning a subject which 1 have brought up almost on a daily basis. The worsening situation as a result of the impending closure of the Labrador linerboard mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland, demands that every avenue be explored in devising suitable strategies to rehabilitate the economy of the area. I would therefore move:
That this House order the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to direct that officials of the New Enterprise Development Board initiate discussions with the government of Newfoundland with a view to providing assistance in the rehabilitation of the linerboard industry in line with the program's objectives to make firms more viable and internationally competitive.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be made only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That in view of the statement made on national television yesterday by a member of the federal cabinet that the cabinet should accept the recommendation of the Hall Commission in connection with the retention of the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates, this House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions forthwith outlining the government's commitment to this recommendation of the Hall Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the crucial issue of the necessity for a full parliamentary debate

with respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, or a northern pipeline, which the government House leader, who really missed his true calling as an illusionist, has dangled before us without handing us anything of substance with respect to the matter. In view of the statement by the House leader on Friday that all relevant reports must be taken into account, would the Prime Minister assure the House that his House leader meant what he said and that parliament must be allowed to debate all relevant reports, including the Lysyk report, before a government decision is taken?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I think the answer given by the House leader was very clear and I support his position.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF REJECTION OF PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION
Walter David Baker: I take that to be a commitment by the leader of the government that parliament will have an opportunity to debate and decide before all decisions are taken with respect to the pipeline. In view of the commitment which has now been given, I have a supplementary question. There was a proposition put forward under Standing Order 43 by the Leader of the Opposition in which he gave a detailed proposal for the examination of the evidence by a special committee which would serve as collator and distiller of the various inquiries which have been made, drawing conclusions from the totality of the evidence and bringing its findings before the whole House. Has the Prime Minister reconsidered the government's rather peremptory rejection of the proposal when the motion was put by the Leader of the Opposition and members on the other side said no? Would he reconsider the objections from the point of view of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any argument in the question for changing the position of this side of the House on that matter. We undertake to permit parliament to express its views. I do not know what the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition is, that we set up a committee. It seems to me that the House itself can express its own views without going to a committee.


ALCAN PIPELINE-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON NECESSITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF ROUTE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister further to those of our House leader. On April 19 the government announced the formation of an environmental assessment panel in connection with the implications of the Alaska highway gas pipeline proposal, which is to report by August 1. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in a CBC interview on May 17, while he was flying over the Alaska highway, that he could not see why there would be any great environment problems about building the Alcan line when a road has already been built. Is the Prime Minister accepting this assess-
May 18, 1977

ment and dissolving the environmental assessment panel, and if he is, does this indicate that the government has already made a decision to permit a gas pipeline to be built, as suggested by the Alcan group?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The Lysyk committee was set up with the authority of the full cabinet, of course supported by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I think his word should be taken at face value. He could not see any difficulty, flying at the height that he was.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is a high flyer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed that he was flying very low and able to see quite well. This is one man's flying opinion, and it will not detract from the Lysyk committee report.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the minister suffers from ozone sickness or Yukon euphoria? Would the Prime Minister agree with a statement made by Mr. Templeton of the environmental impact group who has condemned the minister for being reckless and irresponsible and suggested that he should make an appraisal of what his job is? Would the Prime Minister agree with this assessment of Mr. Templeton and will he instruct his minister to cease emulating the leader of the NDP in prejudging the gas pipeline issue?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is also in charge of the government's decentralization plans. Yesterday in his announcement concerning the movement of some 15,000 civil servants from Ottawa to Hull the Minister of Public Works said, to quote him, that "this development has accompanied government plans to move some branches of the public service to areas of chronic unemployment in Canada". Since chronic unemployment areas in Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have already benefitted from this federal policy, when is Nova Scotia going to get some of these decentralized clerical jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the hon. member is making a representation. I can assure him that Nova Scotia has a strong and powerful voice in cabinet and that this voice has already been heard.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure I can agree with the Prime Minister that at times we have
Oral Questions
a very strong representation in the minister that he is implicitly mentioning, but I want him to know that the area with the most chronic unemployment in the whole of Nova Scotia is Cape Breton Island. The government promised some jobs but we are not getting them, and I should like to know why.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Would she be in a position to tell the House whether some new facts have occurred as regards the CBC in Rimouski?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like to know whether I am in position to announce the purchase of station CJBR. If such an announcement is made, it will surely be by the Secretary of State who is responsible for the CBC. However, I will be going to the Gaspe Peninsula next week and I fully expect to be in a position to explain to the people of that area that the purchase of station CJBR is a bridge-head for the two French services in the Gaspe Peninsula and northern New Brunswick, and perhaps also the north shore.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, 1 would like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the scheduled meeting of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with the minister of immigration for the province of Quebec, and in view of the proposals announced by the Quebec government in which they stated that they would be seeking control of immigration, including the power of selection of immigrants, could the Prime Minister tell this House whether those proposals have been received by the federal government? Second, could he tell this House, if they have been received, what the position of the federal government is on those proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be meeting with the Quebec minister next week, I believe or certainly in the near future, to discuss the Quebec proposals. I have not been informed whether our minister has received an advance copy of them.
As to our attitude, the House knows perfectly well that immigration under the constitution is a joint and shared area

May 18, 1977
Oral Questions
of jurisdiction. It has always been our intent to co-operate with provincial governments, every provincial government, in this field. This will continue to be our attitude with the province of Quebec.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's answer to my question, I would like to ask him: in view of the proposals of the Quebec government in the negotiations which are to take place on May 27, will the federal government insist in those negotiations that the selection of immigrants and the right of entry of immigrants into Canada will be retained by the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member we are not giving up our right. We have in the past and we will in the future exercise that right in co-operation with the provinces, which also have a right under the constitution.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT ANY RIGHTS GIVEN QUEBEC WILL BE GIVEN TO OTHER PROVINCES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of those rights the Prime Minister has enunciated, could the Prime Minister assure this House and Canadians that, whatever agreements will be made between the federal government and the province of Quebec and whatever the transfer of rights to that province will be, they will also be given to all other provinces in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course I can give that assurance, the House knows that as far back as 1969, when Mr. Marchand and Mr. Gabias arrived at an understanding, that was offered to the other provinces. Recently when the present President of the Treasury Board was minister of manpower and immigration, he made an understanding with the province of Quebec. At that time it was suggested that it should be open to the other provinces as well if they wanted to avail themselves of the offer.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. A week or two ago in the House several questions were raised regarding the risk factor in connection with offshore drilling, particularly in the far north. In view of the fact we may be in an either/or situation-on the one hand this type of drilling or on the other increased marine traffic by increased importation of offshore oil-and in view of the fact the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment set a precedent by making that risk factor report on drilling public as soon as it was drawn to his attention, can the Minister of Transport tell the House what reports, either commissioned internally or through consultants, are available

to him dealing with the risk factor of increased oil tanker traffic, particularly supertankers? If there are any such reports available to him, will they be made public immediately?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of internal comments on the various factors which are involved. There has been an examination of the reaction facilities we need in order to deal with marine emergencies, including oil spills. In half an hour I am planning to table in the House a report and an analysis of the new coast guard facilities for dealing with these varied emergencies.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister misunderstood me. I am talking about the risk factor involved in connection with marine traffic as compared to the risk factor in drilling. Perhaps those statistics are not available. If the minister has not already done so, would he contact his counterpart, the Secretary of Transport in the United States and secure from him, if he has not already done so, whatever information is available to Secretary of Transport, particularly reports prepared by the National Academy of Science in the United States.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member re-reads my answer he will see that I dealt with that part of his question in the first part of my answer, indicating that there are a number of internal duties. Of course, the United States is planning to put positions forward in the international meetings that will deal with the over-all question of these risks. I also indicated to the hon. member that we have taken action to deal with emergencies here that may arise from oil spills of all types including those, obviously, that may emerge from tankers carrying oil.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Bearing in mind the recent Toronto Star poll which demonstrates an overwhelming concern in Quebec for that province's worsening economic performance, especially from lack of jobs, would the minister explain why in his opinion Quebec has fallen so far below the national average in recent years with respect to economic development and which condition is revealed in the economic review tabled by the minister in the House yesterday?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it really seems to me that that is a very broad question which I could hardly answer in the cryptic terms of question period.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer, would he be willing to have a reference with respect to the economic review itself to the
May 18, 1977

appropriate committee of this Elouse so that there can be an intensive investigation into the various things spelled out in it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. 1 am not sure whether our Elouse leader would agree with me but I would have no difficulty with that.


MEASURES TO RESTORE BUSINESS CONFIDENCE IN QUEBEC
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the meantime while that is being worked out, would the minister indicate what steps, if any, the government has taken to insure there is no further slowdown in the private sector business activity in Quebec and what steps the government intends to take to restore business confidence there which in turn should help to entice new commercial ventures to Quebec?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seems to be suggesting some kind of specific control by the federal government over the private sector in Quebec.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No; what enticement are you giving?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think that is conceivable in Quebec or any other province. I would remind the hon. member that the budget provided federal measures of a fiscal nature both in terms of expenditure and in terms of regional tax concessions which will be of significant advantage to firms operating in Quebec. We must recognize, however, that in light of the language bill now before the Quebec legislature there is bound to be some economic uncertainty.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Section 736 of part 20 of the Canada Shipping Act, 1971 which deals with financial responsibility in case of pollution and spills, has not yet been proclaimed, would the minister inform the House whether he has this matter under active consideration? If so, could he tell us the date when this section will come into effect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and I, have been discussing this question. While there are some complications in regard to imposing financial liability, we are looking at the question actively. Until that examination is complete I cannot give the hon. member a specific date.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


FREIGHT RATES-POSSIBILITY OF SET RATE FOR PAYMENTS TO FLOUR MILLERS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of answers which he gave to questions yesterday. In response to a question that I put to him regarding freight rates the minister replied that the government is meeting the problem of stop-off charges in eastern Canada by lowering the stop-off charges in western Canada and supporting the difference by paying funds directly to the flour millers. Is it the intention of the minister to maintain a set rate for flour millers, which at the moment I believe is 7 cents per hundred? In the meantime other charges have gone up, making the total 18 cents, and the millers are footing another 11 cents a hundred. Is it the minister's policy that where he reimburses a miller or a rapeseed crusher, the amount shall remain at that set rate regardless of what happens to other charges or freight rates?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member's facts are wrong. The government payment has gone up to 15 cents, which at the present time as I understand it, is the most recent differential between the eastern stop-off charge and the western stop-off charge. We have not assured the millers that we can continue tracking the difference in rate in this fashion because of problems of financial restraint, but up to this point we have done so.


FREIGHT RATES-POSSIBILITY OF EQUALIZED SYSTEM
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister indicated that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have been reluctant to say, anywhere but in the west, what they mean by equity. We have been advocating a system of equalized and/or subsidized freight rates since about 1933 all over Canada, and I would like to ask the minister if it is going to be his policy upon termination- because he says he wants in the long run to arrive at a better system than the one he is presently stuck with-to have as a long range policy a system of equalizing or subsidizing freight rates for the regions of Canada which are affected because of distance; for example, the Atlantic provinces and western Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Where very specific developmental purposes can be served by lower freight rates, we have recognized the usefulness of them, as we did in our recent discussions with the Atlantic provinces and in the agreement to aim freight assistance specifically at products where that leads to Atlantic development. I cannot, however, share the hon. member's view-which I understand his party can adopt easily-that somehow there is some magic and beautiful solution in transferring from the person who ships goods to the taxpayer the cost of freight. The fact is that those costs do not go away, no matter how much the hon. member

May 18, 1977
Oral Questions
might like to dream and pretend that they do. They are still borne by the taxpayer, and in addition, because they are hidden and not taken into account in our total domestic production pattern, they lead to increases in cost and lower productivity in Canada, which is something we must attack very vigorously indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of talk we have been getting since 1880.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would like to ask the minister if the government intends to fly not just in the face of what 1 say or what the NDP says but also in the face of what many organizations, and most recently the Hall Commission, have said? In terms of the use of instruments like the statutory grain rates applying to the finished products, whether it be grain or other kinds of products, does the minister intend to ignore the recommendations of the Hall Commission and continue with the 1890 concept he still embraces?


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member earlier said 1880, and I felt that with another three years and the 100th anniversary of hearing it, he might understand what is involved. 1 did indicate the other day my concern about this particular freight rate issue. I have said repeatedly that I do not want that in any way to detract from the Hall Commission, which was set up very specifically to do a major job for western Canada and which I played a part in setting up. The job it has done has been excellent, and we will be implementing a great number of the proposals of the Hall Commission.
In this particular case I did not point out-and I would like the hon. member to register this-that if there is a suggestion that an artificially low rate well below cost be allowed for the movement of meat, I presume even the hon. member would not suggest that this could be done only for western Canada. It would have to apply all across the country, and I simply say to the hon. member that unlike his leader and the Leader of the Opposition, it may be worthwhile to take a statement like that in a report and calculate what it would cost even before he determines that he would want that cost transferred to the taxpayer. At the very least he should know what it costs and what the economic implications of transferring this cost to the taxpayer are before he decides to support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC HALL RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Transport, and they also concern the Hall Commission Report. The minister indicated yesterday and he has indicated again today that the government will be implementing some of the recommendations in that report. Yesterday the minister mentioned that some of the recommen-

dations would be implemented before the end of June. I wonder if the minister would give the House some idea of what recommendations the government will be implementing before the end of June, which is just some 40 days away.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to indicate thatas we move along with the decisions because while there are some I am sure we are going to be able to implement in that period, there are some others we may very well be able to implement as well, and I would not want to leave them out by mentioning the ones of which we are sure.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, one of the main recommendations in the Hall Commission Report was the recommendation of a prairie rail authority. Mr. Justice Hall indicated that that was necessary in western Canada if his other recommendations are to be carried forward. I am wondering whether on this specific issue the government will be implementing that recommendation before the end of June.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my initial reaction to that proposal is very favourable indeed. It seems to me to make a good deal of sense and to have a great deal of potential. However, the proposal of a new authority or body with some very important powers and a very important influence on the structures in the west is a major idea. While some people raised an idea like that in various discussions before the Hall Commission Report, it does not really come upon the prairies as a new idea in its totality, and I would like to hear from the representatives of farm organizations and from farmers themselves before I form a final opinion as to the implementation of that recommendation.


CROWSNEST PASS RATES-MINISTER'S POSITION ON ABANDONMENT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I listened very carefully to his answers yesterday; I read them in Hansard and I have listened to his answers today, and it seems to me that his answers to questions refer either to processed products from grain or grain consumed in Canada and the movement thereof. I want to ask a clear-cut, concise question. Is it the minister's policy to abandon the Crowsnest Pass freight rate as set out by the statute and as it applies to export grain?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that answer.


