1981-04-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent necessity. It appears now that the rumours projecting a takeover of Gulf Canada by the Canadian National Railways Pension Trust Fund are closer to the truth than ever thought before. To ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not ripped off, as they were in the Petrofina takeover, and to guarantee CNR pensioners get fair treatment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport to launch an immediate investigation into CNR's plans to purchase Gulf Canada Ltd. and also that he investigate the financial relationship between the CNR pension trust fund and CN's investment practices.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS TIMETABLE FOR PREPARATION OF BRIEFS FOR SUBMISSION TO PARLIAMENTARY TASK FORCE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that this closure-crazy, artificial-deadline-setting government is now giving the groups who represent disadvantaged people, health care, and post secondary education in this country 11 days, at most, of public notice to prepare and call the meetings necessary to decide whether they want to present a brief to the parliamentary task force on federal-provincial Fiscal arrangements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House direct the task force to have an early meeting with the chairmen of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, so that they can learn first hand of the difficulties which short, artificial deadlines pose for concerned and committed Canadians who have a contribution to make to our legislative process.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the government's failure to live up to the promise that the Herd Maintenance Program's appeal board would be given the authority to amend the rainfall and production criteria of the program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the government extend the appropriate authority to the appeal board so that the inequities caused by the government's arbitrary rainfall and production criteria can be cleared up and so that the many western livestock producers who have not qualified for the assistance payments because of these unfair criteria can be treated with compassion and consideration by board members familiar with the problems caused by last year's drought.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas I issued a first term report card last June which showed that the minister of energy had failed to keep the Liberal 1980 election promises, whereas the minister has introduced his National Energy Program which is clearly unworkable, and whereas it is now report card time in the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), a teacher:

April 9, 1981
5.0.	43
That this House endorse the marks I have given the minister today in his second term report card, that is, incomplete for public ownership, a D for Canadianization, and F's in taxation, prices and co-operation,
I trust this will, of course, get unanimous consent of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, a shock wave rolled across Canada today when Jim Munson, president of the Parliamentary Press Gallery, announced that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) refused to speak to the annual press gallery dinner. This breaks a tradition that has been in place since the first dinner which began just after the First World War. Since the Prime Minister enjoys breaking traditions and establishing new ones, and since the Leader of the NDP will now be reading the Prime Minister's speech, which has been the tradition of the past year, under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That this House express its concern that the Prime Minister is constantly breaking with tradition but understands that he cannot speak at the press gallery dinner on Saturday night because he doesn't have the constitution for it.


Madam Speaker:: I know the importance we all accord to the press gallery dinner, but I fail to see that as urgent and pressing.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of critical importance to world peace and security. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That this House go on record as being in support of a peaceful resolution to the crisis in Poland and in opposition to outside military intervention and interference, and further, that this House go on record as commending the initiatives of individual Canadians sending food aid to Poland as a humanitarian gesture in a time of difficulty.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In 1980 the task force on regulations under the Hazardous Product Act required that the road motor vehicle safety branch of Transport Canada develop standards in safety for vehicle child restraint systems and infant carrier restraints. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That on the basis of this report this branch of Transport Canada should undertake public education programs to promote child passenger safety in vehicles and urge strongly the rest of the provinces to follow the example of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, in enacting seat belt legislation, and that all provinces take the initiative of Saskatchewan and include children under the age of five in this legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that the Manitoba government has rescinded the Tory-appointed Clean Environment Commission's order which stipulated that the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company should restrict ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide at its Flin Flon mine; and since the Flin Flon installation emits 650 tons of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere every day, to the extent that vegetation in the area is showing serious deterioration; and due to the mounting concern about the matter of acid rain, or, as is often the situation in this case, acid snow, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That since the Flin Flon mining district comes under federal jurisdiction for most matters due to the fact that the mine crosses the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border, this House calls on the federal government to investigate this dangerous abdication of responsibility by the Manitoba minister of the environment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
April 9, 1981


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has abruptly announced the cancellation of the spring herring season in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence just days before its opening. Weeks of work have been wasted on preparation for the season by fishermen, which now only compounds the Financial hardships that they will experience due to the ineptness and the callous attitude of the minister toward the east coast Fishery. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instruct the minister to develop a comprehensive program that will identify potential problems such as shortages in fish stocks in time, so that fishermen may realistically plan their future for something more tangible and rewarding than unemployment insurance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The increased interest rates announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) affecting the Farm Credit Act as of March 31, 1981, will place the farmers under additional financial pressure, considering the very high cost of production and the high interest rates, bringing many of them to the point of bankruptcy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the government reconsider its actions and call on the Bank of Canada to roll back the interest rates which have been announced and are having such a devastating effect on the farm economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order
43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Twenty-seven Saskatchewan farmers are being forced to pay twice for farm implements-the	amount involved is approximately
$240,000-because they made their cheques payable to a dealer who recently declared bankruptcy and not to the trust company which held a lien on the implements being sold by the dealer. Because the dealer declared bankruptcy without turning over the payments for the equipment to the trust company, the trust company is now able to demand payment in full from the farmers who have already paid for their equipment through the dealer.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the government move to introduce retroactive legislation this session designed to protect consumers in financial matters resulting from bankruptcies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ALBERTA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which is extremely important at this time. The forthcoming meeting between the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and the Alberta minister of energy on April 13 is vital to the well-being of the nation. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has cancelled his appearances before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works today and tomorrow, and therefore will not be available for questioning on a new oil and gas pricing regime, in order to assist the minister to succeed in these negotiations I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That these energy negotiations represent all parties in this House and that the minister invite one member from each party in this House as witnesses to the negotiations on April 13 between Ottawa and Alberta.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 9, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if he can take his place promptly.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is well aware of the seriously devastated state of chinook salmon stocks on the west coast, and he is also aware that in the last year or two the United States commercial and native fishery have taken an increasing toll of Canadian waters-bound chinook salmon by interception at Point Roberts in the Puget Sound area. It is estimated that the U.S. fishermen are taking almost 20 per cent of the total returning chinook stocks and that they are intercepting some 200,000 chinook salmon, while the Fraser River gillnet fishermen last year caught only 20,000 chinook salmon.
I want to ask the minister what progress he has made, either privately or publicly, in obtaining some concessions from the Americans, and from his counterparts in Washington state in particular, to ensure that the U.S. fishery will back off from the Canadian chinook salmon resource.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to inform the House that the U.S. authorities have responded positively to our request. They have recognized our efforts to conserve chinook and have given a positive answer to our request.


CLOSURE OF UPPER PART OF FRASER RIVER
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not addressed the basic discrepancy that the Fraser River gillnet-ters are taking less than one tenth of those Canadian stocks compared with what the U.S. fleet is taking. He has not told us what specific initiatives the Americans have consented to apply to conserve those chinook salmon.
Is the minister prepared to rescind the closure of the upper part of the Fraser River known as area 29 D and to allow the Fraser River gillnet fishermen, who have been making strong representations to him this week, at least one day's opening a week, bearing in mind that last year the Canadian fishermen had only nine days' fishing while their U.S. counterparts had at least 63 days' fishing on the same Canadian salmon stocks?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand the hon. member. He asks me a first question, and I answer saying to him that the American authorities have responded positively to our approach to them. They will limit the effort of their seiner fleet off Point Roberts.
As to the second issue, there is a further meeting planned with the fishermen and representatives of my department. I believe it will be either on April 20 or April 22. Proposals have been made by both sides, and I am quite sure we can find an agreement. That is our intention, and that is our approach to this problem.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ACTION
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, in the past several weeks the minister has failed to produce the breakdown of who is catching what share of that rapidly depleting Canadian resource known as the chinook salmon stock. He has failed to tell us again today what degree of concessions the Americans are prepared to make, bearing in mind that they are taking almost 20 per cent of that resource. The minister has failed once again to commit himself to allowing the Fraser River gillnet fishermen to continue to enjoy the livelihood they have enjoyed for many, many years by granting them at least a one-day per week opening in the area known as 29 D on the Fraser River. Is the minister not prepared to recognize that he will bankrupt and destroy the livelihood of many Canadian fishermen if he does not act, not later this month, but here today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member had three questions lined up and it did not matter what the answer was, he had to ask those three questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: How about one answer?


Roméo LeBlanc: The difficulty is that I gave him the answer he wanted to the first question, but he has insisted on continuing with two more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Obviously you have the one answer.


Roméo LeBlanc: I have been lobbied by exactly the same group with whom the hon. member has met. I had a session of an hour and 45 minutes, a useful, productive session with them yesterday. In fact they did not ask for a breakdown. I told them, as I told the hon. member, that the U.S. authorities have responded very positively. They have gone a long way to meet our objectives. I do not think I should make a decision here before consulting the group. We have agreed to meet on April 22. Surely if I did that, the hon. member would be the first to complain.
April 9, 1981


RESPONSE BY UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES TO REQUEST
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister. It is obvious the minister had three answers lined up and it did not matter what the questions were.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: The minister says he has received a positive response from the United States. I should like to know if that response was in writing, and to what extent will the United States correct the present imbalance?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I suspect we would need cue cards to tell the hon. member when his turn comes up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: This may be weak, but it was the suggestion from that side.
I said the U.S. authorities have responded very positively to our request. I do not have the exact arithmetic in front of me this afternoon. We are satisfied it goes a very long way toward meeting the objective which was to reduce the catch of Canadian chinook by American seiners. 1 am satisfied that this will go a long way to balance our efforts at conservation, that the sports fishermen, the commercial fishermen of Canada and the commercial fishermen of the United States make serious efforts to restrict the pressure on the depleted chinook stocks.


Benno Friesen: It is obvious that cue cards would not help.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: In the past year during which the minister has been in his portfolio he has subjected the west coast fisheries by long distance negotiation to a series of changes in policy, management and regulation. During that time, I suppose because he is from the east coast, he has been to the east coast at least once, if not twice a month, but in that same period of time he has been to the west coast only once for one day, avoiding management and advisory boards, and not meeting with them. I should like to ask the minister if he sees himself as the fisheries minister for all of Canada or for just the east coast.


Roméo LeBlanc: I really do not understand the hon. member's question because the group I met yesterday was much more generous than the hon. member. They recognized that a minister who happens to come from the east coast nevertheless put into operation the most dramatic development program, called the salmonid enhancement program-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: -that this minister-as my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture sometimes refers to himself-put into effect the toughest habitat protection legislation, with the
Oral Questions
approval of all sides of the House, at the request of the west coast fishery. I might say to the hon. member that I had planned a fairly lengthy session on the west coast in March. Unhappily, the sort of filibustering we have been having has tied all of us down to this House.


Some hon. Members:: 
INCOME TAX
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. In a report released earlier in the week the National Council of Welfare confirmed the tragic facts that there are one million poor children in Canada and that three out of every ten single women are poor.
Is the minister now prepared to enact the chief recommendation of the National Council of Welfare report, that the child exemption contained in the income tax return be replaced by a much richer child tax credit? In asking that question I remind the minister that his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, made the same proposal but indicated that it was only her private opinion. What is the public opinion of the Minister of Finance with respect to the tragic inequality in our tax system and the need to replace it with a more progressive tax credit system?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I know the council issued a report. I asked to see the report yesterday or the day before, but up to the present time I have not had a chance to study it. Obviously the question the hon. member raised is a budgetary matter. That and other items will be considered as preparations are being made for the next budget.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister may regard it as simply a budgetary matter, but I think people filling out their income tax returns this month realize that it is a fundamental fact of fairness in our system.


Miss Begin:: Yes, and they love it.


BANKS AND BANKING
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with another aspect of fairness in our system. It concerns the interest rates being charged by chartered banks and their effect on bank profits.

April 9, 1981
Oral Questions
I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that in another private opinion, in this nice-TALK tough-TALK routine in which the government is so expert, the Minister of Agriculture took a large swipe at the chartered banks and complained about the fact that they were charging such high rates.
In light of the fact that today the Bank of Canada announced another increase in the bank rate, which will have an effect upon interest rates throughout the system, and that chartered banks only pay taxation at a rate of somewhere between 15 per cent and 20 per cent, is the minister now prepared, in light of the recommendations of the Minister of Agriculture, to do something to see that average Canadians are not charged interest rates of upwards of 20 per cent and 25 per cent? Is he prepared to tax the banks on the excess profits which the Minister of Agriculture said they have been making over the past few years?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the question of the profitability of the banks was raised in the House on earlier occasions.


Mr. Epp:: That is profound.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is true, if one looks at the performance of the banks over the last quarter that there is an indication the profitability has improved for one quarter.


Bob Rae: Improved? Do you call that an improvement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If the hon. member looks back over the experience of quite a number of years he will find that there has been a rather firm or steady level of profitability, and in the quarters immediately preceding this good quarter I do not think even the hon. member would say that their profitability was out of line with former experience. I just do not think the experience of one quarter and a very volatile interest rate market are a good basis upon which to form long-term policy with respect to the banks. I promised the hon. member or other hon. members that, as time goes on, if this trend continues, then it will be appropriate to take a look at whether remedial action is required.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for housing. The government's high interest rate policy and its "do-nothing" housing pplicy now mean that 70 per cent of the loggers on the British Columbia coast face lay-offs or short work weeks. When will the minister announce a housing program with mortgages at reasonable rates so Canadians will have decent
places to live and so that woodworkers will be back at their jobs?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, any announcement or position vis-a-vis interest rates relating to the housing sector would, of course, invite comparison or experience in other sectors of the economy, and any movement of the government would have to be in accordance with an appreciation that it would affect all sectors. However, I might say that it is my appreciation, when I compare, for example, the actions in its budget, committed by the province of British Columbia toward housing, with other provinces in Canada, bearing in mind the pressure of housing needs in the province of British Columbia, I have indicated that I think there is room for that provincial government to adopt a response on a regional basis and to bring in add-on programs, to build, for example, on the MURBs, as the province of Ontario has done.


PENSIONS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and deals with the need for a senior citizens price index to protect pensioners from the ravages of inflation. As I pointed out earlier, there are new studies which indicate there is a shortfall of about $50 million or $60 million a year between the present rate of inflation and the indexing system. The minister said that he would look into this matter further. I wonder if he has anything further to report on this matter to the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I promised the hon. member that I would look at the question which she has raised, which I regard as a very important one, and would refer to the study to which she referred in her question showing a discrepancy between the cost of living index and a new established pension index. 1 believe, on re-examination, the hon. member would agree that the discrepancy between the current system and the one to which she referred was not of the order which she mentioned, but that if one accepted the study it would be a difference between 12.2 per cent and 12.7 per cent. I do not discount that at all.
However, I would remind the hon. member that other studies, such as the one conducted by the C. D. Howe Institute, and one by Statistics Canada, show somewhat different results. I believe one case showed that there really is no difference between an index constructed specially for old age pensioners and the CPI, and another which states that maybe in the eight years between 1971 to 1978 the pension index was lower than the CPI, so that if one adopted it, the pensioners would be worse off.


Miss MacDonald:: They're worse off now, Allan.
April 9, 1981


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe it is an important question, but the evidence is not clear that the pensioners are being materially affected by this division of opinion in any way. If it were established, then I think it would be a matter that one would want to look at and review.


REQUEST FOR SURVEY OF SENIOR CITIZENS' EXPENDITURES
Pat Carney: My supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. I think the answer of the minister has highlighted the problem, which is that there is a lack of clarity with respect to the impact of inflation on senior citizens. Since the mail received by most Members of Parliament will indicate that this group is experiencing undue hardship at the moment, and since the cost of living index is based on a typical urban family, which tends to exclude pensioners, would the minister undertake to initiate a survey of senior citizens' expenditures to incorporate into the present indexing scheme full protection of pensioners from inflation, and clear this matter up?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I thought, and if any of the evidence showed that there was a significant disadvantage to the elderly, whom we all want to protect, then I would undertake a survey. However, at the present time there does not seem to be any evidence which would suggest that pensioners are not being fully protected.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Shame on you!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whatever evidence there is is contradictory. I believe that old age pensioners are very substantially protected against changes in the cost of living.


An hon. Member:: How can you say that at your age?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I say it because I have more wisdom than you.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
John Horton McDermid: My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Over 1,000 McDonnell Douglas workers who celebrated the announcement of the F-18 contract by drinking champagne a little over a year ago, are today walking the streets, looking for work. Last summer, nearly a year ago, tenders were called, and McDonnell Douglas Canada submitted bids to construct the forward fuselage side panels and the pylons on the new aircraft. When the subcontract bids closed the first time, was the McDonnell Douglas Canada bid the only one for side panels and pylons from a Canadian source, and why did the government request McDonnell Douglas of St. Louis to reopen bids after the tender deadline?
Oral Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman is under a misapprehension. There was no request by the Government of Canada to reopen the bids. There was an announced proposal relating to some of the items in the structural package which came from Canadair and was submitted to McDonnell Douglas. As a result of that unsolicited proposal, McDonnell Douglas invited the other bidders to attempt to fix their bids and the whole process is now under a revision by McDonnell Douglas. An announcement is bound to be made soon.


Mr. Nielsen:: Fixing bids, eh?


John Horton McDermid: By way of a supplementary question, and for some clarification, is the minister saying that the federal government did not formally or informally request a bid from Canadair on side panels or pylons or any other components, for that matter? Was that not a commitment which was made by the government so that McDonnell Douglas would get the contract, a commitment which the Quebec Liberal caucus insisted upon?


Mr. Blais:: The hon. gentleman should consult with the hon. member for Victoria relating to the nature of the contract. The contract on the purchase of the F-18 requires that the bidding process be one between McDonnell Douglas and potential subtrades. It is the responsibility of McDonnell Douglas to award the contract to the subtrades in accordance with the terms of the main contract that it has with the Government of Canada.


