1978-10-17

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which is of particular pride to me. It concerns the election yesterday of Pope John Paul II as a spirit of inspiration to all those of Polish descent and a unifying force for the universal church and all Christians and those of goodwill everywhere.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
That the Speaker offer the congratulations and prayers of this House on the election of His Holiness.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to the Standing Order, at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the continuing crisis in Lebanon, the increasing number of wounded requiring medical attention and displaced persons requiring food and shelter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House urge the government to provide additional emergency humanitarian assistance to Lebanon out of CIDA's emergency relief fund; such assistance to be channelled through the International Red Cross for the provision of medical supplies, tents and blankets and, further, that the government increase the level of food aid to Lebanon to augment Canada's commitment of S3.6 million in food aid last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that coastal fishermen of groundfish in the Atlantic have received a special subsidy of two cents a pound up to October 1, 1978, which meant an assistance of $1.5 million in 1977-78, considering also that those coastal fishermen, as is the case in the Gaspe peninsula, cannot take advantage of the 200-mile zone and that they cannot always make both ends meet solely with fishing and finally owing to the unemployment rate in that group of the population, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House enjoin the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to take all necessary steps to have that special subsidy of 2 cents a pound which expired on October 1 last extended for another year, that is until October 1, 1979.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80065 - 1 lVz

October 17, 1978


EXPLORATION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that a Canadian sailboat has succeeded in travelling from the Atlantic to the Pacific through the Northwest Passage, a sailboat led by Captain Real Bouvier with a five-member crew, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the House congratulate Captain Bouvier and the crew of the J.E. Bernier II for their courage and their initiative and extend to them its best wishes for the remainder of their trip around North America.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was a very notable exception in a motion under Standing Order 43 put forward this morning by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I refer the hon. member to my rulings on previous occasions when Standing Order 43 has been used in an effort to congratulate people on particular accomplishments. It makes a very difficult situation. With the one exception which was raised this morning, 1 think the rule ought not to be used in that way. If there is argument to the contrary, I will be glad to hear it at another time.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning the city of Brockville, in my constituency, and the arbitrarily ordered closing of the CN Telecommunications office without a public hearing, despite the fact that the Brockville city council, as well as myself, have strongly protested the matter to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve), protests to which she has given absolutely no acknowledgement or reply whatever over a period of some weeks.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government order the immediate reopening of the CN Telecommunications office in Brockville and that such remain open until a public hearing is held, allowing all those objecting to air their views, and that a decision be made whether the office can continue to remain permanently open in the future after that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of this motion for discussion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers has now formally declared a national strike. Ministers at various times have indicated that legislation would be introduced in this House to deal with that strike. As the Prime Minister will know, it is the normal practice of the government, when introducing emergency legislation of this kind, to consult the House leaders of the other parties and provide those House leaders with an advance copy of any legislation that is intended. That has not been done so far in this case.
Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House of Commons, now, whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation that will restore postal service in this country, and can he indicate whether the normal courtesies will be followed and an advance copy will be made available to the representatives of the other parties in this House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at the normal moment during orders of the day we will give first reading to a bill dealing with the postal strike. The House leader will be consulting with the leaders of the other parties to see if we can obtain the consent of the House to proceed with that bill later today after members have had an opportunity to study the bill at first reading.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows, from the undertaking given by my colleague, the opposition House leader, last Friday that this party is certainly prepared to give unanimous consent today to second reading of that legislation. 1 would hope that it would be possible for us to see that legislation, as is the normal practice, well enough in advance so there can be serious consideration of its implications prior to any debate.
My question relates to the more general problem of strikes in the public service and in essential services. The Prime Minister will know that since 1971 there have been 93 strikes by unions under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. He will know that on eight separate occasions since 1972 this parliament has been brought back to resolve disputes in the public sector.
In 1968, the Woods commission proposed the establishment of a Public Interest Disputes Commission. Against all this history, in the legislative agenda that the Prime Minister has said he has prepared for this parliament-of which we have seen very little evidence so far-is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation that will establish in practice a Public Interest Disputes Commission or some other forum that will reduce the extent to which parliament has to
October 17, 1978

intervene in labour management disputes affecting essential aspects of the public interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as usual, put a lot of remarks in his question which have to be dealt with. First, he said his party would give unanimous consent to second reading even before seeing the legislation.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then he said he wanted to see the legislation; he reminded us that the House leader indicated the other day unanimous consent to legislation. All I said in my answer was that we would give first reading in a moment and that later today we would go to second reading. I do not see why the Leader of the Opposition has to make the point that he wants to look at the bill: that is exactly what I said we would do.
With regard to the strike record in the public service, there have been hundreds of settlements, without a strike-I believe the percentage is well below 10 per cent and is in the area of 5 per cent-of collective agreements which have had to go the strike route. Therefore, I think that situation does not reveal any note of panic.
The government has been called upon to act in certain circumstances. We have called parliament and even recalled parliament to deal with particular strikes which were deleterious to public order and the common good. We have dealt with them, and we intend to continue doing so in the future.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Prime Minister, with all charity, that this is not exactly a day on which he should carry on in his general, traditional, disputatious way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour, if the echoes of agony on the other side would subside. I noticed he is sitting in front of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who was responsible for the Liberal campaign in St. Boniface.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of Labour is this: the Minister of Transport indicated yesterday that discussions were under way between mediators and ministers with relation to the dispute on the Great Lakes. Can the Minister of Labour report to the House the results of those discussions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are still taking place today. We hope to make progress in this field in the very near future.
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF STRIKE ON MOVEMENT OF GRAIN
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that stocks of grain in the country elevators are up 35 per cent this crop year, deliveries by farmers to the country elevators are down 33 per cent, and in view of the disastrous effects of a strike on the inland waterways on the movement of grain, can the minister advise the House on the meeting that took place yesterday between the minister and the Minister of Labour with respect to this strike?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, as the exchange in this House yesterday indicated, we are very conscious of the importance of the Great Lakes movement, and so is the Minister of Labour. That, of course, is the reason he is having discussions with the parties in an attempt to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible.


Douglas Charles Neil: Yesterday, in response to a question put to him by the hon. member for Hamilton West, the minister said that he was going to meet personally with the Acting Minister of Labour with respect to this strike. In view of the serious consequences of the strike on the economy, not only of western Canada but all of Canada, can the minister advise what specific steps he is taking personally with regard to the strike?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather extraordinary question, to attempt to determine exactly what conversations went on. I think I have made the point very clearly, that we know the importance of the continuing service on the Great Lakes. The Minister of Labour, therefore, is in possession of the problem and is in discussion with the parties. The object is, obviously, to find a solution and have the ships moving as quickly as possible.

U)


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On May 15, 1978, an assistant deputy minister in the minister's department sent a directive to local Manpower offices throughout the country instructing them to cease putting together and publishing "labour surplus rates"; that is to say, to stop publishing the real unemployment levels in the regions. For example, considering that in New Brunswick the official rate is 10.6 per cent but the real rate is 17.7 per cent, and in Newfoundland the official rate is 14.6 per cent but the real rate is 23.9 per cent, I ask the minister if he will now take the opportunity to withdraw that directive even if such figures are embarrassing to the minister.

October 17, 1978
Oral Questions
Will he not agree that truth is more important than burying it, particularly where it concerns regional unemployment levels?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I must congratulate the Leader of the New Democratic Party for the breakthrough in Newfoundland-albeit temporary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Secondly, I say to the hon. member that he has again misinterpreted the purport of that memo. We are indicating that we have absolute confidence in the professionals at Statistics Canada who provide us with the figures so that they have comparability right across the country. For our officers in the individual offices to interpret particular results, such as unemployment, labour and surplus figures, is counterproductive to the figures we receive from Statistics Canada from the professionals in the field. For that reason, it did not seem appropriate to give that kind of interpretation.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the reason given in the memo to the regions for the cessation of this activity was described as being embarrassing to himself.


An hon. Member:: By the deputy minister.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister clarify what he said in reply to the first question? Is he saying that regional assessments done by people in his own department, showing that local levels of unemployment were much higher than the general statistics provided by Statistics Canada, were inaccurate, false and misleading? Is that what he is telling the House? If so, how does he square that with the reality that other economists in the region and officials working elsewhere outside government departments are, in fact, in full agreement with those local statistics?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, the figures collected by officials in the field are for internal use, so that we will know the number of people we have to put in a particular region if there is a lay-off in an area where they suddenly have several registrations in the Manpower office; things of that nature. Those statistics are valuable and accurate and are collected by our officials. However, to interpret them as unemployment figures is incorrect and inappropriate.
The only embarrassment problem is the fact that we rely on StatsCan for the figures that we are given. If they are at odds with the local figures which are a misinterpretation of the local situation, then to that extent it is embarrasssing-not personally, but embarrassing in the use of statistics.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister cannot define out of existence real levels of unemployment that are twice as high as he says they are at the official level. I would like to ask him about

another aspect of unemployment concerning women. Just four weeks ago his department issued a directive with regard to the Outreach program which included the following directive, "Projects which have been developed to serve women are no longer included as target groups under the current policy guidelines".
Can the minister explain why, at a time when the real level of unemployment of women in Canada is 18.7 per cent-much higher than the unemployment rate for men-he has issued a directive which takes them out of the special target category, precisely at a time when they should be getting more assistance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Outreach program, as the hon. member should know, will affect not only women in the work force but a whole series of people who have some disadvantage or disability with regard to getting into the work force. We have many other programs in place that can help women. Our affirmative action program-in fact, every program of the 16 or 17 that we have, including the training programs-are all directed toward seeing that women are helped to get back into the work force if they have been out of it for some time, or to get into it in the first instance, as are young men. To that extent, targeting in this one particular group did not seem necessary at this time, because we are looking to target them and others in that particular area.

[Translation}


FISHERIES
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries.
Given the fact that the Atlantic fishermen have received a subsidy of two cents a pound during the year ending October 1, 1978 and that they have no access to the 200-mile zone, does the minister intend to maintain that assistance to fishermen next year?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, assistance has been discontinued for two reasons. First, American rates would be imposed against subsidized products. That is one of the major reasons the program has been discontinued. Second, catches and the price in particular because of the situation of the Canadian dollar are such that I did not feel necessary to maintain that assistance. But I am prepared to look into regional cases as I understand the hon. member is suggesting.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FISHERMEN TO COMPENSATE FOR LOSSES
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
October 17, 1978

In view of the answer given by the minister-I understand that will benefit exporters mostly but not the fishermen-so, following the answer he just gave, is the minister planning another form of assistance to make up for the fishermen's lost revenues?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the prices being paid for fish, combined with the advantage of the Canadian dollar on our external markets, are very high. There is no doubt the fishermen would stand to gain by organizing to get their share of the benefits paid, and that is one of the reasons I have suggested many times they should do so to protect their interests. Of course there are instances where fishermen get only very low prices, and in those instances I think we will have to examine at the end of the season if there is a need to develop an assistance program.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent hike in the bank rate, making the prime rate in Canada 11 per cent-as indicated by the Prime Minister yesterday, this was done in consequence of rising rates in the United States-would the minister tell us whether any overtures have been made to banking companies in this country with a view to having them take it easy on small business in Canada, bearing in mind that according to Dunn and Bradstreet we now have a bankruptcy rate in Canada, mainly among small businesses, at 75 per cent of the level in the United States and that our bankruptcy rate went up 41 per cent in the first six months of this year compared to last year?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: I shall be talking with the governor of the bank, who meets regularly with the presidents of the banks, and I shall ask him to let them know of the problem raised by the hon. member. It is one which preoccupies me. I hope the present interest situation will not last very long, but there was no other choice open to the governor of the bank than to move as he did on Friday.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A second group in Canada which may feel hardship as a result of our high interest rates are the home owners. Would the minister tell us whether any overtures are to be made to the mortgage companies with a view to keeping mortgage interest rates reasonably down, bearing in mind there are already thousands of people in Canada who are unable to buy homes because of the high interest rates on mortgages?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would think the market has more or less taken care of that situation. Generally speaking, increases in interest rates on mortgages have been much less than the increase in the bank rate upon which the governor of the bank decided in February. Also, there is a lot of money available for mortgages and competition is keeping interest rates as low as possible in the circumstances.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Davidson, president of the Mercantile Bank of Canada, a subsidiary of the Citibank in New York, has indicated that the prime rate in the United States might go as high as 12 per cent. He says it might peak at 12 per cent, which would mean a corresponding 13 per cent in Canada. Would the Minister of Finance, as the responsible minister, tell us whether he would be willing to see our prime rate go to such an astronomical height-13 per cent compared to a current 5'/2 per cent in West Germany?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would not wish to speculate on the level of interest rates in the future. There are, of course, some people who think the Americans could increase their rate even higher. On the other hand, a statement was made yesterday by Mr. Miller who was hoping that the interest rate in the United States would go down by the end of this year.


MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE PURCHASE OF SAVINGS BONDS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the press release issued yesterday by the minister concerning the sales campaign of Canada savings bonds. Would the minister tell us when he will announce the measures he intends to take to encourage the purchase of these bonds which will be less profitable than before because of the increase in the Bank of Canada interest rate? Will a premium be granted and when will we know about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I issued a press release to the effect that I was reviewing the interest rate on the savings bonds actually sold on the Canadian market. I hope to give more details about that today or Thursday at the latest.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State in his capacity as the minister answering for the CBC. I should like the minister to personally compliment the officials of the CBC responsible for the Radio-Canada coverage of the elections last night, coverage which certainly seemed to be competent and complete. This contrasted sharply with coverage over the English

October 17, 1978
Oral Questions
network, which was incomplete, inaccurate and darned deplorable.
Since the CBC is presently applying to the CRTC for a renewal of its licence, could the minister, in all seriousness, check with officials to try to get some explanation of why the English network cut off at 9.20, before returns came in from one of the areas of interest, Toronto?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC has received brick-bats from hon. members opposite, so I am sure they would be very happy to have the bouquet presented in the first part of the hon. member's question. 1 would be happy to transmit that to the authorities of the CBC. At the same time, I will transmit the brick-bat contained in the second part of the hon. member's question and get back to him as soon as 1 possibly can.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport: it involves the 3,000 jobs in Newfoundland on the Newfoundland railway operated by the CN but owned by the government.
Last year, the minister announced on March 28 that he was setting up a royal commission of inquiry into transportation in Newfoundland, and he said then that there would be no lay-offs by the CN and no changes until the royal commission made its final report.
Has the minister received telegrams from the Newfoundland government and from the railway transportation unions advising him that CN has now cancelled certain trains between St. John's and Corner Brook and is going to lay off 20 men as a result, and will the minister order CN to follow his directions, to put that train back as scheduled, to stop the lay-off of these 20 men and to observe his directions as they were given in March of 1977?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, rather more exactly, the instruction was that there would be no lay-offs during the course of the commission except those which were related to changes in the level and flow of business of the ordinary sort because, of course, there are lay-offs of a seasonal and load-related nature throughout the system.
I have made it clear to Dr. Bandeen that the commission's work will continue until approximately the end of January and that, therefore, we could expect the understanding to be continued through that period of time. I would be glad to investigate whether a specific lay-off is under the exceptional category which may either be permitted or is of such significance that it actually contravenes the understanding.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that the Sullivan commission made an interim report and recommended that the Newfoundland railway be done away with over a period of ten years. That was rejected by everyone in Newfoundland. In September, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the Canadian government agreed and that it would not accept that recommendation.
Is the government now advising CN that the government will meet its annual losses on the Newfoundland railway branch, and is the minister advising CN that it should try to get the Newfoundland railway back in business to attract freight and business and to put some oomph into it? What position is the government taking? Is the minister going to meet with the Newfoundland government and the railway unions which have been requesting for months now to discuss these issues with the minister?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Sullivan commission recommendation itself indicated that for at least the next five years every effort should be made to cause the railway to run effectively and efficiently-or more so than in the past-in Newfoundland and that the final decision about the future of the railway should be taken at that time. Obviously, the implication of the Sullivan commission recommendation is a matter which will be discussed with the provincial government in relation both to the railway and to the highway as well as many other matters, so that these matters will be given very close attention in the very near future. We, of course, will want a final report from the Sullivan commission in connection with those discussions.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to raise with him the tragic situation in Lebanon. I refer to many who have lost everything except their lives.
Is the minister in a position to advise the House if there is any extra, special effort being made on behalf of those who would like to join their brothers, sisters and other relatives in Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this question and I thank the hon. member for Saint-Denis for his persistent efforts on this particular subject.
As the hon. member well knows, the special measures we took in 1976 involved the admission of some 10,300 Lebanese. We are prepared to again put those special measures in place. Those who are in Canada as visitors will be allowed to apply for landed-immigrant status from within the country. If they are unable to gain landed-immigrant status, they will be permitted to stay as visitors. Depending on individual circum-
October 17, 1978

stances, work visas will also be made available to the Lebanese community.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I understand that our embassy is in the Moslem area of Beirut and those who are in the Christian area are having great difficulty making contact with our office there. Is there anything that can be done? There is great difficulty in the sense that some are being charged $500 to $1,000 to get through to our embassy, at the risk of losing their lives. Is there any way in which some arrangement can be made so that those who have already made contact with the embassy, but who cannot get back to it, could meet with our officials in the Christian area?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct: our embassy in Beirut is located in the Moslem area and there are the practical difficulties which the hon. member has indicated. To the credit of Department of External Affairs staff and our own staff, they are still in place endeavouring to do a very difficult job under very difficult circumstances. I think it is to their credit that they have been able to process as many as they have.
If there is to be a move of an embassy office, that would be more within the purview of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs; but we are aware of practical problems and we are endeavouring to do everything we can to alleviate the difficulties of people in that very tragic situation.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-FABRICATION OF PIPE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the passage of President Carter's energy bill last week, the closing of tenders for steel pipe some two weeks ago for the northern gas pipeline and the importance of these contracts to the Canadian steel industry, 1 wonder if the minister can say if Canadian steel companies have been successful in winning these contracts. Can he say how soon the northern pipeline committee will be organized, so that it can get on with its role of monitoring this massive project?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the second part of the question, it is my intention to set up a committee as quickly as possible. As I understood it when I checked it last week, we were still waiting for some names to be recommended by parties in the House. Just as soon as all the committee names are in, we will bring forward the necessary reference.
On the matter of the steel pipe, I know that Foothills has asked for tenders and they have been returned. At a certain point after Foothills has made its decision, a procurement plan will be put forward to the minister for approval. It is not possible, until that comes, to know exactly what Foothills has in mind.
Oral Questions


WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. During the last session of this parliament, the minister indicated that he and his department were undertaking a thorough review of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Can the minister say whether legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act will be introduced at this session, or at least that the results of that review will be referred for study to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the study conducted on the War Veterans Allowance Act, I expect an interim report probably later this month or early next month. At that time I will see what the report says and a determination will be made at that point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister if he and his department are still giving consideration to the introduction of an amendment to the Pension Act to provide for pro rata pensions for widows of disabled veterans where the disability pension of the veteran was below 48 per cent?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member realizes, this has been under study. As far as introducing legislation, I do not envisage that at this time.


FISHERIES
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: October 17, 1978
Oral Questions
reason, cabinet chooses to disallow them. We are looking at this and my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I have had lengthy discussions on the matter.
No one wants to see a breakdown in the management of fisheries, and no one challenges the over-all authority of the Department of Fisheries to manage the fisheries, but it is obvious that there is potential for complication if the bylaws of one department are in conflict with those of another, and that is what we are working on.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House why, with respect to bylaw No. 10, no objection was raised within the 40-day period by his own department? How is it that it was allowed to go through?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this is a matter of public record. My own department was not informed of the fact that this bylaw had been presented. Many of these bylaws are approved as a routine matter. I suspect that someone goofed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, who is in charge of the CBC. It is four or five months since I asked the minister, on behalf of the worthy people of western Canada and of Edmonton in particular-why the CBC public network has not brought the WHA games into their viewing. Has he any answer for them now?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not in charge of the CBC; I am responsible for reporting to parliament for the CBC. There is a distinction there which is important and which I hope has not eluded the hon. gentleman. I will follow up to see what has happened in relation to the coverage of WHA games.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to report, if he is in charge of reporting. In view of the statement by the president of the CBC that private companies are not using the Canadian fabric other than for programming of trivia or ESP, when can we expect a definite answer, because the season is just about to start? Will it be in about a week, or two weeks?


John (Moody) Roberts: Within a week, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
LOAN REQUESTED BY WILLIS & COMPANY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in view of the double theme of bankruptcies in Canada and the unemployment rate, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I will direct my question either to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the number of past and potential bankruptcies in Canada, and in view of the impact that massive imports of pianos into Canada from the United States and Japan may have on a well known Canadian piano industry, the Willis & Company of Canada Ltd. of Sainte-Therese, is the government now prepared to grant this company the loan guarantee for about a hundred thousand dollars which it has applied for?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question dealing with the piano company, let me say that my department has made a number of attempts to assist that company, but we always insist that the companies themselves keep their money in play. It happens that from time to time, when my department assists a company, it thinks that it can withdraw its own funds. We insist that this is not allowed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a loan guarantee. In any case, before reaching the decision already mentioned, has the government taken into consideration the impact on employment in the Sainte-Therese area, the number of employees in the Willis & Company of Canada Ltd. having decreased from 168 to 45 in two years?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of avenues through which they can still apply. They can apply through my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When they come to my department, however, we insist that the company uses its own money and not withdraw it. That is the point on which the negotiations broke down.


GRANTS IN LIEU OF TAXES
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the government considering amendments to the formula for grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Ottawa to compensate for the loss of tax revenue due to vacant office space as a result of moving public servants out of the city?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to discuss this problem with the mayor of Ottawa. We are looking at the problem at this time. Of course,
October 17, 1978

it is not only a problem of the federal government. I believe that if such taxes as the business tax were not of that nature, if perhaps the provincial system were changed, it would help the municipality. I am looking into that matter.
Of course, at this time it is difficult to make any promise regarding new money because of the cuts in all government departments, but I am looking at some inequities in the act which could be corrected, and I will take this matter to the cabinet.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the minister. An undertaking was given by the Minister of Finance at a meeting with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on January 18, 1978, that a meeting would be held shortly with the municipality and with the ministers concerned, particularly the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It is now October 17 and that meeting has not taken place. Is the minister contemplating convening such a meeting?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not there was a decision that such a meeting be held. I have dealt with the problem. I said that in light of government restraint at this time, no new money is available for that purpose, but I will look into the act because the act is quite old.
We could set the pattern by establishing that when the federal government is in better shape, we could perhaps make some improvements. But for the time being, I do not think we can take substantial action in this respect. However, I am willing to look into the act and bring it back to the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance who has spoken in relation to the question of grants in lieu of taxes, the possible need for changes in the provincial law and, consequently, I gather having discussions with the various provinces. Does his undertaking extend to the situation of the town sites of Banff and Jasper within the national parks and the government of Alberta?
[Translation\


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to study the problem of Banff and Jasper for a very long time. I think that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is studying the problem very seriously, and I remember that when I went there people were in general rather happy to live in the national parks of Canada which are certainly the best parks in the world.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General on the subject of national security. Will the minister tell the House-by way of a straight yes or
Oral Questions
no answer, rather than by beating about the bush and saying that it is harmful to national security to ask such a question- and will he acknowledge that the government has been aware of the 25-year security operation by French intelligence known as Operation Ascott designed to promote Quebec separatism, and is he or the government also aware of the success of the counter-intelligence operation of our own security services known as Operation Carte Blanche?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the matter being one that touches national security, it has been the tradition in this House, which I hope the hon. member for Leeds will honour, not to discuss such matters in the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Having listened to the usual reply in favour of motherhood, may I ask the Solicitor General a further question? Will he confirm to the House the authenticity of security service telexes dated November 25, 1971, and December 8, 1971, in regard to Operation Carte Blanche and its objectives which are reportedly in the hands of certain Canadian newspapers, and will he in particular confirm to the House that a top secret document is missing from RCMP files containing a list of undercover agents and informers, and what action the government is taking to recover this shocking leak which could endanger severely many loyal citizens?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the same reply is advanced in this instance. 1 only hope that the Leader of the Opposition will now reconsider receiving briefings on national security matters so he can better inform members of his caucus of the sensitivity of these matters.


MANPOWER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and it relates to the changes to the unemployment insurance program. Considering that the minister finally recognized the problems pointed out by spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative party six weeks ago, when he announced the changes in the program, can the minister inform the House as to when he will give the details on the changes and whether he obtained the support of his cabinet colleagues having stressed the necessity of such support last week?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in order to be flexible, I must discuss all the changes with my provincial colleagues and also with the
80065 -1214

October 17, 1978
Oral Questions
caucus and my colleagues in cabinet. When I have an opportunity, I shall introduce the bill for discussion in the House.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The Northeast Marine Fisheries Board in the United States recently completed a very comprehensive management plan for the lobster fishery along the coast of the United States. Their studies indicate that both inshore and offshore lobsters should be managed as one group.
I therefore ask the minister, since I believe his department initiated a study this summer to determine the relationship between offshore and inshore lobster stock, whether he is now convinced that offshore lobsters annually migrate from the outer continental shelf toward shoal waters, where they spend the summer, and what steps is he prepared to take to regulate the offshore lobster fishery in order to protect and improve the basic inshore lobster fishery which is so important to Atlantic Canada?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it is a matter of being convinced. 1 am awaiting the final recommendation of scientists who have been working, in co-operation with the Americans, on this matter. There is an indication that there is a relationship. However, I will await the final debates of scientists who will assemble as a group to make recommendations. Obviously, if there is a direct link, we will manage both as a unit, and, as I have indicated in the past, my bias would be clearly for the inshore fishermen.


FINANCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If the minister is, indeed, looking at legislation regarding grants in lieu of taxes in respect of the national capital region, I would point out to him that many other federal institutions across Canada are freeloading on the backs of local goverments. I refer specifically to the Fraser River harbour commission in Surrey. Is the minister entertaining an investigation of other federal installations across Canada, and does the government plan to pay grants in lieu of taxes in respect of facilities outside the national capital region?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 am looking into this question and will be discussing it again with the government. We will look not only at the properties of the government in the national capital region, but also at all

properties across Canada. As I have said, let me warn members of parliament that we are in a squeeze in terms of the budget, with everyone claiming we are spending too much. 1 should like to note that the hon. member is asking the government to spend more.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot asked the Solicitor General about the provisions of sections 41(1) and 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. The hon. member for Greenwood has introduced a private member's bill which would delete that section, leaving the discretion in the federal courts, and not the government allowing the courts to determine which documents may or may not be classified and withheld.
Having regard to the McDonald commission inquiry, will the Solicitor General now give a commitment to the House that he supports in principle the effect of that private member's bill, and that where confrontation exists between the McDonald inquiry and the government he will always give effect to section 41(2); in other words, allow the courts to determine whether a matter is within a national security question and may not be released, or does he still intend to take the position taken yesterday by the government, that this is an inherent jurisdiction which he will not abandon under any circumstances?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the private member's bill of which the hon. member speaks. I will read that bill with a great deal of interest. In terms of section 41 that he refers to, undoubtedly he meant, would I concentrate on section 41(1) and not 41(2). In my view, after looking at the sections of the particular act, they deal with production and discovery. As I indicated previously and as has been made known publicly, there is no question here that the documents have not been produced and are not available to the commission for discovery.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General go at least this far with the House? His predecessor gave a commitment to the House very recently, by which he committed the government which he represented at that time, that decisions as to what would be heard in camera would be decisions entirely within the discretion of the McDonald commission. Can the Solicitor General at least give the House the assurance that he will meet that commitment given to this House by the previous solicitor general, or is he still going to abandon that position taken when the House was given some assurance that it would be the McDonald inquiry which determined these matters and it would not be at the discretion of the Prime Minister?
October 17, 1978


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would recall to the hon. member's attention the exchanges that have taken place in this House in the past two or three days.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is why I asked the question.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I would call his attention, as well, to the Prime Minister's reply and my reply to the effect that it is our intention, as it always has been, to make full light in respect of all these matters that have been referred to the McDonald inquiry.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Even with the historic trip of the m.v. Arctic to Churchill on November 15, grain shipments through the port will be down from some seven million to nine million bushels this year, placing the port in a cash loss position. I should like to ask the minister why the four million bushel storage facilities in Churchill will not be utilized this winter for the storage of grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the hon. member has noted the kind of attention the government and the Wheat Board have been giving the port of Churchill. The voyage of the m.v. Arctic there is historic and again demonstrates that attention. The decision as to how to store grain and where to store it is made by the Canadian Wheat Board, taking account of many things including the transportation needs of the moment. The Wheat Board, of course, recognizes the desirability of having grain in position at Churchill if that does not interfere with other movements. However, if rail cars are needed at a given point in time to move grain to Thunder Bay or Vancouver while those ports are still operating to their full capacity, obviously that has to come first. I am sure, however, that the Wheat Board will give full consideration to the timing of the movement of grain to Churchill.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that cargoes have already been sold for next year's shipments out of Churchill. In light of that fact, would the minister consider directing the Wheat Board to put at least three million bushels in storage at Churchill, as this would put that port in a cash saving position?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the Wheat Board is fully aware of the advantages and the interests of having grain at Churchill. The board is also aware of the other reasons it may not be able to do that at a particular point in time. I leave it to the Wheat Board to make the best judgment for the farmers. I have found over the years that it does that, and that the farmers have confidence in the board. I would not, even at the urging of the hon. member, try to interfere with the day to day operations of the Wheat Board.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a study of profit margins in the food industry, prepared for me by the AntiInflation Board.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1978-79-80 MEASURE TO GRANT SUPPLEMENTARY BORROWING POWER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-7 intituled "An act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1978-79, to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1979-80 and to amend the Financial Administration Act".


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

André Ouellet: for leave to introduce Bill C-8 intituled "An act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to hon. members that it has not been possible to give any advance copies of the bill even before first reading because the final form of it was decided upon at a meeting just before we came into the House. It would be unreasonable to ask the consent of the House to deal with a bill on second reading without giving members an opportunity to study its contents.
What I am suggesting is that a representative of the government might get an opportunity, say at three o'clock, to rise on motions, after members have had an opportunity to look at the bill, and ask whether we could proceed to second reading at that time. I am not asking for consent to proceed to second reading now because members have not seen the bill. What I want is to have prearranged consent to rise at three o'clock and

October 17, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski
ask hon. members whether they are then ready to proceed with second reading of the bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to agree to the proposal by the minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the request the minister has now made is in accordance with the request he made to us at 11 o'clock this morning, and we are prepared to agree that at three o'clock we revert to motions so that the question the government House leader just indicated can be considered. Perhaps it could be left to consultation after we have seen the bill as to what precise hour second reading might be commenced.


Mr. Laprise:: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, the House has agreed that sometime later this afternoon a representative of the government shall have the opportunity to revert to motions at that time, to seek the consent of the House to proceed with the bill. Consent, of course, will be determined at that hour then, instead of at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, so that all members may see that bill, not just representatives of the parties, could it not be distributed now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With the bill having been filed for first reading at this time, we are already moving to print as many copies as we can and distribute them at the earliest possible moment.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Questions on the order paper.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I would like the deputy House leader to know that there are questions on the order paper and that we would like a little bit of action on them. I do not think that he should be sitting there in the hope that these proceedings are going to be a continuous practice every day. We have questions on there, and I am sure that he can answer some of them.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the hon. member was away or absent-minded last week when 1 gave explanations to the hon. members for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) and Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). I then proved to them what magnificent work the government had done in the last two sessions in answering questions on the order paper. The average, in the penultimate session was 90

per cent, while in the last it was 88 per cent. The least we can expect of the hon. member is surely that he show elementary patience at the start of the current session when we are doing the necessary research to give the most complete and best possible answers to the questions asked by all hon. members of the House. I do not think I am being disrespectful towards hon. members, and more specifically towards those who are impatient, when I ask them for the minimum of patience and restraint needed to give us a chance to supply them with sensible and complete answers.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. May I ask the parliamentary secretary if it is his intention to place some priority on the 10 per cent of questions emanating from the last session that were not answered, most of which have been placed back on the order paper, and many of them dealing with matters of a statistical nature? For example, there is a question on there relating to the number of jobs created by the FLIP program and the number of jobs created by the employment tax credit program. What is the government trying to hide? If they have nothing to hide, then let them answer these questions.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary in his remarks referred to the question which I posed to him as the last session came to a close. I would like to draw to the parliamentary secretary's attention the fact that I have had a question on the order paper for several months inquiring about a trip made by the former minister of labour to western capitals with regard to the CFL. What I have asked is straightforward. I have asked what the purpose of the trip was, who accompanied the minister, and what his point of destination was. I have asked about a statement that was made by the minister indicating that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was thinking of providing funds to Ivor Wynne Stadium in Hamilton for additional seats. I would think that over the course of several months it would be possible for even the parliamentary secretary to have gotten some action in answering these questions.
It is simply not acceptable for the parliamentary secretary to quote statistics as to the percentage of questions answered, when it is very clear that questions which could be answered today if the government wanted to have been left for weeks and weeks. Surely something has to be done.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: 1 would like to remind the parliamentary secretary that I have had a series of questions relating to the senior officers of crown corporations which have been on the order paper for almost two years and that I would appreciate it if he would make good on the promise that he has made to me, month by month that the answers would be forthcoming in the near future.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), it is difficult for
October 17, 1978

me to set my priorities for the order in which replies must be given to the questions. I have no idea whether other hon. members will put more intelligent, more important, or easier questions in terms of research than those put by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), for instance, or by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty), but I must point out that some questions require less research than others and that some cost the Canadian taxpayers a mint because they require a tremendous amount of work; therefore, under those circumstances, it is not up to me to set priorities as the hon. member for St. John's East would have me do.
In closing, I think I had best reply to those insinuations by pointing out the performance of the government in the last two sessions. When 90 per cent of the questions are answered, I wonder what honest man can claim that the government hides the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 should like to point out to the House, as it has been pointed out to me, and correctly so, that our practice in the past has always been that questions on the order paper are not called during the currency of the throne speech debate, obviously recognizing that a few days ought to elapse at the beginning of the session to collect the questions and attempt to answer them. I have called questions since we resumed, but really I should not have called them until the conclusion of the throne speech debate, obviously recognizing by our own practices over a considerable period that there ought to be a bit of time yet before questions begin to be answered. Perhaps it would be better to revert to the practice we have followed in the past.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On that same point of order, Your Honour, I see that you have realized that some of the questions had not been answered. I am glad you brought that to our attention. We would like to have these questions answered. We appreciate that you have brought this to our attention.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 16, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Clark) (p. 27).
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last night I was discussing the decline of the timber trade in the Ottawa valley at the turn of the
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
century. I went on to discuss how, at that stage, the federal government started moving in to fill the economic gap and how, in 1907, Camp Petawawa was established.
Forest research started on a 38-square mile area of Camp Petawawa in 1917. This contradicts many reports I have read in the media where the area has been reported as 36 acres or 38 acres; it is exactly 640 times that, being 38 square miles.
In the mid 1940s the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, under the St. Laurent administration started what is today the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited nuclear research laboratories at Chalk River, with Deep River as a major residential community for that Crown corporation. In 1970 the area was designated as a special area for growth incentives by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Much of this development program was based on the forest products industry. A general development subagreement was signed for the upper Ottawa Valley by the federal and provincial governments on December 7 last year to provide for infrastructure and special projects for economic development. This has been of major importance to the economic base of the Ottawa Valley.
Additional employment programs were introduced and applied by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), many of which are related to the major developments already mentioned, and have meant a great deal to us.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned the original three staples on which Canada was founded, fur, timber, and wheat. As a result of the recent public demands for cut-backs, with which 1 agree, as governments cannot go on spending at the expense of the private sector forever, the Petawawa Forest Experimental Station has been proposed as one of the cuts. I disagreed with this specific cut very strongly from the start, and still do so. Forestry research in Canada is essential if we are to plan responsibly for future generations of Canadians.
It is well known that the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand) is a very strong supporter of forestry, and it is unfortunate that his department should suffer so much from the cutbacks in research. It is in the public interest that he be assisted by myself and other members of parliament, by the provincial governments-and the public, in this difficult financial position, and I intend to do everything possible to that end. This must be done in a rational and responsible manner. Part of that rationale must be that the forests of Canada be looked upon as a continuing strong staple product of our country. We cannot afford to lose our expertise and technological know-how in the forest research field, any more than we could afford the cancellation of the Arrow aircraft by the last Conservative government with the resulting loss of experts and technologists to the aviation industry. If the Arrow had been allowed to go ahead this government would not now be in the position of having to spend the $2.34 billion in 1977 that is proposed for the purchase of new fighter aircraft because the Arrow would still be considered a modern aircraft.
The argument can be made very effectively and realistically that the investment, which a federal or provincial government

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
puts into forestry research and management is returned several times over in revenue dollars, employment, and international trade. If our forest research and development and management research programs are allowed to go ahead unscathed, it will spell a greater future for the forestry industry in Canada and will mean more revenue for the government.
Just what does forestry mean to Canada and its provinces? In this respect many of the letters I have received show that provincial governments that have a large interest in forestry have not gone unscathed either. Before I deal with what the forestry industry really means to Canada I would like to inform the House and the people of Canada that the mail I have received as a spokesman on this issue-


Mr. Peters:: How did you get it?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I can tell the hon. member that I am delighted to have received it. It outnumbers the total amount of the mail I received on the issue of the death penalty by five to one. This is a healthy sign, as it shows the people of this country are still concerned about their forestry, that they want research and development, good forest management, and that they are right on key on this subject.
At a glance, what does the forest industry mean to the economy of Canada? Three hundred thousand people are directly employed in the forest industry in this country, and the total number of people employed directly and indirectly is one million, or 11 per cent of the total labour force in Canada. The value of products from all forestry industries is $4,600 million. The forest industry accounts for 20 per cent of our total exports or international trade. In other words, 20 per cent of all of the exports from this country are from forest based industries.
We produce 40 per cent of the world's newsprint. As far as the balance of trade is concerned, the forest products of Canada provide $4 billion toward our balance of trade in international sales. Revenue Canada receives approximately $1 billion in revenue from the forest industry in Canada. The provincial governments receive approximately $650 million in revenue, and it cannot be forgotten that they control the Crown lands and the timber sales. The federal share of total forest revenue, and this is made up by taxation on corporations and income taxes from employees etc. represents two-thirds of the total revenue from this industry the remainder is taken in by the provinces. The percentage of total revenue for Canada is 4 per cent in that one industry alone.
The budget of the Canadian Forestry Service is approximately $35 million. Herein lies the basis for my argument that with the federal treasury receiving $1 billion in taxation from forest based industries, and the provincial governments receiving $650 million from the forest industry, we have only about $35 million going into the Canadian Forestry Service which makes up the total research programs.
The Petawawa Forest Experimental Station is the oldest forest experiment station in Canada. It has a world-wide

reputation in forestry. This is why it is no local matter. It is even becoming a matter of national and international discussion. Indeed it would be a tragic loss to forest science. It is the best documented forest in Canada, and this is quite in keeping with the traditional timber trade and the economically based forestry industry of the valley. If the station is closed there is no way that the upwards of 61 years invested in time and research could be recouped.
In my earlier days as a teacher-I started teaching in an area where the forest was the very basis of the local economy. That took place in some of those beautiful hill-covered townships of Lyndock, Brudenell, Sabastopol, Radcliffe, Raglan, Griffith, etc. in the county of Renfrew. If we are going to renew those forests on the hillsides, and if we renew the forest on low grade land in the traditional forest areas of Canada, we must have timber based on the more rapid growth system. Some of this work and advice has come from the Petawawa Forest Experimental Station. They deal very closely with provincial governments and their natural resource departments. In particular, they have been in close liaison with the Department of Natural Resources of Ontario. The recent general development subagreement announced for the lower part of the Ottawa Valley in Eastern Ontario with regard to rapid growth wood for the pulp and paper industry was developed partly on scientific and technological advice from the Petawawa station in co-operation with the Department of Natural Resources in Ontario.
We get all kinds of mail today about every phase of Canadian life and every issue that arises. So, because I have a very sentimental and in depth feeling for the forest resources of our country and for the people who make their living there, I must say that I appreciate to the nth degree all those many letters I have received from elementary school children who print or write their letters, through to high school students, and university students who have studied at the experimental station and who are interested in the Canadian Forestry Service.
I have received three letters from abroad, also many from people who have visited the station and people who have done experimental work at the station. I have received letters from the professional foresters' groups, as well as from the general public across Canada. This mail has been largely generated by the public awareness program operating at the station. The station can be seen as you drive up the valley. Tours are available. Last year 15,000 students came through the forestry station. I have also had letters from people across Canada who happened to be travelling through and visited the station this year or other years. They read in the press about the cutback and that the station was to be closed. These people are totally in disagreement with this decision.
The Petawawa Forest Experimental Station is concerned with research into management of natural and manmade forests. Forest fire is a very important part of their research work. This is important. What is the use on the one hand of developing very rapid growth of trees, or developing a better quality of tree, if we do not at the same time upgrade our ability to fight forest fires?
October 17, 1978

There is a strong program in tree genetics. They are known internationally for their tree seed. The Petawawa Forest Experimental Station is concerned with research into interpretation techniques and audience response, and also the use of forests for energy production and conservation, which is another important phase of our modern-day life. They go into interpretation, demonstration, technology transfer, and consultation.
Provision is made for facilities for research, recreation, conferences and education for the following: federal government centres, that is the Insect Pathology Research Institute, the Forest Fire Research Institute, and the E. Forest Products Laboratory; universities and schools; and the local community. This includes swimming, fishing, hunting, skiing, etc. because it is located in one of those lake and woods areas of the valley. Provincial governments deal with them constantly, as I mentioned, as well as the commercial forest industry.
If there is one thing I want to make clear it is this: I do not feel that there has been enough co-ordinated effort in Canada with regard to the forest industry on the part of those interested in the forests of Canada to form a proper lobby. This lobby is not only needed for a big crash campaign or at a time when a crisis arises in the Canadian forest experiment stations, but it is needed on a continuing basis to support and promote the Federal Forestry Service and provincial programs.
I understand the province of Ontario has drastically cut back on its budget for the department of natural resources. We cannot go on this way forever and still expect our forests to remain viable for future generations.
My point is simply this. After this debate is over, we cannot stop there. There must be a strong lobby by professional foresters. Strong corporations must also be involved. Surely their interests are tied up in this as well. Possibly they are going to neglect the forest industry and put their money in some other business.
In addition, there are the small sawmills and veneer plants in designated and depressed areas. In northern Ontario, 82 per cent of the people gain their livelihood from the forest industry. The components of the forest management policy are many and varied in nature. The Reed report entitled "Forest Management in Canada" made the following recommendations:
1.	Tree Improvement: The introduction of genetically superior stock is intended.
2.	Protection: Fire protection is reasonably well cared for now.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, that it must be continued.
Protection from insects is inadequate to cope with large scale epidemics such as the spruce budworm.
In this day when we are talking about conservation, it bothers me to see elm trees along our rural roads, victims of Dutch elm disease, being left to rot. They should be harvested. This is another reason-masses of dead trees-why forest research programs must be continued. With $35 million going into the Canadian forestry service and $1,650 million going
The Address-Mr. Hopkins
into the federal and provincial treasuries, surely we could do better. It would not take that much more and the return on investment would be many times the original expenditure.
I again quote from the Reed report:
3.	Research and Development: Primary research should be stepped up and in some cases redirected. There is an additional need for applied research and large-scale operating trials of various silvicultural treatments.
4.	Canadian Forestry Service: This agency requires a status in accordance with the contribution of forestry to the national economy and its budgets should be restored in order to play its legitimate role in an expanded program of forest management.
That is precisely the point I was making a moment ago.
An expanded program of primary research is called for across the board. Stand improvement and tree improvement hold great promise, but related research has not kept pace with regeneration studies. The federal government should re-establish the priorities in this area which were sacrificed in favour of environmental studies.
Reed further calls attention to serious regional problems in five provinces aggravated by the ravages of spruce budworm, by forest area withdrawals resulting from environmental pressures, and by shortfalls in forest management.
In making these recommendations, Reed alludes to many constraints in achieving improvements in forest management intensity. He alludes to the complexity of planning framework, the lack of general expanded commitment in forest management, and the existence of intense rivalry between federal and provincial governments. That is unfortunate. It should not be. There should be a total spirit of co-operation, with the provinces playing their role in co-operation with the federal government.
There is open friction interdepartmentally in Ottawa and in the separate provincial capitals, and even within individual resource ministries at the provincial level. There is a need for a mechanism to co-ordinate forestry programs of private industry and senior governments with identification of management priorities through to implementation and funding.
There is a need for appreciation of the forest sector as one of Canada's most important generators of activity. That is something I alluded to as a long-term program. It has been with this country since day one. Only a rational approach to research and development in forest management, pest control and disease control will continue this growth.
Net imports of the United States, mostly from Canada, are expected to increase from a roundwood equivalent of 1.6 billion cubic feet in 1972 to 2.8 billion cubic feet by the year 2000. Canada is presently the world's largest exporter of forest products, with approximately 10 per cent of the world's productive forest land area, and growing stock reserves. The forest land must be replanted with upgraded timber.
If we can succeed in improving the quality of our timber resource in Canada, the manufacturer will have lower production costs at his mill or plant. This in turn will make him more competitive on the international market. It will help retain that 20 per cent of the international market. Indeed, for the first quarter of 1978, forest products in Canada represented something like 32 per cent of our international trade.

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the feeling of speaking in the House of Commons was once described by Sir Winston Churchill as that something above everything else that touches the heart and sometimes silences the individual. I am not here on this occasion to speak with regard to some of the recent events.
I am very happy that there are two ministers present. They will be able to convey my thoughts to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, knowing I was going to speak, followed his usual course of disappearing because he always feels that one should never, never criticize him. I was not going to do that. It is the last thing I had in mind.
All I have to say in that connection, without going into the election results, is that the most lonely position anyone can occupy is being the only living former Prime Minister of Canada. I am looking forward, after the events of yesterday, to having company soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is a hope and an expectation, and I am sure the Prime Minister was not just talking when he said on several occasions that no one should remain Prime Minister of Canada longer than ten years. I won three elections as the leader of this party, and he has won three. His terms were not as short as were mine. I came in in 1957 with a minority. However, last night's results indicate that the Prime Minister had unusual prescience, and I know he will carry out the undertaking he has given over and over again regarding the danger of one remaining Prime Minister longer than the period I mentioned.
From time to time the Prime Minister quotes Scripture. That has developed recently. He needs the kind of help he believes the Scriptures will provide. I am reminded of the words in the fifth chapter of Daniel. Oh, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) knows what the words are! That was when the handwriting was on the wall. You will recall that, Mr. Speaker.
There was Belshazzar. Suddenly the words Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin appeared. I can pronounce them very well. The words, of course, interpret, "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it". The Tekel part of it interprets, "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting". No more applicable words could be applied to the circumstances of today than those which were used in the Holy Scripture of thousands of years ago.

As I rose to speak, I saw the Prime Minister disappearing. He referred to me the other day when I was not here. Naturally, I am honoured to have been referred to by him, and I must pay tribute to him. Being a philosopher, he is always quoting fifteenth century philosophers. He doesn't always give their names, nor the authorities, so that they can be looked up. However, there is one statement he has made over and over again, "Indeed, the universe is unfolding as it should". Those words could not be more applicable to what is happening in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to speak at length today. I would have, had the Prime Minister been here, because I want to be of assistance. I had wanted to remind him of some of the mistakes he has made.
There was a strange atmosphere in the House of Commons today. As I looked over at the treasury benches today, I saw the shadow of another John. In light of the turn of events it is obvious that the Prime Minister has the same view. I made a prediction a few days ago that when things went bad the Prime Minister would have to resign, or would resign. That was made clear as a result of what hon. members supporting him did the other day when he finished his speech. They stood and applauded. The press reported that they stood for three minutes. In the days of Hitler, Goebbels said that two minutes is long enough. It is strange that hon. members opposite should stand up to applaud. I have only seen that once, and that was in a casual way when the war ended.
Where are we going? What of the future of this nation? I think also of the immortal words of Lincoln. One of the most unusual fakers in history was P. T. Barnum. The fact that the initials are the same has no applicability to what I am about to say. Lincoln said that you can fool some of the people some of the time but that you cannot fool all the people all the time. All across this nation today there is a deep feeling of revulsion against the government of this country because of the stands which have been taken by the right hon. Prime Minister.
I am going to mention one or two of those stands, but not at great length. I was not here the other day when the opening speeches were made. I read what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said. It was a masterly speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It was a speech which deserves commendation. Then there was the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It was thoughtful and considerate. Then there was the Prime Minister's speech. I did not read it all; I measured it. It was the most unusual speech ever made in this House under similar circumstances. How many votes did he get as a result of that speech? I will not mention many of the constituencies, but 1 think of Parkdale and Eglinton as examples because of the large ethnic makeup of those constituencies. One could say that the voters in those constitutencies told the Prime Minister what they thought of him in most of the unofficial languages of this country.
October 17, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine. I can understand that the Prime Minister would go astray. I will mention the monarchy a little later because the Prime Minister lost more votes for endeavouring to strip Her Majesty the Queen of her prerogative rights than for any other reason.
I am concerned about my country, and I can understand how the Prime Minister could be led astray. A few moments ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was in his seat-he has gone now. He is one of the heavyweights of the government of this country. What did he say when he was in Washington attending the seminar on world hunger? He complained to his hosts that the breakfast they served him was lousy. "Just some old buns," he said. He went on to say the following, which indicates the thinking of this government. He said that Canadians do not have any economic problems and that unemployment is not so high-so high as what-and that Canadians do not know poverty. He said it is the media which are ruining Canada's reputation. Do you realize he said:
-I walk up the driveways and see two cars in the garage, ranch type houses, so much money in the credit union, just come back from a trip to Europe and some other place. How many other people in society are doing that?
I could read on, but it is the view of the government, and apparently it is the view of the Prime Minister, that everything is well. Take that article from Washington-its heading is "Problems Are A Myth".
We have, as well, another minister who illustrates their thinking, that is, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen). Why do we not get the facts here? I have never known a government-and I have been here for almost 39 years-that has concealed the truth to the extent that this government has. Anything that is embarrassing is not answered.
A little while ago there was a discussion regarding the several hundred questions that were not answered in the last session. I cannot read them all now but I have them here. So long as they have to do with the Prime Minister and so long as they have to do with appointments he has made connected with anyone respecting whom the question is asked, there is no answer. So along comes this minister and says that there are some facts that cannot be revealed. Now to me a fact means something that is true, but the minister says they are good facts when they behave themselves. So there are good facts, and there are others which lead to misinterpretation. I imagine this is a government which divides facts into those that can be allowed the people and those that cannot. In other words, the minister revealed the fact that the kind of information we are getting is whatever has been disinfected, dry cleaned or, to adopt a new word, "cullenized." That is where we are. Views like that, sir, indicate a government in disarray.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
I will not say some of the things I would have said had the Prime Minister been here in order to answer me, because I like that type of assistance, but I will say this: That today is a happy day for Canadians who believe in the maintenance and preservation of freedom in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to say anything that might in any way be considered as being uncharitable or as knocking down a person who is down and out, but, sir, all the things that for months and years we have been saying, have brought about a change in the thinking of Canadians, and they are beginning to realize exactly what their position is.
At a time when this nation was in great difficulty, the Prime Minister was in Morocco. I had to find out where he was, but I could not do it. I was not going to tell this. The hon. lady opposite was in Edmonton at the time. I was invited to Peking for September 23 and I wanted to find out whether there would be an election at that time. I came into a room in which there was quite a number of people gathered following the official opening ceremonies. Suddenly somebody said to me, "What are you doing here?" It was the Prime Minister of Canada. I satisfied his curiosity and I said I had been endeavouring to communicate with him for 20 days so as to obtain information from him concerning the possibility of an election, because, after all, the date of the election changes with the political atmosphere.
One thing that the Prime Minister wishes for today is that there would be an amendment to the law which would extend the period of five years between elections. He said he had been in Morocco for 20 days. I said that it seemed even longer than that. I had wanted to find out, just between us, privy councillors, if he would tell me whether, if I went over to Peking, there might be an election here. Do you know what he said to me? He said, "As far as I am concerned, you can go to Peking and go to hell". That was the clearest answer that I have ever had from him. For his edification I had to point out to him that in the hereafter I expect to be up there, but I said that we will not be in the same constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I placed before you a few generalities. Now I will deal, not with the economy, because it has been dealt with by my leader with exceptional ability, but I will deal with certain matters that have caused the people of this country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John George Diefenbaker: I said that I was going to deal with the economy, but I am not, because it has been fully dealt with already. However, I do not think that Canadian people fully realize what a spendthrift government there is in existence. The Prime Minister speaks of restraint. Last year the deficit was $13 billion. This year it is expected to go as high as $15 or $16 billion. It will take years for this country to re-establish itself in so far as national finance is concerned. The government has earned the description of "Trudeau squandermania". That is what it has done, and that is why the Prime Minister leaves the House so quickly, because he knows he cannot face a debate. It is easy for him to make general statements, but 1 would have liked the opportunity to ask him some questions so that he could answer them immediately.
I come now to a question that is of great concern to me, and that is the monarchy. He has endeavoured all through the years to destroy the monarchy and to bring about a republic in Canada. The other day in the House he stated, as reported at page 37 of Hansard:
We are repeating, Mr. Speaker, and we have said it since 1968, that this is the intention. The intention was explained to Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace by the then minister of justice and she saw it that way too.
That statement is false, because the Queen must accept whatever recommendation her prime minister has made. To pretend that she was in favour of this indicates on his part a desire to contravene the basic principles of parliamentary government. Now he says that he does not intend to have the right hon. member for Prince Albert along with the Leader of the Opposition misinterpret his views as to what he intends to do. If that were true I would be the first to admit it.
Let us look at the views of Senator Eugene Forsey, a Liberal and one of the great constitutional experts of Canada. He said, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of July 24, 1978:
-he will fight Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's proposed constitutional changes to the limit.
Mr. Forsey... called the constitutional package such a "weird concoction" ... Mr. Trudeau's proposals would turn Canada into a republic and make the Queen a sort of deputy to the Governor General-
That is the view I have been expressing and that is the view of the constitutional experts.
The Prime Minister set out to get rid of the Senate because he knows he cannot abolish the monarchy and have both the House of Commons and the Senate. So, he starts this institution which will be neither fish nor fowl but will end the Senate. Where do the senators stand? I quote from an amendment to the motion by the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution:
That this committee report to the Senate and the House of Commons its concern with the position of the government to the effect that it can proceed unilaterally, that is, by a mere law of parliament, with the provisions of Bill C-60 respecting the Senate of Canada and the position of the Crown, and-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
Let us see how many of the Liberal senators voted yea: Forsey, Fournier, Bird, Denis, Lang, Langlois, Mcllraith and Neiman.
Mr. Mcllraith came into the House of Commons at the same time that I did. He is a man for whom I have had intense admiration all through the years. He never deceived or used double language, and I do not mind being associated with people like that at all. All these Liberals said that the plan was wrong.
The Prime Minister has said that he is going to make the Senate an extinct species. Now, however, he says that he loves the monarchy, that, "Why, the very suggestion that he is trying to tear it down shocks his finer sensibilities". I will read what he had to say, because he has not changed from 1940 to 1978. All through the years it has been condemnation of the monarchy. He said on March 5, 1976, while speaking to the provincial congress of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec city in effect that as long as he is around all will be well.
He goes on to say that there are three sides to the constitutional question. There is a division of powers that we have not been able to solve, there is the amending formula, but most important of all there is what people call the repatriation. Basically, this means we are going to take away from England, the United Kingdom, this foreign country, although it is a friend-he actually goes that far-the right to make laws for Canadians. They have never made any laws for Canadians; the British North America Act simply provides that the amendments asked for by the Parliament of Canada will be accepted. In the next sentence he says:
Do you think that the Queen of England will tell Bourassa: admit that Trudeau is right or tell me, admit that Bourassa is right? ... We must agree to tell the English to stop making laws for us.
That is a dastardly statement and very false.
I am going to get the constitution back and when I get it back we'll be able to form in this country a new kind of government and I shall be the first to appoint the first President of Canada in the person of Jules Leger, or of Hughes Lapointe.
That is what he said. That is his purpose. The other day he falsified his position, because he can turn somersaults faster than anyone who has ever occupied the position of prime minister.
What does he do? He gets caught and, whenever he gets caught, he follows Machiavelli who is referred to as his patron. Machiavelli says if you have to change your views, people forget. He says today he will get the constitution back, but let me read what he said on May 20, 1964. He and the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), he and a group of French Canadian intellectuals, produced a manifesto, translated by Michael Pitfield who is today, among other things, the secretary of the Privy Council.
The derangement resulting from nationalism is particularly revealed today by the exaggerated importance given by our leading citizens to constitutional problems.
Constitutional problems in Canada are far from being so serious or so important as some would have us believe. The obstacles to economic progress, to
October 17, 1978

full employment, to an equitable welfare scheme or even to the development of French culture in Canada, are not principally the result of the Canadian Constitution.
The restraints are not judicial but social and economic in nature. It is an exaggerated conception of the power of the written word that believes that these restraints will be wiped away as a result of mere constitutional change, whatever its magnitude.
The so-called building of a new constitutional structure is as futile as a a huge game of blocks and the effort devoted at the present time to debating such a reform takes up a great deal of energy that could be profitably spent in solving much more fundamental problems in our society.
Take your choice; one statement today, another tomorrow.
I am going to make a prediction, Mr. Speaker, and I do not often do that. He is scared out of his wits over the Senate. He is frightened. Those senators-Forsey, almost immortal while yet a mortal-and others who stood with him-I have named some of them and there are more-they have him frightened. I have no doubt whatever that one of these days he will withdraw that portion of the so-called constitutional package connected with the Senate.
What else is he going to do? No longer is there going to be a cabinet. It is not going to be called a cabinet but a council of state. That is the French expression.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair sought unanimous consent but there is not unanimous consent. I therefore recognize the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard).