Some hon. Members:: He said no.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then, 1 would like to ask the minister whether he will assure the House and the country that because those rates are spelled out in the statute, the statute will not be repealed and left to the whims of orders in council to be enforced by that method.
May 18, 1977

Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Otto Emil Lang: Well, I think that follows very clearly. I have indicated in the west that I consider this very much a western question and that if the kind of money which is involved in the Crowsnest rate is available, it is important for the west to answer why it wants that money to go only to the farmer who ships his grain in the form of grain, depriving the farmer who ships his grain in the form of meat, the benefit of that very same form of assistance. With a given amount of money that question must be asked by the west, and of course, if the idea is that another $500 million or $600 million can be thrown into the pot, then obviously the representative of people in all parts of the country may want to be concerned about that aspect of it. That is why 1 indicated yesterday that 1 would just as soon hear what the official policy position of the various parties is on that issue rather than simply hear these localized demands.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, 1 have one further supplementary question. How does the minister reconcile his first answer with his answer to my second question, because it is a complete distortion of the facts?


Otto Emil Lang: No it is not, Mr. Speaker. I indicated quite clearly that I have no policy which would affect the Crowsnest rate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: What I said in my second answer is that I have been discussing this with people in the west, and I am certainly receptive to conclusions in the west that some different form of distributing the benefit may in fact be advantageous to the west. I say that is an idea which 1 believe to be of fundamental importance for the long term in the west, and I am going to go on talking about it even though the political parties opposite keep making cheap political hay by trying to distort my position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are in trouble now.


Mr. Paproski:: There's got to be an election coming up.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to question the Minister of Finance about the Economic Review, the picture on the cover being the National Research Council's radio telescope dish antenna. I ask the minister if this means he is now searching in outer space for economic policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously, we will find sounder ecbnomic policies in outer space than in the official opposition.


NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT REQUEST FOR CO-OPERATION IN INVESTIGATING PAYMENTS BY POLYSAR
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of media reports both in the Netherlands and Canada saying that, on the Polysar revelations respecting customers who receive secret rebates, the Netherlands government is expecting the full co-operation and volunteer help of the Canadian government in investigating this matter I ask, has the minister received copies of these press reports or statements from our embassy in the Netherlands? If so, what has been his response? If he has not received them, will he make every attempt to "buck up" some of these embassy people, who should be keeping him informed of this matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen them personally but that does not mean they did not arrive during my absence last week. I will make inquiries. Certainly, I have not received formal representation from the governments concerned asking for co-operation, but if we receive it of course we will consider it as forthcomingly as possible. I will inquire as to whether the embassy has reported; 1 am sure it has. I think the hon. member is being somewhat unfair in view of the considerable work our embassies have been doing on his behalf and on behalf of the committee.


PAYMENTS BY POLYSAR-ALLEGATION DEPARTMENT HAS FAILED TO CO-OPERATE WITH INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question touches on that very point. Some members of the committee think the committee has not had the full co-operation of the minister or the department in keeping it up to date on what has been sent to the minister by the embassies. I understand the minister undertook to co-operate fully and my question is this: Would the minister please examine his departmental files, to make sure that information given to the public accounts committee is kept up to date; because if the minister has those reports and we do not have them, then, as I think the minister will agree, he has been falling down on the job.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree thoroughly. I was not aware until this moment that the chairman of the committee was not satisfied. I have sent to him every telegram and every response, and carried through every request. If some are outstanding, I will look into them.


ALLEGATION UNITED STATES BREAKING AGREEMENT ON WEST COAST SALMON FISHERY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? A salmon war is erupting off the west coast of

May 18, 1977
Oral Questions
Canada as a result of the United States government breaking the interim agreement by taking unilateral action. Can the minister advise the House what steps he will take to protect Canadian fishermen and Canadian fisheries resources?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations in connection with this matter are continuing with the United States almost on a daily basis. The interim agreement to which the hon. member referred has not yet been ratified by the United States Congress, I am told, because of delays which we in this House may be able to understand. However, I assure the hon. member that the question is being looked into on an urgent basis.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister be encouraging the CNR to upgrade the Gillam-Churchill subdivision, in order to carry out the Hall Commission's objective, namely, that the port of Churchill should handle double or triple its present capacity in order to provide a reasonable alternative to the increasingly difficult situation developing in connection with the use of the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, apart from considering what volume of grain may be involved in the future, I sent a letter to the President of the CNR, drawing to his attention the fact that the designation of the Churchill line as non-grain dependent by the Snavely Commission has no relevance to the issue of whether or not it should be upgraded, since it is in the category of lines presently receiving assistance as a branch line whenever it is uneconomic. I will pursue that matter with the Canadian National. I believe it is one of those lines which should be upgraded in the near future.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport arises from the study, released last week, undertaken by the federal committee on Atlantic regional transportation. One of its main conclusions was that principal rail services in the Atlantic region should be replaced by bus services. I wonder if, for the edification of the people of Atlantic Canada, the minister can say if he endorses that view, and was the committee putting forward the policy of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the position put before the Canadian Transport Commission is

the considered view of the five governments, of the four Atlantic governments and ourselves, as part of the process of attempting to identify where money is being spent in the Atlantic region, and if it can be spent better for the welfare of that region. It is part of the over-all agreement with the Atlantic premiers on a variety of programs with which we will want to move forward for the benefit of the Atlantic region.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, when will the government recognize, in formulating its policies, that Canada begins in Newfoundland and ends on Vancouver Island, not in Montreal? The country does not stretch, either, only from Montreal to Vancouver.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, the report put before the commission the view that rail passenger service should continue from Montreal to the Atlantic as part of a continuous rail route through the country. Of course, in Newfoundland we want to be sure that the existing bus service will be improved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns a young man charged in a military court with the heinous offence of approaching his member of parliament. Would the Acting Minister of National Defence look into the circumstances in which a serving person in the armed forces, Mr. Smith, at Camp Gagetown near Oromocto, New Brunswick, could be denied the fundamental right of taking a complaint to his member of parliament, in this case the member of parliament for York-Sunbury? The serving member of the armed forces has been placed on charge. I understand that charge, to be proceeded with today or tomorrow, is for placing his case for release before a member of parliament.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as the acting minister in the House I will certainly take the matter as notice. Judging by what the hon. member said, it appears to be a most serious question. I will see that it is conveyed to the appropriate officials immediately following the question period.


TRANSPORT
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. In view of the disclosures which have been made about Atlantic transporta-
May 18, 1977

tion policy, I wonder if the minister could elaborate on information he gave me two or three weeks ago, namely, that he will make a decision shortly, or an announcement, on the upgrading of highways in the Atlantic region, particularly in Newfoundland?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be able to make such a statement at an early date.


IMPROVEMENT IN PORT FACILITIES AT PRINCE RUPERT- POSSIBILITY OF FACILITIES TO HANDLE COAL
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I, too, direct a question to the Minister of Transport? May I ask if the port facilities at Prince Rupert, on the west coast, will be upgraded and improved soon, in accordance with recommendations made in the Hall Commission Report? I ask this particularly since the government has already considered turning over to free enterprise the elevator system there. Will that process now be accelerated and will that facility be integrated into the system, as one of the key components of the western transportation system?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept the Hall Commission's conclusion about the importance of the port of Prince Rupert and the desirability of using it more extensively. The Minister of Agriculture has presently before him several submissions and proposals relating to the use of the terminal. I hope we shall soon reach a decision on that.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are plans in existence to create a coal exporting facility, and similar facilities to handle other, major commodities, to be exported to the Far East from the port of Prince Rupert?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the terminal facility being completed at Prince Rupert, the question of the port's coal handling capability is being studied. This is being done in conjunction with the British Columbia government, in connection with the development of northeastern coal.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Claude-Andr£ Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Following the right hon. gentleman's recent visit to France and his meeting with the President of the Republic, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing, and in light of the statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert as reported by Le Devoir today, to the effect that the Prime Minister was very badly received in the French capital and that we should put an end to our relations with France, since they are pernicious anyway, could the Prime Minister of Canada reassure the House regarding
Oral Questions
the result and the spirit of that visit and reiterate to the House the importance of our friendly relations with France?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the right hon. member for Prince Albert was quoted correctly, but if such is the case I can certainly say that he was indulging in wishful thinking because, in fact, my visit was extremely friendly and successful, and as I have had the opportunity to say, the French government and administration have made clear that they do not intend to interfere in the debate among Canadians and that they want to consider Canada as a sympathetic and powerful ally.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I would like to know exactly what the Prime Minister did in Paris for three days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister has often expressed grave concern about unemployment in Canada and in view of the fact that Newfoundland is plagued with extremely high unemployment, will the Prime Minister tell the House the rationale or the reason for his government spending $1.7 million to build an 18 hole golf course outside the national park at Terra Nova.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the question.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that this $1.7 million for a golf course will not create one job in an area of Newfoundland-


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes it will.


John R. Rodriguez: If these yahoos will just be quiet, I will ask my question. It will not create one job in this part of Newfoundland. Will the Prime Minister assure the House he will look into this matter to ensure that the money is not spent on a golf course but spent in other ways to create employment in Newfoundland.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did tell the hon. member that I would look into the matter. However, it would seem to me there is some obvious advantage to Newfoundland to have people go there because of the beauty of the province and the warmth and hospitality of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After all, Mr. Speaker, this means that we are encouraging tourists to go to that part of the country. Some of them happen to be golfers. It is not my particular sport, but some of them like to play golf, a sport which has its origins in the north of Scotland and which is enjoyed by many members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REASON FOR FAILURE TO MODERATE PRICE INCREASES- PROPOSED REVIEW OF COSTS IMPOSED BY INDIRECT TAXES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since figures from the Economic Review of the Department of Finance show that price increases in non-food items were still 8.4 per cent during 1976, I would like to ask why after more than one year of controls there has been no significant moderation in the rate of increase.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the fact that those price levels remained high reflects the fact that labour costs have continued to be high in the non-food area. Under the Anti-Inflation Program, as the hon. member knows, the process is directed at a gradual reduction on the compensation side. That has indeed been underway, as indicated by the terms of first years of settlement and the terms of contract which have been entered into during the course of the last year. The hon. member's question is a good example, in reply to the NDP and the Canadian Labour Congress who insist that the program has been particularly hard on the workingman. Obviously, in real terms the workingman has not suffered greatly by the gradual de-escalation of the rate of increase.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The workingman pays a lot of taxes. Since the same review shows that indirect taxes have become the next to largest tax factor affecting overall national price behaviour, will the minister instigate a review of the costs imposed on the economy by these indirect taxes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated in the budget, Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to have an extensive debate in the Finance committee of the commodity tax system. I look forward to being able to discuss this further with the hon. member in that context.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the
(Mr. Trudeau.]
high unemployment level in Canada, may I ask the minister if he is aware of just one of the reasons for this unacceptable level whereby certain unions, including the United Auto Workers, are making it obligatory for their membership to work beyond the number of hours required in a working week, thereby eliminating potential employment opportunities for tens of thousands of unemployed, many of whom are already experienced in their respective fields. If he is aware of this matter, what steps does he plan to take to rectify this unfair practice?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is not an unfair practice. It is not widely resorted to by trade unions in this country. In fact, a resolution was passed by the United Auto Workers in Windsor whereby on their own initiative they are endeavouring to work out some job sharing arrangement for their fellow workers who may be laid off so that all will have jobs.


Otto John Jelinek: Can it be taken that the minister's answer to this question is that he believes this to be a fair practice for the people, and there are many within the unions who do not want to work these extended hours as well as for those who are unemployed and have experience in their respective jobs? Does the minister say that this is a fair practice on the part of the unions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member entirely missed my point. I am saying that the trade unions in this country are endeavouring to share the available work with their fellow workers, devising various schemes on their own initiative.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. Some week or ten days ago I asked the minister about a certain interpretation that had been issued by the income tax section of her department concerning a change of opinion or intention on how to assess individual income tax income earners on the basis of money advanced to them by their employers, either by shares in the company or to assist in home purchases.


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I have been hoping for some time that the hon. member would put that question to me, but I did not see him in the House. I did, to comply with his request, look into the matter.
My department is responsible for levying income tax on Canadians. We have noticed a considerable increase in the loans, at low interest rates or without interest, being granted by employers to employees. We have therefore decided to
* .
May 18, 1977

revise our last interpretation bulletin to the effect that the difference between the interest rate on those loans and the bank rate will be considered as additional income, for income tax purposes, this ruling to become effective on January 1, 1978.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Have the minister and her officials considered that because of the change and because of the fantastic increase in the cost of housing in particular, such a practice has become mandatory in order to secure the movement and transfer of employees? Otherwise, it is absolutely impossible. The matter has become a condition of employment rather than additional benefit.


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Speaker, I feel that question could be put to some other minister. My responsibilities are far more limited and do not go beyond levying income taxes on Canadians.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and it has to do with the hon. gentleman's announcement yesterday that as a result of the move of 11 government departments and another 15,000 public service employees to Hull, four million square feet of office space will become vacant in Ottawa which he has encouraged the private sector to get to work to fdl. Would the minister have any objection to the owners of this space endeavouring to entice firms from Quebec to fill that accommodation because of the uncertain situation in that province-one, which, I might add, was brought about by the Prime Minister and his government.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Obviously, 1 do not accept the hon. member's final comment. I hope that firms in Ottawa seeking other enterprises and commercial endeavours would be able to look all across Canada for prospective occupants.
[ Translation]


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain on a question of privilege.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I believe we have asked only one small question and I should just like to put on oral question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Shefford on a question of privilege.


Mr. Rondeau:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
Transport


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Champlain want to rise on a question of privilege?
M". Matte: No, Mri Speaker.


Mr. Alexander:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to register my objection to the statement made by the Minister of Labour when replying to a question by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. I do not think the minister is quite in touch with his department, because he seemed to leave the impression with me that organized labour was walking around the country looking for work-sharing agreements. I want the minister to know that the CLC has been before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and has registered concern about the worksharing proposal in Bill C-27, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. They take a very dim view of the unemployment insurance fund being used under work-sharing agreements. So all is not pie in the sky. I know the hon. gentleman did not wish to mislead the House. I just want to set the record straight.