FISHERIES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a further question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has mentioned that his officials will be meeting again with the Fraser River fishermen on April 22. I honestly want to ask the minister if he believes that the Fraser River fishermen can wait until then before hearing definitively the answer that the minister should have given earlier today, namely, that the area 29-D will be open and there will be a minimum one-day a week fishing for the gillnetters.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it has been my impression that the fishermen of that area, including some who were present at the meeting I had with the union representatives yesterday, are not shy to express their views.
They did not discuss the date of the twenty-second at all. They all seemed to be agreed, and it was a date which was agreed at the meeting, I am told. So I do not understand why the hon. lady wants me to make a decision now before further consultation has taken place. I just do not understand her point.

April 9, 1981
Oral Questions


Pauline Jewett: The reason they had to come to Ottawa was because the minister would not go to the west coast.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: The UFAWU do not spend $25,000 easily or lightly. They expend it in order to get an answer from the minister while they are here, and they are here until Friday. Will the minister give them an answer now?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
^ Mr. LeBlanc: I think the hon. lady reflects rather negatively on a group of very responsible people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: They have chosen to spend some four days in Ottawa. They will appear before the parliamentary committee-I believe it is tomorrow morning-yes. I had a very good and productive meeting with them. I do not understand what the hon. member means by my forcing them to spend $25,000.


AGRICULTURE
John Wise: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I will direct my question to the minister who expressed his dissatisfaction with his government's policy of high interest rates last evening. My question is with respect to the herd maintenance program. Is it the government's intention to spend all of the $60 million originally allocated for that program? If so, would the minister verify whether or not some $13.6 million remains in uncommitted funds?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes certain mention of a comment that I made yesterday in Winnipeg. I said nothing condemning the government's program, I was condemning the banking institutions for not being more competitive and possibly lending money at a cheaper rate in light of the huge profits the banks are making.
With respect to the amount of money we are going to spend as far as herd maintenance is concerned, it is too early to tell whether we will have enough or whether we will have a surplus.


AUTHORITY OF APPEAL BOARD
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I intended to ask who speaks for the government, but I know it is the Minister of Finance who speaks for the government on that question. However, the minister must recognize that the program, the way it is now, is impractical to apply and impossible to judge
on fairness and equity. Would the Minister of Agriculture seriously consider granting the appeal board sufficient authority to make the final decisions? At the moment the board is simply an advisory body; it is not an appeal board. The appeal board is made up of local people on the scene, on the site, with a full understanding to make accurate judgments.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the makeup of the personnel on the appeal board. We appointed them. They are producers from northwestern Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They have to follow the criteria set down by the government. They screen the applications for assistance under the herd maintenance program. Out of 31,000 applications, if I understand the figures correctly, about 25,000 or 26,000 have been approved and total payments of over $40 million have been made to date. Possibly 2,500 applications are being questioned at the present time. We have been asked to take another look at those. We will be considering those requests and I hope to settle them in a proper fashion.


INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister confirm that in the last four or five days there have been some 400 additional townships made eligible for the herd maintenance program, townships which were denied because of the impractical criteria established by the minister's government? Could the minister confirm or deny that?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the prairie farm rehabilitation officials use a computer system along with all of the scientific and technological equipment available to them to measure rainfall and snowfall. The other day one of the hon. member's colleagues said that snowfall is very important for run off, etc.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Can you measure your run off?


Eugene Whelan: When the hon. member says that 470 townships were added to the group that had already been allocated under the former mapping program using rainfall as criteria, this was done by the officials of the PFRA, recognizing possibly that they had made a mistake earlier. I think it has been done in a very fair manner. Again, it is a new program which has been beneficial to thousands and thousands of farmers.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. According to an
April 9, 1981

article which appeared in The Globe and Mail this morning, CP Air of Vancouver has offered to build the third passenger terminal proposed for Toronto International Airport. Could the minister please tell this chamber whether a third terminal is being planned and, if so, who will be building it? Could he also share with this House whether, in the airport expansion plan, there is provision for a fourth runway?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, traffic at Malton is increasing steadily and the two terminals are reaching capacity. Therefore, the government had to develop a new master plan for the airport. This has been done. It will be unveiled on Tuesday next. The plan will then be submitted to public view and it will be revised according to the conclusions reached.


An hon. Member:: Where, at Pickering?


Jean-Luc Pepin: At Malton.
On the subject of the fourth runway, in order to avoid people getting overly nervous, I can advise that it is not in the master plan, which is an indirect way of saying that there is a third terminal in the master plan.
With respect to the funding of the third terminal, a decision has not yet been made but the government will be willing to contemplate the possibility of private sector funding.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for CMHC. The communities of Bunbury and Southport in Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, went ahead with a badly needed three-phase sewage disposal system as a result of a commitment from the federal government under the community services contribution program. Phase one has been completed, but the federal government has broken its agreement with the province. Will the federal government now live up to its responsibility and its commitments to these communities? If not, where does the minister expect the money to come from?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I have already responded to an identical question posed yesterday by the PC candidate in the by-election for that riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Liberal wasn't even asking.


Paul James Cosgrove: I indicated to that candidate that the government had not broken its agreement but that the municipalities were misinformed by the provincial government. In fact the recommendation for the termination of that program was first made in policy papers to the former Progressive Conservative
Oral Questions
government, together with recommendations for termination of a number of social programs upon which this government has not acted.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. When the federal government, headed by the Liberal Party, entered that agreement, it was a three-phase program. Initially it called for three phases in the sewer program. How can the federal government lead these people down the garden path and then cancel the program?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: It is easy for them.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman, or anyone who is seriously interested in this subject, apart from partisan politics at this time of the year, to address the agreement by reading the actual agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the province. They will discover for themselves that the hon. gentleman opposite who raised the question, together with those who would make political hay on it, are misinformed.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It relates to the government's policy of Canadianization and of "buy Canadian." About a month ago it was indicated that two American firms had the inside track on the operation of duty-free shops in Canada. Just recently the Department of Revenue's publication release indicated that duty free shops are just around the corner. Will the minister now tell this House whether or not the government's policy is one of negotiating with foreign-con-trolled firms in the operation of duty-free shops located in Canada?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: The short answer is no, Madam Speaker. It is true that duty free shops are just around the corner.


Erik Nielsen: Which corner?


Bill Rompkey: I have appointed an advisory committee, chaired by my parliamentary secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to advise me on the guidelines for the issuing of licences for duty free shops. To put it simply, we want to maximize Canadian opportunity in those guidelines. However, I will have to wait for the report from the advisory committee before I answer further.


REQUEST THAT NO CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO UNITED STATES CORPORATIONS
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and

April 9, 1981
Oral Questions
Commerce. If, as the Minister of National Revenue says, the answer is no, why does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not direct FIRA to say that those American corporations would not be considered as the viable operators of Canadian duty-free shops?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, decisions under the Foreign Investment Review Act are not made by FIRA, they are made by the government. FIRA does not make decisions on the award of the right to operate duty-free shops, either at land points- which is a new program my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, is instituting-or at airports, a program under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. The press report on which my hon. friend bases his question is, unfortunately, erroneous.


An hon. Member:: What is the policy?


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the minister responsible for the western development fund. This concept has been dangled in front of western Canadians for well over a year. There is certainly a growing skepticism and cynicism about a government which would be collecting taxes from western Canadians, laundering those taxes in some way, and delivering them back in the form of projects. Also, they see it as a potential for probably the greatest pork-barrelling anywhere ever. In order to reduce these fears, will the minister hold public hearings throughout centres in western Canada? If not, why not? If he is going to hold meetings, when will they be held and where?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will recall that in the announcement of the program which the Minister of Finance made, there was a very clear commitment that discussions would be held with western Canadians concerning the application and use of the western development fund. I would point out to the hon. member that, contrary to the description that he provides, many westerners see this as an opportunity by which the federal government can play its rightful role in helping in the creative development of the economy in western Canada, to take advantage of the tremendous growth that is occurring in the west to the benefit of all Canadians. That is the purpose of the western fund, to ensure that the growth in that dynamic part of the country has a full share of the benefits.


PURPOSES OF FUND
Nelson Andrew Riis: Recognizing that the government is committed to consultation, we on this side hope that consultation will occur at other than the official and bureaucratic level through the use of public hearings throughout western Canada. Will the minister explain to this House, so that there is clarification across the country, what the terms of reference of the western development fund will be?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would again refer the hon. member to the statements which have been made previously, particularly those by the Minister of Finance which indicated that the purpose of the western development fund was to provide for major investment in social and economic development in western Canada so that the benefits can be shared by everybody across the country. Those are the basic terms of reference, to take advantage of the substantial growth that is taking place in the resource areas and to make sure that there are industrial, social and economic diversifications of those benefits. The federal government has always played a major and traditional role in transportation, railway development and other major areas to make sure that the growth in western Canada is not simply confined to one province and one group of people, but is broadly shared.


ADOPTION OF WORLD-WIDE CODE GOVERNING BABY FOOD MARKETING
Stanley Hudecki: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In May, 1981, the World Health Organization is proposing for adoption a marketing code on breast milk substitutes, which prohibits improper marketing of breast milk substitutes, to protect against infant death and to promote breast feeding, particularly in poverty stricken areas of the world where over dilution and bacterial contamination of the infant formula leads to malnutrition, disease and death. Is the Canadian government prepared to support adoption of such a code and consider accepting it as a regulation in this country?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, members of my department played an active role in the technical discussions leading up to that recommendation. I will have the pleasure of speaking on behalf of Canada at the World Health Organization annual meeting in early May at which time a vote will be taken. I am not sure just now in what form it will be recommended, or if it is called a regulation. I will have to find out the exact category that will be recommended to the annual meeting, and I will give that information to the hon. member.
April 9, 1981


AIRPORTS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the draft master plan for the Vancouver airport. The other night in committee, on behalf of the minister one of the officials said that the decision on whether to have a public hearing on the draft master plan before it is accepted or rejected by the government would be a decision made here in Ottawa by departmental officials and the minister, after hearing recommendations from the departmental officials in British Columbia. Will the minister straighten out the confusion in British Columbia and guarantee that there will in fact be a public hearing on the draft master plan, and can he indicate how soon that public hearing will commence?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the hearing has been going on for quite a period of time. As a matter of fact, the date for the end of the hearing has already passed. The situation is that a number of people claim, rightly I am sure, that they have not had time to make the full representations they wanted to make. De facto, we have extended the period of time to do that. We will wait until all contributions have been made before making the necessary adjustments to the master plan.


John Allen Fraser: I am sure the minister would not want to leave the impression that there has been a public hearing in response to the master plan which was published and turned out by the department in the autumn of 1980. There has not been any public hearing on this. There have been some discussions with some people and invitations for people to write or phone in, but there has not been a public hearing. Will the minister tell us now that there will in fact be a public hearing before this draft master plan becomes government policy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was in Vancouver a few days ago and consulted with those who are running this hearing. They must know what they are doing. A number of people and associations have not been fully satisfied with the hearings that have been going on. I accept that. The department has extended the duration in order to accommodate them. I want to assure my hon. friend that no decision will be made until full consultation has taken place. That is what is going on.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Does the minister intend to intercede with Bell Canada which has decided to discontinue putting the yellow pages in pay telephone booths?
Oral Questions


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I have regular conversations with Bell Canada.


Walter David Baker: By telephone?


Francis Fox: V it is of use to the hon. member, I will raise this during the course of my next meeting with the president of Bell Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Both the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence provide VIP air transport service for members and senior officials of government. During recent proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, the Minister of National Defence said discussion on the consolidation of the service, under the control of one or other of the departments, was under active consideration at committee level in both departments. In light of the fact this issue has been under review for a number of years, and each time it reaches cabinet level for a decision the rivalry of the two departments for control of the service prevents a cost saving solution from being made, would the minister state the reasons why his department is insisting on providing part of the domestic service, given the fact the military is assigned the role in most other nations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot easily accept that a combination of the two fleets would be totally desirable. There are a number of people who believe that having a civilian arm of the government in this matter may not be a bad idea. In view of my very friendly relationship with the Minister of National Defence, I will have a conversation with him to see whether there are more arguments in favour of the suggestion.


Stan Darling: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that one of the reasons, often given, as to why the minister's department seeks to retain provision of part of the service is to maintain what is termed "currency" of the air carrier inspectors. Such currency, as I understand it, is to keep the inspectors up to date on the latest procedures involving such things as the crew and flight operations, as well as pilot proficiency. Could the minister tell this House, if such is the case, why inspectors from the Department of Transport could not fulfil those requirements flying aboard Department of National Defence aircraft?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not want to analyse here the whole series of arguments in favour of or against each of

April 9, 1981
Business of the House
the options available. My hon. friend has mentioned one option. My department would have to keep these facilities anyway, in view of its responsibilities in the field of civil aviation; this is an argument in favour of maintaining the status quo. In any case, I will have a conversation with the Minister of National Defence.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the government House leader. Would he be able to tell us the business that he intends to bring forward today and tomorrow? Could he also look into the business for next week, if that is possible, and tell us whether he intends to allot an opposition day? If so, could he inform us when?
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker, but first I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following agreement reached by the parliamentary leaders which has to do with the adjournment of the House after the first stage of the final debate on the constitutional resolution. We have agreed to adjourn as follows:
That, when the House adjourns on Thursday, April 23, 1981, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 12, 1981, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Madam Speaker, I move that motion, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think we will obtain the unanimous consent of the House for its immediate adoption.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House unanimously agree to adopt the motion introduced by the hon. President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Yvon Pinard: In answer to the question of the Progressive Conservative parliamentary leader concerning the business of the House for the next few days, I would say to him that today we expect to be able to complete the report stage and third reading of Bill C-42, the Canada Post Corporation Act. I think we can expect votes this afternoon at the report stage and that,
with unanimous consent, we might complete third reading later today.
Three items will be studied tomorrow. First, we will go through all three stages of the bill on the Auditor General and adopt it. This bill does not appear on the Order Paper, but we will give notice tonight and my colleagues have agreed with me to give speedy passage to this non-controversial measure. Second, we will proceed with second reading of Bill S-17 concerning tax conventions between Canada and New Zealand and Canada and Australia. Third, Bill C-46 to regulate the importation into Canada of meat, whose study on second reading is expected to be completed tomorrow afternoon.
Next Monday will be an allotted day, and finally Tuesday and in the following days we will take up the report stage of Bill C-50 on the customs tariffs, and I hope we will be able to complete third reading as well.


Walter David Baker: There has been some discussion among members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture with respect to the reference to that committee of the annual report of the Wheat Board. That is desirable and it is certainly agreeable to us. In order to expedite the business, we would be prepared to have that done now, without debate.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Yvon Pinard: that the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the crop year ending July 31, 1980, tabled April 2, 1981, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, with respect to the business of the House, we have noted the line-up suggested by the government House leader. The House as a whole must be impressed with the fact that for two days in a row we have reached unanimous agreement.
May I suggest another subject concerning which the minister would find unanimous agreement, and that is that we no longer delay bringing in legislation proposed by the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs having to do with widows who last July were told they would have to wait several years for their pensions. I realize that the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is in Europe in his capacity of Minister of National Defence, but my hunch is that the legislation is ready. The department is keen on it. Would it not be possible to deal with
April 9, 1981

this in short order and to pass it quickly, even before we recess next week?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 will check the hunch of my hon. colleague.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: There is a matter pending before the House and that is a ruling that I should like to make concerning the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I heard his argument and I think I am able to rule on that question of privilege now.
The hon. member was arguing a very hypothetical situation. The will of the House certainly had not been expressed; therefore it could not have been crossed. Consequently, I do not think he has a prima facie question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order. I believe there is a question of privilege on which the Chair reserved its ruling because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might want to refer to it. In view of the rapidity with which ministerial offices are being established in Yukon by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and perhaps next an embassy by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I do not want to appear to be rushing the Chair but perhaps a ruling might prevent any further proliferation of this practice.


Madam Speaker:: I have some rulings ready. One is on that particular matter and there is another question which has been raised. I will rule on them tomorrow. I have several rulings for the House but I thought I would not occupy the time of the House more than need be. I will probably rule tomorrow on those questions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Order Paper Questions STATISTICS

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the list of commissioners for the census which will take place on June 3, 1981.
*	* V


JUSTICE
Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I have the pleasure to table the Guide canadien de redaction legislative franfaise.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,936, 2,021, 2,023, 2,068 to 2,070 inclusively, 2,145, 2,161, 2,241 and 2,265.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: Which departments, corporations or agencies maintain space research programs and what is the budget of each for the current fiscal year?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned:
Space Research Budgets, FY 80-81
	Space Research	Space Budget
	(millions)	(millions)
National Research Council	$20,958	$20,958Communications	10.50	35.415Environment	0.85	2.30Energy, Mines and Resources	0.50	9.608T ransport	0.23	0.23Fisheries and Oceans	0.50	0.50National Defence	4.70	8.49Industry, Trade and Commerce	3.70	3.70NSERC	0.55 $42,488	0.55
9110

April 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions
In arriving at the above figures, the term "research" was interpreted, in its broadest sense, to include space science, conceptual studies, research and development, whether done in-house or outside (including contracts, contributions, grants, etc).
The entire space budget of certain departments (i.e. NRC, Transport, F&O and IT&C) falls within this definition. In the case of DOC, substantial amounts are spent on non-research items such as the extension to the David Florida Lab. and its operation ($6.5 Million) or incentives for the purchase in Canada of the Anik-C and Anik-D satellites ($10.4 Million). In the case of EMR and Environment, a strong component of their space budgets goes toward the cost of operating satellite data receiving, processing and distribution facilities, for resource management and weather prediction purposes.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the government transfer to Indian bands in the province of Saskatchewan, the land that it promised to transfer in the original treaties in the province of Saskatchewan that were signed in 1870 and, if so, how much land (a) was transferred (b) remains to be transferred and on what date will the government complete such transfers?
2.	Does the government recognize the difference between a person who is a treaty Indian (a person with a direct blood relationship to a headman who signed on behalf of an Indian band a treaty) and a person who is a status Indian as a result of being declared a status Indian under the provisions of the Indian Act?
3.	Does the government consider that there is no difference between a status Indian and a treaty Indian?
4.	Does the government recognize the Queen Victoria Treaty Protective Association and, if not, will it do so?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	(a) Treaties 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 were signed with Indians in Saskatchewan between the years 1871 and 1906. Under these treaties, 68 Saskatchewan bands had approximately 1.7 million acres set aside for their use and benefit.
(b) Validated claims submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicate that approximately 1 million acres more will be set aside as reserve land to satisfy the treaty entitlement of some 20 bands.
The completion of negotiations with Saskatchewan bands over their treaty entitlement will depend largely upon the timetable followed by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians for the submission of any outstanding claims.
Under the 1930 transfer of natural resources agreements, Crown lands were turned over to the provinces subject to, among other things, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, making sufficient Crown land available to Canada to fulfil the land provisions of treaties. Consequently, although the treaties are with the federal government, Canada must rely on the co-operation of the provinces to make these lands available when needed. Negotiations are under way in Saskatchewan
and every effort is being made to ensure that treaty obligations will be met.
2.	Status Indian is a term that is used synonymously with the term registered Indian. A registered Indian is a person who is entitled to be registered as an Indian in accordance with the Indian Act and who has been recorded as an Indian in the Indian Register.
A large number of status Indians are also treaty Indians. A treaty Indian is a person who is registered as a member of a band that was a signatory to a treaty with the Government of Canada. As a treaty Indian, a person is entitled to the same rights and benefits available to status Indians as weil as to such special benefits as were conferred by the particular treaty his band signed.
3.	The government does consider that there is a difference between a status Indian and a treaty Indian. A status Indian is a person who is registered as an Indian in accordance with the Indian Act. A treaty Indian is a person who is registered as an Indian in accordance with the Indian Act and who is registered as a member of a band that was a signatory to a treaty with the Government of Canada.
4.	The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's relationship is with individual Indians and bands as defined under the terms of the Indian Act of 1951. The department, as a matter of policy, has specific contribution arrangements with associations of Indian bands to support consultation with Indians, on issues of policy, for program development and research.
The Queen Victoria Treaty Protective Association (or the Victorian Embassy) claims to represent Indian bands who already have direct access to government or are members of existing Indian associations. Furthermore, the protective association claims an interest in the "Treaty Trust Fund" of which this department has no record. Trust funds are maintained for individual Indian bands rather than on the basis of treaties.