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Le depute de Longueuil.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister runs for cover because the government does not want to hear the rest of it.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman's time has expired, I should like to raise a question of privilege. With all due respect to the right hon. gentleman whom I have heard speak many times, and whose views I respect, as well as his wisdom, and I want to compliment him on his remarks, some references were made to Her Majesty, the Queen, our sovereign. There are many on this side, a lot of us on this side, who have a very deep love for Her Majesty, and the things said today by the right hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: -are true. I quoted the Prime Minister exactly.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: One second please. I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that when quotations are taken from speeches-
The Address-Mr. Allard


John George Diefenbaker: I took it from the Prime Minister's own statement in Quebec-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I understand that the right hon. gentleman did that. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I therefore also quote from the Prime Minister's speech?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. minister seeks the floor on a question of privilege but I have doubts as to the validity of the question. I do not think the hon. minister was attacked in any way. If he has something to bring forward at a later time to clarify a point with which he is in disagreement with the previous speaker, we may consider that, but right now I do not regard this as a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John George Diefenbaker: What are you so frightened of over there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski.


Mrs. Sauve:: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras).


Jeanne Sauvé: Will you allow a question, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: No questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I just recognized the President of the Treasury Board.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I thought the hon. member was seeking the floor on a point of order. I had already recognized the hon. member for Rimouski.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the throne speech debate. Like the previous speakers, I would like first of all to congratulate the co-movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. members for York South (Mrs. Appol-loni) and for Verdun (Mr. Savard). I also wish to express my admiration for His Excellency the Governor General and Madame Leger who performed their duties with a selflessness and a simplicity that warmed the hearts of all Canadians. I also want to congratulate the new generation of House of Commons pages. 1 hope that every one of us will give them the attention they deserve.

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Allard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the rhetoric and the criticisms aimed by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Leader of the Opposition. While we were beginning to see the right hon. Prime Minister as a financial wizard going into battle, as he has said so often in English, with his three weapons, the three Rs, that is Restraint, Reallocation and Renewal, we now discover a philosopher who tells us about the three Fs, that is the three faculties of the brain: memory, imagination and intelligence. He generously granted the first two to the Leader of the Opposition but kept the third for himself. As the saying goes, "Charity begins at home".
Mr. Speaker, the opposition may well have a lot of imagination, but it would perhaps be wise and not such a bad thing if the government also had some. As for memory, since I have been in this House, we have not stopped telling the government what its duty should be in view of the present economic situation. To go on in the same spirit, I would like to speak about what I myself call the three Fs, that is the three failures of the government-unemployment, inflation and the endless federal-provincial conflicts with the federal government imposing its will on everyone without ever trying to obtain a consensus. What is there in this Speech from the Throne that deserves our confidence? After reading it several times, I still wonder where we are going. As concerns the most serious current problem, unemployment, even though we may try reading between the lines, we can foresee little hope of improvement. The government says that it will help the private sector, even though it is badly weakened, to give a new impetus to the economy. We are told that at the summit meeting held in Bonn, Canada committed itself to give work to all Canadians. We are told that the objective of the government employment strategy is to encourage job creation in the private sector. The employment strategy, Mr. Speaker, is something new. At last the government has an employment strategy. We do not know much about the way it works, but there is actually an employment strategy, and that is reassuring, Mr. Speaker. There are 946,000 unemployed in Canada, including 301,000 in Quebec. Given the fact that out of that number 263,000 are going to be withdrawn from unemployment rolls and increase the number of people on welfare, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) still intends to go ahead with his project of cutting expenses, the government of Quebec might find itself, after these cuts, with a substantial additional burden in the area of social assistance. But which type of industries are going to be granted these additional funds that the government is going to invest in job creation? That is the big question. Heavy industry, oil industry and major industrial centres. What will happen to economically underprivileged areas like mine, and the whole Gaspe area? I would like to quote the Quebec minister of labour who said on September 7 last:

The funds intended for those programs could be directed toward the areas most likely to attact them, namely Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
The dilemma would be that the benefits of 90,000 unemployed Quebeckers would remain in Ottawa and end up in the richer provinces. We had a small example recently in the Ford Company which located in Ontario with a subsidy of $68 million. So, Mr. Speaker, we should ask the provinces, the
946,000	unemployed, the civil servants or the have-not regions what they think of the government's employment strategy. I think that yesterday about 10 per cent of the people answered flatly what they thought of the government's strategy and the present situation. Of course, the Prime Minister keeps repeating that everything is fine, thank you. Inflation is less severe here than in other countries. We are creating more jobs than any other country. We have a high standard of living. And he throws a bunch of figures our way, as he did in Winnipeg on September 18, and as he did once again in the House last week, telling us that 91 per cent of households in Canada have hot water, 90 per cent have showers, and 29 per cent have home freezers. And then he tells us that he has figures on flush toilets and sewers.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to be more serious than that. It is not a matter of knowing whether Canadians have outhouses or flush toilets but of knowing whether there will be jobs for our 946,000 unemployed. That unemployment is the very consequence of the economic slump we have been in for the past ten years. There will always be politicians like the Prime Minister to tell us that in spite of staggering unemployment, runaway inflation, a weak private sector, bankruptcies, endless labour conflicts, like at the Post Office, government quarrels like that sales tax business which made us lose two months in sterile debates, to tell us that in spite of all that, everything is fine.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out once again the growing gap between have and have-not regions. Last Friday the hon. member for Matane (Mr. de Bane), depicted a gloomy picture of the real situation in the Gaspe Peninsula. It is a sad reality, Mr. Speaker. What the hon. member from Matane tried to tell people in the area is that because they have been blindly loyal to an old party, particularly the Liberal party during the last 30 years, they should stop voting Liberal and change their political philosophy if they want to see better days. Indeed all the difficulties they are now facing, including unemployment and inflation, are the prize they get for their faithful loyalty to the old party, particularly to the Liberal party.
It is altogether inconceivable that budget cutbacks concerning government offices and unemployment benefits shold not be used to launch some make-work program. According to a Statistics Canada report, eastern Quebec had a 15 per cent unemployment rate. If we want to be more realistic, we should talk about an actual and permanent unemployment rate of 25
October 17, 1978

per cent. In some municipalities 50 per cent of the labour force is idle. That is because of lack of economic planning, investments, basic equipment, closing of plants, seasonal activities and so on. Those are some of the reasons for our difficulties.
For instance, in eastern Quebec we have mining, forest and marine resources that can we develop only if we have a share of foreign markets. The few industries and mines we have either reduced their production or ceased their operations because of that lack of opportunities. Many sawmills have closed down. As concerns fisheries, Gaspe does not benefit from the 200-mile limit as its industry is still based on inshore fishing. This is why this morning I put a question to the minister and proposed a motion asking him to maintain the 2 cents a pound subsidy to the Atlantic coast fishermen.
The tourism industry has a period of operation of no more than two months which tends to discourage potential investors. What hopes have we left if the government does not offer a tax incentive policy to industries that might be tempted to open plants in those areas? Not only is our unemployment rate the highest in the province of Quebec but it is also the highest in Canada according to the latest figures published by Statistics Canada. We are the champions of unemployment, a title we share without any pride with another Quebec region, Abitibi-Temiscamingue. This situation has many serious economic and human effects. Lives are ruined, opportunities are lost, there is bitterness, shame and we even had suicides. The economic consequences are very serious too: the loss of a countless number of man-years, a heavier welfare and unemployment insurance burden. It is the same on the social aspect: exodus of young people, the aging of the population and poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I have dealt almost exclusively with unemployment as I consider this problem crucial and urgent if we want to ensure the economic future of our country which is looking ever less promising. Unemployment reaching alarming proportions, inflation, the fall of our dollar, the highest interest rates in our history, those are many reasons for concern. And the right hon. Prime Minister tries to convince us that nevertheless everything is fine. I know that the Prime Minister has made several trips to the eastern Quebec region and admired all the natural beauties of Gaspe. I strongly suggest he should go back to our area and discover that other Gaspe peninsula he does not seem to know. Hopefully he will come back with other figures than those concerning flush toilets. We have good people, people with a lot of memory, a sincere memory, creative imagination and fruitful and honest intelligence, people still haunted by promises of a just society.
[DOT] (M32)


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) who moved concurrence in the throne speech. Thousands of Canadians heard that speech filled with sincere hope and dignity. That speech, made by the hon. member from York
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
South in the name of millions of citizens who also chose to emigrate to Canada, where they could have a full measure of human dignity and civil liberties, reminded us we need real strength rather than dead wood, Canada needs enthusiasm and belief rather than apathy to keep on developing its potential. I am so much prouder of that contribution that as a member I also repesent a constituency with a number of ethnic groups. They chose Canada for the same reasons. Some wanted to escape the tyranny of certain dictatures, others came because their home had been threatened or destroyed by wars, or to flee racism. Whatever the reason or reasons for leaving their country of origin and coming to a new country, there is unanimity that Canada offers them the opportunity of full development.
This is why on October 8, 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau tabled in the House a document on the main programs related to maintaining and developing multiculturalism across Canada. This document contained the decisions taken by the Liberal government following the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. By creating a department to implement the recommendations made by the commission, the Liberal party proves that multiculturalism in a bilingual framework seems the best way to preserve the cultural freedom of Canadians. Thanks to this type of policy, discrimination and jealousy between different cultures should be eliminated. If national unity is to have a deep personal impact, it has to be based on each individual's feelings about his own identity. This might pave the way for mutual respect and views sharing among Canadians. A dynamic policy on multiculturalism will help us acquire this self confidence which could be the linchpin of a society which would guarantee equality and respect to all its people.
Consequently, I would like to point out that the Liberal government considers that multiculturalism in a bilingual society contributes to ensure the individual his freedom of choice.

I would like to point out a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) relating to this important matter. 1 quote from a Canadian Press news report on the front page of the December 30, 1977, edition of the Toronto Star, under the headline "Joe Clark: Here's what I would do if I were PM" The following paragraph will be of concern to all Canadians on non-English, non-French origin:
Clark vowed to reorganize and trim the federal bureaucracy. He said he would take a hard look at abolishing the departments of fitness and amateur sport, multiculturalism and urban affairs.
That is the official statement by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the importance of multiculturalism.
[ Translation]
We are free to be ourselves but we cannot rely on chance, we must protect and seek that freedom. If it is jeopardized

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
among some ethnic groups, it can be jeopardized everywhere. In Canada and in the world, liberalism rests on the protection of the rights of the individual. Individuals will be able to attain maximum fulfillment only if they are allowed to fully exercise their rights in a climate of freedom and equality, the very idea of liberalism. Personal freedom, political freedom, equality and economic justice are all conditions favouring and garan-teeing those rights. They are at the core of the concern of the supporters of liberalism and the main subject of attention on the part of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The government, in creating the position of a minister responsible for multiculturalism, wish to encourage the development of our various ethnic groups, recognizing their contribution to the fabric of the Canadian nation. It is obvious that success in the development of such a program depends on the co-operation of the provinces as well. In my opinion, a legislation such as Bill 101 in Quebec does nothing to support the objectives pursued by the Canadian government. I seriously wonder about that and it seems that unfortunately this legislation tends to polarize French-speaking Canadians against English-speaking Canadians, not only in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, but across Canada. We just have to listen to comments, to read editorials and to study our financial pages to realize the importance of this situation.
Canada is now at the crossroads. It is regrettable to think that the future of this extraordinary country, a country where freedom is part of our heritage owing to various people who settled here, can be jeopardized by a possible separation of Quebec, a possibility which I hope will be rejected by the majority of Quebeckers who are looking for security, for the protection of their democratic freedoms, for social stability and for economic progress and by all those who intend to live from coast to coast in their own way, and as fully as possible, sharing Canadian wealth together.
The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) who has had the privilege to second the Address in Reply to Speech from the Throne has made us aware of the matters which concern his voters, of the particular interest he has for the elderly and of the importance of a continued improvement by joint efforts with the provinces, in the services to which they are entitled in the field of housing, transportation and medical care.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and some of his colleagues and I have been disappointed by the rather gray image they cast throughout Canada. They project the image of a country plagued with unemployment by not mentioning the fact that 240,000 new jobs have been created in Canada every year over the past five years. Members of the opposition are much quieter and even mute when it comes to explaining the causes and suggesting remedies.
This situation must be clearly straightened out. Let us quote figures, absolute figures. One must consider that the labour force has grown by 308,000 in 1977 and 248,000 in 1976, which represents an increase of 3 per cent for 1977 and of 2.5 per cent for 1976.
Between 1965 and 1970, while the overall Canadian population increased by 1.6 per cent, the labour force expanded by 3.3 per cent. Between 1970 and 1975, the total population went up by 1.4 per cent while the labour force, people coming onto the labour market for the first time, grew by 3.5 per cent.
What are the projections for the period from 1981 to 1986? The total population is expected to go up by 1.3 per cent and the labour force by 1.7 per cent. In other words, a decline of more than 50 per cent in the labour force over the previous years. Statistics reveal that by 1985 we will probably experience a labour shortage.
Three quarters of this increase can be traced to the growing number of people old enough to work, the rest can be explained by the higher participation rate. Adult women in 1977 were the most important group in the 131,000 increase in the labour force; these women joined for most legitimate reasons, but they nevertheless increased its size. In other words, the labour force expands faster in Canada than in any other country in the world.
In a particularly difficult world situation we can proudly say that this country-every Canadian not only governments-has done as much, if not more, to create jobs and personal revenues, growth, development and investment as others in most countries of the world. But that has not been enough. Canada's performance has been remarkable compared with those of all OECD countries, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which includes North America, Western Europe and Japan, and that was done in spite of the days lost through strikes in 1976, when we registered a loss of some 11,609,890 work days. We were one of the most affected countries in the world at that time and if we look at the situation in 1977, this figure was down to 3,829,750 days lost, which represents a rather significant improvement for 1978. Therefore we hope Canadians and unions will co-operate so we can continue to improve this situation.
On October 12, the right hon. Prime Minister quoted a series of statistics to establish a comparison with the United States and other OECD countries as regards job creation, social policies, real available net income per person living in Canada as compared with our American neighbour while the real disposable income per inhabitant increased from 100 to 151.9 per cent taking 1968 as the base year. In the United States that real net income increased from 100 to 124 per cent. Therefore, it means that we are ahead of our American friends. I do not intend to tell you that everything is for the best and that the government is not conscious of concerns in Canada.

October 17, 1978

The eight-point plan announced by the Prime Minister on August 1 last on his return from the Bonn summit conference and the contents of the Speech from the Throne make up an emergency plan for action combining several aspects of the government policy. It advocates speeding up action rather than taking a leap in the dark. It finally shows that the government is strongly determined to take imaginative measures recognizing that the priorities should be shifted, advocating restraint in government expenditures, the reallocation of funds in our social schemes and the renewal of funds used to urge private enterprise to create permanent jobs.
As for restraint, the government of Canada has always been blamed for the expansion of its budget. I have myself discussed during a review in committee the reasons warranting such and such an expenditure or questioned departmental officials about increased staff. I even asked for the establishment of productivity standards through an annual assessment of the staff, which is made today. You were right in making such a criticism. I was also right when I asked questions to the officials of various departments. We decided to reduce public expenditures by $500 million this year already and by $2 billion next year. For some people, it is not enough but it is an enormous amount for those who are affected. It was not easy if you consider the distribution of those funds.
For your information, let me point out that in the years 1961-1976 the distribution of the increases at the various levels of government as a percentage of the gross national product was as follows. In 1961, all the expenditures of the federal, provincial and municipal governments amounted to 30.8 per cent of the GNP whereas in 1976, they represented 40.3 per cent, an increase of 9 per cent. Now, let us have a look at federal expenditures including transfer payments to the provinces. That proportion was around 18 per cent in 1961 and became 20.2 per cent in 1976-an increase of only 2 per cent. Let us have a look now, if you want, at the increase in spendings at provincial and municipal government levels, excluding transfers. In 1961, these spendings represented 12.7 per cent of the gross national product whereas in 1976 they represented 20.1 per cent, that is an increase of 7.4 per cent. These figures may seem too high, but I think that public expenditures are also high. Here again, let us be careful before charging Ottawa for that situation, before thinking that all these finds are going to public servants who have nothing to do, or that it is just wasted money. Let us give back to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, especially when Caesar has slowed down that alarming trend.
One sometimes hears certain people make comparisons with the situation in the United States, be it about taxation or other fields where Americans show a much more glossy picture than ours in the area of public expenses. Let us not forget that the main difference between Canadian and U.S. public service figures lies in the fact that health care in Canada rests with the public sector whereas in the United States it rests mostly
The Address-Mr. M. Roy
with the private sector, which accounts in the United States for a difference of 5 per cent to 6 per cent of their gross national product.
So I revert to this fact: for fiscal year 1975-76, federal payments to individuals amounted to $7.7 billion, of which almost 90 per cent paid as old age pensions, guaranteed income supplement, family allowances or unemployment insurance benefits-in fact, payments to individuals, to all Canadians, represent 22.8 per cent of the total federal budget.
We therefore had to cut back expenses without raising all sorts of objections, and we have redistributed funds among the lower income earners. This amendment allowed us to increase the garanteed income supplement by $20 a month per family, and some 3.3 million people will benefit from this measure. As the time allotted me is limited, I will not be able to complete the outline concerning family allowances, which have also been reviewed with a view to redistributing funds. I would recommend reading the leaflet that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) will send and in which she gives all the advantages and changes that have been brought to the family allowance program. Changes were also required in unemployment insurance. There are some people out of work who are really looking for a job, we are aware of that. However, upon further examination of the situation of unemployed people in Quebec, we have found that over 75 per cent of households affected by unemployment earn wages, that is to say, they have two sources of income, unemployment insurance benefits and wages which were not declared.
In fact, the latest data published by Statistics Canada on unemployment indicate that out of the 243,000 families, or
270.000	people, affected by unemployment in Quebec in the month of August, 184,000 had one or more sources of income and in 165,000 families, the breadwinner had work. This means that 59,000 families had no income at all, including
16.000	childless families. So we brought changes in the unemployment insurance scheme precisely to stimulate the development of Canada a little more.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with industry. I more particularly wish to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) for the initiative he took when he was minister of industry, trade and commerce by talking the cabinet into signing the agreement with Canadair, an initiative that allowed hundreds of people of Laval and Montreal to work in the aeronautical industry and to participate in the development of the well known Challenger jet aircraft now being built by Canadair. That was a very important initiative for the metropolitan Montreal area, since 70 per cent of the total number of manufacturing jobs in the province of Quebec are concentrated in Montreal and since the economic health of the city has a considerable influence on the over-all economy of the province.
In the manufacturing industry, the jobless rate in Quebec has increased by 50,000, 41,000 of whom in the Montreal

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
area. This proposal is particularly worthy of attention because in the transport and aeronautics industries the Montreal area already has the basic facilities for further development of aircraft production. It will hopefully become a major centre for the transportation of all kinds of goods throughout North America.
Mr. Speaker, I will strongly support the proposal of the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois), providing for further expansion in the northern area of Montreal in particular in Ste-Therese or the opening of a new Quebec General Motors plant in North Montreal. Considering that the bus plant will be built in Deux-Montagnes and that General Motors has already set up a car factory in Ste-Therese on the North shore, I will strongly support that move and call upon the municipal governments to back this very good proposal which will contribute to developing this sector of the motor industry in the northern part of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who has agreed to designate the city of Laval, and include it in the special Montreal area which is eligible for industrial development grants of up to 25 per cent of the capitalization rate to set up new businesses and 20 per cent more to expand industries already existing, provided these businesses contribute $100,000. Already, Mr. Speaker, five new industries have received offers for a total amount of over one million dollars from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for a total investment of approximately $10 million for the city of Laval.
I see my time is running out, and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I remain optimistic for the future because the government has taken economic measures to meet the present needs, and with the determination of all Canadians, whether they work for private industry or the government or labour unions, we all have a part to play in meeting this challenge, in order to foster a real economic growth which will reflect the aspirations of all Canadians.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my first pleasant duty this afternoon, a matter of tradition in this House, is to congratulate the mover and seconder in this throne speech debate, but although they made excellent speeches they did not seem to influence the by-elections of yesterday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe they did.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friend from Winnipeg says that maybe they did.
I am always very happy to follow the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whom I have known for many years. He is a master in this chamber and one of the top orators who has entered this chamber in my time and, I am sure, in the experience of all others as well as in the experience

of those who were here before me. Having listened today to his witty good humour and noting his penetrating method in debate, there is no doubt that hon. members opposite listened very carefully. However, I must say that I was disappointed in the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) and other backbench members of the Liberal party. When the right hon. gentleman asked for an extension of time, those hon. members said no to a former prime minister of this country. The right hon. member for Prince Albert is the only living former prime minister in this country, and the action of those hon. members was inexcusable.
Yesterday was quite a day. It was the day for by-elections. I suppose this might be a time for some elation and some celebration for our party, but above all it is a time to appreciate the democratic process of government. Many people in Canada, both inside and outside this House, believed that there would be an election last spring or this fall, but for one reason or another the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) lacked the courage necessary to call one. No doubt the people spoke with a loud, clear voice yesterday.
There is one thing about by-elections I like. They can be differentiated from Gallup polls. When voters speak in byelections, the result is accurate, assertive, and assessing. Therein lies the difference between the Gallup poll, which is often used in this nation, and a mini federal election of 15 by-elections. In the by-elections yesterday the people elected ten Progressive Conservatives, two New Democrats, two Liberals, and one Social Credit.
Thousands of words will be spoken and written about yesterday's by-elections, but for the Progressive Conservative party this is a time for sober thought. It is a time to appreciate that as a national party and the party of confederation we are on the verge of forming a new government for Canada. It is a time for us to accept the fact that governing this country will be very difficult. As described by our leader and also by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, at this time Canada is in an economic mess. The whole country seems unsettled, and disunity seems to be found everywhere.
I felt that the Ottawa Journal put it very accurately and adequately as follows:
On the basis of yesterday's returns, that challenge is simply beyond the reach of the Liberals under Mr. Trudeau. He could hardly have been more emphatically rejected than in the decisive loss of all five Liberal seats the party held in Ontario or in the sharp loss of popular vote strength shown across the board. The brave face Mr. Trudeau put on the matter of his personal acceptability as a leader was to be expected. But whether he takes the opportunity to reassess his own position, his party can hardly avoid facing the leadership question, and with urgency-
The result in Ottawa Centre, a smashing victory for the Conservatives, typifies their best hope in the months to come; to attract more high calibre candidates such as Robert de Cotret, and David Crombie who won so well in Rosedale, to leave the voters with no doubt that this is a party getting ready to govern. Finding such candidates will be a great deal easier starting today.
Therefore, I say at the outset, this is the time for this party to assess itself, it is the time to be most responsible and, above all, it is the time to continue-and I use the word advisedly-
October 17, 1978

to be credible, which we are. The proof that we are credible is the voters' confidence which was given to our national leader and to our party yesterday.
This is the time to appreciate our victory, but also the time to be humble-


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is hard now, come on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -because we will have thrust on to us the responsibility for cleaning up the mess of the last ten years.


