1981-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) earlier this year announced a complete closure of the Fraser River Chinook salmon fishery, thereby jeopardizing the livelihood of the Fraser River gillnet fishermen, and bearing in mind that these fishermen take less than 20,000 Chinook salmon in a season, and whereas the minister has taken no steps to limit the United States interception of Fraser River-bound chinook, which is estimated at some 200,000 Chinook per year, or at least ten times the amount taken by the Fraser River gillnet fleet, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be instructed by this House to demand a limitation by United States fishermen of the effort they place on Fraser River chinook salmon stocks and, at the very least, to permit the gillnet fleet on the Fraser River to operate one day per week in area 29(D), in the interest of fairness and equity.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the voters in Quebec are confused by Liberal cabinet ministers who are unilaterally determined to use the Constitution to separate Canadians from their governmental, legal and economic traditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That, between now and April 13, all cabinet ministers who are actively engaged in electioneering in Quebec be required to table their invitations in this House so that all Canadians can know whether those cabinet ministers have been invited by the Parti Quebecois or the Liberal Party.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas all political parties in this House have publicly supported constitutional amendments to strengthen native and women's rights in the charter; and whereas this House has been debating a single Conservative amendment for the last seven weeks, thereby preventing other business from being considered, at a cost of some $300,000 a day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House calls upon women and native leaders, as well as other concerned Canadians, to urge the Leader of the Opposition to abandon his strategy of wasting the time of the House, and to agree to restore order so that other amendments may be debated and voted upon, by calling him collect in Ottawa at 996-5084; that is, area code 613-996-5084.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Premier of Alberta declared yesterday that he would disregard a ruling made by the Supreme Court on the constitutional resolution, and whereas the Leader of the Oppo-

April 7, 1981
sition (Mr. Clark) also appears to be moving in this same direction after initially advocating a Supreme Court reference, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That this House condemns the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Alberta for their blatant disregard for the traditions of the British parliamentary and legal systems and urges the Leader of the Opposition to have the courage to agree that, following a Supreme Court decision on the legality of the constitutional resolution, the resulting Address to Her Majesty be remitted to London forthwith without debate.


Mr. Clark:: Go back to Ohio.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CALL FOR MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PROVINCIAL PREMIERS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a very urgent and timely matter. Given the fact of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) decision to abandon the federal system by refusing to meet with the first premiers of the provinces of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House calls on the Prime Minister, in the interest of unity and the welfare of Canada, to reconsider his unCanadian-like position and meet with the first premiers of the provinces.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the National Energy Program has been responsible for losing thousands of jobs in all parts of Canada; for driving scores of skilled workers, entrepreneurs and drilling equipment out of the country; for scoring an almost complete shut down of exploration for conventional oil; for decreasing agricultural production because of the increased cost of fertilizer caused by the excise tax on gas, and for causing frustration and agony in the hearts of thousands of
investors and would-be investors; therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House urges the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to withdraw the National Energy Program at once before it spreads disaster to the breaking point, that is if the Prime Minister is not deliberately trying to break up the country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of Mr. Lougheed's press conference held yesterday, and in view of the fact that the Premier of Alberta and Premier Lyon of Manitoba on the CBC program "As It Happens" last night admitted that these provinces' hidden proposal on the Constitution does not include aboriginal and women's rights, or any charter of rights whatsoever, or equalization payments, and since the secretive manoeuvring by all sides has created bad feelings throughout the nation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That this House urge the provinces to release their proposals now in order that the Canadian people may know the facts and be able to discuss the issue openly.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I seek the attention of all hon. members of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that Warsaw pact manoeuvres are continuing on the Polish border, and in light of the fact that the Communist Party Congress in Prague is discussing the Polish situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) and the hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House express its belief that Poland must be allowed to resolve its current problems by itself without interference by any outside forces, and further, that the House commend the private sector, especially the Canadian Polish Congress, other Polish Canadian organizations and individuals, for their efforts to provide food and medical supplies to the Polish people.
April 7, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Premier of Ontario has indicated to the Prime Minister, by telex, how Canadians in general will be adversely affected by the government's proposed export charge on fuel used by Canadian vessels in international trade. If that export charge is imposed in its present form it gives other modes of transport an advantage over the Canadian merchant fleet and is thereby discriminatory. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member from the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the Minister of Finance further delay the imposition of the proposed export charge as it applies against the Canadian merchant fleet and put in place either a two-price fuel policy or a rebate system.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister who told this House and the Canadian public yesterday that, until his own resolution is passed through Parliament by closure, he refuses absolutely to discuss Canada's Constitution with Premier Bla-keney, Premier Buchanan, Premier Bennett, and five other elected leaders of some 14 million Canadian citizens. He told us that he refuses to meet his partners in Canadian government, whatever they might propose, until he has had his own way in this House of Commons. Will the Prime Minister now tell this House how he can possibly justify this refusal to respect Canadian tradition and this refusal to meet Canadian premiers who have requested the opportunity to work with him in helping to bring home Canada's Constitution?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I indicated that I had serious doubt about the premiers agreeing on anything, let alone an amending formula.


Mr. Nielsen:: You doubted their veracity.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I doubted the veracity of the statement that they had agreed on a formula. I was given a transcript of the CBC program "As It Happens" last night, which featured the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Sterling Lyon. I read Premier Lyon is stating that there is a basis for an amending formula and I quote:
-albeit one must require further refinement.
A little later he says:
The refinement process will be completed hopefully when the premiers meet on the sixteenth of April.
In another answer to a question he stated:
-until the final negotiations have been approved by all of the provinces... we cannot talk about it in detail.
This shows that the premiers have not yet agreed on anything, that they are moving in the direction of an agreement but have not even got a proposal to make. I repeat, if they do have one, why hide it until the sixteenth? If they want me to meet with them and they have something that is good for the Canadian people, surely it is their duty to make it public now. It is their duty not to try to hoodwink the voters of Quebec who are in the middle of an election and pretend there is some agreement when, in fact, we are told by Premier Lyon there still has to be negotiation. That should be the answer as to why I do not want to meet with them.
They should meet among themselves, decide what they want and, when they know what they want, then perhaps they should talk to the two other premiers who have long since given up on the hope that they would agree, and then perhaps we can have a discussion. Until then, I still say that the premiers are obviously not in agreement. They have used the courts in order to gain time, just as the Leader of the Opposition has used the courts in order to gain time.
We have Premier Lougheed stating again yesterday that if the courts go his way, well, that would be nice, that would kill our measure, but if the courts go against them, that does not end the matter. We have the Leader of the Opposition agreeing with them. Surely this proves they are using the courts for political purposes.


Charles Joseph Clark: It may be what we have seen here, quite apart from the Prime Minister's confusion about enumerating his enemies who, in his mind, seem to be almost numberless in this country, because he will not meet with any of them and will not talk with any of them. Was the Prime Minister indicating that his source of information on the premier's proposal is a CBC radio program. I understand his great respect for CBC radio programs.

April 7, 1981
Oral Questions
Why will the Prime Minister of Canada not give the eight premiers of this country who have indicated that nine short days from now, on April 16, they will be meeting to finalize a proposal on a Canadian way to bring our Constitution home, the assurance that when they meet and, if they are able to finalize the agreement which they claim they can finalize, that he will meet with them? Why will he not wait nine short days to see their proposal? Why does he reject it out of hand? How can he justify his statement of yesterday that under no circumstances, whatever they propose, however many their number, will he meet with them? How can he justify doing that to our federal system?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said he wondered where I got my information. I told him it was from the words of Premier Lyon speaking last night on the CBC program "As It Happens". That is where I got my information to the effect that they have not yet agreed.
If further certitude is needed, I have the telegram dated April 3 which Premier Lyon of Manitoba sent to me. In it are the following words with respect to the new Canadian patria-tion. He said it "could be discussed with you as soon as the Government of Quebec has had an opportunity to ascertain its final position after the current election."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think we are being hoodwinked by someone.


An hon. Member:: We are being hoodwinked by Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have every evidence from the mouth of the premier who has convened this conference-


Mr. Shields:: Pierre speaks with forked tongue!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have every evidence that the premiers have not agreed on a formula.
The Leader of the Opposition asks me why I will not meet with them. The right hon. gentleman wants me to repeat myself. I have been meeting with the premiers since 1968 trying to find agreement on an amending formula on patria-tion, if nothing else. Among themselves they have been trying to meet since the beginning of last October to find agreement. Right now we are told that they have not yet found it. I think the call on me to meet with them is somewhat premature. Let them state what their position is. Let them convince the Leader of the Opposition and the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick that they have suddenly found something which is acceptable. Then I will say, "Thank God, we will not have to wait two years to have this amending formula which is hypothetically so good. We will be able to put it into our law
as early as next summer, within weeks after we have had our own patriation."
I can only say, though I doubt they have reached agreement, I hope they will very soon, so that we can get on with having a permanent amending formula and not have to wait for the two years which are provided in the resolution to find that ideal formula. Let them keep meeting. Let them find something which is presentable to the Canadian people.
But in the meantime we say-and I believe this was the purport of the Standing Order 43 moved earlier-what is their position on the charter of rights? What is their position on an equalization formula? What is their position on the equality of women?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is ironic to hear this Prime Minister, who used to accuse the premiers of attaching conditions before they would come to any agreement, standing here and attaching the longest list of conditions he can dream up before he would even sit down and meet with the premiers of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has talked about premature action. Surely what is premature, and what offends the whole federal system and the whole idea of working reasonably together as a Canadian family, is the Prime Minister's categoric statement yesterday that he will not meet with any premiers to discuss any proposal any time before his personal resolution is passed through this House of Commons.
Why will the Prime Minister not give the eight premiers representing 14 million Canadians-Premier Blakeney, Premier Bennett and all the rest-a chance? Why will he not adjourn debate in this House until April 15, nine short days away, let us get on with other business, and give the premiers a chance to come forward with a proposal which might allow us to resolve this question in Canada? What does the Prime Minister of Canada have to lose by acting in that reasonable way? Why will he not respect the Canadian tradition? How does he justify his refusal in advance to meet with the premiers of Canada?


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I suppose the main answer is because I suspect the premiers of doing exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has been doing for months, just seeking delay, not seeking solutions, seeking delay.
April 7, 1981

If I were to tell the Leader of the Opposition now that I will meet them on Thursday of next week, and if we reach agreement which is agreeable to everyone, would the Leader of the Opposition then support our amending the resolution as it is with the charter of rights, and putting that agreed upon formula in, or will he then get up and ask for further delay?
The Leader of the Opposition talks about offending the federal system. What is more offensive to the federal system than premiers and the Leader of the Opposition who for months have been saying, "Let's get a judgment of the courts"? Now we hear one or two premiers and the Leader of the Opposition hinting that, if the courts go against them, they will still fight the fight politically. If they want to fight the fight politically, they are saying what we have been saying for the past 12 months, it is a political issue, and that they have only used the courts to subvert the courts to their own political means.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will let the Chief Justice and the court of Newfoundland reply for themselves to that slur upon their reputation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In his habit of avoiding answering questions by posing questions, the Prime Minister has asked me whether we would accept amendment of the resolution to incorporate an amending formula agreed to by the premiers and the Prime Minister. Of course we would.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASONS FOR REFUSAL TO ADJOURN DEBATE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, why will the Prime Minister not give the premiers a chance to have that influence on our common Constitution? Why is he in such a rush? What does he have to lose by adjourning debate for nine short days? What is he in such a hurry about? Why will he not let the Canadian process have a chance to work? Why is he trying to shut off the premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks, "Why such a rush?" Nine days is not of the essence; I agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why I put it to the Leader of the Opposition: let us wait until the tenth day; let us deal with other business; let us wait until the tenth day; let us then agree to closure so that the parties in this House can vote on the tenth day. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want nine days. Perhaps he wants nine months and nine years and ninety years, which was exactly the tactic used by the Tory party when we were discussing in this House how to bring
Oral Questions
Newfoundland into confederation. The Hon. George Drew said, "Why now; why not wait?" That is the tactic-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


NUMERICAL GROUPING OF PREMIERS
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, is for the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister is now saying again that he is willing to negotiate, I think that the negotiation procedure is always acceptable. Yesterday the Prime Minister dismissed the Newfoundland Supreme Court judges as being three non-elected officials; today he talks about the provinces subverting the courts. I think those are pretty serious charges. In view of the position the Prime Minister has taken now about the courts-and he has given his judgment there and he has given his judgment about the premiers-how many premiers does he feel would be necessary before he would meet with them? Would he meet three premiers, five premiers, seven or eight premiers? Would they have to include a Liberal premier? How many premiers would there have to be before he would meet with them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member asks me that question. The answer is right in the resolution which has been before us for six months, and the hon. member, I am told, has been on the committee and has played an important role. The answer is there quite clearly. If seven premiers representing 80 per cent of the population agree on a formula, the formula will either be accepted by the rest of us, or submitted to the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -submitted to the people for a decision.


An hon. Member:: Built in veto.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is unfair about that, Madam Speaker? Why does the hon. member ask a question which already has its answer in the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order. We do need to have a question period, and I would like to recognize as many questioners as possible. The hon. member for Provencher on a short supplementary.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE GROUNDS FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I mentioned to him yesterday that there was a certain way to handle federal-provincial relations, the Canadian manner in which generally we have been operating. In view of the fact that federal-provincial conferences, meetings, and negotiations take place

April 7, 1981
Oral Questions
every day, over 300 in any given year, in his experience has he ever rejected the earnest desire of a premier to meet with him or with his officials on any matter which affected federal-provincial relations? Has he ever rejected that request and, if so, why, on this fundamental question of the Constitution, where there might be a possibility of bringing together people to bring about unity in this country, does he continue to refuse that simple request, namely, to meet once again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I gave the answer to that question. It is because I am convinced that the premiers are seeking delay and nothing else. I ask the hon. member: why does he suppose that they invited me and not the Premier of Ontario or the Premier of New Brunswick?


An hon. Member:: Are you sure they have not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I keep hearing there will be a meeting of eight premiers, Madam Speaker. I am just telling the hon. member. They talk about meeting me and about meeting eight premiers. Presumably the two other premiers are not invited or do not want to go.


An hon. Member:: If they go, will you go?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I put it to the House earlier: if you are not seeking delay, if you are seeking one more chance at agreement, and if this House will agree to pass the bill in all stages once that effort has taken place, and if it is successful, we will then introduce that new form of amendment into the Constitution. And if it is unsuccessful, I will let the members of this House be the judge, and if they do not want to be the judge we can always have the provision called for in the resolution, which is a referendum. That is my proposal.
If they are not seeking delay I will meet with them, provided the House agrees to bring this matter to a final vote within one or two days after I have met with them. If that is a fair proposal, I will make it in all earnestness and I will tell the premiers I will meet with them, whether they be eight or ten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSE TO DEAL WITH AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EQUALITY OF WOMEN AND ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, there seems to be another effort to reach agreement which could bring us beyond the impasse on this constitutional resolution. Let us hope that this fifty-ninth effort might be successful. But in the interim, considering that the government has announced its intention to bring to an early vote a Conservative amendment which has been before the House for several weeks, I should like to ask the Prime Minister an important question. Will he give the House his absolute assurance that there will be no request for a final vote on the resolution until there has been a vote on an NDP proposed amendment


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -affecting the equality of women and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights?


An hon. Member:: This is a caucus matter. Handle it in caucus.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not an
assurance I can give. It is an assurance that the NDP wants to obtain for itself. If they can get the floor to move their amendment, of course we would be very happy. That is what the allocation of time resolution put forward two weeks ago House was for-it was to permit us to deal with an amendment which has been before us for seven weeks and to go on to deal with an amendment which improves the situation of women and improves the amending process for the aboriginal peoples. That is why we have closure before the House now, so that we can move on to that. But I cannot give the Leader of the NDP the guarantee that that will happen. He might seek it from his colleagues on that side of the House, he might seek it from Madam Speaker, but he cannot seek it from me.


