1980-10-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the decision of six provincial governments to challenge the validity of the constitutional resolution of the federal government in the provincial courts, and in view of the serious divisions which have already been created in Canada among governments and private citizens over this issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government test its proposals in the Supreme Court of Canada so as to shorten the time during which Canadians will remain in doubt as to the constitutionality of the government's approach to constitutional change.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR GUARANTEE JOINT COMMITTEE WILL TRAVEL ACROSS CANADA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the action of the government to suppress constructive criticism in the House of its constitutional proposals by invoking closure on the House this morning, and in view of the fact that recently major women's conferences, organized to review the constitutional proposal, were cancelled with the government's complicity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the government guarantee that the special joint constitutional committee be required to travel across this country, to ensure that not only women but native peoples, minority groups and others whose rights will be restricted by the wording of this constitution will be permitted to have their concerns heard.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (ino)


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On the occasion of United Nations Day and the start of disarmament week in Canada, and at a point in world history when mankind spends more than 20 times as much on instruments of destruction-some $500 billion annually-as it does on official development assistance to his neighbours in poorer lands, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House affirm its commitment to disarmament as a primary objective of our foreign policy, and that it call upon the Government of Canada to actively pursue the "strategy of suffocation" outlined by the present Prime Minister to the United Nations special session on disarmament, namely, (1) a comprehensive test ban to impede the further development of nuclear explosive devices; (2) an agreement to stop the flight-testing of all new strategic delivery vehicles; (3) an agreement to prohibit all production of fissionable material for weapons purposes; and (4) an agreement to limit and then progressively to reduce military spending on new strategic nuclear weapons systems.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr.   Len. Gustafson@Assiniboia: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a very serious matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in invoking closure, has deprived many western members of the right to be heard on the constitution in this House. Given the serious matter of the Prime Minister's responsibility with respect to western alienation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House allow all members to be heard in the committee so that the Prime Minister's concerted effort does not further divide this country.

October 24, 1980


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


STANDING ORDERS
Some hon. Members:: No.


RIGHT TO SPEAK-CALL FOR CONDEMNATION OF PRIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas probably the most important right enjoyed, at least prior to this date, by Canadians has been the right to be heard through their elected representatives in Parliament on important national issues; and whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has violated this basic constitutional right through the insidious and odious use of closure on, of all matters, the constitutional debate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and all the other members who were denied the right to speak:
That this House condemns the Prime Minister for his wanton abuse of the time-honoured rights and ancient privileges of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INVOCATION OF CLOSURE-CALL FOR CONDEMNATION OF PRIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the arbitrary and inexcusable action of the government of invoking closure denied a majority of members of the House of Commons the exercise of their right to rise in the House of Commons and speak on behalf of their constituents, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) publicly had given an unequivocal undertaking that all members of the House, from all parts of Canada, would be given the opportunity of expressing their views, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That this House condemns the action of the Prime Minister and those of his advisers who yesterday made a mockery of our democratic system which so many Canadians fought and died for.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of most urgent and pressing necessity. Recognizing that the most fundamental and basic right of any member of the House of Commons is his ability and his right to speak in the House of Commons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House immediately refer the study of Standing Order 33 to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, either for the purpose of revoking the order completely, or to modify the order so that it will allow the majority of members of Parliament to speak before it is invoked, and that all members of Parliament should have at least a brief opportunity to speak before it is voted upon.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) recently announced a crackdown on the reception and redistribution of U.S. television satellite signals and that the minister has promised an alternative Canadian package for inadequately served areas before the end of this fall, I move, seconded by the hon. member opposite for Cochrane (Mr. Penner):
That the minister declare a moratorium on further enforcement procedures until (a), so-called inadequately served areas are explicitly defined, and (b), a high quality Canadian satellite package is provided as an alternative to U.S. signals.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


October 24, 1980



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I direct my question to the government House leader, if I can attract his attention. The government House leader will know that on page 890 of Senate Hansard of October 21, the Hon. George Mcllraith, who for three years was a distinguished Liberal government House leader in this chamber, raised the concern that the procedures being followed by this government in the constitutional reference may prevent Parliament from acting on any amendments of substance to the committee report.
Senator Mcllraith's point is that the special joint committee will be dead once it reports and that neither chamber can instruct members of the other chamber to accept amendments. That position was put forth three days ago by a former government House leader in this House, who is now in the other place. No doubt the government House leader has had a chance to consider that matter since his colleague, the government House leader in the Senate, said that it would be given urgent consideration.
Will the President of the Privy Council now tell the House of Commons what is the government's response to Senator Mcllraith's concern that no changes can occur in the draft resolution after it emerges from the committee?
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am unaware of the request made by Senator Mcllraith. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the committee will consider the resolution at the committee stage. That is its mandate. The committee will be empowered to make the appropriate amendments to the resolution. Moreover, we have already agreed to some amendments suggested by the New Democratic Party and we have publicly stated on several occasions that we were quite receptive to any constructive amendment so that in our opinion the committee will be indeed empowered to amend the resolution before submitting its report to the House of Commons.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the government House leader missed, either deliberately or by accident, the point of the question. I must say I find it difficult to believe that a matter which was raised three days ago to his counterpart and colleague in the other place, the Senate House leader, has not come to his attention, but if he says that it has not, naturally I must accept his word.
What guarantees can the government House leader give the House of Commons that there will be an opportunity to amend the resolution after it comes from committee? I am not referring to amendments in that committee which is tightly
Oral Questions
controlled by a government majority. I am talking about the rights of this whole House of Commons. The distinguished Senator Mcllraith has raised questions suggesting that, in his view, it will not be possible for the House of Commons or the Senate to change the report that comes from the committee. In other words, debate in this full House is over on the question. What is the minister's response to that most serious allegation made in the Senate by his predecessor as Liberal government House leader, to which his colleague, the government leader in the Senate, gave an undertaking to have a full response three days ago?
[DOT] (U20)


Miss Jewett:: Think of something, Allan.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition says that he is not interested in seeing amendments introduced in committee because of its government majority. May I remind him that we have the same majority on the floor of the House of Commons. I fail to see the logic in his argument for refusing to consider amendments in committee because of our majority there since, in the final analysis, we also have a majority in the House of Commons.
With regard to the opinion he wants from me, yesterday he requested others and I referred him to his learned House leader. I shall be happy to advise him on what will happen once the committee report has been tabled, depending on its contents, because the hon. member now is assuming what it will contain. I want the committee to feel entirely free to do its work as it sees fit. I respect both Parliament and the committee. Theoretically, and in principle, the committee will have the right to come to a conclusion which is not known to us now.
But, in his question, the Leader of the Opposition assumed that the committee will recommend that the joint resolution be presented to the Queen and the British parliament. That is hypothetical, but even then I am willing to tell him what I think, to give him my opinion as the government leader. Once the report is made, should it so recommend, the House will be presented with a motion to that effect. The debate will be on the motion to accept the report. That is nothing new, it has been done before and I have mentioned it before; we have been explaining it for three weeks now. I am convinced, in any event, but I hope the Leader of the Opposition understands.
That report which will be considered by the House will allow the latter, if it so wishes, to make other amendments to the resolution, and to ask that it be deferred once more to the committee for further amendments.
So my understanding of the procedure on this subject and the one which I already discussed with his own parliamentary leader is as follows: in an indirect manner, the House can do what it could do if it were dealing with a resolution, that is to say, through the motion, refer the report back to the commit-
4058

October 24, 1980
Oral Questions
tee so that the committee could amend it in such and such a manner. The House will know the reason for the request, from the Conservatives, incidentally, to refer the report for the purpose of bringing in a very specific amendment and so it will be in a position to debate the question.
Yet, by the very nature of this procedure, indeed it is still the committee which will have to make the amendments. That is exactly the procedure. Things would have been different had we had before the House-


An hon. Member:: Order!


Yvon Pinard: If my colleague wishes to get a complete answer, I will continue. If he prefers not to get full answer he will continue to remain in the dark.
Had we put this resolution directly before the House the opposition could not have taken advantage of the three-stage debate that we are now having. Then, of course, the resolution itself could have been amended on the floor of the House. And thanks to the government majority we would not have been bound by any proposal whatsoever. Yet we chose the option of referring it to the committee because we respect this institution and because it gives hon. members more opportunities to express their points of view at three stages rather than only one.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there were a great number of "ifs" in that answer that will never come to pass. The government House leader knows that the committee to which he would return the matter, if there were amendments, will no longer exist. That committee ends on the twelfth day of December. It is dead; absolutely functus; it no longer exists. He should consult his colleague, Senator Mcllraith, on that point. But it is a clear point: there is no committee to which Parliament can refer back amendments.
My question is a very simple one. It is based upon the principle that Parliament might want to amend the substance of the report that comes from the joint committee. Will Parliament have the power to amend the substance of the report that comes from the committee?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I just explained to the Leader of the Opposition that at this stage it is necessary to speculate about the content of the committee's report to express an opinion about it. I do not think it is normal to answer purely hypothetical questions, but I have been nice and considerate enough to explain to him the way I see the whole situation. He just repeated the very same question. In these circumstances, I must tell him: Let us wait until we appoint the committee. But if he were wise, careful and above all sincere, he would use the opportunity which the committee offers him to propose the constructive amendments he has in mind, if any, to facilitate
progress on the constitutional issues and help renew federalism.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we will be in committee proposing amendments, but the matter which might arise, as it has very often in this House of Commons, is that after the committee reports this Parliament may, in its wisdom, decide to change what the committee recommends. That has happened before. The procedure which the government has established, does not, according to Senator Mcllraith, provide us with that opportunity. The minister has three times declined to answer my question, perhaps because he does not know. I presume the government had a legal opinion on which it based this most unusual procedure.
I have two simple questions, we do not need long answers. The first is this: Does the government have a legal opinion on the question raised by Senator Mcllraith? I will rephrase the question so it is clear. Does the government have a legal opinion guaranteeing the right of Parliament to change the substance of the committee report after it has come from committee? If so, will the government House leader in the interests of civilized procedure in this House-I am sorry to borrow the hon. member's word-table that legal opinion?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I just gave an opinion to the Leader of the Official Opposition and I told him that we chose to follow the avenue which will allow the largest possible number of members on both sides of the House to propose amendments to the resolution which will be examined by the joint committee of the House and the Senate when, at last, that committee is allowed to form and meet.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE TO MEMBERS OF RIGHT TO SPEAK
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, in view of the rather convoluted and esoteric answers given by the government House leader, may I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister, who I presume is also the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the unprecedented anger and confusion caused to the House of Commons-which is probably unique even in his long parliamentary experience-can the Deputy Prime Minister assure myself and other members in this House that there will be ample opportunity for members to speak, as was intimated but not guaranteed by the Prime Minister yesterday when he used the word "indeterminate", which is a weasel word if I ever heard one? I think the Prime Minister said there will be an indeterminate time for us to look into this matter later.
May I have the basic guarantee from this respected parliamentarian that indeed members of the House of Commons-every one of them-will have an opportunity to speak in this chamber on the paramount importance of the country's constitution, as they so obviously want to do? Can he give us that guarantee without any equivocation?
October 24, 1980


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think it has ever been a principle of parliamentary democracy that every member of the chamber should speak on every item which comes before the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: What about the constitution?


An hon. Member:: We have a right to speak.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That has never been a principle that I have observed in this House of Commons.
We are organized on the party system. Usually parties take positions and these positions are presented by many members in the House. 1 subscribe to the notion, and so does the government, that there should be ample opportunity for every point of view to be expressed. The hon. member will realize that, in addition to the debate which has already been terminated, there will be an opportunity in the committee for members of Parliament representing the various parties to present their views. That committee report will come back, it will be debated in the House of Commons, and a further opportunity will be given to members to express their views.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can Parliament amend its substance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that that procedure is very much in the parliamentary tradition as 1 have observed it in the House of Commons during my period of time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, 1 regret to say this, but I believe the House will agree I was right when 1 used the adjective a "weasel" promise. Not only did the Prime Minister on national television make it perfectly clear, but he emphasized and re-emphasized that every member of Parliament would have an opportunity to debate fully this matter, as was the case with the flag debate and other matters of interest and importance, and now his Deputy Prime Minister is equivocating. I simply want an assurance and perhaps a definition of what the Prime Minister meant by the word "indeterminate". Are we now to be told that there will not be the opportunity here in the House of Commons for all members who wish to contribute something to his country's constitutional debate, but they will have to go to the committee or go through some other procedure to do it? Will the Deputy Prime Minister simply give us his undertaking on behalf of this government that every member of Parliament from every region and every province of this country can speak on the constitution? Will he do that?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is espousing the principle that on this particular resolution every member in the House of Commons should have an opportunity to speak.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It seems to me that if the hon. member and his party were serious in reaching that objective, they would have accepted the proposal made by the government to extend very extensively the hours of sittings of the House so that more and more members could be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me tell the hon. member, through you, Madam Speaker, that we are still prepared as a government to consider ways by which we can increase the number of hours, the number of sittings and the days of sittings so that as many members as possible can speak, and possibly reach the ideal of every member speaking. However, there is no way that can be done if hon. members opposite refuse to co-operate in extending the hours of sitting, and in taking up the valuable time allocated by fruitless and pointless questions of privilege and points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows this perfectly well, and I ask him this very seriously. Is he telling the House-1 see he is not even paying attention. That is typical, Madam Speaker. Is the Deputy Prime Minister telling the members of this House that even if we had acquiesced in this very extraordinary procedure on a matter as important as this, we would have had time, no matter if we sat all night, fully to discuss this most important matter before he brought in closure? He has defeated his own argument by bringing in closure before anybody could possibly have fulfilled the conditions he has just enunciated.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member kncws perfectly well that there are three stages. We have completed one stage. There is a second stage in committee, and a third stage when the report comes back from the committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: What happens then?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member is serious about giving additional members an opportunity to speak, let him encourage his party to make some arrangement so that additional hours and sittings can be arranged.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on a story in this morning's The Globe and Mail by Jeff Carruthers which would seem to represent a leak of the budget the minister proposes to bring in Tuesday night.

October 24, 1980
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that such advance information as to what is to be in the budget could have repercussions on the stock market, could permit some people to make huge sums of money and throw things into a bit of a tizzy, will the Minister of Finance declare categorically that the story in this morning's The Globe and Mail is incorrect, that this is not a forecast of his budget of Tuesday night?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As the hon. member knows, Madam Speaker, prior to every budget there are speculative stories relating to the budget. That happened last December when there were innumerable stories as to what would be in the budget. That has happened on this occasion. I have a long list of newspaper articles containing speculation as to what may or may not be in the budget. That is a normal process and it does not require the Minister of Finance either to confirm or deny the rich, often erroneous, speculation that occurs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that this story lists seriatim at least 15 specific points in very precise terms and very precise detail, will the minister keep this in mind when he brings down his budget and, if there has been a leak, will he take steps to find out how that came about?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we will not be able to deal with that possibility until after the budget has been delivered. Obviously at that time if there appears to have been any leak, which is a matter quite apart from speculation, action will be taken. However, because the speculation is so diversified and wide-ranging in all newspapers-there is not just the article by Mr. Carruthers; there is a variety of others-it would be difficult for the speculation, in some cases at least, not to be right-for example, the date of the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the most important items in Mr. Carruthers' story is to the effect that there is to be an export tax on natural gas and electricity, and in view of the serious nature of this, will the minister deny categorically that he has any intention of imposing such a tax-


An hon. Member:: You want to know what is in the budget.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want the minister to deny that there is a budget leak-particularly when it is in the minister's power, by increasing taxes on the multinationals, which have had a 65 per cent increase in their profits in the last nine months, to get the funds he needs without the offensive tax which Mr. Carruthers says the minister is going to produce?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the same question was raised recently at the meeting of ministers of finance when a number of ministers asked me to forswear at that point the possibility of an export tax. What 1 will say today is what 1 told them, namely that it is an option that is available to the Minister of Finance, that it is fully within the constitutional
authority of the Government of Canada to levy such a tax, and it is an option which is being considered at the present time.


STANDING ORDERS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, in order that the rights of private members on both sides of this House will not be further offended, and in view of the fact that Standing Order 33 effectively restricts the freedom of speech of duly elected members of Parliament, will the government take steps to remove or to modify the rule by referring it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member concerns 1/116 of the kind of reform we would welcome in this institution, because the Standing Orders of this House contain 116 items. On the other hand, I have a suggestion to make. Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c when applied are termed as closure by the opposition, but they are really used to limit the debate and to extend it more than a full day if we wish. The hon. member knows full well that these Standing Orders cannot apply to a motion, only to a bill, because they only concern the different stages of a bill. So I suggest it would be a positive step-and I am open to this suggestion if the hon. member wants to make it-to include in Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c motions as well as bills. This would have enabled us in this case to allow more than a full day while restricting the debate at this first stage of the constitutional issue. So, according to his suggestion, Madam Speaker, if, on the one hand, we are quite open to parliamentary reform, and I want to indicate to my colleagues that something is forthcoming in this regard, it would also be advisable to consider applying the provisions of Standing Orders 75a, 75b and 75c to a motion in addition to a bill.


THE CONSTITUTION
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, of course I would welcome any move toward parliamentary reform, and I thank the minister for agreeing to consider such an initiative.


An hon. Member:: And respect.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I respect Parliament, my friend, and I hope you do the same.
October 24, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In his press conference yesterday the Prime Minister hinted at the use of closure to limit debate on further stages of this proposal or motion which will be returned to the House. Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure this House that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada will not, during the forthcoming procedures, invoke closure again? In fact, closure should not be invoked until the parliamentary reform suggested by his colleague is completed. Can he give us the assurance that all members will have the right to speak and that closure will not be invoked in further stages?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows as well as I do that the rule invoked yesterday is a part of the procedure of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Brought in by the Tories in 1913.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has properly reminded us that the closure rule was brought in by the Conservative party.


Mr. Crombie:: Not for the constitution.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 remember also that Mr. Diefenbaker, before he became prime minister, stated that he would abolish the closure rule, but during his period as prime minister he forgot all about it.


Charles Joseph Clark: He never used it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He left the closure rule on the books, and when the present House leader for the Conservative party brought in his paper on parliamentary change, to my recollection he did not include any indication of abolishing closure.