Mr. Blenkarn: Will the government honour its 1976 commitment to increase interest paid on annuities to at least the present rate being paid on Canada Savings Bonds?


Lloyd Axworthy: The government acknowledges no such commitment.
When the Canadian Government Annuities Improvement Act was before Parliament in the autumn of 1975, the then minister of manpower and immigration (Mr. Andras) indicated that the rate of return would be "subject to periodic review depending on future fluctuations in interest rates", but there was no undertaking to keep such rates in line with Canada Savings Bond rates.
As indicated in this House on June 18, 1980, (Hansard at p. 2230), a review of the rate of return did take place in the early months of 1980, and it was decided that there should be no adjustments. Interest rates have fluctuated since the time of
April 9, 1981

the review, but not in a manner which leads the government to believe that a further review is now required.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,594 which states in part, that the Royal Canadian Mint, under the direction of Mr. Yvon Gariepy, paid Le Cercle Universitaire d'Ottawa $14,822.41 and that this was not paid from public funds (a) what funds does the Royal Canadian Mint possess that would enable it to pay this account from other than public funds (b) were public funds reimbursed for the amount involved and, if so (i) what are all the details of the amounts and persons concerned (ii) what are the dates of reimbursement?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
(a)	Section 2 of the Financial Administration Act defines "public money" and "public officer". Officers of the Royal Canadian Mint, including the chief executive officer, are not "public officers" and the funds managed by the Royal Canadian Mint are not "public money." The Royal Canadian Mint is financially autonomous and accountable to its board of directors for compliance with its approved budgets which are self financed and not subjected to parliamentary approval.
(b)	n/a.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,252 which states in part, that "with respect to the President of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, only such expenses relating to the corporation's business have been charged", did the government establish the business portions of the trips on (a) a statement by Madame Nadeau (b) an independent investigation by the government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as follows:
(a)	The propriety of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation operations and the conduct of its officers are adequately assured by the supervision and direction of the board of directors and the Auditor General's audits of the corporation.
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 1,252 which states in part, with reference to the Master of the Royal Canadian Mint, that "The president of the corporation charges only the portion of the trips that is applicable for the time he travels on business", did the government establish the business portions of the trips on (a) a statement by Mr. Gariepy (b) an independent investigation by the government?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I am
informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows:
(a) The propriety of the Royal Canadian Mint operations and the conduct of its officers are adequately assured by the supervision and direction of the board of direc-
Order Paper Questions
tors and the Auditor General's audits of the corporation.
(b) n/a.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Were five GS-PRC-4 security guards dismissed from the Communications Research Centre at Shirleys Bay and, if so, what were the projected dollar savings per annum?
2.	In determining the extent of the savings, have the full costs of contracting out been included, including those for the pre-planning phase, the selection process and the administration and evaluation phase?
3.	Was the cost of finding alternative employment for the five employees considered?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: In so far as the
Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Effective April 30, 1981, five GS-PRC-4 security guards were declared surplus. The projected dollar savings are $34,191 per annum.
2.	Yes, costs were fully considered, including 2.5 per cent Department of Supply and Services contract fees. Pre-planning phase, selection process and the administration and evaluation phase were carried out within ongoing personnel services without additional costs.
3.	Yes, costs were considered. Identifications of alternative employment were carried out within ongoing personnel services without additional costs.


Mr. Murphy: In (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980, of the total number of cases registered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, how many charges were against (i) treaty Indians (ii) non-status Indians or Metis (iii) non-natives?


Roger Simmons: Racial origin is not recorded in cases registered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.


Mr. McKinnon: Does the Department of Supply and Services "Weekly Bulletin of Business Opportunities", Vol. 8, No. 5, indicate a contract or contracts to Canadian Media Corporation in the amount of $2,418,008 and, if so, what amount went to each listed department and for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
amount of $2,418,008 is the total value of 13 contracts awarded as follows:

April 9, 1981
Order Paper Questions
			Gross	Net
Customer Dept.	Program	Value	Value1.	Canada Employment	Women's Employment $	700,000.00	$ 595,000.00and Immigration Commission	2.	Health and Welfare	Nutrition	280,000.00	238,000.003.	Health and Welfare	Dialogue on Drinking	225,000.00	191,250.004.	Agriculture	National Apple Promotion	47,096.00	40,031.605.	Secretary of State	Support of the Activities	43,210.00	36,728.506.	Royal Canadian	Nov. 21, 1980 to April 1,	18,552.00	15,769.20Mounted Police	1981, RCMP Recruitment	7.	National Defence	Recruitment	220,000.00	187,000.008.	National Defence	1980-81-National	English Recruitment	333,000.00	283,050.009.	National Defence	1980-81-National	French Recruitment	358,400.00	304,640.0010.	National Defence	1980-81-Atlantic Region	Recruitment	46,800.00	39,780.0011.	National Defence	1980-81-Quebec Region	Recruitment	28,085.00	23,872.2512.	National Defence	1980-81-Central Region	Recruitment	55,481.00	47,158.8513.	National Defence	1980-81-Western	Region Recruitment	62,384.00	53,026.40Total	$2,4 i8,008.00 $2,055,306.80
All contracts are for the placement of media space and time by Canadian Media Corporation, and are awarded on a basis of the gross value of the media plans. Payment to the media, however, will be made on the basis of the net value, (less the 15 per cent commission and less any prompt payment discounts) which represents the actual cost of the media and does not include any amount for overhead and/or profit to Canadian Media Corporation,


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment recently visit Africa and, if so (a) what means of transportation was used to go and return and what was the cost to the taxpayer (b) how many persons accompanied the minister at any stage of the trip, for what purpose and at what cost?
2.	Did the minister visit Serengeti National Park in Tanzania with a group of retired Canadian wildlife experts and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) in what way did it benefit the taxpayer?
3.	Is the park known as a place for observing the migrating pattern of white elephants and, if so, is the government considering purchasing white elephants for Canada or does it consider that it owns enough already?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Commercial flights were used to go to Africa and to return. The miaister's transportation cost was $3,993.
(b)	Two. The purpose was related to duties normally associated with a ministerial trip outside Canada. Their costs totalled $7,567.68.
2.	No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Not applicable.
3.	No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 8, 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, and motion No. 9-Mr. Blenkarn (p. 9094).
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my intervention in support of motion No. 9 to amend Bill C-42 is with respect to the changes of a rather slight nature that the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) seeks to make to Clause 31 as it presently stands in the bill. Those changes are very brief, but my reason for supporting the proposed amendment goes beyond brevity.
The present provisions of Clause 31 provide for the appointment of dual auditors to act as auditors for the new postal corporation, and the purpose of the amendment is to insert in place of that dual appointment, with the other qualifications that are placed thereon in Clause 31, the Auditor General.
1 had an opportunity earlier today to attend a meeting of the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to discuss with the Auditor General not only this matter but also other matters related to his appointment as auditor for certain Crown corporations. The Auditor General indicated to me and other members of that steering committee of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that he has corresponded with the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), drawing to the attention of the Postmaster General the unfortunate consequences, as he views them, that will follow his removal as auditor for the current Canada Post Office, upon the incorporation of the Canada Post Corporation, and the replacement of himself by independent auditors.
There has been a tendency of late-a regrettable one-of replacing the Auditor General with outside auditors. The most recent illustration of this development occurred in connection with the intended replacement at the annual meeting of Eldorado Nuclear, to be held on the twenty-eighth day of this month, of the Auditor General by independent auditors.
April 9, 1981

The newly appointed Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye, is carrying on in the fine tradition, well known to this House, of Mr. J. J. Macdonell, as servant of the public who departed from a general tendency of former auditors general by establishing systems to avoid the calamitous results of bad business management in government departments.
We are all well aware of the comprehensive audit system which had been established by Mr. Macdonell and which, from every indication 1 can obtain, is to be continued under the office of the new Auditor General. The concept of the comprehensive audit is not something to be speedily overlooked. It is an extension beyond the attest audit carried out by auditors in the private sector so that Parliament may be advised whether the actions of government departments and Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General meet the tests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness in terms of expenditures.
With respect to Eldorado Nuclear, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts recommended, in fact, that that Crown corporation be subject to just such a comprehensive audit. It would be regrettable if the post corporation, which up until now has been reaching into the consolidated revenue fund on an annual basis for hundreds of millions of dollars in funding in order that it may carry on its activities, will now be replaced by a Crown corporation which, if we pay close attention to the budget of October 28 of last year, will result in a substantial increase in postal fees.
It has been my position that it does not matter whether the public is obliged to pay, through its taxes, for the sustaining of this monolithic monster which has been created or whether as a result of the laws passed by Parliament a corporation be given a monopoly to reach into the pockets of the general public and therefrom extract, through postage rates, the fees necessary for the Crown corporation to carry on its business. I submit that this Parliament has an obligation to the public, and that obligation is to see, through the work of the Auditor General, that public funds derived either, as in the past, by way of direct taxation or, as in the future, by way of obligatory charges for monopolistic services are spent while meeting the tests of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
The comprehensive audit concept developed by the office of the Auditor General is not extensively known in the private sector, and my great fear is that that type of audit will never be undertaken with respect to this new Crown corporation. It is accordingly, I submit, of vital importance to this House that the Auditor General be retained as auditor for the successor of the Canada Post Office.
Mr. Dye did not depart from his observations in connection with Clause 31 after dealing with the need to reappoint his office but, rather, I understand, in corresponding with the Postmaster General, pointed out that it is not cost-effective to appoint joint auditors. Having recently come from private practice, I understand Mr. Dye has indicated to the Postmaster General-I mention this because although he has spoken on this clause the Postmaster General has not indicated that he is in receipt of the letter to which I made reference-that he
Canada Post Corporation Act
recognizes the dangers of joint appointments. He suggested to the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts this morning that two things could occur which are disadvantageous. There is the possibility of an audit gap when two separate firms are dealing with the same set of books, and surely no one wants something missing at the time an audit report is presented. In addition, it is more expensive to have two auditors undertake a task than one, and yet if we examine Clause 31 we find that in fact two auditors are to be appointed.
There is another problem to which the Auditor General has directed his attention, and that is that the short term referred to in Clause 31(1) is unattractive and creates additional cost and expense. That makes good sense. How many public auditing firms have audited the Post Office Department? Very few.


An hon. Member:: One.


John Albert Gamble: There has only been one, and that is the office of the Auditor General. Does it make sense to pay for the education of a private auditing firm to determine how the Post Office Department will function when converted into a Crown corporation? Does it make any sense to pay for the education of two auditing firms? Of course not. But does it make any sense to perpetuate that educational program by replacing auditors, because of the short term of appointment, every two or three years? The term of appointment, as I have said, under subclause (1) of Clause 31 is for a period of two years only. The answer is that it makes no sense at all. Why would the government wish to incur additional costs to be borne by the users of this service of a kind that is not necessary? It is surely more appropriate, as recommended by the Auditor General, if he is not to be granted the task of supervising the affairs and undertaking the audit of this new Crown corporation, to appoint one outside auditing firm, not two, and let it have a reasonable term of service.
One can only speculate as to the reasons for the determination made by the government, and that is that the government has a number of firms which it would like to reward under a pork-barrel system on a regular rotating basis. That is not in the best interest of the public, nor is in the best interest of the users of the service. It is something that, I submit, Parliament should reject out of hand.
We have heard the comments made by the Postmaster General to the effect that we should be satisfied to await the new Crown corporation legislation which will deal with all the auditing needs and the action to be taken by Auditor General. I have not seen the legislation as it is not before the House, it is not something we can examine, and it is certainly not something we passed. How can we ever say: Let us leave this proposal in its objectionable form and wait for something to happen to clear it up. There is every indication in this House that the objectional form will continue, as is apparent from the fact that today, now that we are so close to this Crown corporation legislation, we are presented with Clause 31 which indicates the very opposite road that the government should be taking. I mentioned earlier with respect to Eldorado Nuclear

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
that under the guise of endeavouring to make changes, the minister responsible for that corporation has given his authority to remove the audit of Eldorado Nuclear from the Auditor General. Are we not in a position to determine what future action the government will probably take with respect to new Crown corporation legislation? I submit we are. The most recent indications are that they will continue a program of reducing the influence and effect of a most faithful servant of the House and of the public.
I should like to comment very briefly on some of the other observations which I understand the Auditor General has made his communique to the Postmaster General. He has indicated that, even as Clause 31 is drafted, it is weak when compared with the obvious requirements for audit-related processes under the Canada Business Corporations Act and under all or most provincial business corporation acts. Surely this large, publicly-owned corporation, in terms of its audit reports and the need for audit committee meetings, should at least meet the general requirements that the federal and provincial governments have insisted should be met by private enterprise, and yet that is not the case. Accordingly, I recommend to the House that motion No. 9 to amend this bill be adopted.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will move on to motion No. 10, standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis).


John Allen Fraser: Motion No. 10
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 34 by striking out line 14 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor.
"to subsection (6), in any calendar year a".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is moved in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), who unfortunately is not able to be with us this
afternoon. I am not absolutely sure of the procedural situation in which that may put us, but if it is appropriate and if Your Honour rules that I may move this motion in substitution for the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, and if that is agreed to by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet)-I see him nodding-then I shall proceed.
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. As all hon. members know, provision is made whereby four householders a year during the fiscal year can be sent to each of our respective ridings. Under the legislation which makes that provision, those four householders have to be sent during the fiscal year. Consequently, hon. members tend to leave the fourth one to the last minute. I see you smiling, Mr. Speaker; I am sure we have all done that. The consequence of that is to create an enormous load for the printing presses and for those officials who assist us in getting our householders to our riding. It also creates a tremendous load on the Post Office facilities all at one time.
The amendment as suggested, which I would like the Postmaster General to consider, is that Clause 34 in the bill be amended to eliminate the words "fiscal year" and replace them with the words "calendar year". The effect of that amendment, it is hoped by my colleague and by the committee which made this recommendation, will be that members will be able to put out four householders during any calendar year, thereby avoiding bottlenecks and the sudden and tremendous increase of activity at the very end of the fiscal year. I think the point is simple; it is a short one. It ought not to be a matter of extended debate. I think I have described the situation succinctly.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, with a view to saving a little bit of the time of the House I can say right now that we are prepared to accept this amendment. I have already indicated to the opposition parties that this is a very useful proposition which was discussed by the Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, and I believe that Madam Speaker herself is in favour of this amendment. If the House agrees we might adopt it immediately.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one comment. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the rush on the printing establishment. At the present time, as we understand it, there are two tremendous rushes: one at Christmastime and one prior to March 31. Now the printers will only have to worry about the Christmas rush. I appreciate the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) is accepting this amendment.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the amendment.
April 9, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
André Ouellet: April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
(11)	Where any employees in the Post Office Department are not, immediately before the coming into force of this section, prohibited by the Public Service Staff Relations Act from participating in a strike, the requirements of Subsection 180(1) of the Canada Labour Code are deemed to have been met
in respect of those employees.
68.2 (1) Each employee organization that immediately before the coming into force of this section was certified under the Public Service Staff Relations Act as the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit consisting of or including employees in the Post Office Department is deemed to have been certified as the bargaining agent for the employees of the Corporation in that bargaining unit under Part V of the Canada Labour Code on the day this section comes into force.
(2)	Notwithstanding any provision of Part V of the Canada Labour Code,
(a)	no application for certification as the bargaining agent for any employees of the Corporation represented by a bargaining agent deemed to have been certified under subsection (1) may be made by a trade union, and
(b)	no bargaining unit or part thereof consisting of employees of the Corporation represented by a bargaining agent deemed to have been certified under Subsection (1) may be reviewed, rescinded, amended, altered or varied otherwise than to include in the unit any employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent, before the commencement of the last three months of the first collective agreement entered into after the coming into force of this section that applies to those employees and that has resulted from a notice to bargain collectively given by or to the Corporation after the coming into force of this section.
(3)	For greater certainty, no collective agreement resulting from a notice to bargain collectively deemed to have been given under Subsection 68.1(4) and no arbitral award or collective agreement referred to in Subsection 68.1(7) is a first collective agreement within the meaning and for the purposes of Subsection (2)."
He said: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-42 was introduced for the first time, Clause 66 was then the first step toward the quiet and orderly transition of a collective bargaining process, that is to say instead of coming under the Public Service Staff Relations Act the collective bargaining process would come under the Canada Labour Code.
While discussions with spokesmen for the Canadian Labour Congress and the major unions of postal workers were continuing, Clause 66 of this first Bill C-42 set forth the basis of the transition by establishing, among other things, the continuation of existing collective agreements, the settlement of outstanding grievances, and the maintenance of the certification of bargaining agents previously certified under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of those discussions which went on long after second reading and the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which involved the Department of Labour, the Treasury Board, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and of all Canadian postal unions, it was agreed to make further changes which have now been incorporated in the revised and longer version of the new Clause 68 of Bill C-42 which is now before the House.
In fact, Clause 68 contains three quite specific parts: Clause 68, Clause 68.1 and Clause 68.2 which actually govern first, collective agreements now in force, second, collective agreements which have expired, and third, the certification of bargaining agents. I must say that the main difference between Clause 66 of the original bill and the present Clause 68 resides in Clause 68.1. That part is long and complex, and that is why you were dispensed, Mr. Speaker, from reading it all.
It should be kept in mind that postal workers belong to no fewer than eight employees' organizations and are governed by 28 different collective agreements. So at some time, some of those agreements will expire, which will raise some doubt as to the status of the parties. Consequently, we have added a special clause governing collective agreements which will have expired when this legislation will be proclaimed, and it is Clause 68.1 now before you.
These steps are taken especially in cases where the parties are involved in bargaining, arbitration or conciliation, so as to ensure that all procedures in progress are conducted in an orderly fashion. For instance, when the parties are bargaining at the time Subclauses (l)(c), (4) and (5) of Clause 68.1 come into force, the bargaining notice is deemed to have been given; then, the parties agree that Part V of our Labour Code should apply so as to allow the bargaining to proceed without interruption.
In my opinion, it is important to allow this bargaining started in good faith by the representatives of both the employees and the employer to proceed. The bargaining should not have to start all over again from the beginning. The parties should be allowed to continue, which would not have been possible under the original bill. We propose such provisions to make it possible for the arbitration or conciliation in progress to proceed under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which would not have been possible either under Clause 66 but is now possible under Subclauses (6), (7) and (8) of Clause 68.1.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, we think we can ensure continuity and stability in the early days of the corporation. I point out to you and to all members of the House that this amendment has been discussed with union representatives, with spokesmen for the opposition parties, and especially with the official critic of the New Democratic Party for postal matters, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), as well as my predecessor, the former postmaster general, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). And we all agree that this amendment which is what representatives of the unions, all the unions, want should be approved by the House.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, the marvellous feature of this place is that, despite what the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has just said in terms of agreement by spokesmen for all parties with respect to the Post Office, as an individual Member of Parliament I am able to expres my substantial concern about what the motion presently before the House omits to include. I am particularly concerned about the provisions of Clause, as hopefully amended by the minister, 68.1(11) which provides:
April 9, 1981