TIMETABLE FOR TRANSMISSION OF RESOLUTION TO BRITISH PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite wrong on that. He knows that the timetable of the House is ultimately determined by the government, and if the government is interested in obtaining an amendment affecting the equality of women and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights, it is in the power of the government to wait until that is done. The Prime Minister knows that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My next question to the Prime Minister goes back to the statements he made last week pertaining to the conflicting decisions that have been reached by the superior court in the province of Newfoundland and that in the province of Manitoba. I should like to ask him whether he will offer assurances to the House that no form of request will be made to the Parliament of Westminster to deal with the constitutional resolution until a decision has been reached as to whether it is intra vires in whole or in part by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in prefacing his question the Leader of the NDP said that it was within the power of the government to wait until it is done, until the amendments are moved. It is within the power of everybody to wait until it is done, but that does not seem to be very much power, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the NDP knows that we have been waiting for seven weeks to have a vote on one amendment so that we could then go on to improving the resolution for women and aboriginals.
The question remains whether the government, any government of the day, should have to wait forever. Is that all that is in its power, or has the Leader of the NDP some other way in which I can guarantee to him that we will go on to the amendments which his party and our party want? I repeat,
April 7, 1981

there is one way of doing it, it is to have co-operation among our parties on allocation of time. As the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party knows, we have not been able to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: You have not tried.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says that we have not tried to get agreement on an allocation of time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He says that we have not tried to get agreement on an allocation of time! We are trying to get the floor on that-


Charles Joseph Clark: You rejected our proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There is a meeting a day of House leaders.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government House leader had endless meetings with the House leader of the Conservative Party trying to find some way in which there could be a three way agreement in order to allocate time.


Charles Joseph Clark: And you rejected each of our proposals.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House leader of the Conservative Party knows that there has been those meetings. They have been substantiated' by both the Leader of the New Democratic Party and by others.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am saying that you have not really tried.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition is saying that we have not really tried.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We sure know what happens when he really tries.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. The Prime Minister has not always shown such a great interest in the rules affecting Parliament, but would he not agree, just as we had a timetabling motion before which the government proposed, that it is entirely within the power of the government to bring in a timetabling motion that would cover the points to which I have just referred, the amendments he said the government is interested in passing, as well as including a commitment not to transmit the resolution in any form until the Supreme Court of Canada has passed judgment? The Prime Minister knows that just as well as all members of the House.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So what, Madam Speaker? The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that it is within our power to bring in a motion setting a timetable which would cover his amendments. We did that; we gave notive of a motion to that effect 15 days ago.


John Edward Broadbent: Stick with it.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are consenting adults.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now we are told to stick with it, and I guess we are told by the New Democratic Party that passage of time will somehow solve everything. It seems to me they are slipping slightly toward the position of the Tory party, which is to seek a delay.


John Edward Broadbent: We are asking you to live up to your agreement.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Next week the minister will be meeting with his counterpart from Alberta on the question of the energy program. Today four different groups appeared before two committees of the House and described the very adverse elements of the National Energy Program. For the situation to be changed, clearly the government must take its responsibility and propose some changes in this program if we are to free ourselves from the deadlock we are in today.
Is the minister proposing any changes in the price levels, the tax rates or the royalty rates? Is he prepared to consider more fundamental changes in the energy program in order to break the deadlock we are in today?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the representations of the hon. member. I assure him that when an announcement has to be made I will be very happy to make it in the House, or following the discussions with my colleague from Alberta. I think we should let those discussions start before making statements right and left about those negotiations at the present time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, in view of the response of the minister it is very clear that he is not considering the fundamental changes which would be required to break the deadlock.
In view of the very strong jurisdictional as well as the legal concerns of the producing provinces, it appears that we will be in this deadlock for some period of time, unless the minister is able to free his own thinking and reach some conclusions on the changes that are needed. Why is the minister not prepared

April 7, 1981
Oral Questions
to consider fundamental changes in the area of taxation in order to free the deadlock we are in today?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I fail to see how the hon. member could have reached in any way the conclusions he has reached from anything I have said.


PRICE FOR OIL RECOVERED FROM TAR SANDS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question about the April 13 meeting as well. It may surprise him that some Canadians consider it perhaps just as important as the Constitution. Yesterday the Alberta energy minister said:
-the tar sands ... couldn't proceed because the projects are not economic-
This was even if Alberta permitted them to proceed. The minister knows that existing tar sands projects such as Syncrude are not getting the National Energy Program prices but indeed are getting the world prices.
Is the minister considering giving the tar sands projects more than world prices, which puts us into a rather ludicrous position of having to subsidize once again the foreign multinational oil companies?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not seen the declaration by Mr. Leitch, but I suspect he referred to the fact that if we add the cost of Alberta royalties and the various provincial taxes to the federal taxes, in his view there is not enough left to make these new projects economic. This is the only thing I can assume from what he said. I will have it at that and check what my colleague said exactly in this regard. I have nothing to add to the statement of the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the minister is giving world prices to some tar sands plants; 1 see him nodding.
According to the annual report of Imperial Oil, "the highlight of the year was Syncrude's record production" which contributed $60 million to Imperial's net earnings. Will the minister confirm that on April 13 he is prepared to depart from the National Energy Program and indeed plans to offer the tar sands projects higher prices than those set out in the National Energy Program?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker, I am not prepared to confirm that.


NATIONAL GALLERY
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. It concerns the future of the National Art
Gallery of Canada. In view of the fact that less than 4 per cent of the gallery's collection can be displayed to the public at any one time because of lack of space, and in view of the fact that the collection is in danger of being damaged because of humidity, moving and shifting caused by space shortage, would the minister inform the House when he intends to build the proposed new gallery so as to display our valuable collections and to give present and future generations of Canadians a national gallery in which they can take pride?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very important question and of course for his very strong personal interest in the future of the National Gallery of Canada. I am not in a position to give him a definitive answer today, but indeed we are looking at a variety of possible options to meet the accommodation needs of the National Gallery and other museums in the National Capital area.
1 should point out that under one part of our special initiatives program we have already allocated funds to help various museums and art centres across the country to improve their accommodation. I would point out that a $4.5 million contribution was made to the Vancouver art gallery and very recently $3 million was given to the Thunder Bay art centre.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The service industry and the supply industry in western Canada have suffered very, very severely. A long-term employee at the weigh scales in Williston, North Dakota, said that in a 16-hour period, just under 1,000 truckloads of oil drilling equipment moved into the United States.
One of the major planks in the Liberal platform on the energy policy has been to Canadianize. It would seem to me that we are Canadianizing North Dakota and Montana in the Williston oil basin.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: Just under 120 oil rigs have crossed-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is really making a speech rather than asking a question. He should ask his question immediately.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, through you I would like to ask the minister what measures he is prepared to take at this time to assure the Canadian worker and the small Canadi-
April 7, 1981

an company that there will be jobs in this country of ours, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the National Energy Program features a whole series of measures to help businesses, particularly small Canadian businesses, and I would invite my colleague to become familiar with it as quickly as possible.


PURCHASE OF CANADIAN OIL
Leonard J. Gustafson: I would like to ask a supplementary question of the same minister. Why does the minister continue to buy expensive oil from Mexico and offshore sources at $40 a barrel or more while he refuses to buy Canadian oil which would give Canadian people work and small Canadian companies jobs in this country of ours?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the hon. member has it all wrong.


An hon. Member:: Oh no, you've got it all wrong.


Marc Lalonde: The Government of Canada does not refuse to buy Canadian oil. I remind the hon. member that it is the Edmonton government which has cut 180,000 barrels from the Canadians, not the Government of Canada. As far as the price is concerned, I remind the hon. member that we are buying oil from Syncrude, for instance, at world price at the present time. In the National Energy Program we have offered very significant increases in the price of oil paid for Canadian production. So far as the 15 per cent net imports that we need from abroad is concerned, we must unfortunately pay the international price which those countries are charging. However, we want to eliminate those imports during the course of this decade so that we can buy, in Canada, all the oil which will be consumed in Canada. We do not believe that 23 million Canadian consumers should be obliged to pay whatever price is decided by OPEC.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As a result of the so-called energy policy brought out in his budget on October 28, at the present time it is costing the federal government $500,000 an hour, 24 hours every day, 365 days a year, just to pay the subsidy on imported oil. At the same time rigs leaving the country must have an appointment three weeks ahead of
Oral Questions
time before they can be processed through customs. It just shows how many are leaving the country. How long is the minister going to allow this nonsensical situation to exist?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, we are bringing to an end the practice where the treasury pays oil compensation charges. These are being, not gradually, but rather rapidly, transferred to the consumers of Canada.


Mr. Crosbie:: Far more than 18 cents!


CANCELLATION OF TRUCK AND AUTOMOBILE ORDERS IN WESTERN CANADA
Thomas Gordon Towers: I wish to direct my supplementary to the same minister, in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has now left the Chamber. I would like to ask a question relating to the cancellation of trucks and automobile orders in western Canada as a result of all these service industries leaving our country. What sense does it actually make to force Canadians to cancel these orders while the federal government is trying to bolster up Chrysler Corporation with tax dollars at the same time? It simply does not make sense.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to assure the hon. member that his gloomy outlook is not really based on any factual assessment.


An hon. Member:: You have already changed yours twice.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member ought to know that the rate of growth in western Canada for 1981 will be very strong indeed, stronger than most parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: That's false!


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS WORKING AT LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfsRE, HULL, QUE.
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: My question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Employees working at Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere are suffering from respiratory problems, frequent and severe headaches, eye irritation, skin ailments and fatigue. Mary Lou McPhedron, upon the advice of her doctor, stopped working at Les Terrasses after suffering from loss of energy, headaches, bleeding gums and losing her voice.
A health and welfare study has shown the presence of two toxic chemicals at the work place, formaldehyde and tri-chlorethylene, chemicals associated with the symptoms which

April 7, 1981
Oral Questions
the workers have displayed. Has the minister identified the source of the chemicals, and what is he doing to eliminate it?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. gentleman, the Department of Public Works is aware of the complaints of a number of civil servants employed in the building. We have been attempting to identify the source. I must admit that we are not quite so confident that the sources detailed by the hon. member are factual. It is my hope that with the improved tests which we are using at this time, we should have an answer to it. However, I might point out that in the resolve of the Ministry of Public Works to provide a more efficient building with relation to energy-saving, energy conservation and the like, it does create other problems such as the movement of air, and I think that that, by and large, is one of the problems giving rise to this difficulty.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF STUDIES
Cyril Keeper: My supplementary question is directed to the same minister. My source of information with regard to the chemicals was a National Health and Welfare study. When will the minister make available all of the studies which have been done with regard to work place and safety at Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere so that the workers can know the facts which he is aware of, relating to their working conditions, and so that the public can know the conditions under which they are working?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: In
response to the first question, I have indicated to the hon. member that I do not yet have confirmation of the facts which he used in his introduction, presumably from newspaper reports which I saw for the first time today. I do not have the information which he purports to have. When those tests are complete, when I do have the tests, and if the hon. member has information from National Health and Welfare, I would be happy to have that information. I do not have it yet.


PUBLIC ARCHIVES ACT
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact the Public Archives Act has not been revised since 1912, and in view of the fact Bill C-43, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, is before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at the present time, will the minister consider revising the Public Archives Act to bring it into line with the proposed provisions of Bill C-43?


Francis Fox: I want to thank the hon. member for his question, Madam Speaker. It is quite clear that the intent of the access to information legislation is to give greater access to documents in the possession of the government. If there is inconsistency between two acts, we will try to make sure that the two acts are brought into line. I have requested my officials to discuss this matter in detail with the officials of the Public Archives of Canada so that we could reconcile both acts to make more information accessible to the public.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Finance advise whether he is prepared to amend Part IV of Bill C-57 so that the act will conform to the unanimous judgment of the court of appeal in the province of Alberta referring to the powers of the federal government to tax gas which is owned by the province of Alberta?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to recommend an amendment. In my view, an amendment is not necessary at this stage.


DECISION RESPECTING APPEAL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister advise whether he has been in consultation with the Minister of Justice and whether they have agreed that the judgment should be appealed and, if so, when shall the appeal be fought?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: I apologize to the hon. member, I was having a discussion with my colleague.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) please repeat the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I will put my question again. Can the Minister of Finance say whether he has consulted with the Minister of Justice about whether an appeal should be filed in the Supreme Court of Canada on that particular judgment and, if so, when will the appeal be filed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, a decision will be made soon on that, and if there is an appeal it will be announced publicly very quickly.
April 7, 1981


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the forty-sixth and forty-seventh reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the two petitions presented by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order flowing from the question period and having to do with the treatment of the constitutional resolution and, indeed, the resolution of the constitutional question generally. It is really a matter concerning House business.
Yesterday the Prime Minister refused absolutely to meet under any circumstances with the Premiers prior to the passage by this House and the other place of his resolution. Today he seemed to back away from that position. What I am interested in-


Miss Begin:: Is that a point of order?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of National Health and Welfare asks if this is a point of order. It is designed to advance the business of the House. I am trying to determine from the Prime Minister and the government House leader whether in fact they were intending in the question period to put forward a proposal that might be the basis for negotiation. I thought that the Prime Minister, at least in one of his answers, was indicating an interest in some negotiation. I want to have that either confirmed or denied.
We know that on April 2 the Prime Minister said he would be prepared, as a matter of principle, to have the constitutional resolution kept in this House, not passed beyond this House, until after the Supreme Court of Canada had decided its legality. I presume that position, which he stated clearly on April 2, remains his position.
What he seemed to be indicating today was interest in a proposal which would have at least the following elements, and I just want to recite them for the Prime Minister's memory.
First, it would involve the Prime Minister meeting with the Premiers in the kind of good faith that would yield agreement on an amending formula and a patriation package. Second, there would be some reasonable limitation on time for debate in this House. Third, there would be, presumably, the adjournment of debate in this House on the resolution until such time as it was profitable to resume debate on a new resolution. Those were the proposals that I thought I heard the Prime Minister making or alluding to.
My question on this point of order is whether or not the government now has some new proposal that it wants seriously to negotiate. If it does, if it has a proposal that follows those
Business of the House
general outlines and retains the commitment the Prime Minister made on April 2, we naturally, in the interests of having this House get on with the business of the country, would be prepared to have any proposal the government might make considered by House leaders. I want to know whether the Prime Minister was in fact making a proposal or is in a position where he is prepared to make one that would allow the House to get on with its business.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Inasmuch as this has to do with House business and that the persons concerned feel they can answer in the light of what the House business would be if a certain number of things happen, I think I can allow this question. These negotiations usually take place outside the House, and I would urge hon. members to continue discussions outside the House if that is at all possible. However, I will allow the question if it facilitates things. My only interest is to facilitate proceedings in the House and inasmuch as it concerns the business of this House, I will allow the answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just so that my interest in this is made absolutely clear, although I believe it would not be profitable to negotiate matters on the floor of the House, I am interested in knowing whether the government has something that it wants to propose-


Marc Lalonde: Read Hansard.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that can be negotiated among House leaders.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I, of course, agree with you that these things should be negotiated by the House leaders. I will merely give an answer which is intended, hopefully, to result in a meeting of House leaders.
There are two proposals which have been made on the floor of this House and to which we responded positively, an attitude which could be returned.
The first is the one that we made, that we would not press passage of this resolution in Great Britain until hearing from the Supreme Court. If legality was of importance and concern over legality was the driving factor, we would wait until the Supreme Court had judged our resolution to be legal before asking Westminster to pass it. That proposal is still open, Madam Speaker.
The second is a proposal made by the leader of the New Democratic Party. It was made one day when it was the subject of meetings between House leaders. It was examined in some detail and then the question was asked the next day in the House. The proposal was to the effect that we would vote on two amendments proposed by the NDP, one dealing with women and the other with aboriginal rights. For that matter, I am not objecting if they want to have a vote on property rights or on anything else. I am not enlarging the proposal; I am just saying that we on this side are seeking agreement. Whatever the proposal made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party was, there would be a vote on two amendments in this House so that the Supreme Court would be in the position of

April 7, 1981
Business of the House
dealing with certainty with the resolution which emanates from the House.
A very essential part of that proposal, as I understood it, was that after the Supreme Court had-hypothetically- judged the resolution favourably, there would be a very short debate here without any further substantive amendments. In other words, the Supreme Court would be dealing with it in a fair way.
My answer to that-although for me it did go against the grain-was that if there was agreement among all parties to that proposal, and if it were clearly understood that these were exceptional times, as one hon. member said, and that we were not bowing to the doctrine that we can only act when the Supreme Court says we can act, then we would agree to the proposal. That matter, I take it, as far as we are concerned, is still open if the House leaders want to discuss it.
Today, with some insistence, I was asked why I did not want to meet with the Premiers on Thursday of next week. I indicated that I thought it was just a delaying tactic. Having been shown that this was perhaps not respectful of the Premiers, I made another suggestion. I repeat it now and if the House leaders want to meet and agree on it I would be happy to seek confirmation from my own caucus.
The suggestion is that we take the resolution as it is, with the charter, with the equalization formula, with the protection it gives against discrimination among Canadians and so on- and use it as the basis for some agreement with the premiers whereby they would come up with a new amending formula. In other words, it is the amending formula, I understand, that they are proposing to discuss on Thursday of next week.
If we can agree to an amending formula-and by "we" I mean those who have not have been invited to the meeting but who have been part of the negotiations up to now, namely, at least two provinces and the federal government-then of course we will seek an amendment to put that new amending formula in the resolution that is before the House. If the New Democratic Party can convince the Tory party that it is important to increase protection for women and for aboriginals, we can add that too. Then, Madam Speaker, having achieved this package, which hypothetically would have the approval of all premiers and the Government of Canada, we would vote on it within, say, 48 hours and put it through all stages in this House.
If that could be agreed to-