EXPRESSION OF VIEWS OF MEMBERS BEFORE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact that the parliamentary committee which is to be established will consist of a relatively small number of members, probably five or six from our party and two from the New Democratic Party, and in light of last night's closure when 200 members were denied the right to speak about the fundamental arrangements which govern this country, would the minister please advise this House as to how these members are to make their views known to the committee so that the committee will have the advantage of knowing those views when reporting to this House? In particular, is any consideration being given whereby members have to ask to be witnesses before a committee of Parliament?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, those are questions which could be easily answered by the parliamentary leader of my hon. colleague. However, I am pleased to remind him that, with the assistance
Oral Questions
of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I suggested to his party to sit longer hours when there would be no Liberal speakers and when we would have only Progressive Conservative speakers to participate in the debate, and that his own caucus rejected that offer.
We mentioned earlier through the Deputy Prime Minister that we were prepared during the third stage, once the committee has reported to the House, to discuss an extension of the debate hours and also an extension of the days for the debate on that matter. So we are prepared to negotiate all those questions, and to give more time to all hon. members who want to participate but we want the opposition to prove its good faith by accepting at least the reasonable offers we made them.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, the conduct of the government with respect to this debate has entrenched bitterness, it has not entrenched rights.
My supplementary question is to the same minister, and it pertains to the constitution, which is the public social contract which underpins the terms on which Canadians live together. Does the minister not believe that this basic arrangement, which keeps people living together in a state hopefully of harmony, deserves a maximum amount of scrutiny, certainly more than the Bank Act or any other bill which comes before the House? Why have we not been given an opportunity to debate fully the constitution of our country?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, may I remind the hon. member that it was his own leader who urged us not to deal with this very important question but rather with economic matters when Parliament resumed? We thought that this institution was capable of working on more than one important matter at a time. We also thought this institution was capable of showing the Canadian public that, through its committees, it could tackle concurrently constitutional, economic and energy issues.
So if some members of the opposition want to show the Canadian people it is possible to paralyse Parliament, they may succeed temporarily but I can guarantee that over the long term common sense will prevail and the public will realize that Parliament can function, can face the realities of the eighties, and also that we have the power and the capacity to cope with important issues such as the constitution, the economy, energy and all others to which he referred. All that is required for the House to function really well and for each member to enjoy complete freedom of expression is a little co-operation and good faith.

October 24, 1980
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the matter of the budget which was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because it affects my constituents right in their pocket books.
My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and concerns the proposed energy export tax which we on this side of the House firmly oppose. I wonder if the minister is aware that the National Energy Board's own figures show that the export tax would fall four and a half times heavier on western gas exports than, say, other exports such as electricity, and therefore is discriminatory against one area of the country.


Mr. Andre:: Since when have you cared?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I do not have to take lectures from the Conservatives in this area.


Charles Joseph Clark: What about Ed Broadbent and his sweetheart deals?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just be quiet and listen to my question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In light of the delicate political situation in the west, which the minister must understand, and in light of the fact that there is a gas bubble in the United States-they are not taking all our gas now-why is the minister's government stubbornly, and stupidly in my view, going ahead with this proposed export tax?


Mr. Malone:: I heard a bubble.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I regret that my hon. friend has been subjected to abuse by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, but we on this side of the House are used to that from the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend has been speculating on the content of the budget. I suggest to my hon. friend that he wait for the budget and then he will be able to reach his own conclusions. I have indicated previously that the government was concerned to ensure that there would be fairness in our energy policy which will be announced. I hope that when the hon. member looks at it, he will find it to be a fair policy for all Canadians, including western Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank the minister and I should like to tell him that I take lots of abuse from my colleagues to the right, but I would like to have some answers from him. He can stand up and just deny that he will bring in the tax. Let me suggest to him-and I wish he would respond to this-that a government like his government can get hooked on a tax like this because they will crave more and more of the revenues. The National Energy Board is now talking about a new pricing formula so that we can lower the price of gas and sell more to the United States. Will the minister stand in his place now and rule out the possibility of the Government of Canada decreasing the price of Canadian gas in the U.S. market?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think it would be rather foolhardy while the National Energy Board is proceeding with a review of the situation and having consultations with the provincial governments concerned and the industry to prejudge any of the recommendations that may come out of this study. We will see what the recommendations are and those recommendations will be made public. I am sure there will be an opportunity to discuss them and the government will take a decision if specific changes are recommended.
I can tell the hon. member that at the present time 1 am not considering changes to the existing formula. However, if there are improvements that are necessary, I think it would be stupid on the part of the government not to wait for those recommendations.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker,
I would like to direct my question to the Solicitor General of Canada. In view of information released by CBC this morning alleging that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has wiretapped the legislature of British Columbia, is the minister aware of that incident and if so what does he intend to do?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I can say that the policy I follow is this: first, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police obeys the law. What the RCMP did in this case and in the case of the Yukon, is that it appeared before the courts each time to secure a warrant. Second, it respects the privileges of all legislatures and those of the Canadian Parliament as well. The problem is to know which privileges have to be respected in the various legislatures. It is not always clear. In the case mentioned by the hon. member, it was discovered later on, after a committee meeting, what were the privileges of that legislature. So I sent a letter to all speakers across the country to ask them or their legislatures what privileges they wanted the RCMP to respect. When they send me their answers, I can assure the House that we will
October 24, 1980

certainly be prepared to respect the respective privileges of the legislatures.


THE CONSTITUTION
Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, as one who was denied the right to speak in the debate on the constitution,
I have been rather disturbed by some of the answers given this morning by the House leader. The Prime Minister gave an undertaking, not only to individual members but to the citizens of Canada, that their representatives would be entitled to speak in this debate. That has been denied us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is similar to the question put to the House leader. Will I, as an individual member, have the opportunity of making representations to the committee or will I have to be a member of that committee before I can do so? It is a very simple question and I would like an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the committee will be established. It is master of its own proceedings and it can decide-	*


An hon. Member:: What nonsense!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to bring in any member of Parliament. It has been obvious to me for quite some time that members of Parliament who are not members of the committee have been able to be present and have also been permitted to make their views known.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 have a short supplementary question. I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to examine the procedure and perhaps make some changes which will guarantee the members of the House of Commons the right to make amendments to the proposed resolution when it is returned to the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Amendments of substance.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, I am not proposing to propose amendments to the Standing Orders of the House. The government House leader has already dealt with that question. When the report comes out of the committee, it will be possible for the House to determine what it wishes to do with it. But I am sure the hon. member is sincere in expressing a desire to have his views heard, either in committee or in the House of Commons, and personally 1 am quite sympathetic to that point of view.


Douglas Charles Neil: Then demonstrate your sympathy.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But 1 suggest to the hon. member that there should be a way to accommodate both the desire of the government to facilitate the passage of this resolution and the desire of hon. members to participate. If his party is prepared to negotiate in good faith in order to make appropriate arrangements in the way described by the House leader, then he will find that we will negotiate in good faith also.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is trickery. Appropriate arrangements on his own terms. That is nonsense.


OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO DEBATE JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, further to the questions asked this morning I should like to add another question and 1 direct it to the government House leader. From the time of the introduction of this constitutional resolution, we have heard a good deal of glowing comments with respect to fundamental rights and the necessity to entrench those rights against arrogant governments and politicians. We had a fine example of that just recently.
Following the committee's discussions, will I as a member of this House have an opportunity to participate in the debate after the committee has reported to the House, having been one of those who was denied the opportunity by the actions of that arrogant government to speak in this constitutional debate, one in which the Prime Minister invited all members of Parliament to participate?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I repeat that we will show the same openmindedness as at the first stage, when we asked the Progressive Conservative Party to negotiate a time schedule which would make it possible for a larger number of its members to deal with this issue. Once again, I reiterate this offer. We are willing to negotiate in good faith, as we have always done in the past, and we expect now the Progressive Conservative Party to co-operate even more to make it possible for its backbenchers-I strongly urge the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to listen attentively to these representations-to express their views. I advise him that I will make offers to his House leader to increase the time allotted for discussion, even adding a few days, if necessary, so that a larger number of hon. members may be heard. 1 hope, therefore, that we will obtain more serious co-operation, and that good faith will prevail more than it has up to now.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. Since the reason for the introduction of closure was the economic measures that the government wanted to introduce, may I ask why the minister did not introduce those economic measures last week, this week or even today, and why is the Prime Minister not in his place today if these economic measures are so important?

October 24, 1980
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member is well aware, we will have a budget speech Tuesday night. The offer we made the Conservatives and which they refused was to sit till midnight on Monday to debate the constitutional proposal. We made the offer but they refused. Given that refusal we had no other alternative but to take our responsibilities and respect the Canadian public and act as we did.
Madam Speaker, I draw the attention of hon. members across the aisle to the fact that we have had two elections in one year, that there are 30 bills on the order paper, that we must have nine opposition days before December 10, seven of which will be between November 14 and December 10, and six of those being Committees of the Whole House.
We must have six and one half days to debate the budget speech. Yet we must also continue to govern the country. We must also take our responsibilities. That is why, Madam Speaker, we acted as we did in order to give Parliament, through its committee, the opportunity to consider the constitutional proposal while, at the same time, assuming our responsibilities toward the Canadian public which expects a lot more from its elected representatives than purely delaying tactics such as the ones we have seen in the last few days.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will be painfully aware of the difficulty Canada is having in getting ratification of the east coast fisheries treaty. Also he will be aware of some of the sacrifices fishermen on the east coast have already been asked to make in getting any approval from the negotiating committees.
This week in Seattle, Washington, the negotiating committees for the United States and Canada met to discuss a treaty which will have a joint management of the west coast salmon industry. Does the minister feel that the treaty on the west coast is important enough to have a parliamentary debate before any Canadian government ratification occurs? Will he guarantee to give some assurance to the House that before any ratification is undertaken by the government we will have a chance to discuss the treaty which may be signed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, certainly I recognize the sacrifices made by Canadian fishermen on the east coast. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has made that point very strongly and clearly. As for the possible west coast agreement, I have not
yet been debriefed on the results of the negotiations that took place this week.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean by "debriefed"?


Roméo LeBlanc: I hope to do this over the weekend. I do not think the procedure in Canada is the same as that in the United States. For that reason I do not think I can answer in substance the hon. member's invitation to have a debate of the type which would lead to a vote on ratification or non-ratification. As the hon. member well knows, I favour full discussion of these questions in a parliamentary committee. I am sure we will find a way to air fully the views of members on all sides of the House.


ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF NEGOTIATION
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister is aware that one of the difficulties in the Canadian public's mind is that they do not have enough information. They are not aware of the kinds of sacrifices Canadian fishermen have already undertaken.
I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently at a conference on "Approaches to Foreign Policy-Differences and Similarities" the minister made the following statement:
In Canada, parliamentary approval is sought only for some of the very most important treaties, and treaty negotiation and ratification is a matter of executive authority as an element of the royal prerogative.
Also the minister indicated that they were looking at alternatives to the present method of negotiating treaties. Does he feel this treaty is important enough to be dealt with in Parliament? Has he decided on any mechanism by which we can delay our decision in the House or by his government until the United States Senate has given its approval?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, that is a question which has not yet been considered by the government nor in all its implications even by myself, because we are not far enough along the road yet for that decision to be warranted.


PRESENCE OF SECURITY GUARDS BEHIND CURTAINS IN CHAMBER
Madam Speaker:: I have another statement about security guards. 1 have been made aware of the presence of security guards behind the curtains, and I have initiated an inquiry as to why they were positioned there, and for what reason. I will want to investigate that matter thoroughly and report to the House as soon as 1 can.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have before me a question of privilege which is not completed; I deferred it for two days. As I said the other day in the House, after having read the statements of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), I wanted to ascertain whether the Chair needed to be further informed on that particular question of privilege.
I found in the statement of the hon. member that indeed he had pursued the government for the substance of a document written by a public servant, and also for the substance of campaign ads on energy. But, he did not really relate the substance of these documents to the specific matter of parliamentary privilege. Therefore, I should like to hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and I should like to ask him if he would try, for my guidance and in order to be helpful to the House, to relate more closely the substance of those documents and those ads to the matter of parliamentary privilege, so that I may be able to establish whether there is a prima facie case of privilege.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, you no doubt saw, at the same time as I rose when this matter was first raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was also rising to participate in the argument before you.
I have discussed this matter with the hon. member for St. John's East, and in the interest of saving the time of the House on this question, he will be speaking for both of us.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I will endeavour to be brief because some of my colleagues have other matters of considerable urgency which they wish to raise.
Very briefly, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) bears a certain similarity to a question of privilege which I raised earlier, on which Your Honour has ruled and to which Your Honour has alluded, as well as the question of privilege raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). What concerns us is the narrow interpretation by the Chair of privilege in so far as the use of intimidation is concerned.
It would be my argument, with great respect, if Your Honour were to view the arguments presented by my colleague and indeed by myself on previous occasions in that context, that we now have a new dimension in this country which has a direct bearing and influence upon our proceedings in this House. That new dimension is the mass media and the access of the Government of Canada to that mass media, indeed the access we have as a Parliament to the mass media through the use of television cameras now in this House.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that when my colleague presented his question of privilege he referred to a memorandum which had been issued by a senior official of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That memorandum referred to the debate which would take place in the House on energy policy, and I quote from that memorandum:
The underlying strategy in this communications plan is to achieve three goals, in sequence:
1.	Take control of the energy debate.
2.	Retain that control through action and leadership.
3.	Remove "energy" from the list of highranking national concerns.
Now, we know there has been the sum of some S5.6 million already spent on a campaign to take control of the debate. We also know that one of the target groups of that advertising campaign is the official opposition, so identified in the memo.
It has been argued by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) that the memo was not accepted. But we know from the public record, by the person who wrote the memo, that we do not know what parts of the strategy contained in the memo had in fact been accepted by the government and implemented, because he refused to state this directly in reply to a question put to him in an interview. It seems to me that if the government is to be permitted, through the use of public funds, voted by this House, to gain control of a debate through the manipulation of the mass media, with the official opposition as one of the target groups, in my opinion is a serious breach of the privileges of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: That is just as much intimidation as we had in the past where a member could be physically intimidated by one means or another. The means of intimidation are now through the manipulation of the media by the government, and the control which the media could exercise on public opinion and, hence, on the members of this House as a target group in terms of the government "taking control of the debate". I believe that is a very serious matter. I believe that it has
4066

October 24, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Beatty
tremendous consequences for parliamentary democracy down the road. It is almost Orwellian in its consequences. It is in that sense that my colleagues and I would like Your Honour to look at the question of privilege raised by my colleague, because we believe it to be a serious and substantive matter.
If the Chair, in its wisdom, with the learned advisers which Madam Speaker has at her disposal, is to examine this question of privilege in the narrow and ancient confines of the interpretation of privilege, as laid down by Beauchesne, May and our own procedures, then, of course, you will rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege. But if Your Honour will examine the question of privilege in light of present day reality and the propensity of this government, by its own admission, to use public funds to manipulate and control public opinion and, indeed, to go even one step further, by designating in a memo of a senior official of the government, the official opposition as one of the target groups of such a manipulative advertising campaign, then Madam Speaker will readily see why we want to press this matter, why we feel it is a matter of considerable concern, and why we graciously submit to Your Honour that you take it under advisement and that you view it in that context. Failure to do so, Madam Speaker, in my humble submission, will only bring on further questions of privilege because the government has already indicated its intention to persist in what I consider to be gross misuse of public funds.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can note very briefly that I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has given his point of view and explained the facts. He has said very clearly that he has denied the facts on which members opposite have based their question of privilege. They have alleged the existence of a memorandum from an official to justify their argument, and for his part, the minister has clearly said that this memorandum has been rejected and that it is not being used or followed. Moreover, according to the minister, the official involved has admitted publicly that what he had recommended had not been followed but, rather, rejected by the minister.
Having said this, Madam Speaker, you are faced with members who maintain the opposite. You are also faced with a minister whose word must be believed and who has stated to the members who raised this question of privilege that they have no reason to feel concerned because the memorandum in question and the recommendations made by the official have been rejected, as the official himself has confirmed.
That being so, Madam Speaker, I would like to limit my comments to a procedural matter since the facts have been clearly pointed out by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I would like to refer to citation 16 on page 11 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members-
The quotation used by Beauchesne was made by Sir Erskine May in his "Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament," nineteenth edition, London, 1976, page 67. This is the definition of our privileges. In paragraph 17 which follows, in light of this very restricted definition of our privileges, Beauchesne states, still on page 11:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament.
This is easy to understand, Madam Speaker. On page 12, of Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 19(1) states, and I quote:
A disputeand here it is even more relevant:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
Now, that is exactly the case before us. Since it is fundamentally a difference of opinion about facts, it cannot be a breach of privilege affecting hon. members. It is a matter of debate and, at any rate, it is certainly a breach of privilege even if the facts were admittedly as defined in citation 16 I quoted earlier.
So the present situation is quite familiar to you, Madam Speaker, namely that, of course, it is up to the House to decide if there is a breach of privilege. Your role, as indicated in Beauchesne's citation 84, on page 27, is to rule whether a prima facie case can be established. The current parliamentary practice offers numerous precedents, and one only has to refer to the proceedings of the last couple of weeks to the effect that divergent opinions on facts are matters for debate rather than questions of privileges. That is why, in this case, I respectfully submit that this is a matter for debate and that there is absolutely no basis for the question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: If there are no further interventions I will reserve judgment on this particular question of privilege. I thank the hon. member for the arguments he has put forward. He has made a serious effort to relate the question of privilege to the matter of parliamentary privilege and I thank him for that because that is, of course, most helpful to the Chair.
In the circumstances I will also reserve my ruling on the question of privilege which has been raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), which is not similar but very close. I have notice of other questions of privilege by other hon. members.