Mr. Alexander:: Yes, and there is a lot of it, and it is deep.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am proud to say that much credit must be given to our national leader, a young man with great ability and lots of experience, a young man who has served at least two national leaders, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, our former national leader, and a premier, as well as serving his constituency here in the House of Commons. However, I was most disappointed when I heard here the other day the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), a former member of this party, a man whom I know very well, a man whose first nomination was held in Hanna in the constituency of Acadia, where I was guest speaker, now Crowfoot, who, I thought, sank to a new depth when he attacked personally the national leader of our party and referred in particular to his educational qualifications.
If you check very carefully you will see that our national leader has a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Master's degree in Arts. This seems to top the qualifications of the critic from Crowfoot. We do not know what grades he had in high school, but I do know he enjoyed a six weeks' extension course in the school of agriculture at one of the universities. At any rate, I suppose that when we come to discussing education, whether university or other, perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce can take some comfort from the fact that the late Sir Winston Churchill was not a university graduate, in spite of which he was probably one of the greatest leaders the world ever saw at a time of great crisis for the western world.
Now I would like to turn my attention and make some remarks with reference to the administration of justice. I was most disappointed to see that both in the Speech from the Throne and in the recent answers of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) it is evident that the question of law reform is now a forgotten chapter with this government. I should like to review with you, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes the whole subject of crime and its causes.
When crime is on the increase, the notion that it can be described in a single category is erroneous. Violent crimes create a climate of fear in the streets of our growing cities. White collar crime, in economic terms, is much less visible than violent crime. The material cost of crime such as petty theft, consumer fraud, violations of the Combines Investigation Act, or embezzlement, dwarfs all crimes of violence.
Proper laws and proper law enforcement cannot be underestimated in the control of crime, but I have believed for years, not only as a member of parliament, but as a lawyer, that we
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
must launch an attack on the breeding grounds of crime. Crime breeds in the cesspools of injustice and poverty in the urban slums of our fast growing cities. The law must be just to be respected and obeyed. Urban poverty makes people who dwell in these cities the victims, not the masters, of their environment. Bad environment becomes the inheritance of the next generation. In order to launch a major assault on crime, we must attack conditions of despair and the denial of opportunity to people, which result in a growth in the incidence of crime. Today we have one million unemployed in Canada. That is a condition of despair. However, crime still thrives under conditions of affluence, and it is the white collar economic crime which erodes the capitalist system and which promotes more controls and less freedom, as can be observed day by day. In brief, the police, courts and prisons alone cannot control crime. We must also deal with the underlying cause of crime. The immense and stubborn forces pervading our environment determine the quality of our lives and are a challenge to us.
Through long range efforts in a new land of bountiful resources we can conquer poverty, ignorance, disease, discrimination, family breakdown, injustice, social tension, and despair. But while we must strive to approach the causes of crime, we must put our mind to work in a practical way to amend the various sections of the Criminal Code to guarantee that the law is respected and is not shaped and planned so as to protect the rich only and be unjust toward the poor. Crime is a national problem under our constitution, while law enforcement is the provincial and local responsibility. This parliament must direct its processes so as to ensure justice through the Criminal Code. It is for us to bring excellence to every aspect of the administration of justice-to corrections, the courts, and to law enactment in every jurisdiction in Canada.
Let me turn my attention now to the administration of justice. I was disappointed to see that two bills, Bill C-51 and Bill C-52, which were brought forward by the former minister of justice, died on the order paper. Bill C-52 contained the new definition of rape and indecent assault or aggravated indecent assault. Although I cannot say I agree with all the clauses of the bill, I think that the purpose of the bill was good. The purpose of the bill was to correct the procedures of the courts which sometimes allow the victim to suffer more than the accused, and cross-examination procedures which allow the victims to be cross-examined on their past sexual behaviour.
The Council on the Status of Women for Canada met with our committee and with the caucus of our party and discussed that very problem. One of the things they asked was that this parliament take steps to assist victims of rape, a crime which is on the increase in this nation, particularly in the highrises, on parking lots, and in the streets and alleys.
Bill C-51 was a large, omnibus bill. Our all-party committee on justice and legal affairs met to study the question of pornography, and for once members from all parties agreed to a report, because as pornography is defined in the Criminal

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Woolliams
Code under section 159(1) at the present time there have been few convictions. The problem was the meaning of the definition on obscene written matter and whether it met community standards, because the standards of one community can differ from that of another. I could deal with facts in some of those cases in which there were commitals. There are pictures showing the greatest kind of perversion of mankind, but I do not want to get into that.
The point I wish to emphasize is that the definition of pornography under the Criminal Code as it exists is inadequate and does not serve society. If there is a problem I get more letters on, it is the problem of pornography across this nation. It arises in part in the local corner store where young children can go in, sit down and read or see the weirdest kind of pornography dealing with both mature adults and children as young as two and three years of age. One distributor admitted that he made over $1 million in the maritime provinces alone in selling and peddling pornography. He could not tell us what amount was made across Canada because he did not have the figures.
Under that bill we were able to convince the Minister of Justice to change the definition of pornography. Under that bill section 159(8) in the Code was to be repealed. It was defined as follows:
A dominant characteristic of the matter or thing is the undue exploitation of sex, violence, crime, horror, cruelty or the undue degradation of the human person; or
(b) the matter or thing unduly depicts a totally or partially nude child
(i)	engaged or participating in an act or a simulated act of masturbation, sexual intercourse, gross indecency, buggery or bestiality, or
(ii)	unduly displaying any portion of his or her body in a sexually suggestive manner.
That bill died on the order paper. It would seem that this government has now forgotten its mandate, which it thought it had, on reform.
In dealing with the Criminal Code we have referred to the expertise of the Law Commission. It has been sitting for a number of years, and I was very pleased to see Mr. Francis C. Muldoon, QC, a member of the Manitoba Bar, take over the chairmanship. He came before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and I spoke to him. I said that for a number of years the Law Reform Commission has done an excellent job but they have been philosophizing. Every report they put out is philosophical and I felt that it was time they, in spending the $2.5 million of the taxpayers' money they receive for this year, came to grips with some of the amendments in the Criminal Code.
One of the matters which should be looked at is the definition of insanity which determines whether a person is insane or not. This law was written over 100 years ago and is known as the M'Naghten rules. A person is said to be insane if he or she does not know (a) the nature and quality of their act, or (b), if the act is wrong. Surely that should be reviewed in light of new knowledge in psychology and psychiatry.
Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act should be repealed and a new subsection enacted to empower a judge of the

Federal Court or other superior court to decide whether documents should be admitted as evidence in a court of law rather than leaving the matter to be determined by a minister of the Crown. This section has been used in reference to the McDonald inquiry. However, now the government has decided that it will determine what documents this national inquiry will see, that it will make the decisions and keep the facts from this inquiry. How can the inquiry come out with a report that is looking into wrongdoing? We do not know today, particularly when we talk about Section 41(2), what instructions were given by the many solicitors general that have come and gone. In fact they come and go as often as I wear out overcoats.
Laws must be examined, and enacted if necessary, to preserve always the jury trial system in Canada. There is a suggestion from the Law Reform Commission that we do away with juries. In all important cases I believe that every Canadian should have the right to be tried by his peers, and I would not want any other system to develop in this country in our jurisprudence. There has been some recommendation also in reference to the abolition of preliminary hearings in criminal offences. Preliminary hearings must always be preserved in reference to charges under the Criminal Code dealing with serious crimes such as murder, rape or robbery, because it gives the accused's counsel a chance to determine what the Crown has in evidence so that he or she may properly prepare their defence. This eliminates the risk of mistakes, and there are mistakes made.
Divorces are far too costly. The law regarding grounds should be extended and therefore amended to streamline the procedure which will cut the cost to the average person.
All writs of assistance must be renewed every six months by a judge's order, not issued by some bureaucrat or official, to carry any legal force and effect.
I would like now to turn my attention to something which amounts to a complete abuse of law and the fundamental principles of jurisprudence. Parliament in its wisdom-some would question that-enacted legislation to abolish capital punishment. I am not here to discuss the question of capital punishment, I am here to tell the government and the Department of Justice that what they did when they changed the definition of murder and the procedure in dealing with this crime usurps the civil rights of those people charged with the offence under the old definition.
In bringing forth this legislation they changed the definition for the crime of murder. Formerly, murder was described as capital murder and non-capital murder, and it was changed to first degree and second degree murder. In comparing capital murder and first degree murder there is no difference in definition, and the same is true for non-capital murder and second degree murder. The legislation that was approved by this House was described as transitional and came into effect on July 16, 1976, and was to apply to deeds previously committed. Putting it simply, if a person committed an act on Monday and the new law is enacted in reference to the same crime on Friday, how can that person be asked to be a law-abiding citizen?
October 17, 1978

With this new section a person could be committed for trial under the old act, tried and convicted before July 16, 1976, then appeal his case and take it to the court of appeal where it is heard after the new legislation has been enacted. There are three cases that I am aware of like this, two of which I will name, the Pineault case of Ontario and the Budic case of Alberta. The third one is presently before the courts, and I will not mention it because I do not wish to deal with something now before the courts in reference to this question. All three individuals received new trials.
The trap was sprung. Section 27(2) of the Criminal Code which was approved by this House-I was a member at the time but I do not think anyone thought it would be used this way-reads as follows:
Where proceedings in respect of any offence of treason, piracy or murder, whether punishable by death or not, were commenced before the coming into force of this act, and a new trial of a person for the offence has been ordered and the new trial is commenced after the coming into force of this act, the new trial shall be commenced by the preferring of a new indictment-
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? When a person committed an offence before the law was enacted by parliament, he was tried under the old law and found guilty under the old law. The court of appeal directed that the conviction be quashed and a new trial ordered. Then the Crown comes along-when the person has been charged with non-capital murder and is successful in the appeal-and prefers an indictment of first degree murder. This is retroactive legislation of the worst kind and is against all the principles for which jurisprudence ever stood.
I have already referred to Regina vs-. Pineault (1977) 32 CCR, page 391, Court of Appeal of Ontario. I will skip the next one because I know something about it, and it is before the courts. The next one is Regina vs. Budic. The Court of Appeal of Ontario split two to one on the interpretation. It does not say an indictment under the old act or under the new act, and that has never been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada. If you do a deed, no matter how evil, and it is on Monday, surely this parliament in its wisdom should not pass an act on Friday and make it retroactive to what you did on Monday. If that is the law of the land, God help the citizens of this country. This is legislation drafted by this government, brought in by this government, rammed through by this government which is now running slip-shod over people who get new trials in the court of appeal.
The following statement by Mr. Justice Brooks, a dissenting judge in the Pineault case, is the most serious I have read in the administration of justice for many years. He said:
Having regard to the whole of s. 27 of the act, it seems clear that parliament set a cut-off date. It said that after the coming into force of the act all charges of murder would proceed as murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree and an accused not yet tried and one for whom a new trial had been ordered by an appellate court would accordingly be similarly treated. To this extent parliament has declared what is fair and just. However, the important distinction (and really it is a safeguard) is that where a new trial has been ordered the appellate court was under a duty when directing the new trial to make any order that Justice requires. It is the presence of this obligation that is perhaps an answer to Mr. Greenspan's submission that his man's successful
Business of the House
exercise of his right of appeal from his conviction for non-capital murder is no more than a sham.
In other words, if a person appeals to the court of appeal on a serious charge of non-capital murder and obtains a new trial, he is in worse shape than had he never appealed at all, even if there is a mistake in law or a mistake in evidence. That is what we call retroactive law. This has not reached the Supreme Court of Canada. There may not be many cases on the point.
Another change in the Criminal Code is that you can only appeal from a conviction or acquittal, so that means you cannot go to the Supreme Court of Canada on a motion. Mr. Justice Brooks also said:
Having regard to what has happened in this case and for the reasons which I have stated, I think the court should act and direct that the new trial be upon an indictment which charges the appellant with second degree murder and I would so order.
However, the other two judges decided the other way. So I say that for a person who committed an evil act before this legislation became law, if he is successful in appeal, the retroactive legislation means he finds himself charged on an indictment of first degree murder, rather than second degree murder as punishment for winning his appeal. If that is the law of Canada, I do not even want to be an honorary pallbearer at its funeral.
Mr. Driedger, the director of legislation for the federal government, has said:
A retroactive statute is one that operates as of a time prior to its enactment. A retrospective statute is one that operates for the future only. It is prospective but it imposes new results in respect of a past event.
He goes on to say that retroactive legislation should never apply to criminal matters. If there is any ambiguity, it should lean toward the citizen rather than the state.
Finally, this new law, in the guise of abolishing capital punishment, appears to have changed the whole process of the fundamental principle of justice, that a person must know the law as he sits, as he walks, as he runs, and as he acts, not some law that comes into force after the fact. I ask the House to take a hard look at that.
I want to deal with one more thought, if I have time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time expired at 3.28 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the House leaders of every party, it has been agreed that at four o'clock this afternoon we will interrupt the current debate and proceed with second reading of Bill C-8, an act to provide for the

October 17, 1978
Business of the House
resumption and continuation of postal services and that the motion include a provision stating that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House. That is the unanimous consent we have reached so far.


Walter David Baker: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. We are ready to begin debate now, if that be the case, but 1 understand it is necessary we begin at four o'clock. That is agreeable to us. The matter of moving into committee of the whole is also agreeable to us.
I should point out, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary could indicate it to the government House leader, that if we reach the stage during the course of the day we are prepared to consent to move immediately into third reading of the bill. If that is disposed of tonight we are prepared to agree now to extend the time of the House this evening in order that this parliament get on with the job of restoring postal service to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council is correct, namely, that there is agreement among all of us to commence the debate on second reading of Bill C-8 at four o'clock and that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House.
I suggest that any consent or agreement that might be needed for other stages should wait until we reach those stages. There could also be the question of what would happen to the vote on the Conservative motion that was scheduled for tonight. At this point we are prepared to commence the second reading debate at four o'clock as stated by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we have agreed to hold a debate at four o'clock. I do not know whether we want to start the discussion earlier than that, however we were ready for four o'clock in order to refer the bill to the House committee and at least try to put the question tonight.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the point I think I should inform you that there have been some informal discussions between the government House leader and myself as to the appropriate time and method by which we should settle the time to deal with the vote on our amendment in the throne speech debate. That matter is under active discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: At the moment the House has been asked for, and 1 take it has given, its consent for second reading of Bill C-8 to commence consideration at four o'clock. That point is now settled by consent, and so ordered.

It is also agreed that the motion which will be taken under consideration is a motion that the bill be read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole House. Insofar as other consents which may be required to deal with the matter are concerned, those consents will arise at the time when those stages are reached. The subject of the vote which is set for 9.45 is under discussion, and presumably the House can be informed as early as possible as to what arrangements will be made with respect to that vote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I just rise to express the hope that any discussions about the timing of the other vote should be among all four House leaders and not just between two of them.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Clark) (p. 27).
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is appropriate to say, if at first you do not succeed try, try, try again. First of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) as mover, and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard) as seconder of the motion, both of whom spoke with compassion and clarity. I was very proud to have them as members of the House and members of my party.
The events of last night and the clear knowledge that we are facing an election within the next few months are very evident to all of us. I would like to say at the beginning of my comments that, be that as it may, this parliament must work in the meantime. 1 want to speak this afternoon with what I feel will be considerable candour. As my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), stated we will be having a budget in November. Today I would like to place before the House some facts on the fiscal position of the government so that we may all, in our responsibilities as parliamentarians representing whatever party, have that knowledge when we consider what might or might not be done three or four weeks from now, and indeed from now until the spring, in meeting our responsibilities collectively for the Canadians we represent.
1 was tempted to divert from those comments, but I will not go too far, by the incident that took place when I tried to speak previously, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made some comments before the end of his remarks.
October 17, 1978

I would like to say that there was some outrage felt here about the personal comments concerning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which I think were taken out of context and which were registered by my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I will deal with another comment which the right hon. member made and which I do not feel is personally outrageous, but incorrect, when he stated that the borrowings of the government last year were $13 billion, I believe he said, when in fact they were $7 billion. As well he forecast $15 to $16 billion in borrowings this year. Instead they will be $11.8 billion. I suggest to you that that inaccuracy is equal to the inaccuracy of his comments about the Prime Minister's views on the constitution, which the Prime Minister clearly set forth when he spoke so eloquently here the other day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: I will resist the temptation of further diversion because in the time that is available 1 want to set forth some views and some facts that I have. The economic problems we face are international in scope. Governments all over the world are grappling with inflation, with unemployment, with trade problems, and with currency difficulties.
No industrial nation that I know of is isolated from the other industrial nations, and indeed nor is Canada. Objectively we are doing better than most, but Canadians are concerned and we are concerned. We are concerned as a government, and as members of parliament, about the persistent and pervasive nature of continuing inflation, unemployment, growth below our potential, and currency devaluation; we know the litany.
These days it seems economic theories that were well accepted are being challenged, be they Keynes or even our old friend Adam Smith, Freidman, Samuelson or whoever. It is my experience that if there are ten economists in the room, eleven different ideas of what should be done will be voiced. Governments in Canada of all stripes and at all levels since the 1960s have been intervening increasingly in the private sector. We see more spending, and more regulations. The growth of government in many people's view has begun to encroach, psychologically if not substantively, and it has begun to stifle the initiative of the private sector. The curious thing is that even with this growth in spending of governments, hon. members should know from their analysis and research that tax revenues have not kept pace with spending. This government is not alone in that case. Government spending at all levels in Canada, federal, provincial and municipal, is on the same scale.
In 1961, about 15 or 16 years ago, collectively in our various administrations we took about 31 per cent and spent about 31 per cent of the gross national product. By 1976 in Canada that figure had reached 40.3 per cent, an increase of 9.5 per cent, of the economy going through government hands, federal, provincial and municipal. The federal government, including the transfer payments to the provinces, accounted for 2.1 per cent of that 9.5 per cent. And the other levels of government,
The Address-Mr. Andras
even before the effect of transfers to them, actually spent the money and accounted for 7.4 per cent.
If you exclude the transfer payments to the provincial governments, that money we collected through the federal tax revenue system and sent by way of cheques to the provincial governments, our share of that 9.5 per cent increase in the GNP was 0.5 per cent their's was 9 per cent. I do not say that as a criticism of the provincial and municipal governments. Indeed, let us be honest about it. Some of these programs for which we transferred funds were initiated at the federal level, medical and that kind of thing. Nevertheless we have to put the facts before us, and hopefully before Canadians as they judge this question of taxation and spending. It is important to know where that distribution is. It is also interesting in terms of the arguments of centralization and decentralization in this country.
That is where the spending increase took place in the main, at the provincial and municipal levels. And incidentally those seem like small percentages, that 0.5. I often hear that our expenditures have gone from $16 billion to $50 billion-"Isn't that shocking"? and "Indeed that is startling." But nobody adds to that that next year the gross national product of this country will be $250 billion. It has to have a form of relativity, one to the other. It is the standard, internationally speaking, by which government expenditures are judged. That is the relative position vis-a-vis the national economy. It is not the only criteria by which spending should be judged, by any stroke of the imagination. Efficiency, effectiveness and value for money are very good things. But in the macroeconomic effect of it that is the standard by which internationally, governments are judged in terms of their spending.
Even with that increase to which I have referred, which in my view was too much and too rapid, we are still in the low quarter of western industrialized countries as to the degree of public spending. I am talking about governments collectively. At any rate we have certainly contributed, as a federal government and in this House too, in my view and that of many others, to too rapid a growth.
It took place in the main in the period 1972 to 1975, a very responsive and quite expensive period of minority government. We were increasing our spending year by year at a rate which was clearly unsustainable. However, in 1976, and the facts are there, we changed course. We made a public commitment to reduce the growth of our spending to something below the growth in our economy, the gross national product.
I am talking about spending including transfer payments to the provinces, to people, budgetary, non-budgetary, capital, non-capital spending, the total over-all cash flow of the government. We met that commitment in 1976, 1977 and 1978, and we will meet it in 1979.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hogan:: What about unemployment?


Robert Knight Andras: I will come to that. It is a legitimate question.

October 17, 1978
The Address-Mr. Andras
Spending by governments and taxation by governments is of concern to the populace. Proposition 13 in California is not as alien or foreign as it may be considered by virtue of not being in this country.
More recently, spending in Canada by governments received more attention by virtue of the fact that in August we announced certain steps to cut our expenditures more significantly than we had up until then. I am quite aware of the cynicism as to, first of all, is it the right policy. I know that the New Democratic Party, I think in sincerity, might challenge as to whether it is or is not. Others challenge it through general cynicism.
I know there is cynicism as to whether the cuts are real or not. In the few minutes left to me I would like to establish why I and my colleagues believe it is the right policy and is necessary. I hope we will not have to waste a lot more time as to whether the cuts are real or not. I do not think the people in Ottawa have much doubt about that.
That was not a recent conversion on the road to Damascus. It began as a policy stated, followed through, committed and met in 1976. Granted, on August 1 it escalated and took on considerably more significance. About two or three years ago in a white paper called "The Way Ahead" we said that we had come to the conclusion that it was time the government backed off a little from the private sector, stopped stifling them and began giving them more room.
We had a series of ex-budgets and cuts, three or four which I, as President of the Treasury Board during my regime, had to administer, and a couple that my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, had to administer. I grant you that in those times and at those stages we were trying to make those reductions and that restraint as painless as possible. It is not a natural instinctive desire on the part of governments to cut back. None of us came to parliament simply to balance books. We all came to try and do something.
In our wisdom in those days, we put programs together which we thought were right. Collectively, I am afraid, they added up to an overkill and so we had to cut back. We were doing it as painlessly as possible.
On April 1 of this year, the April problem I call it, my people did a tally for me about the inexorable and inevitable growth of spending for next year. As I said publicly, my hair went white. It was far too high. It would have broken through the commitment to stay within the GNP trend line. Something significant had to be done.
We began right away, with full concurrence of my cabinet colleagues, to begin the cutbacks. They were larger than in the past. We had achieved a fair amount of that by the time the August 1 date came along. However, it was slow, painful, and somewhat tenuous as to whether we were going to get that last few hundred million we figured we needed to get to certain ceilings we had agreed to at that stage, ceilings which I felt at that time were still too high.
The Prime Minister returned from Bonn, having had the opportunity to talk with leaders of other countries, probably in

private, commiserating on similar problems, saying what in the devil do we do about this? They talked frankly with each other away from the glare of the television spotlight, away from newspaper reporters and everybody else. There were discussions.
When the Prime Minister returned, he called me and said that we had to go further than we had planned. I subscribed to that position. He made it public that we were going to fulfil our commitment, that we were going to get our spending levels in line as we publicly committed in August. Indeed, our objective at that time was to go even further, because to get to lower spending ceilings was not enough. It did not give us one dime to reroute, reorder and put into new and more required initiatives of the current needs of this country, funding for new programs that we thought were necessary. Therefore we went further and rerouted another billion or so dollars back into the system in certain ways.
We took $500 million off this year to cut our ceiling to $48,300 million. We have taken $2 billion off for next year to get from $54,600 million to $52,600 million.
I have talked about inexorable growth, the inevitable spending levels that would have hit us. People say we are setting up a straw figure of $54,600 million simply to knock down, so that we can say we cut it. Not so. We have built into federal spending some inevitable growth pressures by law and federal-provincial contract.
Let me describe spending in four main areas. We have hundreds of programs. We cut or modified 189. I refer to transfer payments, transfers to persons, UIC, old age security, family allowance and the like, as well as transfers to the provinces, established program financing, equalization payments, post-secondary education, medical care and that kind of thing.
Those are the programs that are growing. Those are the programs that have absolutely the highest degree of commitment that parliament can give. As we know, our social programs, transfers to persons, are by law indexed to the cost of living. That is the least of the escalation formulas.
Many of our contractual obligations to the provinces are contractually committed to growth escalation formulae, the nominal growth of the gross national product which includes real growth and inflation. Socially, that may be right or that may be wrong. However, it is very, very expensive, and it is there as a commitment.
Let me give a sense of the degree in terms of the $52,600 million ceiling next year. Half of it, $26 billion, will be in transfer payments. The over-all annual growth rate of the transfer payment portion of our expenditures, where we collect taxes and send cheques, is around 10 per cent. It varies from about 9.8 per cent to 11 per cent on some of them. That huge portion of our expenditures carries with it legislative or contractual commitment to escalation formulas.
You cannot cut those back unilaterally. They take legislative amendment and we are going to propose some of those, or they take negotiations with the provinces and we have indicated to
October 17, 1978

the provinces that we must sit down together and jointly try to get this thing in line, not vindictively I hope but practically for this country. We hope they will see, as we see, that it is time to make some of these adjustments.
I now come to the servicing of the public debt. Anybody who blithely says today, "Spend more", or "Consider tax cuts", had better clearly understand thay every dime of that will be borrowed money. I regret the statements by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and his leader over the last little while about the $16 billion deficit. It is not true and, in my view, is damaging. Nevertheless, $11.7 billion is not peanuts, and interest on that has to be paid. We are going to have a $9.7 billion cash requirement next year even with the lower ceilings.
In 1973 we indexed taxation downwards; revenue is indexed downwards and expenditures are indexed upwards. Thus we were accumulating deficits over the past few years in a Keynesian application which, in my view, is no longer working. So when we talk next year, or when we get to budget time, about stimulating the economy, let us together as parliamentarians face this one fact, and make our decisions with this one fact before us, that we are borrowing money at interest rates which, as we know, are currently high, and that more of that borrowing is in the 20-year markets. So it is our children and grandchildren we are talking about, and that public debt service cost is accounting for more and more of our gross expenditures. So we are being squeezed. Hon. members should bear this in mind when we, as parliamentarians of any party, consider what should be done in the area of stimulation by the federal government one way or another.
I also want to say that the end-effectiveness is probably unsustainable at some stage in the kind of expenditure cuts we are making. I have had the painful and difficult task of assuming some responsibility for the $2 billion cuts scheduled for next year and the $500 million for this year, in addition to other cuts we have made. I tell you frankly, Mr. Speaker, that because of the nature of the commitments under transfer payments and because of the inevitability of debt repayment, unless we are to go bankrupt these cuts can only be made at the expense of the direct operations of the federal government in the field of transportation and so on which come clearly under federal jurisdiction.
Next year, out of the $4.3 billion increase in spending, something like $2.5 billion will be in the transfer payments and around $1.5 billion in the interest charges. I invite hon. members to do a little arithmetic and see how much room there is left for an increase in the operations of the federal government itself, or even for the maintenance of direct federal programs. Only 0.8 per cent of the increase in our spending next year will be spent in the direct operations of the federal government itself. If we go on for three or four or five years- and I believe in the maintenance of reasonable ceilings-we cannot continue to take it out of our own hide or we shall end up as a cheque-writing institution just sending cheques to the
The Address-Mr. Andras
social programs, which are fine in principle, and to the provinces.
These observations should be taken into account by all of us, I say so candidly, as in the remaining days of this parliament we try to come to grips, apart from our adversary roles, with what can be done. Is adherence to some kind of ceiling sound, or should we go on and on? Well, Mr. Speaker, we cannot go spending or cutting taxes in that sense and borrowing money because we are mortgaging the future of a lot of people, not just ourselves but those who come after us.


Andrew Hogan: What about the private sector?