John Carr Munro: I am mystified as to how the hon. member for Hamilton West could possibly take that interpretation from my comment, unless he wishes to display some unique knowledge he has picked up in some standing committee. I was not even talking about unemployment insurance sharing arrangements. I was not even referring to unemployment insurance. I presume the hon. member was not listening. What I said was that many unions in this country are concerned about unemployment and are endeavouring to devise schemes to share the workload, overtime, and so on, among their fellow workers. How the hon. member could take anything out of that, a statement which had nothing to do with sharing unemployment insurance, is totally beyond me, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), the Canadian Coastguard national marine emergency plan to deal with marine emergencies including oil spills in Canadian territorial waters.

May 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions CITIZENSHIP ACT


MEASURE TO ENSURE CITIZENSHIP NOT WITHHELD BY REASON OF BEING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-420, to amend the Citizenship Act (conscientious objectors).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canadian citizenship is not withheld from individuals solely on the basis of their religious or philosophical convictions regarding military service or the bearing of arms. At present, the rights outlined in the bill are embodied in the regulations governing the Citizenship Act. Those regulations can be changed by order in council at any time. This bill will guarantee the rights of conscientious objectors, by law.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,682, 1,920 and 2,255.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many (a) $5 (b) $10 silver Olympic coins were minted for the Olympic Coin Programme?
2.	How many of each remain unsold?
3.	What was the seignorage as of January 1, 1977 of the (a) $5 (b) $10 silver Olympic coin?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) 15,642,554; (b) 16,032,574 as of September 30, 1976.
2.	(a) 3,183,143; (b) 3,908,496 as of September 30, 1976.
3.	No seignorage accrues to the government from the issue of Olympic Coins. The profits derived from the Olympic Coin and Stamp Programmes are payable to the Olympic Corporation. As of January 1, 1977, $88,000,000 was so paid.


Mr. Schumacher: 1. For each year 1947 to date, how many appeals were made to the Immigration Appeal Board and, in each case, how many were (a) heard (b) allowed (c) dismissed (d) left pending?
2.	For the same years (a) how many resulted in deportation (b) what were the reasons (c) what was the destination?
3.	For the same years, how many prohibited immigrants were allowed to remain in Canada by (a) ministerial permit (b) other authority and what was the reason for the prohibited immigrant classification?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.	Prior to 1967, Immigration Appeal Board Statistics are not available.
Appeals Made:	(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)1967	63	8	-	11	1531968	1382	987	32	955	1531969	2684	1000	66	934	17231970	4046	933	81	845	47501971	4908	1179	144	1012	80811972	5852	1542	139	1388	118751973	14743	8048	1548	6495	182471974	743	15405	746	14646	34291975	685	3804	1042	2731	2251976	835	484	23	416	4471977	68	55	2	47 Feb.	4562.	(a) Statistics are not available relating to deportation actions stemming from decisions rendered by the Immigration Appeal Board, (b) See reply to 2(a). (c) See reply to 2(a).3.	Statistics in the form requested, are not available. Section 5 of the Immigration Act describes persons whose admission is prohibited and applied to all persons whether immigrants or non-immigrants, (a) The Minister is required under Section 8 of the Immigration Act to submit to Parliament, within 30 days of the commencement of the first Session of Parliament in each year, a report showing all permits with particulars thereof, issued during the preceding calendar year. The report for 1975 was tabled on November 16, 1976, and this as well as previous reports are available from the Journal's Branch of the House of Commons, (b) Ministerial permits are the only legal means for a prohibited person to enter Canada for the period specified on the permit.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In (a) 1975 (b) 1976, were employees of the Quebec Region of the Unemployment Insurance Commission referred to the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so (i) how many from each office (ii) for what reasons?
2.	Does the Director of the St-Jerome Office and Sub-Offices use this practice to intimidate his employees and, if not, for what reason are his offices the most affected?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. Yes. (a) Not available, (b) (i) Offices: Regional, 12; Montreal Northeast, 1; Montreal Northwest, 3; Montreal Southeast, 3; Montreal Centre North, 3; Montreal Centre South, 2; Longueuil, 15; Laval, 1; Montreal Southwest, 7; St-Jerome, 7; Hull, 2; Quebec City East, 1; Quebec City West, 3; Sherbrooke, 1; Trois-Rivieres, 1; Chicoutimi, 2; Levis, 4; Rimouski, 1; Total 69. (ii) The purpose of a medical examination is to check the physical capacity of employees to perform the duties of their position, in cases where the number of absences for health reasons seems too high.
2. No. The St-Jerome office, which covers an entire district and has a large number of employees and several sub-offices
May 18, 1977

Post Office
under its authority, is not the office most affected by the tion with the project of the Church Council of Our Lady of medical examinations. The manager referred seven employees Czestochowa were submitted in confidence and therefore to the department of health, which represents ten per cent of cannot be produced. I therefore ask the hon. member to the total for the Quebec Region.	withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to Mr. Beatty: That is a typical stall, Mr. Speaker, and I stancj9	would ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. McKinley:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all contracts relating to the costs and construction of the two Toronto major postal plants of Gateway and South-Central between the (a) Department of Public Works and the Project Management Firm (b) Department of Public Works and the Project Construction Firm (c) Department of Supply and Services and the Project Management Firm (d) Department of Supply and Services and the Project Construction Firm (e) Project Management Firm and any Sub-contractor (/) Project Construction Firm and any Sub-contractor.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, parts (a) and (b) of notice of motion for the production of papers No. 18 are acceptable on the understanding that only the prime contracts will be tabled. Insofar as parts (c) and (d) are concerned, no contracts have been awarded to the firms mentioned. As for parts (e) and (/) the government has no jurisdiction over sub-contracts which are the responsibility of the main contracting body.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the documents shall be tabled with respect to the parts mentioned by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Goodale: Would Your Honour please call notice of motion for the production of papers No. 44?



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE MULTICULTURALISM GRANTS INVOLVING MR. ED STRUZIK OF LONDON, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Beatty:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any contracts, correspondence, agreements, assessments or papers concerning the multiculturalism grants in 1975 and 1976 involving Mr. Ed Struzikof London, Ontario.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, all reports, correspondence papers, etc., received by the department in connec-


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notice of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) moved:: That this House notes with alarm the government's continuing inability to provide Canadians with an efficient postal service, its obsession with secrecy, its illegal use of orders in council to set postal rates, and its chronic ineptness in the field of collective bargaining and industrial relations, and recommends that the operations of the Post Office Department be referred to a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, during the past few weeks there have been at least three occasions on which Post Office affairs have been discussed both within this House and by the Committee on Transport and Communications. On each occasion the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have become increasingly concerned by a drift toward a situation which can only result in final confrontation and complete breakdown in the postal service. It is for this reason we are taking the opportunity today to bring a motion before the House in a conscientious endeavour to get some action before the point of no return is passed.
As I came into the House today I received a press release from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers expressing the same kind of alarm. Coincidentally, I do not know whether some telepathy is involved, but it indicates that the people most concerned with providing a postal service have come to the same conclusion as the members of the opposition. I have been receiving a growing volume of complaints about slow delivery, damaged letters and parcels, lost mail and rapid increases in rates for all postal services, and at the same time decline in service. My mail, when the mail does get through, also includes a growing number of complaints from postal employees indicating a continuing decline in morale. A recent letter from a long-time postal officer concluded with these words, and I can assure the House that this is not an exceptional case:
I actually see a dying Post Office now. I notice more evidence of it every day. I am saddened by it all. I no longer support the policies of the union. They are

May 18, 1977
Post Office
partly responsible for some of the problems; however, only a small part as most of their foolishness was allowed and seldom even understood by the management negotiations. As an example, the hiring of casuals was a concession that should not have been discontinued; but instead partly discontinued. It should have been pegged to the rate of absenteeism, sick leave, annual and special leave, and maintained at that level.
The disillusionment expressed by this experienced postal worker summarizes what has happened to Canada's Post Office during the past nine years. The high morale that used to characterize the postal service has given way to a growing sense of frustration. The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), in his remarks to the third Postal User's Conference held in Toronto on November 2, 1976, expressed the same sense of futility. He declared that any further strike action by the CUPW would destroy the postal service. It is reflected, too, in the numerous studies undertaken by the Post Office in attempting to cure the growing malaise, the phrase the former postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey, used to use frequently.
Altogether, some 15 studies have been undertaken. Because they have been highly critical of current trends in Post Office management, administration and labour relations, successive postmasters general have endeavoured to keep a shroud of secrecy around them, thereby denying members of parliament opportunity to engage in informed discussion on ways and means to improve the postal service.
All major industrial countries have been passing through difficulties similar to Canada in upgrading their postal services to meet the demand for modern communications. Denied access to Canadian studies, members of the Conservative party's caucus committee on postal affairs visited the United States and the United Kingdom in search of answers to the Canadian postal dilemma. In both countries we found a refreshing openness and desire to share their problems and experience with us. Just the other day I received volume 1, dated April, 1977, of the report of the commission on postal service from the United States government. In the foreword to the President and Congress of the United States the purpose of the commission is stated briefly thus:
The commission was established to identify and study problems facing the United States postal service and to recommend actions to resolve these problems.
The British are completing a similar study known as the Carter commission report. Our Conservative caucus committee has received the assurance that we will receive a copy as soon as it is off the press. In light of the openness of the United States and British governments, the paranoic secretiveness of the Canadian government is incomprehensible when we view the situation that faces us. This paranoid attitude on the part of the government has influenced and poisoned all relationships in the Canadian postal service. Back in 1969, when Eric Kierans was postmaster general, the decision was taken to move Canada's postal service into the twentieth century by a program of mechanization and automation. Without any prior consultation with the postal unions, the plan was thrown at them as a fait accompli. This was the beginning of the breakdown in labour-management relations which has resulted today in a situation where the CUPW is still boycotting the
postal code, an innovation which is essential to the success of the automation program.
In his speech to the Postal Users' Conference in Toronto last fall, the Postmaster General referred to yet another study that has just been completed by the Post Office. It was conducted by a sociologist from the University of Alberta and took the form of video-taped interviews with employees. Here is a summary of some of the complaints given by the PMG on page 9 of his speech:
Management never consults us. They never ask for our "input". They never ask how we feel or think. They never get down to the plant floor and find out what's going on. They bring in machines and they tell us how they work, but they don't say how they affect our future.
Some complained about shift work, some about heat and noise. But many more said they were treated either like army recruits or children. Surprisingly, few complain about the computerized machinery. Morale has dropped among those who do not work machines: manual sorters, mail handlers, people in transportation-older, long-time employees who are the backbone of the Post Office. They see mechanization eroding their jobs, depreciating their skills. They think we lavish too much attention and money on machines.
Too much haste in proceeding toward mechanization has produced a situation in Toronto, which processes 45 per cent of all the mail originating in Canada, that we have outlined in this House in questions in recent days and has been referred to by the Postmaster General as a temporary aberration. Mail is being delayed up to ten days, many letters lost, some destroyed by the sorting machinery, and only 35 per cent being sorted by the mechanization process. This results in the necessity of expensive double-banking, with the new, automated machines having to be backed up by a large staff of manual sorters.
Enough has been said to underline the problem, and other speakers will be raising other matters. Now we must move toward solutions. The British and American experience is enlightening in this respect. Both countries have moved away from direct government control to a Crown corporation set up in the United Kingdom and a semi-private organization in the United States. Both countries were faced with strikes in the initial stages of transition. In the U.K. management made the same mistake that has been made in Canada: mechanization was thrown at the union without prior consultation. The United Postal Workers struck and refused to go back to work until such time as they had been thoroughly consulted on the whole process of mechanization and automation.
Management declared a one-year moratorium on the implementation of the plan. Union representatives were brought directly into the planning process. They came up with some of the best ideas. They now sit on the board of directors of the Post Office with management. I talked with Norman Stagg, the deputy general secretary of the Union of Postal Workers of Great Britain, and was amazed to hear him talk of members of the Union of Postal Workers as part of the Post Office family dedicated to operating the best postal service possible. Oh, that we could have this situation in the Canadian Post Office!

May 18, 1977

They view mechanization and automation as the long-term solution provided the workers are closely involved in the formulation-and this is important-as well as the implementation stage and share the benefits of mechanization. The position of machine coder has become an elite position in mechanized postal plants, and we had the opportunity to see old-time employees displaying excellent morale as they vied one with another for speed and accuracy with coding machines.
At the present time, plans are afoot to introduce full-scale industrial democracy into the British postal plants. Incidentally, they are coming on stream at a much slower pace than the impulsive pace which has been adopted in Canada, with 18 offices out of a planned 80 on stream, and installations are proceeding at the rate of ten a year. In the United States the experience has been similar. They, too, had a strike in the early stages, even though the right to strike is not given to employees in essential services. Now consultation has been introduced in all areas of the United States postal service and at all levels. Training programs have been established for both management and labour.
As is the case in Britain, supervisors and shop stewards attend courses together to be trained in modern industrial relations skills and sensitized to problems of human relations on the plant floor. Local grievances are dealt with at the local level, thereby avoiding the huge backlog of unsettled grievances, many of them trivial and avoidable, which is poisoning the spirit of good, human relations in Canada's mechanized postal plants. It is interesting to note that the commission which reported recently to the President and Congress included representatives from both the postal workers and letter carriers union in its membership.
During the next few weeks, the Canada Post Office is faced with critical negotiations for new contracts with all its employees. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which represents most inside workers, have already expressed their militancy by making 250 new proposals for a one-year agreement, and stating, "We're ready to strike again if we have to. It's second nature to us."
In committee meetings last week, the Postmaster General emphasized that management and labour were still on a collision confrontation course. He pointed out that a no cooperation and fraternization clause is written into the constitution of the union. He said the same in his speech last fall:
All signs appear to me to point to a breakdown in communications. Each party has been unable to accept the other for what they are. Labels have been used "militaristic", "dictatorial", "Maoists", "separatist" when they failed to accept the reality. Propaganda in its World War II sense has been used on both sides.
This was the situation over which the former postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey, stumbled in his attempts to solve the problems in the Post Office. Mr. Mackasey's growing disillu-sionments are outlined in a series of speeches published by the Post Office, so they must have considered them important, under the revealing title "What's Behind the Lemming Urge"?
Post Office
In other words, we were all going over the cliff together. His closing sentence is most illuminating in light of what I have outlined today, and I quote:
We're moving beyond ideology; we're responding to necessity. Our choice, as Buchminster Fuller says, is between Utopia and oblivion.
Everyone is agreed that the strike weapon is not the solution. This is pointed out in CUPW's press release today. The workers in the University of Alberta study state that they were gratified and encouraged to be consulted. They said they would like to take pride in their work; they would like the satisfaction of doing their best; they would like to give service. They said, "If management were on our side, we'd be on theirs". The Postmaster General, too, has stated:
-with every stoppage of work, the Post Office Department loses more business to private couriers, teleprinters networks, computerized message systems and the long distance telephone. We have to stop the drain or we'll end up like the States, where the cost of service pushes up rates as mail volume goes down, and then volume goes down because mailing rates go up.
He further quoted Jack Jones, the moderate leader of Britain's largest trade union, when he said recently, "What's the use of a beautiful wage agreement if the firm goes bust five days later"? The dialogue of the deaf must cease. Management has already achieved a good relationship with the Letter Carriers Union of Canada. It must now come to grips with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The leaders of the union want to be heard and want to be involved. We believe that our motion offers the only solution, and we trust that the government will support it.
May I make a further motion, or suggestion, in view of its timeliness, that the press release and the attached excerpts from the Uberig report, which is a significant report by the assistant deputy minister for the Post Office, be appended to Hansard today as part of the record?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we all welcome the opportunity of joining this debate and the motion put forth by the hon. gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), made a motion with respect to the appending of certain documents to today's Hansard. I wonder if Your Honour might make a disposition on that matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry, but I did not understand the hon. member's point. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, just as the debate began today I was handed a press release from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I think it is a very important document which should be taken into consideration in the discussion that is before the House today. It fits directly