MR. THACKER-IMPOSITION OF CLOSURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I would like you to consider, and it arises out of the events of yesterday and shortly before yesterday. I claim that the imposition of the
October 24, 1980

closure rule on the resolution dealing with the constitution violates my personal privilege as a member of this House to attend here and to speak for my constituents. My claim is that I am restricted to the narrow point of the constitution.
As you know, Madam Speaker, if this resolution comes into force, the whole social fabric of our country will be changed. As the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) has pointed out, we do have a social contract. 1 submit that there will be many changes in the future, and I would like your advice. I believe that it is a violation of our privileges as members to be able to speak because we are limited to the narrow point of amending our Canadian constitution.
When I came here as a new member I read Beauchesne, particularly the section in the fifth edition dealing with "Principles of Parliamentary Law", which states:
To protect a minority and restrain the improvidence of a tyranny of a majority;... to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken upon sudden impulse.
1 clearly feel that I have the right to speak. I am sure that you are aware, Madam Speaker, of the section in the BNA Act which gives to my constituents the privilege to elect a person to come here and represent their views. I have referred you to Beauchesne and the long-standing customs and traditions of this House.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) claimed to Canadians that their member would be able to speak, and therefore I claim that privilege because of the law and because I represent a minority region, and because the government is acting on sudden impulse. This resolution reduces my constituents, the province of Alberta and the other provinces, from a position of equality on constitutional amendment to a position of perpetual second-class status.
The resolution imposes rights over our long-standing common law tradition. For example, section 42 in the resolution has the potential to destroy the protection which heretofore was inherent in my provincial government, and section 44 interferes with the protection which my constituents have heretofore had through the Senate. 1 have studied the resolution, listened to the speeches, and consulted with my constituents by letter, telephone, and personally, and I have prepared very carefully a speech of some 21 pages in which I attempt to point out to hon. members opposite the very deep feelings we have in the west about this resolution and the potential downside for us.
We are dealing with the constitution. It is a document which will go on forever. I believe that I have a privilege and that my constituents have the right to have their views put before this House so that my children and grandchildren will remember, 100 years and 200 years down the road, that their member at least had an input. I believe that closure has blocked that privilege. I submit that there is a prima facie case of privilege and I therefore move:
That the whole question of closure related to the narrow point of the constitution be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Business of the House
We look to you personally, Madam Speaker, because this matter will go on for many, many decades, to create some new law with respect to constitutional amendments.


Madam Speaker:: At the outset, I would remind the hon. member that Standing Order 33 does not make any exception as to the subject which may come under closure. 1 believe that part of his argumentation was based on the fact that we are dealing with a particular subject and that he would have liked to have had a chance to express himself at length on that particular subject. Of course, that is the right of all members of Parliament, and our rules are devised in order to allow members to express themselves. Those rules have been voluntarily imposed on the House by the members and they are accepted by all the members.
At some point, and at certain times, members feel that these rules are restrictive and, indeed, they are. But if they are restrictive to some, these restrictions are designed to protect others so that they too can express themselves. A very simple example is the 20-minute, 30-minute, and 40-minute rule which is applied to various speeches. One member might find that 40 minutes is restrictive and, indeed, it is as far as he is concerned. But that rule is designed to allow other members to express themselves because that also is a right of this House.
The matter to which the hon. member is referring has been voted upon in this House. I have merely executed a decision of this House. Closure had been voted into this House. Once that is done the procedure follows, and I try to apply it as best as I can interpret it. My feelings, and I have been very careful throughout this last day, yesterday, to be as fair as possible, because I know how important it is when such a measure is proposed to the House, are that everything should be done in order and in conformity with our Standing Orders.
I have applied my efforts and my best attention to see that everything was just so in the course of yesterday. I must tell the hon. member that my feeling is very strong, that everything which went on, which members might or might not like, was done strictly according to our Standing Orders. Therefore, I am very sorry to say that I cannot find a question of privilege in the hon. member's question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I request that you designate an order of the day to permit the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to present his budget at 8 p.m. on Tuesday, October 28, 1980.

October 24, 1980
4068____________________________________
Privilege-Mr. Oberle PRIVILEGE


MR. LEWIS-NOTICE OF QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that you have undertaken to investigate the matter of the security police in this House last evening, or earlier this morning, I am content that my question of privilege stand down until you have had an opportunity to report to this House.
MR. OBERLE-STATEMENTS MADE BY MR. MacEACHEN


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is with regard to references that were made in the course of the question period earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in response to a question by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). I am very concerned about the matter, as I am sure the Chair will be, because the two members involved, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, calculate their words very carefully. The Deputy Prime Minister, as we know, is always very deliberate in his statements.
Why I am concerned and why I feel that I have a question of privilege is because I think that I clearly understood the Deputy Prime Minister to say that there were discussions between the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader with respect to extended hours and extended days on the constitutional debate. I do not have the blues, but I intend to check them. Certainly it is misleading of the facts as they were told to me by my House leader.
This is not the usual debate. Members in this chamber were glued to their chairs and were glued to every word that was uttered in this House by members on both sides. It is a debate that will fundamentally and ultimately change the way of life of Canadians, the relationships between individuals and minority groups with their governments and with their state. We were all in the chamber.
The Deputy Prime Minister knew full well that even to suggest that there was an offer of extended hours was utter nonsense because, even though the government planned through entrenchment of rights, to do certain things that are nothing more than a utopian dream, such as to eliminate discrimination all at once, they will not be able with this measure to extend the hours of the day which are 24 for members of Parliament and every other citizen of this country.
We were in this chamber from two o'clock in the afternoon until ten o'clock at night, every day. There was just no way that a member could do his work in his office and discharge his responsibilities to his constituents in the time allowed. A member cannot sit in this chamber 24 hours a day; there are other things that have to be done, so that was nonsense because the Deputy Prime Minister knew this. When he said there was an offer to extend the days, that was misleading the House. It could leave the impression throughout the country
that this party was not co-operative. 1 want to be very sure that the Deputy Prime Minister was not being deliberate when he said this. I am concerned because, as I have said, the minister is usually very calculated and very deliberate in all he
says.
There was no opportunity for members of this House-as you know, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity. 1 was one of 17 members of the official opposition who had the opportunity to speak, but all the rest of my colleagues did not.
It is not in the interests of restoring order, respect and decorum in this House, for the Deputy Prime Minister to make statements which are obviously misleading and, I will not at this moment use the word "deliberate" but I shall reserve the right to do so once I have had the opportunity to examine the blues.


Yvon Pinard: On
that point, Madam Speaker, I presume the hon. member, if he was not mistaken altogether, was really alluding to the Deputy Prime Minister and not to the leader of the government; since he was looking at me while speaking, he may have mistaken one for the other. Be that as it may, I was here when the Deputy Prime Minister answered the question and I myself had to answer some of the questions on the matter; I want that to be very clear.
No one on this side of the House said that extra days had been offered to the opposition for the first stage. What the Deputy Prime Minister said was that we would be willing to negotiate for the third stage; 1 said the same thing, that is we would be willing to extend the hours and, if need be, allow extra. But when my learned colleague refers to the offer made for the first stage, which ended during the night, then, as we said, and I call upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to vouch for it, since those proposals were made to each of the respective caucuses of the three parties-in fact, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the proposal himself-to allow the House to sit yesterday, Thursday, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and from 10 p.m. till midnight, then all day Friday, that is today, during normal hours, Monday at dinner time from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and 10 till midnight, provided the vote on the motion passed last night, was taken Tuesday afternoon, before the budget speech. That is exactly what the proposal entailed that was made at the meeting of the House leaders and which we agreed would be submitted to our respective caucuses. Obviously, the NDP accepted the proposal. It came from them. We, on our side of the House, were also willing to accept it. It was the Tories who refused it. Those are the facts, I hope that can satisfy and placate my learned colleague; that is what we said and I cannot believe the Deputy Prime Minister would say anything different with regard to the first stage.
When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of extra days, it was in terms of the third stage; he said that we would be willing to
October 24, 1980

negotiate an extension of the deadline, the hours of debate, even if it meant having to sit extra days. 1 reiterate the same offer.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I think I should wrap this up by putting something on the record that the government House leader did not put there. As he is aware, I attended that House leaders' meeting when that offer was made. At that time I indicated that the proposal would likely not find favour in our caucus unless the days were extended, because we had 43 or more members who had yet to speak. Obviously the hours proposed were not going to accommodate 43 plus members who still had to speak and who had indicated their desire to speak on the measure. Additional days were therefore required. I thought that should be added to the explanation just given by the government House leader.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on the same point.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my comment in this connection is that when one is speaking of the right of members of Parliament to express the views of their constituents, there is no matter of negotiating. The words "rights" and "negotiations", as far as members of Parliament are concerned, should not be used in the same sentence.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), mentioned, there is the possibility of extending the number of days. Certainly, in a matter as important as the constitution of this country which will determine the shape, size, form, and manner of living in this country for the next century, and perhaps more, this is surely a matter where all members of this House should have an opportunity to speak in the normal hours of debate of this House.
I will not accept the word "negotiation" in terms of the exercise of my right to be heard in this House, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) wants to look at Hansard to see whether the first answer which was given to him conforms with what he thought he heard. I do not know whether the explanation given now by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) satisfies him as to what was said-I am not saying he is satisfied with the substance of it but as to what was said, and the further explanation given by the hon. member for the Yukon.
Am I to understand that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is giving me notice that he might bring up the question of privilege once he has seen the blues?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, if the Acting Prime Minister said that an offer was made to add days to the constitutional debate, I reserve the right to raise this question again.
Petition-Mr. Siddon


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in conclusion, since my learned colleague from Yukon has commented on the nature of the negotiations on the proposal, I may add, since this also concerns the point of order raised by the other hon. member, that when our proposal was rejected, he was not present at the one o'clock meeting Wednesday afternoon ir. my office, it was rather-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think that such information might extend the debate. The hon. member wishes to refer to the official report to see whether the answers really agree with what he thinks he has heard. I feel that the exchange has gone on long enough and I want to see what the hon. member will decide on Monday.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I merely wish to point out that I asked for a counterproposal, but none was forthcoming. There was therefore no question of extending-


Madam Speaker:: I think that was quite clear. Thank you.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, during the past three and one half weeks, over 30,000 residents of British Columbia have signed a petition in which they expressed their absolute rejection of any attempts by the Government of Canada to impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from British Columbia.
On behalf of my constituents, and many other British Columbians, I present to this House the signatures of 8,640 Canadians and residents of British Columbia who are absolutely opposed to any form of federal excise tax being imposed upon the natural gas and other natural resources of British Columbia.
I might add, Madam Speaker, it is through no help from the NDP that we obtained these signatures. I was presented with a grand total of 25 signatures by that party after they studiously avoided the question for several weeks.
Members of this House know that any such tax on the resources of British Columbia would violate a basic condition of my province's entry into confederation, that condition being that the resources of British Columbia shall belong in perpetuity to the province-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe I have a number of petitions today. I must remind hon. members that they are

October 24, 1980
Petition-Mr. Cook
allowed to present their petitions but not to enter into debate. The presentation should be kept extremely short-and when 1 say extremely short, I mean generally within a minute.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I shall close very succinctly. 1 just wanted to say, pertinent to the petition, that the revenues therefrom were to be used for the development of communities, opportunities, and services to the people of British Columbia.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, on behalf of these petitioners 1 ask for serious consideration of their strong appeal to the Prime Minister and to the Government of Canada through this House of Commons.


PETITION RESPECTING NATURAL GAS AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER-MISS CARNEY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to present a petition signed by 1,765 British Columbians who, having due regard for the constitutional guarantee made to British Columbians under the British North America Act which promises that all natural resources within B.C. belong to the province, express their absolute rejection of any attempt by the Government of Canada to impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from British Columbia. This petition represents the results of a one-day blitz and is representative only of the deep feeling in my constituency.
On behalf of my petitioners, I ask for serious consideration of their request by the Government of Canada.


PETITION RESPECTING NATURAL GAS-MR. MUNRO (ESQUIMALT-SAANICH)
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise and with your permission, wish to present a petition signed by 3,502 Canadian citizens living in British Columbia. This petition indicates their complete and unalterable opposition to the plans of this government to impose a tax on natural gas exported to customers in the United States, the tax being collected from the revenues of the selling agency, a B.C. Crown corporation, and through that corporation to the provincial government, thereby depriving residents of British Columbia of some of the vitally important services to which they are entitled, such as hospital and medical care.
As to form, there are a number of signatures on a newspaper column which appeared in a daily newspaper on the weekend of September 27 which have been transcribed onto the proper petition form that I have attached. On behalf of the petitioners, I ask for consideration of their requests by the Government of Canada.


PETITIONS RESPECTING NATURAL GAS AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER-MR. COOK
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I echo the comments of my colleagues. With your
permission I wish to present a petition signed by residents of my riding, North Vancouver-Burnaby. In the absence of my colleague, the hon. member Capilano (Mr. Huntington), I present the same petition signed by residents of his riding, in total somewhat over 3,200. If the mails in Canada were better there would be double that number because I am informed there are many sheets still on their way here.
The petition asks that the Government of Canada not impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from British Columbia because of the severe repercussions upon the economy of British Columbia.
In addition, on behalf of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), who is not in the House, we have an additional 2,000 signatures from that particular area of the province of British Columbia. On behalf of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) an additional 2,870 of his constituents have also signed an identical petition.
I would respectfully submit these petitions on behalf of my four colleagues and myself to you, Madam Speaker.


PETITIONS RESPECTING NATURAL GAS AND HYDROELECTRIC POWER-MR. KING
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I, too, ask your permission to present this House with a petition requesting that a proposed tax on the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power not be imposed. Therefore, 1 present that petition signed by 2,561 constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen, which is in central south British Columbia.
On behalf of the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer) I present another petition signed by 517 constituents of his riding. The petition rejects absolutely any attempt by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Government of Canada to impose a federal excise tax on the export of natural gas, the imposition of which would be a disguised form of supplementary income tax against every resident of British Columbia.
On behalf of the petitioners, Canadians resident in British Columbia, I ask for consideration of their request by the Government of Canada.


PETITIONS RESPECTING NATURAL GAS-MR. OBERLE
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is fitting that I am the last one to present petitions today because British Columbia derives its entire energy resource harvest from northeastern British Columbia, the area that I represent.
I, too, rise to echo the comments which have been made by my hon. colleagues. I present petitions which have been collected by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the hon. member for Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley (Mr. McCuish), and myself on behalf of my constituents in Prince George-Peace River. These petitions
October 24, 1980

protest the proposed imposition of an excise tax on natural gas resources harvested in British Columbia.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 86, 390 and 1,232 to 1,247 inclusive.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: Did any cabinet minister in the former government who was defeated on May 22, 1979, consign or make arrangements with the Public Archives to accept or store material and, if so, in each case (a) what is his/her name (b) what was the general nature of the material (c) has it been sorted and catalogued and, if not, on what date will it be (d) will it be available for examination by the general public and (i) if so, on what date (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Public Archives as follows: The Public Archives Canada offers security storage facilities for the papers of current former cabinet ministers. Under the deposit system the papers remain the property of the particular depositor who also controls access. The Public Archives does not sort or describe the papers, but provides only the storage facility. The final disposition of the papers is determined later by the depositor.
A. The following cabinet ministers who were defeated on May 22, 1979, have placed papers on deposit in the Public Archives.
Name
Tony Abbott Norm Cafik Iona Campagnolo Bud Cullen Hugh Faulkner Alastair Gillespie Jack Horner Otto Lang Len Marchand Martin O'Connell John Roberts
Extent in Metres 40.8m 24.0m 61.5m 33.0m 71.2m 104.03m 14.1m
98.1m
31.2m
47.7m
18.6m
The following cabinet minister who was defeated on May 22, 1979, has donated papers to the Public Archives:
Barney Danson	100.97m
B. The Public Archives is not apprised of the specific contents of the deposit collections. Experience with collections that have been donated to the Public Archives
Order Paper Questions
indicate that while the contents vary from one minister to another, the general contents fall within one or more of the following categories:
-papers accumulated as a member of Parliament including constituency correspondence, research and subject files and party files,
-personal and political papers relating to ministerial responsibilities including correspondence, memoranda, research and reference files, speeches, clippings retained in the minister's office,
-papers of a non-political nature, for example family and business matters.
C and D. Collections received on deposit are not sorted or listed by the Public Archives. The Public Archives will approach each depositor regarding the permanent retention of the papers at the Public Archives. Upon donation of the collections Public Archives staff schedule the material to be sorted, listed and described. Papers of lasting historical research value are retained for the permanent collection of the Public Archives. Access provisions are determined by the donor in consultation with the Public Archives.
Note: No archival work has been done on the Danson papers at this time.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, what was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits of Canarch Limited?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Canarch Limited (Non-Operating)
1.	Revenues Net Earnings
2.	(a) Grants, Subsidies
(b)	Loans, Advances/Guarantees
(c)	Investment