Marc Lalonde: And if not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that can be agreed to we would know how the debate would end.
It is possible, of course, that the premiers would either not agree among themselves. If, as we hope, Mr. Ryan becomes Premier of Quebec, he has said he would not attend that meeting. It is possible the proposal would come unstuck because Premier Lyon has said it is not completely stuck yet. It is also possible that there would not be agreement among all Canadian elected representatives. If that happens, then I think
we should still have the vote within 48 hours but we could undertake to hold a referendum, giving the people the chance to choose between the premiers' preference-hypothetically the preference of seven premiers representing 80 per cent of the population-and the federal government's preference. Then the people would choose. In that way, Madam Speaker, we would be ending the debate two days after next Thursday. We would be ending it with complete agreement, or we would be ending it with an agreement to let the people decide between the disagreeing premiers and the Government of Canada.
I suggest that the House leaders meet on any of these proposals so that we can get on with the business of governing Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of negotiating an important question on the floor, just as we were last week when we did not reach a settlement. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister with care. I think the Prime Minister was saying that from the government's point of view he is prepared to have a meeting with the premiers to discuss an amending formula that would be compatible with a charter of rights for Canadians from coast to coast, including, as part of the package, aboriginal rights. I see the Minister of Justice nodding to that. Also included as part of the package would be more equality for women. I see him nodding to that, too. I understand that the Conservative Party is in agreement with those two principles.
I can say on behalf of my colleagues, without finalizing the deal, that the principle involved here, namely achieving these elements of a package and having a time limit for debate of 48 hours after the meeting takes place, will allow us, if there is no agreement, finally to face the damned issue, to put it bluntly, in this House with a vote. In principle, I am sure that I can commit my caucus to that kind of process for negotiation.
I conclude by saying that if the Prime Minister is making a serious proposal, then I take it for granted that the closure motion in the name of the House leader would certainly not be acted upon today if the Prime Minister is proposing that the House leaders sit down and talk about this alternative proposal.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, in the course of his remarks the Prime Minister indicated that he felt he should consult his caucus about this proposal. That is the position in which I find myself. I am sure that for the purpose of facilitating an agreement it would not be an unreasonable proposal, and I agree with the suggestion of the Prime Minister.
However, would it be possible in the circumstances for the government, for today in any event, to designate some other business so that we can examine in detail the proposals which have been made? If we could do that on the understanding
April 7, 1981

that the meetings we have discussed would be held, this might very well facilitate parliamentary business. I put that to the government House leader.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, if I understand correctly the suggestion made by the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party he wants us to change the orders of the day to make it possible to hold negotiations on the three propositions summed up by the right hon. the Prime Minister. Another line of thought would be that perhaps as evidence of its good faith after seven weeks the Progressive Conservative Party might agree that we set the closure motion aside and dispose of the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), thus enabling us to continue the constitutional debate in which many members are still anxious to participate. That is another way of looking at the problem, or what might ultimately be agreed to would be to suspend the sitting of the House for one hour, if need be so, we may hold a caucus meeting, something which can be done right now, before returning here with a definitive answer.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I like the latter suggestion, if we are negotiating in good faith in this matter. I have no objection to our adjourning the House for a period of time to allow two things to happen. First, I would like to have a chance to examine in detail the discussions which took place here. In the interim, it would be very helpful if the Prime Minister could provide the detail I would like to examine. Then it would be possible as well for the consultations to continue. If he were advancing that second alternative as a serious one, I think it is a productive suggestion and I would be prepared to agree with it.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as I understand the proposal so far, it may not be so productive. We do not have a precise idea to take to each of the caucuses. To give it effectiveness and to add to the suggestion that was made, I think suspending the sitting of the House for a couple of hours might be very useful. However, during that time the first hour the Prime Minister and the government House leader, the Leader of the Opposition and the House leader of the Conservative Party, myself and our House leader, should meet together to work on a concrete proposal to take back to our respective caucuses for discussion.


Yvon Pinard: Under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, what 1 am suggesting is that the House adjourn for one hour, at which time we will be able to set forth a clear cut position without changing the order of the day as it had been planned.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, is it the pleasure of the House that we suspend the sitting and that we reconvene at the call of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: The House is agreed, therefore the sitting is suspended.
The House took recess at 3.17 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5.18 p.m.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, because we are making what I would qualify as reasonable progress at our meeting, and since the House leaders will meet again tonight to try and reach final agreement, I think you will find there is agreement that we suspend business that was to be considered today and carry on with Bill C-42 orders of the day. It is a very important bill to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
I understand the Postmaster General is ready to proceed with report stage of that bill and continue for the rest of the day. We will be having another House leaders' meeting this evening. Pending the results of that meeting, the House will deal with Bill C-42.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the proposal with respect to orders of the day is quite in order. I want publicly to express my thanks to the hon. member for Vancouver South, who has indicated a readiness to proceed with the post office bill on very short notice indeed. We are all grateful to him that we can continue with that bill and at the same time have our House leaders' meeting.
In the same spirit, I ask that the matters that were brought to Your Honour's attention today by the hon. member for Yukon, be deferred for the moment.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I am happy to underline the words of the other two House leaders to the effect that we are making what I believe we can call reasonable progress in our discussions of the way to deal with the constitutional resolution. As has been said, we shall be meeting again tonight.
Part of the agreement that we arrived at just a short while ago was that we would suspend the debate on the Constitution for today and deal with the report stage of Bill C-42. The hon. member from Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) will be ready when his turn comes.


Madam Speaker:: I take note, then, that the House does now unanimously agree that we should proceed with the report stage of Bill C-42.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After routine proceedings.

April 7, 1981
Petitions


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, which is based on more than ample precedent. As an officer of the courts of Newfoundland and as a barrister and solicitor of the Law Society of Newfoundland, my point of order has to do with the question period today in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that the provinces had subverted the courts for their own political ends, implying that the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has been subverted by the province.
I also refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday in which he referred to the Chief Justice and two of the judges of the appeal division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, as appears at page 8988 of Hansard, and said that "three non-elected officials have told us that such a thing could not be done."
The Prime Minister is not in the House, Madam Speaker, so I am giving notice of my point of order now, which is not frivolous, not light and which is most serious. It is not only a serious accusation against the courts in Newfoundland but a contemptuous style of reference to the Chief Justice of Newfoundland and two of his brother judges.


Marc Lalonde: Nonsense!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is not here to clarify his words, so I am quite willing-


An hon. Member:: It is a waste of time.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member may think it is a waste of time, but I do not. The judges of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland have been denigrated and insulted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is giving notice that he wants to raise a point of order. I understand he does not want to argue it now. I take his notice and we will hear his point of order in due course.


PETITION
[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-revision of national energy program
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House. When I was in Calgary not long ago I had the honour to be presented with a petition signed by some 2,500 women from western Canada, and I would like to take this opportunity to present it to the House.
The petitioners are concerned with the adverse effects that the National Energy Program is having on the Canadian economy, and particularly on the petroleum industry. The
petitioners feel that the National Energy Program and the measures flowing from the budget are not in the national interest, and they therefore ask this House to press for revision of the National Energy Program so that employment opportunities and social needs will not suffer in the future.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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. 23, 1,545, 1,571 and 1,829.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer given to a question by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on Friday, November 23, 1979, at page 1638 of Hansard, which stated in part that another purpose of the Featherbed File was to investigate "high-ranking government officials of the day who, in their younger days, may have had connections with the Communist Party of Canada or other groups such as that" (a) how many such high ranking officials are included under the word "many" used in the answer (b) how did such persons reach high-ranking positions in the government if they had been working or had connections with foreign powers opposed to the Canadian government?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: The number of "high-ranking government officials" and how they reached their positions in government is kept confidential for reasons of national security, pursuant to the government's policy on access to information. It is not in the public interest to provide additional information on the Featherbed File.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the civilian staff at RCMP headquarters who are involved in all security clearances for the government comprised of 66 persons and, if not, what is the number?
2.	Is the section to be computerized and, if so, were all employees told originally that none on their jobs would be affected and were they subsequently told to get lateral transfers because the positions would be deemed surplus that are not vacant by December, 1980, and that those involved would be laid off?
3.	Were any of the employees laid off and replaced by casual employees and
(a)	if so, for what reason (b) if not, is such a thing planned?
4.	Has it been estimated that the computer will be only 60 per cent efficient and has it been estimated that the present staff without the computer was 90 per cent efficient?
April 7, 1981

5.	Will the government take immediate steps to provide for the guaranteed job security of persons involved in this situation and (a) if so, in what way (b) if not, for what reason?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. It is not the policy of the RCMP to publicly identify how many personnel work in any area of the security service.
2.	The records section of the security service is being computerized. Employees were initially told that there would be no lay-offs; normal attrition (promotions, resignations and lateral transfers) would be allowed to take care of the 35 positions declared surplus. In late May of 1980 this position was changed to a target date of December 31, 1980. As employees were hesitant to apply for lateral transfers, it was pointed out that in order to meet the required reduction some would have to apply or if they did not some may find themselves subject to being declared surplus. This was a general direction given to those in the 35 positions and not addressed to any specific position or positions.
3.	There have been no lay-offs, however, there has been hiring of casual employees to complete the job requirements vacated by permanent staff.
4.	No such estimates exist.
5.	The government has taken steps to provide for job security of persons involved in this situation.
(a)	By allowing a reasonable time period in order that those in the 35 positions can accept other government positions and ensuring that other opportunities in the public service are brought to the attention of those concerned.
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What plans, if any, are there for the development of a minimum security prison at Renous, New Brunswick, and in what time-frame?
2.	Has the project received Treasury Board approval and, if so, on what date is it intended to call for tenders?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as The
Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: 1. The Correctional Service of Canada's long range accommodation program for 1980-1990 does not call for the construction of a minimum security institution in Renous, New Brunswick. However, a protective custody unit/special handling unit maximum security institution is being proposed but has not yet received Treasury Board approval.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names of all lawyers presently doing business for the government or on the government list of those to be used for government business, when required, in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and (a) how are they selected
(b)	what are the names of all persons recommending them to the government?
Adjournment Motion


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: (a)
and (b): When considering counsel for appointment as agents of the Attorney General of Canada, the type of case, a counsel's specialization in that area of the law and experience in dealing with the class of subject are taken into account. The Minister of Justice, under statute, has always been charged with the responsibility of appointing competent legal agents to handle on behalf of the government civil and criminal cases that are not handled directly by legal staff of the department. All governments in the past have observed the unchallenged principle that the choice of agents to act on behalf of the minister rests with him, and that the criterion for appointment is one of competence. While advice on appointment of agents is taken from numerous sources including, at times, local Bar societies, there is no single set procedure for receiving recommendations and the final choice is simply a matter of judgment. The object of receiving recommendations from various sources is to ensure that the best available counsel are known to the department should their services be required. The recommendation of counsel does not signify approval or authority "to act on behalf of the government" at that point of time, as a lawyer only becomes an agent of the Attorney General after a case has arisen and instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice or the client department. Regardless from what quarter a recommendation is received, the test of competence is the basis for appointment.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki)-The Constitution-Effect of charter of rights on abortion provisions in Criminal Code; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-[DOT] Health care-Extra billing by doctors-Co-operation of Ontario in banning practice; the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle)-External affairs-Discussions with United States Secretary of State.

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: Motion No. 1
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 amended in clause 2, by adding immediately after line 12 at page 1, the following:
" 'letter' means any item of mailable matter that weighs no more than 500 grams and has an address, code or other identification sufficient to enable delivery of the item to a specific addressee or destination but does not include
(a)	any item consisting solely of a newspaper, magazine, book or catalogue or of goods;
(b)	any item having no further address than 'householder', 'boxholder', 'occupant', 'resident' or other similar expression;
(c)	any item consisting solely of advertising matter, or a greeting card, or an invoice for goods or services; and
(d)	any item that is specified by the regulations;"-
He said: Mr. Speaker, on short notice we will try to explain to the House the purpose of this amendment. Unfortunately, with the notice being so short I do not have all my material in front of me.
A problem in this bill arises with respect to the definition of "letter". Earlier in the discussion of this bill in committee, the minister produced a definition of the word ''letter" and it was our understanding that this definition would form part of the act. The minister proceeded to talk about the definition and he then withdrew his definition, relying on Sections 14 and 15 of the act, if my memory serves me correctly, to try to define "letter" as almost an exclusionary provision.
What I have attempted to do is to place an amendment before the House with respect to the definitions section of the bill to define a letter to include mailable matter which weighs no more than 500 grams and which has an address or identification sufficient for it to be delivered by a postman on his walk. That definition specifically excludes certain items. I am following to a larger extent what the minister tentatively proposed before the committee but which he never did complete, namely that the definition of "letter" would exclude newspapers, magazines, books or a catalogue of goods.
With respect to a catalogue of goods, for example, this would mean that the Post Office would not have a monopoly on delivering the Simpsons-Sears or Canadian Tire catalogue, or something of that nature. I do not think it was ever really intended that the Post Office should have that monopoly. I think the minister would agree with me that that kind of item should not be regarded as a letter and that the whole purpose of the particular exclusion is to ensure that newspapers, magazines and catalogues are not within the definition of "letter" and therefore are not part of the Post Office monopoly.
The definition goes on further to exclude items which are simply addressed "Householder", "Boxholder", "Occupant", or something of that nature. These are items often delivered by delivery services. They have no specific address or addressee. While they may be in an envelope or in a package, in common parlance they are really not letters. In order to make sure where we are headed in this country, it is essential that the monopoly not be interpreted to include these kinds of items. The consequence is that anything which has no address other than "householder" on the outside of the envelope is really not a letter at all. I see a member opposite is shaking his head. The question is: What is the monopoly for the Post Office? The purpose of this amendment is to provide that items addressed to "Householder" or "Boxholder," are not included in the monopoly.
The next matter-and this was very much in the minister's mind when it was brought forward in the committee-is that the legislation should exclude from the definition anything like a greetings card or an invoice for goods and services. Can my daughter take a greetings card around to her friend? Can she deliver a birthday card or something like that? Is she to be prosecuted for delivering a letter, or is she entitled to do that? I suggest there should be no question that a greetings card which someone might want to deliver is not within the absolute monopoly of the Post Office. We should not have to put stamps on such items. Surely we can walk around and deliver such items.
I want to bring the matter of the word "invoice" to the attention of the House. I do so because a great number of public utilities in this country are involved. Meter readers for The Consumers' Gas Company in Peel region presently deliver gas bills. The hydro electric power commission in the city of Mississauga wants to be able to have its meter readers deliver hydro bills when they go around checking the quantum of usage for the previous month or period. It strikes me that it is ridiculous to say that a public utility or, indeed, a private utility should not be able to deliver its invoices for its services or for power, gas or water consumed on a door-to-door basis to the consumer. Indeed, there is no reason why, if I sell goods or perform services, I should not be able to go around and deliver bills myself or have one of my employees do so. Surely to goodness it is not the intention of the minister to broaden the monopoly of the Post Office to include every single envelope or letter these interests wish to deliver to their own consumers. Surely the minister does not suggest that the Post Office monopoly should prevent public utilities-which are there to serve the public in the same way as the Post Office-from reducing their overhead costs by delivering their own invoices, particularly in times of postal disputes or disruptions. It is in the interest of all of us that we look throughout our economy at ways by which government and business organizations can cut down overhead and keep prices low. After all, one of the major concerns of Canadians is inflation. If we insist that
April 7, 1981

everything must be done by an organization like the Post Office, then we prevent innovation on the part of utility companies and companies generally which have invoices to deliver.
1 think it is essential, in terms of where we are going with respect to the Post Office Act, that we restrict the definition and make it as clear as possible, although it should not be too restrictive because I think it is essential that the Post Office have a monopoly. However, the definition of "letter" should be as clear as possible so that the Post Office has ample control. On the other hand, we should make sure that the Post Office monopoly is not so broad as to prevent a public utility from delivering an invoice or one of our daughters from delivering a birthday card or a greeting by hand. In my community the Lome Park Estates Association always delivers notices of meetings by having some of the kids in the neighbourhood go around and stuff them in doors. Surely it is not the intention of this bill to bring that kind of delivery into the exclusivity the act would create. Surely that type of thing must be permitted in our society. It seems totally unreasonable that the act would not provide that protection.
Consideration of this particular amendment and the definition of "letter" took place in final form on the last day of the committee hearing. That was before Christmas. It was the evening of the long 23-hour debate on inflation that we had here in this House. The committee met all day and all evening. It met right through, as the minister will remember, until after eleven o'clock that night. We co-operated with the minister in every way. It just so happened that in the rush to get the bill through the committee we never really did get down to a debate on the necessity of protecting the right of people to participate in the activities to which I have referred. People presently do deliver communications which we really did not intend to be letters in the first place.
I say that it is essential that this bill contain the type of definition l propose because we sincerely want to ensure that the postal corporation knows what its limits are in terms of its monopoly and is able to say clearly that a certain type of communication is its exclusive responsibility. We want it to be clear what people can and cannot do so that we can be prepared to prosecute if necessary. On the other hand, we want to make sure that people continue to do those things which have normally been done.
At the present time certain public utility companies deliver their own bills. Surely it is not our intention to say to a public utility company such as the Mississauga hydro or the Port Colborne hydro that it cannot continue to deliver its own bills. Surely it is not our intention to say to ratepayers' associations that they cannot deliver "householders" to "ratepayers" in their district. If it is not our intention, we should spell that out in the bill. Surely we do not intend to tell people who want to deliver catalogues advertising their goods, wares and merchandise door-to-door-or specific consignees-that they cannot hire people to deliver those catalogues. It was never necessarily intended that those catalogues be delivered by the Post Office. In most cases they are not delivered by the Post Office. In all
Canada Post Corporation Act
probability the Post Office is not organized to deliver such catalogues, so why not exempt them specifically? Why leave doubt in anyone's mind that perhaps catalogues are letters and subject to the postal monopoly? I say to this House that motion No. 1 should be accepted by the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to be clear whether the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) seeks the floor on the proposed amendment or whether other hon. members seek the floor to speak on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). If they do, I will recognize them. If they do not, my understanding of the procedure is that the vote on the amendment will be deferred until votes can be taken on all amendments. Does the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) seek the floor to speak on the same amendment?