May 18, 1977
Post Office
into the motion put forward by the official opposition this afternoon.
Our motion is to refer the matter for immediate action to a joint committee of members of parliament and the Senate. We put our motion in those terms because this has been the growing practice with reference to investigations of this kind. There is a greater possibility of getting more immediate action from a parliamentary committee than a royal commission.
The CUPW press release has the following headline, "CUPW calls for a royal commission of inquiry into the administration of the Post Office Department". That is a slower process, but it is the route which has been taken in the United Kingdom and in the United States. I am agreeable to either route as long as there is some action on the part of the government before our postal system collapses completely. Because of its importance, I would suggest the press release and the appended excerpts from the Uberig report, a report by the assistant deputy minister of the Post Office, be appended to today's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I doubt whether an hon. member can table a document.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, it is being appended to Hansard, with unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: 1 do not think hon. members are allowed the opportunity even to append it to Hansard. Only ministers can do that with the agreement of the House. The hon. member could have read it into Hansard during his allocated time, but I do not think it can be appended to Hansard.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour must have misunderstood what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) requested. He is not asking to table something; he is asking the consent of the House for a certain item or items to be appended to today's Hansard. There is nothing new about that, it is not done all the time, but it is done now and then if there is unanimous consent. It is not limited to ministers, although ministers are the only ones who can table something. The right to append something to Hansard is up to the House, and provided there is unanimous consent, it can be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I want to thank the hon. member for his contribution. He is quite right; this is in order if there is unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: The government refuses.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I was just about to begin my remarks when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rose on this question. I am glad he did. It is one of the few opportunities we have to stand in this House and talk about the Post Office and the way it is managed. I think the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) should be complimented for bringing forward this motion.
Having said that, the motion that has been put is the real crux of the problem. Studies have been made about the management of the Post Office, but there sits the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) saying "No" to providing parliament and the public with the facts of the situation. This whole matter of the secrecy that operates within the Post Office has been one of the stumbling blocks to any kind of attempt to bring order to it. The Postmaster General cannot claim that the Post Office is a Crown corporation and therefore we cannot interfere. Neither can he claim that it is an entity separate to itself. It is not. The Post Office Department is run by the Postmaster General, and he is responsible to parliament for the postal service in this country. The Post Office Act states that the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Post Office, so he cannot hide behind the faqade of a Crown corporation or secret documents.
We want to know how the postal service is being administered. There are complaints from one end of the country to the other from people who are supposed to receive the benefit of an extensive service. There are also complaints from the people who sort the mail and deliver it, with respect to the way the Post Office is run. The Postmaster General has avoided providing parliament with the facts about the Post Office. That is a travesty of the purpose of parliament. It is an example of what happens when departments are not held accountable to the people. This minister, like the Post Office, tends to be accountable to no one.
The Postmaster General always has the wisecrack; he thinks this is a great big joke. Mr. Speaker, that is symptomatic of what is wrong with the Post Office. Middle management and top management bureaucrats take the example of the Postmaster General. Six months ago he was saying there was going to be a strike in the Post Office. In January of this year we asked him to open negotiations early in order to avoid problems which tend to become compressed, and sometimes we find ourselves crushed by them when trying to meet a deadline for a strike. He said the rules and regulations did not permit that. Yet out in Vancouver he was smiling like a Cheshire cat and telling us to be ready for a strike. This goes to show the minister's ineptitude when it comes to collective bargaining and industrial relations. So much for the Postmaster General and the incompetence with which he has handled the postal service, Mr. Speaker.
May 18, 1977

From my experience with the Post Office, 1 believe the problem lies with middle management. I do not think they have the basic concept of how to direct the work force. They seem to treat the work force in a very childish fashion, talking down to them. They have no idea of how to direct the work force in a meaningful way, with creativity, patience and imagination. Many of the problems which occur in the Post Office seem to revolve around the question of interpersonal relationships between those who are supposed to carry out instructions and those who are supposed to give direction.
A previous deputy postmaster general, Mr. Mackay, attempted to do two things, to decentralize the Post Office operations and to introduce technological change. This has been noted from time immemorial. Mr. Justice Freedman talked about the effect of technological change on the work force of the railways and the right of the work force to ensure that it did not suffer adverse effects from it. He held that there should be some method of retraining or reclassifying the work force to make sure that the effects of technological change did not fall heavily on them. One would assume that would be uppermost in the mind of management.
The Post Office work force did not object to technological change. They were concerned about the effects it might have and wanted to cushion them as much as possible. Those are legitimate concerns, Mr. Speaker. Anybody who has a heart, some common sense and ingenuity with respect to management would recognize that the problem has to be dealt with. It was not dealt with, and as a result we had a strike over the question of technological change.
Sad to say, and to the lasting disgrace of the Post Office, they began to engage in a propaganda fight with the postal union, attempting to get a scapegoat and to blame the workers for the problems in the Post Office which resulted in the strike. Everyone pointed the finger at those who were most visible- the people carrying the picket posters. It was the leadership of the union which had to speak out on behalf of the membership. Time and again the minister said that a technological change clause, and all sorts of things, would be included in the collective agreement. Finally, it was done. Now the problem is with the way it is interpreted. The workers are constantly finding great frustration in dealing with the whole question of interpretation. The Post Office management runs around the end of the clause and the 120-day notice provision. The problem of technological change is still a very serious one for the Post Office, and the Postmaster General seems incapable of handling this very delicate and human problem.
The other thing that Mr. Mackay attempted to do was decentralize the authority of the Post Office. This is pretty difficult when there is not sophisticated management and management seems incapable of exerting leadership and accepting responsibility for decentralization. So we had regional offices operating completely independent of the central administration.
Post Office
Local post offices were completely ignoring regional office instructions and doing only what they thought they should be doing and what they had always done. We also know-and this is not unknown to the workers, either-that often it became an old boy's club. Middle management brought its own kind into the group, and often this created problems because people who had no knowledge of the postal service got into positions of authority.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris recommends in his motion a parliamentary committee made up of members of this House and members of the other place. I do not know what the other place could possibly have to say about the postal services in this country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They have more time to think.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, they have a lot of time to think. We know that, but the Canadian Union of Postal Workers raised a very legitimate point. The Union suggested that the postal service is a bone over which politicians fight. CUPW proposed a royal commission to look into the total operation of the Post Office in this country. To me, that is a common sense suggestion. Quite frankly and personally, I do not have much faith in commissions studying things, because the minister is responsible. The minister has the power, and all we need is a minister with a backbone instead of a wishbone. Then we could get things done and some changes could be made in the Post Office. Instead, we just fumble along. Be that as it may, CUPW has suggested a royal commission. It seems to me that an independent group could study the operation of the Post Office apart from political implications which would be involved with an interparliamentary committee.
What does the minister reply to that suggestion? That suggestion was made to him. Not long ago, before he came into this House, he was told that CUPW suggested this. What was his response? He said that he would be quite prepared to set up a royal commission provided CUPW would be prepared to suspend its collective bargaining until after the report of the royal commission. Well, postal workers do not have that kind of time. They do not have a decade. They have to meet the cost of living-and the minister knows that. Surely the minister should know that there cannot be tit-for-tat in this way. My 13-year old child could understand the mechanics of that.
This minister does not want a royal commission, in spite of the fact that he says he would welcome one. If he really wanted a royal commission to look into postal services, he would not suggest that a group of workers suspend the collective bargaining process while we go through this procedure. We have had royal commissions before. In 1966 we had the Montpetit royal commission. In 1969 we had "Blueprint for Change". Just recently we had yet another important report which was called "Canada Post, 1975".
All these reports said the same thing. They complained about the management of the Post Office; they complained about the paternalism of the Post Office and suggested possi-

May 18, 1977
Post Office
ble solutions. One possible solution suggested in the past was the creation of a Crown corporation to run the Post Office. But the government would not have any part of that. The postmaster general of that time wanted to run the Post Office himself. Perhaps if a Crown corporation had been set up, the postal workers would have come under the Canada Labour Code. Perhaps, then, the government would have had to stop hiding behind a complicated tangle of conflicting legislation which allowed it to stall, to hide from the issues and to attack the unionized workers of the Post Office. It was not the unionized postal workers who created the mess the Post Office is now in. It was the government of Canada and its management of the Post Office.
Perhaps I might be forgiven if I become a little bit political here. It seems to me that the only difference between the way this Liberal government runs the Post Office and the way a Tory government would run it is that hon. colleagues to my right would use all the power of government to strangle any complaints from workers in the Post Office.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You'd run into the ground.


John R. Rodriguez: My friend, under our philosophy on the way industrial operations ought to be operating, the postal workers would sit on any board of directors operating the Post Office. It would not be left to a group of persons who may be very good army people but who have no understanding at all of interpersonal relationships. I suspect that much of the middle and top management of the Post Office comes from the armed services. They are "spit and polish" people. That is good for the army, but it is not good for running a service like the postal service where there are such sensitive issues as technological change and the relationship between those who give orders and those who take orders in the work place. That is not an army setting-and that is one of the problems. I do not quarrel often with colleagues to my right because I like to get along with people in this House and I do not like to raise their ire.


Mr. Blais:: It must be frustrating.


John R. Rodriguez: I referred to the difference between the way the Liberals run the Post Office and how the Tories would run it. That difference is one of reaction to workers in the Post Office.
If hon. members think I am kidding, I will quote a motion under Standing Order 43 which was moved by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). A finer pair sensitive to industrial relations one would never find in Canada or, indeed, on the face of the earth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: The motion was moved on November 7, 1975, and it reads as follows:
That this House instruct the government to incorporate into its anti-inflationary legislative program an immediate back-to-work rule for any striking groups
or individuals within the essential services of our economy, and at the same time prohibit any further strikes or walkouts in the essential services for the duration of the controls period.


Otto John Jelinek: About 90 per cent of Canadians want that.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the former leader of the Conservative party, an hon. member for whom I have a great deal of respect, asked the following questions on October 27, 1975:
Are the government negotiators no longer taking the position that the union has to accept this wage package before negotiating other questions? ... Has the government advised the union that a return to work order is a prerequisite to continuing negotiations in good faith?
The only difference between the way the Post Office is run now and the way it would be run by the Tories is that under the Tories there would be total suppression of the workers in that particular work force. I have talked about management, and that is an important part of the Post Office. As I said, I congratulate the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for moving this motion, but let us not forget the real philosophy of many hon. members in his party. I think we ought not to forget that. It seems that the solution the hon. member suggested, the setting up of a parliamentary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for their generosity.


Otto John Jelinek: Keep it short.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to assure the House that I will not abuse its generosity.


Donald W. Munro: Get on with it, then.


John R. Rodriguez: There are solutions to these problems in the Post Office, and in the past they have been suggested by some postmasters general. However, those suggestions have died as postmasters general have moved in and out of office. In the last few years there have been about four or five postmasters general, and it seems to me that perhaps the government thinks a moving target is hard to hit.
In conclusion, let me read a paragraph from a letter sent on November 1, 1969, by Messrs. Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company to the Hon. E. W. Kierans, former minister of communications. Mr. Kierans also acted at one time as postmaster general. The letter said in part:
Fifteen studies were conducted over the past 12 months by task forces which were assembled by the Post Office and utilized the services of six consulting firms. From these studies emerged the overpowering conclusion that the Post Office, as a Crown corporation, could better fulfil its role in the future.

May 18, 1977

Later, the letter said that even if the Post Office were made a Crown corporation, imagination, patience and leadership would be necessary. We know this, Mr. Speaker, and the joint committee proposed by Conservative members on my right will not alter the situation. A royal commission ought to be established, as requested by the workers of the Post Office. The minister ought to concur in that suggestion, without demanding any quid pro quo, that is to say, without saying, "If you stop negotiating, we will set up a royal commission." I say to the government, "You are not dealing with children. These are grown-up individuals who have an interest in the way the Post Office is run and depend on the Post Office for their livelihood."
We are not talking about teenagers, 13-year olds or young children. We are talking about people who have as much interest in seeing the Post Office properly run, as the people of Canada have in receiving good Post Office service. I say to the Postmaster General, in closing, "Appoint the royal commission. Let us get on with the job, without all this fiddle-faddling around."


Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the present debate. It is quite obvious that if the government changes a procedure without the House's permission, it goes beyond its rights. In that case, I do support the motion before us which points out the government's continuing inability to provide Canadians with an efficient postal service, its obsession with secrecy, and its illegal use of orders-in-council to set postal rates.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot merely talk about democracy, we must put it into practice. And each time we proceed by decrees, we are interfering with that very principle. However, it must be said to the defence of the minister that his department must display increased efficiency and, consequently, some measures have to be taken to do so. But it is not a reason to proceed without the assent of the House. It is quite obvious that a service that could have been not only efficient but profit-earning must undergo some modifications. We have no objection to that but we would like to know first what are the measures being considered. That is the very subject of this motion since the minister could answer us that he only wants to improve the postal service through these orders-in-council. But again that does not alter the fact that if things have to be changed in the Post Office to get better service we should ask the House to pass adequate legislation to achieve that goal. It is the proper way to proceed.
As a matter of fact, it is by getting used to small orders which are apparently harmless that in the end we come to pass monstrosities. We must understand that we should be careful to prevent this. Several years ago, the Canadian postal service was a service we had every reason in the world to be proud of but these last few years it has considerably degenerated to the point where I received yesterday an invitation for an important appointment on May 11. What happens? I checked and I have been told that the invitation was sent on May 1. This is not an isolated case; I often had the opportunity to notice undue
Post Office
delays in mail delivery. How did all this happen? All this happened actually and this is one thing which is mentioned in the motion: the chronic ineptness in the field of collective bargaining and industrial relations. The climate among postal workers has been such for several years that this affects their production considerably. And all Canadians had to bear the consequences of this situation.
Yesterday, to give another example, I went myself to take messages delivered by bus service. I noticed on the premises that the parcel delivery section of the bus service is almost as important as the parcel delivery service of the Post Office.
Some people have found out by themselves that they would be better off with private services such as those. Yet, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we already had in this country an adequate postal service of which we could be proud. Some changes should be made and I believe that the government should make an effort to tell what it intends to do, to create, for instance, within the postal service, a climate that is healthy, that is invigorating, that can make the postal service very efficient if not profitable, since people will be more ready to admit the non-profitability of such a service if it is efficient. But when we see the inefficiency of the service, it is difficult to swallow the fact that it is also non-profitable, especially when we can see the services of private companies, which are sometimes no more expensive and which provide quick and reliable service.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the minister, who seems very willing, because I think that he is doing a good job, realize that it would be his duty to heed the comments we are making today so that he may submit a plan which would show a truly sincere way to bring about the necessary changes within his department. He should therefore stop to administer the postal service by orders-in-council and to authorize rate increases under the pretext that it will make the service more efficient.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my comments by speaking about one last point. I agree that if we are to keep pace with progress we cannot avoid making changes to replace human workers by machines. We all know that there is such a problem in the Post Office, but I would like to say that we shall never solve this problem if we do not study seriously the suggestions that my party has been making for many years. One day we shall have to decide that we must relate progress, the use of machines, automation and the workers. If the machine replaces man, it will have to be to the advantage of man so that he can continue to live with a sufficient income. And we know that the problem in the postal service is partly caused by this principle of automation. And I insist that we shall not find a solution to this problem of the Post Office because it encompasses all others.
This is an over-all, global problem. And I am sure I do not exaggerate when I say that part of the problems the Post Office and all other departments are faced with result from the government's systematic refusal to transform the basic

May 18, 1977
Post Office
economic system which is inflicted, yes, inflicted upon us, which explains why intelligent people who can reason and judge reasonably well cannot solve this problem, for when a service like the Post Office is equipped with machines which can do in a few minutes what hundreds of people would require days to perform, one ends up with the following dilemma: what to do with all these employees?
If intelligent men are not able yet to find an answer there is certainly something wrong and it is the result of a systematic refusal to consider appropriate answers, particularly when we make every effort to suggest valid suggestions and God knows that the former leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, Mr. Real Caouette, tried during more than 30 years to make people understand that basic principle: Let us not reject progress. If we build machines able to replace men, let us replace men by those machines. Let us not be stupid and let us find the means to give an income to workers and this is why we should change completely our wrong conception of work. We should get to the point where we shall distribute to everyone, without exception, a minimum income that will allow our citizens to live a decent and honest living.
This is the answer to all kinds of problems, particularly in the Post Office department where conflicts have been caused by labour problems and collective bargaining. For 35 years we have been saying in this House that this should be changed because the worst could happen. We wait for a catastrophe to react. Mr. Speaker, we are looking for trouble and we should avoid it.
I say to the minister that he should think not only of his problem with postal workers but also that he will solve that problem by considering the global answers we suggest to deal with general problems faced by workers. Any individual is entitled to a decent income and it is even more true if mechanization can give it to him. We do not need to give money to the machine. It does not need a purchasing power. If a machine replaces hundreds of men why should we not distribute that income to them? It is simple, Mr. Speaker. I am convinced that the minister will understand this and that, being a man of good will, someday he will study social credit to apply our solutions in his department in order to deal with all postal problems.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) for his kindness to me. I was hoping that someone this afternoon might recognize the efficiency I have brought into the department over which I am presiding. So I thank him very much. Then not only do I recognize that the Social Credit Party of Canada holds a monopoly on a principle concerning the industrialization of the Post Office, but I also want to say that I approve that principle which I have largely supported since taking over at the Post Office. As the hon. member for Champlain is no doubt aware, there is in the collective agreement currently under negotiation a guarantee that no employee will lose his job nor suffer any income loss because of mechanization. Indeed, we have taken all kinds of measures
to make sure that Post Office employees will not bear the brunt of technological changes.
I would also like to recognize during the next round of collective bargaining the increased productivity resulting from such mechanization. This is a management principle, both very modern and very fair, and I totally agree that it should apply here.
I would also agree that there were problems from the outset with mail delivery. More recent problems are due to the transfer from manual to mechanical sorting, especially in the Toronto area. I have no doubt that the examples of slow delivery brought forward by the hon. member for Champlain involved that aberration in the Toronto area. But I would like to ask him to keep a close eye on his mail in the future, and I shall soon send a letter to his secretary asking to be informed of any undue and abnormal delay. Because we try to correct problems that may arise, we have established a quality evaluation system aimed directly at establishing links across the country and ensuring that the mail will be delivered within the predetermined time. If that deadline is not honoured, I would like to be informed so that we can review the situation. The hon. member for Champlain will no doubt agree that with a 60,000 labour force, of which nearly 20,000 are inside workers sorting the mail or supervising sorting machines, errors will be made. But we want to eliminate them.
It must also be remembered that the Post Office has more than 8,700 contracts with trucking firms moving the mail. Clearly, there may be shortcomings in that system. But I would like the hon. member for Champlain to agree that the system now being implemented is efficient, although it needs constant supervision, and that as a user of the mail service the hon. member is just as much part of that supervision as the people within the department.

Turning, now, from the very constructive remarks by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to those of another quality and character, of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I would first like to cite that although the hon. member for Nickel Belt made a great to-do about not answering questions, I did not see his puss at any time in the committee on transportation.
I understand he had to attend another committee. I am not speaking of that. We held two very full meetings, as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) indicated, before the transport committee, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt was nowhere to be seen. There is also the comment he made that I did not have the sensitivity to resolve human problems within the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, I think I have a great deal of sensitivity to be able to stand here and listen to some of the burbling that was bandied about by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
First of all, when asked this afternoon by reporters about a telegram I had just received from the president of CUPW, my reaction was to tell them that I did not think it was a bona fide

May 18, 1977

offer. The hon. member knows that the unions will be sitting with Post Office representatives tomorrow to begin negotiations on a new collective agreement. Hon. members know it is a constant practice of that union to engage in confrontation tactics. They know the union has taken a militant stand. It is a legitimate one, and I do not object to it. But I say the proposal this morning is one of two things: a move to upstage the hon. member for Brandon-Souris-and I do not think that at all- or an attempt to soften up the management of the Post Office in preparation for the negotiations.
Had it been otherwise, they would have indicated their seriousness in suggesting a royal commission by recognizing the consequences, namely, that while there is such a commission in being the Post Office ought to operate in a normal state, or in a state as near as possible to normal, and that by continuing the negotiations, we are now faced, once again, with a very confrontative situation. Any work which the royal commission might do would be frustrated at the outset. I doubt very much that one could get a royal commission operating at a time when negotiations were being conducted.
Again, when I was chastised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt as being insensitive to labour relations, I called to his attention the fact that one of the unions with which we are dealing, namely, the LCUC, has really come across as far as we have gone across to them. We have met, now, in 11 sessions, as I indicated to the committee, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt would have known this had he attended. We have had very successful results from these sessions. What disappoints me is that CUPW are not only taking a confrontative stand vis-a-vis the Post Office, but are now taking a confrontative stand vis-a-vis the letter carriers by describing the integrated sessions as a "love-in". Perhaps I might quote from a special bulletin issued on May 16 by the LCUC to its membership. It reads:
The Letter Carriers' Union of Canada has no animosity or dislike for our brothers and sisters in the Canadian Union of Postal Workers because, being trade unionists, we certainly should be able to find more in common than in opposition.
I do not intend to become involved in a paper war with CUPW and have more important issues to resolve for workers than to engage in a fight over false bulletins published by CUPW. I do, however, feel that our members, who are unaware of the facts, deserve to read them from their union.
The LCUC has been insulted by various CUPW officers for participating in the problem-solving consultation program, which has proven successful in resolving issues for our members. The CUPW referred to these meetings as "love-ins" and other insulting names in an attempt to downgrade our union and the national executive, realizing that names and insults evolve only from ignorance, agreed to allow the CUPW members to attend. We respected their refusal to participate in problem-solving and merely wanted to give them the opportunity to observe the program so that they could converse or criticize from a knowledgeable position. For this, our union has been condemned.
Then the bulletin goes on to state what happened. In fact, the integrated sessions both in Vancouver and in Halifax were picketed by CUPW because CUPW felt that those sessions might be threatening the legitimacy, in this particular context, of its adversarial stance. So when hon. members opposite criticize the Post Office for being insensitive to what is happening within the Post Office in this area, I cite the progress which is being made according to the testimony of one of the
Post Office
most militant groups in the Post Office, namely, the letter carriers.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I mentioned that in my speech.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I thank the hon. member for doing so. There is now some pressure on CUPW by virtue of the fact that these integrated sessions are proving successful. This is why I looked upon the telegram today as an indication of their intention to suspend negotiations, to see whether there could not be a similar sort of problem-solving arrangement in their province. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris quoted me, flatteringly, as having said that the Post Office was at a very crucial stage. This is not because I am at the helm. It is because of a series of factors.


An hon. Member:: The Post Office has other problems besides you.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I recognize that, in all due humility. I am a very modest person. When we look at the history of the Post Office, we find that at one time in Canada the Post Office was the only means of communication in the country, the only means of communicating at a distance. Initially, we used the canoe, and then we used the ox-cart before progressing to the pony express. I hear they still use these in Brandon-Souris. Later we proceeded to use the railways and aircraft. But all the time we were progressing in terms of transportation modes we were facing increased competition, competition in the form of improved technology. Some of the problems the Post Office now faces are the result of the success story represented by the Canadian communications industry. We in Canada have one of the most sophisticated telecommunications networks in the world. Yesterday my eldest child was asking me whether it was true that Canada had launched satellites. I said yes, we were third in importance in terms of satellites being launched in the world. Indeed, we have the best satellite communications system in the world. This is one of the direct reasons we have lost a great deal of business in the Post Office, as well as losing some credibility.
The advent of telecommunications has raised the expectations of Canadians in terms of instantaneous communication. No matter how we use transportation systems which work faster and faster, we can never compete with instantaneous communications over wire, over microwave, and over Telesat or satellite. As a result of that, the telephone, telex and other systems have removed a great deal of business from our particular operation.
When we look at the nature of the business that comes through the Post Office today, Mr. Speaker, we see that 80 per cent of the first-class mail is business mail originating from institutions, from government, from business or other organizations. Only 20 per cent is personal mail. Although that represents an increase from 2.5 billion to 3 billion pieces, it puts us in a very vulnerable position since we have noticed that the progress we have made in telecommunications has resulted
5774

May 18, 1977
Post Office
in very little intracompany, intramural mail being sent any more. Large corporations and medium-sized corporations, and even small-sized corporations are using telecommunications such as telex, the telephone and facsimile. So in effect what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that the mail we are getting is mailed created by intercompany communications. We are dealing, as well, with a large increase in our volume because of a little plastic card known as a credit card-Chargex, Bank Americard, Master Charge. As a result, we calculate that about two billion pieces of our mail includes cheques and statements. This makes our business today more and more a kind of one crop affair.
We are now progressing toward what we call an electronic payments system. Most of us make our mortgage payments- those of us fortunate enough to have mortgages-through prior authorization with the bank. These amounts are deducted by the banks. This is done automatically without it going through the mails, so there is no need to mail that kind of communication any more, save and except the private transaction. This practice is not decreasing but is increasing. We are using a payments system which is going, if it is implemented, to save a person having to carry money. If a person wants to make a purchase, all he has to do-


Donald W. Munro: What has that got to do with increased mail?


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member seems incredulous. What it has to do with increased mail, Mr. Speaker, is that we now have volumes of mail which are vulnerable to changes in technology. I have indicated that we have lost mail volume as a result of improvements in technology in Canada. The hon. member may acknowledge that he uses the telephone now, where previously one in his position would have used the mail. How many of his constituents call him, as opposed to sending him a letter through the mails? This is my point. We now have businesses which are not using the post because in a short period of time we are going to have an electronic payments system which will remove that kind of business from the Post Office. Therefore, this increases our vulnerability. At no time are we more vulnerable, Mr. Speaker, than when we have work stoppages, as the hon. gentleman very well knows.
Last month I received a flyer from an association of hospital pensioners. The government of Ontario was requesting them to authorize the provincial government to pay their cheques directly into their bank accounts in the event of a work interruption. This is where our difficulty lies. When there are work interruptions, we lose business. We are so sophisticated in terms of the use of electronics in order to communicate that lost business never comes back. Once it leaves us, it is very difficult for us to get it back.


Donald W. Munro: Then you must have more business.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, but I point out to the hon. gentleman that although five billion pieces of mail a year have passed through the Post Office over the last four years, there has been no

dramatic increase in the volume of mail. We are trying to encourage a peaceful situation within the Post Office. We want to integrate the marketplace to a greater extent.
We consider there are two aspects to the Post Office. One is the aspect of public service. That is an aspect the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) really believes in since she represents a number of communities which would not get any service unless it was subsidized. She represents, basically, a number of small communities in her riding which would not benefit from any mail service if it were, let us say, in private hands, because, not being profitable, the service would not be available. So in effect she is sure to approve continuation of that particular subsidization. We also service a number of towns in my riding, small communities which do not generate revenue sufficient even to pay the salary of the postmistress or postmaster, much less pay for the rent, cost of glue on the stamps, and so on. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) knows that most of the communities within his area are non-revenue producing in terms of net cost and net profit.
The second aspect of the Post Office is in terms of our being a commercial institution. The Post Office is central to the marketplace. We have always been central to the marketplace. We are trying to a larger extent to integrate the marketplace and provide a better, more reliable and more efficient service. That is one reason we mechanized our operation. We wanted to get an increase in volume from the marketplace. We wanted to be in the position to offer better service and a wider variety of products. Unfortunately, there, again, we face very serious competition from the private sector, not in traditional services but in new services which have been created as a result of higher expectations and greater demands on the marketplace.
People tell me that we are losing business to courier post services. I agree that we have lost a great deal of business to the private carriers. The couriers are now conducting an operation in which the Post Office has never engaged, namely, pick-up and delivery with limited volume handling in between. That has never been something which the Post Office has engaged in, but we are now seriously looking at that particular market. As I said last November, this is one area the Post Office should get into.
Next, we are facing competition in the handling of parcel post, our parcel or fourth-class mail operation. In 1973-74 we dealt with about 76 million pieces. In 1974-75 we dealt with 73 million pieces. In 1975-76 we dealt with 62 million pieces. So our volumes are going down, and they are going down because of the competition we are facing from the private sector. This is why I was a little uptight at the comment made by the hon. member from Winnipeg who objected to our using postpak in order to meet competition in parcel post. Postpak is a profitmaking product which we are offering to the marketplace and which we are able to handle.