[Stage Direction]
Questions Nos. 1,232 to 1,247 inch-Mr. Herbert:
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that all companies should be measured against a code of business conduct related to Canadian economic and social priorities and firms which qualify should be treated equally by governments irrespective of the nationality of their ownership or control and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
(a) 1977 (b) 1978
Nil	Nil
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that it should develop a contingency plan in the event of non-removal of existing non-tariff barriers or the introduction of new non-tariff barriers by foreign countries and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that ITC, EDC and CIDA should collaborate to optimize financing programs in support of domestic manufacturers' exports and to select aid projects which match the particular skills of Canada's manufacturing industry with the needs of developing countries and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that it should investigate further means by which the link between subsidiaries and parent companies that are foreign owned can be used to benefit Canadian firms and to strengthen their performance and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that the government should continue to press for a stronger international agreement limiting the provision of concessional financing to developed countries and should monitor the level of financing coming into Canada, with a view to neutralizing its effect when it is used to finance products which compete directly with Canadian products and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that the Canadian economy reap benefits for Canadian industry by assuring access to foreign markets or by devices designed to assure Canadian manufacturers a "fair" chance in the Canadian market and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that Canada should seek to delay the reduction of Canadian tariffs until it is demonstrated that relevant non-trade barriers have been removed and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that the government consider a domestic financing corporation to assure that Canadian manufacturers are not at a disadvantage in their own country and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that the government should re-examine the position of the Canadian manufacturer relative to foreign competitors on the matter of dumping, following which a joint industry-government effort should be made to develop appropriate policy and procedures to prevent dumping in so far as possible by (a) shortening the time element in the finding of dumping and of injury (b) minimizing the cost to the Canadian company in demonstrating that injury has taken place (c) definition of "injury" that should not make it unreasonably difficult to establish that injury has taken place (d) requiring an affidavit from the foreign supplier that the goods are not being dumped (e) a commitment not to purchase foreign goods at dumped prices and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that Canada should work toward neutralizing the United States disc program and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that Canada should work toward eliminating the advantage held by the United States on the matter of the definition of "injury" for countervail purposes and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that the government should assure that the lowering of Canadian tariffs does not put Third World countries in a preferred position in the Canadian market by using aid granted by Canada for industrial development and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that it change the application of the federal manufacturers' sales tax so that imports do not derive a competitive advantage
over Canadian manufactured appliances and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that tied aid can be justified and should be emphasized and that it should be a fundamental guideline of Canada's aid policy to use Canadian consultants, Canadian specifications and Canadian products and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that it should shorten the period for write-offs for tax purposes of building investments to encourage expansion needed to support programs related to investment for productivity improvement and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Did the sector task force on the Canadian Electrical Industry recommend to the government in July, 1978, that adjustment policies and plans should be developed before the tariff reductions come into effect and, if so, what was the government's reaction to the recommendation?
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: This question is derived directly from the report of the Consultative Task Force on the Canadian Electrical Industry. This report was released in November, 1978, and its contents are available to the general public. The reaction by the federal government to each of these points was published in "Response of the Federal Government to the Recommendations of the Consultative Task Force on the Canadian Electrical Industry". This report was made public in May, 1979.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Are the other questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the only reason I rise on a point of order now before you call the orders of the day is because the government House leader is about to leave the House, and perhaps I can be permitted to raise my point of order now.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has a point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, madam Speaker. It deals with business of the House. I realize that perhaps the government House leader has an important engagement. I do so in the relative peace and tranquility of a Friday session, and I am sure the hon. gentleman will appreciate what I am about to say in light of the very serious questions raised in the House today regarding an order of this House established last night setting up a joint committee of the House and the other place. Today the Acting Prime Minister referred to the committee being the master of its own destiny. But the committee can only operate
October 24, 1980

within the terms of reference laid down for it by this House. That order does not permit the committee to travel in Canada.
In view of the petitions, questions, and representations which have been made, and in view of the invocation of closure on the debate after a very small percentage of hon. members of this House had an opportunity to participate, thereby depriving many regions of the country and the vast majority of the constituencies of Canada of the opportunity to be directly represented in the debate on the most important issue of the constitution, perhaps the most important issue to come before Parliament this century, 1 would ask the government House leader whether the government is now prepared to issue an order permitting that committee to travel from place to place in Canada, through all the provinces and territories, in order that the people who were not represented in the debate through their members will have a chance to appear.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on October 6, when Parliament was reconvened, the member was aware of the content of the motion. And his party chose to extend this first stage to three weeks, thus shortening accordingly the committee stage. Now, Madam Speaker, on the first point, since this is a quiet Friday, I may remind the Conservative members that they chose to shorten the time in committee by taking more time in the House. May I also add, on this quiet Friday, that if his party had agreed to our offer to sit between six and eight o'clock on Thursday and Monday, and from ten o'clock to midnight on Thursday and Monday, and also on Monday and Tuesday last, an offer which I made to his party, more members could have taken part in the debate. This must also appear on the record and be thoroughly understood by the right-minded members on this quiet Friday.
As to his question whether the committee will travel, 1 will tell him frankly and as directly as possible that the answer is no. Several committees have travelled across the country to deal with the constitutional issue in the last few years. During the Quebec referendum campaign last spring, several members, even some of his party, campaigned on Canadian unity and made the headlines in all newspapers and media throughout the country. The intentions of the people have been sounded. They have been sensitized. That is why the committee has been set up. It is because 1 respect my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that I am telling him why the deadline for the committee report is December 9. The very essence, the very reason for the creation of the committee stage as part of our approach and procedure is to allow the committee to consider the technical amendments which may be proposed to polish and improve, if there is room for improvement, the resolution which is relatively complex.
In conclusion, I would say that we could very well have tabled the resolution right in Parliament. It would have been a
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
simple motion, a single stage, a single phase and, given all the obligations it has to meet, the House would have had to study it clause by clause. Given his vast experience of the House of Commons, my knowledgeable colleague knows very well that with 282 members, after three weeks of debate, we would probably still be stuck on clause 2 or clause 3 and considering a number of subamendments. The consequence of that kind of procedure would have been to paralyse the Canadian Parliament altogether, confuse the public and make the debate completely sterile.
The approach we have chosen allows for three stages: a preliminary stage which we had to interrupt yesterday for reasons which have been thoroughly discussed in the last few days, but that was only one stage. We have not ended the debate for good.
There is the committee stage, the purpose of which is not to have the hon. members travel throughout the country to take the nation's pulse. Again, we have very often followed such a procedure in the past few years. The purpose of the committee stage is to further consideration for this institution and to let us, in an orderly way, smooth out the text, and if needs be, to hear a few witnesses liable to provide us with the precisions we might need. And ultimately, there we will be the formal debate, following presentation of the committee report, and this debate technically will not be limited and is not intended to be limited provided that hon. members show the good faith which they have unfortunately not shown at the first stage when they rejected the delay we had suggested.
Therefore, I repeat it: the debate is far from being over. The purpose of the committee is not to travel-I will not come back on this, as I just explained-and there will be a third stage at which point ample time will be given hon. members to hold a responsible debate. In conclusion, I want to clearly indicate to the hon. member that the government will always be prepared to assume its responsibilities as far as parliamentary procedure is concerned to permit this institution to work. It is a matter of judgment. Canadians will pass judgment on us if we do not abide by the rules. However, we are fully aware of the fact that until now, far from having misused the rules, far from having misused the procedure, we have shown great respect for hon. members opposite, for the people and for the procedure in this chamber. And once again, it must be clear that the debate is not yet over, that this is just another stage and that this will allow us to demonstrate to the public at large that Parliament can play its role by discussing the constitution in committee and by dealing with economic matters on the floor of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 am sorry, Madam Speaker, that my hon. friend's answer was so unnecessarily argumentative and convoluted. Now that we know that this most important joint committee of the Parliament of Canada on Canada's constitu-

October 24, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
tion will not be permitted to travel outside of this capital city to the provinces and territories of our nation, that leads me to my next question.
Now that we have disposed of that, and the hon. member has to take responsibility for that decision on behalf of the government, is he now able to tell the House, in view of the support of this party, the official opposition, and the party to my left, the New Democratic Party, for having the proceedings of that committee telecast as an electronic Hansard in the same way the proceedings of this House are telecast, that the government is now prepared to make that decision, because it is not a subject for negotiation? It is a decision the government has to take on its responsibility. Having taken the decision not to allow the committee to travel in this country, surely it will follow that they will allow for the greatest public scrutiny by permitting the public broadcasting of the committee's proceedings.


Yvon Pinard: My colleague knows full well that the committee system as it is now makes it possible, in principle, to hold public hearings. Exceptionally, the committee may sit behind closed doors. First, I can assure him that we do not intend to hold the meetings on the sly. The meetings will be public. I think the media are sufficiently excited perhaps to show more interest in that committee than in others. So it is wrong and 1 know that my colleague does not intend to make people think that what happens in committee is secret. It will all be public. People have the right to participate. Accordingly, we will choose a large room and we will try to make the meetings as public as possible. This is my first point because this preamble implied that everything was done in secrecy. On the contrary, sittings are public and though 25 members and senators are designated there is nothing to prevent other members from participating in the sittings of a committee as my colleague must be aware.
As to televising the debates I answered those questions yesterday. The Prime Minister also answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition. I want to show respect for the committee. It is not yet constituted, and the senators who will be part of it will have to be consulted. It will be up to the committee to decide whether the debates should be televised. As to the material organization that would be involved that aspect would come under the responsibility of Madam Speaker.
We have stated that we were prepared to check if it is technically possible but, if it is indeed possible, and if such is the desire of the committee, we do not want this to have the effect of delaying the presentation of the committee report after December 9.
As emphasized by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we insist that if it is technically possible it should be done in conformity with the concept of the electronic Hansard, just as it is the principle that guides the televising of the debates on the floor of the House of Commons.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I direct this to the government House leader and urge him to withhold making a decision on the question of travel until he has reflected on it over the weekend.
The government House leader has completely missed the point. The basis for the feelings expressed last night was expressed to members of Parliament from western Canada by the people in their constituencies, those who live in the cities and small towns of western Canada. Those feelings have been brought forward into this House in a nominal way. About 20 per cent of the members have been able to express their views. It seems that members opposite do not in any way understand the depth of those feelings.
The government House leader made reference to the fact that the feelings of people in western Canada have been known over the past few years and that they understand those feelings. I stress to him that there has been a significant change in the feelings expressed by those in western Canada in the last few weeks and months. It is those feelings which we feel so strongly should be presented to this committee. The only way that can be done is by having that committee travel.
I would also like to remind the government House leader there is a similar committee in the Ontario legislature on the constitution, a special committee, which chose to travel, not just within the province of Ontario but right across Canada. The feelings expressed to that committee were of great interest to the members and were different from what they had understood prior to going out. The depth of those feelings are expressed in their report. I can tel! the government House leader that the report caused some stir within the Ontario legislature because it was different from what members had felt.
The government side has only two members to get an assessment of all that is going on in that part of the country, the four provinces and the territories. It is very important for the government House leader to reconsider his decision, if a decision has in fact been made, and report to the House on Monday. I do not think anyone in this House last night was not stunned and astounded by the feelings expressed by the members. It is the same feelings that members from the province of Quebec felt last March, April and May when in their own ridings. That is why they are feeling those sentiments today and that is why they expressed them so strongly last night. It is on that basis that I ask the government House leader to reconsider the decision he has just expressed. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, some are impressed by the words of the hon. member, others are more impressed by those of the hon. members from the west or from the New Democratic Party. This is a matter of interpretation. I suggest that he read carefully the constitution proposal before the House and he will realize that it will benefit all Canadians, including western Canadians. Therefore, there is no reason to be con-
October 24, 1980

cerned even if the committee does not travel; he can be assured that the measures which are proposed here, namely, the entrenchment of the equalization principle in Canada, the individual's rights, the fundamental freedoms, the patriation of the constitution, are not in the least detrimental to the citizens of the west or the east, because they are beneficial to Canada as a whole. We are renewing our federalism. 1 am convinced that if he listens more carefully to the hon. members from the west, from the New Democratic Party, perhaps he will no longer make the request he has just made to me.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Andre Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Madam Speaker:: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[DOT] (MOO)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) appointed me for the second time as Postmaster General on March 3, the objectives he set for me were to improve employer-employee relations and to turn the department into a Crown corporation. It became obvious to me that to meet those objectives I would have to have frequent and frank discussions with labour representatives.
In the early seventies, when postal authorities undertook a vast mechanization program, the employees were not sufficiently informed of the process. The system had to be updated otherwise it would have become paralysed because of the ever-increasing volumes of mail to be processed. But more time should have been spent in trying to make everybody aware of the situation so as to achieve this objective with the full co-operation of the postal union leaders. But this was not done
Canada Post Corporation Act
and it was without the understanding and endorsement of several of our employees that substantial sums of money were invested in the construction of postal plants, the purchase of highly specialized equipment, and the creation and promotion of a postal code. Ten years later, I can appreciate that the Post Office did what had to be done because it could not stand in the way of progress. But I can also say that the implementation procedure was very wrong and resulted in a decade of labour unrest in the Post Office. Had management explained more clearly to the employees what it intended to do-


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mea culpa\


André Ouellet: had it involved the employees in the change, had it guaranteed, from the very start, everyone's job security, the employees would have understood that the machines were not meant to replace them but rather to help them in their work, and union leaders would have taken part in the operation rather than opposing it. I do not mean this to be merely a criticism of postal management at the beginning of the seventies, those people acted in good faith-


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker I rise on a point of order. I would like to know whether the minister is talking about the constitutional situation in Canada and the need to understand the constitution, or about the Post Office. Is he talking about the important thing called the constitution, or is he talking about a minor thing called the Post Office with this talk about time and so forth?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The order of business is the creation of a Crown corporation for the Post Office, and 1 suggest the hon. minister is addressing himself to the order of business before the House.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He is quoting my speeches.


André Ouellet: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, what happened in the early seventies was done to a certain extent without the support and especially without the understanding of postal employees. But I do not say this merely to criticize the postal management of the time, because I am sure those people acted in good faith and with good intentions. Of course, it is always easier to judge with the benefit of hindsight, as I am doing now. I mention this because the first major transformation of the postal service was so quick and so thorough in my opinion that the employees often felt pressured and threatened.
In rising to speak in the House on Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post corporation, I can confirm that all the postal unions have been fully consulted and that it is with their complete agreement that we shall proceed with this major transformation. We have had a decade of conflict and I hope that we are now entering a decade of postal harmony. In any case, this second major transformation will take no one by

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
surprise. In fact, the concept of a Canada Post corporation results from several studies. The first recommendations in this regard were made in 1962 by the Glassco commission and in 1966 by the Montpetit commission. In December 1978, Bill C-27, to establish the Canada Post corporation, was introduced in the House of Commons, but it died on the order paper when Parliament was dissolved. This concept was reexamined in 1979 and 1980 by successive governments and postmasters general in consultation with both the postal users and the unions concerned.
Bill C-27 gave me the basis for my discussions with all the major parties involved. In fact, each section of Bill C-42 now under consideration was discussed sentence by sentence and word by word, and all the wording has been well thought out so that there would be no confusion or misinterpretation. I am not suggesting that this bill is perfect, but it represents as never before the collective efforts of the administration and the postal unions. The legislation that Parliament is now asked to approve is the fruit of the efforts of many people. I would first like to thank Mr. Darling of the Privy Council, Mr. Uberig of the Post Office Department, and Mr. Kelly of the Department of Labour, who allowed this project to get under way with the publication of their report in 1978. 1 also wish to express my gratitude to my two predecessors, Messrs. Lamontagne and Fraser, for their excellent advice and opinions. I am also grateful to Mrs. Shirley Carr, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, for her support and her unflagging determination to create a postal Crown corporation. I also wish to thank the Deputy Postmaster General, Mr. Jim Cork-ery, who heads an inter-departmental committee which will be responsible for the enormous and extremely important work of transition and planning required to create this Crown corporation. In summary, Mr. Speaker, what I want to say today is that while I have the honour to sponsor this bill in the House, I would not want all those who have worked directly or indirectly on this project to be forgotten. It is always dangerous to give names because it is easy to forget some. I would like to say in advance that I am sorry if this has happened. However, I would still like to add to those I have already mentioned, the members of the umbrella committee established by the Canadian Labour Congress, first, Mr. Ronald Lang, director of the Research and Legislation Branch of the CLC, then, Mr. McGarry and Mr. Findlay, president and vice-president of the Letter Carriers Union of Canada respectively, Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot, president, and Mr. Jones, of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Mr. Myers, of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Mr. West, executive secretary and Mr. Haulena, of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
I would also like to mention various representatives of unions not affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress whom I have also met and who have made very useful comments: Mr. Simmons and Mr. Gelinas of the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association, Mr. Wilson, president of the Association of Postal Officials of Canada, Mr. Donegani, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada and Mr. Crosby of the Association of Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians. Finally, I must recognize the extraordinary work of a first class team in the Post Office Department, under the brilliant direction of Mr. Rapley, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General for Corporate Affairs. In that team, I must thank particularly Mr. Mclnenly and Mrs. Walker.
The changeover from a department, Mr. Speaker, to a Crown corporation, has brought about a series of questions. Has this Crown corporation been touted as a panacea for the Post Office?
Will Crown corporation status make the Post Office more efficient? Let me try to answer briefly these questions. I want to say that 1 strongly believe that the changeover from a department to a Crown corporation will result in three specific benefits, namely, management accountability, financial procedures, and labour negotiations.
As it exists now, the Post Office Department, is answerable, in one way or another, to various other departments. For example, the Department of Public Works owns and maintains the facilities, the Public Service Commission controls hiring and firing, and the Treasury Board has the final say in labour negotiations. As a corporation the board of directors will have the responsibility for the day to day operation of Canada Post. This change in procedure and responsibility will greatly simplify and enhance efficiency.
The financial procedures will also be radically changed by the Post Office becoming a Crown corporation. The Post Office is a government department and operating funds are provided through government general revenues. The result has been that Post Office management could not make system changes and service improvements if additional funds were requested or required. If the Post Office become a Crown corporation, the board of directors will be able to make more decisions regarding expenditures of funds and make them much more quickly.
Labour negotiations will also undergo significant change. All government departments negotiate under the terms of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. If the Post Office were to become a Crown corporation, bargaining would take place under the Canada Labour Code. This means that many items that could not be brought to the bargaining table under the present system would be permitted under the Canada Labour Code. In other words, we would have more latitude to bargain directly with the unions. Needless to say, this change in labour negotiations meets with the approval of the unions concerned.
In summary, the change in status from a government department to a Crown corporation will give Canada Post the independence to function in the marketplace in a way that is not possible now.
October 24, 1980