Robert Knight Andras: Well, I know it is said, often sincerely, that we should increase public spending. I am not worried about the ideological label attached to it but I do not think it would work. I do not think governments are that good at doing things. There is no question the private sector has got to get off its butt and start doing things. But we have to give it the necessary encouragement and the stimulation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: I have a quotation here, if I can find it, which I thought was pretty apt. The retiring managing director of the International Monetary Fund-his name is Witteveen- summed up my feelings on the matter. He said:
I do not think that I have had to change my economic views in any major way. Perhaps I have seen more clearly, as have a number of economists and politicians, that in many situations it may no longer be possible to increase employment by more government spending. To get a more healthy growth it may-even be necessary to reduce government spending and to give more room to the private sector.
That is, I think, a feature that we have seen in a number of member countries, and at first sight it might seem to be a contradiction of Keynesian prescriptions. In reality, I think it is not. In the mixed economy, the private sector needs sufficient room to live, and to breathe, and to grow. That is a lesson that I have seen clearly.
That statement comes from a man who was in an excellent position to judge. I do not think this is an ideological argument. I think it is a practical argument. So I place these views before hon. members. There is going to be an $11.7 billion cash borrowing this year and, subject only to the possible fluctuation of revenue, $9.7 billion next year-not the larger requirements or deficits which have been touted about, but still sizeable. So, as we deliberate about what the economic stance of the federal government should or should not be in terms of stimulation, let us be very sure we know the consequences of that stimulation in the long term.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being four o'clock, pursuant to the order made earlier this day the House will now proceed to consideration of government order No. 8, second reading and reference to the committee of the whole of Bill C-8, to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
190

October 17, 1978
Postal Services



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


André Ouellet: that Bill C-8, to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to place on record how regrettable I find it to take the time of this House to request that parliament bring an end to a labour-management dispute. It should not be necessary for me to reiterate the faith both this government and my predecessors in the Labour portfolio have in the free collective bargaining process. Canada's industrial relations system reflects our heritage which rests on fundamental western values and on our belief that the workers' well-being can best be promoted through free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes in a spirit of compromise.
The state has assumed the task of establishing a framework of rights and responsibilities in which management and organized labour are to conduct their relations. That framework places the responsibility for resolving labour-management disputes clearly on the parties to collective bargaining. Hon. members will recall recent examples where this responsibility has been fulfilled by parties to labour-management disputes involving the public interest. I have in mind the three separate disputes between Air Canada and representatives of its ground personnel, its pilots, and its flight attendants. I also have very much in mind the recent negotiated settlement, with mediation assistance, between the Letter Carriers Union of Canada and the Treasury Board.
Unfortunately, however, there are times and situations when the spirit of compromise and the demonstration of good faith, so necessary on the part of all concerned, are found wanting. In such circumstances the federal government, as custodian of the economy and protector of the public interest, must assume its responsibility. This is the case at the present time in the dispute between the Post Office and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Parliament must, unfortunately, be resorted to today if we are to bring to an end a situation which the public finds intolerable. Parliament must legislate an end to this dispute if we are to take seriously into account the public interest and the extent to which the citizens of this country will continue to be affected by a prolonged stoppage of postal services.
It might be useful if I were to review the sequence of events which has led to this stage, and to remind hon. members of the extended efforts employed over many months to resolve the dispute.
It is clear from a review of developments leading up to the present impasse between the inside postal workers and management that there has been a complete lack of meaningful communication and dialogue between the parties and almost no real bargaining; that is, the necessary compromises and counter-proposals on which a viable collective agreement and bargaining relationship can be based have been completely absent.
Without attempting to cast blame on one party or the other, it would be useful to set out some of the important events in the present dispute.
The previous collective agreement between CUPW and the Treasury Board expired on June 30, 1977.
In the early months of 1977 several pre-negotiation meetings took place between the parties, without any progress being made.
On May 4, 1977, the union served formal notice to bargain, with Treasury Board replying on May 6, 1977.
The first formal meeting, which took place on May 19,
1977,	lasted one hour and was the only one for several months.
Negotiations were finally held again in October and November. However, little progress was made.
On November 30, 1977, the employer filed an application with the Public Service Staff Relations Board for the appointment of a conciliation board. Mr. Roy Heenan, on behalf of management, and Mr. Irving Gaul, on behalf of the union, were named to the conciliation board on December 17, 1977. Mr. Louis Courtemanche was appointed chairman of the board on February 2, 1978.
There were many public conciliation hearings from April through to July, 1978. Closed conciliation sessions involving both parties began in the early part of July and continued through to the end of the month. During these extensive conciliation board proceedings, the parties were able to agree to only a few minor clauses.
On August 16, 1978, the union gave notice that it wished the conciliation process to terminate and asked the board to prepare its report.
The conciliation board handed down three separate reports, which were released to the parties on October 6, 1978. The lack of agreement among the three members of the conciliation board is an indication of the intense feelings of the parties and the wide differences between them on a very large number of complex contract items. Notwithstanding the very exhaustive efforts of the conciliation board from April to August
1978,	little was achieved in bringing the parties closer to agreement, and since the handing down of the three separate board reports it is apparent that very wide gaps between the parties still exist.
Hon. members will have learned that yesterday I and senior officials of the Department of Labour made what is called a last ditch effort to resolve this dispute in a spirit of conciliation and compromise when we met twice yesterday with representatives of the union, along with a representative of the Canadian
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
October 17, 1978

Labour Congress, in order to explore all possible avenues leading to a settlement.
Following intense exploratory talks I proposed two possible means of resolving the dispute, which were given to the parties for their consideration. The first proposal called for the application of the mediation-arbitration process, "med-arb" as it is called in labour jargon, in the resolution of this dispute.
This process has been used successfully in other cases, not too long ago with the longshoremen at the port of Montreal, and also not too long ago on three different occasions with grain handlers in western Canada. This process involves agreement by the parties to refer their dispute to a mediator-arbitrator who would seek to mediate all outstanding issues originally referred by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to the conciliation board chaired by Mr. Courtemanche. This process would also require the parties to agree further that the mediator, should he not be successful in mediating the whole of the collective agreement, would then make an arbitration finding on all remaining unresolved issues. The parties would agree to be bound by the arbitration awards rendered. In this process the mediator would be appointed by the Minister of Labour and would submit his report to the parties not later than 90 days following the date of his appointment.
The second proposal put forward by myself for consideration by the parties would require that the employer and CUPW return to the bargaining table with full authority to settle all issues in dispute, under the auspices of a special commissioner appointed by myself to mediate the dispute.
The issues to be dealt with would be those that were referred by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to the conciliation board chaired by Mr. Courtemanche. The commissioner would be required to attempt a resolution of all such issues within two weeks of his appointment. If, at the end of the two-week period, any issues remained unresolved, the commissioner would then report to myself stating, in his opinion, what further steps or procedures would be required to finalize an agreement.
Both of these proposals which were presented to the parties yesterday evening included the stipulation that during either of the processes, if accepted by the parties, the government would put aside its intention to bring in legislation, and the union would agree to withhold any strike authorization and to direct its members to return to work. Such conditions are necessary to allow mediation to take place in a spirit of good faith and without threat on either side. I must say that it is regrettable that the union felt its objective would be best accomplished under the duress of a strike.
Unfortunately, the national executive board for the union rejected both of our proposals for the resolution of this dispute and called a national strike last night. Needless to say, I am very disappointed in the national executive board's reaction, as we have made every possible effort to resolve this dispute through a negotiated settlement in the spirit of conciliation and compromise.
Postal Services
There appear now to be only two courses left open to the government: either to allow the strike to continue with no hope of settlement available to the parties in the foreseeable future, or to legislate an end to the work stoppage and bring about a resumption of postal operations while providing for a resolution of the dispute.
We have opted for the second resolution because we have exhausted, over a protracted period of time, all statutory procedures under the Public Service Staff Relations Board, together with all good offices, including those of the Department of Labour, to resolve the dispute, and because we have failed to convince the union to accept either of the proposals for the resolution of the dispute which I presented to them yesterday evening.
It is the fundamental belief of this government that when an individual right becomes a public wrong, parliament should terminate the dispute. It is in keeping with this philosophy that this urgent matter is now before you.
This act, to provide for the resumption and continuation of the postal service, orders, therefore, the immediate resumption of the postal services, and provides for a determination of a collective agreement between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Treasury Board of Canada relative to the Canada Post Office.
The bill calls for the appointment by the Minister of Labour of a person who will deploy every effort to mediate the outstanding issues originally referred by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to the conciliation board chaired by Mr. Courtemanche. Should there be items that cannot be mutually agreed to in this mediation process, the bill provides that this mediator will then make an arbitration finding on all remaining unresolved issues. His award on these items will be binding on both parties concerned, and will be rendered not later than 90 days following the date of his appointment.
In its final report to parliament, the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service stated the following in respect of prosecutions under the Public Service Staff Relations Act:
The present two-stage process with its substantial costs, delays, fragmented administration, absence of precedents, and inconsistent penalties has led all parties to agree that the present system for dealing with unlawful activity is not working well and is inappropriate.
The government has indicated on previous occasions that it will be bringing forward comprehensive amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which will include a response to the recommendations of the joint committee concerning prosecutions and penalties for unlawful activity.
It is important, however, that the bill with which we are dealing now be not frustrated in its application by the enforcement deficiencies of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which were recognized by the joint committee. The government, therefore, proposes that the intent of the joint committee's proposals on prosecution for unlawful activity be incorporated into this act.
80065 -13'/2

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
In particular, clause 10 of the bill includes penalties which directly follow those recommended by the joint committee. The joint committee also envisaged a single stage process whereby prosecutions would be brought before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Since it would not be feasible to set up exactly this process in the short time required, the government is proposing that a single stage process be provided by eliminating the necessity for consent to prosecute offences under this act.
Hon. members will note that the bill provides for a term extending to 1979. The main reason for that is to prevent an early occurrence of the present situation and to ensure an uninterrupted postal service during the transition period of the planned conversion of the Post Office to a Crown corporation. We believe that is necessary in order to effect a good transition without impairing the efficiency of the Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the government faces two alternatives: it can let this strike go on without any hope that the parties will come to an agreement in the near future, or it can legislate to end this work stoppage, thereby ensuring the resumption of postal services and a settlement of the dispute.
We have, of course, chosen the second alternative, after having exhausted during a lengthy period of negotiations all procedures provided for by the Public Service Staff Relations Board as well as all other means, including the intervention of the Department of Labour, and also because we have been unable to convince the union to accept either one of the two offers I submitted to them yesterday in an attempt to arrive at a negotiated settlement of this dispute. The government staunchly believes that public interest must override personal interest and that it is up to parliament to implement this philosophy. That is why this vital question is before the House today.

In closing I would like to say that I sincerely hope that the parties will take advantage of this interim period to re-establish a climate of confidence conducive to improving labour-management relations and leading to the restoration of the high calibre of postal service of which this country has been rightly proud in the past.
With these explanations, Mr. Speaker, and in full realization of the seriousness of the situation which confronts us all, I trust the House will give full and speedy approval to this legislation.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in rising on behalf of my party to respond to the words of the minister, I want to make several things clear at the outset. The first is that while we too regret the necessity for the legislation which is put before us, we will support it and we will not delay the passage of this law unduly, because it is our opinion that at this time the country cannot afford, not just the inconvenience, but the gravest damage which it will suffer in the case of a prolonged cessation of postal services.

[ Translation]
The Canadian economy, shaky as it is, cannot sustain an extended postal strike. Financial losses would be enormous and totally unacceptable. It would impose great and undue hardships on those people whose monthly cheque, sent to them by mail, is the only means they have of making both ends meet.
Mr. Speaker, our position is quite clear; this legislation must be passed immediately.
It is also important to point out that, while our position is clear, the position of the government is hard to comprehend. We had a postal strike just a few years ago, and this government, through the minister responsible for maintaining postal service, allowed service to end for a period of 43 days. During that time the then postmaster general said that he did not mind if it went on until Christmas, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that he did not mind if it went on until Easter. I point this out because something-and it is not for me to say what it is-has certainly brought about an amazing difference in view on the part of the government as to the value of postal service in this vast land of ours.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister- and I know that he would not mind being reminded-that my leader on October 6, 1978, called for the government to act swiftly and indicated then our full co-operation, provided of course the bill was essentially a fair bill, even though we would prefer to have the matter solved in some other way. Again on Friday, October 13, the House leader of my party reiterated our determination to co-operate and to move swiftly in the public interest, and that of course is what we are doing.
Parliament has been called to end strikes twice in 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and a special bill was passed in 1977. In some instances it was not a long or difficult debate, but each time that this has happened the government has said that this does not mean that we do not agree with the right of free collective bargaining and that it has always deplored the necessity to do this. The response of our party has been that there must be a better way.
It will be of interest to all hon. members to note that on August 31, 1973, when there was the long debate in this chamber as a consequence of the rail strike, my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), said, as reported at page 6175 of Hansard'.
Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say on behalf of our party that we hope this is the last time we are called upon to pass this type of legislation, because we feel there is a better way.
There is a better way, and it has been advocated by our party since the submission of the Woods Royal Commission on Canadian Industrial Relations, that there should be established a public interest disputes commission in order to reduce as much as possible the necessity of parliament interfering in these matters. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that this has been our position, and I say this, in the hope of
October 17, 1978

solving the problem, to my friend the hon. minister, that we have maintained this position consistently for a number of years. In fact there has been favourable comment recently in labour circles that perhaps this recommendation by the Woods commission should be looked at further.
In closing, I would like to remind the House of what my colleague and friend, the hon. member for St. John's East, said on August 30, 1973, in this regard, as reported at page 6074 of Hansard:
Our party has put forward a proposal based on many of the recommendations contained in the Woods report. We have said we would establish an essential services disputes commission which would define essential services and prescribe the procedure for settling disputes within these essential services. Accordingly, our party endorsed the recommendations made to the government back in December, 1968, in the Woods committee report for the establishment of a public interest disputes commission. This commission would advise whether particular services are essential, set out procedures for resolving differences where the public interest is threatened and, where it is unsuccessful, would report to the government for possible parliamentary action to end a strike or lockout. That is the kind of leadership this country needs.
It has been my responsibility to speak on behalf of this party on a number of occasions when we have resorted to parliamentary measures to end strikes, and I am sure that hon. members will remember I have repeatedly stated that there must be a better way and that it is time, after these ten years and after the experiences which are there before us, to consider alternatives. I see the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) sitting together. I am sure that they will agree that our experiences can lead us to only one conclusion, and that is that it is time to find, along the lines of the Woods commission, a better way.


David Orlikow: Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, parliament passed the Public Service Staff Relations Act. If I remember correctly, it was passed almost unanimously. That act gave the public service employees working for the federal government the right to collective bargaining through unions of their choice, and it gave those unions two choices to settle their differences if they could not settle them through meetings with the employers and they were either through the process of arbitration or of taking strike action.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) mentioned earlier today that in more than 95 per cent of the cases the employees used the arbitration method to settle their differences with the government peaceably. The postal workers' union chose, as they had the right to do under the legislation, to avail themselves if necessary of the right to strike. I find it strange that this parliament and this government, having given workers in the public service the right to strike, is now asking parliament on the first day of the strike to take that right away from them.
There have been other occasions, both federally and provincially, where after a strike has gone on for some days or weeks the government, as represented at various times by all the political parties in Canada, has brought in legislation ordering the workers back to work because of the adverse effect of their strike on the public.
Postal Services
To my knowledge, this is the first time that legislation has been brought in to stop a strike on the day it began. If this government believes that this group of workers, or any other, is involved in operations so vital to the public of Canada that it ought not to have the right to strike, it seems to me it should have the courage to bring in that kind of legislation. We believe that in a democratic society all workers should have the right to strike. We would propose such legislation, but to give workers the right to strike and then take it away the first day they go on strike seems to us hypocritical to say the least.
If one did not live in Canada, one would have believed, listening to the minister, that this was an isolated case and that we had got along fine until now. One would think that we have a group of unreasonable people who, despite everything this generous government has done, and despite its human approach to its employees, are so unreasonable that they have gone on strike and the legislation is necessary. This is not an isolated case, Mr. Speaker. The difficulties in the Post Office have existed at least since 1965. I would remind the acting minister that after the 1965 strike the government established a royal commission of inquiry into working conditions in the Post Office. It was headed by Mr. Justice Montpetit, who made 262 recommendations dealing with all aspects of employment in the Post Office. Many of those recommendations still have not been implemented, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to read a couple of paragraphs from that report dealing with the attitude, not of the postal workers, but the attitude and approach of the management of the Post Office. The report reads:
A large number of the post office employees' grievances are first and foremost, human relations problems.
-The attitude of some supervisors and postmasters towards their employees leaves much to be desired. These people have only a vague notion of the importance of maintaining good relations with their staff.
The action of those in authority has and always will have a tremendous influence on the reactions of employees and on their productivity. Complaints arising from their behaviour can be sometimes difficult to explain.
Nothing much has changed since Mr. Justice Montpetit made that report in 1966. He pointed out that the Post Office Department did not have the authority to deal satisfactorily with its employees' requests because of the divided authority it had with the Civil Service Commission and the Treasury Board and certain other organizations. He certainly implied, if he did not say directly, that what we needed was probably a Crown corporation.
In 1968 a report was commissioned by the then postmaster general. It was entitled "A Blueprint for Change." I should like to put on the record part of what it said, as follows;
We believe that the Crown corporation status is the organizational form best suited to the attainment of these objectives.
These are the objectives of a good operation. The report went on to say:
As a Crown corporation, the Post Office should have full authority to bargain with the unions representing its employees. It should not be required to seek the approval of any government agency before concluding an agreement with unions.

October 17, 1978
Postal Services	_
With such freedom, a strong effective staff relations function would be required to guide management in its relationships with the unions.
That was ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, and the government did not act until a few weeks ago when it proposed to set up a Crown corporation.
I know that the minister will not deny that the Post Office and its senior officials have not been able to conduct negotiations with postal employees and that in effect the shots have been called by the Treasury Board which has been worried about the effect of a settlement achieved by postal workers on other employees.
For ten years this government has ignored the recommendations contained in a study made for it by a committee which it set up. Now it wonders why it is in trouble.
In 1969, in a dispute between postal workers and the Post Office Department, an adjudication decision was made by Mr. W. S. Martin, a well-known and competent person in that field. He said:
As assessment of employer attitudes in this matter shows that the employer position is characterized by arrogance and high-handedness. There is lacking a genuine desire to work in the atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding. Hostility, vindictiveness, and possibly distrust, appear to frustrate any opportunity for effective inter-relationships. It would appear that the senior officials in the Post Office Department have not as yet reconciled themselves to operating the postal facilities within a progressive collective bargaining atmosphere.
Nine years later the government has not learned anything.
A few years ago the union filed a grievance-they have filed between 30,000 and 60,000 grievances in all. This particular grievance was on behalf of a member, Alan O'Toole. It went through the grievance procedure provided in the collective agreement, and the union lost. Then they went to the adjudicator under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and won. The employer did not accept that, and appealed to the Federal Court, where the union won. The Post Office did not accept that decision either, and filed an application to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the application and refused to hear the case.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to conduct labour-management relations; it is not the spirit of trying to settle matters. That is the way to conduct things if you want to break the union by getting them involved in legal expenses they cannot afford.
In the dispute which took place in 1972 a conciliation board was involved. Mr. Justice Owen Shime was chairman. He said:
In these negotiations one felt that each time the employer was required to reach a decision that it was looking over its shoulder at the remaining government employees. That was an impediment to sound negotiations with respect to the needs and problems of the Post Office and its employees.
In 1975 the assistant deputy postmaster general, J. E. Uberig, submitted a report to the then postmaster general, Mr. Mackasey, in which he stated:
-although the Post Office Act states that the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Post Office, the constraints imposed by other pieces of legislation acted to severely limit the ability of the Postmaster General to deal with problems. As a department of government, the Post Office has to conform to standards which, while applicable to other departments, serve
only to restrict the ability of Post Office management to deal with problems particular to postal operations.
He went on to be critical of the way the Public Staff Relations Act applied to the Post Office. Similarly, in a 1975 report prepared by the joint Post Office and Treasury Board committee, known as Canada Post '75, it was stated:
It was clear by 1975 that the program of regionalization begun in 1970 had been a dismal failure both financially and in respect to its impact on labour relations. Echoing a complaint of postal workers that regionalization had resulted in a destruction of a uniform criteria upon which disciplinary decisions were based, Canada Post 75 traced this unfortunate situation to the refusal of the government to implement the recommendations of A Blueprint For Change in their entirety.
A similar position was taken by the 1975 Conciliation Board headed by Judge Moisan.
The minister talked about what he had proposed to the postal union and suggested that they were not being very realistic and not considering his offer fairly. What the minister has failed to tell the House today is that for 18 months negotiations went on between CUPW and the government with no offer at all, no meaningful offer at all from the government. There was no offer on wages, nor on working conditions, technological change, staffing, or discipline, in fact, on nothing. It was the exact reverse, Mr. Speaker.
The government was proposing to take away from the workers the very important clause dealing with technological change which was negotiated in 1975. I think the minister knows, although he may not want to admit it, that the clause in the 1975 agreement dealing with technological change was imposed on the government and on the Treasury Board by the then postmaster general, Mr. Mackasey. As soon as Mr. Mackasey left that post the Treasury Board set out on a deliberate policy to sabotage and kill that provision of the contract. It is because of the insistence of the Treasury Board not to live up to clauses, such as the one concerning technological change, that thousands of grievances have been filed.
The whole question of technological change is not something which arose suddenly in the report. In 1966 Mr. Justice Montpetit made the following prophetic statement:
We should admit we were surprised that little mention was made of mechanization and automation by the postal clerks who will evidently be the first ones affected. Possibly they see this problem only far in the future. We believe this is a problem of prime importance which should be looked into immediately by all interested parties, since its effect will be very serious not only on job security but also on job classification, seniority, etc.
That was 1966, 12 years ago, and the government still has not faced up to the problem which Mr. Justice Monpetit said was so important. The government still has not accepted the basic principle that when an employer, government, or private enterprise, brings in technological change, it will mean that fewer workers will be needed, on that it should be done in such a way that workers at the time the technological change is brought into effect will not lose their jobs. It should be done on the basis of attrition.
[Mr. Orlikow.)
October 17, 1978

In 1969 Mr. W. S. Martin in his adjudication said:
It is quite clear that this conduct has resulted in creating unrest, the undermining of morale, and the development of hostility between the parties. Fairness and good faith must be in evidence to have a genuine willingness to consult. The autocratic issuance of directives and the unilateral determination of dates of implementation, do not provide requisites for the attainment of these results.
Let us take a simple illustration of how the Post Office management sees this whole question of technological change and classification. I am not a time study expert, and neither is the acting minister. I think he will agree with me that there is a vast difference between sorting mail by hand, as it was done for many years, and sorting mail through one of the new computerized operations in which thousands of letters flow through the machine every minute. There is no doubt in my mind that the highly automated operation is much harder physically and mentally on the worker than sorting mail by hand. And yet when the Post Office set the rate for the workers sorting mail automatically they set the rate at 75 cents less an hour than for those who were sorting by hand. Does the minister wonder why the workers in the Post Office are unhappy? Does he wonder why they do not have much faith in the Post Office or why they stopped work? They are completely frustrated.
In 1975 the agreement reached at that time spelled out the rights of employees with respect to the introduction of technological change. Clause 29, as I said earlier, was negotiated by the then minister, Mr. Mackasey. It has been constantly sabotaged by the government at the insistence of Treasury Board. The union filed a complaint which was heard by the vice chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Jolliffe, who found for the union.
There has been real bargaining in good faith by the government. On the problems of technological change, of discipline, of staffing, of the use of casual employees, the government has failed to make any real offers or offers of significance in the months in which the negotiations were supposedly taking place. It was not until the workers had exhausted all their legal avenues, and had decided to set a strike date because they could not get anywhere without that weapon, that the minister entered the picture.
We are very unhappy that the negotiations conducted by the minister did not succeed. But I find it strange that there were more real negotiations in the last two or three days the minister entered the picture than in the 18 months before that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Where was the former postmaster general? Where was the present Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne)?


An hon. Member:: Hiding.


David Orlikow: Why did they not meet with the employees and the union? Why did they not do what they should have done ten years ago and get rid of most of the senior officials of the Post Office Department who do not have the foggiest
Postal Services
notion of what real, sensible, honest collective bargaining means? That is what they should have done.
Because we believe there have been no real negotiations and because we believe the government has failed over a period of more than ten years to think through what is needed in order to improve the relationship between employee and the management of the post office, and that workers should have the right to strike-in which case they should not be legislated back to work on the first day or they do not have the right to strike in which case the legislation should say they do not-we cannot and will not vote for this bill.
I might say in conclusion that a brilliant job of public relations has been done by the senior officials of the Post Office so that the public has come to believe that the reason for the bad service and the delays is because the workers in the Post Office are not interested, because they are not working, because they are malingerers.
There may be a few workers in the Post Office, as I am sure there are a few workers in any organization, not putting out 100 per cent. However, I want to put on record my belief, based on the facts, I am certain, that the real difficulties in the Post Office, and the poor service people believe they are getting, are not the fault of the workers but of management. Let me put, in a very few papagraphs, what I mean.
Some ten years ago the senior people in the Post Office Department looked at the annual sharp increase in the amount of mail that was being handled. They decided that if they did not find some automated electronic way of handling mail to meet the increase, the number of people working for the Post Office would grow at a fantastic rate. A few of them travelled around the world looking at systems in other countries. When they returned, they persuaded this government that we needed the best system in the world.
The best system in the world is expensive. Therefore, we spent a billion dollars on new electronic equipment. That system is in operation, or should be in operation because it is in place, in Toronto. Through it moves 70 per cent of all the mail in Canada.
The computerized automated system is not working because all of its parts are not working. Some of those parts, including the computer system which costs between $150 million and $200 million, are still not working. The facilities in Toronto and Montreal are not functioning properly. The Montreal facility will not be finished until next year.
There are three plants in Toronto, the east plant in Scarborough, the south central plant, and the Gateway plant. Gateway has two plants, the west letter processing plant and the entry bulk mail facility. The second plant, the bulk mail facility at Gateway, is not working. This means that all mail arriving from Air Canada, from trains, from other cities in cartons and boxes and so on, is in trouble.
For example, all mail should go through Gateway, then on to other plants, but at Gateway's bulk mail facility section, the

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
mail handling computer does not work and the receiving pans did not line up mechanically properly. They are working on this second problem with some success, but there is no solution yet on the electronic computer problem. Its cost rose from %2Vi million to $7 million, yet the Post Office is not suing the company but absorbing the extra cost as developmental costs. I wish it would treat its employees as generously as it treats that company.
They had to vacate the old Terminal A. Now they are using the old arsenal building, and some other mail is being sorted in the letter processing plants which were not designed for this purpose. The result of these mistakes in planning is that all mail is moving slower than should be. Staff is inflated to handle the 50 per cent to 60 per cent of mail being sorted manually. Some mail is being semi-processed mechanically.
A lot of street letter mail does not have the code, or the code is not in the right place, not typed, or wrong letters and numbers have been used. This screws up the automatic system. The amount of mail being machine processed is lower than it is supposed to be or than the Post Office admits. The Post Office says it always expected to sort 27 per cent of the mail manually. The real amount being done that way is much higher. Therefore, they need extra help, I suppose the casual help about which there has been so much dispute.
Supposedly first class letters were to be processed mechanically, but this will not happen until the whole system is operating. Why did the Post Office let development time take so long? It will not be ready till next year at the earliest. Originally it was programmed to be ready last year.
Of these mistakes, let me say one thing. I hope the Postmaster General will correct me if I am wrong. I am told the system is operating so badly that mail which should be sorted in Toronto is being shipped to Cornwall where it is sorted and brought back to Toronto. That may not be true now, but I am told it has happened. If it is happening, those who should be in trouble are not the postal employees who belong to CUPW, but the postal management.
We were told in the Speech from the Throne that we are going to get a Crown corporation and this will solve all the problems. If it is run by the same people who have been running the Post Office for the past ten years, we will have more trouble with the Crown corporation than we have had up until now.
Let me conclude by saying that it is sad we have to discuss this kind of legislation. However, we have to discuss it because the government, postmasters general and presidents of the treasury board have been remiss in getting their act together. They have not worked out a policy for collective bargaining which is workable and acceptable to the employees, one which would have obviated the difficulties we have had. Had they done so, we would not require the kind of legislation we are debating today. For those reasons, we intend to vote against this bill.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the bill introduced this afternoon by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is faced this afternoon with quite a delicate problem, as we must choose between two priorities: on the one hand, the public's right to postal services, and on the other hand, the union's right to call a strike. On the one hand, we have 23 million persons entitled to postal services, and on the other, 23,000 workers to whom the government has granted the right to strike and is asking us today to take it away from them through Bill C-8.
Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that the rights of the majority should prevail over those of the minority, which does not prevent us to pass special legislation to protect minority rights.
In the public service we constantly see strikes which are brought to an end by special legislation. Often those special pieces of legislation entail large expenses. Fortunately we are in Ottawa today, but if we were in our constituencies we would have to leave and come to parliament to vote such a legislation to order Post Office strikers back to work. Moreover, I find it rather strange that the government has waited so long before telling us how serious this problem is.
I was listening a moment ago to the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) who outlined to the House all the meetings he had with union leaders. In the course of those discussions, he told us that he had appointed conciliation boards, mediators, arbitrators and what have you. According to him, he did his utmost to try and arrange a reasonable solution, implying that the unions are the ones which are not reasonable. As for the spokesman for the official opposition party, all he said was: We have no other choice than vote for such a legislation since we are faced with a fait accompli, and he wished that legislation be brought in the House to avoid all those conflicts.
As usual, the New Democratic Party is in favour of upholding the right to strike and of giving unions everything they want in an attempt to calm them down. Well, it is the same old story and we find ourselves today in the same dilemma once again.
Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill, is it going to solve the problem? If we were at least sure of it, it would not be a waste of time, but I am rather sure that the passage of this bill will not solve anything in the Post Office, as it has never solved anything in the public service in general. It is precisely that sector, of all public and extragovernmental sectors, Mr. Speaker, that has been the most troublesome in recent years and that has most affected our Canadian economy and hurt the Canadian people.
October 17, 1978

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether parliamentarians will finally understand that it is impossible for a government which will be the judge to settle honestly a labour dispute while being both the employer and the accused. It is impossible, because too many interests are at stake. That is why we have always advocated and still do a non political organization beyond the control of the government which would settle those collective agreements. I have just found a newspaper report dated September 2, 1973, and there is nothing new, Mr. Speaker. Our demands are similar to those made by Real Caouette at that time, according to that article signed by Claude Lavergne and entitled: "The Prevention of Conflicts" in which reads, and I quote:
Anyhow, every time parliament is forced to step in and pass special legislation, the dispute is suddenly referred to an arbitration board whose award is binding and without appeal.
To be practical, one has to set the facts in their true light: either an agreement is reached through negotiation or arbitration and, then, the right to strike is of no use whatsoever, or a strike is called and then this right is withdrawn by a special legislation, which again makes it inoperative.
Why not take the easy way and set up regular and on going mechanisms in order to prevent a recurrence of the same problems?
The present policy is aimed at patching things up. The solution suggested by Real Caouette seeks a social and orderly peace through the prevention of conflicts.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say again-and with this I know the unions will agree, for let no one think that I blame them alone-I say again that in any quarrel both sides are often wrong in some regards and right in others. It is up to the arbitrator to decide who of the two is right. I am all for protecting the right of the worker to his job. That is why I say that in the case of a civil servant, there can be no justice when the employer is the state which is both the accused and the judge at the same time. It cannot be both. That is why a court is an absolute necessity.
We demand the creation of a permanent court of arbitration whose decision would be binding and could not be appealed, a tribunal composed of three judges, one appointed by Parlie-ment and not a political party, another by the unions and the third to come from the public at large. That tribunal should be completely apolitical. In its actions, it could not be influenced by any political or union wave. It seems to me that would be the ideal tribunal for ensuring that justice is done in such cases by both the worker and the employer. And so the rights of the 23 million inhabitants of this country would be protected while those of the 23,000 postal employees would be respected.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, that is the only way we can avoid coming back constantly to the House to pass back to work legislation for civil servants. That is the only way, there is no other. But which government will dare introduce such a bill? I wonder. We have been asking the Liberals for one for ten years now. Will another government finally give it to us, so that we can have both peace and justice in Canada at the same time? That is what I hope for as I ask the government if the
Postal Services
time has not come to act, to act now, and create such a tribunal?


Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I will say just a few words during the presentation of this legislation. I just want to remind hon. members that when we are considering such a proposal, we should stop and think and ask why, for instance, in 1978, in a civilized country as advanced as ours, in a civilization which has some claims to progress and to development in every respect, how it happens that we have again to resolve through coercion such a simple problem as the services to be provided to a population. We should wonder why we have not yet found a means to prevent so many workers from relying on blackmail, which is what all those strikes are, as well as to prevent the government from resorting to more or less honest procedures which are very often childish, to say the least.
Mr. Speaker, we should certainly have found by now the means to prevent this situation from occurring. We should not try to find someone to blame. We should not try to find out precisely who is responsible for the situation, but rather, Mr. Speaker, we should find the means to settle this once and for all. This kind of blackmail should not exist in 1978. Such childishness should not occur in negotiations in 1978. Both parties should understand that there are strict rules that must be obeyed concerning ethics, respect and basic good manners. It is possible to assert your rights and even request certain privileges without annoying millions of people who need their mail. It is very well to request all that you desire, whether it be salary increases or better working conditions, but there is no need to do so by causing all sorts of disastrous problems for your neighbours.
Mr. Speaker, we must be sufficiently civilized to discover finally a basic formula which can eliminate all strikes in this country, to develop formulas, laws and regulations which can command respect. We now have a problem because our legislation and the principles behind it are inadequate and because no one wants to respect them. If only we really wanted to solve not only this problem and the present postal conflict, but all other similar problems because of which our population could not care less about problems! It is terrible, but this is what we have come to. How many times in the past have we seen people prepare themselves in anticipation of a future strike? For instance, the present strike does not bother at all those who have enough money to use special paid messenger services. Yes, we are so used to this situation that we have finally provided all sorts of alternatives in our own system. And while this goes on, we, the legislators duly mandated by the people, discuss another band-aid solution. Once again we discuss the means to solve a problem in the short term without thinking about the need to find a permanent solution.
198

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
Mr. Speaker, I believe that all this had to be said in this House during the debate on this bill. Of course, I agree that this problem must be solved. I agree completely as to the need to do so. However, what I want most is for us to insist from now on on finding the means to eliminate this situation so that we shall have fulfilled in this House our true responsibility towards the people we represent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Messrs.
Ethier
Fleming
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Fraser
Friesen
Gauthier
(Roberval)
Gauthier
(Ottawa-Vanier) Gillespie Goodale Goyer Grafftey Gray Guilbault Halliday Hamilton
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek) Hargrave Hees Herbert Hnatyshyn Holt (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Horner
Huntington
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jeiinek
Kempling
Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lachance
Lalonde
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Lamontagne Landers
Lang Langlois Laniel Lapointe Lavoie Lawrence LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre Lumley MacDonald
(Cardigan)
MacDonald
(Egmont)
MacEachen MacFarlane MacGuigan MacKay Maine Malone Marceau Masniuk Matte McGrath Mclsaac McKenzie McKinnon McRae Milne Mitges Muir Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murta Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nowlan O'Connell Olivier Ouellet Paproski
(Division No. 2)
Parent
Patterson
Pearsall
Pelletier
Pigott (Mrs.)
Pinard
Prud'homme
Raines
Reid
Ritchie
Roberts
Roche
Rompkey
Rooney
Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Rynard
Scott
Skoreyko
Smith
(Saint-Jean)
Stanfield
Stevens
Stewart
(Cochrane) Tessier Towers Trudeau Trudel Turner Watson Whelan Whiteway Whittaker Wise Wood Woolliams Yanakis Young-162.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
<Begin (Miss)	(Vancouver Quadra)	DuclosBlais	Clermont	DuquetBlaker	Comtois	EllisBlouin	Condon	Epp


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Abbott	Boulanger	CorbinAlexander	Breau	CorriveauAllard	Brisco	Cot*Anderson	Buchanan	CrosbieAndras	Bussi*res	Crouse(Port Arthur)	Caccia	CullenAndre	Cafik	Danson(Calgary Centre)	Campagnolo (Mrs.)	DarlingAppolloni (Mrs.)	Campbell (Miss)	DaudlinBaker	(South Western Nova)	Dawson(Gander-Twillingate)	Caouette	De BaneBaker	(T*miscamingue)	Demers(Grenville-Carleton)	Caron	DickBawden	Clark	DinsdaleBeatty	(Rocky Mountain)	DouglasBechard	Clarke	(Bruce-
Gérald Laniel: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-8, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services.
Clause 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Term of collective agreement extended


William Arnold Peters: explained why it goes back to that date when we are putting into effect not a collective agreement but a back to work order in lieu of a contract.
Contract discussions will take place subsequently. There will then be a decision by both parties on a collective agreement or the arbitrator will decide on the terms of the contract. We are in effect writing in a term of a collective agreement which, at least, is misnamed. In my opinion, there is no merit for putting in either the commencement or termination date. If we wish to say that the contract will run until December 31, 1979, that is one thing. Normally we do not set the term of the contract in back to work legislation. In this case we are doing that.
If we are taking away the right of this union to strike up until December 31, 1979, fair enough. However, we are either negotiating a contract to establish a collective agreement on behalf of the workers by legislation, or putting into the act the provision that no strike will take place before the termination date of December 31, 1979. That is considerably different from negotiating the beginning and ending of a collective agreement.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my speech earlier today the main reason for this is to prevent an early recurrence of the present situation and to ensure, if possible, uninterrupted postal service during the transition period of the planned conversion of the post office to a Crown corporation.
The current collective agreement that we are discussing is one that will normally end at the end of the current year. We are dealing with this legislation today, in the middle of October. In order for the mediator-arbitrator to at least try to have genuine mediation take place, we feel we should give him a certain period of time to bring the parties together and try to mediate, if possible, particular clauses of the settlement.
This legislation states that if for certain reasons the mediation is not successful, this person will no longer act as a mediator but as an arbitrator in order to deal with the unresolved questions. In order for this mediator-arbitrator to do a fair job, we are giving him three months. That takes us into the early part of 1979.
We believe that extending the agreement to the end of 1979 will, as I said earlier, create a good climate for 1979 while parliament during the course of that year passes legislation to turn the post office into a Crown corporation. Another good reason for this extension is to allow the mediator-arbitrator some time to carry out his assignment and allow some time for the resulting collective agreement terms to take effect.
I appreciate that it is an unusual measure, an extraordinary measure in certain respects. However, I do not think it would be correct to ask parliament to pass such a provision at this time for an agreement that would be terminated in just a few weeks. This is why we recommend that the current collective agreement be extended to December 31, 1979.
I want it to be clearly understood that the mediator-arbitrator will not be subject to the anti-inflation clause for the year 1979. He will obviously be assisting the parties in a mediation role, trying to bring about a mutual agreement. If he cannot
Postal Services
succeed, then he will assume his latter role of an arbitrator and recommend clauses that will be binding on both parties.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I can only guess because I have not been involved in any of the negotiations, but it is my understanding that the parties were negotiating a one-year contract back in July, 1977. One of the parties, either the union or the post office, may have wanted a two-year contract, but that is part of the negotiations. If we throw in another 15-month period, or it will be a period of 30 months, much of which is retroactive, we will then be making proposals for a three-year rather than a one and a half-year contract.
This seems to be related to clause 8 which applies to the AIB. We were assured by the Minister of Finance that none of this would apply after the end of this year. However, it is obviously going to apply if we negotiate a three-year contract instead of a one-year contract.
I am not familiar with what the two parties were negotiating. However, by this clause we are setting the terms of the contract, what the length of it will be and so on.
May I call it six o'clock?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the dinner hour we were discussing clause 5 which appears in the bill under the heading "Collective agreement" and carries the description "Term of collective agreement extended".
It is not unusual for the terms of a contract to be extended for a short period. This particular agreement ran out in July of 1977, I am told, and negotiations have been going on to the present time, the fall of 1978. Thus, a year and several months have gone by. In some cases when a contract has been extended we have specified that an agreement had to be reached within a certain period. The bill before us does say there has to be an agreement or at least a report on the terms of an agreement within 90 days. That would normally be within the terms of the contract agreed to under this type of legislation; anything beyond it would have to be worked out by the parties themselves, possibly with respect to a longer period. In this case though, we are in effect writing in the termination date of the contract.
There are those who would argue that the terms of the contract under this collective agreement should go beyond 1979 and that it might be possible to get a contract which would last considerably longer. I am told there is a willingness on the part of the workers to see it to run for a longer period, especially if they are able to get protection under that contract, something they have not enjoyed up to the present.
80065-14V4

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
I am concerned that we should be negotiating the length of the contract. The minister intimated that we as politicians and legislators are looking to the establishment of a different form of administration for the post office, probably some type of Crown corporation. Most of us would agree there is likely to be great difficulty in the way of establishing a satisfactory Crown corporation given the present atmosphere and the present attitudes of both management and workers. If there is to be a Crown corporation we must be in the position to guarantee peace in the post office over a period of time and it might be as well to extend the contract beyond 1979.
Normally when a conciliation board or a mediator deals with a labour-management problem involving collective bargaining they do not go beyond the terms which were established before they were asked to intervene. In other words, the collective bargaining unit is not allowed to add new demands and the company is not allowed to reduce the value of what it had offered.
We are talking now about a contract which the bargaining agent probably drew up early in 1977. It is usual to begin negotiations two months before the contract expires, so I presume these demands by the union were made in March, April or May. I take it also that the union was negotiating a year's contract, a contract which would have expired in July of 1978. Even if it had been a two-year contract it would have been due to expire in July of 1979. We are asked to extend it for a further three months but the union has not been allowed to put in any submissions to cover a three-year contract. For this reason I am reluctant to see established by law a continuation of the contract on the basis of proposals put forward under the assumptions the agreement would end on July 1, 1978.
You, Mr. Chairman, as an old trade unionist bargaining on behalf of your fellow workers are well aware that in some cases disputes make it impossible to sign a contract; sometimes the year for which the contract is being negotiated goes by without an agreement being signed. In one case in which I was involved I remember giving the company a bargain, though I did not wish to become known for that. I said: What will you give me for a contract today? They offered considerably less than they had done a short while earlier, but to their surprise 1 accepted their proposals. What they did not realize was that I was already in the process of preparing our demands for a second contract and the proposals we were making in that contract sure made up for the first.
If the negotiations cover the one-year period of the contract, they will not really cover the proposals which might be put in. We are obviously talking about other proposals.
I would not be opposed to this clause if the minister were to withdraw the words "collective agreement" and put in something else, because I do not disagree with the proposition that we must try to obtain peace for at least the period of transition to a Crown corporation. The date does not seem to me to be unreasonable, but it seems to me that we are using legislation

to make people negotiate a two and a half-year contract instead of a one-year contract, the proposals being the same as if it were a one-year contract. I think my friend, who has also had some experience in the labour movement, is aware that there will be a hardship unless we make some change either now or in the clause which will allow those things to go before the arbitrator or the mediator. It seems to me that we are imposing an undue penalty on the union because of the use of this termination date, and I would like the minister to indicate whether he would consider changing the wording in order to remove what seems to me to be a hardship.
We are adding an additional year and a half, and it seems to me that that is unfair. Let us look at it from a trade union's point of view. It is predicted that this year the cost of living will go up 10.5 per cent. If the union negotiator is negotiating a contract, he will ask for an increase of at least 10.5 per cent. Last year the increase was perhaps only 9 per cent, but negotiators put these amounts in because those are the predictions the government itself makes. If unions do not want to lose, they must at least get an increase which corresponds with the cost of living. We are talking about a period in which there will be a considerable increase in the cost of living, but that is not being considered because through legislation we are extending the life of the contract.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, earlier today I explained to the hon. member the reason we are suggesting the extension to include the year 1979. The hon. member is obviously right when he says that the original collective agreement would have covered the period from July 1, 1977, to December 1, 1978, and I explained why it was felt that it would be better to extend the period to December 31, 1979. There is a desire to create the best climate possible during the period in which the post office becomes a Crown corporation. I am glad to see that the hon. member agrees with this objective.
There is another element which must be taken into consideration. In a very few days the union will be in a position to serve notice of new demands for the current collective agreement not yet agreed to. Therefore, the union could be in the hypothetical position of being able to serve notice of its new demands for the next collective agreement while the current one has not finally been dealt with and while the mediator-arbitrator will still be subject to his mandate under this legislation. That is why it was felt that it was better to have this extension to December 31, 1979.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the minister probably said it better than I did. If we look at another clause of this bill, we find that it would appoint a mediator-arbitrator. The minister's advisers have had more experience than perhaps the minister and I put together, but I cannot see how it would be possible to put in a new set of proposals in the middle. I can foresee that causing an impossible situation for the arbitrator. Because of this legislation and because of there being an arbitrator one might have a chance to ask for the kitchen sink and have the arbitrator at least look at the request.
October 17, 1978

I just warn the minister that it would be much better to change the wording from "collective agreement" so that there will be a period during which this union will be prohibited from taking any strike action, without playing around with the terms of the agreement itself. There probably are lots of them, but I know of no case in which, after a labour dispute was on, management has ever allowed a union to include proposals for another year's negotiations while still negotiating the first contract. I think that would create chaos in negotiations. The arbitrator would be worried about whether he was handling the first set of proposals or the second set; to all intents and purposes he would have to handle two sets of proposals. But I am sure that is not what we want to do here. I think we want to settle this dispute on a reasonable, legislative basis, but we also want to make it impossible, for the purposes of the transitional period, for this union to have the right to strike.
I should think that the date could be December 31, 1979, but as long as we refer to a collective agreement, I fear that other proposals not yet considered might have to be considered in trying to settle this dispute. It is hard to say what those proposals might be, but I think we have enough difficulty without creating more.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member and I both see the difficulties, but the advice of experts who know much more than I do is that the only way to obtain peace is to extend the collective agreement and to establish a fixed date. That is the course that it is suggested we follow.


William Arnold Peters: But they will also agree that we are not talking about the original one-year contract. We are talking about a considerably extended contract. The proposition put forward by the minister about having a second set of proposals would have to be dealt with in the legislation and made possible by the legislation.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Chairman, there are just a couple of points I want to make on this clause.


John Allen Fraser: We have worked all day. You just got here.


John R. Rodriguez: If you have worked all day, I am surprised that you have not seen some very obvious things. I want to point out to the minister that the collective agreement will end on December 31, 1979. If the employees and the employer continue negotiations on a new contract, not on the one being imposed by the arbitrator as set up in this bill, then in effect they should be covered by some collective agreement. In other words, the rights and privileges they enjoy under the collective agreement should not end on December 31, 1979. If they try to establish a contract after that date, they should be covered under the provisions of the previous contract or agreement.
With that in mind I would like to move an amendment to clause 5 as follows:
That clause 5 of Bill C-8 be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
Postal Services
"It shall then continue to be in full force and effect until the signing of a new collective agreement or until seven days have elapsed after receipt of a report from a conciliation board for the renewal of the collective agreement."


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The committee has heard the amendment of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Rodriguez) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 42.


Charles Robert Turner: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 5 carry?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, it seems reasonable to me to have expected the minister, if he thought the amendment out of place or if he had a reason for thinking the amendment did not hold water, to rise and give some response to my proposal. Surely one has reason to expect, when workers are negotiating a new contract, for it to be spelled out very clearly that they are covered under some sort of agreement. What we were trying to do was to write in a logical and obvious provision that workers should be covered under the previous collective agreement until such time as they sign a new agreement. It seems to me to be a reasonable suggestion and I wonder whether what has just happened is not another display of the kind of haughty attitude taken by the Post Office Department; I noticed that the minister did not even rise to reply to what I think is a reasonable proposal. Surely when workers enter into negotiations for a contract, in that hiatus period they should be covered by the provisions of the previous contract.
This attitude does not surprise me because we saw the same kind of attitude displayed when this parliament was asked to decide on Bill C-45, a piece of legislation which took away the right to strike from the inside postal workers during an election period. Lo and behold a bill was thrown together hastily and rushed into the House. It was only after we, on this side of the House, had read the bill that we recognized immediately that the workers were left without the coverage of any collective agreement. While that may be fine and dandy for management, it certainly did not provide any sense of security for those who have to live under the provisions of a collective agreement.
It seems to me that I have spotted the same sort of gap in this bill as existed in Bill C-45 at that time. I think the minister owes this House and owes the post office workers an explanation. After all, we are forcing them into compulsory arbitration which they will have to abide by until December 31, 1979. I think the minister owes an explanation to the workers and to the public because, as I have said often enough, you can take a horse to drink, but you cannot make it water.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I like it the way I said it! That is the way they run the Post Office. It would appear to me that this sort of attitude needs an explanation from the minister. We want to know why the Liberals and the Tories react like trained seals.

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
The same old gang stood up and voted against what appeared to be a reasonable proposition. I hope the minister will explain.


André Ouellet: The proposal put forward by the hon. member was a hasty amendment. Ele came to see me at the start of the proceedings and showed me his amendment. I indicated to him that such an amendment was unnecessary because the legislation was already quite clear on this. It is probably true that I should have risen and, immediately following the reading of the amendment, given a reply. Unfortunately, I was looking at some documents and the proceedings went by quickly when the vote took place. I apologize to the hon. member for not having risen in my seat and explained to the House that section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act covers the intent of the hon. member's amendment. The hon. member has no reason to fear that after that period elaspses the employees are left with nothing. The matter is totally covered in the act; he can find it at page 29 of the act.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to have this clause stood. The minister has agreed that what we are doing is in fact changing the length of the contract. He has indicated there would obviously be a period during which new contract proposals under normal circumstances could be presented and referred to the mediator-arbitrator or whatever. After reading the clause over I do not think that is possible. What will be referred to arbitration are those matters in dispute that were referred to the conciliation board. It refers to issues remaining in dispute between the employees and the employer at the date of the appointment.
This really touches upon one of the problems unions have in that they are of the opinion that all the important matters were not referred to arbitration in the first place, and they would like to have these matters referred. This part does not indicate that those things or issues are to be thrown in as matters of dispute. We are now talking about the change in time of the one-year contract. As I see it, unless we amend clause 6 this will not happen and those important matters in dispute will not be referred. I would not like to lose the opportunity of curtailing the length of the contract, but not the length of the peace. If we are going to attempt the Crown corporation idea I would like to see the length of peace extended until that time, and then let the parties fight it out in the normal way. I would not like to see an extension of the time of the contract because that is not what we are considering.
If the minister's suggestion could be written into the bill so that new proposals could be added, that would cover the situation; but I think this must be done in respect of clause 6. I would like to have clause 5 stood because it hinges on what we describe or indicate as the matters to be referred to the board for an extended length of time. If additional matters can be referred, then I guess it will be okay; but if they cannot f would like to be in a position to oppose this. Therefore, I would ask that clause 5 be stood.


Charles Robert Turner: Is it agreed that clause 5 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, there is something in respect of clause 5 I would like clarified. The minister said that the provision for the extension of the collective agreement is covered under section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that clause 5 was stood.


Charles Robert Turner: There was not unanimous consent to stand clause 5.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to get some clarification. The minister said the provision for extending the collective agreement while the employer and employees were negotiating a new agreement was covered in Section 51 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is also covered in 40.02 of the collective agreement between the post office and CUPW. This whole question is in dispute. In fact, that is one of the issues on which the arbitrator will have to make some sort of decision. If he is to make some sort of decision in respect of 40.02, this may very well affect the extension of the collective agreement while the workers are trying to negotiate a new contract or new agreement. This is why we felt the amendment we proposed would spell out very clearly what was intended, so there would be no opportunity whatsoever for misunderstanding in respect of the coverage of the collective agreement while the new contract was being negotiated.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Appointment of mediator-arbitrator
Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that in clause 6 we are introducing a new concept, the meaning of which I perhaps fail to grasp. I refer to the concept of mediator-arbitrator. Since I have not seen this provision in any other legislation-and perhaps I am not thoroughly informed in this regard-I wonder if the minister could explain it to me. It may well appear in other legislation, but how does he reconcile the two hats this party must wear, the one of the mediator and the one of the arbitrator? Could the minister explain what exactly are the parameters of this position?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the mediator-arbitrator concept is not brand new but has been in existence for many years, perhaps six, seven or eight. It has been used more often in the United States than in Canada. This approach has been used recently in Canada in relation to the longshoremen's settlement in the port of Montreal. It has also been used on three occasions in western Canada in respect of the grain handlers. It is called mediation-arbitration, and it is a proce-
October 17, 1978

dure whereby the parties arm a very skilled mediator with the power of an arbitrator, to be used if necessary.
The most important factor of this concept is that labour and management, while parties to an arbitration proceeding, still have the opportunity to carry on with the negotiation process. It seems to me there is great potential for this technique in situations where the parties realize that a strike will result in severe adverse effects on a country or on a community, and will in fact inflict more punishment on the public than on a party to the dispute. I must say that this dispute would come within that category.
This is obviously a relatively new concept and is not something that is used normally. However, it is a concept that allows parties having difficulty in arriving at negotiated settlements to receive the help of a third party who acts as mediator. He is a person who tries to obtain the co-operation of the parties to the dispute in arriving at a collective agreement. This third party is armed with clout in the sense that the third party is a person active in the course of the mediation taking place between the parties.
The parties must always remember in discussing aspects of the collective agreement that if they do not agree or do not furnish substantial evidence or do not argue successfully their case on why they advocate a clause or reject a demand the mediator will act later on in the process as an arbitrator, keeping in mind the positions advanced by both parties and rendering a decision which will be binding on both parties.
It is a new technique in Canada, but it is a technique that has been very helpful and useful in many respects in disputes in the United States. It is a technique which has become more and more useful in Canada, and we think that it will serve very well in the circumstances we are facing now.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's answers. Will this mediator-arbitrator which according to clause 6(1) will be appointed by the minister, be one who will be acceptable to both parties? In other words, will you be naming or appointing this person subject to consultation with the other parties?


André Ouellet: Yes. Before appointing such a person, there will be consultations with the two parties.


John Allen Fraser: Clause 6(1) of the bill says:
The Minister of Labour shall, forthwith after the coming into force of this act, appoint a mediator-arbitrator-
It seems to me there is an inconsistency here. The minister has said that there will be consultation. I am wondering what he means by forthwith, and I am wondering if the minister can assure the House that the government already has someone in mind. I would be very surprised if we had reached this stage without some thought as to who might be doing the job. I would also like to know if the minister could tell us how long we would have to wait before the mediator-arbitrator is actually appointed.
Postal Services


André Ouellet: The government does have in mind certain persons, but I would not like to volunteer a specific time for the nomination. I will be acting as quickly as possible to proceed with consultations tonight if this bill is passed, or at the latest tomorrow morning, but I am in the hands of the person that will accept this job. Indeed, hon. members can understand the task that is ahead for the chosen mediator-arbitrator, and I cannot assure the House that I will be in a position to appoint someone immediately in the minutes following the passing of this bill; but I will undertake the appointment of someone in the hours following the passing of this bill.


Andrew Hogan: I would like to introduce an amendment to clause 6 of this bill:
That clause 6 of Bill C-8 be amended by deleting lines 40 to 44 on page 2 and lines 1 to 5 on page 3, and by substituting therefor the following words,
"are in dispute between the employee association and the employer."
If such an amendment were introduced it would improve the possibility of getting better mediation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would like to be advised, Mr. Chairman, as to what the hon. member is really talking about, which is the usual practice in this House. I hope that he will have the courtesy to pass over copies of his proposed amendment so that we may give it the attention which I know that he thinks it deserves. I do not mean to be facetious, but we should have a look at it so that we will know what the hon. member is attempting to do.


Charles Robert Turner: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order but a point of debate.


André Ouellet: I think that I understand the proposal made by the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that he is repeating what has been echoed earlier by the hon. member for Timiskaming, that some aspects of the discussions between the employer and the employees have not been referred to the conciliation board chairman. Indeed, this is quite true. It is the union's contention that there are a number of issues which they would like to see dealt with that have not been referred to the conciliation board by the public service staff relations board.
The reason the PSSRB has not referred these issues to Mr. Courtemanche is that they are items which are outside the jurisdiction of the board. They may be items which are very legitimate for unions under the Canadian Labour Code and which could eventually be considered after parliament has approved a bill turning the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation, but until the employees of the post office are working under a Crown corporation, they cannot entertain some of the items they would like to see referred to Mr. Courtemanche for the conciliation board findings. We are no more in a position to deal with this issue today than the PSSRB was when they referred it to the chairman of the conciliation board.