Whether we like it or not, we are dealing with an operation which is massive in scope. We have 8,600 postal installations
May 18, 1977

in Canada, we have 60,000 employees, and we are dealing with about 12,000 letter carrier walks. You cannot get rid of that tomorrow; you cannot say, "Zap, you are gone".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You cannot, but you do.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You cannot say that. You have got to be "with it" whether your volume increases to eight billion or whether it decreases to three billion. There is no way we can function without the Post Office. There is no way the Post Office can be done away with in Parry Sound, Sturgeon Falls, Owen Sound or Brampton. Whether we like it or not, there will always be a Post Office. The question is: How much is the taxpayer ready to pay to subsidize the Post Office? Our deficit has gone up to $671 million from $70 million of four or five years ago. We cannot afford that sort of money to maintain a postal system.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: We have to make more money with the post office. We are not going to make more money with the post office in Parry Sound. We are going to make more money with the post offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver and Halifax by going into the Canadian marketplace and offering better service and new products.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I notice some chuckling on the part of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. That lack of seriousness is one of the problems we are having in the Post Office. She is laughing because she does not know what I am talking about. Not only does she not know what I am talking about, but she does not care.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) to withdraw if he continues to use language like that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: She does not care, Mr. Speaker. The taxpayers' money is of no consequence to her, as long as she can sit here chuckling and reading whatever is in front of her.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: The Post Office is at a crucial time because we have to meet competition. If we are going to compete, we have to compete with the co-operation of the work force in the Post Office. Since my appointment I have done everything in my power to get that type of co-operation. We have managed with the Letter Carriers Union of Canada. I point that out to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
One of the unions found it profitable for its membership to deal with us in consultation because they had been persuaded we were of good faith and interested in the survival of the
Post Office
institution. It is an institution which is greater than the Postmaster General and its employees. It is traditional to us and will always be around. We cannot encourage the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to do the same thing as the LCUC is doing. CUPW has adopted a combative stance and an intransigent stance which is non-productive and counterproductive to the advancement of the Post Office. With that sort of attitude, we will never be able to integrate the marketplace sufficiently, we will never be able to introduce new products, and we will never be able to meet the demand which is presently in the marketplace. I am saying that with all due seriousness, because it is do or die.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why don't you?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Do one or the other. We have given you your solution.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Well, the solution is very simple.


Donald W. Munro: Do or die.


Jean-Jacques Blais: If we have another strike, let us not think about going into the marketplace and attempting to get them to believe in some credibility in the Post Office. They are not going to buy it. A number of them have already gone. As I have indicated to hon. members, we have lost a lot of business in the recent past because of competition outside. There are various sorts of measures which are presently available and are technologically feasible that can accomplish a lot of the present functions of the Post Office. Those things need directives and political will to put them in place. They will be put in place in the event no other service is available.
The effect of a long strike, such as the 42-day strike we had in 1975, will have that consequence. It will put that technology in place and further destroy the Post Office as a viable institution. I would ask hon. gentlemen to put their minds to that problem and try to persuade many of the people in the Post Office and management whom they may know that there has to be flexibility and an acceptable attitude on the part of all. I am not talking about money here, because hon. members know there are severe restrictions under the Anti-Inflation Board. I am talking about matters which are fundamental to the operation of the Post Office and which are presently under negotiation. There has to be seriousness by all parties. I have said it before, and I will repeat it now.

For the benefit of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) I would say it is true, Mr. Speaker, that the Post Office is in a bad situation. We do have completely unacceptable deficits. In the Post Office, we try to integrate the market in a more serious and competitive way. We offer services that we can provide. We can offer new services. To do so, we need the cooperation of all people doing business with the Post Office and of its users who must be patient about delays due to the mechanization program.
We also need the cooperation of postal employees. Thank goodness, we already have the cooperation of three unions.
5776

May 18, 1977
Post Office
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we must get the close cooperation of hon. members who must understand the present situation of the Post Office and explain to their constituents, through whatever means they may have, the reasons for the temporary delays which sometimes occur.

When you are dealing with five billion pieces of mail in a year, there is no doubt that some pieces will be lost or destroyed. The percentage of lost or destroyed pieces of mail is minimal. In total it does not even represent a percentage point of 1 per cent. When the hon. member for Brandon-Souris mentioned mail being destroyed, he agreed, by his silence in this House, which is a nice way to admit things-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Try it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He agreed he had not seen any mail being chewed up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I did not say that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have visited a lot of the smaller post offices in Canada, and I have never seen a piece of mail being destroyed. I even visited the post office in Parry Sound which had never before been visited by a Postmaster General. I never saw a machine destroying a piece of mail.


Mr. Darling:: That is because Parry Sound does not have one of those monstrosities.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I thank hon. ladies and hon. gentlemen for their attention.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You should just say "hon. members".


Mr. Beatty:: Will the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Because the time of the hon. minister has expired, it is necessary to have the unanimous consent of the House for a question to be asked. Does the House allow the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) to ask a question of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleagues for their consent. I always enjoy listening to my hon. friend, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais). There is one element of his speech which raised a question in my mind, and perhaps he could elaborate on it. I refer to the question of competition being provided by courier services.
The minister seemed to intimate that the reason they had been successful in taking business away from the Post Office was that they provide a service of direct low-volume delivery. Has the Post Office Department undertaken any market surveys to determine why people are using the courier services increasingly, with the extraordinarily high prices they charge compared to the cost of first-class mail? Has the Postmaster General not been aware, as most hon. members have, that the reason more people are turning to courier services is, first of
[Mr. Blais.)
all, that if they give their mail to the Post Office they have no guarantee that it will be delivered and, second, the increasing delays in the Post Office mean that one does not trust it to deliver urgent mail in time?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that some people have done that. It has been admitted by the private couriers that they are providing a type of service which has never been provided by the Post Office. Some of the changeover from the postal service to private couriers has taken place because of strikes. I suggest there has been a tendency in the business community to expect that priority items would be delivered within a timeframe that the Post Office could not guarantee even at the best of times. If there were a deadline to be met, then they would use the private courier. That is why our surveys indicate there is a market demand for them, and we are looking seriously at ways of meeting that demand and entering into competition.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I do not approve of the motion that was suggested.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) to understand that the debate which was provoked today, on an opposition day, with this motion is a constructive approach to the problems facing his department and Canada. There is no attempt whatsoever, in any of the actions that I know of with respect to the Post Office, to ridicule or belittle it. It is an attempt to get a service for the Canadian people which they deserve and for which they pay. Unfortunately, a week rarely goes by that I do not have to send letters to the Postmaster General which have reached me from my constituents complaining of the delays they have experienced. I have had delays in my own correspondence, as well. I have here a postcard inviting me to a meeting on May 11 which, by coincidence, arrived the same day. That is unfortunate, but I am sure there must be some way-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Did it have a first-class stamp?


Donald W. Munro: It is a postcard with a 12-cent stamp. Another one reached me last night, and 1 am tempted to send it across to the Postmaster General. It is a package-


An hon. Member:: Is it ticking?


Donald W. Munro: No. As a matter of fact, it ought to be buzzing, but it is not. It is a shipment of queen bees which was delayed in the mail. The bees were dead on arrival. The letter is dated May 11 and is addressed to the Postmaster General from Mr. Wadsworth of Victoria. He had ordered 35 queen bees from Texas, and they were four days in the mail.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is the American system.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, we always walk into that one; there is always somebody else to blame. Why do we not accept responsibility for some of the failures of
May 18, 1977

our own services? In this general connection, I was delighted with the appointment of the Lambert commission to examine accountability in the public service. It may be able to put its finger on the problems and the necessity of accountability. This brings me to the point made by the new chairman of the Public Service Commission when speaking to the International Personnel Management Association in Ottawa on November 17, 1976. It is distressing to me, as a former public servant, to have to agree in large measure with Mr. Gallant when he said:
Let me turn now to another general area of concern: the pervasive malaise which seems to affect Canada's public service today. We are all sensing that some public servants are losing their sense of purpose, that some have difficulty in strengthening or maintaining their sense of loyalty, that some find it increasingly difficult to understand the ideals, goals and objectives they are expected to uphold and pursue.
I am not directing those remarks to any part of the public service, but it is true, unfortunately, that this malaise does pervade our public service. Somehow or other we have lost the contact between those who serve and those who are being served. Later in his address, Mr. Gallant said:
The process of personnel management is shared by a number of authorities: The Treasury Board secretariat, the Public Service Commission, the Privy Council office, deputy heads of departments and their managers, and the various public service unions and staff associations. Each of these partners is charged with specific responsibilities and has commensurate powers to carry out such responsibilities. As long as all partners are operating within the same policy context, the process has a chance to work reasonably well. Vibrations throughout the public service today give rise to questions as to whether we still have in the daily decisions of these many partners, the degree of harmony which is necessary for the system to work satisfactorily.
This is a general comment about the public service as a whole. I know that those who are in it, feel it. We dealt with this over a year ago in the special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, and I shall come back to that matter. I want to focus more closely on the Post Office for a moment, and I think it is worth recording a few statistics for that purpose.
I think I am correct in saying the largest single union in the public service is CUPW, with 23,000 of the 320,000 public servants as members. There are 16,500 members in the Letter Carriers Union, 8,200 members in the Canadian Postal Association, and 3,600 in the Association of Postal Officials of Canada. So we are dealing with over 50,000 employees, or about one-sixth of the public service. It is a very important segment, and one that performs a service which the Canadian public expects to receive and is paying for. I think it is important, in this context, to recognize the strike danger which is hanging over the heads of the Canadian people like the sword of Damocles. A public stance has been taken by those entering negotiations to the effect that a strike is possible, so that sword will fall unless we dissipate the distrust and misunderstanding that bedevils relations between employer and employee in the Post Office, as elsewhere.
In these circumstances, it is not only important, but essential, I consider, that we press more and more strongly for the introduction of legislation flowing from the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service, usually called the Finkelman report. The report was submitted to the House on February
Post Office
26, 1976. We are now in the month of May, 1977, and there have been no results arising from the report.
It is not necessary to remind the Postmaster General of the care with which we all dealt with the submissions made to that committee, because before becoming Postmaster General he was a member of that committee and a faithful attender at its meetings. Those of us who were there will testify that he was there in earnest and he shared in the formulation of the recommendations. There are some matters, however, which need to be mentioned just to underline their importance in the public service context. I think it would be worth-while now, 15 or 16 months after that report was tabled in the House, to select some of the recommendations of that committee and cite them to show how directly they are related to the unease in the Post Office.
We will not all agree with these recommendations. We do not all agree that they have to be implemented in their entirety, nor will all the recommendations agree with the very thoughtful presentation made to the committee by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. However, that is not the point. The point is that from those recommendations a number of legislative measures ought to flow, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I propose to cite some of these recommendations so that we can be reminded just how important they are in the present context. The very first one is reminiscent of the motion we have before us. It reads as follows:
That a special task force be established to review the Public Service Employment Act and the role of the commission in personnel management and employer-employee relations in the public service-
The recommendation in the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is that a special joint committee be set up. That is a slight variation of the recommendation I just cited. I do not wish to cite all the recommendations. There are 72 in all and they are all worth reading. However, I am going to select a few in order to indicate how they bear on the situation with respect to the Post Office. Recommendation No. 8 reads as follows:
That there is a need for additional procedural and substantive amendments to the law governing the collective bargaining relationship, and more appropriate remedies for unlawful activity.
We have heard about unlawful activity. These are matters which ought to be considered very carefully by this House. Recommendation No. 15 reads:
That the Public Service Staff Relations Act be amended to require the designation of all employees whose functions involve the provision of services which in accordance with this act are to be provided without interruption.
There is not general agreement on that recommendation, and I am not suggesting there is, but some legislative provisions containing the substance of it ought to be before us so we can examine them and see whether we can accept them in the form in which they are presented. Why do we have to wait so long for that legislation? Recommendation No. 16 reads:
That the bargaining agents and the employers continue to be required to determine, by agreement, the employees in the bargaining units who are to be designated.

May 18, 1977
Post Office
This matter of designation was a very important point in the submission which was put forward by CUPW when it presented its brief to us a year and a half or two years ago. Recommendation No. 34 reads this way:
That, having regard to the established jurisdiction of bargaining agents in the public service, bargaining classification standards be interpreted to mean the determination of the relative worth of jobs within an occupational group.
That is a complicated recommendation. We studied the matter very carefully, and that recommendation was the result. Recommendation No. 35 reads:
That provision be made in the law for the bargaining of classification standards following the three-year period after promulgation.
Again, there will not be general agreement with the actual terms of that, but it has to be discussed here and in committee. Why do we have to continue to wait? Recommendation No. 39 reads:
That resort to strike or lock-out to resolve classification disputes be prohibited.
Again there is going to be argument. That is what this House is for. Recommendation No. 41 reads:
That classification grievances which are not resolved in the grievance process should be referrable to adjudication.
All these matters were raised in the CUPW submission. Recommendation No. 42 deals with a matter which is at the core of the present problem. It reads as follows:
That changes in technology, operations, organization or any other dimension of the structure or character of the employer's resources to provide service to the public be recognized as a prerogative of the employer.
That is going to cause argument. Fair enough. Then recommendation No. 43:
That the employer be obliged to bargain the impact of adverse changes on employees which may occur as a consequence of the employer's actions referred to in recommendation 42 above, including the advance notice of such changes and the details to accompany the notice.
These are the matters which are causing our postal workers concern. Decisions are made and implemented, and the worker is faced with them without any consultation whatever. This recommendation underlines the need for consultation before implementation. 1 would like to cite one more recommendation, No. 65, as follows:
That where a bargaining agent conducts a strike vote, or submits a proposal for a collective agreement to its membership for approval,
(a)	The vote should be carried out by secret ballot in accordance with procedures prescribed by regulations of the Public Service Staff Relations Board; and
(b)	A breach of the regulations of the board in this respect should constitute a contravention of the Act, and the union or persons concerned should be subject to the appropriate penalties-
Those are important recommendations, and I am at a loss to understand why we should be delayed so long in seeing the legislation we expected to flow from them. There are other recommendations concerning pay research and casuals. I do not need to cite any more because I think the ones I have cited make it amply clear how important these recommendations are and how essential, in the present context, a bill containing these recommendations in legal form would be.