Mr. Gamble:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for York North.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to deal with this significant amendment. One may well ask of what significance is the definition of "letter" in this bill as opposed to the provisions of the bill which require the definition to be incorporated in a regulation passed by the corporation with the approval of the governor in council.
I had an opportunity as a member of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to study this bill clause by clause, and one of the matters that chiefly concerned me was the way in which regulations which are to have the force and effect of law are to be passed by the corporation itself extending its monopoly, in the fashion that this bill provides, to letters. Accordingly, it is very significant that we should determine what the monopoly parameters are and define them clearly for the benefit of those who use the services of the Canada Post Office and presumably will continue to use the services of the new corporation to be established as a consequence of the passage of this legislation.
One of the difficulties here is that under paragraph 17(l)(a) the corporation may, with the approval of the governor in council, make regulations:
prescribing, for the purposes of this act and the regulations, what is a letter-
If one examines the provisions of Subclause (7) of that clause one finds that:
every regulation made pursuant to Subsection (1)-
From which I have just quoted in part.
-is deemed to have been approved by the governor in council sixty days after the day it is received by the Clerk of the Privy Council for submission to the governor in council for consideration, unless the governor in council has previously approved or refused to approve the regulation.
What that means in essence is that inaction by cabinet will result in the passage of a law by a Crown corporation dealing with this very essential issue of what are the limits of the

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
monopoly enjoyed or to be enjoyed by this Crown corporation to be estalished.
The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) had an opportunity to deal with the exceptions to that monopoly as they apply to letters that must, in fact, under this bill become the exclusive property for delivery of the new corporation. Those exceptions relate in a very limited fashion to letters of an urgent nature that are delivered by messenger for a fee at least equal to the amount that is three times the regular rate of postage; letters concerning goods for delivery carried by a common carrier; letters concerning the affairs of an organization that are transmitted between offices of that organization or by an employee thereof; and letters in the course of transmission by any electronic or optical means. Those exceptions, which I suspect apply to the majority of those areas about which the public may be concerned, are not broad enough, in my submission, and specific representations have been made to me by constituents concerned about the application of the exclusive monopoly to be granted to this corporation, which itself will define what a letter is and, accordingly, the limits of that monopoly.
I have in front of me a letter dated March 25, 1981, which I received on April 1, 1981 from Smith and Associates Insurance Agencies Limited, insurance brokers, expressing their concern about the impact on the insurance industry, particularly during the time of a postal interruption, when they and insurance agents like themselves will not be in a position to cause others or their own agents to deliver the necessary insurance policies without demanding excessive fees.
If we were to take a look at the provisions of the insurance act in the province of Ontario, we would find that a life insurance policy does not become effective until it is physically in the hands of the insured. Companies relied upon the Post Office until it became apparent that that reliance was somewhat misplaced, and accordingly they have taken it upon themselves to see that their representatives deliver these policies, which include covering letters. I submit that even on the narrowest of interpretations which we may anticipate finding in the regulations, this would be an illegal act of which this House should be aware because of the impact it will have on this industry.
I should like to take some time of the House to read a couple of paragraphs which appear in that correspondence. Mr. Smith writes:
I am concerned that these exceptions do not go far enough-
He is referring to the exceptions to the necessity for the Post Office to deliver the mail. He continues:
-and that the wordings do not include insurance documents. It is inevitable that there will be another strike, and what would our clients do if they were unable to take delivery of their policy and furthermore, they are unlikely to pay for it. As a broker, we would not be able to live up to our obligation to our insurers and the whole fabric of the insurance business would be in jeopardy as maintenance of an effective communication system is urgent.
In the U.S., legislation exempts delivery of stocks, bonds, insurance documents, etc., as does legislation in the United Kingdom.
He then urges me, when I speak in the House, to draw the attention of members to these significant matters.
I cast my mind back to the representations which were made to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates with respect to this specific issue. We had presented to us, particularly by people in the messenger and courier business, specific words which were extracted from the U.S. regulations dealing with time-sensitive materials. We were given not only specific illustrations of the words but examples in a concrete form of some time-sensitive, life-giving materials which were delivered by courier and with respect to which there might have been a covering letter concerning the method to be applied by a medical institution in the use of that medical device.
I know the argument that will be made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is that, under those circumstances, we are confronted with a cost at least three times the regular rate of postage applicable to those materials, but that argument does not cover the situation where, as in the case confronting us here, the cost might indeed not exceed three times the regular cost, or where an organization takes it upon itself to deliver the letters and enclosure in the letters of insurance policies.
I have also received a letter from the Markham Hydro Commission drawing to my attention the fact that that commission is, or has been until now, in the regular habit of having its bills delivered by those who read hydro meters. That practice, in the event that this legislation is passed in unamended form, will have to come to an end. They were concerned, of course, as are most people carrying on an active business practice, about the effect upon their operation of a mail stoppage, a strike, as referred to by Mr. Smith. Very clearly, the business community in Canada cannot come to a grinding halt because the Post Office corporation, as intended by this legislation, is unable to come to some agreement with its employees. I cannot for the life of me see how the passage of this legislation will end all labour-management disputes which have existed in the past and plagued the Post Office. It is unrealistic to expect that all those troubles will suddenly come to an end.
As a result of other provisions of the bill which place employees under the protection of the Canada Labour Code, the basis for potential disagreement between management and labour in fact will be extended. Under the circumstances, how can we realistically expect to find no disputes between the parties which will give rise to a strike and the non-delivery of mail?
It is incumbent upon the House to have regard for those circumstances. It is absolutely essential for taxpayers generally and for individuals who correspond with other segments of the business community or their customers to have at their disposal a way to carry on their business activities without being hamstrung by the present bill.
The hon. member for Mississauga South reflected the conduct of the affairs of the committee when he indicated that the
April 7, 1981

minister had presented to the committee his definition of what a letter was. The intention was that the definition would be incorporated into the provisions of the bill and not made the subject matter of the regulations. I consider that to be absolutely essential, not only from the point of view of making hon. members of the House aware of the extent of the monopoly they are granting, but at the same time thwarting an effort, as a consequence of the passage of this bill, to transpose to a Crown corporation the authority, unobstructed not only by the House but by the governor in council, to interfere and determine what the law shall be.
It is absolutely fundamental, not only with respect to the definition of the word "letter" but with respect to the way in which all regulations under the bill are drafted, that the House and at least the governor in council pass the regulations. This is not the case which presently confronts us.
Accordingly, I urge members of the House to have some regard for what most assuredly has been a well-recognized practice in the passage of laws. If Parliament does not pass the law, at least the governor in council must pass it. This is not the case, having regard to the provisions in Clause 17(7).
Certainly in my experience I have not encountered a move of this nature by a government since the demise of the East India Company. I have not seen such an illustration since the Hudson's Bay Company, a commercial organization, ruled Rupert's Land.
It is incredible that in this simple piece of intended legislation we have a complete abdication of the responsibilities not only of elected members to pass the laws of Canada but of the governor in council. It is reprehensible enough that this should happen when the governor in council, without reference to Parliament, passes a law. We have seen ample illustration of the growing tendency to avoid reference to Parliament and an inclination to rely upon the governor in council to pass regulations. We have simply gone a step beyond. I submit this is dangerous to the system of representative democracy.
I recognize that the government has taken almost a whole page in the draft bill, that is page 11, to explain the potential need to publish, for the benefit of the public, the intended regulations. I understand that they are there for the purpose, hopefully, of permitting the public to express views with respect to the very items to be covered by the new laws which will be passed by the Crown corporation. But that whole purpose is defeated by the provisions of clause 17(7) which provide that if the governor in council does not take action within 60 days, what will very clearly happen is that the people of Canada will bask in the glory of new laws passed by a Crown corporation.
In my view, under the ''ircumstances we have a most legitimate request with respect to an amendment to clarify the extent of the monopoly, which is the chief purpose of this whole piece of legislation. All other provisions, while interesting from the standpoint of watching the establishment of a Crown corporation, its board of directors and so on, are superfluous to the real purpose, which is to grant a monopoly for the transmission of letters in Canada. That monopoly is not
Canada Post Corporation Act
to be handed over to a government department, which is subject to scrutiny by the House, but to a Crown corporation and, accordingly, a minister who will answer questions in the House. The Crown corporation alone can determine what a letter is and will be in a position to determine the nature of the competition it may enjoy.
In case I should be met with the argument that there is provision within the bill to cover the work stoppage situation of which Mr. Smith and I have complained, a situation about which the Markham Hydro Commission and most of the business community in Canada are concerned, I would like to refer to clause 36(1) which was referred to briefly in committee. It reads as follows:
The Corporation may, with the approval of the Minister, make such arrangements for transmitting mail in emergencies as in its opinion are necessary in the interests of the public.
Clause 36(2) goes on to provide:
Every common carrier in Canada when required by the Corporation shall carry mail and duly accredited employees of the Corporation on such terms and conditions as the regulations prescribe.
From an examination of that particular clause, it is very clear it does not cover the concern of the public and the business community in Canada with respect to what happens to their business activities in the event of mail stoppage.
The clause provides that the corporation "may", not "must", in its determination decide whether the steps are necessary and in the interest of the public.
I urged the minister to split the provisions in Subclauses (1) and (2) so that it would be very clear that the operative part of the clause was not designed to permit the corporation to insist upon an intervention in the affairs of common carriers to seize up the assets of common carriers and use them at their pleasure. I submit the arguments I advanced have not been met by the provisions of this clause.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, I do not want to recognize the hon. member calling it six o'clock because his time for intervention has ceased. I have been trying to indicate that to him by giving various little signals. I do want to recognize the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), who may be attempting to make sure that he has the floor at eight o'clock. That is a courtesy which I can extend to him, if he asks to be recognized.


Mr. John McDermid (Brompton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, I will now call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown will be recognized at eight o'clock provided, of course, that he is in the House at that time.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, if I may. Two Conservative members have already spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The remark made by the hon. member is quite correct. I had not seen the hon. member

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
previously rise, and for that reason I was recognizing hon. gentlemen in that order. Perhaps during the dinner hour the two hon. gentlemen can sort things out to their own satisfaction. If not, the Chair will clear the matter up.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at six o'clock the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) had the floor.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, being an old broadcaster, I should like to bring our television audience and the audience in the galleries today up-to-date on what we are debating, namely; the following motion:
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,-
We are discussing motion No. 1 which is the amendment to Bill C-42 introduced by my colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
My concern about Bill C-42 and the motion my colleague has introduced stems from the monopoly the post office seems to want to obtain through Bill C-42. This bill, as probably one of the solutions to the problems we have experienced in the post office, has been held up for a very long time by the post office, its unions, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and the government of the day. It has been said that once a Crown corporation has been established a lot of the labour problems, a lot of the mail delivery problems will disappear. The minister assured me when we met a week or so ago, that mail delivery will be available to new areas.
The hopes of the Canadian people are very high for this bill. They hope that once it is passed and a Crown corporation is established to run the post office, things will improve. I, for one, hope those desires come true. I must say that in the last year or so the complaints I have received from my constituents in Brampton-Georgetown regarding the post office have been very significant, and they have increased. The minister gave me an appointment and we discussed this problem. He is hopeful, I am hopeful and we are all hopeful in this House that once the post office becomes a Crown corporation, many of these difficulties will disappear.
If the problems persist, then I think it is fair to say to the Canadian people that they should have an option, and that the post office should not have a monopoly. People should have the freedom of choice about how they want their catalogues and their bills delivered. In my area, Consumers' Gas and the hydroelectric service hand deliver their bills as was touched upon by my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga
South, in the region of Peel the people want to be assured that this can be done if the post office fails them.
I promised to be brief tonight, Mr. Speaker. Since my friend from the New Democratic Party was a little aggravated that he was not recognized before me, and because there were some Tory speakers ahead of him, I promised to be brief. I will be, but there are two points I want to make.
First, I am concerned about small groups such as air cadets, boy scouts and girl guides who, for a small fee, in order to raise funds, will drop off a notice of a meeting of a community or political association in a community. I am concerned that they might get into a lot of trouble with the post office if we do not adopt motion No. 1, which is an amendment to define a "letter". This would allow groups such as these, and public utilities, to deliver their own material. I know in my area the youth groups participate in this service for community organizations which are then assured that delivery is made on time. I would hate to see young people deprived of that privilege.
I would ask the minister tonight to give an explanation to the House why, in good sense, he would not accept this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Mississauga South. I think it makes great sense. Surely the remarks of the hon. member for Yorth North (Mr. Gamble), the hon. member for Mississauga South and myself have convinced the minister that this amendment should be incorporated in the bill. It does not take anything away from the bill and it would assure those groups of a privilege they have enjoyed in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright).


Sidney James Parker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) on a point of order.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, it was identified that I would be the next speaker. I did step aside for the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member for Calgary North agrees, I will recognize the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). The committee sat long and tedious hours. Sometimes there were three committee meetings in a day to discuss the matters put forward in this bill. As a member of that committee, I resent the fact that we have to go through all this again tonight in order to discuss this amendment.
I should like to comment on the definition of postal mail. The fact of the matter is that we were lobbied by large groups, some of which sat through every committee meeting. For example, courier service delegations sat through those commit-
April 7, 1981

tee meetings hour after hour. We had Bell Telephone, CP Telecommunications; some 20 groups bringing in a joint resolution requesting that certain things be done. The right wing element of the Conservative Party fought for the courier services and the telecommunications groups, trying to make it wide open so they could get in and take the cream off the top; the profitable parts of the post office.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Sidney James Parker: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the former postmaster general, had to fight off his own party members on some of the things he knew must be included in this bill. He knew we must bring this bill forward.
The Tories do not want the Post Office to have a monopoly on the mail. The Tories agree with the president Mr. R. M. Macintosh of The Canadian Bankers' Association who came to the committee meetings. In the committee hearing on December 4, the president said:
We still need the post office for the really remote locations, but the rest we can service ourselves.
Is it not wonderful to cream off the top and say the Post Office and the taxpayers can serve other areas? They want the people of Canada to pay the cost of servicing their own locations which are unprofitable, while big businesses from the United States, our huge banks and telecommunications carriers skim off the rest of the market for themselves.


An hon. Member:: That's free enterprise.