Crown corporation status will not remedy all our ills or difficulties. Every organization, be it government or industry, faces normal operational problems. However, with the streamlining of many of the facets of our operations and the support and good will of the employees, the Canada Post Corporation will be able to provide all Canadians with the postal service to which they are entitled and which they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to explain the legislation in great detail here this afternoon. However, 1 wish to mention a few points. First, 1 should like to speak about the mandate of the new corporation as described in clause 5 of the act, and 1 quote:
5.(1) The objects of the corporation-
-the Canada Post corporation-they are objects of a general nature-
-are to establish and operate a postal service-within Canada-
-and there is a list of the powers and general purposes of the operation of such a service as they existed in the former Post Office Act. However, in creating this Canada Post corporation, we have tried to add something of the utmost importance in clause 5(2) which says, I quote:
(2) While maintaining basic customary postal service, the corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have a regard to:
-four other factors. And this sentence, Mr. Speaker, is essential to make hon. members of the House and particularly the Canadian public understand that the creation of a Crown corporation does not mean a reduction of services usually assured to the public. We wanted to write down this guarantee in the act so that Canadians, particularly in remote areas of the country and rural sectors which are often affected by decisions made by large Canadian corporations, would not be penalized by the creation of a Canada Post corporation which would operate in the Canadian capital and that would become insensitive to the aspirations of those Canadians, particularly in the rural and remote areas of the country. So 1 say that clause 5 guarantees that the same level of essential services will be maintained and this is one of the objectives of the legislation for which the new corporation will be responsible.
We know of course that we live in a world where technology is in full swing and that is exactly why we wanted to enable the corporation to benefit developments in the area of communications and why we say in that clause of the Post Office legislation that the corporation shall be at the forefront of technology and new developments in the area of communications in order to serve the Canadian people better. I have often been told, Mr. Speaker, that in many places in the country the Post Office Department was the only representative of the Canadian government. In many small villages, the Canadian flag floats at the end of the pole in front of the post office and may be the only sign of the federal presence. So I can tell hon.
Canada Post Corporation Act
members and the Canadian public that in the bill we urge the Crown corporation to maintain and respect a corporate identity as an institution of the Government of Canada.
1 think that this provision of the bill clearly demonstrates that while we are going to convert the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation, the corporation will not be allowed to show a corporate symbol or a personal signalization which might obliterate the federal and Canadian symbolization. Consequently that Canadian presence throughout the country will continue to be seen through the new Canada Post corporation instead of the old Post Office Department.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the daily management of that postal service will be assured by a board of directors which will be empowered to establish a general policy and to make decisions concerning finance, personnel management, as independently as possible from departments and without the restrictions now inherent in the public service. That board of Directors will be very important and will consist of the chairman, the president and seven other directors. The chairman and the president will be appointed by the governor in council to hold office during pleasure. Each other director will be appointed by the governor in council for a term of three years.
I want now to reiterate what I have said publicly and privately to union representatives, that is, I intend to have union representatives on the board of directors in order that they can get directly involved and participate fully in the good administration of the corporation.
Moreover, we will try to have various regions of the country represented on the board, from both urban and rural regions. The board will direct and manage the business of the corporation and will be made up of people well aware of the needs and desires of all areas in this country. We will try to appoint to that board very highly qualified people.
The corporation will, of course, be responsible to Parliament and through a designated minister this time. The minister and the governor in council will have the power to set guidelines for the new corporation in the interest of people and to protect the interest and priorities of the Canadian government. Just as the Post Office Department, the Canada Post corporation will have the monopoly to transport letters, so as to have a guaranteed source of revenue allowing it to ensure the universality of services. All postal services in industrialized countries have such a monopoly. It must be a true monopoly and the bill must be very specific about that. I am sure this aspect will be discussed in detail when the bill is taken into consideration, clause by clause, at the committee stage. The postal rates is established by regulations. They will be fair and reasonable and will as much as possible be aimed at self financing.
As the corporation will have the monopoly on the transportation of letters, the rates for this class of mail will be, at the request of any interested person, submitted to the Canadian

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
Transport Commission. This procedure is to protect the interest of the people and to establish the necessary arm's length between the corporation and the government.
The legal framework for collective bargaining will be the Canada Labour Code instead of the Public Service Staff Relations Act as now. To ensure stability from the time the act is implemented until the new corporation becomes fully operational, the bill provides for the continuance of benefits, as well as the rights and contract obligations of both the employees and their bargaining units. A number of provisions will make the transfer of employees to the corporation as painless as possible. Both officials and employees who have been part of the Post Office organization before the implemenation of the new act will become the officials and employees of the corporation as soon as the act is implemented.
The bill ensures that the employees will retain the benefits that they have acquired while they were employees of the Post Office. The unions which had been recognized as bargaining units under the Public Service Staff Relations Act will be recognized also as their bargaining units under the Canada Labour Code for the first round of negotiation.
The postal employees collective agreements in effect when the act is passed will obtain until they expire. The employees of the corporation will have the right to apply for jobs in the public service, and ask for transfers during a three-year period after the creation of the corporation. That provision is meant particularly to protect the employees of the Department of Public Works and Department of Supply and Services who now work indirectly for the Post Office and offer services to it. We feel it is important, if on the one hand we protect the postal employees, that on the other hand we should offer some guarantees and protection to those who serve and work for the Post Office in other departments of the Canadian government.
Finally, the employees of the corporation will still be governed by the Public Service Superannuation Act; that, however, will not prevent the corporation from creating an additional system at a later date. There then, in brief, is a description of the bill. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it deserves to be passed quickly. I say that with all the more conviction that 1 know two of the most important postal unions, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Letter Carriers Union of Canada will be negotiating their new collective agreement in the very near future. The current agreement for those two groups expires on December 31, 1980.
Obviously we would like to be able to negotiate those new collective agreements under the Canada Labour Code. We shall be unable to do so if the House does not approve, within reasonable time, the bill now before it. I remind all political parties in the House that they agreed, in principle, on converting the Post Office Department into a Crown corporation. I remind the House leaders, that of the loyal opposition and that of the NDP, that they gave the House Leader and myself the assurance that they would co-operate in passing this bill in
reasonable time. 1 would therefore be very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members took advantage of the study of that bill to give voice to their recriminations, as legitimate as they might be, against the Post Office.
It is obvious that when this bill which transform the Post Office into a Crown corporation will be under scrutiny all members will be able to take advantage of it to talk about postal services in their riding, about certain postal facilities they would like to have built, about certain rural roads they would like extended, about certain new postal buildings they would like erected in their riding.
I can assure all members that in another place and at another time I will be prepared to answer their questions and receive their representations. The estimates of my department are under study before a standing committee of this House. I will be attending its sitting next Thursday morning and I think that these kinds of remarks and discussions regarding the postal administration can quite properly take place during the study of the estimates of my department. I would rather like the discussion to be limited to commenting on this important proposal to transform a department such as the Post Office into a Crown corporation and that we come as quick as possible to the clause by clause study of the bill in committee where we will be able to call in witnesses and study the various aspects of this bill which will ultimately serve the interest not only of the public and the Post Office but also those of the employees themselves.
I can say right now that on the government side, our remarks and comments will be as limited as possible and that I do hope that the two opposition parties will do the same. To conclude I wish to underline the fact that Bill C-42 is the result of thorough studies and intense consultations with the public, the unions, the employee associations and all concerned groups. All unanimously agree in saying that it is now time for this bill to be passed. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I call upon members of Parliament to give their support to Bill C-42 establishing the new Canada Post corporation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back speaking for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on Post Office affairs. I had this pleasure during almost the whole decade of the seventies when the Post Office Department went from bad to worse, and when I made impassioned speeches urging the successive postmasters general to do something about the deteriorating situation. In those days postmasters general were engaged in a game of musical chairs, there was a new one almost every six months attempting to juggle the various balls in the air.
Listening to the postmaster general (Mr. Ouellet) this afternoon, I am reminded that he is a resurrected Postmaster General. He was a Postmaster General back in 1973 when, notwithstanding all my impassioned speeches and all my good
October 24, 1980

advice, he used to try to assure us that insofar as the Post Office was concerned all was for the best in the best possible of worlds. Memory is a marvellous thing. I remember back in 1973 when we were having a vigorous exchange across this chamber and I was telling the hon. gentleman that if he did not move promptly he would utterly destroy the viability of this very essential service in Canada. He gave his charming smile and said, "Everything is fine in the Post Office; we are getting it nicely under control".
At that moment the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has also been resurrected recently, said loud enough for everyone to hear, "Everybody knows the postal service is lousy". So, even as far back as 1973 the government of the day recognized that there were real problems in the Post Office Department. They say that imitation is the best form of flattery. As I listened to the Postmaster General today, I felt that I was hearing the speeches which I made over the years in almost the same terminology, the same words.
I see my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is sitting opposite to me. This is what happens to those of us who have been in the House for a long time. It becomes a case of-

The more it changes the more it is the same.

My hon. friend has become very conservative in recent years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I remember when the hon. member had fire in his belly, for example, with regard to matters like closure. But since he has become a member of the Privy Council he has turned into a real establishment man and almost a real elitist and Liberal. Perhaps that is the trouble with those of us who have been in the House for a rather long time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does this have to do with the Post Office?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asks what my remarks have to do with the Post Office. The Post Office is one of the most vitally important branches of the government service. It has been tragic for all of us to see it going down hill, notwithstanding the admonitions of successive reports commissioned by the government describing its situation. It has been a part of the general deterioration of public affairs in this country during the past 12 years, which I will endeavour to show through my remarks here today.
It has always amazed me that, notwithstanding the strong protestations from members of the House and the public, postmasters general refuse to act. I know that it was all part of the general deterioration of the economy of Canada over the past 12 years in which we have seen a country with both rich human resources and rich natural resources degenerate to a
Canada Post Corporation Act
position, in terms of economic and fiscal status, where it is now in a crisis situation with deficits soaring up to $14 billion, employment soaring up to 8 per cent, and inflation soaring up to the highest level ever.
It is merely typical, and this is my response to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This is why we should be disturbed by what has been occurring in the Post Office and in the House in terms of the breakdown of the feeling of consensus and co-operation, the decline of good will which is so essential to the functioning of this Parliament. 1 am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be the first to acknowledge that this is the situation which has prevailed.
I would like to speak now to the actual bill. It is not only my speeches which have been copied and borrowed by the minister who just made his presentation, but the legislation pretty well follows the recommendations that we have been making in this House for almost a decade now. The bill on Crown corporations which was presented by the Liberal government back in 1978 was Bill C-27. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the bill which is before us today, and that was just two years previous. The bill was first tabled in the House on December 11, 1978.
Le me read from that bill to illustrate what it was trying to accomplish. It indicated that the Liberal government was still bent on its destructive program of confrontation in the Post Office. Here are the words of the title of Bill C-27:
An act to establish the Canada Post corporation, to amend the Post Office Act, to confirm certain orders and to make related amendments to other acts.
That was not taking the route which we had been recommending for many years of establishing a Crown corporation that would be distinct and separate from the existing Post Office Department, that would deal in a realistic way with the labour management relations that degenerated so horrendously under the drifting policies of successive postmasters general so that in 1978 we almost had civil disobedience. The president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers was jailed as the result of his defiance of the then Liberal government.
The bill before us today is the bill that was in process during the short regime of the Progressive Conservative government. The hon. gentleman from Papineau was kind enough to express thanks to the union people, whom I know very well and with whom I have had very cordial relations over the years, the Deputy Postmaster General Mr. Corkery, and to officials in the Canadian Labour Congress and others who had a very vital input into the present bill but he said nothing of his debt to the official opposition.


André Ouellet: I said thanks to Mr. Fraser too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You thanked the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), but you did not thank me for my speeches, so I will give some of them back to you today. Bill C-42 is exactly what we have been recommending:
An act to establish the Canada Post corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act-

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
That is what we wanted. We did not want that monstrous, hybrid two-tier system which was first contemplated and would have been forced upon the public without the consultation of either unions or postal users.
It goes on to say:
-and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts
1 missed the Postmaster General's reference in what must have been sotto voce tone when he was complimenting the former postmaster general.
My great concern is that what we are contemplating with this new legislation might have come too late. As the hon. Postmaster General said, the Post Office has been the symbol over the years of the federal presence in every community across Canada. It flies the Canadian flag. Whenever the good citizens of Canada saw the Post Office and saw the flag, they said, "Well, we are safe under the very competent federal government of ours". Unfortunately that has not been the case in recent years. The very presence of the Post Office, as the hon. gentleman knows-and I see that he is smiling-has been the symbol of deterioration in government competence and government efficiency. He knows the Post Office became somewhat of a national joke. The "Canadian Air Farce" got some of its best humour from the tragic deterioration in postal service.
The Post Office Department, once the symbol of the stability and integrity and the competence and the efficiency of the federal government, became the standing joke of the nation under 12 years of disastrous Liberal administration. I think we all have to admit that when an institution of this importance becomes a national joke, that is an indication of the failure of the Government of Canada.
I have looked carefully through the information that is available in the bill, and it seems to me that it includes most of the recommendations this party has made over the years, as well as the recommendations that were included in all the many studies done over the years.
Another great tragedy is that not only is this government incompetent but it is also a government of secrecy. On this side of the House we were never able to get past this barrier, and I am sure the NDP will support me in this statement. When Mr. Rodriguez represented that party in this House, he used to blow this trumpet as loudly as 1 but unfortunately he was defeated. While he was here, however, he was a good spokesman for the Post Office. He still had fire in his belly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 think some of his ballots got lost in the mail.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He did not become a Conservative! The reports that contain so much valuable information and which were propounding the solution that is finally emerging- almost too late-have been available over the years to ministers and successive postmasters general. The minister went back as far as 1962, to the Glassco commission. That was a great commission authorized by the great Diefenbaker government to look into and reorganize government administration. Unfortunately, however, that great government fell from power in 1963 and so it was not able to implement the recommendations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It fell apart.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is becoming a Liberal at heart. I can see that. He says it fell apart. Mr. Speaker, we were defeated in Ontario and Quebec but we were never defeated in the west and we were never defeated in eastern Canada. This is the battle that we are fighting on the constitution today. The Conservatives came back to power in Manitoba in 1977, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is not aware of that.


Mr. Orlikow:: Then what happened in the last federal election?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let us not get into that; we are not discussing the election. 1 just want to make the point that we lost power for the same reason that we are struggling with this present arbitrary action on the constitution, which does not take into consideration the wishes of western Canada and the maritime provinces.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: That is not so.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is purely oriented toward the continuing control of the two central provinces, Quebec and Ontario.
This tendency towards secrecy is regrettable. It is no wonder that a former member, Hon. Jed Baldwin, fought for a freedom of information act for years. Had this information been available to the House and had it been referred to a committee, the problems of the Post Office would have been solved long ago. Now I come to the Montpetit report. I have them all in front of me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Postmaster General may wonder how I gain access to all these reports. We get them because there are leaks, Mr. Speaker. Through the years this has been the only way we could obtain information that should have been readily available to spokesmen in this House, representing the people of Canada. We should have had access to them by some means or other. This is why it is so important that we proceed with Mr. Baldwin's information act as quickly as possible.
I did not hear the hon. minister refer to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and I do not think he referred to the Hon. Eric Kierans either. Mr. Kierans was a strong catalytic force in trying to get the Post Office Department on an even keel. He was ahead of his time, however. Not only was he postmaster general in 1969, he was also minister of communications. That was a recognition that the Post Office Department was one of the vital communications links in this country. It was recognized 11 years ago, although this government still has not appreciated the fact that the postal service is inevitably closely related to the revolution in communications technology. Canada has developed the Telidon. Electronic mail is just around the corner, and electronic funds transmission is also just around the corner.
October 24, 1980

When the government can straighten out its confused policies-and there is no area of greater confusion, although I have mentioned the economy and fiscal policy and the Post Office-in regard to communications, it will be a good thing all around.
Eleven years ago the Elon. Eric Kierans anticipated what should be done. He designed a program which, had it been brought to fruition, would have alleviated all the stress, the trouble and confusion-the bankruptcies and strikes that have plagued the Post Office Department, during the past ten years. Mr. Kierans bailed out of this government, of course, as did the Hon. John Turner and the Hon. Donald Macdonald. Hon. Jim Richardson from Manitoba left the government as well. I think a great deal of credit should be given to Mr. Kierans, who tried to bring some order out of chaos.
The real problem in the Post Office, of course, is the deterioration in labour relations which has occurred because of the failure of the Liberal government to act over the past 12 years or so. I have in front of me the Shime report which was prepared for the minister in 1972. It is the report of the conciliation board arising out of inquiries into labour difficulties in the public service. At that time Mr. Owen Shime was vice-chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Had the recommendations of the Shime report been accepted, the difficulties and strike problems that have accumulated during the decade of the seventies would have been resolved.
Perhaps I should just put on record what we have gone through in terms of labour disruptions in the seventies because of the Liberal government's failure to act. In February and March, 1970, there were disruptions as a result of a dispute in Montreal involving truck drivers represented by the CNTU. The problem was contracting of mail transport and job security. From May to September, in 1970, there was a series of rotating strikes over the question of wages and job security.
In October and November, 1971, there were several wildcat strikes in southwestern Ontario and the maritimes over the use of casual labour. In January, 1973, there were wildcat strikes after breakdowns in negotiations over wages and job classifications. In April, 1974, there were sporadic local labour disruptions by inside postal workers, culminating in a three-day national strike.
February and March of 1975 saw five weeks of nationwide rotating strikes by maintenance workers. Truck drivers refused to cross picket lines and the dispute was characterized by lay-offs, walkouts and "sickouts". From October to December of the same year there was a seven-week strike engineered by CUPW over questions of technological change. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) is not here today. I was hoping he might be because as a result of his experience in 1975 he produced a great book. I ask everybody to read this book which was published by the Post Office Department in June, 1976. I hope the minister has read it. It has a most revealing title: "What's behind the Lemming Urge? and Other Discourses by Bryce Mackasey". I have read the book many times because the title indicates its contents-we are all going over the precipice together; let us do something to stop it. The
Canada Post Corporation Act
author was not referring only to postal affairs but to the general decline and deterioration of values, parliamentary democracy, responsible government and the whole business. I often refer to his closing paragraph which reads:
We're moving beyond ideology; we're responding to necessity. Our choice, as Buckminster Fuller says, is between Utopia and oblivion.
That book resulted from the 1975 seven-week strike by the postal workers. There were many bankruptcies. Small businesses went out of business because it was their harvest period just before Christmas. It was one of the great economic disasters in Canada.
In October, 1976, there were four days of rotating strikes by CUPW over technological change. In September, 1978, there was a three-day strike by letter carriers over contract demands. The inside workers who went on strike in October of that year were ordered back to work by Parliament and the Canadian postal workers' president went to jail as a result. That was the ultimate deterioration in the system.
Finally the government acted and brought in that monstrosity of a bill, Bill C-27 which I have just read. That bill would have perpetuated the chaos. It envisaged a two-tier system having the Postmaster General, his staff, secretariat and all his employees running parallel with a corporation which would have no authority whatsoever. It would be hard to decide where the buck stopped and it would have added confusion upon confusion. Fortunately the government was defeated and we had a chance to bring down in the form of legislation some of the things we had been advocating over the years.
The Uberig report was very important because it was a report of an assistant deputy minister, a deputy postmaster general. This person is still with the Post Office Department and he is one of the most competent people I have encountered in administration. At long last the things which he said in his report of August, 1975, are to be incorporated in this legislation.
I cannot end this discussion without referring to the Finkel-man report. Mr. Finkelman made a report through a joint parliamentary committee on which I had the pleasure of serving. We came in with some marvellous recommendations but the report has been gathering dust ever since.
Let me just deal with a few of the details of old Bill C-27 and new Bill C-42. We are now heading in the right direction. The Postmaster General pleaded with hon. members not to debate this issue too long. We have been waiting for years to get our teeth into this discussion. I am sure that no one is going to abuse the privilege that is now afforded to deal with the substance of the deteriorating situation in the Post Office.
In our attempts to get the government to come to grips with the problem, we spent two opposition days trying to point out that the Post Office Department was in serious trouble. Let me at least refer to two motions, which I think hon. members will agree in light of what the Postmaster General has said embrace some of the ideas he brought forward this afternoon.