I think we all recognize that there is a growing desire in Canada to remove the ability to strike from the public service or from parts of the public service designated as essential. This desire is growing because of the number of strikes there have been in the public service. The Postmaster General said that during a strike the Post Office loses some of the business it had previously and never gets it back. The only way to combat this is to make proper provision, under the law, for grievances.
We went through this exercise in committee, and a crippling strike or two could build pressure for the removal of that ability which those contemplating a strike ought to bear in mind. I have heard rumblings suggesting that a strike may not be far off. A strike is a distinct possibility, if news reports are to be believed. 1 hope they are not to be believed. Therefore, action is demanded. What action should be taken? First, we should establish a joint committee as proposed in the motion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) referred to certain studies, but is of the opinion that further studies are not important. Certain studies were undertaken in the past, but the findings were neither revealed nor released. I say such studies ought to be available to the special committee.
Second, we need to introduce the sort of legislation which ought to have flowed from the Finkelman report. Such legislation could assist in the resolution of the problems of the Post Office and would apply throughout the public service. I ask, when will the government take either one, or both, actions to which I have just alluded?


Mr. Walter Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) for moving the motion before the House and so enabling me, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Postmaster General, to say a few words. He suggested that postal service in Toronto is slow. I do not accept that. The Toronto postal operation, the largest in the country, has just completed the changeover to mechanization. As was expected, there have been a number of problems encountered during this phasing-in process. Some of the problems have been due to the higher volumes of mail than were anticipated, as well as the inevitable disruptions when terminal A in Toronto, the manual sorting plant, was closed and the entire Toronto letter-sorting operation was transferred to three mechanized plants. As well, there were the human problems associated with the training and relocation of several thousand employees.
Because approximately 45 per cent of the mail, or five million letters a day, of both domestic and foreign origin passes through Toronto, there have been delays in not only local mail but also in mail being forwarded through Toronto to other distinations. However, more recent figures for May show that service has improved-66 per cent of mail being delivered the next day and 3 per cent being delivered one day late. The national service has improved correspondingly. I hope the improvement continues. Canada Post is confident that postal service will continue to improve as Toronto overcomes its
May 18, 1977

initial problems. The ultimate success in rebuilding a first-rate postal system will depend on the degree to which this massive mechanized system can be utilized. This, in turn, depends directly on the widespread use of the postal code which Canada Post urges all postal users to promote.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) recently made statements to the effect that the Post Office cannot survive unless its situation improves drastically. The time has come for everyone, in the public and private sectors alike, to work together to improve our postal system. Let us stop blaming one another for the difficult and tense situation that exists at the Post Office and do everything in our power to restore its image. Canada as a whole will be the better for it.
During the next few minutes I will attempt to give the House an outline of two ideas that have been suggested to improve Canadian postal service. Certain people maintain that postal service would improve if the Canada Post Office were to become a Crown corporation. The postal administrations of Germany, Great Britain and the United States have become independent organizations, yet their problems seem to be getting worse and worse. Some critics have what they consider to be the definitive answer to what they see as government bungling in the Post Office: hand the whole thing over to private enterprise. These people will be pleased to know that this, exactly, is going on. The only difference is that the assimilation is a gradual one as private courier services proliferate.
Are those companies really more efficient? Some are; some are not. Their prices and operating costs are much higher than those of the Post Office. They deliver only within or between large cities, where costs are low and profits enormous, and they generously concede the Post Office the right to pick up and deliver parcels in the isolated regions of Newfoundland, in small towns, in crossroads stores and in Arctic settlements. The private courier, of course, measures efficiency by the dollar. He expands only when profitable. He spends only to make more. His only aim-a perfectly laudable one-is to make a buck. But the Post Office has another mandate: to serve, to bind, to unite, to provide a communications web that links Canadians wherever they live. This means that every farmer and every villager can pay his 12 cents and plug into a nationwide communications network-820 domestic air flights, 7,639 contract truck routes, 90 freight and passenger trains, and 12,520 letter carrier routes; and, for a few cents more, you have a choice of 110 international flights to almost every country in the world.
On the day that private enterprise wants to take over this job, on the day it guarantees to deliver mail of all types and sizes to every place in Canada as quickly and as cheaply as the Post Office does, then will be the time to agree with its critics: let them do it. In the meantime, the private couriers are skimming the profitable cream and leaving the Post Office and the public the rest. The Post Office deficit for the last fiscal year soared to $546 million, or $225 million more than for the previous year. Yet a great number of people nostalgically
Post Office
recall the "good old days" when all you had to do was affix a four-cent stamp on a letter and the letter carrier delivered twice-a-day letters which had often been mailed the previous night. As Oscar Wilde once said, the charm of the past is that it is past. The letter carrier no longer appears at your doorstep twice a day, for the same reason that the baker no longer delivers once a day. Gone forever is the era of the four-cent stamp, of the five-cent cup of coffee and of dialling "Ma Bell" to get the correct time. Trains no longer stop in every small town to pick up passengers, just as the sorting of mail is no longer done aboard trains. The Post Office has changed, because nothing is as it was.
In a manner of speaking, the Post Office was a victim of its own success. Cities grew and prospered. Businesses of all kinds expanded, the flow of mail increased, transportation was revolutionized, the public service recognized the rights of unions, and postal service began to lag behind. The Post Office had to move quickly to ensure that the Canadian postal service continued to meet the needs of the population. In addition to other pressing matters, the situation is further complicated by a lack which has preoccupied Post Office communicators a great deal. Somewhere along the way the lines of communication between management and employees seem to have broken down. How can we remedy this situation? One thing that was done a short time ago was to have a National Film Board crew, headed by a sociologist from the University of Alberta, interview rank and file employees at mechanized installations in Vancouver, Saint John, New Brunswick, and Winnipeg. The interviews were extremely revealing and extremely valuable as a management tool. It was found that the average employee's chief complaint is that he feels like the invisible man, working in an environment where his views are neither solicited nor considered by management, that mechanization is being introduced without regard to its effect on his future in the Post Office.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Did you write that?


Walter Bernard Smith: Regardless of who wrote the speech, it is a good one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Bernard Smith: Obviously, it is imperative that some way be found to get their views on the post office. The mechanization program is important to the increased efficiency that the Post Office must achieve if it is to survive. But it will not work without people. Many of those who work for the Post Office believe it has entered a crisis stage in its long and proud history of service to the people of Canada, a crisis which could be termed one of productivity. This crisis is not exclusive to Canada. It is a serious and almost insoluble problem faced by all postal administrations of the industrialized nations of the free world. Chief among the approaches to its problems, the Post Office is looking to automation for a solution; it is replacing men with machines. The young worker now enters the scene, he is better educated, anxious to prove himself and

May 18, 1977
Post Office
to make a contribution to the organization. He finds it boring to do repetitive tasks. His work is dull and unrewarding. He feels that he is contributing nothing. But what is the solution? Is there, in fact, a solution to this problem? Can the Post Office survive under its present form? Automation can work if workers want it to, and I do not think that professional ethics are dead.
More and more, the Post Office is attempting to ensure the development of its employees as well as that of the postal system. Nowadays, the aspirations of employees seeking development and satisfaction in the job is taken into consideration. Attempts are being made to stimulate their enthusiasm. But this was not always the case. Unfortunately, for a long time Post Office workers were treated as if they were consumer goods and not members of a team. Management let the search for efficiency take over, and employees could not help but think the employer was more interested in the system than in them. But in spite of all that, thousands of workers remain proud of the job they have.
All that the Post Office management has learned in the past few years points clearly to the need for a change in attitude of both union and management. The two sides must find a way to back off from the adversary stance that each has adopted in the past. Only in this way will mutual co-operation, improved employee morale and increase productivity and efficiency be achieved. It is apparent that a mixed participation in the decision-making process could solve most of the labour problems. The challenge is not an easy one.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary as he read what he said was a good speech. It was the brief of the officials who gave it to him to deliver. There were some interesting parts. He quoted Oscar Wilde. I would like to change that quote saying that the past charm was the post. He talked about the invisible man. I think of the invisible man carrying the invisible mail. The hon. member will agree that there are almost insoluble problems, as there are with any bankrupt organization. This is a bankrupt organization-stumbling, lurching and creaking. Because of its intellectual and physical bankruptcy, there are problems, as there always will be with any bankrupt organization, between labour and management. There is no question about that. This goes to the root of the difficulty. I am sorry the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) is not here. I understand he has gone out to feed the ponies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: At the speed at which they are moving, they need to be fed. I want to try and get at the root of the problem. What we see here is a typical case history of what is wrong with this country and this government: rot, decay and corruption-corruption of the dead rather than venal corruption.


Walter Bernard Smith: You don't mean that.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is so of all levels, from the top to the bottom. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in Europe

preening himself before the television cameras which were compelled to go over there to watch him, I wonder if he thought about the Post Office and how it was degenerating, going underground more and more. He does not worry. The Prime Minister is one of the principal architects of the disunity of this country, the man who created the legion of the condemned of one million unemployed, the man who was going to wrestle inflation to the ground.
These issues are summed up in what is the difficulty with the Post Office, a once proud institution, dependable, reliable, resourceful, with a good relationship between management and employees and between the institution and the public. That has vanished. Will it come back? I do not know. However, this is prevalent to a greater or lesser degree in every institution of the government of Canada today. There have been many causes. Obviously, staring us in the face is incompetence and maladministration. With due respect to the minister-and I give him the benefit of this doubt-there have been far too many ministers over the past 15 or 18 years that I can recall. When there is a man to be placed somewhere, they either make him minister without portfolio or postmaster general. The hon. member for Crowfoot, now the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner), lost in that one. He is the Minister without Portfolio. Whether the Post Office is the beneficiary of that situation, I do not know.
The ministers are there so briefly they become agents and spokesmen for their senior officials. That is what happens. It happens with too many ministers, for a number of reasons. Parliament is being abandoned as a result of the attitude taken by the Prime Minister. It trickles down by a form of intellectual cosmosis, if the word "intellectual" can be applied to this government. It simply disregards this institution.
One of the reasons for the problems which confront us today is the government's arrogance and attempts to bypass this parliament as often as possible. That is part of the motion which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) put before this House today and which the minister and the parliamentary secretary have been unwilling to answer. I want to deal with that, if I have time, because it is a very simple indication of what causes the problems to the Post Office and to so many other departments of government.
Just a few days ago, the Standing Joint Committee on Statutory and Other Instruments brought in a unanimous report which condemned the Post Office and, by inference, charged the Post Office with engaging in illegal action by increasing the rate for first-class mail without obtaining approval from parliament. The case was documented faithfully and well. I sat on that committee. It was not a partisan issue at all, as I am not being partisan now. What I say will, I hope, be listened to by hon. members opposite.
The facts which were admitted and the facts which were proved by the committee as the basis for its report are an indication of what troubles us today. We pointed out in that report, which was tabled and is now available for discussion,
May 18, 1977

that on May 21, 1976, the then postmaster general, Mr. Mackasey, stated he was not going to proceed by way of legislation but by order in council under section 13B of the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, from time immemorial postage rates have been an issue affecting the average person in this country, just as tax rates do. Yet the government has seen fit to take this surreptitious means of avoiding the kind of discussion which should go on in this chamber by raising the rates without coming to parliament and by attempting to rely on the Financial Administration Act.
I have read that act. I was involved in the debate on the amendment when section 13 was brought in in its present form. There was only a passing reference from the President of the Treasury Board to this issue. It was never intended or expected that the Postmaster General, for instance, at the instigation of his officials, would be able to bypass parliament and change first-class mail rates in this way.
Section 6 of the Post Office Act makes the matter plain. It says that the Postmaster General can make regulations for the official operation of the Post Office and that he can fix rates of postage on mail for delivery outside Canada. By that legislation, as it was amended, the Post Office Act fixes the rate for first-class mail. I submit there is very grave doubt as to whether what the government has done is legal. It is certainly improper. It had the result of prohibiting the type of discussion which should take place in this chamber where the people are represented. Surely, an issue which affects so many million Canadians should be discussed here. We might have agreed with the Postmaster General that he had a good case for raising the rates. But I deplore the attempt by bureaucrats to push this institution to one side and carry out these acts by orders in council in the depth of secrecy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wars were fought over taxation without representation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, and kings lost their crowns; and the Prime Minister will shortly lose his position as a result of things of this kind.


An hon. Member:: Not for two cents.