Sidney James Parker: We reject this idea 100 per cent. We favour the legislation as it presently stands. If somebody wants to use a courier, then we will insist they pay a price greater than that charged by the Post Office. This will ensure that the truly urgent mail is sent by courier, if need be, but that these large U.S. firms do not steal money from taxpayers' pockets by skimming the market in our big cities, leaving the Post Office with the dregs.
I should point out that this amendment is not supported by all the Tories. The critic for that party, the member from Vancouver South, understands that we cannot kill the Post Office. Unfortunately, he has no control over the extreme right wing of his party. Men such as the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) and the hon. member for Mississauga South fought constantly with the official critic in committee. In fact, they spent more time fighting between themselves than they did speaking on the bill. Now the hon. member for Vancouver South has lost control of this right wing element and the right wingers are having a field day in the House.
We completely and totally disagree with this amendment. We urge quick and speedy defeat of it. If the Post Office is to continue to exist in Canada, it must be given the resources to do the job. Clearly, the members proposing this amendment would prefer to see a Post Office controlled by the U.S. dominated courier industry operating in Toronto and Montreal while the rest of the country goes without postal service
Canada Post Corporation Act
altogether. We reject that kind of amendment. Therefore, we will not be supporting it.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Weliington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in following the member for CUPW, I would like to speak briefly about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
When the minister was before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, he indicated to the committee he would be proposing this exact amendment now proposed by my colleague. As you will remember, concern was expressed by many members of various industries about the fact that the bill, as it is presently worded, gave the government great discretionary power to move into areas, to extend its monopoly in those areas without the agreement of Parliament.
The concern which members of the industry had was not that expressed by the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago. Rather, their concern was that the government would have the ability to move in, overnight in the dark, by regulation, acting alone, to extend its monopoly to take over elements of the telecommunication industry, which previously had been operating independently.
This is why representatives of various industries came before the standing joint committee to make recommendations that changes must be made to ensure that the monopolistic power of the Post Office could not be extended simply by regulation. The Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments expressed concern even about the proposal made by the minister with regard to defining what is a letter. We felt the government's proposal should go further. We felt it was essential the industry and Canadians know that the government would not take that power to extend the Post Office monopoly, simply acting by regulation.
When hon. members recognize that other portions of the bill gave the government the power to move into areas where the Post Office currently is not at all involved, for example, in the electronic or optical transmission of mail, it was very clear then that what we would have with a postal Crown corporation, under the bill as initially worded, was a situation in which the monopoly would be extended further and further, beyond the delivery of the traditional forms of mail, into the newly developing technology on which Canadians will increasingly be relying to deliver messages from one place to another in this country.
What my colleague from Mississauga was trying to do in proposing this amendment was fill a gap left by the minister. When the minister left our committee, he left it with the impression that he would be moving this amendment himself. Yet when he got to the other committee, I believe it is the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, to which the bill had been referred, he dropped his intention to propose this amendment. He felt that it would be better for the bill to be mute in this area.
The concern of our committee was that the industry and Canadians would both be better served if there was greater

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
certainty as to what exactly were the intentions of the Post Office. This is why we felt that first it was essential the legislation be much more specific in terms of what the powers of the government would be; and, second, that it curb the ability of the government to act simply by regulation to extend the Post Office monopoly. What members on this side of the House are asking tonight is that the government give assurance to Canadians that it will put its cards on the table, that it will make it clear what the plans are it has for the Post Office and that the government will insure that if there are to be major changes in the way in which the Post Office is to function in the future, the government will come back to Parliament to ask for authorization for those changes. The government should make it very explicit to Parliament at such time that this is what the government intends to do, rather than simply asking for carte blanche to change the operations of the Post Office in future as it sees fit.
As hon. members can imagine, the ability in the bill as it was originally worded, for the post office simply to sweep in under its monopoly the whole of the telecommunications industry in Canada was a matter of great concern, not just within the industry, but to any Canadian who believes the whole function of Parliament is to defend the rights of Canadians, and the responsibility of Parliamentarians is to know what they are voting for at the time they pass enabling legislation. It is simply not good enough for Parliament to pass broad enabling powers for the government, allowing it to do things, by regulation, which have never been discussed in Parliament at the time the legislation was first considered. This is why our committee felt the government should have gone further than in fact it did.
I would like to refer hon. members of the House tonight to the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments. Unfortunately, there has been very little discussion of the report in the House of Commons. It will be useful as we discuss the amendment moved by my colleague from Mississauga to recognize what the standing committee recommended. On the first page of the sixth report, in paragraph 4, we read;
The Postmaster General has tabled amendments before the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee which would provide a statutory definition of "letter" and a specific exclusion from the Corporation's monopoly of "letters in the course of transmission by electronic or optical means".
Then the committee quoted what the amendment stated. Incidentally, it is identical to what has been moved tonight by the hon. member for Mississauga South.
The committee report goes on as follows;
These amendments have allayed many, but not all, of the fears of the telecommunications carriers. By reference to the definition of "transmit" in clause 2 of the Bill, the exclusion proposed by the Postmaster General in the new clause 15( 1 )(/i) amounts to an exclusion for letters in the course of their sending from one place to another by electronic or optical means. The Postmaster General was clear in his evidence before your Committee that he wished to maintain the postal monopoly over what are commonly called hard copies before and after transmission of any information or messages by electronic or optical means. However, he spoke in terms of letters as traditionally understood and not in terms of "letters" as they will now be defined.
By that, the committee was referring to the definition which is proposed by my colleague tonight.
The report also reads in part:
It appears that the actual electronic transmission of information cannot be a letter at all because it has no mass. However, it must be assumed to be included within the new definition of "letter" because it will be specifically excluded from the monopoly over letters by the proposed Clause 15(1 )(h). Your Committee notes that there are misgivings amongst telecommunications carriers about the precise effect of Clause 15(l)(h) on their ability to provide a fast and efficient service, including messenger delivery of hard copy, to those who wish to transmit messages by what is popularly known as electronic mail. Just when electronic or optical transmission begins and ends seems to be uncertain. However, as Clause 15 stands outside your Committee's terms of reference, it cannot deal further with this issue.
5. The proposed definition of "letter" to be inserted in Clause 2 of the Bill is governed by a test of mass. It is cast in terms of "mailable matter" having a mass of no more than five hundred grams. Such a mass limit will catch many time-critical items commonly sent by courier service or other speedy means, including vaccines; pharmaceutical and optical prescriptions; medical tests, including radioactive isotopes for cancer tests; mini-cassettes and so on. The definition will encompass all manner of legal, accounting, financial and data processing material and negotiable instruments and a great variety of small packets, unless they can be classified as "goods", a term which is not defined in the Bill although it appears in paragraph (a) of the definition of "letter".
Until regulations appear defining "mailable matter", it will not be known what precisely will be included within the statutory definition of "letter". This lack of clarity will produce uncertainty and apprehension in the courier and parcel delivery industries. The position of courier services under the Bill is a question of significance. It lies beyond your Committee's terms of reference but is deserving of study by the Committee properly charged with the carriage of the Bill. The term "goods" could be defined in such a way as to include many items now carried by couriers. Perhaps Clause 15(l)(e) could be redrafted to provide a certain basis for courier services dealing with urgent or time-critical matters having a mass of five hundred grams or less. The regulation-making power to be conferred by paragraph (e) of the proposed definition of "letter" could be used to solve many problems and to alleviate many concerns. In its Fourth Report for this Session (Statutory Instruments No. 10) your Committee recommended that regulations should be tabled and studied by the appropriate Standing Committees at the same time as they are studying the Bills which provide for their making. Without the regulations to be made under paragraph (e) of the definition of "letter" the definition of "letter" and the proposed exclusions in clause 15(1) are not sufficiently specific.
What the committee was talking about was the definition then proposed by the Postmaster General, then dropped by the Postmaster General and subsequently proposed by my colleague from Mississauga. Essentially our concern was this. We felt that the government had a responsibility to justify any request it was making to Parliament for regulation-making authority which could broaden the scope of the government's monopoly.
The issue is not whether there is going to be cream skimming by competitors of the Post Office. We on this side of the House believe that the Post Office can be an efficient corporation, can compete and can provide a service for Canadians second to none in the world.
Each of us, particularly those with rural constituencies, have people working in their Post Offices who are tremendously dedicated, who want nothing more than to see Canadians with first-class service, one that is second to none anywhere in the world. Our position has not been that there should be cream skimming by others, but rather that the Post Office should be
April 7, 1981

efficient in its operations and that it should not be able to extend its traditional monopoly into areas where traditionally it has not operated and where it has not justified to Parliament the need for extending that monopoly.
Members on this side of the House support the decision made by the Post Office to move into electronic mail. It is a positive decision, one which will obviously improve the services provided to Canadians in the future. There is no reason the Post Office should not modernize, and update its methods of delivery and transmitting messages from one Canadian to another.
Where we break with the members to our left is on the question of monopoly and whether Canadians should be coerced into using a postal service if they choose to use another service which in their judgment gives them better value for the money, or which provides a service which is not available from the Post Office. We on this side of the House say the Post Office should compete. We say go ahead, move into those new areas where traditionally the Post Office has not been but where it is necessary to be involved with a modern delivery service if we are to meet the needs of Canadians. However, at the same time the Post Office moves into those areas, let us not use the definition section of the bill or the regulation-making authority within the bill to extend the traditional Post Office monopoly to new areas never justified to Parliament. That is the fight members on this side have been making on this bill. Indeed, it is the concern expressed within the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
There are a number of motions to amend the bill before the House tonight. I do not want to protract my remarks this evening and prevent us from getting to other motions that have been made, and which are equally important, but I want to indicate that I support the motion by my colleague. I feel it would be in the interest of Canada and the Post Office if the motion proposed by my colleague was adopted by this House.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to support Motion No. 1 relating to the Post Office in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I want to comment briefly on the remarks by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) who suggested that many members of the Conservative Party are against the Post Office becoming a Crown corporation. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am at odds with the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke when we consider the types of things he wants the Post Office to do.
It is fair to say that most of us recognize the change in service of the Post Office over the last 15 to 20 years. We think this will be a tremendous improvement in the Post Office. Perhaps a little later I can relate directly to that.
On May 16 of last year, I presented a motion under Standing Order 43:
That the Postmaster General and this government direct the Post Office to immediately commence regular mail service in all areas of Calgary North where delivery has been lacking for a period longer than 60 days.
Canada Post Corporation Act
As is usual, the Liberals all voted against that motion, even though there are many members on all sides of the House who are aware of the deplorable conditions within the Post Office. In my riding the situation is even more desperate than in others.
On June 5 I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) when service would be improved in Calgary North. I pointed out that there are 4,000 homes in Calgary North without any type of postal service. There are very few ridings with 4,000 homes without any type of postal service.
During the adjournment debate on June 26, I discussed some of the intricate problems in the postal system in Calgary North. I pointed out to the Postmaster General some of the ridiculous situations that were evident. To briefly review those situations, there are four areas in Calgary North: Beddington Heights, Ranchlands, Edgemont and Hawkesworth. They are all without any type of postal service. Those people have to travel up to five miles a day to get their mail. I did not receive a satisfactory reply in the adjournment debate.
The situation is briefly this, and this was related to the Postmaster General, the Deputy Postmaster General, the regional postmaster, all individuals within the Post Office in a position of authority. It has to do with the high costs. We prepared an analysis and we convinced them, at least I think we did, that it would cost a quarter million dollars to correct the situation in Calgary North. It was costing more than that for the gas which the residents of Calgary North were using just to go to and from the Post Office.
Unfortunately, the Postmaster General has done little. I think we have been very generous with him in that we have not burdened him during this time when he was trying to convert the Post Office with numerous problems creeping up from day to day. When the Post Office becomes a Crown corporation we will not be prepared to stand aside and watch these problems continue. We expect to see some improvement. This relates very well to the area covered by motion No. 1 put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South. We are very concerned that the community clubs, the department stores and the various community associations which wish to deliver their magazines, bulletins and invoices will still be allowed to do so. This motion is dedicated to that end and we support it very strongly.
There are two main unions involved in the Post Office, the Letter Carriers' Union and CUPW. There is no question that these two unions are at odds with each other, as many of us have related to the Postmaster General. This is something our friends to the left, the NDP, are not prepared to discuss. They are embarrassed by the fact that these two unions are not getting along. There is no question in Calgary North that this is very evident, and the Postmaster General continues to ignore the problem. If we do not include this motion within the parameters of the bill we will be enlarging on the situation since many of these community associations and other volunteer groups will be left high and dry. They will have to rely on
9046

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
the Post Office and they will not have the funds to pay for its services.
1 would like to mention briefly the Liberal record with respect to the Post Office. To say that it is sad is an understatement. There have been 14 strikes in the Post Office since 1918. All but three of these have taken place under the Liberal government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Hopefully, by converting the Post Office into a Crown corporation we will alleviate some of these problems. Certainly, some of these problems relate to the fact that the Post Office labours under three federal departments, the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board and the Department of Public Works. There is no question in the mind of most people who understand the Post Office that this creates a serious problem. The situation is certainly not made easier by the difficulties which exist between managements and union within the Post Office system.
During the presentation of the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) left out the figures covering the losses for the Post Office this year. It is estimated that the Post Office will lose between $400 million and $500 million. Somewhere along the line we would like to know how this will be paid for. I believe I am correct when I say that during the committee meetings it was mentioned that the price of mailing a letter will have to rise to as high as 34 cents. We received little response from the Postmaster General with respect to this subject. He seems to think that the costs will all be covered. Will the Post Office be forgiven its debts? Is this how this Crown corporation will be created? The Postmaster General is silent with respect to these questions, and was for most of the discussions in committee. The costs to run the Post Office have been climbing at an astronomical rate.
In the motion before us we are not suggesting that any of the services or revenues of the Post Office be replaced at the present time. I support the motion which is before us tonight. I hope all members of the House will support it. When the bill is voted upon I think all of us will give it due consideration, but we will not consider it in isolation. We need to consider the bill in conjunction with the excellent motions which will be coming before the House in the next couple of weeks.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very closely to the comments which hon. members have made so far on motion No. 1 aimed at amending the act to establish the Canada Post Corporation by adding the definition of a letter in clause 2. I think it is important to remind hon. members at this time that the question of whether the act ought to include a definition of the word "letter" was debated at length and very seriously when the bill was before the committee.
I must say that the type of intervention just made by the previous speaker does make me a little bit sad because, in fact, he jumped on that opportunity to dwell on several topics which
are altogether alien to motion No. 1. I respectfully suggest to him that a general debate on the Post Office has been held on many occasions and that, as recently as this morning, I appeared before a standing committee of the House of Commons where I answered a number of questions having to do with both over-all and specific postal operations in many ridings. Had the hon. member been able to be in attendance this morning, I would have been glad to answer his questions and dead directly with his concerns in his riding. In any event, this amendment introduced by my colleague opposite prompts me to make the following comments.

The suggestion that "letter" be defined in the bill came from several interests groups which were concerned that by allowing the corporation to define "letter", the Post Office could, in effect, by regulation, define its own monopoly. If such were to occur, these groups argue that such things as telex messages and intra-company letters could be trapped by the monopoly. This is why the solution advanced by many of these concerned parties was to have the term "letter" defined in the bill. I responded in committee by tabling a draft definition which, while being acceptable to many, was not perfect and was not wholly satisfactory for a number of reasons. First, time did not permit the adequate refinement of the definition. Even so, the difficulties in having an appropriate definition of the term "letter" are almost insurmountable. I challenge any member of the committee to come forward with an appropriate definition.
The hon. member who introduced this motion copied the definition I tabled in the committee, indicating it was not a perfect definition.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Your definition.


André Ouellet: I have to say that although the hon. member has more or less copied my definition, it is not better today than it was when I first tabled it.
The second reason it was not satisfactory was because, if the definition were in the act, it would be virtually immutable and could not be adjusted to take into account actual operating experience, changes in technology or changes in the marketplace. My draft definition was still under consideration when the committee proceeded to address the immediate legitimate concerns of parties who made representations to our committee by including additional exemptions to the exclusive privilege under clause 15(1) of our legislation. It was decided that as a further measure to protect the public from the corporation expanding its monopoly through regulation it would be a requirement that all regulations be pre-Gazetted. Such a requirement would serve to guarantee that notice be given of any regulation amendment and that there would be mechanisms for the public to express its views to any draft regulations.
I have to point out to hon. members of this House that it was unanimously accepted by the committee that a definition
April 7, 1981

of "letter" in the bill was neither necessary nor desirable. I repeat that it was unanimously accepted in the committee.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, no.