Where any employees in the Post Office Department are not, immediately before the coming into force of this section, prohibited by the Public Service Staff Relations Act from participating in a strike, the requirements of subsection 180(1) of the Canada Labour Code are deemed to have been met in respect of those employees.
The one great omission in the bill, and now perpetuated by the intended amendment, is that there is no prohibition against strikes in what has become an essential service in Canada, whether that essential service be operated by a government department or this new Crown corporation. I have gone so far, as a consequence of consulting with my constituents, to draft Bill C-251, which would have the effect of prohibiting strikes where the convenience, mobility or economic well-being of the public is affected. As I indicated, 1 did that as a consequence of consulting with my constituents. Of 2,676 responses to the question "Should federal civil servants in essential services be allowed to strike?", 88.15 per cent responded "No".
In the event that this bill is passed, even if it is amended as recommended now by the minister, this essential service and any potential amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act will pass out of the control of this House. Parliament will be called back to legislate an end to labour disputes.
I know that the hopes and expectations of the minister and other persons of good will are that this bill will end disputes between management and labour in what is now the Canadian postal service. 1 do not share their enthusiasm for a Utopia to be developed as a consequence of the passage of this legislation. Rather than restrict the areas where conflict between management and labour will exist, we have expanded them. The area of potential conflict is greater with the passage of this legislation than it is now, because under the Canada Labour Code the employees of this new corporation will be able to take issue with the conditions of their employment.
Let me give a specific illustration as it affects my riding, where that kind of complaint will exist. The town of Markham, one of the three towns in York North, received normal service from the Canada Post Office up until November of 1980. At that time a decision was made to move postal sorters from what has been regarded as a small, quasi-rural postal station serving the public to Scarborough. As a result, while it previously took three or four days to receive mail, it now takes eight or nine.
The Postmaster General, as a consequence of the receipt of communications from myself and my constituents, is well aware of this fact. However, the essential problem which resulted from the transfer of these employees to Scarborough is that they have become dissatisfied with the transfer because the Scarborough plant is too noisy. The sorting equipment makes a great racket, and it has the effect, according to personnel at the Scarborough sorting station, of driving those postal sorters who were formerly from Markham away from their jobs. They have simply not reported for work.
Now, that is the situation under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Under the Canada Labour Code, if they do not like the roar of the machines they will go on strike. That is the kind of practical illustration which I think is essential for this House to understand before it endorses this amendment and
Canada Post Corporation Act
passes this legislation. However, the public demand that the postal service-whether it be carried on by a government department or by a Crown corporation-be carried on efficiently in order to serve them. That will not result from the pasage of this recommended amendment, and it will not result from the passage of the bill itself.
The government has shirked its responsibility, in dealing with an essential element of its required service to the public, of supervising the affairs of government departments and now of supervising the introduction of this piece of legislation. It is regrettable that the Postmaster General has so closed his mind to the practical implications of what happens when a strike occurs in Canada.
I wrote to the Postmaster General on March 13 with respect to a problem referred to me by the Markham Hydro Commission, which was concerned about the delivery of utility bills during a work stoppage. It was also concerned about the general practice which it had adopted of having its employees deliver those accounts to customers. I wrote to the Postmaster General and he wrote back to me by letter dated April 6, 1981, which I received in my office yesterday. Attached to his correspondence was a general reply which he had sent to Mr. D. G. Hugill, the president of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. On page 2 of that letter to Mr. Hugill the Postmaster General said, in response to a question as to whether a utility's staff could deliver bills during a time of strike:
Neither can I support the inclusion of a provision which would permit contracted delivery during postal strikes. A major objective of the Bill is to establish a new foundation to improve labour relations in the Post Office. Legislating this kind of exemption would clearly undermine that objective.
Earlier in his letter he had said:
You believe there should be additional amendments to either completely exempt utility bills, or at least to exempt them during postal service disruptions. While I understand the arguments you have used in support of the suggested general exemption, I cannot lend my support to it for several reasons.
To be fair to the minister, I will read the reasons:
First of all, as you noted in your letter, utility bills fall within the letter monopoly. Making an exception in the case of your utility obviously would be neither fair to other utilities nor indeed to other major users of the postal service's letter stream.
Of probably even greater importance is that making such an exemption would ignore the fact that with respect to the postal service's letter monopoly, much more than the interests of any particular group of firms or any particular group of customers is involved.
Very clearly, the minister has said that it is impossible for the utilities to deliver their utility bills using their employees.
I believe the minister owes an explanation to this House regarding the comments he made on April 7, which are found in Hansard at page 9047. I have spoken to the minister about this and I am sure he will want to clarify the confusion, if any, that has developed in the minds of those who may have read his response to the question. We were dealing with utility bills and as reported at page 9040 of Hansard, in my address to the House, I said:

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
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-
I concluded from an examination of the bill that the delivery of utility bills was the exclusive monopoly of the new corporation. I have so advised my constituent.
As reported at page 9047 of Hansard, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said:
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?
In reply to that question, the minister said:
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.
It is very clear to me that the minister has indicated that there are three ways authorized under Bill C-42 for the utilities to attend to the delivery of their accounts. One of them includes the delivery of those accounts by their own employees. I was about to despatch a copy of that page of Hansard to my constituent and say to him that, regardless of what my view of the law may be, after reading Bill C-42 the minister seems to have a different view. That was the case until yesterday, when I received a letter from the Postmaster General in which he says very clearly that you cannot, as a utility, have your employees deliver your bills, and you cannot do it even if there is a postal strike.
I think it is time the House paused and thought about what it is doing with this piece of legislation. Many people will wake up and discover they are breaking the law, a law that is passed, not by Parliament, but by the Crown corporation under the regulations which it is authorized to pass at its own whim. And in the event the governor in council does not, within 60 days, reject a regulation passed by the Crown corporation, that regulation will be part of the law of Canada. That regulation is the one which will define specifically the word "letter", which is left to the discretion of the Crown corporation. In this regard, I am referring to the provisions of Clause 17(1 )(a) as affected by Clause 17(7) of the draft bill.
In my view, the suggested amendment of the Postmaster General does not deal with the essential issue that is faced by the public of Canada, namely, whether or not we will have dependable postal service upon which the public can rely at all times without fear of an interruption in that service by a strike. Then not only will the business of Canada be carried on, but also individuals who rely upon the postal service will be able to communicate with whomever they choose.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments that I wish to make. However, I will not respond to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble). I think he made his views very clear at committee stage and he has put them forward again here in the House. His views and mine differ very substantially but I will not comment on that.
I do want to comment on the amendment. I want to pay particular attention to the groups who came forward and helped assist in preparing this complicated amendment. There are some changes which had to be made in order to make legal changes in contracts which have already been signed and those which could possibly be coming up later on in the phasing out of programs.
Because of the co-operation of the various unions involved, of many of the Conservative members, of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) and his department, everyone was able to sit down and talk. The postal workers came to the committee not as a split group, but as one group under the chairmanship of Shirley Carr of the CLC. They presented their problems and their ideas. Many were accepted but also many were rejected. The Postmaster General in his role as minister listened to them. He presented the ideas and problems to his various groups and returned to the committee. When we were not able to complete the work during committee stage because it was so complicated, the Postmaster General said, "We know the intent of the proposals we are working on; let us iron them out. We will come back to you, and if they are satisfactory we will try to implement these programs." The Postmaster General has done that. He has done it not only to the satisfaction of our party but I believe also to the satisfaction of the critic of the Conservative Party, the CLC and the five unions involved. Now let us get on with the job of putting the amendment into place. We support this amendment and we congratulate everyone involved in bringing this amendment forward.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not hold forth very long. However, I want to say that I consider it essential that some definitive legislation be in place so there is not a sudden stoppage of all bargaining and negotiation. It is essential that a number of revisions be made to the act. I have been a union member all of my working life. I believe in the united action of people, particularly when employers are arrogant and will not reason. I come from a union family. For many years my brothers were strong supporters of the United Mine Workers.
As a boy and since, I have gone through a lot of strikes. I do not believe anyone gains from a strike. I remember when we were on strike in the coal mining industry hoping to get a raise. Sometimes we got it, sometimes not. But after everything is over, when you consider the money that has been lost as well as the markets, it is doubtful whether anyone has gained, workers, management or country.
I have spoken to a number of people in the Post Office who feel the same way. The government missed a wonderful oppor-
April 9, 1981

tunity to provide alternatives, not by force or by eliminating the right to strike because that is a right that was gained after many years of sweat and bloodshed, but through bargaining for the workers.
Many people in the Post Office abhor strikes. They feel they gain nothing and build up a mountain of ill-will. The country certainly does not gain from a strike. Some companies go bankrupt and many people are inconvenienced.
It does not appear that any effort has been made to talk to the Post Office about alternatives to striking. Several years ago the Edmonton city police appeared before a committee of which I was a member. They did not want to go on strike. They felt it would give a tremendous advantage to every criminal in the country. However, they needed some means whereby they could get proper treatment, wages and working conditions. They suggested compulsory arbitration.
That was approximately 30 years ago. When I compare their wages and working conditions with those who have gone on strike, I see little difference. If anything, the Edmonton city police are in a superior position. That is the way it should be. The city of Edmonton, representing all the people in Edmonton, should go out of its way to be fair to its employees.
This Crown corporation should set the example for the country by being fair to its employees. The employees should not have to strike for reasonable working conditions and the corporation should not accept conditions that are not fair and reasonable.
The government missed a tremendous opportunity by not going to management and the employees to inform them that it was turning the Post Office into a corporation and would be bringing forward a new act. It could have sought agreement to settle disputes. It might have discussed compulsory arbitration or a labour court, with judges who have a background in labour, who came up the hard way and know what it means to have no bread on their table and see their children go hungry. The workers of this country may be in a mood to come to some agreement, particularly when antagonisms between labour and management are resolved. It is during that phase that it is difficult to get a settlement that will be valuable throughout the years. The Post Office is now going to become a corporation. It is unfortunate that the department has not come up with a better way to settle disputes rather than have workers go on strike. At present, striking is their only weapon. If some alternative were provided, possibly we would see an end to postal strikes which have caused so much havoc in this country.
I want to make one other point before concluding. During a postal strike there should be some mechanism to prevent companies from going broke, people from suffering because their pay cheques do not arrive, troubles that arise when people do not receive insurance policies, for example, and so on. Having gone through three or four terrible postal strikes, we know what they mean. This legislation should be framed to avoid the agony and the difficulties which arise from strikes. Workers in the Post Office do not like the hatred that builds up during a strike. They have to live with it afterwards, and it
Canada Post Corporation Act
is not pleasant. There could have been a tremendous advance in labour relations had there been a will and an attempt to do so. The government has fallen down badly in not providing a means of looking after essential services if and when, God forbid, there is a strike.
There have been many cases where utility bills have been delivered by a group we call the handicapped because they happen to be subnormal. This work gives them an opportunity to earn a living. The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) last night talked about boy scouts doing this task. The gas co-operative is a consumers' organization; there is no big money behind it. It is not a giant corporation but gets its money from the pockets of the people. During a strike it has difficulty delivering bills. It is unfortunate that provision is not made to protect essential services.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to make a couple of observations on the motion presented by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouel-let). I am in agreement with the amendment the Postmaster General has put forward. I know that this amendment is the consequence of long deliberations between the Postmaster General, management of the Post Office and union members who make up the Post Office family. As a consequence we have before us an amendment which incorporates, in as cooperative a form as possible, deliberations which commenced many months ago and which were brought to the forefront while the bill was in committee. As a consequence of further discussions, this amendment has been brought forward by the Postmaster General. It will be supported by my party.
My friend the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) has expressed a point of view which he has also expressed on other occasions. His views about the consequences to the public of work stoppages in the Post Office are legitimate in so far as he and many members of the Canadian public are concerned.
I had a short experience as postmaster general but I have also had nearly four years as opposition critic on labour matters. I do not think we should move to the outright abolition of the right to strike. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said, in economic battles the right to strike is the final defence or weapon, if you like, of workers in any industrial enterprise. To a very real degree the Post Office is an industrial enterprise.
I join with others who search for a better way to settle matters than having strikes in certain areas visited upon the public. Our party had proposed the establishment of a public interest disputes commission with variations on the theme set out some years ago by the Woods Royal Commission which studied industrial disputes in Canada. This is not the time to go into that matter, however.
I want to assure the Postmaster General that he will have the support of this party. We respect the right of our colleague, the hon. member for York North, to answer the call of

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
his conscience and vote according to his convictions in this matter. 1 think the Parliament of Canada is a big enough place that it can put up with differences. While I think I have always been a good party team player, I have often stated publicly, and I state again, that the rigidity of party lines in this House has often done a lot more damage than good.
We will support the amendment. My good friend the hon. member for York North will vote according to his conscience. I think he will probably be representing the opinion of a number of Canadians, but that is his right and I for one respect it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 11 in the name of the Postmaster General. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In accordance with Standing Order 75, the House will now proceed to the taking of .the deferred division on the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Madam Speaker:: Therefore I declare the motion lost.		
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question		is on motion No. 3 in
the name of the hon	. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe	
(Mr. Beatty).
April 9, 1981


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 3 (Mr. Beatty) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 5 in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Beatty) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 9 in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Madam Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost. Motion No. 9 (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived.
[ Translation]


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: When will the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I thought there were discussions in which we had agreed to take third reading tonight. Is that not true?


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, there is an understanding, and I think the members of the New Democratic Party concur, that we will proceed to third reading. I gave the undertaking to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) yesterday that we would agree to that. If it is the will of the House, that would mean we would proceed to third reading at eight o'clock.
April 9, 1981


Madam Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the House, shall we now proceed with third reading?


Some hon. Members:: Tonight at eight o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: We shall then proceed with the third reading of the bill tonight at eight o'clock, by unanimous consent.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, 1 thought it might have been the will of the House to proceed with the third reading debate commencing at eight o'clock. I think there is agreement on that.