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
On June 8, 1973, I moved:
That this House regrets the drastic deterioration of the postal service in Canada during the past six years: including the closure of rural post offices; the reduction of urban service from six days to five days; the headlong costly rush to automation and computerization leading to job insecurity and low morale among employees-all this in the face of sharply increased postal rates which have seriously affected smaller Canadian publications, forcing many of them out of business; and urges the government to take the necessary action to restore this fundamentally important communication system to its former excellence.
That motion was voted down by members of the Liberal party.
On May 18, 1977, we tried again. I moved:
That this House notes with alarm the government's continuing inability to provide Canadians with an efficient postal service, its obsession with secrecy, its illegal use of orders in council to set postal rates, and its chronic ineptness in the field of collective bargaining and industrial relations, and recommends that the operations of the Post Office Department be referred to a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate.
That, too, was voted down by the members of the Liberal party.


Mr. Cullen:: Was that moved under Standing Order 43?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was a substantive want of confidence motion, I should tell the hon. member. I am sure he must have been in the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: At that time, yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure he was aware that we used two of our precious opposition days to try, to the best of our ability, to get some action out of this government.
Bill C-27 was representative of the thinking of successive postmasters general. They were trying to combine both the Post Office Department and the new idea of a Crown corporation. The bill was opposed by everybody: labour and the public. Fortunately it died on the order paper.
Now we have Bill C-42. I do not think I need to add to what the Postmaster General said with regard to what this bill is endeavouring to do. Basically it is taking the important stand of keeping politicians at arm's length. I remember talking to the then postmaster general. I shall not mention names. It is impossible to identify him because there have been so many postmasters general. They seem to have been going around like a merry-go-round. I can refer to this particular gentleman without mentioning any names. No names, no pack drill. But he said to me, "Walter, we have to keep the Post Office Department. It is full of important patronage." That was the thinking behind Bill C-27. It was also one of the reasons why the Post Office was in such a mess and confusion. It has to be an arm's length relationship. This will come about, as I understand the bill.
The board of directors will include members of the unions. This is an idea that we have preached for years. I am sure the hon. Postmaster General is aware of this. It is not a new idea. It is industrial democracy. Our committee travelled to many places to see how others were dealing with problems of the Post Office in this technological revolutionary period. We discovered that in the United Kingdom they had introduced
industrial democracy into the post office. Incidentally, they became a Crown corporation in 1969 at the time our Post Office should have become a Crown corporation, had we listened to the Hon. Eric Kierans who had his head screwed on right.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: For a very short time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He could not stand it, so he left. He was wise. He bailed out along with John Turner and others who left over the years. The industrial democracy idea goes further than just having representatives from labour on the board of directors. It also calls for representatives from the major postal users. As a matter of fact, in the United Kingdom the postal users organization is formalized. There are three prongs of an efficient and reliable postal service sitting together on the board of directors, representatives from the government, labour and postal users.
I hope the Postmaster General is not going to ignore those who pay-and pay dearly-for the postal service. I hope he will include representatives of the users who have borne the heat and the burden of the day patiently, speaking for the small businessmen who have been going into bankruptcy because of continuing postal strikes and so on.
That is merely one recommendation I would make. I hope the government will go all the way with the industrial democracy concept. We all know that the Crown corporation formula is not a panacea. There are lot of Crown corporations in the federal government service. In fact, there are so many that they are without number. They are not even completely listed.
There are still labour problems in some Crown corporations. It is going to take a long time to establish a feeling of harmony, consensus and mutual trust in the Post Office Department. We have seen a breakdown of trust in this House of Commons, unfortunately, as was demonstrated here last night. However, out there in the great body politic I am sure the Postmaster General will realize that you cannot throw the book at a union leader like Jean-Claude Parrot who spent time in jail because of direct confrontation and aggravation over the years.
That will not be resolved overnight. The government, by its actions and attitudes, will have to reverse itself almost 180 degrees from the confrontationist route it has been taking over the years if we are ever to restore peace and harmony into the postal service. We must take action on the Finkelman report. When are we going to get action on the report of Mr. Justice Jacob Finkelman which was referred to a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons, an excellent report that has been gathering dust until this day.
Certainly it is going to be much easier working under the Canada Labour Code than it was under the multiplicity of government departments which had their fingers in the pie. The poor deputy postmaster general, whom I have known over the years, really had no jurisdiction in managing. He was an efficient manager, and Mr. Uberig was an efficient adminis-
October 24, 1980

trator; both of them came from private industry. They could not get anywhere because they were subject to Treasury Board, Public Works, Supply and Services and any number of other government departments which always interfered in what the Post Office Department was trying to do.
Finally, I would ask the Postmaster General to go back to his mentor. I do not know whether he is on friendly terms with the Hon. Eric Kierans. I have read in the newspapers that Mr. Kierans is not too happy with what his former party has been doing in the years since he left. Neither are the other key people who bailed out of that party very happy with what is going on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre might be happy, but they are not.
I go back to what Mr. Kierans was contemplating 11 years ago. He believed that the Post Office Department is an important communications facility in Canada which was being very strongly challenged by competitive communications technology. I see the Postmaster General talking to the current Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). Possibly they are discussing electronic transmission of funds. If we are going to get that, and the government will have to decide sooner or later, we cannot wait for 12 years, as was done with regard to the post office mess. The government will have to decide soon on changes in legislation with respect to electronic communications.
If we get electronic funds transmission, there goes 75 per cent of the first class mail overnight. Where does that put the Post Office, even though it has become a Crown corporation? There are other competitors such as the private couriers. I know there will be a monopoly on letter carrier service, but that is not the money-making part of the Post Office. The United Parcel Service, UPS, has just received authority to carry out a total service in the province of Ontario. There are all sorts of competitors.
I had a parliamentary return tabled a few years ago which demonstrated that because of unreliable postal service most government departments were switching to private postal carriers rather than depending on the post office. I hope the Postmaster General will give attention to these important matters because if he does not, what he has done here today, which is 11 years too late, will do nothing to solve the problems in communications generally and in the postal service in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), I have been asked to outline the position of our party with regard to this bill which proposes to establish a separate Crown corporation to operate the Post Office. The first point I want to make is that we support this bill in principle and would like to see it go to the committee as quickly as possible. The bill is long overdue.
The concept of a Crown corporation to operate the Post Office has been around for a dozen or more years. In a study commissioned by the Post Office Department 11 years ago
Canada Post Corporation Act
entitled "A Blueprint for Change", this was what was said about the idea of a Crown corporation. I quote:
We believe that the Crown corporation status is the organizational form best suited to the attainment of these objectives ... 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. With such freedom, a strong effective staff relations function would be required to guide management in its relationships with unions.
There is no group which is more interested in the passage of this bill and the establishment of a Crown corporation than our unions in the Post Office because they have witnessed such devastating results due to the incompetence of those senior people in the Post Office Department who first negotiated with them back in the days when, as my hon. friend, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), said, Eric Kierans was the minister and, more recently, while the negotiations were carried out by the Treasury Board on behalf of the government.
I was shocked to read the announcement several days ago that the Treasury Board is taking over the negotiations with the letter carriers. There has been a very good and almost completely happy relationship between the Post Office Department and the letter carriers. There has been virtually no trouble, in contrast with relationship experienced between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Post Office Department.
To a large extent the difficulties the postal workers had with the government arose as a result of the bullheaded, tough-minded and irrational attitude of the people in the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board did not confine that attitude to the postal workers. I remind hon. members that there have been strikes by the air traffic controllers because of the approach taken by the Treasury Board. Recently there was a strike by a group which most people in Canada thought would never strike or ever think of striking, one which would never even think very hard about belonging to a union or an association. I refer to the clerks. Why did the clerks strike? They went on strike because the Treasury Board in its stupidity offered them a 5 per cent increase in a year when the cost of living went up by 10 per cent.
When I read the announcement that the Treasury Board was taking over negotiations with the letter carriers, I almost resigned myself to a strike two or three months down the road. 1 hope we get this bill passed. I hope we get the Crown corporation set up, because when that happens the workers in the Post Office will no longer come under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and have to deal with the stupidities of the Treasury Board. They will come under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and have all the rights afforded to workers in private industry to negotiate fairly not only on wages but also on working conditions, classification and all the other things which are accepted as commonplace in private industry.


Mr. Deans:: Why is the Treasury Board so anti-people?

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act


David Orlikow: My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) asks why the Treasury Board is so anti-people. Having been fortunate enough never to have been a cabinet minister, 1 cannot tell from personal experience. I can only pass some kind of judgment, based on common sense, on the results of letting the Treasury Board run anything.
I say to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) that the Post Office can be run as it has been, as a department of government, or it can be run as a Crown corporation. It will not make much difference unless the people who deal with the workers concerned use some common sense and compassion. Since 1965 we have had a record of strikes and work stoppages, legal and illegal, every couple of years. What were those about? Most of the public think, because they do not know the details, that they were called because the workers are stupid, stubborn and unreasonable. The evidence does not show this. Were these disruptions caused because union leaders were so militant that they forced workers to go on strike? That is not indicated either. In fact, the exact reverse is true. Every study which has been done-studies carried out by people appointed by the government-has put the blame almost exclusively on the stubborn, unimaginative and uncaring attitude of the senior management in the Post Office.
Let me put on the record again some of the observations made by impartial observers who have had the opportunity to study what has been happening in the Post Office. Let us go back to 1966, a year after the first strike at the Post Office. Mr. Justice Montpetit was appointed to look into what was wrong with the Post Office. He made 262 recommendations dealing with all aspects of employment in the Post Office and, among other things, he said, and I quote:
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 sometimes be difficult to explain.
That was in 1966. In 1969 there was another dispute between the postal workers and the Post Office Department. A well-known and respected expert in the field of labour-management relations, Mr. W. S. Martin of Winnipeg, was asked to adjudicate. He said, among other things, and I quote:
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 mutal respect and understanding. Hostility, vindictiveness and possibly distrust appear to frustrate any opportunity for effective interrelationships. 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.
Then in 1972 a vice-chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, Owen Shime, looking into another dispute, said, and I quote:
In these negotiations one felt that each time the employer was required to reach a decision 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.
I could go on and on, but I think I have given enough illustrations of the kind of situation which has existed in the Post Office and which still exists. I remind the minister that at the time of strike a year or a year and a half ago, there were several tens of thousands of grievances outstanding. How did that happen? When there was a grievance, the union took it through the ordinary channels provided in the collective agreement. The union won at each stage. The government never accepted that the union was right. The government took a particular case to the Federal Court. When it lost in the Federal Court, it took the case to the Supreme Court. When it lost in the Supreme Court, instead of saying that the Supreme Court decision covered all the cases-hundreds of cases of a similar nature-the government said it covered only that particular case.
Is it any wonder the workers were angry? Is it any wonder they were militant? Is it any wonder they went on strike? What surprises me is that they did not strike more often.
While I am talking about that particular strike I want to digress for a moment to make an observation about what I consider to be a very strange situation. After the leader of the CUPW took his people out on strike, when he did not respond immediately to the law passed by Parliament and order his people back to work, it did not take very many days until he was charged, brought to court, tried, convicted and sentenced to serve time in jail. I make no comment about whether or not that was a good idea, but that is what happened. He appealed his case, he lost it, and he has long since served his sentence.
Some years ago, in the city of Hamilton an illegal agreement was made by a number of very important, influential and wealthy businessmen. They decided they would set a high price on their services for dredging the Hamilton harbour. It went on for many years and it cost the people of Canada millions of dollars. Eventually, the businessmen were charged. It took a long time and the trial took months. Finally, they were found guilty and convicted. I have not seen any sign of their having to serve their sentence. Of course, they are appealing their case, as they have the right to do. I merely wish to illustrate why so many ordinary citizens, so many workers and good people, believe, with a good deal of justification, that there is probably one law for the rich and another for the poor, that it depends on whom you know and what kind of lawyer you hire.
In my view, unless the new Crown corporation puts in charge of its relationships with its workers, both inside and outside, people who have an understanding of human relations, people who understand that in the 1980s workers, whether in the private or in the public sector, have a right to be treated with common sense, humaneness, dignity and fairness, changing the Post Office to a Crown corporation will not achieve anything.
I want to speak for a couple of minutes about the conception the public has of the reason the mail service has been so bad in recent years. The public believes that those who work in the Post Office do not try, loaf on the job, stay away, literally try
October 24, 1980

to misdirect the mail, and so on. The facts are entirely different. The facts show that there is a great deal of difficulty about delivering mail because the management of the Post Office Department, in their wisdom or lack of it, have convinced the government and the minister that what we needed was a modern, high speed, efficient system for sorting mail and that the way to bring this about was to install highly-automated machines with computers. This was done in Toronto, through which city, I am told, 70 per cent of the mail for all of Canada has to pass. The fact is, it took close to two years before the difficulties, the bugs in the new, highly sophisticated and complicated system, could be worked out. So great was the disruption that they were taking car loads of letters from the buildings in Toronto, shipping them to Cornwall, having them sorted by hand in the old manual way, and bringing them back to Toronto. The workers were being blamed because the mail delivery was slow and inefficient though in fact it was slow and inefficient because of the decision of the government and the senior management of the postal service to adopt this highly sophisticated system without arrangements for proper back-up and support.
1 hope those difficulties have now been eliminated, and I hope the system will work as well as some claimed it would work. I hope the relationship with the employees will be better than it has been. But we still have problems. We have problems because, in our free enterprise system, governments do not want to plan. This government does not want to plan. So we have a situation in which the left hand does not let the right hand know what it is doing. On the one hand we have invested several billion dollars in setting up a very modern, supposedly rapid and efficient mail service, while on the other hand we are encouraging competition, encouraging the private carrier.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris, spoke about the couriers and the United Parcel Service. I wish to talk for a few minutes about the United Parcel Service. I do not think there is any department of government which comes closer to more people in Canada than the postal service which is charged with the responsibility of delivering all sorts of mail, such as private letters, business letters, advertising, books, parcels, you name it, to every person in Canada, no matter how distant and isolated they are from the main centres. Delivering mail or parcels to mining or rural communities, to the high Arctic where the population is scattered and distances are great, is expensive. It is a money loser. The private carriers have no intention of serving the people in those areas. What they are doing successfully, and more successfully each year, is moving into the areas where there are large concentrations of people and skimming off the best customers in the most profitable areas. If that is permitted to continue, it will mean the destruction of the postal system as we have known it and it will mean increasing deficits for the Post Office rather than the elimination of the deficit about which the minister has spoken and which this bill is supposed to bring about.
We need only look at our neighbour to the south, the United States, to learn what the United Postal Service has done in that country. At a hearing held before the Ontario Highway
Canada Post Corporation Act
Transport Board in June of 1978, a senior official of the Post Office Department appeared before the board and urged the board not to grant United Postal Service a franchise to operate in Ontario. James Corkery was then the deputy postmaster general. He told the board that between 1962 and 1976 the U.S. postal service saw its volume of parcels drop from 792 million to 385 million, while UPS increased its volume from 182 million to 950 million in that period. He said that the Canadian Post Office here would not repeat the mistake made in the United States of not realizing the threat posed by UPS until it was too late. That is what he said, but in fact UPS has expanded its service. It has purchased two companies in Quebec, and I am sure it will try to operate in Quebec. It has now received permission from the Ontario board to operate in Ontario. A prominent California lawyer, Michael Khourie, who fought and won an anti-trust case against UPS in 1971, predicts that if UPS gets a foothold in this country, they will take over the small parcel delivery business in Canada. If they do that it will jeopardize the financial viability of the Post Office and it will destroy the financial viability of CN-CP express because UPS will concentrate on giving fast and cheap service, probably at a loss in the initial stages, to the vast majority of the customers living in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, if they get permission in Quebec City. That is what they have done in the United States.
After they have destroyed the parcel services of the Post Office and CN-CP express, they will have an "open sesame" to charge whatever they can. Destroying the ability of the Post Office and CN-CP express to serve customers on whom they can make a bit of money, will adversely affect to a very large extent customers who live in sparsely populated areas in the rest of Canada.
I urge the government to proceed with this bill and set up a Crown corporation for the Post Office. In the field of parcel delivery, I urge the government to do what it has talked about doing with the provinces in terms of the constitution. They should get together with the provinces and point out that the destruction of the ability of the Post Office to deliver parcels will have an adverse effect on the Post Office and on service to the tens of thousands of people who live in small towns and villages in Ontario and Quebec. I suppose if UPS is successful in Ontario and Quebec, it will eventually move across the other eight provinces of Canada, as it moved to take in every state of the United States.
We urge the minister to establish this Crown corporation to operate the Post Office and to learn from the mistakes of the last 12 to 15 years. The board should ensure that the new corporation uses common sense, that it does not buy every new technology which comes along in the hope that somehow there is a magic solution to the problems of communication which are changing so rapidly with new discoveries almost every day, if not every week. It should ensure that the corporation uses some common sense and humane feelings in its relationships with employees. It should try to deal with employees not just once a year in terms of collective bargaining; it should try to

October 24, 1980
Canada Post Corporation Act
enlist its employees in a partnership to provide the better service Canadians want and need. If it does this, it will protect both the interests of the people of Canada and the people who work for the new Crown corporation.
We hope this bill will proceed fairly quickly, that it will be dealt with in committee and passed with a few amendments so that we can get on with the job.
I should like to refer to a couple of details. Clause 5.(2) reads in part as follows:
While maintaining basic customary postal service, the corporation, in carrying out its objects, shall have regard to-
It refers to a number of basic principles including, most important, the need to be self-sufficient in the long term. In our view this is unacceptable. Over the past several years the Post Office has been seriously curtailing services in a number of fields. Currently we are experiencing what amounts to an almost total freeze on the expansion of delivery services to new residential communities.