André Ouellet: I invite my colleagues to refer to the minutes of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, Issue No. 41 at page 70.
It therefore follows that by also including in the bill a definition of "letter" at this time there would be two solutions to the same problem, a situation which, I submit, would cast serious doubt on both ideas.
I believe the work of the committee in expanding the exceptions to the exclusive privilege and in building in the mechanism of pre-Gazetting of any regulation dealing with this aspect is the right way to move. The committee accepted the proposal when we dealt with it quite extensively in the committee, and I see no reason at this time to undo what we did so well there.
I appreciate that the hon. member who moved this motion had particularly in mind what would happen to private organizations' using their own people to deliver some messages. 1 believe we said in the committee, and I repeat this in the House, that any private organization which wants to use its own people to deliver its own messages or its own documentation is free to do so. That has never been forbidden. It is not forbidden by Bill C-42, and we do not contemplate forbidding it in the future.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question or two with respect to his statement concerning the amendment.
The minister indicated that in Clause 15 of the bill the exemption for permitting people to use their own forces to deliver memos or messages would allow utility companies to use their own forces to deliver invoices and, presumably, allow organizations to use their own members to deliver notices to their members. Is it the minister's suggestion that Clause 15(l)(g) gives that absolute permission?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question of the hon. member correctly, he wants to know if, rather than doing municipal work, employees of municipalities are asked by such municipalities to deliver letters, messages, or-


Mr. Ellis:: Hydro bills.


André Ouellet: -bills on their time. I see nothing in this legislation which prevents a private organization from using its own employees to make whatever deliveries it wants. What is at issue is using a private courier or an outside organization to deliver mail instead of using the Post Office.
We say that if a sender believes there is an urgency in the message he wants delivered, he has the option, quite legally, to use a messenger or a private courier to do it, as long as he pays an appropriate fee which we have defined as being a fee for an urgent delivery.
Canada Post Corporation Act


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what the minister says there would be nothing to prevent a hydroelectric power commission in a municipality from having designated people whose total job would be to deliver the invoices of the hydroelectric power commission to consumers. In committee I asked the minister whether a lawyer could deliver his bills, and I do not think I received quite that answer, but can the minister confirm right now that a public utility commission could have people employed to deliver its invoices, that being their job, and that that would not be considered an infringement of the monopoly of the Post Office?


André Ouellet: I recall very well that in the committee we answered the question of the hon. member with respect to a lawyer using his own secretary to deliver his documents. We said if he wants to pay that price, that is his privilege, and he could do it. If a private utility wants fo have its employees deliver messages rather than do other work, I think it would be paying a much higher price than the Post Office would be charging.
What I am concerned about is, as I have stated many times, that we are, in one way or another, trying to cream off the good business of the Post Office. If we are consistent in giving this new Crown corporation a chance to perform well, do a good job and provide Canadians with a good service, we should not find ways of depriving this corporation of its normal and natural clientele.
To answer the hon. member's question specifically, let me say that I believe we do not want to see municipalities, gas companies or electrical companies using courier services rather than the Post Office. As regards their use of their own employees, we have stated repeatedly that in carrying out its own business an organization may use its own employees.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should caution the hon. member that there is a limit to the number of questions which can be accepted in this way.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I think we should try to straighten out this particular issue. Is it the intention of the minister to allow a utility company to employ its own employees to deliver its invoices?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to tell the utility companies what to do, nor am I in a position to tell them how to deliver their invoices. They could follow a number of routes. We have allowed them three specific routes under this legislation. The simplest route for them to take is to use the Post Office, and it is the cheapest and best way. If they want to use private couriers to do their deliveries they will have to pay a price for doing it this way. If they want to use their own employees, that is another way of doing it. I am not here to tell them which way they should take. I am just here to say that the easiest way is obviously to use the Post Office.

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just one very short question to put to the minister, if he will accept it. The minister has not answered the question I put to him earlier. What about the special interest groups, such as boy scouts, girl guides or air cadets, who deliver messages for, let us say, a ratepayers' group in a certain area or a politician who is calling a meeting in his constituency; what happens to those individuals who in this way can earn a little extra dough so they can carry on their good works in the community? Are they automatically outlawed by this bill, or will they be allowed to carry on as they have in the past?


André Ouellet: 1 am glad the hon. member is asking this question because it was put to me in committee where I said quite categorically that this will no longer be permitted. If we want to help charitable organizations, there are many ways of doing so, and it should not be done by subsidizing such groups to the detriment of the Post Office.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized a large number of questions and points of order. I would prefer now to recognize the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) because this is not committee of the whole.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties the minister is encountering is that monopoly and efficiency are not coterminous. Giving the corporation a monopoly will not guarantee good service. As a matter of fact, when I wrote the minister on this point he wrote back saying that a monopoly has provided an assured source of basic revenue which, in turn, achieves economies of a scale that permits affordable rates. It provides a source of basic revenue, but does it provide basic service as required by the people? That is the question which 1 think thousands, and perhaps millions, of Canadians would like answered. Will they get the Post Office service they deserve and want through this type of monopoly? In his letter, the minister went on to say that it follows, therefore, that without the letter monopoly, higher rates, higher subsidies, lower quality of service, or all of these in some combination, would result. What I fear is that when there is a monopoly, unless there is a definite chain of command and some definite changes made in the structure of the Post Office, we will not get better service than we have today. Simply to change the name and retain the same personnel will not provide better service to the people of Canada.
Today, one of the major difficulties is that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), or the head of the Post Office in the civil service, cannot put his finger on the man or woman who is causing the delay. Consequently, they have gradually taken the authority away from regional post offices, until today almost everything is referred to Ottawa. Sometimes it takes months to get an answer.
One person in charge of a regional Post Office told me he had a very inefficient employee whom he wanted to fire, and he should have done so if that employee had done what he had which was alleged. Elowever, he could not fire him because he had to ask permission of Ottawa. The answer came from Ottawa, probably by mail, three months later giving him
permission to fire the man. Of course, by that time everybody had forgotten what the man had done. You cannot run a business that way. To simply give a monopoly to a group and to say to them, "You do not have to meet certain standards" is to ask for trouble because if this fails, the people of Canada will certainly not be very happy. They are not happy now with the Post Office service.
I want to make one or two other points which I think should be made. A member of the NDP, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), decried the fact that we want to discuss these matters. I tell him that we want to discuss them because our constituents want us to discuss them. People are concerned about the inefficiencies in our Post Office and they want some assurance that these are going to be eradicated. I want assurance that that will be done.
For instance, people who are on workers' compensation- surely members of the NDP will understand this-deserve to receive their cheques on time, and they too have obligations to meet. I checked with the Alberta Compensation Board because several pensioners were not receiving their cheques, and their grocers, their butchers and their milkmen were getting angry. They do not have extra revenue; they do not have bank accounts. They are on partial or total disability pensions. They require their cheques to meet their obligations.
Recently the compensation board indicated that on the fifteenth of every month in the province of Alberta-and I think this is so in other provinces-they mail out cheques. If the fifteenth happens to be a Saturday or Sunday, the cheques are mailed out on the thirteenth or fourteenth.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has referred twice to my speech. I think I am entitled to a point of order to rectify the situation. We are supposed to be dealing with an amendment with respect to definition. At the time of my comments I stated we were speaking about the definition of "mail". Also the minister stated in the House that it was a unanimous decision of committee to include this wording. I wish the member would stay on the amendment.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member would not make the same speech twice. This is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) raised a point of order concerning relevance to the amendment before us. I listened to the hon. member's point of order, and I invite the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) to note that the item before us is the definition of a letter.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, surely I must have an opportunity to make some illustrations so the hon. member of the NDP will understand. There is no sense in raising points of order; he talked about these matters himself.

April 7, 1981

The entire Post Office bill is designed to provide people with a mail service. 1 am dealing with the definition, but I cannot do so by saying definition, definition, definition, as the hon. member of the NDP wants. I am referring to illustrations to show the definition.
As I said before, these cheques are mailed out on the thirteenth and fourteenth of the month if the fifteenth happens to be a Saturday or Sunday. For many years pensioners have been receiving their cheques before the end of the month. Now they are receiving them on the fifth and the sixth of the following month. In fact one chap in Canmore told me that he did not receive his cheque until the eleventh of the following month. Surely the mail service should be better than that.
My point is that there must be a chain of command in order to find out who is responsible. I know it is not the Postmaster General, but somewhere between Edmonton and Canmore there is a hold-up. Certainly this is not doing the Post Office any good.
The old age pension department mails out its cheques on the twenty-first of every month. These cheques are arriving later, later and later. Sometimes it is the fifteenth of the following month before pensioners receive their cheques.
Certainly what the minister was saying about a monopoly and so on was fine, but when the service is inefficient it is time for the monopoly to end. I impress this upon the hon. minister.
I should like to refer to one or two other examples. A letter was mailed in Montreal on February 16. It arrived at its point of destination in Calgary on March 12. Where was it? I travel from Ottawa to Calgary every weekend; it takes me 3.5 hours. If there happens to be some airplane trouble, it can take as much as seven hours, but never 24 days. 1 could go by bicycle faster than that. It is not efficient.
I would like to refer to another matter which bothers many people. One postmaster in southern Alberta said he was losing half his business because it takes so long to send a letter to Edmonton, to Regina, or any place in the east. It is getting stalled some place. I think the place where it is getting stalled is in the Calgary regional Post Office.
Clause 14(1) of the bill reads as follows:
Subject to Section 15, the Corporation has the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting and delivering letters to the addressee thereof within
Canada.
The Post Office should cut the mustard. If it cuts the mustard, no sensible Canadian will pay three times as much to send a letter. Business people do not spend money in that way, unless there is something wrong somewhere. They want the best possible service for every dime they spend.
I should like to refer to one or two other points in connection with this matter. Insurance agents depend upon their letters getting to their clients and receiving their cheques on time. Otherwise, clients do not know whether they are covered by insurance, or the agent will cancel the policy if the premium does not arrive. It is a serious matter. An insurance agent in Turner Valley indicated that half her business disappeared. She had to resort to other means at additional cost in order to
Canada Post Corporation Act
stay in business. This is the point I am trying to emphasize. We do not want this exclusive privilege eliminated simply for the fun of it. It is because the Post Office is not cutting the mustard; that is the story. What about the inability to serve one's client? If I am in business, I have a responsibility to my client whether I am in insurance or whatever. If I am an insurance agent who must notify a client that his house or furniture is insured, it is sometimes necessary to convey this message over several miles. It is not always a case of walking down the street, because agents cover large territories. If they cannot notify their clients, their businesses go to rack and ruin because of a third party which makes it impossible for them to do their jobs. If that is the case, why should there not be an alternative? Why should there be an exclusive monopoly? I suggest that is simply to get the cream.
One or two members said that they were not trying to take money away from the Post Office. If the Post Office can do the job, anyone will spend 17 cents or even 30 cents on a letter, rather than $4 for a courier. People must have their letters delivered. If we want an efficient postal service, the chain of command must guarantee that these letters will reach their destinations within reasonable lengths of time.
The sad thing is that small businessmen are affected by the service, not the larger organizations such as Calgary power or Canadian utilities. They can afford other methods, but small independent businessmen can least afford to ride out prolonged mail disruption to the orderly cash flow of their businesses.
England and the United States have made provision for this type of thing. For example, in the United States legislation exempts the delivery of stocks, bonds, insurance documents and similar instruments. This can be done in the United States where the mail service is not undergoing the pains of agony suffered in Canada. Why would it be so wrong to do it here, if it means better service?
If the Post Office can deliver the goods, no one in his right mind would pay extra money for courier service. In the United Kingdom, proposed amendments to the legislation provide exemption for "time sensitive" documents which could include such matters as insurance policies.
The bill will not give satisfaction. There will be continual difficulty and trouble in this country unless we provide an alternative, when the Post Office does not or cannot cut the mustard and deliver the mail within a reasonable time. I think that is the important point we must emphasize today. All we are asking is that the Post Office do its job to move the mail and get it to the place where it is supposed to be within a reasonable time. An assured source of basic revenue does not guarantee better service. The monopoly the hon. minister mentioned will not guarantee better service. As a matter of fact, I am afraid that giving an exclusive monopoly would tend to make some types of employees very careless. They might say, "We have got the monopoly. Why should we care? We do not have to compete. We do not have to cut the mustard any more. We have got the monopoly as it is." That attitude is

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
found too frequently in the Post Office today. If it was not for couriers, there would have been a lot more bankruptcies in this country. The point I am making is that an amendment to this section is required. All we are asking the hon. minister to do is to provide an alternative if and when the Post Office does not cut the mustard.
Another point is that during prolonged strikes, such as we have had, we must have some other alternative. There is simply no way of carrying on, or to even ensure that pensioners or people on compensation receive their cheques. The Alberta government, when I happened to be there, had to set up its own courier service in order to get the cheques out. I suppose the Canadian government did the same thing.
Again, what we are asking is that we should give the Post Office every opportunity to cut the mustard, but, if it does not, let us not make this act so exclusively monopolistic that we will then not be able to do anything about it.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-42 we are addressing tonight is of particular interest to me. My father started working for the Post Office in 1951. Of course, when I came along in 1952 I had many a nap on a sack of mail or on a number of bags of mail. One could say that I have grown up with the Post Office business as we know it. I am familiar with a lot of the work which the postal people and staff do. I am familiar with the fact that many of them work hard and seriously do attempt to deliver our mail in an efficient manner and to ensure that all of us get the service we require. They demonstrate a lot of care for people, particularly when we consider places like my riding up in the north country where a lot of people are very dependent on the mail. Some of them, up until recently, have not had TV or radio. Items such as catalogues which arrive on their doorstep are important, significant and mean a great deal in their lives.
I think all of us look forward to the mail. It brings us good news; of course, it brings us bad news as well. We are always familiar with the many problems faced by the department. I am familiar with them, having grown up so close to it: problems with budget, problems with adequate staff, and certainly problems with adequate facilities. All of those problems affect the service, and affect the ability of the staffs in these small Post Offices to carry on their jobs.
There are a number of problems facing the Post Office today. I do not think this is a particularly new situation. In fact, looking back in history, one of the things I have heard is that if it had not been for the Post Office, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker's second wife would have been his first wife. So, the Post Office has had these problems for a long period of time. As I have mentioned, they do affect our lives to a great extent.
One of the problems we are certainly faced with today, and one of the reasons this bill must be explored and looked at which has been mentioned tonight, is that the Post Office has to deal with so many different departments of government in order to run efficiently. These include the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board and public works. We have
all heard the expression that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. We are familiar with that and the problems it creates. We know the difficulties we are faced with when we must deal with so many different departments. It is impossible to have efficient planning, it is impossible to make efficient decisions, and it is virtually impossible to provide efficient service. Therefore, this is one of the significance and important matters to which this bill addresses itself. We certainly should be looking at it.
Another problem the Post Office has been faced with and I refer to the annual report of the Post Office for 1980, is that if we look at the charts, we will notice that there is a large gap between revenue and the expenditures. The Post Office has been losing money. I understand that one of the goals of Bill C-42 is to face that problem and attempt to make the Post Office financially self-sufficient. At that point we must immediately ask ourselves a number of questions.
In my area, as I have mentioned before, the Post Office is not only a very important part of our business lives, but also our social lives. When one starts talking about financial efficiency, what comes to mind are some of the problems we have been facing in the past that have given us difficulty. We then begin to wonder, when this efficiency comes in, whether the things we have been promised today, the things we have been looking at and working on so hard, will be threatened with cut-offs.
Let me just refer to a few communities in my riding. In the small town of Wembley, a lease has expired. New facilities are needed there. What will happen there? Will that lease not be fulfilled? Will that lease cease to exist? Will those people have to drive 30 miles to the next town to get their mail? Already it has been an on and off situation like a child with a flashlight. One day we might have a lease and the next day we might not.
One could look at the city of Grande Prairie which has been experiencing a tremendous amount of growth. As a result, postal services and facilities have fallen far behind what is needed. There are facilities for a population of maybe 10,000 to 12,000 when, in fact, facilities are needed to service a city population of over 20,000 and a large surrounding area. This is another problem we must consider. In other communities, Grimshaw, McLennan and so on, the problem is always the same. There is a serious shortage of space and facilities. As a result, their service is suffering.
We must consider whether Bill C-42, which would change the Post Office to a Crown corporation would, in effect, or in fact contribute to efficiency, whether it would provide better service and a situation which is greatly improved over the present. The key, of course, is the word "service". We have not been satisfied in the past. Certainly we hope this will work, but we expect to have a number of continuing problems.
In dealing specifically with the motion we are discussing tonight, I want to first refer to the clause which says: "-any item consisting solely of a newspaper, magazine, book or catalogue of goods"-. In our area of the country, we have a number of small newspapers. This seemingly insignificant little clause has a lot of impact on people up there. We have many newspaper people who are greatly affected by the definition of
April 7, 1981

"mail", and the definition of a "letter". In fact, it will determine to a great extent whether they can remain in business, whether their operations will remain viable or they will perhaps be forced to go into bankruptcy or to cease publishing the papers. That is an important industry in our area where three or four small newspapers are faced with serious problems. The motion introduced by my colleague would be a significant factor in helping us address the situation. Even though it may not be significant in the larger sense, in terms of my riding and the smaller newspapers it is a very important facet of the motion.
Subclause (b) is also very significant. We do not have to look very far in any community to see that boy scouts, girl guides, church groups, community groups all depend to a large extent on their ability to deliver flyers of various types and mailings that allow them some sort of revenue for their organizations. The minister has indicated that perhaps that is not so important, but something we tend to forget when we get involved in debating a bill and considering the efficiency and the mechanics of the matter is that people are involved. When we consider the bill in its entirety, one of the matters we must address is service and how it will affect the people in all of Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say I support this motion. I think it has a very significant impact on the bill and certainly will have a significant impact on the future and the public perception of the Post Office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion presented by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) let me first pay him tribute. In the time I have had the opportunity to serve with him in the House of Commons, I have found him to be a very active paliamentary and an individual who truly represents the views of his constituents with deep concern for them. I am pleased to support motion No. 1 which is one of twelve before us at report stage of Bill C-42, a bill to transfer the Post Office to a Crown corporation.
Tonight is a night of tributes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to pay tribute to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and convey to him my thanks on behalf of the residents of my constituency for allowing us to have additional mail carriers in the various growing areas of the constituency that so badly need them.