Madam Speaker:: I understand that will be at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: 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 Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Fisheries- West coast chinook salmon stocks-Response by United States authorities to request seeking reduced catches-Minister's responsibility; the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Immigration-Lack of education and health services for children of illegal immigrants.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely private bills and notices of motions. Since there is no private bill under this item, the House will proceed to the consideration of notices of motions


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties. It is agreeable that the House move with unanimous consent to motions for the hour until six o'clock. We will be taking up debate on motion No. 31 in the name of the hon. member for Darmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and motion No. 36 in the name of the hon. member
Canada-Caribbean Relations
for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant). We shall dispose of those two motions and send them to committee by six o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE COMMONWEALTH
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of promoting closer commercial and cultural relations between Canada and the communities of the Commonwealth Caribbean and, in particular, that steps be taken to provide for
(a)	subsidization of sea-borne transport between this country and the Commonwealth Caribbean area;
(b)	assistance in the upgrading of the sea ports of Atlantic Canada;
(c)	such tariff changes as might facilitate the exchange of commodities between the two areas;
(d)	greater exchange of students between the two areas; and
(e)	assistance to encourage meetings of political, business and educational leaders of the two regions with a view to stimulating a North-South exchange of goods, people, services and technology in a mutually advantageous manner.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue) moved:: That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, which have not yet attained independence, and further that if the residents of any of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset to express my appreciation to those on the other side of the chamber who after many years have seen fit to pay that tribute to the Caribbean islands and nations which they so richly deserve.
When I first introduced a motion of this nature a few years ago, the nations of central Latin America and parts of South America were not in the turmoil they are in today. Even today few North Americans recognize the great potential the Caribbean and its people have for us in terms of trade and the value of its cultural history.
Today there are about a quarter of a million people from the Caribbean in and around the city of Toronto. Canadian investment in that part of the world is some $400 million. There is in excess of $200 million in trade with that part of the world.
It is an area which stretches from the Panama Canal northeast to the Bahamas, up to Bermuda, south to Trinidad and even further into Guyana and Belize in Latin America. We are talking about ten independent countries. Antigua within the year will become the eleventh. We are talking about the associated states of St. Kitts and Nevis. In addition there are five dependent territories.

April 9, 1981
Canada-Caribbean Relations
This whole area is of tremendous importance to Canadians and to me as an Atlantic Canadian. Our history with the Commonwealth Caribbean nations predates their becoming members of the Commonwealth. Long before Canada was a confederation we traded the usual basic staples from our part of the world, such as fish and lumber, for sugar, molasses and beautiful rum, among other things. However, that was a long time ago.
I mentioned the value of trade with these nations and the value of Canadian investment. That trade and investment is rapidly developing. My concern and that of my distinguished friend and former colleague, Senator Macquarrie, is that in the midst of the turmoil that has developed in that part of the world in recent years, North Americans have, to a degree that I find not acceptable, tended to turn their backs on them. From time to time we disagree with the philosophies of their governments and, indeed, it is fitting that we should. When countries fail to consult their people in the usual way through elections, of course we should express concern, but we should not turn that into a rejection of the people themselves. It is the people for whom we must continue to show concern.
The presence of Cuba, which as we all know is under the influence of Russia, is being felt more and more each day in this troubled area. It is only when nations such as Canada demonstrate that there is another and better way that we can provide the option that the people in these islands need if they are not to fall under the influence of the eastern orbit.
My interest in this matter is somewhat historical, Mr. Speaker. Atlantic Canadians have always had an attachment to that part of the world. There are some concrete things that we should do which have been evident to people from Canada who travel to these islands. Many people go for rest and recreation and usually see only the better or nicer islands. They do not see the privation, the poverty and extreme difficulties that affect many of the people but, they do notice that there is a tangible need for trade and for the facilities to support it.
The motion that I have put before the House calls, in part, for better ports and for the creation of a Canadian merchant marine to facilitate in the further development of trade between our country and these nations. We should not only upgrade our own seaports for this purpose but also those of the receiving countries. It would not be a large undertaking and it is one that would pay enormous dividends to a nation such as ours.
We also need to do more in the areas of health and education. Barbados is one of the key, stable areas of the Commonwealth Caribbean, yet it has only two practising public psychiatrists. I learned recently that there are about 100 psychiatrists in Manitoba, yet that province feels there is a shortage. I am speaking now of a population of between one and two million people which shares two or three psychiatrists. It is an area in which with a little bit of will, Canadians could
make a tremendous contribution to the mental well-being of a lot of people.
There are also other areas that we must consider. Those set forth in my motion barely scratch the surface of the work that must be done. One of the areas in which we could do much more than we are at present-and I have included it because it grows in importance year after year-is in the promotion of the exchange of business people, political leaders, doctors, lawyers, engineers and other technicians. Much could be gained from this. Seminars have been held on progress with respect to program management in the construction industry and these have been very successful. The cost is not great and there should be eight or ten such programs going on in this area.
1 recently visited a new school in one of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations. It had a beautiful library but no books. There was a good home economics classroom with two good gas stoves, but there was no money to buy the tanks of gas needed to start the stoves in order to teach the students to cook. That is the kind of aid that we offer. We frequently put something in place, then say we have done all we can and leave it at that. We can find dozens of instances of our good intentions throughout the Caribbean where we have commenced projects but never really got them off the ground. There is a cocoa replantation project in Granada which was approved almost seven years ago. Not a tree has been planted yet although the program has been approved. It takes 75 years for a cocoa tree to mature, but it will be 75 years before we put the first one in the ground at the rate we are going.
Much of this is the fault of CIDA, although some of it can be overcome, Mr. Speaker. It is hoped that within the next few months, and even beyond that, through the work of the special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence an impetus will be provided for this work and that we will have a constant reminder that we must do more.
The Commonwealth Caribbean has always been important to us and it always will be. It is incumbent upon us to recognize the urgency of the problems that face the people in the Caribbean basin and in Latin and South America.
I appreciate the government's agreement to allow the subject matter of this and one other private motion to go to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. After taking into consideration the ideas and thoughts presented by members from all sides of this House, I hope that the subcommittee will be able to present to us a full and detailed report on the present status of the relationship between Canada and that part of the world. I hope these motions do not die on the Order Paper, like other subject matters of private members' motions, before the government takes some action on the recommendations which I know will be forthcoming.
April 9, 1981


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House reads as follows:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, which have not yet attained independence, and further that if the residents of any of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
This motion stems from a request made a number of years ago already by the authorities of those islands, according to which they apparently had the intention once of proposing that they become a Canadian protectorate or territory. In the few minutes at my disposal, Mr. Speaker, I will comment briefly on the major aspects of the motion. First, I will talk about the geographical location of those islands. The Turks and Caicos Islands are British possessions located southeast of the Bahamas. Although they are not politically affiliated with the Bahamas they are physically part of those islands. They cover about 175 square miles and have a population of roughly 7,800 inhabitants, mostly blacks.
Several motions were introduced in the House over the years by the opposition parties, mainly the New Democratic Party, with the support of the Progressive Conservatives. On every occasion those motions were rejected by the government on the grounds that they might lead to an upset of the balance in the standard of living between those islands, not to mention complications in immigration procedures, something over which Canada might find it difficult to exercise control. As well, the then external affairs secretary of state equated that possibility with some form of colonialism. I believe the situation has changed appreciably since then, and that is why I suggest there would be major advantages in making an in-depth review of the feasibility and the possibility of a rapprochement between the Turks and Caicos Islands and annexation with either a province of Canada or Canada itself.
Now as far as advantages and disadvantages are concerned, Mr. Speaker we could discuss them at length. However, I expect and hope that the motion will be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and we would then have the opportunity to deal with them in depth. In the few minutes left to me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am convinced that those who get acquainted with that motion will realize the mutual advantages of such a rapprochement. If we solely consider the tourist industry, Mr. Speaker, our adverse trade balance, I refer now to the Economic Review, a Perspective on the Decade, April 1980, Department of Finance and on page 104 I read the following: This deficit and I quote:
-reached a high of $ 1.7 billion in 1978.
Canada-Caribbean Relations
And the trade deficit for the tourist industry -$0.9 billion of which was with the United States.
It means, Mr. Speaker, that in the tourism sector alone, it would be advisable for Canada to at least assess a prospective union with those islands.
From the standpoint of trade, this would lead, of course, to a fairly spectacular development, involving a considerable amount of supplies coming from Canada, a considerable work force from all areas of the building and catering industries. We know we have a lot of know-how in those areas in Canada. Now, I feel that taking into account, for instance, the number of Canadians who go south during the winter months, besides some of our retired people, if it were possible to spend winter holidays in Canada, in a Canadian province, with the same currency, there is good reason for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to have a close look at the very least, at the possibility of developing closer ties with those islands. I have barely touched upon some of the advantages-I am sure some will say some disadvantages could also be mentioned-but times have changed since those motions on closer ties were brought foward in the House and 1 think that with regard, for example, to immigration, there should be no problems of any consequence in view of the efficiency of the controls implemented today. As for the imbalance it might create with the other islands, there again I doubt that the argument is valid. As far as colonialism is concerned, which was brought up at the time, once again, if we come to an agreement that is mutually satisfactory, I fail to see how that could be interpreted as colonialism. Both sides would, I think, derive considerable advantages from such an agreement and that is why I have great hope that this House will agree, at least, to referring this motion to the standing committee.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I say-which I am sure is no news to you-that Canada is the greatest country in the world in every regard. It could actually be a true Garden of Eden but for one thing: a place we can call home, where we can visit and rest, basking in a tropical clime. For all those reasons, I hope the House will accept my motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) on the two resolutions they have placed before the House today. I should also like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) for making the necessary arrangements so that we can discuss both of these resolutions at the same time. I hope I am not jumping the gun if I also thank him for the motion which he will probably make a little later that the subject matter of the two resolutions be referred to the appropriate committee for study.

April 9, 1981
Canada-Caribbean Relations
The subject matter of these motions has long been the interest of quite a few people in the Canadian Parliament and I think it is time we gave very close study to the possibility of developing closer relations with the peoples of the Caribbean nations.
I have mentioned the two members who have placed the motions before us today. I think we should also recall the efforts, especially regarding the Turks and Caicos Islands, which were made session after session by a former colleague of mine, Mr. Max Saltsman, who came here as the member for Waterloo South, which was later called Waterloo-Cambridge. I am also conscious of the keen interest in the Caribbean of the former member for Hillsborough, now Senator Heath Mac-quarrie. We do have these interests as part of the record, and I hope we will build thereon and give serious study to ways in which we might make our relations closer.
Many of us in this House have had the pleasure of visting the Caribbean. The two islands 1 have had the pleasure of visiting are Jamaica and Trinidad. I know the name of the country is Trinidad and Tobago but my visit was on the island of Trinidad. In mentioning that country, I think we might express in this House our regret at the recent untimely death of Dr. Eric Williams, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, who did such a good job of achieving stability in a part of the world where there is a fair amount of instability.
Those of us who have been down there know that the feeling there toward Canada and Canadians is very warm, and 1 think it would be good for them and good for us if we had closer relations.
I have mentioned-I know it is a bit personal but it is in my mind-visiting both Jamaica and Trinidad. I can say that persons from these two islands have rendered me and my family a much appreciated service in my own home in Winnipeg, and I am happy to say that a number of these people, all black or brown, call me Grandpa which I like very much.
So I am grateful to the parliamentary secretary for the motion which I believe he will move, and I trust the House will approve it so there can be further study of this important and very human subject.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) for bringing these two motions to the House for study, and I am particularly grateful for the co-operation I received from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East who rushed back from his official visit Jo Italy and immediately after touching down before five o'clock came down here. 1 am sure he is quite exhausted, but certainly, with dedication such as this, I think the House would do him justice in seeing that the subject matter of the motion is referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
My colleague, the hon. member for Temiscamingue, put a particularly good motion before us, one that was the subject of comment. It is a motion which has been put before the House
by the former member for Waterloo-Cambridge, Mr. Saltsman of the NDP, and which was debated for many years. I am speaking now as a private member, not in my capacity as parliamentary secretary, when I say that I could not understand why the government did not pursue the motion more fully by exploring links with the Turks and Caicos Islands. I think one of the particular problems may have been, as I discovered, having talked with representatives of the Turks and Caicos Islands at some conferences of the parliamentary association, that if there were ever to be such a union with Canada they would want some kind of special status and perhaps would not be willing to join on the same basis as did other provinces such as Newfoundland, when it came into confederation, or Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905. Perhaps that may be the sticking point. However, it is an idea which should be pursued and I hope this is the first step in the pursuit of that idea.
The other reason I am particularly glad to be representing the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) here this evening is that in my constituency I have many people from the West Indies. Our Commonwealth Caribbean friends have made a distinct contribution, not only to my constituency but to the life of metropolitan Toronto. Indeed, some of my greatest friends are people who originally came from the West Indies. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) reminisced about his personal visits to the West Indies. I think there are very few Canadians who have not visited at least one Caribbean island.
A couple of years ago I went to the conference of the Commonwealth parliamentary association held in Port of Spain, Trinidad, and I also visited Barbados on a holiday a few years ago. I concur in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about the affection and closeness with which people from those islands regard Canada and the distinct and unique bond between us which makes it even more appropriate that we discuss the subject here this evening.
I should say in delivering some official remarks on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I will be proposing a motion that the subject matter of these two motions be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Hon. members may ask why we are not referring the motions themselves, and perhaps I could take a minute to explain that. This is said with no disrespect to the two members proposing the motions.
There are five areas listed in the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, one being subsidization of seaborne transport between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean area, another being the assistance in the upgrading of the seaports of Atlantic Canada, and three others. They are something on which the government does not necessarily wish to commit itself at this stage, and I would even venture to say that had the motion stopped after the words "Commonwealth Caribbean", we would probably be approving this motion unanimously. However, I think it bears further study, both by the government and the committee, as to whether or not the
April 9, 1981

areas listed in the motion of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East are areas which should be emphasized.
Motion No. 36 in the name of the hon. member for Temis-camingue is also, I believe, a worthy one, but the reason we are only referring the subject matter to the committee is again that the motion itself goes into a few specifics on which the government is not prepared to commit itself. It may be that after discussion in committee, a report will come back on these two subjects and there may be concurrence in the House. We will then have achieved something of some substance for the two hon. members who have brought the motions before us.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has asked me to present some general remarks on the subject. In particular, he wants me to acknowledge the fact that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has already received a reference to examine Canada's relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. The committee's current investigations and both of these motions reflect, in the government's view, the continuing and growing interest of the government and people of Canada in our relations with our neighbours in the western hemisphere, in particular with the Commonwealth Caribbean.
As Mr. Speaker knows from his travels with various Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations, the Canadian government has been an active participant in the economic development of the Commonwealth Caribbean for a quarter of a century. I see the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is present in the House. He is the past president of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; I know of his great interest and work in this particular area.
In the autumn of 1956, when the notion of a federation of English-speaking island states of the region was in the air, the then Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Lester Pearson, convened a conference of Caribbean leaders in Ottawa, during which the first significant pledge of Canadian official assistance was made to the then embryonic University of the West Indies. This university was to formulate the beginning of the Caribbean Broadcasting Corporation.
A decade later, in 1966, the Hon. Paul Martin, another distinguished former Secretary of State for External Affairs, a former High Commissioner and senator, chaired a second Commonwealth Caribbean conference in Ottawa, during the course of which Canada renewed its pledge to assist the states of the Commonwealth Caribbean on a continuing basis.
Over the 15 years since the second Ottawa conference on the Caribbean, the Canadian Development Assistance Program to the region-bilateral, multilateral, non-government organizational, industrial co-operation, grant and loan, direct and indirect-has been put in place to quicken economic growth in the Caribbean, leading naturally and inevitably to a redefinition of the Canada-Commonwealth Caribbean relationship.
Canada-Caribbean Relations
Two years ago in Kingston, Jamaica, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Don Jamieson, was proud to sign for Canada the agreement with CARICOM, otherwise known as the Caribbean Community and Common Market, on trade and economic co-operation. It was the first formal meeting at ministerial level between CARICOM and Canada. Initial progress in providing substance to the trade, technical, financial and industrial co-operation provisions of the 1979 agreement has been modest, but solid and real.
Essentially our first contacts were exploratory in nature. They were followed by useful work by officials at the November, 1979, Joint Trade and Economic Committee meeting in Ottawa and in the subsequent meeting of the ad hoc committee on industrial co-operation in the Barbados.
There is commitment to a new and dynamic thrust to the CARICOM relationship. In the past year, a comprehensive review of Canada's relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean has been commissioned, completed, considered and approved by cabinet. This review included an examination of Canada-Commonwealth Caribbean trade and investment, Canada-Commonwealth Caribbean people-to-people links, Canada's development co-operation relationship with the Caribbean, and Canada's political links with the Caribbean.
The review took eight months of preparation involving extensive consultations in Ottawa and the full and active participation of the Canadian High Commissioners in the field. The review confirmed, as official policy, that the Commonwealth Caribbean is and will continue to be a region of major interest to Canada.
In fact, the government went beyond the mere provision of an assessment; cabinet approved an action plan for a regional policy approach which directed that the Commonwealth Caribbean should be accorded priority.
The review concluded that Canada should intensify and deepen its economic and political relationships with the states of the Commonwealth Caribbean. The government wants this partnership to assist those states to cope with rapid changes and economic difficulties which beset the region. The regional policy approach which the Canadian government is prepared to implement focuses primarily on economic co-operation, both bilateral and multilateral, but also calls for strengthening of political and social ties.
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs launched the policy in January when he visited the eastern Caribbean and Jamaica and met with Commonwealth Caribbean ministers to seek their views on this regional policy approach.
The second motion reflecting the idea of closer association between Canada and the Turks and Caicos Islands has been the subject of public interest and parliamentary debate for some years. The Turks and Caicos Islands are an economically underdeveloped British colony with minimal but good relations with Canada. The government's position, which was enunciated in 1974, has been that it did not favour discriminating in favour of one state in the region. It was concluded that

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
association would result in Canadians dominating the economy of the islands, raising the possibility of social tensions and accusations of neo-colonialism. This subject remains of interest to Parliament and the people of Canada. Therefore, its examination by the committee is in the minister's view both useful and timely.
In closing, I should like to echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who paid tribute to the late Dr. Eric Williams, the prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago for 21 years. Ele was an individual who contributed to the adolescence of the Caribbean community. I am not referring to just his own island; he presided over a great surge in economic growth in his country of Trinidad and Tobago. He was a respected elder statesman in the Caribbean community. We all mourn his passing last week. We hope the Caribbean community, as a whole, will look toward the leadership he has given over the years and perhaps emulate his policies and deep commitment to the people of the Caribbean as part of the model for future action and development.
At this time just before the supper hour, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That motions Nos. 31 and 36, standing in the names of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East and the hon. member for Temiscamingue, respectively, be withdrawn and that the subject matters thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
I hope this motion will be acceptable to hon. members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the motions are withdrawn and the subject matters thereof are referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Motions Nos. 31 and 36 withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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.