October 17, 1978
Postal Services


Mr. Symes:: Mr. Chairman, just to be perfectly clear, the minister has used the word "some" of the items fall outside the purview of the bill. Is he saying that none of these contentious issues that the union has raised can be dealt with by the mediator-arbitrator as set forth in this bill, or is he saying that some of them cannot be? I would like a precise answer to that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that someone will correct me in this statement if I am wrong. It is my understanding that all the issues that could be entertained by the Public Service Staff Relations Act that apply to the current collective agreement and that the union wants dealt with, were referred to the conciliation board chairman. Those issues that were not referred were those that in the mind of Mr. Brown, the chairman, of the PSSRB, were outside the jurisdiction of the board and therefore not referred to Mr. Courtemanche.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Chairman, in the debate this afternoon we heard about the findings of the many royal commissions and inquiries into the difficulties in the post office, about the number of grievances and outstanding disputes that have not been resolved. The minister is arguing for this bill on the grounds that it will bring peace or some stability to negotiations in the post office until December 31, 1979, yet I heard him admit tonight that there are serious and contentious issues that this arbitrator will not be able to deal with.
I have difficulty with his argument that this legislation will bring some stability to management-worker relations considering the fact that some of these long outstanding and contentious issues will not be examined by the arbitrator. I see a contradiction here and I worry that even with this legislation the bad feelings, grievances and frustrations will remain and so will our problems. That is why my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, was trying to broaden the scope of the bill. We do not have a list of the grievances or a precise definition of the act. I cannot see that the arbitrator would not have the scope to deal with them. Could the minister give us some more details and explain what I see as a contradiction?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is right in indicating that there are a number of non-bargainable items that the union would have liked to bargain at this time. They are non-bargainable because under the PSSRB they are considered like this. This is one of the reasons it has been said that the post office should become a Crown corporation and that the employees would rather be under the Canada Labour Code and no longer subject to the more restrictive labour relations provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
We indicated that the bill that would create a Crown corporation will be presented in parliament as soon as possible, perhaps in the early months of the current session. That would mean that by the middle of next year we would have a Crown corporation.
If we do not extend the terms of the current collective agreement before a Crown corporation is established we could

be faced with two labour disputes in the post office-the one we are facing now and a potential dispute similar to this some time next year, perhaps coinciding with the passage of a bill to create a Crown corporation or perhaps just before the establishment of this Crown corporation. It was felt that in the best interests of everybody, particularly in the best interests of the public, we should take measures in this parliament to make sure there would not be another postal dispute in the days preceding or coinciding with the creation of a Crown corporation.
I think it is extremely important that we recognize that some of the items important to the union ought to be dealt with, unfortunately for them not at this time but when they will be negotiating their new collective agreement with a Crown corporation. At that time the union would be in a position to negotiate all of those items that they consider important. I accept their judgment on this. They will then be in a position to negotiate them. At the present time they are non-bargainable but would become bargainable in the next collective agreement after the creation of a Crown corporation.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the minister's argument. What he is really doing is proposing not the resolution of one dispute but looking forward to another when the post office Crown corporation act is brought in. It seems to be that the purpose of any legislation of this kind should be to resolve the dispute between the employees and the employer. This is so narrowed down to certain specific rules that it makes it difficult for any arbitrator, mediator or employee association to get their teeth into what has to be resolved. Surely they cannot act in good faith if they are hampered by certain rules. Certainly this parliament must be over that board to which the minister referred. We make legislation here and we should make legislation which is able to resolve or help resolve situations between an employer and employee for all times.
I think the proposal made by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond makes sense. If we are acting in good faith as parliamentarians, surely we want to resolve this matter. We cannot go in with our hands dirty, realizing we are not giving the mediator the full powers he should have. I suggest the amendment is a proper one if we are to act in good faith as parliamentarians.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I think all hon. members should keep something in mind: this legislation is before us because there is a very difficult situation which has existed for a long time. I am not going to take the time of the House to throw brickbats tonight about why that legislation is so bad.
In response to the hon. member for Moncton, I must say that there is noway in the world that this emergency type of legislation, imperfect as it is, will solve all the problems of the post office. This legislation is only in front of us because we have an awful mess. I am anxious that it be passed so that there can be a resumption of service for the Canadian public. The question of how we solve all the difficulties in the post office is too complex for us to tackle tonight.
October 17, 1978

I say this in fairness to the acting minister of labour and his colleague, the Postmaster General. This bill has not been brought in front of us tonight in order to solve the problems of the Post Office. What the minister has said is that in view of the length of time this collective agreement will last, this legislation might help to achieve some of the things the government has in mind and which have been urged upon it by this party.
I urge all hon. members not to lose sight of the fact that tonight we are dealing with a situation which is almost out of control. The purpose of the legislation in front of us is to resume postal service to the public at the same time as arriving at a fair settlement of the dispute between the inside workers and the employer. It is not intended to be legislation designed to solve all the problems in the Post Office. I ask all hon. members to keep this in mind.


Andrew Hogan: The hon. member for Vancouver South is a good friend of most of us in the House. He should not let this matter go to his head. We are as interested as he in restoring the postal service and solving the problems. But these problems cannot be solved by a band-aid. We must remember the associated problems. It is our duty to attempt to receive explanations from the minister. In the process of doing that, perhaps we will take an extra hour. But is that not part of the democratic process? Should we push everything through and then find out later on that we made a bigger mess? It is our duty to do more than solve the difficulties in the short run.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, the point made by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is an important one. I found it somewhat difficult to comprehend the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver South, that we should run legislation which will somehow or other result in peace in the Post Office through the mill tonight.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He did not say that.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not think hon. members realize the importance of this legislation. We are dealing with 23,000 law abiding employees of the Crown. Surely it is the responsibility of hon. members not to precipitate the situation where law abiding citizens find themselves in the position of breaking the law of the land. It is not just a matter of passing legislation and ordering CUPW back to work tomorrow. I do not have to remind the House of the comments made in the press, which comments recommended that workers disobey the law of the land. Therefore it behooves us to take as much time as is necessary to include clauses which will ameliorate much of the dissatisfaction workers would face upon returning to work because of compulsory arbitration.
The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is a wise one. There were some issues which PSSRB did not refer to the conciliation board because they were outside the ambit of the negotiations. Can the minister table a list of the particular items which were not passed on to the
Postal Services
conciliation board? Was the renegotiation of the technological change clause one of those items? Was overtime one of the items? What about the employment of casuals? If those are some of the items, then we are back to the very crux of the problem. Telling Canadians that what we pass tonight will solve the problems is a pipe dream which Conservatives and Liberals would like to propagate. That only compounds the problem rather than solve it. I am prepared to stay here until six o'clock in the morning. Will he table the list for the benefit of all members? Since we are being asked to legislate compulsory arbitration, will the minister table the list for our benefit?


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, indeed the hon. member has a very keen interest in this dispute. Perhaps he should have a look at the report which was published at the time of the reference by the chairman of the public service staff relations board, which reference gave the mandate to the chairman of the conciliation board and which made reference to a number of issues. I asked one of my officials to underline the items in the 85-page document which were not referred because they did not fall under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. That document could be tabled tonight. It is a public document. I doubt the hon. member will have the time to read the entire document. I should like to refer to a few examples of items which were not negotiable under the act, for example, the classifications, the pensions, the staffing and lay-off benefits. These are some examples. That document can be tabled for the benefit of all hon. members.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the particular issues which could not be negotiated under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. One problem was the question of technological change and its effect on members of CUPW. As the minister has stated, lay-off and classification of employees were excluded from the negotiations. Because of the technological change clause in the contract, the view of the employees is that the area is opened up. We should have the right to examine and make a decision on this issue. That is what the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond was driving at in his particular amendment.
The minister is very optimistic if he thinks passing this piece of legislation will solve the problem. It does not, because the festering will continue within the Post Office and we have until December 31, 1979, under the agreement brought down by the arbitrator in this legislation. I ask the minister to reconsider his position and to have these matters referred. Let us have peace in the Post Office until such time as we deal with the Crown corporation legislation for the Post Office.


André Ouellet: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, for not being in a position to acquiesce to the suggestion made by the hon. member. I appreciate on some of these points if the employees were under the Canada Labour Code, they could negotiate. However, at the present time Post Office employees are not under the Canada Labour Code.

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
When the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, Mr. Brown, prepared the terms of reference of the conciliation board and referred items to the attention of the chairman, Mr. Courtemanche, and the other members of the conciliation board, he precisely indicated those issues which could be referred and those which could not. He indicated the reasons why they could not be heard. We cannot do contrary at the present time.
When this parliament passes legislation to create a Crown corporation, the union will rightfully negotiate a collective agreement in due course under the schemes that apply to Crown corporations and then these items can be the subject for bargaining.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to fight the battle of the inadequacies of the Public Service Staff Relations Act; there will be a time for that. Some of us predicted at the time the bill was passed that excluding subjects such as classification from the union's right to bargain would create problems. I do not want to debate that whole question.
I am concerned about one very important clause in the 1975 agreement. It was probably the most important reason for the strike in 1975. That clause dealt with technological change and the right of the union to discuss that question.
The question I want to ask the minister is very simple; I think he can answer it very easily. When the mediator-arbitrator sits down to deal with the employer and the union, will he have authority to take out of the present agreement the section dealing with technological change? I ask that question because it is no secret that the government representatives, at least those from Treasury Board, were very much opposed to the inclusion of that clause in the agreement. Before I agree to this, I would like to know whether the mediator-arbitrator, if the employer proposes that that section be eliminated or changed in content and if members have less rights, would have that authority.


André Ouellet: My answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. The mediator-arbitrator will have the right to look at this. This subject in fact was referred to the Courtemanche board. It was the subject of some discussion by the conciliation board. Some comment was made by the three members of that board. Indeed, this question can be dealt with by the mediator-arbitrator with full latitude.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I want to give the minister notice that if that is the case, I intend to move an amendment a little later which will make it very clear that the mediator not have that right. I say this to the minister in all sincerity. The union carried on a long and difficult strike to get that clause. They got it through collective bargaining and a legal strike.
I cannot believe the government would be so insane as to bring in legislation with provisions by which the government appoints an arbitrator and gives him the power to do what the governments wants done unilaterally. Nothing could be more contrary to the most fundamental principles of collective bar-

gaining in good faith. Therefore, I give the minister notice that in a few moments I will move an amendment which will deal with that question.


André Ouellet: If I may be permitted, I would like to move a very minor amendment to clause 6 at the top of page 3. It is an error that arose through talking about employee associations rather than employee organizations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What line?


André Ouellet: The first line.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not want it to get confused. I thought there was an amendment by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond before the committee. Maybe we should deal with that before the one by the minister.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. On the point raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond gave notice to the committee of an amendment but he never formally put the amendment to the committee. In any case, the Chairman has not put the question on his amendment to the committee. If it is the wish of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, I could at this time put the amendment to the committee so that we could dispose of it in one way or another and then consider the amendment of the minister.


Andrew Hogan: I am sorry for that mistake, Mr. Chairman.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, possibly we could dispose of this very minor technical amendment and then continue with the other one. 1 move:
That clause 6 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out line 1 on page 3 in the English version and substituting the following:
"employee organization and the employer"
If hon. members refer to the interpretation section on the first page of the bill, they will see that in the definitions, we talk about "employee organizations". On page 3 we should not be talking about employee associations but employee organizations.


Gérald Laniel: I am ready to accept the suggestion of the minister. I want to make sure 1 have the consent of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. I will put the amendment to the committee. Mr. Ouellet moves:
That clause 6 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out line 1 on page 3 in the English version and substituting the following:
"employee organization and the employer"
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 6 of Bill C-8 be amended by deleting lines 40 to 44 on page 2 and lines 1 to 5 on page 3, and by substituting therefor the following words:
"are in dispute between the employee association and the employer"
October 17, 1978


William Arnold Peters: This matter has now been raised for the second time. I believe the minister agrees that certain factors ought to be considered. If that is so, attention ought to be given to this clause. It is the government which will be appointing the members of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, so it is the government which will be negotiating, in effect, if this dispute is to be referred in the end to compulsory arbitration. Most hon. members are familiar with the dispute which took place in 1975 having to do with industrial change; it would be most unfair in my view if all the rewards gained by the workers following that dispute were to be taken away.
A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Vancouver South urged us to get on with this item of business because all we were doing was getting the post office workers back to work. Mr. Chairman, the Post Office has not worked for a long time. It takes seven or eight days to put a letter through the Toronto post office with all the machinery there. I see a number of officials in the gallery. They are on holiday, too, laughing and having a great time. They have been on holiday for five or six years in my opinion. We all know that mail service has deteriorated sharply.
It is reasonable, I think, for the public to know that the settlement we are imposing tonight is costing the workers a great deal. They made their proposal for a year's contract ending on July 1, 1978, and now we are extending it for another year and a half on the basis of the same proposals. It is all very well to say the workers should go back to work. We have to ask ourselves at what price, and if the minister is not willing to offer some of the concessions which are being requested and if we as members of parliament are unable to add to these clauses to allow other matters to be discussed in the interest of the employees, we are being very unfair.
I do not always agree with my hon. friend from Nickel Belt-
Aii hon. Member: Thank God!


William Arnold Peters: Thank God on both sides. But in this instance I think he is right. Our objective should be not only to put people back to work in the post office and try to develop a spirit of harmony there; we must also make an effort to be fair and reasonable. We are not doing this.
No concession whatever is being made to the workers. After all, they have gone through the process of deciding whether they will take the strike route or the route of mediation or arbitration. They have made a legal choice. The union has done all the things it is asked to do and its members are now in a legal position to strike. Yet everything in this legislation is weighted on the other side. We are not taking into account the unfairness of the bargaining position. The minister is in a position, if he wishes, to provide a reasonable settlement as far as the workers are concerned, a contract covering three years. Maybe common sense does not prevail here either. It seems to me there are clauses in this bill which should be amended if it is really our wish to arrive at a settlement which would place
Postal Services
the post office in a position to carry on delivering the mail. Let us not make it inevitable that other action should take place in the post office which would be to the detriment of the public.
We could be exceedingly unfair to one side by way of legislation. By legislating high wages, as we have done once or twice in the past, the Post Office might have to double the price of a postage stamp. I remember that we legislated an increase of 30 cents in order to settle a strike on the seaway a number of years ago, and we started the whole inflation mess. If we are going to be unfair, we can expect those who are unfairly treated to react, and that would not be conducive to peace in the postal structure.
In fairness to the people concerned can we not give some consideration to allowing additional items to be added, as recommended in my colleague's motion? If that is not possible, can we not take away something which will be detrimental and costly to the employees of the post office? We are in a position to do that. As legislators we are in a position to be unfair as well, but it seems to me that it would be better for us to err on the side of fairness and justice than to err on the side of satisfying some civil servants who feel that some of the gains made by way of a previous strike should not have been allowed and who are now in a position to arbitrate them away.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness, particularly in view of some of the remarks made by the minister and others in this House previously about the government's intention to introduce legislation to make the post office and its facilities a Crown corporation very shortly, and in order to permit a proper continuity and a proper transitional period for postal services in this country, through the present system and when incorporated as a Crown corporation, I ask the minister why the Canada Labour Code could not be considered to apply to the employees and to the mediation and arbitration process, just for the purposes of this act. Parliament is supreme. Surely we are still supreme, and surely this legislation should be considered transitional legislation for the purposes of continuity in changing the Post Office Department into a Crown agency.
I think there would be legitimate and good reason for doing that and for covering the whole thing in one batch. There should be one dispute, and it should be resolved once and for all. That seems like a fair question to me, and I hope that the minister will answer it positively and in the affirmative.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I see the obvious good intention of the hon. member, and if it was possible to bring everything under this legislation and once and for all to settle the dispute and the difficulties in the post office, I would obviously go along with him. If we could through one piece of legislation settle everything, that would be ideal, but the consequences could be numerous in the sense that we are dealing with a collective agreement which has its origins in 1977. We are almost at the end of 1978, and we expect to create, through legislation in parliament, a Crown corporation with will

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
change the status of those who will be working in that Crown corporation.
However, there is no certainty that either the hon. member or I could give to the public of Canada, to other employees who are employed under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and to our colleagues in the House of Commons that this Crown corporation will indeed be created. We are all going in that direction, and that is why I say that in the first collective agreement which will take place after the creation of the Crown corporation some of these items could then be considered. I appreciate the good will of the hon. member for Moncton, who does not want to see some clauses or items which were turned down by the chairman of the public service staff relations board brought in at this time.
I can understand the good will of the hon. member, but I must say that his good will is premature.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(a) I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale):
That the House continue to sit this day until all stages of Bill C-8, to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, have been disposed of.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand from the motion of the hon. parliamentary secretary that he wishes the House and the committee to proceed to all stages of the bill?


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At first glance I would have difficulty accepting the motion of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 6(5)(a) provides that a motion could be put to permit the House to sit beyond the ordinary hours of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a special item of business or stages thereof, subject to certain conditions. However, I do not think this Standing Order allows me to accept a motion which goes against Standing Order 72. The House has already agreed, by unanimous consent, to proceed to two stages of Bill C-8 today. Standing Order 72 provides that every bill shall receive three separate readings, on different days, previously to being passed. My interpretation of that is that Standing Order 72 forbids acceptance by the Chair of such a motion.
To my mind, the only way the motion proposed by the hon. parliamentary secretary could be acceptable would be if unanimous consent were given to allow third reading. However, as far as the committee stage is concerned, that is acceptable.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to Standing Order 75(14) which refers I suppose to the general principle as laid out in Standing Order 72 which stipulates that a bill shall not be read more than once on the same day and provides that when a bill is reported from a committee of the whole as it is now the case a motion can be made that the bill be now read a third time and passed. So that Standing Order 75(14) be logical, Mr. Speaker, it is essential for a bill reported from a committee of the whole, with or without amendment, that we accept that third reading be made the same day. In my opinion, it would be an exception to Standing Order 72.
If you agree with this interpretation which seems to be the proper one to be used on such occasion, the main motion would be receivable. If not, I have no objection to your asking for the unanimous consent of the House so that we could proceed with all the stages of the bill and should anyone dare oppose it, we will know who.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to get into a procedural hassle over all of this. It is perfectly obvious that we in this party are doing our best to make improvements in this bill, but it is not our intention to put any procedural blocks in the way of the House dealing with the bill tonight if it wishes to do so. If the government were to ask for unanimous consent to complete the bill tonight, giving us a chance to move amendments to other clauses in committee of the whole, I believe the government would find that so far as we are concerned there would be that unanimous consent and this procedural battle could end.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, following this wonderful surprise,
I think that the problem is solved and that there is unanimous consent to dispose tonight of all stages of the bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party 1 would like to say that I join in the expression of unanimous consent to all stages of the bill being considered today, as we have agreed earlier in the day.
There is one small item before we move on into the hours beyond ten o'clock, and that is the question of the vote which was scheduled-and which is indeed on the order paper-on the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and seconded by myself with respect to the throne speech debate. There have been some discussions on the matter. We do not want to demand that the vote be taken now because we recognize the necessity of dealing with the post office bill. I hope there will be consent in the House to putting that vote over until just before orders of the day are called
October 17, 1978

tomorrow afternoon so that we could deal with it at that time. Then if there are any further discussions to take place regarding the arrangement of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, we could deal with that at that time.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in fact I have spoken about this matter to all the House leaders and there seems to be an agreement to postponing the vote until tomorrow afternoon after question period. And unless we are otherwise advised, we will deal with the fifth day of the debate on the Speech from the Throne tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let us dispose of the last matter first. Is there agreement that the vote, which was to be taken tonight, be postponed until tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the House agrees to sit beyond the regular hours in order to complete all stages in the consideration of Bill C-8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, you mentioned inadvertently that this was the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. However the motion stands in my name, and I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is agreeable to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I did not put a motion to the House, I have merely put a suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who proposed to proceed by unanimous consent so that the Chair will not to have to make such an important decision tonight.
Having said that, the House must now resume consideration of Bill C-8, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, in committee of the whole.

The House resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-8, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services-Mr. Ouellet-Mr. Laniel in the chair.


Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose, clause 6 was under consideration. There was an amendment to that clause. Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Hogan) negatived: Yeas, 11; nays, 73. [Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendment to clause 6:
Postal Services
That clause 6(3) of Bill C-8 be amended by deleting line 26 on page 3 and substituting therefor the following:
"(3) Sections 68, 69, subsections 70(2), 70(3), 71(3) and sec-"
The rest must be read as it now stands in the bill before us. [English]
The reason for these changes is that when we were drafting the bill-and I hope hon. members will be indulgent-it was prepared in great haste and unfortunately there has been some error in indicating the appropriate clauses. I would like to have them corrected, with the consent of the committee.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have just a couple of points for clarification, Mr. Chairman. The bill when first drafted had only two subclauses. Now the two subclauses which were originally referred to in the bill are being wiped out and we are introducing four new subclauses. Perhaps the minister will just follow along with me in that regard. We have now added sections 68,
69,	subsections 70(2), 70(3) and 71(3). We have now wiped out subsection 71(3) which was originally in the bill.
What I want to know is how to follow this through in terms of looking at the bill as it was originally drafted. I do not think the explanation given was quite sufficient. The minister said he had to prepare the bill in a hurry, and we understand that, but I think the minister should explain to the committee what he is attempting to do and what this clause deals with in the new form. Last but not least, given the fact that the minister has had a considerable time to study this bill, would he now indicate if there are any other errors that have been brought to the minister's attention? I ask this for the edification of the committee because, knowing how this government operates, I am sure there must be one or two other changes. He might as well let us know what other boobs he has made.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is saying this in good spirit.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In a facetious way.


André Ouellet: I want to make the thing quite clear. The bill in its first version, which we have before us, refers to sections
70,	subsection 71(3), sections 72 and 74. The amendment means we will be including or adding sections 68 and 69. We are retaining section 70, but not all of that section. We are retaining subsection (2), and subsection (3) of section 70. We are not changing subsection 71(3). It remains. We obviously do not change either subsection 70(2) or 70(4). In other words, we are adding only two sections. Those two sections are the ones that allow the parties to be heard, as provided for in section 79 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and allow the factors to be taken into account by the board as covered under section 68 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is intended to make sure we have the proper numbers. I apologize to members of this committee for the error, but I think it is much clearer in this way.
The hon. member indicated that he would like to know if there are other changes to be made at a later date. There is

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
one other minor change to be made. At the top of page 4 he will see a slight difference between the English and French texts where in fact the number "3" has been left out in the French text. The second line of clause 8 on page 4 reads in part "established pursuant to subsection 3(2)". We forgot to include in the French text that figure "3". In the French we talk about "le paragraphe 3". That is the only other change I want to make, and when we come to clause 8 I will ask the committee to entertain that amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Order. On the last point, 1 doubt that an amendment need be moved. It deals with an editing correction which the Chair can attend to automatically; no amendment is required.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, in the last 25 years we have seen a tremendous change in many industries in this country. I would remind the acting minister that in the mid-1960's, and the assistant deputy minister will remember this very well, we had a work stoppage on the CPR because the CPR unilaterally decided to extend the runs of engineers. This led to the appointment of Mr. Justice Freedman who held hearings on the matter and made some important and profound recommendations in respect of technological changes, some of which we have still not accepted.
The minister knows that in the city of Montreal the longshoremen's industry has changed dramatically as a result of the introduction of containerization. This has led to a very sharp decline in the number of longshoremen. The printing industry is also experiencing an industrial revolution because of the use of computers in the place of the old typographical machines.
There is no one change that concerns working people more than technological change. I thought we were dealing here with a bill which would give the mediator-arbitrator the authority to settle many of the questions that have not beer, agreed to by the post office and postal workers, such as the hourly rate of pay, the number of hours, rest periods and so on. Although I do not like this legislation and said we would vote against it, I was prepared to debate the matter today without a great deal of heat or rhetoric. I was shocked, therefore, to hear the minister indicate a moment ago that the mediator-arbitrator would have the authority to deal with clauses of the present agreement relating to technological change.
I do not want to make a long speech, but we are facing legislation on the first day of a strike. Somehow in 1978 we cannot have a strike in the post office that lasts more than one day. Back in 1975 we had a strike that lasted 43 days, and at that time the minister and the government said they were prepared to let it go on even longer.
One of the most important issues, if not the most important, in that earlier dispute related to the matter of technological change. As a result of that strike the workers obtained the right to negotiate when technological change took place. It may be that this is not working very well as far as the

employer is concerned, and I do not think it is working well as far as the employees are concerned. In any event, there is a right of negotiation in respect of technological change.
Now the minister tells us that the mediator-arbitrator will have the right to deal with this because the Public Service Staff Relations Board will have this matter as one that can be negotiated. Let us be realistic. We are passing legislation which gives the government the right to appoint the mediator-arbitrator. That is not a three-man board on which the employees have a representative, as they do on conciliation boards. This is a one-man board with the full power to settle these questions, and that one member is to be appointed by the government. Then another arm of the government, the Treasury Board, together with the Post Office Department, will appear before the arbitrator and argue that the clause in the agreement which was arrived at after a 43-day strike should be eliminated. If that happens, who could blame the workers if they felt that they had been dealt with by a kangaroo court?
If that is what this section provides and if that is the decision which the arbitrator will make, then in January of 1980 we will have another postal strike, and whoever is in parliament at that time will have to deal with it. 1 would urge the minister to use some common sense. Therefore, I propose an amendment which I think will take care of this difficulty and which is inherent in the legislation as it is written. I move: That clause 6(1) be amended on page 3 at line 13, by adding immediately after the word "thereof' the following words:
"provided, however, that no arbitral award shall impose terms or conditions of employment which take away rights enjoyed by the employee and employee organization pursuant to any of the provisions of the collective agreement."
I think that it would be an error of tremendous proportion for the government to use this occasion to take away from the worker unilaterally rights they obtained after a long strike at great cost to them and at great cost to the people as a whole and which they obtained through legitimate collective bargaining. It would not only be a disservice to the workers in the post office, but it would inevitably lead to a strike as soon as this legislation is passed.


Gérald Laniel: I shall put the amendment to the committee. Moved by Mr. Orlikow-


André Ouellet: I have no objection to the committee dealing with this amendment, but I do not see it as a subamendment to the amendment that I proposed previously. Has my previous amendment been agreed to? Was it disposed of or is it still pending before the committee?


Gérald Laniel: Actually it has not been put to the committee.
October 17, 1978



As the minister will remember, we set it aside pending the formal presentation of the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan).

I think that I will follow the suggestion of the minister and put his amendment in front of the committee to make sure that it is dealt with. It was moved by Mr. Ouellet that clause 6 of Bill C-8 be amended to delete lines 40 to 44 on page 2. Is that the amendment that substitutes the word "organization" for "association"?


André Ouellet: No, Mr. Chairman, this one has been disposed of. It is the other one which says that subclause 6(3) of the bill be amended by striking out line 26.


Gérald Laniel: It has been put to the committee but it has not been adopted. Is the committee ready for the question on that amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.
[ Translation]


Gérald Laniel: I shall now put to the committee the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). [English]
Moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
That clause 6(1) be amended on page 3 at line 13, by adding immediately after the word "thereof' the following words:
"provided, however, that no arbitral award shall impose terms or conditions of
employment which take away rights enjoyed by the employee and employee
organization pursuant to any of the provisions of the collective agreement."
Is the amendment carried?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, it appears that the minister is not going to respond to what appears to be a very reasonable and logical proposition. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has pointed out that it took a 43-day strike in 1975 to obtain what was then considered to be the solution to the problems between CUPW and post office management. Indeed, the legislation was brought into this House by a former postmaster general, Bryce Mackasey, who may yet go down to his reward as head of this new Crown corporation, which may mean that we will have to live with it again.
What the hon. member's amendment is saying, in effect, is that the employees have won through negotiation and through strike these benefits. For example, there is the definition of technological change. We know that the Post Office management would love to re-examine the whole question of technological change, which in the end would only affect the security of employment of post office workers. Once you affect the security of employment, you attack and destroy the right of
Postal Services
the workers to form collectives within the post office. In other words, it is an attack on the union itself.
We cannot have a situation where the mediator-arbitrator may withdraw things won and agreed upon in previous agreements, have him take something out and suggest to the House that that is going to create peace in the post office in the interim period before the Crown corporation comes into effect. Can you imagine the technological change clause being lifted and peace continuing within the post office?
It is important to note the words of one of the conciliation board members, Mr. Irving Gaul, the union nominee on the board. What he had to say in the conciliation report was very timely, and I would like to read it into the record:
Industrial peace is a prerequisite for the successful transition to Crown corporation status but industrial peace cannot be legislated by a parliamentary act. It can be achieved by the resolution of the problems, which can only be accomplished as a result of negotiated solutions.