Mark Willson Rose: Suburban services.


David Orlikow: Yes, suburban services.


Mark Willson Rose: It is a disservice.


David Orlikow: I remind the minister that it took the imminence of the 1979 election for the then Liberal government to "unfreeze" hiring and to permit the hiring of some new letter carriers so that tens of thousands of people in almost every city of the country, who were quite justifiably complaining about not getting door-to-door service, would receive the same service as those living in older parts of cities. It took the threat of the 1979 election to unblock that freeze.
1 hope the new Crown corporation will have the ability to serve new residential communities in every city of Canada, including my city of Winnipeg, with the same kind of service as people in older areas of the city have been receiving for generations.
We are against the elimination of small post offices which has been going ahead at a rapid rate, particularly on the prairies. We know serious consideration has been given to reducing services by rural post offices. We oppose that thinking. Those cutbacks are totally unacceptable and should not be allowed to continue under the Crown corporation. Clause 5.(2) of the bill must be tightened so that it specifically enumerates what makes up a basic customary postal service. This should include the principle of residential daily home delivery to all communities over a certain size; the maintenance of small rural post offices, excepting only under the most exceptional circumstances, and the maintenance of six days a week of service in all communities not served by a post office subbranch, for example, a post office in a drugstore.
I want to voice one more concern, that is, the drive on the part of government departments, including the Post Office, to contract out work. We know what contracting out means. It is an easy way to reduce government expenditure. Of course, the way government expenditure is reduced is by eliminating the
jobs of people who work for the government and turning the service over to a private contractor who usually, if not always, pays the minimum wage or ten cents over the minimum wage. The private contractor has no conception of paying for holidays, pensions of anything else. Usually the private contractor is able to make a very substantial profit at the expense of the government, the service to the people and the employees whom he hires on a very casual basis. We will watch very carefully to see that the Crown corporation does not continue to expand the system of contracting out work which up to now has been done by people employed by the Post Office.
I say again to the minister that we support the principle of the establishment of a Crown corporation for the Post Office. We will probably make suggestions and amendments to the bill when it is sent to committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that my first speech in the House since coming back from the summer recess would have dealt with the constitution, but I have an opportunity today to enter debate on another issue which is of great concern to Canadians. I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-42, to establish the Canada Post corporation.
Although 1 have serious reservations in principle about creating more Crown corporations, I welcome the creation of this one. The operations of the Post Office have been a concern of mine for the past few years and one needs only to review Hansard to find this out. It hardly needs to be stated that the Post Office has become a great source of frustration to all Canadians. The strikes which have shut down the Post Office over the course of the last few years have had a great and adverse effect on the lives of all Canadians. We all know that no one is immune to these disruptions in service. For businessmen who depend on this service, postal strikes mean loss of income, for various reasons. It means his cash flow is disrupted, payrolls are not met and obligations go unpaid.
Postal strikes affect the pensioner who is dependent upon government assistance as the sole source of his income. None of us in the House can truly appreciate what goes through a pensioner's mind when he hears that another disruption is looming. To be totally cut off from their only source of income is a very frightening experience for these people. Everyone, from every walk of life, is affected either directly or indirectly by postal disruptions. The Post Office is a "people issue." To the businessman, postal strikes and work stoppages can mean the difference between solvency and bankruptcy. To the pensioner the Post Office is all that stands between life and death. And I mean this literally.
There was a time when the Post Office was the object of great admiration. Working for the Post Office was a group of men and women who diligently followed the ideal of delivering mail through rain, sleet and snow. Local history in many centres across Canada is full of examples of postmen who
October 24, 1980

committed great acts of heroism in their attempts to provide the public with good service. I am sure many members of this House could cite examples which constitute service above and beyond the call of duty by today's standards. However, times change and the Post Office is no exception. The esteem in which Canadians once held the Post Office has all but vanished. Gone are the days when a postman would walk miles in a blizzard to deliver one piece of mail.
At this point I think it is only fair to say that not all the people who work for the Post Office deserve the image which is now theirs. I know the Post Office employs many people who are diligent and conscientious and who reflect the image of postmen from days gone by. It only takes a few people to ruin it for everyone. The few who are not overly concerned about providing good service have done a remarkable job of pulling down the image of all the rest.
I personally know people who work for the Post Office. They have been delivering mail for years. In fact, there is a family in my riding whose occupational tradition is delivering mail. Through wind, rain, snow and sleet they have provided the people on their route with the finest of service. You can count on them to deliver the mail through the worst of conditions. They are proud of the mailman's tradition of excellence of service and are committed to keeping that tradition alive. These people are a part of a larger body of postal workers who share their commitment to this tradition. Across this country they serve with distinction 4,991 routes and over a million homes and businesses. Who are these people? They are the rural mailmen. They do not get a half-hour paid lunch break or a boot and glove allowance; they cannot look forward to annual cost of living allowances and, to my knowledge, they have never instigated a strike. Yet the last time they saw a statutory raise was in 1956.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Shame!


William John Vankoughnet: It was in 1956 that an amendment to the Post Office Act raised the maximum ceiling for rural postal contracts to $10,000. The price of gasoline in 1956 bears no resemblance to the price of gasoline today. The price of repairs to cars and trucks between now and then is equally distorted. The cost of a vehicle today can be well over $10,000. But the rural mailmen have had to live with that provision since 1956.
1 was told by an official in the public affairs department of Canada Post in Ottawa that from 1965 to 1979 the letter carriers in urban centres received eight salary increases. I do not know how many times they have gone on strike to get the increases which they demanded. But I do know that while they were on strike, while they tied up the nation's mail and while they stopped working in support of other striking workers in the Post Office, the rural carriers have taken a back seat with respect to their salaries. Their salaries have not been increased beyond an arbitrarily determined ceiling since 1956. That is one year short of a quarter century and, Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace. To be honest, when this condition was first brought to my attention, shortly after my election to the House in May, 1979, I could hardly believe it was true. After I checked into
Canada Post Corporation Act
the matter and found out the facts, I still had trouble believing it. But an official in the Post Office confirmed it was correct. Would Jean-Claude Parrot have settled for such an inequity if the urban letter carriers had been treated in the same way as their rural counterparts? I doubt it very much.
The Post Office administration has known for a number of years that this provision was hopelessly outdated. They know now, as they knew a long time ago, that holding a $10,000 ceiling on rural postal contracts was a provision completely out of line with the costs involved in the delivery of mail to rural Canadians. Yet this ceiling has remained in place for 24 years. The Liberal government, in 1968, had the opportunity to raise the ceiling, but it did not do so. The former postmaster general, my hon. friend from Vancouver South, was aware of this problem. He was also aware of other serious problems in the Post Office and he was working on solutions to them through the preparation of a comprehensive Crown corporation bill. Unfortunately, the February election came between him and the bill. It is therefore my hope that the bill before us today reflects his concerns about the Post Office and will provide concrete solutions to correct the problems.
It now appears that the rural postal carriers, who pride themselves in carrying on the excellent service in the tradition set by Canada's postal employees, are finally going to receive their just reward. And it is about time.
I have a written commitment from the present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) stating that the new Post Office Crown Corporation Act will rectify the situation. For the purpose of placing the minister's commitment on the record I would like to quote from a letter he sent to me dated July 17, 1980. It reads as follows:
I have noted that you have written in the past to express your concern regarding the $10,000 limit which currently governs mail contracts, in particular, rural route contracts.
In this regard, you may be interested to note that passage of the Crown corporation legislation, which I have introduced today, will resolve this difficulty in the future by removing the legislative constraint contained in the Post Office Act. Under the corporation, all contracts, including mail contracts, will be the subject of bylaws. Therefore, it will become far easier to adapt to changes.
I sent the minister a note of thanks for informing me of this and 1 thank him again today. I hope the authorities charged with the responsibility of correcting this situation will make this one of their top priorities.
Another issue which I hope will be of top priority to the new corporation is the question of closing rural post offices on Saturdays. The former postmaster general, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), gave his assurance that closings would not occur without extensive consultations with those affected. I know the present Postmaster General is concerned about this issue and I understand he plans to adopt the same approach as his predecessor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.

October 24, 1980
Abandoned Rights of Way


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Public bill No. 6, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Public bill No. 10, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Public bill No. 11, the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Public bill No. 12, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent. Public bill No. 16, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 17, the hon. member for Annapolis-Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 18, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 19, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 21.


ABANDONED RAILWAY LINES ACT
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay) moved: that Bill C-221, to provide for the establishment of an authority for public use of abandoned railway lines in Canada, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to reintroduce this bill which has been discussed during the last sessions since my election to this House. Unfortunately, the problem addressed by this bill shows a tendency to worsen. I have myself sponsored this bill, which may be cited as the Abandoned Railway Lines Act, not because the means provided in this bill are the best possible to solve the problem or to achieve the desired goal, but because I wanted to urge the government and the two or three commissions acting for the government to proceed in a direction where there could be more protection for the public interest when the railways relinquish their rights of way. The Canadian public is becoming more and more aware of the potential of abandoned railway lines and unused tracks for rapid transit systems and recreation. Too often in the past buildings have been erected on sections that the railroads had sold, which has made it virtually impossible to use them eventually for urban transport, for walkways, or for cycle, snowmobile, ski and nature paths, and so on.
This bill will protect the long-term interests of the public as concerns rapid transit systems and recreation by reserving the use of abandoned railway lines and rights of way.
In a few moments, I shall give a few examples of cases in my constituency where the lack of a bill or a system such as the one I am suggesting has resulted in the loss to the public of any opportunity to use these areas for recreation purposes. In Saint-Lambert, for example, a school was built on an abandoned railway line, which made it impossible to use that right of way in the future for a rapid transit system. Even in the electoral district that you represent, in eastern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, there are some abandoned railway lines that could have been used for snowmobile, cross country skiing or even horseback riding or hiking trails. But instead, the rights of way often went back to the farmers who owned them originally, but also, in some instances, to foreigners, which prevented the public from using these trails which are often in very scenic countryside, behind farms, villages, in nature, and that is what is sad. Up until now we have missed all those opportunities.

Constituencies that combine cities with countryside, have probably encountered at one time or another lost opportunities that are the direct result of a lack of a set of rules to oblige the railway companies at least to make these abandoned lines available to the general public. I understand that CN now has
October 24, 1980

a policy which allows it to offer an abandoned line to municipal or provincial authorities. That is a step forward.
The problem is that municipal or provincial organizations are often not in a position, for one reason or another, to take advantage of such an offer when it is made. The result is that within a few months some private developer or private owner sees this land vacant or hears that it is about to become vacant and gets into the act sooner than one might expect, with the result that the line is cut up. Once that happens, its potential for recreational purposes is decreased. Gradually, various other parts of the line are sold off and the whole thing becomes quite hopeless. There is really no need for this to occur.
I do not pretend that this bill is the absolute answer. 1 think we should use the discussion today to urge the government to do what should be done. This is the fourth time I have introduced this bill. Like many other decent ideas introduced around here, it takes an awful long time to convince the bureaucracy to act, and unfortunately, there is no exception in this case.
The way 1 have phrased the bill, "the establishment of an authority", is designed more to follow the rules of the House than anything else because private members cannot propose anything which will cost money when proposing private members' bills. Whether we use this method or another, the basic idea is to set up a system whereby, when the CTC authorizes the abandonment of a railway line, there is some requirement that the railway company which has asked for authorization of abandonment has an obligation to dispose of that abandoned line right away to a public body, either municipal, non-profit or provincial, for a sum related to its book value, not an inflated value, and having regard to the price originally paid by the railway.
These things should be incorporated in whatever eventual arrangement is made and the offer to these various bodies should be publicized in the same way as the CTC publicizes a lot of other things. For example, notices could be posted in local post offices so that the entire local population might be aware of what is going on. A notice should remain for a sufficient length of time to allow the public to get organized and do something about it. If they still do not do anything about it, then that is tough, because we will have done our duty. I would have no sympathy for a public that failed to act after it had received proper notice and had been given plenty of time in which to act.
What is happening now is completely the reverse of that situation. I can cite an example that happened in my constituency within the last year. A bicycle path was made along the embarkment on the south shore of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I can claim some credit for encouraging Parks Canada to help with this. It is an excellent site and allows the public a fantastic view of the Montreal panorama and the St. Lawrence River. There is also a fair amount of wildlife in the area. The path leads to a location which is only three miles from a railway museum at De Lery, Quebec, which is the best in the
Abandoned Rights of Way
world. It is inland from the river, and is reached over a network of road connections. The route is very convenient and we have been asking Parks Canada to link their bicycle paths with the museum. In this way the museum would be made available by bicycle to thousands of people on the south shore of Montreal.
Everyone admits it is a good idea. For three-quarters of a mile of the distance between the dyke and the museum, there is an abandoned railway line. When we got in touch with CPR we were referred to Marathon Realty. The situation was explained to them and their co-operation sought.
To make a long story short, Mr. Speaker, they agreed it was a good idea but-they sold the property to a developer. Now we have to make a bicycle path that will go through the streets instead of on an abandoned right of way, protected from traffic and not interfering with municipal traffic patterns. The proposal made sense, but the CPR felt no obligation to the public nor did its real estate firm. Perhaps the province and the municipality were occupied with other things and did not take action when it might have had some effect, so the project fell through. In my view, the basic responsibility lies with the CPR and Marathon Realty. They should have had the decency to let the others have a chance.
My bill was proposed long before this particular incident but it would prevent such a thing from happening again. I do not really care how we go about this, but I would like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the minister who is responsible for Parks Canada to consider this matter again and see whether they can find a solution. There is no excuse for this sort of thing but it happens all across Canada and recreational sites are lost unnecessarily.
The railways may consider all this as something of a nuisance but I say, that is tough. They should be required to protect the public interest in regard to these routes, not only for recreational purposes. Occasionally in a city, a potential rapid transit route could be developed. Unless we act quickly, that will be lost as well.
I shall not keep talking, Mr. Speaker, as I should like other hon. members to have an opportunity to indicate support for the bill. I realize that it will probably be talked out today but perhaps whoever is here to represent the government House leader would agree to having the subject matter of the bill referred to a committee, at least. I do not know whether that is possible but perhaps some hon. members may indicate their willingness to do so. If that is the case, perhaps we could make such an agreement close to five o'clock. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the objective of the bill so why not get it into committee where we can put a bit more pressure on the government to move in favour of something that makes a lot of sense?


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-221, an act to provide for the establishment of an authority for public use of abandoned railway lines in Canada.
4090

October 24, 1980
Abandoned Rights of Way
This bill was placed on the order paper on another occasion. It was debated during private members' hour on March 16, 1979. At that time, the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) said the bill would establish a committee to advise on the suitability of using certain rights of way for rapid transit or recreational purposes. The bill itself simply creates the advisory body; it does not give the body power to apply its decision. The NDP is prepared to consider the subject matter of this bill if it goes into committee, as the sponsor requested.
He said he favours this legislation because he wants the option of using abandoned rights of way for rapid transit or recreational use and seeks to ensure that these uses are fully considered at the appropriate time. He seemed to be primarily interested in abandoned lines near large metropolitan centres or between cities. One of my concerns is that this particular legislation may or may not be particularly relevant to the abandoned rail lines in rural areas of western Canada.
The Hall royal commission made specific recommendations about the disposition of rural rail lines on the prairies. The commission said in 1977 that abandoned rights of way should vest in the provincial Crown for disposition as might be mutually agreed to between the relevant province and municipal authorities.
This proposal certainly makes sense. By vesting title in the provincial Crown-instead of letting the railway auction it off to the highest bidder-the province and municipality could determine whether there was a public use for the land. Perhaps this could include use for a power transmission line, or a pipeline, or recreational parkland or for community gardens. In the last few months, some people have suggested that abandoned lines, particularly in an about large metropolitan areas, could provide for a whole range of possibilities. As agriculture becomes more important in Canada and as selfsufficiency in food production takes on greater urgency, there is an interest in community gardens. The possibility of using any land within our urban centres for the growing of food makes sense. Of course, recent studies on park land in Canada, particularly the metropolitan parks have indicated that the traditional large park lands which we find in the central parts of our cities are used inappropriately. Much more appropriate would be a long, thin park spread throughout a metropolitan area. This is the kind of possibility for land use that a committee could consider seriously. If there was no municipal or provincial use for the land, perhaps farmers could put some of the land back into production.
The Hall report recommended that in the interim provincial and municipal authorities should control weeds so that the seeds would not spread to adjacent lands. This is a very serious problem, particularly in western Canada where weeds have spread. One aspect of it is associated with the rights of way, particularly for railways.
The Hall commission report has not been fully implemented. I draw to the attention of the hon. member who proposed the bill the fact that we are still looking for some action on the
Hall commission report. The land of certain branch lines was transferred from the railways to the federal government under a gift agreement signed by Otto Lang. That land could be transferred to the provincial authority, as Hall recommended in his report. However, with respect to abandoned rights of way of branch lines not covered by that agreement, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has suggested that the railways auction off the lands in the marketplace. Although the province would be able to buy the land in the open marketplace, this process is not in keeping with the Hall report because the railways are not entitled to any compensation for those abandoned lands. I will return to this point in a moment.
We must also consider whether the branch lines should be abandoned in the first place. There are still several rail lines in the west which elevator companies want kept in operation but which have been left out of the guaranteed network protected to the year 2000 by the previous Conservative government and the present Liberal government.
Abandonment of railway lines shifts costs from railways to farmers, who have to buy trucks, and to municipalities who have to repair roads. In other words, when we abandon a line in western Canada, we are really placing the burden of transporting grains on the farmers as opposed to the rail lines. In many cases abandonment is premature because the railway consumes only 670 Btu's to move one ton of freight one mile compared with 2,400 Btu's for truck transport.
I am certain every member in this House will appreciate the accelerating importance of energy costs. This has to be taken into consideration more than ever before. Perhaps, therefore, the idea of rail line abandonment, which previously has been accepted generally, ought to be reconsidered.
For the most part, the railways were given the lands for their stations and rights of way by the taxpayers of Canada. When the railways abandon the service for which the land was given, the land under an abandoned rail line should revert to the public.
The CPR was given 44 million acres by the taxpayers of Canada. The CNR system was given 8 million acres of land. The CPR, in particular, has been generously treated by the people of Canada. The Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation in a report dating back to 1917 stated that the CPR had received the following public assistance as of June 30, 1916: railroad completed by the government, $37.8 million; cash aid $66.9 million; value of unsold lands, nearly 11.5 million acres, $119.3 million; lands sold minus cost of improvements, $55.5 million for a total identifiable public aid of $279.5 million. In addition, there was unidentifiable aid such as loans, since repaid; exemptions from taxes and exemptions from duties for construction material.
If one was to allow a 5.6 per cent annual rate of return, which is typical of public utilities applying for rate increases since 1916, the present value of those gifts today would be in excess of $8.5 billion. On top of this, since 1967 the CPR has received $900 million in operating subsidies. It now has deferred taxes owing to the extent of $922 million. All together, the total identifiable public aid extended to the CPR
October 24, 1980