André Ouellet: that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and do pass.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is third reading. If the minister speaks now he normally would close the debate. I think there are members on this-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. I believe the hon. member should consult the rule book. This is third reading.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to table at this time, in accordance with an agreement entered upon when the bill was discussed in committee, the revised French version of Bill C-42, and as a result, I would also ask leave to make two small amendments to the English version so that the two texts will agree. It would involve a word change in line 33 on page 17, and also at lines 37 and 38 on page 30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. minister to table the item?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced this bill last October, I emphasized that it was the fruit of comprehensive studies and intensive consultations with the public, the unions and all employee associations involved. I also stated that I was looking forward to a detailed examination of the bill in committee, where it would be possible to hear the views of the groups concerned and to study carefully the various aspects of the bill so that the interests of the public, of the postal service and of the employees would be protected.
In the weeks that followed, some constructive suggestions were made and certain doubts were expressed concerning the bill. Special interest groups both from the business community and the Canadian public also made certain suggestions. Many of them made submissions to the committee. The hon. members will also recall that the House decided to ask the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to look at certain key clauses so that we would be able to take into account the recommendations and the conclusions of this committee during the detailed study of the bill.
April 9, 1981

The concerns expressed in connection with the original bill were related mostly to the proposed monopoly to be exercised by the corporation. Some people thought that this monopoly could be a threat for other communications enterprises, especially in the field of telecommunications. Others were concerned about the rate-fixing mechanism, mail safety, the definition of mail matter and the survival of our traditional postal service. Certain employee groups were also interested in the amendments concerning personnel transfers and the negotiating process during the change-over from a Department to a Crown corporation. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that all these points were carefully considered during the detailed study in committee last November and December.
The same holds true with the suggestions and recommendations made by the joint committee, by Mr. Justice Marin particularly, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Commission, as well as those submitted in writing to our committee. About the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to thank Mrs. Shirley Carr and Mr. Ronald Lang who, through their advice and precious co-operation, have made of this act the best legislation possible.
In fact, when the committee meetings ended on December 19 of last year, the committee members had considered more than 60 amendments and recommended that a great many of them be added to Bill C-42. During our committee proceedings, Mr. Speaker, my predecessor, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), whom I want to thank publicly for his co-operation and understanding during consideration of this bill, talked about the need to revitalize the postal service. I must admit that I was very much impressed by this, as well as by the desire of all committee members of whatever political affiliation to achieve this objective. Our committee members have demonstrated much flexibility and willingness to co-operate. They have come up with constructive ideas and have agreed to sensible arrangements. If one compares the wording of Bill C-42 which was read the first time on July 17 of last year to the amended version of December 19, one realizes that responsible work has been done, and I acknowledge that thanks to that co-operation the original bill has been considerably improved.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend tonight to explain each and every change made to the bill, but I will confine myself to the main points. First of all, we have improved the wording in order to stress the importance of a consistent service from coast to coast, and as recommended by Mr. Justice Rene Marin, we have added a paragraph to insist on mail security. The number of board directors has been increased. The board of directors will consist of the chairman, the president of the corporation and nine other directors. So, the number of board directors has been increased from seven to nine at the request of the Conservative members on our committee.
This amendment will allow a broader representation without impeding in any way the operation of the board. As to the
Canada Post Corporation Act
regulations, that part of the bill has been considerably amended in committee so as to include a series of recommendations submitted by the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Some subparagraphs have been added because it seemed in the public interest to provide that certain matters be settled by regulations in order to allow for input by the public and the cabinet. Other subparagraphs, in view of their importance and at the suggestion of some of my colleagues, have been withdrawn from the clause dealing with regulations and became separate clauses in the bill; more important still, a series of subparagraphs have been added so that the public might be made aware of what regulations are being proposed through their publication in The Canada Gazette and give their opinion before they are approved by the governor in council.
Since postal rates will be subject to that procedure, the public will know what rate hikes are planned for all classes of mail, not only for letters and, of course, being aware of what is being proposed, they can then express their views. That procedure, in my opinon, is a good solution for it will save us the great expense or a reference, as was initially proposed, to a rate review board like the Canadian Transport Commission.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the clause dealing with the corporation's exclusive privilege with regard to letters has been substantially amended during consideration in committee. In all the discussions in committee, the members constantly agreed that the monopoly the Post Office has enjoyed over a 100 years, and which the Canada Post Corporation must retain, serves a purpose of prime importance, that of providing an income basis which makes it possible to give Canadians in all parts of this country comparable mail delivery services at a reasonable cost. The private sector, Mr. Speaker, cannot in any way meet those two criteria. Without a monopoly on letters, inevitably high rates, increased subsidies, a substandard service or a combination of all those would result. Obviously, the social impact on Canadians would be unacceptable. That is why Canada, like all large advanced countries, must continue to enjoy a monopoly on letters. However, I recognize that Canadians, in certain circumstances, should be able to resort to other mail delivery services. The present Post Office Act allows courier services to deliver all types of mail except letters. Bill C-42 as amended will also allow those businesses to deliver letters, but on certain conditions. This, I believe, meets to a large extent the concerns expressed by various groups without, however, reducing the monopoly to the extent of making it meaningless. So urgent messages will be delivered by messengers if the sender is prepared to pay extra for that service.
One of the major points of contention of the present Post Office Act is that some companies hire contractors to deliver their mail. For this reason, we have clearly indicated in this bill that companies can entrust their own employees with the task of delivering mail between different offices of their company; if, on the other hand, these companies gave contractors or their own employees the exclusive right to deliver mail to a third party, then they would go against the exclusive privilege.

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
For example, if an employee of an oil company delivers fuel to a home and at the same time hands the bill to the customer, we do not consider this to be an infringement of the law. But if, on the other hand, this same company give its employees or a contractor the exclusive right to deliver bills to its customers, this would be considered a breach of the law. This is the third option I mentioned on Tuesday, April 7, and to which the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) referred. It is in that context that my statement, as reported on page 9047 of Hansard for April 7, 1981, should be understood, when in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I indicated, and I quote:
They could follow a number of routes.
In fact, there are three options. About the third option, whereby companies choose to assign their own personnel to this task, I said:
That is their privilege.
It is in that context that I mentioned the third option. So I do not want my remarks to be misunderstood and the answer I gave to the hon. member for Mississauga South on April 7 last to be misinterpreted.
Mr. Speaker, another important exception to the monopoly concerns electronic or optical mail. Hon. members will recall that the media and certain business groups expressed concern that the Post Office may try to take over the telecommunication industry. The exception clearly expressed in the bill should be enough to dispell that concern. The corporation is going to consider the most recent developments in the area of telecommunications.
The government want through the bill to enable that new corporation to be in the forefront of new techniques in telecommunications and to apply them to its operations if needed. However, it is obvious that the corporation does not intend to take over common carriers in telecommunications. On the contrary, the new services will follow the path of co-operation which is already open with the present firms, as we did with such services as telepost and intelpost.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is worthwhile to repeat that turning a whole department into a Crown corporation is unprecedented. It is therefore not surprising that sections concerning labour relations are complex and very detailed. There are several sections in the bill which are designed to make the transition smooth for postal workers who will come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code instead of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act. The sections on labour relations in the original Bill C-42, as well as the amendments agreed upon in committee and the rewriting of Clause 68 are the result of an exhaustive study and successful consultation with unions. I am particularly proud of that result.
I am convinced that those sections cover everything that can be written in legislation in this area. Of course, there are some points left out that can be dealt with only through major
policies. So that these points may be fully understood, I would like to explain them briefly in closing my remarks. The first concern deals with job classification. The present classification system will continue until a revised one is introduced, after consultation with the appropriate unions. New classification systems will be initiated and developed as soon as possible, and there should be no problem in maintaining the present system as long as necessary.
The present internal review system of job classification will be preserved for the time being. Any employee who disagrees with the final decision concerning his or her classification will have the opportunity to appeal, air his or her grievances and later on refer the matter to arbitration if necessary. The second point during the period of transition refers to staffing procedures. Except in two cases, appointments on the staff of the new Canada Post Corporation will be made in keeping with the procedures established in the Public Service Employment Act. However, the Crown corporation will retain decision-making authority in staffing matters. Also, corporation employees will have access to an internal appeal system in cases where they disagree with staffing decisions. There is also the issue of the grievance procedure during the transition period. As members are aware, the grievance procedure for all employees is defined in the applicable collective agreement.
At the outset, the new corporation will administer 29 such collective agreements providing various grievance procedures for one thing or another. The changes to be made in the internal grievance procedure for each collective agreement will be discussed in future negotiations. Therefore, until such time as a bargaining unit signs its first collective agreement with the new corporation, the grievance procedure applicable to the unit will remain the same with small changes resulting from the making of the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Consequently, in certain cases, the last level of appeal will no longer be the assistant deputy Postmaster General, but the president of the corporation.
Finally, there are clauses dealing with the release of employees for incompetence or incapacity during the transition period. After the proclamation of the new legislation, the release of employees for these reasons will follow the basic procedure stipulated in the Public Service Employment Act, with the following exceptions: first, the recommendations for release will be addressed to the person who occupies a position equivalent to that of a regional director general or of an assistant deputy Postmaster General, under their new titles. That person will have the authority to approve the dismissal, however, and this is very important, the employee will have the right to appeal the decision. Second, should the employee find the corporation's final decision unacceptable, he may file a grievance, and if necessary, in the last instance, refer to arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of legislation whose time has come. This third reading stage is the result of many years of
April 9, 1981

preparation, negotiations and compromise. I urge Parliament to pass this bill in order to allow this Crown corporation to begin its mandate and provide Canadians with the revitalized postal service they need.
When the Prime Minister handed me the Postmaster General portfolio for the first time, back in 1972, I took over these responsibilities with a great deal of enthusiasm. So it was, I must say, with a certain regret that I left this post upon my transfer to another department. 1 was therefore particularly pleased last year when the Prime Minister entrusted me again with this department because it seldom happens in politics that you can bring a job to a successful end. I am very pleased to now be able to say, "Mission accomplished".
I would like to take this opportunity to extend my special appreciation to the DM of the Post Office Department, Mr. Jim Corkery, who helped me and supported me throughout the last few months in this process of converting this department into a Crown corporation. 1 am the last Postmaster-General ever to address this House. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for allowing me to experience this historic moment: with the coming into being of this corporation there will no longer be a Postmaster-General. I think one can say that this is the end of an era. The end of an era, but also the beginning of a new one. The establishment of this corporation I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Speaker, will enable its employees to function in an environment and a climate they have looked forward to for a long time. The Canadian public will be getting a better service and, above all, management will have a chance to give the full measure of their ability knowing that they are in complete control of the situation and that they do not depend on decisions made in other departments in order to provide an efficient management of the Canadian postal service. To conclude my remarks, let me say, "Long live the new Canada Post Corporation!"


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). 1 hesitate to say that while a minister of the Crown may not be called Postmaster General in the future, there certainly will be a minister of the Crown responsible for the post office. I do not know whether the fact that he will not be called Postmaster General but minister responsible for the post office will make him feel any happier, because the way this bill is organized, it makes the government continually responsible for every single thing in the post office, including postal rates.
As the minister pointed out in his remarks, the cumbersome procedure set out in Bill C-42, as it was presented to this House, was significantly changed in committee in many ways. I appreciate the minister congratulating the Conservative Party for its efforts in committee. The minister appreciates, as do other members, that we spent a great deal of time on this bill, although perhaps not as much as we should have. I will come to that later in my remarks. Unfortunately, there was an
Canada Post Corporation Act
effort to push the bill through committee quickly. I have a motion to present at the end of my remarks respecting that problem.
The Post Office as we know it is probably the most visible activity of government in our country. As 1 said on second reading, almost every day a member of the Post Office walks down my street representing the Government of Canada. When he delivers mail, he represents the Government of Canada. When that mail is slow, damaged or destroyed, he represents the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, the representation of the Government of Canada on the streets and byways of this country has not been too good in the past. That representation has soiled the name of Canada.
We have great hopes for this postal corporation, but I do not believe any member of this House really believes in his heart of hearts that all the problems of the post office will be solved by this Crown corporation bill creating the post office corporation. Just to be sure that some of these concerns are brought to the attention of the minister and whoever will be running the new corporation, should this bill pass this House and the Senate, I want to put on record some of the concerns which members have received from their constituents with regard to how the post office has acted and is acting today. I quote from a letter from J. V. Gordon:
Over the past months I, like many other Canadians I'm sure, have become increasingly frustrated and angered at the deterioration in the mail delivery service-
The letter was posted on the evening of January 17, postmarked January 18 and received January 27-10 days to travel 16 miles! I flew to England, did a week's work and was home on January 24, 3 days before the letter was delivered.
The minister replied:
Normally, Canada Post moves its mail with a high degree of efficiency in the 95 per cent range or better ... However, if one per cent of these items are late, this represents 250,000 delays per day.
When we talk about late and talk about average delivery, most of us are brought to the realization that seven days' delay between posting and delivering is average. I mentioned in report stage that I had approached the Postmaster General to bring to his attention a letter I received from Bill Kennett, Inspector General of Banks on March 26. I quote:
As requested in your letter of March 12, 1981, which we received on Friday, March 20, please find enclosed a copy of the Proposed Regulations published on December 20, 1980.
This is the kind of service we are getting. Bill Kennett's address is Place Bell Canada here in Ottawa. I quote from my letter to the minister:
Do you deem it necessary for members of various government departments communicating with Parliament and vice versa to use parliamentary messengers to make sure that mail is delivered so that it is received the next day, or will that be an abuse of the courier provisions contained in the bill.
It has not been good, it has not been satisfactory, it does not stand up. It is not as good today as it was 20, 50 or 75 years ago. That is the state of the Post Office. As I said, I intend to move a motion later tonight. That will be one of my prime reasons for doing it.
While the minister may say it is 95 per cent satisfactory, his definition of satisfactory and my definition and that of my

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
constituents is not. My constituents expect the same kind of mail service their parents and grandparents received. They do not expect a mail delivery system which does not work, is not on time and is not efficient and dependable. The service which has been available to this country is neither on time nor dependable.


An hon. Member:: Get rid of the machines.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says get rid of the machines. I intend to talk about that tonight.
When this bill was first presented, a number of people said to the members that a post office corporation will not work. They said it was a method by which the minister was going to try to bury the problems behind the idea of a Crown corporation. In committee we were able to insist that amendments be made. Indeed, amendments were made at report stage to make a ministry or the government more responsible for the corporation, probably as responsible as the present Postmaster General. I do not know whether that will help service because, with the Postmaster General responsible, it has not been very good.
I want to assure the Canadian public that we on this side have ensured that the Postmaster General has accepted the responsibility and that the governor in council, the cabinet, will continue to be responsible for the appointment of the people to the executive, the directors and vice-presidents of the post office. All directives, even those that are now secret, will be made public so that the post office will be above board. That is good. We expect this corporation to work. We expect an improvement in postal service so that Canadians receive the same service our parents received, the service we were receiving 10, 15 and 20 years ago.
People expect better postal service every year. Instead, it has been getting worse and worse each year. In fact, I do not believe it can get worse. It has to go back to the kind of service that people expected when statutes were passed which said you were deemed to receive something three days or seven days after it was mailed. That was a reasonable assumption and registered mail delivery was almost a certainty. Today no one can claim that if something was mailed to you that you must have received it. Indeed, a favourite excuse of anyone who has not paid a bill today is that the cheque is in the mail. How can you not accept that explanation if someone claims they put it in the mail, because in all probability it got lost? There is at least as much probability of that as there is that they were just spinning you a line about the payment.
The Post Office has been beset with a number of problems. Some of my constituents refer to these as labour problems. But I say to you, sir, they are management problems. I do not know of a single business which has strikes, lockouts, and labour disputes that are not reflective of the people who manage the organization. Most of the people who work in the Post Office in our country are good, solid, hard-working men and women. They want to do a day's work and they expect to
be directed, organized and motivated by the people who are put in management positions.
Management is leadership, Mr. Speaker. The leadership in the Post Office is abominable. The corporation must hire effective leadership and good, new, management people. I mean good people right down to the lower levels of management. Some of the incumbents must be replaced with others who can get the system organized. If that is not done, then this corporation has as much chance of success as a snowball has of surviving on a hot July day in the middle of Rideau Street.
Some people have spoken about grievances. Tonight the Postmaster General, in speaking to Clause 68 of the bill, spoke of grievance procedures that are available. We should not be talking about grievances. The fact that there are 65,000 labour grievances is an indictment of incompetent, inept, incapable management. He should not be worrying about grievances, he should be worrying about motivating people to provide a service with the skills and competence that at one time distinguished the Post Office. Instead, today we have problems.
Someone mentioned machinery a moment ago. I live in Mississauga where the great white elephant called a machine that sorts parcels, is located. That machine manages to destroy almost as many parcels as it sorts. My secretary calls it an elephant. When I send stationery from my office here on Parliament Hill to my constituency office it invariably arrives crunched and destroyed. It does not matter how well it is wrapped, they manage to break it up. Indeed, we take it to the Post Office in this building and ask them to package it carefully for us. They do, and they ship it through their machine. It does a fine job-it crunches it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: They bought the machine from Air Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says they bought it from Air Canada. They probably did. In any event, they make sure it goes off the rollers or gets stomped on. An employee at the Gateway post office says that apparently it drops straight down nine feet and if it is marked fragile, they jump on it again.
There have also been complaints about theft in the Post Office. Again, an employee at the Gateway post office told me there is not as much theft as one would think. He says there is the odd person who is a bit of a thief. He says that most of the missing mail is not stolen but that the Post Office says it is because it cannot apologize any other way to the people whose packages are destroyed. The fact is that those Christmas presents, wedding presents or birthday presents, go through the machine and get all crunched up. They cannot tell people that they have been destroyed, so they say they must have been stolen or lost in the mail. That is what happens and they have a special crew to sweep up the mess! The machine and the system at the Gateway post office continues to operate despite complaints because the management is so inept, incompetent and incapable, and because the leadership from the government has been incompetent and incapable. It has not got down to brass tacks and dealt with the situation to make sure it is changed.
April 9, 1981