Gerald William Baldwin: Two cents is the difference between 6 cents and 8 cents, an increase which was quite illegally brought about by order in council. That is an illustration of what is wrong. This is excessive secrecy. It is discussion, debate, even heated argument which develops sound programs of a kind which make the country work. Here we have a situation where the Posmaster General increases rates without the kind of debate we should have had here. It is no wonder the Post Office is in trouble, and no wonder the government is in trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We talk about secrecy. Secrecy is mentioned in the motion. There were two reports, the Hays report and the Mulligan report. My hon. friend from Brandon-Souris request-
Post Office
ed the production of these documents. This was refused on the ground that they were internal working papers. Mr. Speaker, if they were working papers containing advice and opinions, there might be good reason for not producing them. But if they were documents, as I understand they were, containing a large quantity of factual and statistical material together with recommendations with regard to certain changes, it is not only the duty of the government to make them available to the House for discussion, but it is the government's responsibility to do so, as it is our responsibility to demand them. It is only through argument, discussion and proposals for change that we make this country work. A government working in secrecy, denying itself the opportunity of hearing the views of the representatives of the people will inevitably get into difficulty.
I am told by my hon. friend from Brandon-Souris that he was invited to go over with other members to see those documents privately. I am glad he refused such a proposal. It is unthinkable that an hon. member representing, as he does, the official opposition and charged with a particular responsibility in connection with the Post Office, should be invited to examine these documents in private and later find himself unable to speak about them. My hon. friend showed good character and strong judgment in not accepting this offer.
I have here a copy of a letter which appeared in the Globe and Mail of March 31, 1976, over the signature of Frank E. Thomas of Willowdale, Ontario. It reads:
In spite of all that's been said about the federal government for secrecy, it's not abating. On the contrary, it seems to have afflicted a department one would not have suspected of such practices.
On March 25 I asked a clerk in the Fairview Mall, Willowdale, post office, for a copy of the current postal rates. The answer was: "We haven't received them yet.'' When I inquired if another rate change had just occurred, I learned that the one effective last January 1 was still in effect.
On March 26 I made the same request in station B (Bayview Village shopping centre) and was advised that copies of postal rates were not available. When I asked where I might get a copy, I was told, "You'll have to go to Ottawa for it."
I cannot afford to go to Ottawa. And even if I could, I doubt that the Post Office there would let me have a copy since it seems determined to withhold them from the general public.
Perhaps the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau, which seems to have been able to obtain other confidential government publications, could excel itself and get a copy of this evidently ultra-secret document, for publication in an early issue.
For an ordinary citizen of this country to go to the post office and to ask for a copy of the current postal rates, and then to be contemptuously told to go to Ottawa to obtain this material, is a terrible situation. So long as that kind of situation prevails, Mr. Speaker, the Post Office is going to be in trouble and the country is going to be in trouble.
I suggest that instead of the minister coming here and indicting civilization, which seems to be the basis of his defence of the Post Office-hq accuses progress in the world of taking away from his organization the business to which it is entitled, which is a scathing indictment of technological improvement and scientific change in this country-he should be more honest, open and candid with this House. Let him lay first before the committee, and ultimately before this House,
5782

May 18, 1977
Post Office
the problems which confront him. Let this House into the arena, so it can help. It can only do this if it is made aware of the facts. If this happens, Mr. Speaker, hopefully we can look forward to some improvement in the situation. But it will not happen until this government tears away the veil of secrecy and learns through this parliament that the people of Canada are at least entitled to be junior partners in the business of government.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter the debate not so much to either oppose or support the motion which has been put forward by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), but more particularly because of the importance of the mail service in the Toronto area, the volume that goes through there and the difficulty which has been experienced with the Gateway facility. I happen, along with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), to represent ridings which surround the Gateway facility and we have been involved in this issue for quite some considerable time. I thought I would like to put a few comments on the record relating to the history of this facility and to where I think the mail service in the Toronto area may well be headed.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to defend the decision taken by the government and by the Post Office some time ago to move to three large automated facilities in the Toronto area. It has not been easy to live with the consequences of that decision while the facilities are being introduced, people are being moved and the new machinery is being started up. Probably it would have been much easier for people who are dependent on the mails, and for members of parliament to service constituency problems, if it had not occurred at this point in time. On the other hand, I think it is important that the Post Office do keep abreast of modern technology and make this decision. One has only to look at some of the deplorable postal situations in some European countries which did not keep abreast of technology and allowed the old system to prevail to the point where, as I recall from reading some articles, they simply destroyed large amounts of mail to dispose of it.
In the Toronto area, very close to 50 per cent of all mail in Canada is handled daily in these three facilities. Of those three facilities, I would judge a large percentage, 45 per cent, goes through the Gateway facility at the west end of Toronto. While the point has been made by a number of speakers today that the mail in total is not increasing at an alarming rate, certainly the amount of mail in the Toronto area is increasing, and the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) said that this is because of the growth in the business community in that area. The high percentage of mail originating from and directed to businesses means that in the Toronto area, certainly in my opinion, the Post Office Department was correct to move to a highly automated facility.
My major criticism would be that this decision should have been taken earlier. There should have been more time to implement this change. Perhaps one of the real difficulties with which the postal people in the Toronto area have been

working has been to try to institute the amount of change which is required within such a short period of time. I think that in fairness hon. members should appreciate just what has had to happen in the Toronto area in this regard. Post offices in the Toronto area have been transferred to these three facilities at the same time as the mail has had to be kept moving. If this were a private organization manufacturing a product, I suggest that the company would have built up its inventory to a very large level and then used the inventory to service its customers while shutting down its one plant and starting up its new facility. But the Post Office could not do that; they had to introduce the new facility, new machinery and procedures, at the same time handling the mail on a daily basis.
This could be likened to Ford or General Motors shutting down their major factory and moving to a new location, with no inventory and not missing any production. In this respect I think we should appreciate the enormity of what has been undertaken in the last two years in the Toronto area, particularly in the last 18 months. These three large postal facilities have had to deal with equipment which had never been either used or designed prior to its introduction. It was prototype machinery which had to be designed specifically and on a scale to do functions which had never been automated before. While I suppose a number of start-up problems were anticipated, I do not think that anyone, particularly the Post Office and perhaps the designers of the equipment, ever anticipated the amount of trouble they have had in terms of start-up.
I make that point because not only has it affected very drastically the mail service in the constituency that I represent just north of the Gateway facility, but it has also affected mail service across Canada, since so much of the mail passes through the facility. I think the hon. member who introduced the motion would agree that it has only been in the last ten days or two weeks that intercity mail passing through Gateway has started to move at the efficiency that we want and should expect.
Another matter which I should like to put on the record is that most of the systems within the Gateway facility have been installed and are now in operation. I hope that all hon. members can come to the Gateway facility and tour it. It is an enormous area, about the size of four football fields. You need a guide to take you around because you might not find your way out, it is almost that extensive. When the mail comes in, it goes into a pre-sorting area, and right from the first that facility has worked well. It then goes to the colour phaser canceller, as they call it, and this facility has also worked relatively well. The biggest problem has been that the mail goes from there on to trays which move forward on a computer program for sorting. This has been a real problem in terms of introducing the facility and getting acceptable mail service at Gateway.
These trays were manufactured by one of the largest companies operating in Canada, the name of which is well known to
May 18, 1977

everyone in this House. The plastic composition of the material which was used in them was apparently not correct. It was very brittle. The trays were very, very marginally manufactured too large. As a result, there was a good deal of jamming in the automatic guides. When the trays would jam, they would break.
The Post Office at Gateway has fought this problem for about a year. They finally reached agreement with the supplier as to liability and an agreement was arranged whereby these trays would have to be replaced. There has been some hold-up on that, but I am advised the problem is now being solved. That complete section of the service should go on stream or under test July 1. If that is so, and if it is successful at that date, the Gateway facility will start to operate in the manner in which it was designed. Some two or three weeks ago, I am advised, the last phase was set up for the handling of off-size envelopes and the parcel operation. The many different things which had to be produced there are now all operating. The continuing problem with these trays and the automated computer program associated with it is in the process of being solved.
The problem which was there in terms of personnel should not be underestimated. The theory of these large postal installations in the Toronto area was to transfer functions, which were being carried out in a large number of small post offices, to these big three. Not everyone wanted to follow the transfer of those functions. Many employees chose not to continue to work for the Post Office and commute longer distances. Thus, there had to be many new people hired. The hiring of people was not the problem. It was training and finding enough new supervisors to get the system into operation. That has been largely overcome, and very successful.
Some rather critical comments about Post Office employees and their unions have been raised by previous speakers today. I do not intend to enter into that area because I think it has been sufficiently spoken to by other members. I would like to pay tribute to many of the people who work in the Post Office. Most of my constituents would join me in saying it is remarkable that as many people could be transferred as was the case with the start-up of the Gateway facility. There were a number of new procedures and concepts started there, and we have not had any major labour difficulty.
I do not want to be quoted too tightly on this, but it could well be the union might have a case for argument if they followed the small letter of their contract in terms of automation and the introduction of it. I want to congratulate the unions because they took a bigger view and realized what was required, which was an open attitude involving as much assistance as possible in getting the facility to worK. When people are being critical of the postal staff, they should appreciate that nearly all the people in the Toronto area who are handling almost half of Canada's mail have had their place of work transferred. Many of them are now working under new procedures and with new machines. This has been accomplished without a major problem, and that is a tribute to them.
Post Office
I would like to say a word about many of my friends who deliver mail door to door. There is no question there have been problems in the Post Office about the level of service. Most people complain to the letter carriers. It is not their fault. They have been good ambassadors for the Post Office and we should be appreciative of them. In making those comments, I am not saying all is, or has been, well in the Toronto area in terms of the postal service. I have spent a good deal of time meeting with management at Gateway and dealing with this problem. I have had many letters from my constituents. I have had strong representations from the Brampton Board of Trade and from many individual businessmen. Many of these businessmen have lost substantial amounts of money because they submitted tenders which arrived late and were not accepted. This has been difficult. It had to happen some time during this automation phase in order to handle increased volumes of mail at reasonable cost in future years.
Some six weeks ago I was hopeful because Gateway was up to a point where there was almost 80 per cent of next day delivery. Then two things happened: there was a four-day Easter weekend, and because of the contract with the employees the facility was essentially closed for that time, which generated a tremendous backlog of mail. Then having overcome that to a degree, some of the feed-in mail did not arrive on schedule because of start-up problems which were inherent in the facility on Eastern Avenue in the central core of Toronto. This facility is probably five or six weeks behind the one in Scarborough and the one in Gateway. While they are learning from experiences the other two have had, there are problems there. Many times we blame Gateway, and it is not Gateway's fault. It is just the fact that the mail coming from the core of the city has not reached Gateway and, therefore, letters from downtown Toronto to my constituency are delayed at that facility rather than at Gateway.
There is light at the end of the tunnel. During the last ten days all the mail at Gateway has been sorted and cleared from the facility by 6.30 in the morning. The manager and supervisory staff at Gateway have worked hard. They have been working 18 hours a day. They come in very early in the morning, go out on the floor and look at each of the systems. They make sure any problems are looked after and that the mail is moving through the system. It is encouraging to note the mail has been coming in on schedule, is being processed, sorted and sent back out by 6.30 in the morning for ten consecutive days. This indicates that many of the inherent problems are being solved.
By July 1, when the problems in the downtown facility on Eastern Avenue are cleared up and this automated tray process has been corrected, the kind of mail service we expect, and should have as a result of the expenditure in Gateway, should be forthcoming. No one hopes more than I do that it will be improved. I doubt very many members of the House of Commons have as many constituents who are concerned and upset with the level of service as I have. One exception might be my hon. friend, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
80016-26^2

May 18, 197'
Post Office
Affairs, representing the Mississauga riding. I hope these problems are under control, and I expect they may well be.
It is encouraging to look at the facilities in western Canada, where the same type of automated service has been installed and brought on stream. It demonstrates that this system improves efficiency and mail service. I am talking now about most of the facilities in western Canada. It has demonstrated that the system does improve the efficiency of the mail service. The concept is correct, but the biggest problem has been the mechanical aspect of it and getting this new, highly-automated equipment to work.
I should like to make three points in closing, if I may, Mr. Speaker. While we complain about the mail service, there have been some good things about it and I think we should compliment the Post Office on those and put them on the record. Members on all sides of the House have been fairly strong in expressing the opinion that government should exercise restraint of government spending. In major statements to the House, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) have given the commitment that government spending will be controlled and, parallel to that, that the growth of the public service will be virtually frozen. In this fiscal year I believe the growth will be less than 1 per cent. While we all applaud that, we have to understand the position of fast growing areas of the country.
I represent a constituency where the population is growing faster than any other area of Canada. That means new streets almost daily. When people move in, there is a problem supplying them with door to door service, when at the same time there is a freeze on hiring additional delivery men. This problem has been handled well by the Post Office. Certainly, many people in my riding have had to wait for door to door delivery; some have been patient and others have made representations to which I have tried to respond.
By virtue of using small vehicles to take mail out to the routes, the same number of men can deliver to more houses than before. They spend less time waiting for lifts to the post office to get more mail or waiting for public transportation. I think we should compliment those men. It is conceivable that the system would be opposed by door to door delivery men because they are being asked to service more doors; but, instead, they have done it well. It has meant that the same number of door to door delivery men in many areas of high growth have been able to deliver mail to a good many more new residents than would have been the case under the old system. I think we should be positive about that.
[Mr. Milne.)
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is running out. I have two more very brief points, and if the House agrees I shall put them on the record very quickly. I leave it to the Chair to ask whether there is consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is aware that only five minutes are left, and I know the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) wishes to speak. I leave it to hon. members. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Ross Milne: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. While we complain about the Post Office, I think there is a responsibility on us to look at how we prepare mail by use of the postal code, appropriate envelopes, and so on. Having installed a lot of automated equipment, there is real concern about the low percentage of mail that can be treated automatically.
I want to go on record as supporting the Postmaster General. I think we should be very vigorous in competing for the entire mail service. We should be in the courier business because it is the responsibility of the Post Office to service all areas. This is not an argument about public or private service; this is a matter of being involved in things that are profitable and will bring down the cost that we have to bear if we are to bring this service to all Canadians, as is their right.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, in the last debate on the Post Office I believe Your Honour was in the chair. I was called on then just three minutes before the time expired, and I see today that I have an extra minute. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, I have been critical of the Post Office Department. I know that my colleague and neighbour in Nipissing, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) has great problems to face.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) about the Gateway facilities being the size of four football fields. I thought they were the size of one football field, but I understand now they are the size of four. 1 was going to speak about slow delivery and various other things, but in my view, Mr. Speaker, the fault with the Post Office is demonstrated by what I have seen here this afternoon. I look in the gallery and see those great officials of the Post Office, and I commend them for being here. Then I look to the far end and there is the great czar of CUPW, Joe Davidson and one of his henchmen. The two parties are as far apart as possible. Why could both parties not have been sitting closer together? I think this is most important.
It was mentioned earlier that everything would be all right by July 1, but then the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe said we might be in a tough spot by July 1. If we are, it will have nothing to do with the machinery or debugging it; what we have to debug is the adversary system that exists between


May 18, 1977

management and the workers. That is the crux of the whole thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am not saying that one party is to blame more than the other; they are both guilty. Time and again I have said that the people of Canada want them to iron out their differences and get the mail delivered. They do not want a strike. To lay it on the line, they do no want them to be allowed to strike. That is it-one, two, three. I am sure that is unpopular with the union and others as well, but people are fed up with the mail service as it is. The adversary system is no good at all. They should get together. I mentioned this to the Postmaster General in committee. I said, "J.-J., you should sit down with Davidson and company"-and he is a human being; I hear that Scotch burl of his-"Highland Joe." My ancestors came from Scotland. I said, "He has a sense of humour, maybe distorted at times, but surely you can talk to these people as human beings. That is the secret. That is the only way you are going to avert a strike."
Post Office
My colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), and I were in England recently investigating the post office there. I learned a lot, but one thing that amazed me was that the union, from the shop steward up to the top official who holds the same job as Joe Davidson, were sympathetic to management. They were proud of the post office and were aware of the competition they faced from couriers and various other organizations that were cutting into their revenue. They felt they had to stick together or sink together.
That is the message I want to get across to the Postmaster General and his cohorts, and to Davidson and his cohorts. It is as simple as that. Once we get that message across, we will not have to worry about automation and the rest of it. It will fit in, and it will be well oiled and greased.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), to announce that proceedings on the motion have now expired. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Thursday, May 19, 1977