An hon. Member:: Whose friend are you?


John R. Rodriguez: I see the Conservatives are now awake and are agreeing.
It seems to me that that is the kernel to the problem. If the minister does not accept this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, in effect he will not have industrial peace in the transitional period leading up to Crown corporation status. Surely, that has to be paramount in his mind. It would be a hoodwinking of the public if we let them think that what we do here tonight is somehow or other going to move the mail for the next year or two. Indeed, I think that what has been foisted on the taxpayers so far is a travesty.
I saw advertisements in the newspaper showing what the employer offered and what the employee wanted. About $300,000 was spent on a publicity campaign but did it bring peace to the post office? Was that money used to bring industrial peace to the post office? Should we use taxpayers' money to resolve those problems? It may have helped the government or the post office to wage a propaganda war for the public mind, but surely if the taxpayers' money is being spent it ought to be spent on the resolution of the problem and not to win public support for being such a good employer while implying that CUPW is a bunch of unreasonable people who want 30 hours of work for 40 hours' pay.
Surely the solutions do not lie in this open-ended kind of legislation which gives power to the arbitrator to remove things already won.
In the last contract CUPW thought the problem of casuals had been solved, but the post office kept circumventing the clauses in the agreement by not offering work to the full-time employees before hiring casuals. Grievances were built up and the matter was taken to the grievance board. The decision was appealed to the Federal Court by the Post Office but CUPW won on the grounds that the Pest Office had breached the agreement. The department has appealed to the Supreme Court with an attached statement to the effect that to go back

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
and correct the injustices where the agreement was breached would cost taxpayers from $2.5 million to $3 million.
We are here tonight in the hope that we can develop some sort of peace in the post office in the period before the establishment of a Crown corporation. If the minister leaves this legislation open-ended and does not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, that will guarantee industrial unrest in the post office.
We all know that the question of trust is important in collective bargaining. We could never use that word to describe collective bargaining with Treasury Board. In eighteen months CUPW has never sat down with the employer; the Postmaster General has never sat across the table to negotiate problems in the post office. Study after study was kept secret by the department until we blew the cover. These studies showed that management was incompetent. The charges were not made by a partisan politician in this House but in studies paid for by taxpayers.
I should like to relate an instance which occurred in the post office at Prince Rupert. A female employee there wrote to me complaining that the 25 female employees in that post office have only one washroom. She has tried everything to get more washroom facilities; she even wrote to the Postmaster General but did not get a response. I wrote to him myself and he replied by letter to the effect that the matter had been put on the priority list but because of cut-backs the washroom facilities in the Prince Rupert post office cannot be improved. These 25 female employees will have to continue sharing the toilet facilities.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley does not think that is important. Things which affect working conditions are important and this is how grievances build up and an impasse develops between management and employees. I have given the minister enough time to think about the amendment presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and I ask him to respond in a positive way.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?
Amendment (Mr. Orlikow) negatived: Yeas, 7; Nays, 46.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 6 as amended carry?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 is the key to the entire piece of legislation in many respects. It seems to me we are not getting many satisfactory replies from the minister or the government. The government has repeatedly said in this House that we are giving to the public service the right to bargain collectively regarding wages, hours and conditions of labour. We all recognize there are situations in which that right has been restricted and even withheld. That is what we are in the process of doing today.
Surely in the haste to withdraw that right in the public interest this House, this committee and the minister have a responsibility to ensure that we take adequate precautions to see that those whose rights are being denied are given some

compensation in the form of an assurance that the dispute will be adequately considered and fairly resolved.
I have seen this type of legislation passed a number of times but I have never seen it passed on the first day of a strike, never rushed through as quickly as this. The kernel of the matter is that the government will appoint a mediator-arbitrator who will have the sole power to decide issues respecting wages, hours of work and conditions of employment of the 23,000 postal employees for the next 15 months. The minister has not given us any guarantee that some of the rights they now enjoy will not be taken away.
We attempted to clarify that a few moments ago, but that amendment was smothered by the government and the official opposition. May we have some idea as to the type of person who will be chosen to discharge this very special responsibility? I am not asking for his name, but will he be a judge? That has been the case in the past. Will it be someone within the public service? Can he assure us that the person who is charged with this very heavy responsibility is a person in whom the 23,000 employees and the House can have confidence?
I am sure the minister agrees that the arbitrator's responsibility will be a heavy one. The minister will not be in a position to amend any of the arbitrator's decisions. In fact, none of us will have the power to amend any of his decisions. It is a tremendous responsibility for one man to have in the hollow of his hand, the well-being of those 23,000 employees for the next 15 months. Those employees have put their trust in the House. Can the minister tell us what type of person he will select? What safeguards will the employees have? Are they to be put back to work? We know they will be under the Anti-Inflation Act for the next 15 months. That is something most Canadian employees will not have to face.


André Ouellet: They will be under the provisions of the Anti-Inflation Act only to the end of this year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not
see that included in clause 8. If that is the case, I feel somewhat relieved on that point. The workers will operate under conditions laid down by the mediator-arbitrator. We should know from what category that person will be selected before we transfer that heavy and onerous responsibility to him.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, the person who will be appointed will be a very skilled person who has experience in the field of industrial relations. Perhaps he will be a judge.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the minister is not prejudiced against judges.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like Bryce Mackasey.


André Ouellet: The person will have experience in mediation leading to arbitration.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like Bryce Mackasey.
October 17, 1978


André Ouellet: I should like to assure the House that in the process of mediation and arbitration there is a period of time necessary for the mediator-arbitrator to work toward bringing the parties together and arriving at a collective agreement. I would not like to underestimate that role. Indeed this person is being vested with a double role. He will play the role of mediator; also he has the right to come forward and make recommendations binding upon both parties.
In the past when mediation and arbitration have been used, the persons appointed have been able to make progress with the concerned parties. In fact, they have brought about negotiated collective agreements on almost all outstanding issues. A recent example of that is the grain handlers agreement where very marginal clauses were left for the arbitration process and the rest was successfully mediated by the mediator-arbitrator with the co-operation of all parties. The process of arbitration will be used to its fullest extent by the person appointed.
Referring to the matter raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, earlier today in answer to a question raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming I pointed out that the Anti-Inflation Act would apply only to December 31, 1978; for the remainder of the time, to December 31, 1979, the Act will not apply.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, following what the Acting Minister of Labour has said respecting clause 8, that the Anti-Inflation Act will not apply after December 31, 1978, surely he is aware that there is power in the act to extend its application beyond that date. What assurance can he give the House that that power will not be used?


André Ouellet: Perhaps we can deal with that question when we are considering clause 8.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Chairman, I wish to propose the following amendment:
That clause 6(2) of Bill C-8 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 25 on page 3, the following new paragraph:
(d) for the purposes of any arbitration referred to in that subsection, the power
to render any provisional award.
I propose that amendment because of the reasons given by the minister for the appointment of an arbitrator-mediator to bring peace to this situation. Obviously the qualities of that individual are important. He should be provided with the flexibility to bring in not merely the report after 90 days, but perhaps order an immediate raise taking the government's base, which is approximately 4 per cent. In order to bring peace to the post office, he may wish to have the benefit of the provisional award immediately to solve some of the immediate discontent. If flexibility is lacking with the arbitrator, he will come forward after 90 days with arbitration on the matters not resolved by agreement.
This is the time to provide the arbitrator with some additional flexibility so that if he wishes to resolve some points immediately, without a delay of 90 days, he may. After all, we have had an 18-month hiatus regarding that particular contract, so he may wish to move more quickly to amend the
Postal Services
provisions which deal with the PSSRA and related problems. We have had enough discussion on that. I can see neither the government nor the official opposition is going to move on that.
I urge the minister to give some serious consideration to this. Maybe I am misunderstanding the bill. It seems it would be useful if the minister had this flexibility so that the arbitrator could move immediately if he wished on those matters that he wishes to resolve quickly in order to improve perhaps the atmosphere in terms of the ultimate award.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member just gave notice of an amendment. I may as well put it before the committee. Moved by the hon. member for New Westminster:
That clause 6(2) of Bill C-8 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 25 on page 3, the following new paragraph:
"(c) for the purposes of any arbitration referred to in that subsection, the
power to render any provisional award."
I am not sure if the numbering is right. It should be "(c)", not "(d)".


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Chairman, on one of the copies it is incorrectly described as "(d)". It should be "(c)". That is the correct subclause.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I have just consulted my colleague the Postmaster General on this amendment. We think it would be fruitful to accept this amendment and have this included in the bill. We have no objection. Indeed, we support the amendment.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the minister. At the moment we are in agreement with the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster and the minister. As I understand it, in terms of retroactivity there are no limitations on the mediator-arbitrator under this legislation in terms of going back retroactively.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be improper to instruct an arbitrator that he should not review or change any clause in the agreement. However, there is one provision which restricts what he should do. That is clause 8 with regard to the application of the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines. Apart from that, the mediator-arbitrator could deal with any of the other items already referred to the conciliation board by the PSSRB that are the subject of the agreement.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, may I say on behalf of our party we would be very pleased to receive the suggestion of the hon. member for New Westminster.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Leggatt) agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 7-Report to minister

October 17, 1978
Postal Services


John R. Rodriguez: I have an amendment I would like to put forward on this clause. I move:
That clause 7 of Bill C-8 be amended in line 34 on page 3 by adding immediately after the word "appointed" the following words:
"or within such longer period as may be agreed upon by the parties or determined by the Minister of Labour."
In explaining the amendment, as it now stands the mediator-arbitrator shall report to the Minister of Labour not later than 90 days after the date on which he is appointed. Many of these issues are very thorny. The whole question in the technological change clause and the whole definition of technological change may very well require more than 90 days. This would give a little more flexibility in terms of trying to reach a solution to the problem.
I see some nodding, so I will resume my seat.


André Ouellet: I am glad to be in agreement with my colleague from Nickel Belt.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Rodriguez) agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 8-Application of Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, during discussion on an earlier clause we discussed extending this clause to December 31, 1979. I gather the minister indicated it would not be applied beyond the end of this year. As it does not say that, possibly the minister could explain how he will manage this so that it will be clear to everyone. On first reading of this bill, that was a major stumbling block to this legislation that came to mind.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I understand there has been some fear on the part of hon. members that the wording in clause 8 is not as clear as it should be. During the supper adjournment, I asked my officials to prepare some appropriate wording in order that it may be crystal clear. If it is the desire of hon. members, I move:
That clause 8 of Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 4 thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"employer applicable for that portion of the period specified in section 5 that ends December 31, 1978."
Amendment (Mr. Ouellet) agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
On clause 10-Punishment for contravention of PSSRA


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the minister ought to give the committee an explanation of the very heavy fines imposed here. These fines range from $100 a day upward, from $300 to an aggregate of $2,500 and from $150 to $10,000. Why are these fines so heavy compared to what is normally the practice? Is it an attempt to intimidate
[The Chairman.]
employees? Is this a war of attrition? I can understand that the fines ought to take some cognizance of inflation, something with which the government is all too familiar. But inflation has not been as severe as these fines suggest.


André Ouellet: I would say that the penalties imposed in this clause are of a twentieth century magnitude and probably more in line with our day to day way of life. The fact that this clause is in the bill making penalties heavier is a clear indication that parliament is serious in passing this legislation. These penalties for contravention are a clear indication by parliament of the seriousness with which it regards the situation.


Mr. Forrestall:: 1 share the minister's concern that penalties attached to legislation as serious as this should be brought into line with the twentieth century. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that though the 74 or 75 recommendations made by the joint committee of this chamber and the other House concerning matters related to the public service legislation have been largely ignored, one of them has been singled out and the rest neglected.
The government has approached these recommendations in piecemeal fashion. It would be highly desirable if at some point ministers opposite would bring forward a bill which would reflect the substantial input made by the joint committee by way of recommendations which are presently before parliament. To find one of the recommendations "bootlegged" at the tail of a serious piece of legislation is not wholly acceptable. It is precisely this type of piecemeal application of recommendations in areas of policy suggested in the report which has led to the disquiet we see in the public service today as a result of Bill C-28-selective picking and choosing instead of the total presentation to the House of an updated approach to the whole system of collective bargaining in the public service.
While I am sure my hon. friends would support the extent of the fines, we would remind the minister that it is time we dealt seriously with the process of amending the six or seven acts which are involved in this whole area. Then, perhaps, we could begin to approach the basic questions which have given us trouble with respect to legislation such as this ever since I first took my seat here. I am not criticizing the level of the fines but rather the piecemeal lifting of twentieth century approaches, if I might use the minister's phrase. We ought to have a total package before us.


André Ouellet: I suspect the hon. member was busy this afternoon when 1 was introducing this bill. I would remind him that in my remarks I did refer to the work of the joint committee and some of the recommendations it made. 1 mentioned that the government has undertaken to bring forward comprehensive amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which would include a response to the recommendations of the committee concerning penalties for unlawful activities.
I appreciate that what we are taking tonight is a very sectorial approach to the more general proposition which
October 17, 1978

should be dealt with through comprehensive amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It is important, though, that the House recognize that the penalties we are suggesting here are precisely those which were recommended by the joint committee inquiring into relations between employers and employees in the public service.


J. Michael Forrestall: As long as the minister does not miss the point-that we should not be bootlegging particular recommendations and using them ad hoc.


André Ouellet: I appreciate the point which has been made and I understand the view expressed by the hon. member. 1 hope we shall be able to deal with this act in the very near future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the last two members to speak made reference to a report of the special joint committee on the public service. I was the only member of that committee to vote against the report brought down by the committee and one of the reasons I did so was because of these increased penalties the government is proposing.
What bothers me now is that we have before us a special bill introduced for one purpose, to provide for the resumption of postal services. We have interrupted the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne in order to deal with it. We have given unanimous consent to do various things deemed necessary by the House to get the mails moving again. But here, to use the words of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, we see bootlegged into this bill a change in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The clause is offensive on two counts. In the first place, to use an old phrase around here, we are changing the rules in the middle of the game. We are telling postal workers that if they do not obey this law, the penalties are not going to be those which are already in the law, but new penalties that are being passed tonight. The other thing we are doing is passing an amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act itself.


Walter David Baker: I suppose the only thing they will have to do is obey the law, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think we should have some respect around here for the laws we make. My hon. friend and the rest of us agreed today to interrupt the normal business of this House and to deal with this special bill, which is here for one purpose only, and that is to get the mails moving again. But here, tucked into this bill, is clause 10 which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act in respect of a very controversial provision in that act. I admit that I was the only member of the committee who voted against that report. The Liberals and the Conservatives all bought it, but surely it is a controversial provision like others, and I think that the idea of putting this in is completely wrong.
My hon. friend says that the postal employees can avoid these penalties by obeying the law. That is a plausible, under-
Postal Services
standable statement, but I suggest to him-and he is a lawyer-that what they ought to be required to meet by way of penalties are the penalties that are in the law now, the penalties which were in the law when they went on strike. That was the law yesterday. It will be the law until this law is passed. There are certain penalties, but if this bill is passed by this House tonight, passed by the other place and becomes law in 24 or 48 hours, postal workers will discover that between the time they legally went on strike and the time they are told that they have to go back to work the penalties will have been increased. I think that is completely wrong. I think it is contrary to the whole concept of law, and that in itself makes it wrong.
In addition to that, I say that it is quite offensive to this House and to the whole parliamentary practice to import into a special, emergency piece of legislation a major amendment of general and lasting application to the fundamental laws of this country. The minister has done fairly well in the last hour in terms of accepting some suggestions from this side of the House. I regret that he turned down the most important one, but he has accepted a number of amendments, and I seriously appeal to him to agree to withdrawing clause 10 from this bill.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the bill with which we are now dealing not be frustrated in its application by the enforcement deficiencies of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which were recognized by the joint committee. This House owes it to the public to seize the very first opportunity we have to correct the situation and bring about some of the recommendations which were made by the joint committee on employer-employee relations in the public service.
I appreciate that at the time this question was studied by the joint committee the hon. member voted against this recommendation, but I think there was an overwhelming majority of members on that committee who worked very hard and conscientiously and thought that something ought to be done to make sure that these remedies which we are considering are there to allow for a minimum of disrespect for the law. I think this clause is part and parcel of this bill, and the intention is to get the mails moving again in the near future.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I listened with care to the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It seems to me that the point is very crucial. This is not the first time that a person who is not a lawyer has corrected lawyers in this House on a question of justice. Canadians as well as people in other countries learned a long time ago never to confuse legal statements with statements about justice.
Surely the fundamental point which was being made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was that we have a perfect example here of ex post facto law. A group of men and women have exercised their rights under laws which exist in Canada and have embarked on a strike. They are legally involved in this strike, and now if we in this parliament pass this particular provision, we are coming along and saying that in the process we are going to change the punishment if the

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
law is violated. A fundamental concept of justice and law in this land is that you do not do that kind of thing. You do not say to a group of men and women when they embark on a certain course of action: "This is the law as it exists, but we are going to change the law in terms of this provision once you have started to exercise your legal right".
There is no question about the right of parliament in this or any other matter to pass the kind of law which is being advocated by the minister, but it seems to me that those who are concerned about basic principles of justice ought not to be supporting this principle at this time. If the minister wanted to raise the level of punishment for violation of law in this respect or any other, surely the time to do that is before workers involved in a strike have exercised their legal right so to act. I wish the minister would deal with precisely that point in his response. Are we not changing the rules of the game in midstream and, if so, how does he justify that?
I will not elaborate on my second point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the point very clearly. We are making a permanent change in legislation here, quite apart from the postal workers, on the whole question-


John Allen Fraser: No, we are not. Read it. It only affects postal workers.


John Edward Broadbent: -of punishment for workers in the public service, and it seems to me that this is not the appropriate time to do that. The time to do that would be when we have proper amendments brought before the House which pertain to existing legal provisions. We should not deal with this matter in the context of a strike which is now in progress.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, it may have been inadvertent on the part of the Leader of the New Democratic Party when he said, as I think one other hon. member said earlier, that clause 10 would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act for all other public servants. I certainly do not read it that way. If we read it carefully, I think we will find that it applies only to the particular collective agreement with which this bill deals. I want to ask if the minister would confirm that my impression is the same impression he has. Perhaps he can answer that in a moment.
I want to say something else. The fact is that a number of members of parliament of all parties took a look at the penalty provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and since several years ago they have been deemed inadequate. There was an almost unanimous decision that they should be changed.
I have listened with sympathy to my hon. friends who have just argued, but there is an obligation on this House to ensure that the law which is passed tonight will be taken seriously. I have to say to the acting minister and to the Postmaster General that our party supports this amendment and that many members of this House have given a great deal of consideration to it in the past.
I do not want the acting minister to think that I allow small errors to go unnoticed, so I say to him that I agree with my

colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, that we are bootlegging in one provision and not dealing in a cohesive manner with other provisions. However, as the minister has acknowledged tonight, there seems to be some awareness of that on the government side of the House as well.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member for Vancouver South. He just said what I was going to say as a matter of clarification. This clause refers specifically to whom this act applies, namely those who are touched by this collective agreement.
In order to have more clarification about this clause, one has to go back to the definitions, such as you find in clause 2 where it is quite clear that we are referring to employees, who are defined in the clause, and employees' organizations, which are also defined there. Therefore, no one should think that we are amending section 104 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to deal with all the other collective agreements which are in existence at present. It is indeed a measure which is restricted at this moment, but it could be dealt with more generally later on when the government will be dealing with something more specific than the amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I hate to belabour this point. The point in question is that we are now attempting to govern by intimidation. Nobody questions-at least I do not, nor do 1 think the leader of the NDP questions for one moment-the wording in the act and its narrow restriction to the matter before us. But I must agree with him, and 1 think he is right in saying, that you are governing by intimidation.
We have a strike of engineers presently, a legal situation. They will wake up tomorrow morning and take a look at the fines in this legislation. That is intimidation. I do not like it, I reject it, and please do not pass it off simply as being a necesary action so as to enforce the serious decision of this chamber. The law itself must carry its own weight. If, because we have no faith in the leadership of CUPW or of the unions involved to obey the law, we have to impose a fine, then let it stand by itself. Let us not duck the factual situation-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, tell him to sit down or get out. One of those assholes up there is waving, shouting and making signals.


J. Michael Forrestall: Let them do their waving and signalling; it is the Post Office we are talking about. The Post Office has been waving and signalling to Canadians for years. That is what we are doing here tonight.
The point I want to make through you, Mr. Chairman-I think it is fairly serious-is that I have no hesitation whatsoever in passing this, absolutely none. Indeed, I agree with it. What I am saying to you is that tomorrow morning when we wake up, we can impose no lesser penalty for any offence, for any infringement of any act involving parliament, government, and its employees.
October 17, 1978

Surely we are not talking about the Star Chamber. In this penalty clause we say to every employee of the public service of Canada: This is the precedent. I accepted it, I voted for it, and the minister's colleague sitting immediately behind him will indicate to him exactly where that clause was written, on whose coffee table, after what consultation and with what unions. But let us make no mistake about it, and I am sure the distinguished Leader of the NDP is not under any illusions about it; nor, I am sure, is the Prime Minister of this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't be too sure about that.


J. Michael Forrestall: The member for Dartmouth-Halifax East is not, and I would remind all hon. members that I do not think there is any mistake about it at all. We are legislating ad hoc. It does not matter what the term is. We are saying very clearly to the public servants of this country, to the people who work for the people of this country, that these are the penalties, and let us be aware of that. We are also implying that there can be no lesser penalties from this point on.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by this clause. I have asked my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who has been here a long time, whether he remembers a single case in his long experience when parliament passed a law ordering a union, a group of workers, to go back to work and that law was defied by the union. My colleague tells me he does not remember a single such case.
That being the situation, I find it strange that the minister brings in a clause in this bill which is as tough as it is. I think I have a right to say this to the minister: I compare this legislation containing pretty tough penalties for workers who have never defied the law with the way we have treated corporations in this country for 50 years, corporations which have, not once and not twice, but innumerable times, deliberately, and in conspiracy with each other, violated the combines act.


An hon. Member:: The sugar companies.


David Orlikow: It was not until this year that the courts directed the companies to pay a fine which meant anything to them. So for 50 years we have allowed the corporations of this country to violate our laws, to steal from the people of Canada, to set prices in ways which were illegal, and we have done virtually nothing about it until this year. Not a single corporation officer has never gone to prison for breaking the law. We have corporations-I am sure the minister knows it-which have broken those laws, not once but twice or three times. But when it comes to groups of workers who, to my knowledge, have never defied a law ordering them back to work, the minister decides in advance that that union may indeed defy the law and therefore imposes penalties which have never been necessary until now. I find that very strange. I also find it very strange that the minister sits in his chair so frequently tonight and does not reply.


André Ouellet: I think I have already explained the reason why this clause is in the bill. To have the hon. member suggest
Postal Services
that I sit in my chair and do not answer him and for him to imply that I do not want to answer is incorrect. Indeed, I have made replies on three previous occasions to this question. Obviously every hon. member is entitled to speak on this clause and to bring forward arguments for or against such a clause. But I do not think I ought to reply to every member who presents an argument for or against.
I suspect that members of this committee are by now fully aware of the reasons this clause is included. I know some members are opposed to it and I respect their view. I know, on the other hand, there are a number of members who favour the inclusion of this clause, which increases the penalties for those who will not obey the law. I hope and assume that all members of this committee expect that this law will be obeyed.
Basically I do not agree with the interventions made earlier by the hon. member to the effect that we are intimidating the employees. I do not think this is an intimidation at all, but rather a clause that increases the penalties. These penalties are increased following the considerations of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, a committee which came forward some time ago with a recommendation to increase the penalties. The penalties will now be increased and we hope this law will be obeyed. If it is not obeyed, the penalties are greater than they were before, and I believe there are arguments for and against doing this. I respect the view expressed by the hon. member, but surely he should not think that every time someone disagrees I should stand up and make another speech.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, we cannot look at this particular clause regarding punishment for disobedience of the law in isolation. This is another piece of nastiness in this bill which we have to look at in relation to other aspects. This gives one the impression that the government is spoiling for a fight, and that in fact it is another attempt at confrontation politics.
We discovered earlier tonight that a mediator-arbitrator will be appointed. It has also been evident that this person will have a lot of power. We discovered that the minister and the government are not prepared to accept amendments which would in fact state that whatever the workers have achieved in the past will be protected. These things are all now up for grabs. The mediator-arbitrator may very well redefine technological change. The hon. member for Longueuil is shaking his head back and forth like a jack-in-the-box. The minister has already said this is a possibility and that the mediator-arbitrator would have that power. He may very well have the power to change the definition of technological change and the right to negotiate in respect of such change, which was agreed to after a 43-day strike.
We learned earlier his evening that the minister and the government refuse to accept an amendment to the bill which would spell out that the mediator-arbitrator will look at everything in this agreement and not just those matters referred by the Public Service Staff Relations Board to the conciliation board. Here again is another piece of nastiness which leads me

October 17, 1978
Postal Services
to the conclusion that this government is looking for a fight. It seems to me this is one way of instigating disobedience. I have only been here six years but I do not recall public servants defying the law or disobeying parliament. Yet we have this clause thrown into this bill in respect of this group of workers. The government is singling out the members of CUPW to show the Canadian public how tough it is. After one day of strike the government is showing the people of Canada how tough it can be.
Perhaps the government is a day late in its attempt to prevent the by-election fiasco of yesterday. It seems to me this is the wrong way to go about obtaining industrial peace during this period of time before moving to a Crown corporation. This certainly gives the impression to the workers who are to be put back to work they are being put upon by this legislation in that several of those things they won in the past as a result of hard negotiations may be removed.
It seems to me what we are doing here tonight is sowing the seeds of discontent for years to come. It is quite possible this parliament may, if it passes this legislation, sour the possibility of Crown corporation success in the future because trust is not being established. All we are doing is institutionalizing the distrust and anger of the workers in the Post Office.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the inclusion of these changes. I do not have the benefit of being a member of the committee, as was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so as to know the reasons behind it. I think this will accomplish nothing but aggravation and is not in keeping with the wishes of the minister, or his desires as expressed and demonstrated in the last few weeks in the number of strikes he has been able to conciliate. Therefore, I move:
That all the words in clause 10 after the word "shall" in line 26, page 4, be deleted, and the word "apply" substituted therefor.


André Ouellet: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do not agree with this amendment. The hon. member in moving the amendment indicated that he feels clause 10 in this bill, which deals with offences, will aggravate the situation in the post office. I suggest there is nothing more aggravating to the situation than disobedience of a law. The hon. member in moving such an amendment and in opposing the bill takes for granted that the workers will be disobedient. I should like to think that they will not.
I should like to think also that in coming months we will be dealing with important labour relations in the Post Office, specifically with a bill to create a Crown corporation. These penalties are there to make sure that this bill will not be frustrated in its application, and there are proper measures to make sure that it is applicable. Therefore, I cannot agree with this amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Peters) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 62.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 62; nays, 6.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 11 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
André Ouellet: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we suspend the sitting until the call of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered that the sitting be suspended until the call of the Chair.
At 11.30 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended during pleasure.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 12:25 a.m.
Yvon Pinard: That this House do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 12.25 a.m.

Wednesday, October 18, 1978