Just the other day the Post Office had the unmitigated gall to place an advertisement in the Toronto Star and The Toronto Sun claiming it would deliver a five-pound package for $1.40. I thought the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) might be annoyed because the weight was not given in metric. Maybe they are learning something. Anyway, it will send a five pound package from Toronto to Sudbury, or Sarnia or Montreal or wherever you want it to go, for $1.40.
One of my constituents, Mrs. Claire Kohlmeier sent a bunch of parcels to British Columbia for Christmas. Of course, they never got there. The Postmaster General wrote to her about the problem and the letter states, in part:
However, we are aware of deficiencies in the service, particularly with the late delivery of mail in the Vancouver and surrounding area over the past few months.
That is the Postmaster General's excuse for the fact that Mrs. Kohlmeier's parcels were junked up. Yet the advertisement promises to deliver a five pound parcel for $1.40. It is no wonder that people use courier services. If you want your mail to get to its destination, you would use them too, or the bus service or Air Canada or someone who is prepared to take decent care of your mail.
That practice must cease under this corporation, Mr. Speaker. If it does not cease, then the corporation's existence must terminate and we must find another way of handling the mail. There is no excuse for this kind of thing and it should not be allowed to continue. There should be a time limit-I would suggest no more than five years-in which the corporation must demonstrate that it can do the job because, if it cannot, somebody else can.
I expect the minister or whoever takes over the corporation to do something about the management problems. At the moment, the payroll system is run by the Department of Supply and Services. It was designed for office help who are paid the same amount every month on a monthly basis.
However, the Post Office is not an office. The Post Office is more like a manufacturing organization where people are paid by the hour. If they work overtime, they expect to get their overtime pay.
Last fall there was a dispute in the Post Office with respect to clerks. They are not in the same union as the regular postal people, they are in the clerks' union. A number of sorters in the Post Office had to work overtime. Grievance after grievance after grievance was filed in connection with their overtime pay. It was not until February that my constituents who worked overtime in October were finally paid, notwithstanding the fact that their union officers and management people allegedly telephoned Ottawa and even the office of the Postmaster General. The red tape went on and on. They finally got their money.
How can we keep labour happy if we do not want to pay them? If we ask a person to work overtime and we do not want to pay him for it, what can we expect? I can tell this House what we can expect. We can expect the kinds of stupid
Canada Post Corporation Act
grievances we find in the CUPW bulletin 1 have in my hand. We find people asking for entitlement to 20 weeks' paid maternity leave. They want January 2 and May Day off. They want double time for over time. If they work nights, they want a weeks' holiday for every two months' work. They want pay and employment conditions far in advance of what any private sector employee could begin to think about demanding. This is because they are so darned mad at the idiots who have been running the Post Office that finally in frustration they make union demands which they know, or ought to know, are absolutely ridiculous. Instead of organizing people, directing them and making them feel they are part of the organization and part of the team, the management does not do that. It treats them as slobs. It treats them scurrilously. It is no wonder these people get their backs up. Sure, they make demands. Sure, they file grievances. I do not blame them. If there is not a change in the operation and management of this Post Office in this new corporation, then it will not work.
The Postmaster General made some fine claims about Clause 68. I did not speak about that clause tonight because I do not know everything about labour problems other than how to keep most of the people who have ever worked for me pretty happy with me. I have never been involved in a strike, and I do not expect to be. Normally people do not strike. We work things out in Canada. We work things out in business. That is how to make a profit in business, but we must retain the right to discharge people on certain grounds. There must be management which is prepared to get tough when people are behaving absolutely wrongly. Management must be tough when there is uncontradicted evidence. When management personnel know that people sleep on the job behind piles of mail sacks, when management personnel know that people are beaten up because they do not consent to homosexual activity or when management people know that there are active dope peddlers involved in an organization, then the management people ought not to be worried about firing people and putting them out. When a group of people like that is in an establishment, then it is time management was capable of showing leadership, purpose and honesty.
It is time we had a management system prepared to give direction in the Post Office and prepared to give incentives. All people are not worth the same money per hour. Some people work harder than others. Some people show ability and initiative. Some people can produce better than others, and we have to show that in the pay packet. We could do much in this country if we gave people who walk the streets and pound the pavement for the postal corporation incentive pay packages. We could do something to improve productivity because that is where it is all at in this country. It is not what we pay a man per hour that counts; it is what he produces per hour. The management of this corporation had better organize itself to make sure it is prepared to reward people for productivity because that is what is important. We must look at productivity in everything we do, particularly in the Post Office, where in some parts productivity is as low as it ever could be. We must develop incentives so that people will produce more

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
during the time they are at work. We must improve the productivity of the Post Office so that the Post Office can be a viable Crown corporation. Without improvements in productivity, we will have to review this corporation and find other methods by which to deliver our mail.
Indeed, technology is moving ahead, and unless the Post Office improves its productivity, the Post Office will not be necessary. People will send their cheques and pay their bills by means of electronic transfer of funds. People will communicate-me to you, Sir-electronically. We will not need people to walk the streets, drive trucks and deliver mail by hand.
I have great hope for the corporation. I hope the corporation will get its act together and do things to improve service. 1 hope the corporation will be an active competitor with present courier services, and I hope the corporation's reputation in terms of delivery of mail will improve.
1 have with me tonight an envelope from the Department of Insurance. It says, "Departement des Assurances, Ottawa, Canada KIA 0H2". I do not know why the postal code is on this envelope because this department does not use the Post Office. It uses a courier service, the insurance courier service. Indeed, everything going from the Department of Insurance to insurance agents across Canada where there are courier services does not go through the Post Office. It goes by courier. It does so because the Department of Insurance wants to get it there. The courier service is dependable. If ever there was an indictment of the way the Post Office Department has been handling mail, it is when other departments of government refuse to use its service.
I was disappointed with the minister at report stage when he did not accept two of my amendments and two amendments of my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). I presented the minister an amendment with respect to the Auditor General. We are paying the Auditor General anyway; why should we pay two private auditing firms-not one but two-to audit this corporation? That is completely beyond me. I would have thought the Postmaster General would try to make the corporation more efficient and to cut its costs by using the present government service, but he did not.
Even more importantly, I would have thought the Postmaster General would look at the first amendment I proposed, which deals particularly with invoices or bills from public utilities. I want to read into the record of this debate a letter I received on February 25 last from A. E. Bradley, Chairman of the Mississauga hydroelectric power commission. Part of the letter reads as follows:
We have, in the past when there has been postal interruptions, utilized private couriers to deliver our mails. This work has been done not only efficiently but economically compared to current postal rates. As a utility, therefore, we would like to have the flexibility of delivering our bills through private couriers.
What are bills but invoices? The amendment which was before this House deliberately said that invoices are not letters. The Postmaster General said that invoices are letters. I am going to suggest to my constituent that invoices are not letters, and let the Postmaster General take it to court. Nothing in the
bill says invoices are letters. Mr. Bradley says he can deliver his hydro bills cheaper through private courier. He suggests there should be some discount for utility bills going through the mail.
It is a question of competition, a question of whether it can be done better. The other night my colleague, the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), suggested that perhaps the boy scouts should be able to deliver flyers, and my colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), made the suggestion that perhaps disabled people might deliver utility bills. I suggest these people should be allowed to deliver that kind of mail, and the Postmaster General should have allowed that amendment, but he did not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am disturbed about that, as are my colleagues and so is anyone who receives gas bills, hydro bills and other bills. They are not letters. Whoever thought a bill was a letter? When my wife gets a bill, she does not want to open it, she leaves it for me. Bills are not treated as letters. She treats them as bills. You can smell the things. They are not letters, they are bills, and I say to the Postmaster General that they should be completely exempt in the act. The act does not say they are letters; it does not say anything about invoices. I say to the people who send invoices in that way that they might well challenge this act in the courts. I suggest that very few people, I am sure none on this side of the House and certainly none in this party, would want to say to their wives, "I have a letter for you, dear". You know what would happen. She would say, "that's a bill, it's not a letter". I tell you, sir, our amendment would clarify the situation. The Postmaster General has not clarified it. I say to utility companies: deliver them because they are not letters.
Now let me come to our major argument with this bill in connection with the corporation itself. We rushed this bill through committee and we were hoping to make further amendments at the report stage. One thing that we as a caucus think should happen with the corporation is that, like other corporations and businesses; like the banks, for example, this corporation should be subject to a sunset law provision. It should be required to come back to Parliament every five years or ten years-we suggest five years-to justify its existence, its raison d'etre. It has to be able to show that it is fulfilling its mandate, doing what the Postmaster General said it should do and doing what our constituents say it should do. It should justify its monopoly. Perhaps it should have its monopoly extended, perhaps it should have it contracted, but it should come back before the House periodically as do other Crown corporations to justify why it is there. Do we need this service today that we needed five years ago or ten years ago? Do we in justice need the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the way we needed it 25 years ago? Do we really need the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation the way we needed it 35 or 40 years, and should its mandate be changed or should it stay the same and be allowed to grow and grow?
April 9, 1981

I say to you, Sir, it is important that we as parliamentarians realize we are in a changing world where services needed today may not be needed tomorrow and where services today are obsolete tomorrow. What we think is necessary now will not be necessary tomorrow, and tomorrow we will have other things that are necessary. A new direction should be given, a change should be made. Therefore, we say, sir, all these bills should have a sunset provision incorporated into them, a provision which would provide that Parliament have the ability to review what has been going on, the ability to say, we want to look at it again as we do with the banks.
Every ten years we bring the banking legislation before us. This time we waited 13 years before doing so. We look at those organizations deliberately, we review their powers. We may change them, we may contract or expand them, but we call them to account. Similarly, this corporation should be called to account in a specified period of time.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"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 not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing
Committee On Miscellaneous Estimates to enable the committee to consider
further Clause 24 of the bill."


Mr. Lalonde:: Shame on you, Stan.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) here. I was really worried earlier this evening when I did not see him in his place. I must admit he attends this House faithfully because I have had the privilege of speaking on two occasions in the last month or so, one on the Constitution and another time earlier this week, when I had two and a half minutes to speak, half of which time was taken up by the minister, usurping my time. Needless to say, I will be very disappointed if he does not intervene some time during my remarks.


Marc Lalonde: I will try, Stan.


Stan Darling: 1 welcome the opportunity to speak to the House on Bill C-42 and to present my views, those of my constituents and a great many others on the proposed creation of the Canada Post Corporation. As almost anyone old enough to lick a stamp knows, Canada's postal service is in drastic need of change. There have been continual management-labour disputes, the mail service in unrealiable, and the department is going deeper and deeper into debt. There is not one member of Parliament here who cannot tell us horror stories on delayed mail, damaged parcels, and so on. I recall Christmas time a few years ago when, I believe, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) was postmaster general. I received a cake by mail which arrived completely squashed. I brought it in here and made a present of it to him. 1 wanted to get it back for evidence but he would not give it back to me.


An hon. Member:: He ate it.
Canada Post Corporation Act


Stan Darling: Perhaps he ate it, but I never got it back.
There have been continual management-labour disputes, as I said, and this, in my view, has been one of the serious problems with the postal department. I do not think machinery and equipment is the reason behind it. This is a people dispute between management and labour. Until we can get both management and labour working together, the Crown corporation will not experience much of an improvement.
It has long been recognized that the fundamental part of the problem can be directly attributed to the fact that the post office, as a government department, is obliged to deal with many other departments. The responsibility for hiring new employees rests with the Public Service Commission; Treasury Board negotiates the contracts; The Department of Public Works is responsible for plant maintenance; purchasing is conducted through the Department of Supply and Services.
When appearing before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates recently, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) commented in frustration by saying:
Too many people are trying to run this operation.
This is so true. Perhaps as a Crown corporation the post office may improve. I use the words "may improve" advisedly because this bill, as presented, still leaves grave doubts as to the predicted efficiency and financial stability of the operation. Certainly we are in favour of the bill. We hope it will be a step in the right direction. Hon. members on this side of the House have contributed with amendments and changes, some of which were adopted. I believe this could be stated for all sides of the House.
As I mentioned, these doubts with respect to the new postal corporation begin right at the top. 1 am speaking of the board of directors and senior management. It has been proposed that the board consist of a chairman, president, and nine other directors. These 11 men and women will be appointed by the governor in council, which of course means cabinet. The board, with the approval of cabinet, will also be given the right to appoint and fix the salaries of any number of vice-presidents it considers necessary.
Although the minister stated in committee that the composition of the board would include representation from all segments of Canadian society, I would feel more comfortable if such assurances were incorporated directly into the act. There will be an obvious need on the board for input from labour, business and the consumer. The Post Office services the requirements of these groups, and their views are of paramount importance.
The nebulous circumstances surrounding the appointment of the vice-presidents is also cause for some concern. The naming of these people and the ability to set their salaries provides a distinct opportunity for the government of the day to play the role of the tooth fairy. A defeated politician may wake up one morning to discover that the remuneration for his loss is a vice-presidency with the Canada Post Corporation. It sure

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
beats a quarter stuck under his or her pillow. Such an approach has been taken in the past by the government. We must not allow the creation of such positions under circumstances which would permit the government to continue its nocturnal visits.
Moving down through the proposed new system, let us examine the problem of labour. There are now 28 different unions which represent all inside and outside postal workers. As I understand it, under the bill all unions would be guaranteed the right to negotiate the first collective agreement. Then, in the final three months of that agreement, the unions would have to approach the Canadian Labour Relations Board for new accreditation. At this time other unions would also have the right to petititon to represent the workers. Can one imagine the wrangling which would take place and the disruption this would cause? The minister said that he is almost certain this process would result in fewer than 28 unions. "Almost certain" is not good enough.
The creation of a Crown corporation would seem to be the perfect opportunity to reduce the bargaining units to one and to provide the opportunity for sector bargaining in its purest form. The delivery of mail is an essential service in the nation, the disruption of that service creates significant hardships at all levels. Surely the government recognizes this fact and would want to take steps to eliminate the potential for strike in one area which affects all others.
A few weeks ago 1 had occasion to speak on the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) which recommended sector bargaining. This meant that all workers in one industry would bargain at the same time. Certainly we have been fortunate, and I touch wood, as far as strikes in the post office are concerned in recent times, but it is no guarantee as to what may happen in the future. If we have 28 different unions or even 15 different ones bargaining at different times, there will be labour turmoil. The private member's bill which I supported suggested that in the post office, whether or not there are different unions, each union would have a certain period of time in which to negotiate. For example, if the contracts ran for a three-year period, we may only be worrying about strikes every three years.
In the post office and in any essential service there should be compulsory arbitration. I have stated this, and I will state it again. I realize we are not at that stage yet, but I have suggested that the Postmaster General and the union heads, such as Mr. Parrot, should be immediately locked in a room with bread and water if they were asked to reach a settlement. I am quite sure before too many days went by, one of them would capitulate and come out with an agreement which had been hammered out, an agreement which certainly would be fair and would make the people of Canada very happy because they would not be confronted with a strike in the postal service.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It would be a waste of good bread and water.


Stan Darling: I do not know about that, but I hope the new postal corporation can work this out.
Another area of the proposed act which is causing a great deal of concern to Canadians is the delivery of time-sensitive mail. The bill before us gives the proposed corporation the sole and exclusive privilege of collecting, transmitting and delivering letters within Canada. I suggested in committee that the Postmaster General should consider its severe and detrimental effect upon the use of courier services which are so vital to consumers and business. The Postmaster General replied that couriers would merely be "tolerated" in the future. He drew attention to the clause 15(1) in the bill which reads as follows:
(e) letters of an urgent nature that are transmitted by a messenger for a fee at least equal to an amount that is three times the regular rate of postage payable for delivery in Canada of similarly addressed letters weighing fifty grams or less;
In effect, this means that Canadians will have to pay to other sources three times as much as the Post Office charges for a service which it cannot even provide. By including this clause in the proposed bill, the government is admitting that the new Crown corporation will be unable to provide such service. If the post office will not be able to handle time-sensitive mail, why should the consumer be punished financially?
The minister counters with the argument that the post office is being punished when people use courier services. He maintains that couriers are skimming the cream and depriving the post office of a lucrative source of income. May I remind him that the cream always rises to the top; if outside sources are obtaining the cream then there is obviously a vacancy of service at the top. By proposing to charge these exorbitant rates for the use of courier services the government is saying to Canadians: "We cannot do the job, but you will have to pay through the nose to have others do it." I certainly take exception to this attitude of the government to thousands of Canadians who depend on quick service for the delivery of sensitive documents such as insurance policies, real estate transactions, legal and financial matters, whether they be of a business or personal nature.
In committee the Postmaster General said that under the new legislation the couriers would have a place in the system. He said that such services may now be illegal. Whether they are operating illegally or not, the point is they are certainly doing a job. If they are operating illegally then why has the government not taken some action against them? I suggest it is because the government knows how vital such services are. The government knows the hue and cry which would be raised if such services were terminated.
The government is now proposing to make the couriers "street legal", to use the vernacular, and Canadians will pay heavily for such legitimacy. Couriers have been, and I feel still are, a very great necessity. I urge the government to abandon this proposed rate structure for courier usage and allow Canadians the right to such service without penalty. To merely tolerate couriers is to merely tolerate the expressed wishes of the people of this country.
I speak from experience on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I was an insurance agent and a real estate broker for a
April 9, 1981