John Horton McDermid: What! Why can't I get that in my riding?


Peter Elzinga: I should like to extend to the minister the gratitude of all those residents who have received additional mail carrier service.
We all hear horror stories about the Post Office. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) have given illustrations of the many difficulties individual constituents face when dealing with the
Canada Post Corporation Act
Post Office. I hope that Bill C-42 will alleviate some of these difficulties.
Many sectors of our society rely on the Post Office in the conduct of their business. The small business sector, for instance, relies very heavily on the Post Office in order to develop cash flow. It is important that confidence in the Post Office be restored.
Although I am going to be critical of some aspects of the Post Office, I think it is important that we pay tribute to those individuals who make the Post Office what it is. I should like to pay special tribute to the regional manager in Alberta. On many occasions I have contacted him and he has been most helpful in dealing with the problems of individual constituents or the problems of district post offices. Our many mail carriers perform a very vital function, as the hon. member for Peace River pointed out. I should also like to pay tribute to the local postmasters.
Prior to making the Post Office a Crown corporation I hope the government will lift the freeze on mail carrier service. This drastically effects areas that have experienced high growth rates. In my constituency there are a good many high growth areas outside the city of Edmonton. According to Treasury Board regulations the Post Office is an essential service. Individuals who pay taxes to the Government of Canada deserve this essential service and I hope the government will see to it that taxpayers receive the mail carrier service they are paying for.
Some hon. members have indicated they think we in this party oppose this legislation. The record will show that when we formed the government and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was postmaster general we introduced legislation similar to this, and today we are more than happy to endorse a bill to turn the Post Office into a Crown corporation.
If I were the head of a Canadian government and wanted by one single act to win back public confidence in Parliament and government, I would take every step necessary to restore the postal system to its former efficiency. Complaints about inefficiency in the Post Office are too numerous to be dismissed. Each of us has an obligation to represent constituents in the House of Commons and I am sure each of us has a list of examples of mismanagement in the postal service.
This is not an attack on the efficiency and dedication of smaller Post Offices and rural carriers in Canada. All of us can testify to many acts of kindness and neighbourliness performed without fanfare by numerous rural mail drivers and couriers. What bothers me is that despite increased mechanization and rates of all classes of mail, the delays are getting longer. The hon. member for Bow River gave illustrations of individuals who receive their pension cheques late and my constituency secretary has often complained that her cheque for carrying out such a vital service arrives days late.
In addition to public frustration, many business people are taking drastic action; they have stopped using the Post Office facilities, transferring their patronage to the new private couri-

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
er service which has sprung up to fill the vacuum. A front page story in The Financial Post says that "millions of dollars of potential Post Office revenue is being diverted to private parcel and letter carriers because these companies can offer the one thing the Post Office apparently cannot; reliability." What a sad abdication of responsibility by a once proud service which 50 years ago inaugurated air mail service down the mighty MacKenzie River delta because the horses and dog sleds took too long.
The Post Office used to rank with the armed forces and the Department of Transport as a basic function of government, a visible and tangible return for our taxes. Although breaking even was a goal of the Post Office, it was never a primary obligation. As citizens we expected service, paid for in part when we bought postage stamps, the balance coming from general revenues of the government. I cannot believe there are not thousands of dedicated postal employees who have a sense of duty and want to get the mail to its destination. Unhappily, their ethic is not shared by all their colleagues. It is both sad and paradoxical that in an age when almost anything seems possible, a basic right of citizenship, an efficient postal system, is beyond the competence of our government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It is at this point that perhaps the Chair should bring to the attention of hon. members a procedural difficulty with the bill as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on
Miscellaneous Estimates.
The bill was reported by the committee with an amendment to Clause 6, increasing the board of directors from seven to nine.
It is obvious that one of our most basic and fundamental procedures is that only a minister of the Crown may originate legislation which proposes a charge upon the revenue and this can be done only when accompanied by a recommendation from the governor general. Indeed, amendments made in committee cannot go beyond the terms of the original recommendation. The amendment which was adopted by the committee offends the financial initiative of the Crown and, therefor, I must rule it unacceptable.
Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) to all intents and purposes has the same effect as the amendment I have just ruled unacceptable and this motion is accompanied by the appropriate Royal recommendation. I will now propose motion No. 2 to the House which is as follows:


André Ouellet: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-42, 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 amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 45 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"man, the President and nine other directors".


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to comment. I know that my friend will agree with me that what your Honour has said is, of course, appropriate and proper, because that is the rule. However, I would like to advise the House, as my friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) knows, this particular motion was moved by myself at committee with the consent and concurrence of the Postmaster General.
I want to record my appreciation to the House and to the Postmaster General for having introduced this motion and for now having it in a position which complies with the rules.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, we supported the amendment set forth by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in committee and we also recommend that it be supported here.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
If hon. members will permit me a moment, I would like to give them the benefit of the Chair's grouping for the remaining motions. Motions Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 seem to be procedurally acceptable and could be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 6 and 7 are similar in part and should be debated together with a vote on motion No. 6 disposing of motion No. 7.
April 7, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), the effect of which is to dissolve the corporation, based on Parliament sitting or not sitting in a particular year on a specific number of days, seems to be out of order on the ground that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
The long title of the bill reads:
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.
I refer the hon. member to Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's fifth edition which reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the bill, beyond its scope-
For that reason, regrettably I cannot accept the hon. member's motion.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You are suggesting that the motion is out of order because under Beauchesne it goes beyond the scope of the act. But we have to take a look at what the act says. The title of the act is "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."
This act establishes a Post Office corporation. All this particular amendment does it to provide that the Post Office corporation's life terminates in five years.
This is vital. This is precisely what the act is all about. How this amendment can be out of order on the basis of your Beauchesne's citation is certainly beyond me and beyond-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call to the attention of the hon. member that this is a decision of the Chair, and the decision cannot be appealed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-42, 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 amended in Clause 10,
(a)	by striking out lines 26 and 27 at page 6 and substituting the following
therefor:
"(2) The board may appoint and fix the"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 29 at page 6 the following new
subsection:
''(3) The salaries fixed by the Board pursuant to Subsection (2) shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the Governor in Council for the Corporation."
He said: Mr. Speaker, you read the wording of the amendment which 1 proposed concerning this motion. Perhaps it might be useful to bring to the attention of the House, in explaining the need for this particular amendment, how Clause 10(2) reads at the present time. It is brief, and is as follows:
The board may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, appoint and fix the salary of such number of vice-presidents as it considers necessary.
The effect of the motion which I am moving tonight, if we are to amend the Post Office Act, would be first of all to strike out that particular subsection; in other words, the provision which says that the governor in council should be required to
Canada Post Corporation Act
approve the appointment and the salaries of various vice-presidents. The reference to the governor in council should be taken out. Then we would include a new clause which would specify that the governor in council would have the right to fix a maximum remuneration to be paid to vice-presidents of the Crown corporation.
It is probably a matter of some concern to members of the House to ask why is it necessary that we make this amendment. As hon. members will remember, under the Clark government we proposed a Crown corporation omnibus bill which was designed to bring into place a regime for accountability in financial management for Crown not just for the Post Office, but for all Crown corporations for which the federal government has responsibility. We had counted over 400 Crown corporations and there were a number more we believed existed but had not been able to locate at that time. We felt it essential to bring in an omnibus bill which would come to grips with the problems of management of Crown corporations and to try to bring into place some generalized rule by which all Crown corporations would be expected to abide.
That particular bill was introduced because of the fact there were numerous incidents which had taken place in the management of Crown corporations. They burst into the attention of the public because of decisions which had been made or actions taken which were embarrassing to the government, costly to the taxpayer and of great concern to Canadians. Consequently the Lambert commission, the public accounts committee and the Auditor General all expressed concern about the way in which Crown corporations were being run and the fact that the regime for accountability of Crown corporations was not adequate.
This is why within six months of assuming office the Clark government introduced in Parliament a bill which was designed to regularize the proceedings for Crown corporations. It was to ensure that Crown corporations, be they the Post Office or other Crown corporations, would have a regime of accountability and a regime of management which was standardized, available to all Canadians to see and which could be justified to the Canadian people.
We felt it was important that Crown corporations conduct their activities in a way which would win the confidence of Canadians, which would satisfy Canadians that their money was being well used and that the Crown corporations which were operating on a business basis were also being operated on a businesslike basis. This is why Bill C-27 was introduced on November 26, 1979.
When it came to the responsibilities of boards of directors, what we did was to spell out once and for all; first, the regime of accountability for these boards of directors in running their Crown corporations and coming back to justify their activities to Parliament and the executive; and second, we said that having built that regime and created a system of accountability and a system of management for Crown corporations which

April 7, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
was acceptable to Canadians and would meet the concerns of the Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee and the Lambert report, it was the responsibility of the boards of Crown corporations to manage the day-to-day affairs of those corporations. It was not desirable to have interference by the politicians in the day-to-day management of Crown corporations if they were to be run on a businesslike basis.
The reason the government has proposed this Crown corporation legislation to turn the Post Office, which is currently a department of government, into a Crown corporation is they believe it is necessary that the Post Office be run on a much more businesslike basis. The form for a Crown corporation and form of organization is one which would allow a much better system of management within the Post Office. It would allow the managers within the Post Office to do their job free of interference, free of a regime of accountability which at the present time is so fractured as to make it difficult to have any sense of coherence or orderliness about the running of the day-to-day activities of the Crown corporation.
We on this side have indicated that while we have concerns about various elements of this bill, the concept of a Crown corporation for the Post Office is one we have long supported. Having accepted that principle, we believe it is essential that the board of the new Crown corporation should be charged with the responsibility of the day-to-day management of the corporation. The board should have the right and the responsibility to run the corporation and to make business decisions. Otherwise they have no function.
If we were to take that away from the board and say that the governor in council, the cabinet or the postmaster general is to make the day-to-day decisions for the board of the Crown corporation, then it is logical to ask what in fact is the function of the board if it is going to have that sort of interference on a day-to-day basis.
As the bill is worded at the present time, the board would in theory have the right to appoint vice-presidents of the Crown corporation. In theory, it would have the right to set the salaries of its vice-presidents at a level which was acceptable. However, that decision to appoint and to set the salary for a vice-president at a particular level would have to be justified. They would have to win the approval of the Governor in Council, namely the cabinet.
What is of concern is how this would operate on a day-today basis. What concerned the Crown corporation's task force, which laboured over this whole issue of the structure of a Crown corporation, has been labouring over it for several years and brought recommendations to government, which were accepted by the Clark cabinet and led us to introducing the legislation, was the practical application of the wording found in the Crown corporation bill here.
What will happen is the board of directors of the Crown corporation will find themselves hamstrung. They could not make business decisions about the management and the Crown corporation without the approval of the governor in council. The authority to hire and set salaries on a defacto basis would reside with the politicians, the governor in council and the cabinet. Appointments would be made nominally by the board
of the Crown corporation but in fact would be made by the cabinet.
This is of concern to Canadians and was of concern to those members of the Crown corporation's task force and the Clark government. We believe it is important that Canadians have confidence in the management of Crown corporations. It is essential that the board be charged with the responsibility for choosing people who could run the corporation on a businesslike basis and receive salaries commensurate with the responsibilities they are asked to undertake.
If we have the governor in council, which is the cabinet, making these appointments through the back door, we will find the government patronage machinery going into effect. Instead of having people appointed as vice-presidents who are of a calibre we would expect in the private business world, after the approval of the board of directors, we would have defeated candidates or friends of the government appointed to what could be fairly lucrative jobs as vice-presidents of Crown corporations.
That is no basis for starting off this new Crown corporation if we want Canadians to have confidence in the activities of Crown corporations and if we want peace within the Crown corporation. If I were working in the Post Office today and interested in having a senior job within the new Post Office Crown corporation, I would be very concerned about the provision in this bill, as it stands today, which would allow the government to make patronage appointments to vice-president positions.
Either the board will be charged with the responsibility of running the Post Office on a business-like basis or we will go back to the bad old days of patronage within the Post Office where the party in power does the hiring and rewards its friends. We do not want to see that happen. We want to see the Post Office run on an efficient and business-like basis.
Quite properly members could suggest that the governor in council have a right to look at the remuneration being given the individual to ensure it is not excessive. It could make sure it does not create a situation where the government is leading all other sectors, with a difference that is ridiculous. When we introduced the Crown corporation legislation and what we propose in the motion before the House to amend the bill, is that the governor in council should be allowed the right to set a ceiling beyond which the pay for vice-presidents will not be allowed to go.
That is entirely appropriate. It should be done publicly and in a way which does not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Post Office. If they want to set a ceiling, the amendment would propose to allow that to happen. However, if they want to get in and tinker and appoint a particular individual at a particular salary, we believe that is wrong. It should be the right of the board of the Crown corporation to make that management decision.
I do not want to protract discussion on this amendment. It is straightforward and is consistent with the Crown corporation bill introduced by the Clark government. On a number of
April 7, 1981

occasions I have asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) whether the government has the intention of introducing a Crown corporations bill which would be an omnibus bill similar to the one introduced by the Clark government.
On several occasions he promised that would be done. However, well over a year after having been sworn in as minister, we have yet to see any tangible evidence whatsoever of seriousness on the part of the government or an interest in bringing in the omnibus Crown corporation legislation.
When we put questions to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) in committee and at other times with regard to odious provisions in the Crown corporation bill for the Post Office which fly in the face and are directly contrary to the policy adopted in the Crown corporations omnibus bill proposed by the Clark government, the answer was that he does not know. He does not want to pre-judge what is going to be an omnibus Crown corporations bill.
If ever an omnibus Crown corporation bill is brought back to Parliament, and the minister is arguing he would prefer to have things remain the way they are now, and if the omnibus bill is to be brought in later, then we can amend this Post Office Act at that time and change the provisions then.
If we are concerned about getting the Post Office off to a good start we should begin properly. We should commence by following principles which are sound business principles, which will instil confidence in the public in the Crown corporation; principles which will make it easier for members of the Post Office today to have confidence in the way in which the Crown corporation will be managed and principles which will assure the people who will be asked to sit on the board of directors of the Crown corporation that they will have a job to do and be able to do it. If we are not to start on that proper footing then how can we expect Canadians, the employees of the Post Office and the board of directors of the Post Office to have confidence in the work we have done here?
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Clark government had introduced legislation which was an omnibus bill, the broad principles of which members of the government have stated they support. The government says it has made no decision to overturn those principles. The onus then is on the Postmaster General, if he wishes to depart from those principles, to justify why it is desirable that the cabinet, the politicians, be able to interfere in these day-to-day business decisions of Crown corporations. Why is it desirable to undercut the board of directors? Why is it desirable to have the cabinet, in essence, hire the vice-presidents of the corporation and, in essence, set their salaries? That is what this provision would allow. If none of these decisions could be made without the approval of the governor in council it would mean this power devolves back to the cabinet instead of residing with the board of directors.
I have heard no justification from the government, certainly not from the Postmater General, that public interest requires
Canada Post Corporation Act
that provision, which was put into the Crown corporations omnibus bill after considerable thought, after trying to respond to the concerns of the Public Accounts Committee, the Lambert Commission and the Auditor General, be struck down, and no justification for the suggestion that instead we should have a provision which would allow political patronage tinkering in the management of the Post Office.
In the absence of any such justification I think it is incumbent upon the House and the government to accept the motion I am proposing tonight. It is designed to do nothing more than ensure that the Crown corporation functions on a businesslike basis, and to ensure that the public and the employees of the Post Office have confidence in the decisions which are made in the appointment of senior executives of that corporation. The employees and the public are entitled to no less. I think the government, if it is concerned about building that kind of confidence, should be prepared to accept the motion I am proposing tonight.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. At one time in this country the Post Office, Her Majesty's mail service, was one of the finest institutions in this country. Everyone was proud of their Post Office and of the service it provided to Canadians. Unfortunately, today, it bears the brunt of jokes across this land.
If the government is serious about developing the Post Office into a Crown corporation so that it provides reliable service for Canadians, of which they can once again be proud, then the question of accountability is very important. In the amendment, motion No. 3, presented by my colleague, this concept is most important. It is one at which we would take a long, hard look.
Rumours are flying around that a certain gentleman from the city of Toronto who ran the transit commission there for many years, a former deputy minister in the provincial government, will be taking over the Post Office. Speaking on my own behalf, and not as a spokesman for any party, I hope that is true because I know of this man's ability. I know he would do an excellent job. I also know he would want to run the Post Office, the Crown corporation, as a legitimate business. He would not want the political interference which could very well take place if this amendment is not accepted.
For heaven's sake, if the Post Office is to be turned into a Crown corporation then let it operate as an independent business. If the government wishes to set guidelines, that is fine. But do not ask someone of the quality of this man to come to the government in order to ask permission to hire this individual and pay him that amount of money. Let him work within the guidelines set out by the government. Let him run the corporation as a business.
The presentation made by my colleague who introduced this motion was very well stated. I want to make this point most emphatically. Accountability is probably the most important aspect of this legislation-accountability to the people. If the aspect of political appointments to senior positions within the Post Office is brought in then that accountability is completely