amounts to $10.5 billion compared with assets carried in its 1979 annual report of $11 billion. We have already paid for the CPR, Mr. Speaker. That is why the New Democratic Party favours bringing the CPR under public ownership. That is why, in a sense, this bill can be considered irrelevant. However, let us recognize what I have described in the Hall commission report, the role of the CPR and how it needs to be compensated for abandoned lands. I think it is fair to recognize that this is an opportunity for Canadians to have one more chance to utilize abandoned rail lines in Canada. To that end, we are quite prepared on this side of the House to support the reference of this bill to an appropriate committee. In committee it will receive analysis, and hopefully action will be taken.
I close by quoting from the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources of Saskatchewan as follows:
-As time went on, additional land subsidies were promised to the Canadian Pacific Railway for subsidiary lines, and to other railway companies for other projected lines. By 1905, more than 55,000,000 acres of prairie lands had been so pledged, but only two-thirds of this acreage was earned by actual construction. Well before 1905, the policy of subsidizing railway construction by land grants had been discontinued but the process of selecting these lands so earned, and the aftermath of tax exemption, remained for many years to vex the growing communities of the west.
It should be pointed out that practically the whole burden of providing land for these railway subsidies, not only for the railways within the prairie provinces as set up in 1905, but for the railways to the north, as well as for portions of the Canadian Pacific lying in western Ontario and in British Columbia, fell to the lot of the three prairie provinces, chiefly to Saskatchewan.
As Hall indicated in his report, there should be no corporate crying over the return of rights of way to the Crown. As the hon. member who presented this bill has shown, there are some very exciting and dynamic possibilities with regard to the use of these abandoned rail lines both within our cities and adjacent to them. For that reason we would like to see this bill referred to committee as soon as possible for action.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I like the idea behind this bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) for introducing it and for bringing to our attention once again the need to provide protection when a railroad line is abandoned and new uses for the land have to be found.
I come from Mississauga. Since last November, naturally everyone from Mississauga takes considerable interest in railroads and their behaviour, not just in the potential for dangerous accidents but also in the much broader question of good neighbourliness between these large corporations and the local municipality.
As a representative from a large eastern urban riding I particularly enjoyed the examples which the member from Chateauguay presented. I would like to read his explanatory note and put it on the record again. It states:
There is an increasing awareness in Canada of the potential for rapid transit or recreational use of abandoned railway lines or unused railway rights of way. Too often in the past sections of abandoned railways have been sold and buildings erected on the abandoned portion with the result that potential future uses such as urban transit or bicycle, pedestrian or snowmobile trails have been effectively blocked. The proposed bill would safeguard the long-term public
Abandoned Rights of Way
interest for both rapid transit and recreational uses of abandoned rail lines and railway rights of way.
As I mentioned, I like the idea of this bill. It proposes that we set up an authority which would advise the governor in council on the disposition of abandoned railway lines. Surprisingly, there is now no official advisory body on this question despite the wide range of regulatory and advisory bodies now in existence, not to mention government departments themselves. Despite all of this, the governor in council does not have some official source of advice on the disposition of abandoned railway property.
Not that the Railway Act is silent on the question of railway lands, or for that matter on the question of abandonment. The Railway Act offers literally dozens of pages dealing with the ways in which the railways may acquire and use lands.
The act contains extensive provisions dealing with applications by railways to the Canadian Transport Commission to abandon a branch line on the grounds that it is uneconomic, and the subsequent procedure, which is long, sensitive and complicated.
What happens when a line is abandoned? To be precise, section 106 of the act refers, not to the abandonment of the line itself, but to the abandonment of operations on a line. The railway must be granted permission to abandon operations on a line, but once that is granted, the jurisdiction of the CTC and of the federal government ceases, even though the track remains. From then on, the railway is empowered to, and 1 quote section 102(1):
-alienate, sell or dispose of, any lands or property of the company that for any reason have become not necessary for the purposes of the railway.
This power of disposal applies even to lands given by the Crown, with the exception of Crown lands entrusted to CN under section 19 of the CNR Act. In this special case, the land reverts to the Federal Land Management Committee for a recommendation on disposition. I note that Bill C-221 does not make mention of this special situation.
When federal jurisdiction ceases, it would seem that municipal jurisdiction is left to fill the gap with respect to land use. Although I admire the need for sensitivity as expressed by the hon. member for Chateauguay, I also feel we should continue to leave in the hands of the municipalities the final decisions on land use.
Abandoned rights of way are, unfortunately, not easy things to dispose of. In agricultural areas, farmers are often not eager to take the land as it consists largely of gravel and ballast. New roads are sometimes laid across the right of way leaving short, narrow sections of land too small for commercial development or unattractive for recreational use. In the absence of maintenance by the railway, drainage becomes a problem, and more often than not the right of way becomes an overgrown, neglected loss.
I am sympathetic with the need for sensitivity in our disposal of these lands, but it seems that a municipality and a local authority are best able to deal with these concrete problems.

October 24, 1980
Abandoned Rights of Way
The municipality has the authority and the expertise to handle land use planning within its boundaries. In most cases, the disposition of title to the land is up to the railways, which may sell to the province or private interests as well as to the municipality.
The next step, the use of the land, is the proper decision of the municipality. At the moment, as this bill states, the governor in council does not receive any official advice on the disposition of railway lines. The authority proposed in this bill would perform that function.
There are certain technical aspects to this bill and I would like to comment on some of these specific provisions. I am interested in the rationale for the membership of the proposed authority. First, an employee of the Canadian Transport Commission provides valuable knowledge of the history of the rail line up to abandonment. However, the role of the commission as a regulatory agency is quite strictly circumscribed by law. Participation of one of its employees on a separate statutory body such as the authority could cause problems. Speaking without the benefit of legal advice, I wonder if this participation might require amendment to either the Railway Act or the National Transportation Act.
Second, an employee of the Department of Transport, while raising less of a legal problem, might not be in a position to contribute a great deal in individual cases of abandoned lines. The federal government does have a program of urban transportation assistance, but the determination of priorities with respect to individual operations is left to the provinces and the municipalities. Therefore, the reference here to use for rapid transit would have to come within that context. Third, while the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is included, appropriate representation might also come from Parks Canada, which now reports through the Department of the Environment.
Under the bill, the authority is established to advise the governor in council on, among other things, "the acquisition of title to any abandoned railway line or railway right of way determined by the Canadian Transport Commission to be either abandoned or unlikely to be used for railway purposes in the future".
This responsibility creates difficulties in connection with the CTC's mandate. As described above, the CTC simply makes a decision as to the abandonment of the operation of a railway line. Despite the implication of this section, the CTC makes no judgment on the future of the land itself. The reference to acquisition of title raises yet another problem, repeated later in the bill, of funding. While not explicitly stated, there is a hint that the authority might recommend purchase of some abandoned rights of way by the federal government. This, of course, is a matter that could be clarified.
On the question of the CTC being requested for particulars of abandoned lines, I am advised by the commission that no further records are maintained once operations on a line are approved for abandonment.
Finally, the requirement for a one year's notice of abandonment could work both ways. At present the absolute minimum is three months, and six months, and six months is quite normal, so there is a certain amount of notice under the existing system. There might, however, be situations where quick abandonment would be desirable, in which case the requirement contained in the bill would then become a handicap and not an aid.
I see merit in this bill. The bill makes it clear that careful thinking should be done on the future of abandoned rights of way. However, the question remains, how can this best be done? Each part of the country has unique problems and unique opportunities. In September when the Standing Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, travelled through the maritimes, we heard submissions about the use of abandoned land. In my constituency of Mississauga North our city has a well-developed planning department which undoubtedly prefers to become involved when new land use opportunities are opened up.
It seems to me that the most productive approach to this question would be a reliance on local level decisions. That should not, of course, preclude provincial or federal participation on an advisory basis. The consultative process between levels of government and orders of government is now a fact of life. The key question is whether we need to formalize or enshrine in legislation a special body to deal into this question. In an area like this I am convinced that specific problems can be solved locally with good will, co-operation and imaginative thinking between all three levels of government.
It seems to me that the author of this bill, the hon. member for Chateauguay, has raised an important topic. We need to find ways to make railroads and municipalities better neighbours; we in my area know that well.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to comment on this bill. I would like also to congratulate its author for an important start on this interesting question.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this bill implies that we will be continuing to abandon railroad properties. I think the last speaker has touched upon a subject matter which would perhaps bear a little expansion. Not only do we need a policy for the disposition of the rights of way which have been abandoned, but we also need very urgently a long-term policy on transportation as it pertains to Canada as a whole and particularly as it pertains to the rails.
I do not think we have a proper analysis at hand of what is the most viable and serviceable means of transportation. I do not think we have made use of the respective capabilities of the various forms of transportation. Until this is done I do not think there should be anything but a freeze upon the abandonment of rail lines, wherever they may be.
While the Hall commission permitted some abandonment and created some of the lands which are the primary subject of this debate, it did at the same time emphasize that there were certain lines which must be kept in place. A later study suggested that the Hall commission had perhaps given assent
October 24, 1980

to the abandonment of more lines than was really to the advantage of the economy of the community of western Canada, and 1 think we have to consider that possibility.
I do not mean to be political or critical of the proposition of the last speaker, but if we establish a vehicle for the disposition of land-which would have to be Crown-owned in any instance, I believe-then I think that vehicle should not be interdepartmental. If we get an interdepartmental committee I think we will run into roadblocks with each department having to make its own decision on its own merits. I would take sharp issue with any such proposal as that if it were put before the House on a serious basis. If there is an inclination by the Crown to dispose of its abandoned rights of way, then in my view we should not set up an interdepartmental committee. We should define very clearly the authority and terms and conditions under which such land will become the property of somebody else, and permit that authority to give a quick decision rather than spread the responsibility throughout an interdepartmental structure.
The present transportation commission has so much on its platter now that perhaps we should name a single official who might draw help, if he requires it, from local people. If it is in the city, get the mayor of the city involved and let him appoint a couple of other people-perhaps from the railroad. But let us get down to it so that the decision-making process will not take 18 months to two years when somebody may really be in a hurry-I refer particularly to a municipality.
I think that this subject matter has never been discussed in depth in a committee of the House in a policy-seeking position with a policy-seeking reference as a result of which a decision could be made or a proposal could be offered to government. What do we do with this land? How do we dispose of it? I would add to that, as I have already implied: what are we going to do about the abandonment of rail lines in long-term transportation planning? Whether it be in the west or in Carleton-Charlotte, it needs long-term planning.
There is a relationship between the business available and the abandonment of a line, but there does not seem at this moment to be a pursuit of business by the railroads which would indicate that they wish to keep their lines open.
I know the hon. gentleman from London. I am sorry I cannot name his constituency. I should know it. I know he has some sympathy with my feeling that the railroad officials are not, in fact, pursuing business. I have repeatedly stated that in the province of New Brunswick we are hauling lumber by truck from mills in New Brunswick across the CPR line and across the CNR line to the Bangor and Aroostook railroad in Maine and in other instances to another line in Maine, and it does not pay to truck that lumber to destination if you are within a reasonable distance of a Maine railroad. The ridiculous part of the whole thing is that the little Maine railroads are making money by extending lower rates than our own rail companies in our own country are charging. I submit that the cost of the declining traffic as a result of the diversion of traffic to other sources is making certain rail lines the subject of abandonment at some point in the future. It is foreseeable.
Abandoned Rights of Way
There is already one application present. However, I must admit I have digressed from a subject which is very close to my heart. I hope there could be some vehicle by which some study of the best transportation system for Canada could be developed to get the cheapest form of transportation.
Although the motion does not say so, 1 think we are discussing only Crown land as it relates to rights of way. I do not think we could consider that we are talking about the private property of a company in the transportation industry. We have to be talking about Crown land.
While farmers may not be interested, as the last speaker said, in becoming the owners of a railroad right of way, for obvious reasons, if that railroad happens to intersect their farms it is a prior responsibility that that land do become, if possible, whether private or Crown property, the property of the farmers whose farms are intersected by a railroad right of way. That is a consideration which should be made primary. Those which are in an area of pastureland or otherwise undeveloped, are of interest to the farmer. The typical basis for Crown disposal has often been that if the right of way lies within the property or adjacent to that of another owner, that land may very well revert to the other owner for historic reasons. This is an important matter which we should consider-that if it is adjacent to existing property and if it is Crown property, first the municipality and then the individual should be given priority in eventual ownership.
This is a broad field. There are many options, and many suggestions have been made, but 1 hope this bill will stimulate the type of interest that is necessary so that some vehicle is established, perhaps a special task force, so that a group of members of the House interested in this subject matter might analyse the long-term transportation requirements and the cheapest possible way of transportation, meld the two together and develop a system to provide the service which we have historically received. I think the mails are an example which can be used in respect of our general transportation facility and the efficiency of our railroads today. Twenty-five years ago if you sent a letter from Ottawa to my home at ten o'clock in the morning, it would be at my home at one o'clock in the afternoon. Today, if I send it from Ottawa to my home, it will take 48 hours, 72 hours or 96 hours to two weeks-there is no regularity or dependability in the mail service today. The same situation has developed with the railroads. The two services are comparable in their capability to deliver service. I think we need to study what changes can be made, and then perhaps the subject of land created by railroad abandonment will not even be on our minds.
Mir. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I share the views expressed by the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) on this bill. The hon. member said that each part of the country had its unique problems and unique opportunities with respect to abandoned railway lines. This could not be more true in western Canada.

October 24, 1980
Abandoned Rights of Way
The bill before us proposes a national authority to advise the governor in council on the public use of abandoned railway lines. Nowhere in the country has there been such a rationalization of the rail network as in the west recently. As a result of a series of commissions, committees and reports on western grain movement over the last five years, we now have a basic rail network, guaranteed to the year 2000, of close to 15,900 miles. But as a result of these commissions, a substantial amount of trackage has been abandoned.
The normal course of events would have been for the Canadian Transport Commission to hear each application for abandonment from the railways, to decide whether to allow it, and to leave the railways free to dispose of the abandoned right of way. But the urgent requirement for rail rationalization in the west demanded that this process be speeded up. The various commissions recommended a number of lines for abandonment. The CTC accelerated its hearing process and abandonment orders began to appear. The federal government agreed with the railways to transfer 1900 miles of abandoned rights of way to the federal Crown. This agreement with the railways, which dates back to September, 1977, was known as the gifting agreement.
With a large volume of abandoned lines suddenly on their hands, the railways conceded that it was in the public interest to have these lands revert to the government. The government had to find a way of disposing of them. At first it appeared preferable to transfer the lands to what were expected to be the ultimate owners, that is, the municipalities and adjacent land owners. A notable exception was made in cases where the rights of way were within or adjacent to native reserves. In these cases, first priority for acquisition was given to the reserves, with the help of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
However, the process became bogged down. In each case, several federal agencies became involved, and detailed legal work was required. The problem was compounded by agreements which the railways had made over the years for the installation of power, telephone, oil and gas lines and the like. It was clear by this time that a different approach had to be taken. During the past year, discussions with the three prairie provinces have taken place on the possibility of transferring the lands directly to the provinces. The provinces could in turn dispose of them as they wished. My understanding is that these discussions are now close to a satisfactory resolution.
As future rights of way become available to abandonment, it is intended that the federal government should not play an
intermediary role. The railways would negotiate ownership directly with the provinces. So you see, Mr. Speaker, this is quite a special case. To come back to Bill C-221, one could legitimately ask whether the proposed authority would have been able to advise the governor in council on disposition of abandoned prairie branch lines. The question is hypothetical but interesting anyway. The first thing that is clear is that the membership of the authority as proposed in the bill would not have been appropriate for the task. Other federal agencies would have had to be brought in and extensive consultation with provincial and local governments would have had to take place. It is also likely that the authority, with its proposed mandate of looking at rapid transit and recreation uses, would have been viewed with suspicion by municipalities. They would no doubt feel that someone else was doing their planning for them. This may be overstating the case with respect to the west because virtually none of the abandoned lines are urban, but the comment is probably valid in many other situations.
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that each special case demands a special solution. In an area as closely related to local needs and aspirations, a new federal presence may not be the best solution. Like the previous speaker, I fully support the need for more co-ordinated planning of the use of abandoned rights of way. There is no question that they are a precious resource which is largely wasted, but I am not convinced that the proposed authority would achieve that objective. So I cannot support reference of the bill to the committee in its present form.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be unanimous consent to the following motion which I should like to move:
That Bill C-221 be not now read a second time but that the bill be withdrawn, the order discharged and the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the motion. Is there unanimous agreement to it?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' hour having expired and it being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 27, 1980