April 7, 1981
Adjournment Debate
shot. Let the new president run this corporation within certain guidelines. I ask hon. members to accept this very well thought out proposal as introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would say very briefly in reply to the comments made by the two hon. members who have just spoken on the amendment that the Canada Post Corporation will be included in Schedule C of the Financial Administration Act, which means that the government and Parliament will clearly be interested for a while longer in seeing how the new corporation can operate, at least during the first few years.
In particular, it is to be expected that the government will have to make up for the operating deficit of the corporation, at least for a while. It is only after a certain time that we can hope to see the corporation become self-sufficient. Therefore, it is not improper, as such, that appointments should be made by the governor in council, at least for a while after the corporation starts its operation. In fact, the directors of several corporations included in Schedule C of the Financial Administration Act are appointed by the governor in council.
Moreover, the member who introduced motion No. 3 seemed to suggest that we should prevent the board of directors of the corporation from being one day able to manage the affairs of the corporation. For his information, I shall read very quickly paragraph 10(1) of the bill which states the following: The board of directors of the Post Corporation shall direct and manage the affairs of the corporation and may for such purposes exercise all the powers and perform all duties of the corporation. The board therefore has all the powers which the hon. member wanted the board and the corporation to have. The government is in fact giving to the board of directors full power to manage the new corporation.
I believe that the outline law on Crown corporations which will be introduced later on by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), will alleviate to a large extent the concerns expressed by the hon. member. I do not think that there is anything else for me to add, and I believe that this motion should not be retained. I suggest that it be defeated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, on March 23, 1981 my question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was phrased as follows:
It is my understanding that the government interprets the charter of rights in the proposed constitutional resolution as it pertains to the question of abortion as being natural.
What assurance can the minister give that Section 7 of the charter of rights will not be construed so as to make abortion, in the early phase of pregnancy, essentially a matter of privacy and thus protected from the sanction of the Criminal Code?
The Minister of Justice answered:
-the question has been debated at length in the committee. I have stated the position of the government in this matter, that the question of abortion is dealt with in the Criminal Code and in no way can the charter be used to interfere with the actions of this Parliament in relation to the Criminal Code and abortion.
My purpose in bringing this question to the attention of the Minister again is twofold. Incidentally, I want to correct the misspelling in Hansard of the key word in the question, changing it from "natural" to "neutral". This error cannot be corrected in the copies of Hansard.
However, the real question is this: has a woman, in early pregnancy, the right to seek abortion under the provisions of Section 7 of the proposed constitutional resolution, claiming invasion of her liberty so as to bypass the Criminal Code of Canada? Under the present Criminal Code abortion is illegal unless certain statutory conditions are fulfilled. The following question must be answered: Does Section 7 of the constitutional resolution in essence pave the way for abortion on demand as did the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Roe et al vs. Wade in 1973? In that historic supreme court of the United States decision, with two out of seven judges dissenting, the abortion laws of Texas and other states were struck down.
The reasoning of the court was as follows: under the constitution of the United States individual liberty was guaranteed. The court ruled that the concept of liberty included the concept of privacy and that the concept of privacy makes abortion in the early phase of pregnancy essentially a private matter and not a matter on which the state would enact a penal sanction. The court reached this decision only after making an arbitrary ruling that an unborn child has never been recognized in law as a person in the whole sense. In other words, the unborn child was not a human being and had no rights.
In drawing a comparison between possible decisions of the supreme courts of Canada and those of United States courts one must keep in mind the following considerations: First, there is a similarity between the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution and Section 7 of the proposed constitutional resolution; second, that in the United States courts the unborn child is not considered a human or a person until born; and third, that the Supreme Court of Canada has a tendency to follow the line of reasoning adopted by United States courts in many of their adjudications-for example, Dehler v. Ottawa Civic Hospital.
April 7, 1981

Once these facts are recognized, then the fear exists that if the Supreme Court of Canada in its wisdom follows the somewhat unrealistic reasoning of the United States court, Section 7 of the proposed constitutional resolution could be interpreted as interfering with the right of liberty of the mother, and on constitutional grounds the remedy of abortion could be upheld by the court and abortion on demand constitutionally authorized.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki) for bringing this question to the attention of the House. We have answered it several times, but that does not take away from its importance.
On March 5 this point was raised by the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche). I answered at that time, and I refer the hon. member for Hamilton West to the proceedings of that day. I extensively quoted various people who came before the joint committee.
On March 23, the hon. member for Hamilton West asked a question in the House, to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said:
-the question of abortion is dealt with in the Criminal Code and in no way can the charter be used to interfere with the actions of this Parliament in relation to the Criminal Code and abortion.
That is still the position of the government. The charter of rights will remain neutral on the position of abortion.
What is very important is that just last week, His Excellency Cardinal Carter put out a release in which he indicated he had received a long and courteous hearing from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He looked at the opinions of the senior counsel of the Department of Justice and he looked also at another reputable legal source. In conclusion he said:
-while I am not satisfied with the protection accorded the unborn, 1 do not consider the proposed charter as worsening the position and because of its many positive values 1 do not oppose its passage on moral or religious grounds.
I am sure this statement from His Excellency will go a long way in assuring the hon. member for Hamilton West that the opinion of the government is well founded and consistent.


HEALTH CARE-EXTRA BILLING BY DOCTORS-CO-OPERATION OF ONTARIO IN BANNING PRACTICE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on March 20, 1981 referred to the minister's indication that she planned to negotiate an end to extra billing under the medicare program. It has been indicated recently that the cost of extra billing runs to some $56 million a year and that at least $43 million of this is paid by people in the province of Ontario. I asked the minister at that time if she had any indication that the province of Ontario would be willing to co-operate in restoring medicare to its original concept of universality with-
Adjournment Debate
out extra billing. The minister stated she was hoping a consensus would develop and she felt that Ontario could take a positive lead in this regard. But, of course, at that time the provincial election had just taken place and she did not say what the response had been from the province of Ontario since the announcement that she planned to negotiate toward this.
It is important to remember that the federal government contributes through medicare and other transfer payments some $8 billion a year, so obviously the federal government has a big stake in ensuring that the health programs are run in an effective and equitable way.
It is interesting to note in the report of the Hall Commission, which was prepared in the past year, that Mr. Justice Hall indicated that extra billing denies access to many of the poorer elements of society and violates the principle of accessibility to all. He stated in the report that extra billing would create a two-tier system of health care, casting the poor, the aged and the unemployed into a category apart from those who can afford the extra charges. He also indicated that if extra billing is permitted, it would destroy the program over the years. He went on to say:
A solution must be found to solve the conflict, otherwise medicare as Canada has known it since 1970-71 can fail in time.
I think it is terribly important that the position of Ontario, because of its strategic nature, because of the large number of physicians in the province, be clarified, because if other provinces were to opt out, doctors would cross over the provincial boundaries and perhaps settle in the province of Ontario. With the large population of physicians in Ontario, this is not likely to happen.
It is interesting that the province of Quebec has not experienced opting out; it has an excellent service. British Columbia and Saskatchewan have indicated that they want to move toward the position of no extra billing. I hope the minister will receive a positive response from the province of Ontario.
Mr. Justice Hall indicated in his report that there must be a fair and equitable way for doctors to be paid. We all recognize this, and that mechanisms must be put in place in that regard which are fair to Canadians.
It seems to me we have had the best medicare system in the world in the past decade. Approximately 20 or 30 years ago many of us only dreamed of having a complete, comprehensive medicare program which was portable, accessible and covered the costs of doctors and hospitals. This is something of which people in the United States only dream of even today; the United States is the strongest, richest and most powerful nation in the world.
We should be moving to restore the medicare program to its previous greatness. We should protect the health of our rich and poor equally. We should give the poor, the young, the weak and the old equal opportunity to one of life's greatest blessings, good health.

April 7, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), I am glad he began his remarks with some of the recommendations of the Hall report.
On March 20, the minister indicated to the House that she agreed with the position taken by Mr. Hall in his report in which he said that extra billing was totally unacceptable. Extra billing is unacceptable to the minister. Justice Emmett Hall reported that there must be a reasonable compensation mechanism for payment to physicians. The minister also supports that viewpoint of Mr. Hall.
The minister would like to point out to the hon. member that when the renegotiations take place in 1982 for extra program funding, one recommendation she will make to her cabinet colleagues will be to take steps or conditionalities to ban extra billing, as well as to recommend that some mechanism be found to properly compensate physicians.
The minister would also like to point out that when the new Ontario government was elected on March 19, she was hopeful that through negotiations we would be able to attain some way in which to ban extra billings but at the same time find a mechanism to properly compensate physicians. The minister also agrees with the recommendation of the Hall report that if we were to take unilateral action on the banning of funds to provinces to stop extra billing, it would simply result in the disruption of services. In September 1980, she promised provincial ministers that we would tend to do it by consensus. We plan to meet with provincial ministers of health sometime over the next two or three months. Hopefully by consensus we will reach a method by which to ban extra billing but at the same time to find some mechanism which properly compensates physicians.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I first directed my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) on February 3. It related to his visit with General Haig which took place just a few days previous. Also it related to the credibility of such a meeting and how they discussed the North-South question at that time.
Since that time, two months have passed and many events have taken place in relation to the situation in El Salvador and to the development of the north-south question. In that time, too, we found out much more about the credibility of certain matters which had been used as a basis for making judgments, but which put Canada into an unfavourable light, not only within Canada, but also within many other countries in the world, in our relationship to central America and, in particular, El Salvador.
Last Monday, when we watched in horror as President Reagan was shot down in Washington, I was struck by another factor of the whole story which was unveiling itself at that
time. It was the inaccuracy of the news we were receiving about what was taking place with the president. This was an event being witnessed right there with television and radio people and commentators. Yet during the course of those first three or four hours we were told the President of the United States had not been hit, that the President of the United States was fine, and that the President of the United States was joking when he went into the hospital. We then found out that the President was hit, and then that the President was hit severely and was in a dangerous situation. At the same time, from the same news sources, we were finding out that James Brady, the press secretary, had been hit seriously, that he had died, then that he had not died, that he was getting better, and then that he was going to recover.
The reason I make this point-and that was a very recent experience with so many people in this country who watched that happening-is that right there, in that very limited space, they had difficulty finding out what was going on. These people who were involved very closely in that whole incident, as the power structure changed in Washington, and everything else occurring after the incident, could be the people who might cause our next atomic war. That kind of inability to be on top of the truth of the situation really made me afraid.
Canada's jumping-in almost immediately in El Salvador in order to follow the pattern of the United States in that country or at least give it a kind of moral dimension that it was not wrong, is based on what I feel has been very inaccurate information. Our government must be very careful about checking out its information as a situation like this proceeds, particularly if we are to have any credibility whatsoever in the North-South matter. The North-South matter, which I believe our country and our government wants to enter into seriously has a great deal to do with credibility. Are we really serious about the poor of the world, or are we just sufficiently serious that we will follow what the United States decides to do in a particular part of the world on a policy which may be founded on very poor information?
A publication printed in Toronto, gives good information about Latin America in general. It is called "Central America Update", and it is published jointly by the Latin American Working Group and the Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice. They followed this El Salvador question and reported that:
In late February, the U.S. State Department released a special "white paper" titled "Communist Interference in El Salvador". This white paper is the first major foreign policy statement by the Reagan administration, and reflects its determination to "draw the line" against "international communism" in Central America.
While President Reagan proclaims that El Salvador will not be another Vietnam, this white paper paints a picture of the world that is almost identical to the one that lead us into the Vietnam War. The white paper itself is similar to another white paper put out by the State Department over a decade and a half ago to justify U.S. intervention in the Vietnam conflict. In 1965, the State Department released "Aggression from the North: the Record of North Vietnam's Campaign to Conquer South Vietnam". This document on Vietnam, like the Salvadorean white paper, blamed the war raging in the south on external forces and was used to argue for a massive buildup of U.S. forces in South Vietnam.
April 7, 1981

American people are afraid of what is now happening. Mr. Brady, before he was wounded during the attempt on the President, had just released a report which stated that of the letters and mail being received by the State Department, over 25 to one were against what the Americans were doing in El Salvador. Our Secretary of State for External Affairs received this information from General Haig.
There have been inquiries about Haig's understanding of the situation in El Salvador. One such was published in the Globe and Mail on March 31 last. It is a report from the New York Times Service written by Anthony Lewis. General Haig was questioned about the death of four American nuns, one of the key factors causing interest among the American people in this little Latin American country. I shall quote from the article to some extent as follows:
The Secretary of State was testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He said: "I'd like to suggest to you that some of the investigations would lead one to believe that perhaps the vehicle that the nuns were riding in may have tried to run a roadblock, or may accidentally have been perceived to have been doing so, and there'd been an exchange of fire and then perhaps those who inflicted the casualties sought to cover it up. And this could have been at a very low level of both competence and motivation in the context of the issue itself. But the facts on this are not clear enough for anyone to draw a definitive conclusion."
That testimony would very clearly go against what the former U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, said. He blamed right wing ideologues in the Reagan admistration for forcing him out of the foreign service. White claims his troubles began when he criticized the Salvadorean investigation of the rape and murder of the four U.S. missionaries. He said that if the price of keeping a job is to participate in the continuing cover-up of those responsible for this barbaric act, that price was too high for him to pay.
Salvadorean human rights workers report that just days before the murders, two of the American women had met privately with White to provide photographic evidence of the security force's complicity in the rampant violence.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that to my mind, when speaking about that incident General Haig, completely misinterpreted it. I am very much concerned that our government has accepted the word of this person when deciding how to direct our policy in that part of the world.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, through you I
Adjournment Debate
should like to ask the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) for clarification. I realize that he read a lot of statements. I recognize the point you made but is there a specific question you want to have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, will the hon. parliamentary secretary please address his remarks to the Chair.


Royce Herbert Frith: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member for Saskatoon East if he could clarify the question. In all the points he made in the last seven or eight minutes I think I missed the gist of his question.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to continue to accept this kind of information without what I would call a credible base for events in Central America, or is he going to find other information which would be more relevant to what is actually taking place?
My point is that unless we establish credibility about our own government and not just fall in behind the United States in this particular situation, we will lose our standing in the eyes of the poor in developing countries all over the world. The poor in Latin America realize that what happened there-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has extended a certain amount of latitude, but the hon. member has exceeded his time. The parliamentary secretary has a brief period in which to reply.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, with respect to questions about Canada's policies toward El Salvador, I have been instructed to remind hon. members that the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave a definitive statement on Canadian policies toward El Salvador on March 9, 1981. No substantive change has occurred in Canadian policy since that time and I would refer hon. members to that statement for specific information.
Other than that, the rest of the comments prepared by the department have absolutely no relevance to the question put by the hon. member for Saskatoon East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Wednesday, April 8, 1981