number of years. When I started in the insurance business I can recall getting my letters ready to go to Toronto from my home village of Burks Falls and I would take them down to the train station. I would be out working all day trying to make a living and I would do my book work at night. Of course, this was when the passenger trains were running. It provided an excellent service and as there was a mail car on the train I could post my letters as late as 12.50 in the morning and I knew that those letters would be delivered some time that morning to the various companies. I also knew that if I phoned for an insurance policy which had to be in the mail that day it would arrive in my home town the next.
Today that is an absolute impossibility, or at least highly improbable. The same kind of thing applies to real estate deals. Any real estate broker knows, as do lawyers, that there are certain clauses in real estate transactions which stipulate that time is of the essence, the offer must be delivered or accepted on a certain date. If it happens that the documents are not received on that date then the contract is null and void. The real estate broker would be out a sizeable commission.
In my particular business we cannot trust the mail. The salesmen will drive to Toronto, or London, or wherever the offer must be delivered. He insures that the vendor signs it and then he comes back to his home base. If it is not convenient for him to travel that distance then time and again the buses are used. The buses have an excellent record when it comes to giving service. The new postal corporation certainly will not be able to give that kind of service. I see no reason in the world why the couriers should not be continued.
Last week I made a point of checking the letters which were to be picked up by a courier service from the family business which my sons now operate. They are picked up around five o'clock in the afternoon and each one has the price marked on it. It costs more than 17 cents for the smallest letter but a larger envelope containing five or six different policies will actually go cheaper than first class mail. I certainly feel that businesses like insurance should not be discriminated against when the new postal corporation comes into effect.
The present estimates for the year 1981-82 in the Post Office have increased by about $200 million, 1 believe, to a total of $1.7 billion. That is a great deal of money. Even with the increase the Post Office will still end up in the red to the tune of $557 million. This sum will be borne by the taxpayers. The government is proposing staff changes, eliminating 461 positions but adding 200 others. I understand the cutbacks will be in the areas of marketing, administration and mail processing. The additional workers will be hired for mail collection and delivery. We are well aware of certain areas where the population is booming, for example, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. In these cities the people are crying for mail delivery but the postal budget at present makes no provision for the mail carriers who are so necessary. I strongly suspect that the planned changes in personnel will not result in better mail service, but perhaps the contrary. Some 200 of the jobs being eliminated will be in the mail processing segment of the Post Office. These are positions held by people inside the Post
Canada Post Corporation Act
Office who sort mail by hand and by machine. A great deal of this work is done by hand because the machines which were supposed to speed service cannot handle certain sizes of mail. I think Members of Parliament are well aware of this since we have all been notified that there will be a different sized envelope used by Members of Parliament in order that these letters may be sorted by machine without being rejected or damaged. If those 200 positions were designated as letter carriers the mail would still be bogged down inside buildings. These 200 people, who will be used in the entire national system, will hardly make an impact on the service. I know that I will not be holding my breath in expectation of any great improvement in service, and I am sure not too many others will be, either.
The Postmaster General has accepted the fact that there are fundamental problems with the postal service in this country. He seems to think all our problems will be solved once the Post Office is turned into a Crown corporation. In committee he predicted that the service would improve three years after this happens. I hope that there will be some improvement before that, but it could be 33 years, or even more, before we see the type of service that the Canadian people feel they deserve.
The government's proposed bill to create this corporation will not solve all the old problems. It certainly may very well create new ones. If mail service in Canada is to improve the Postmaster General has suggested that the new corporation will have to meet with its employees to establish an acceptable new strategy. "Acceptable" is the key word. Acceptable to whom and at what cost? The minister has suggested that the establishment of this Crown corporation would lead to greater advancement for workers. This is an admirable and understandable, business practice but only when based on undeniable merit and requirements. If the proposed amendments are simply for the purpose of creating more chiefs in the system, then I would suggest to the government that there are plenty of chiefs now and we could do with a whole lot more Indians.
The Postmaster General also spoke of greater productivity and mentions the possibility of bonuses and incentives for workers. This, too, is an admirable ideal, but again one wonders about reality of such thoughts. The stated goal of the proposed Crown corporation is revenue self-sufficiency. Even someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of mathematical expertise would be able to calculate the postal rate increases necessary to cover the costs involved in attaining that goal. I do not think any of us would want to have to pay what the cost of stamps would be to make the Post Office self-sustained. We are well aware that it is a service, and even with the Crown corporation it must be within the means of the great majority of Canadians. Unless postal rates are allowed to soar to unspeakable heights, the corporation will have to rely on government funding assistance for quite some time. Thus, these proposed bonuses and incentives which cannot apply under the structure of a government department will either be paid for in an indirect manner by the taxpayers or delayed, perhaps forever.

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
There are other equally serious deficiencies in the proposed plans to create the Canada postal corporation. I would suggest to the House that before the bill is passed we might give Canadians an opportunity for further input.
It has been my privilege to serve on a committee of our party, for the Post Office, for some six or seven years, and I have been very interested in it. I have received letters not only from my own riding, but from all over the country because people have known I have served on that committee. I can tell you there have been letters which would really curl your hair, letters which show absolute outrage because, as have been mentioned by other speakers, there is no department of government which involves more Canadians. Everyone, young, old, rich and poor, has something to do with the Post Office, even if it is only getting a birthday card or a Christmas card.
It was my privilege, along with the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), who was the critic for our party for some years, to travel to other countries and look into how the Post Office was working there and how the delivery was.
We were in Great Britain and we were informed of the fast mail service there compared to Canada. I am well aware that there is a slight difference in geography. Despite taking that into consideration, I was amazed that mail in Great Britain is delivered a great deal faster. In fact, there is a different grade of mail there. There is a first-class mail for letters, and also a second grade, which does not get delivered so quickly. We were told that quite often these letters at the cheaper rate are delivered faster. We were talking to some of the people in the union, and this one fellow, whatever his title was, I am not sure whether it was a delayer or not, but it was his job to see that not too many of these second-class letters got delivered too quickly, or it would cut down on the revenue from the first-class mail.
We were also in West Germany and were amazed. That is a fair-sized country of some 60 million people. The mail there- I forget, but high in the 90 per cent-was delivered within 24 hours. Germany has mail cars. They use the trains, and I believe this is one of the reasons for its success. When we were there, the people told us they were holding meetings continually to try to improve upon the delivery. I said to the officials in charge, "How can you improve on 24-hour delivery?" Again, they stated that this was a thing which they were going to do.
We are well aware that before too many years down the way the electronic processing will be in. The government itself may be one of the organizations or one of the institutions which will greatly cut down on mail service, and I presume the day is not too far away when cheques for old age security or veterans' pensions, and so on, cheques will just automatically go into everyone's bank account and this will cut down a great deal. I am not too sure, at the present time. I believe there are some six billion pieces of mail which are handled by the Post Office. I am well aware that some-well up in the 90 per cent is delivered within reasonable time. However, even that small percentage, four 4 or 5 per cent, is an astronomical number of pieces of mail which are not delivered in time. That is the reason that Canadian people are so unhappy with their Post
Office. That is the reason that they are hoping and we are hoping that this new postal Crown corporation will be a success and will be a step towards an improved Post Office. Again, let me repeat that it will depend on the relations between managers and the employees, because they are all human beings and the idea of simply treating each other-and there is certainly fault on both sides. Employees, time and again, will probably not give the managers a break. We hear about the tens of thousands of grievances which are piling up. I happen to be well aware that three or four thousand of those grievances which are piled up and charged against the Post Office are probably one or two grievances multiplied ten thousand times. Of course, the unions will not explain that too fully, but the public on hearing this say, "Well, what is wrong with the management?" Again, let me commend the Postmaster General. Certainly, with some of its shortcomings, I will be supporting this Crown corporation bill. I will be hoping that the bill will go through, and that under the new system we can look forward to a faster and better mail delivery service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, once again it is a pleasure and an honour for me to speak in this House this evening. That does require some effort on my part however because I do have a sore throat. Nevertheless, it is important, I think, that certain things be said. I will only take a few minutes but it is with true equanimity and seriousness that I do.
We are now debating an amendment which seeks to refer again to committee this bill to establish a Crown corporation. Why refer it to committee? For the simple reason that the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) would, instead of having the Corporation established now once and for all, prefer coming back again Five years from now for another try at establishing the Corporation or to confirm its mandate. I cannot respond in any positive way to such an amendment or request. To begin with, for many years now everybody in this country, the government of Canada, or rather the various governments we have had, the postal workers, and Post Office management have been in agreement over the fact that we need a Crown corporation to manage the postal service in Canada, and that we should take action as quickly as possible. So why bring in this type of amendment? What could be the actual reason? Should we be back here in five years and question whether things are or are not going well, whether the Crown Corporation should revert to the status of a department or remain a Crown corporation? Any responsible politician know that you do not invest five years in an organisation, that you do not promote it for years only to tear it down right after you get it going.
Hence I am asking myself some very serious questions, and the more I think about it, the more I have the impression that this is another trick of the Progressive Conservative Party to
April 9, 1981

delay the democratic process in the House and put a spoke in our wheel. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Union of Postal Workers recently sent each Member of Parliament a paper asking them to create this Crown corporation as soon as possible, get to the final vote and carry out the proposed postal service of the future in Canada.
Although this bill has been before the House since last July and discussed at length, and although the hon. member for Mississauga South had the opportunity to speak on the bill on five occasions, the hon. members opposite would not co-operate and allow the bill to progress, making it very hard to understand the reasoning which could bring them to say: Well, at the last minute, before everything is finalized, we shall delay a few more weeks to anger the postal employees a bit more, to irritate Canadians once again, and then we shall refer this to the committee to have a little chat on Section 24. Once this is done, the bill will come back to the House for the final vote and we may perhaps suggest another minor amendment. This reminds me of what occurred during the constitutional debate until we were able to reach an agreement!
Frankly, I am beginning to have serious reservations about the real intentions of Progressive Conservative members. Canadians are waiting for this bill. The post office needs to be reorganized. Some contracts for postal carriers have almost exired. These contracts will have to be renewed with a Crown corporation or a department or be temporarily extended until the Crown corporation is established. We are now in the process of creating a new Crown corporation. We can't keep tripping over trivialities as those suggested in the amendment of the hon. member for Mississauga South.
Before we began this process, we knew that the post office was a department. We now know that it will no longer be a department in a short while, and while we are engaged in this process, various decisions are simply being delayed until the new structure of this Crown corporation can be determined and definitely established.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of the opposition to understand the wishes of Canadians. They want this country to make progress. They want our institutions to develop. They want us to work for the welfare of the population as a whole. It is certainly not by dealing with trivia that we can achieve progress.
After hearing all this debate, and seeing all the work done by the committee on this bill, I was hoping we would be ready this evening to settle the matter once and for all and to tell democratically to every Canadian exactly what is on our minds, but once again, the same party is resorting to the same old subterfuge and saying: No, no, not this evening. Tonight we will discuss the possibility of referring Section 24 to the committee. Why? I cannot tell you Mr. Speaker just how many hours the member for Mississauga-South was allotted in committee to debate this bill. If he had any goodwill, what he should have done at that time was to introduce his Section 24
Canada Post Corporation Act
before the committee. He could have discussed the matter then. Once again we are simply faced with a dilatory trick-


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I ask the hon. member a very brief question? I know he would not accuse me of interrupting the full flow of his address but is the hon. member aware that the point at issue in the amendment, which was moved tonight to send Section 24 back to committee, concerns the question of whether there can be a sunset provision? In other words, whether or not Parliament in five years can take a second look at the post office corporation. I wonder if the hon. member is aware that was ruled out of order at report stage. As a consequence, this is the only means by which, under the rules, it is possible for us to put the matter back into this forum. 1 am sure the hon. member would not want to leave other members or the viewing public in any state of confusion about that.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Speaker, I thank you as well as the hon. member. I can confirm to the member that indeed I knew that Section 24, namely the amendment that is amended to refer Section 24 to the committee deals with the wish of the member for Mississauga South to have us deal again with that subject five years from now, so that the member may then review the matter of the actual creation of this Crown Corporation and ascertain if all is in keeping with our expressed intents and purposes and should so be maintained.
But what I was pointing out before the member took the floor earlier, is that it is in my view a delusion to think that after five years of efforts following the creation and development of such a corporation, we could honestly wonder if such a corporation should continue to exist. I suggest it would be foolish to think so; secondly if the member for Mississauga South really intends to evaluate the results in five years time let us then raise that issue at that time. There are various ways of dealing with Crown Corporations. All parliamentarians also have various means of putting forward their views, and it is quite out of the question for us to question the existence of some 400 Canadian Crown corporations every time a problem arises. It will especially be out of the question to consider whether the Post Office should be restored; it would take another five-year period. No, I think that if the member for Mississauga South had been serious, he would have moved his amendment in committee instead of delaying the proceedings of the House, and I continue to say so and to maintain it, and if the hon. member for Mississauga South disagrees, he will surely have the opportunity to speak.
1 still maintain that if the member had been serious, he would have moved his amendment in committee because that is the place where we, as members, have more time to state and define our views; that is the place where we have more time to move amendments to all those bills. What I dislike

April 9, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
most in the attitude of the Progressive Conservative Party is that they would have the Canadian people believe that any amendment to a bill should necessarily be introduced in this House. The standing committees of the House have precisely been set up to allow members to have more input in every bill. That is how we work in this House so as to allow the largest possible number of members to speak and to make a worthwhile contribution to the discussion on the various bills introduced by the government or by others.
No, I think that during the months devoted to this debate in which many members from both sides of the House have made useful contributions to the proceedings regarding the setting up of that new Crown corporation, we all had the opportunity to state or put forward our views and the ideas of our constituents. I agree that there is some risk involved in turning a department into a Crown corporation, but I must also admit that my constituents are fed up with the operation of the Post Office during the past 10 or 15 years due to numerous labour relations problems and also to the inertia of the superstructure of another department which was supposed to make investments, which caused many problems. The unions and our constituents told us about it. The employees, and even the official critic of the opposition agreed with this principle. When it was the government, the party opposite expressed its support for the creation of a new Crown corporation. Mr. Speaker, I think that all this input clearly justifies our going ahead and adopting this bill as soon as possible, so that the machinery for the creation of this Crown corporation may be set in motion. As you know, all we have before us are good wishes and papers. Those papers must be turned into concrete measures and develop into a Crown corporation, and it is our duty, as Canadians, to build it. This will be a difficult and long term endeavour. The sooner we begin, the better.
As to the point which the hon. member made earlier, it is a fact that it will not be perfect after five years, for nothing is in this world. Should changes be required, the hon. member is well aware that he will be here, together with me and the other members, to bring them about. I think that that is our job, and that is why we are here. I, for one, have my mind made up, and I wish opposition members would realize that Canadians need that Crown corporation, especially postal employees and the people involved in the postal service. They want it, they pressed us into taking steps to have it, again recently, everyone wants it, the sooner the better. In that context, I ask hon. members opposite to act like Canadians and do so seriously, without resorting to dilatory measures but by saying simply: Do we agree, yes or no? We have the right to vote; we shall use that right and tell Canadians whether or not we want that Crown corporation. But let us do so as quickly as possible.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of pride and relief that I rise to speak
on this bill. We have been waiting an awfully long time for this opportunity. We are delighted that it has finally arrived because the New Democratic Party was the first political party in Canada to support the idea of a Crown corporation for the post office. This is one NDP policy we are proud to share with the other groups in the House.


Walter David Baker: You borrowed it from us.


Sidney James Parker: We are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the best possible solution to the postal problems in Canada today. We are not under any illusions. We know this will not cure all the ills in the Post Office overnight. However, we know this bill will provide an atmosphere which will result in a better Post Office. It will give the Post Office management the opportunity to determine its own priorities without reference to Treasury Board policies which make no sense. The bill will provide the Post Office workers with a much better opportunity to negotiate those aspects of their working conditions which most directly affect them. If the problems in our Post Office can be solved, this is the bill that will provide the catalyst that will allow these solutions.
I want to briefly turn to a few personal comments. I congratulate and express my appreciation to the New Democratic Party and its members for allowing me to sit in on the committee stages and work on this bill. Also, I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for his efforts in the work on this bill, and also my researcher, David Gort who spent many, many hours researching and helping in the background.


Mr. Kaplan:: This sounds like the Academy Awards.


Walter David Baker: How about your official agent?


Sidney James Parker: In the nine months that this bill has been before the House, a lot of nasty words have passed under the bridge from all sides. I just want to take this opportunity to say that despite all these words I have a great deal of respect for two men with whom I have worked on this bill. I want to say with respect to the Postmaster General that if all other members of cabinet were able to exhibit his qualities of patience, tolerance, and flexibility his government might not be so unpopular where I come from. The minister was willing to listen. He was willing to negotiate, and he was willing to be fair. These qualities ensure that he has quite a future ahead of him. It is only too bad he is in the wrong party.
The other member of this House to whom I would like to pay tribute is the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the former postmaster general. The hon. member had one of the most difficult roles to play in this debate, and I was honestly astonished at how successfully he was able to play that role. While the committee was sitting the hon. member was also a member of the constitutional committee, which also had a very heavy schedule.
Within his own caucus there exists a rump group of extremely conservative men who do not support the hon.
April 9, 1981

member with respect to his position on this bill and who, quite frankly, have taken great pains to keep this bill from ever getting through the House. The hon. member for Vancouver South was able to keep these men in line most of the time. He was able to balance his activities on both committees, and he was able to develop strong friendships that cross party lines. He deserves a great deal of tribute from all sides of this House.
I want now to turn very briefly to just a few aspects of this bill in which we are particularly interested. I would like to talk about three amendments which we were able to push through the committee, and about one amendment which we were not able to. The amendments we are particularly proud of we feel will make a big difference to the operation of the corporation. Our amendment to Section 5(2) provides for a guarantee that the corporation will provide similar service to communities of a comparable size, wherever they may be located.
1 cannot stress highly enough the importance of this amendment to my own region of western Canada. Over the past five years the post office has been under the hiring freeze of Treasury Board. In that period the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have suffered tremendous growth rates, yet they have received no additional postal workers.
This has meant that cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver have postal service which is leaps and bounds worse than comparable service in eastern Canada. The minister points out that service in eastern Canada is bad too, and he is right. But he cannot seriously stand up in this House and suggest to us that the city of Calgary has comparable postal service with the city of Hamilton, a city approximately the same size, if not a little smaller.
Our amendment to Section 5 will guarantee the same level of postal service across Canada. No longer will the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have to suffer second class postal service. 1 only hope that those residents of Calgary who are going without postal service take note of the fact that while their own Tory MPs were taking pains to destroy the entire system, to stall this bill, and to replace Canadian letter carriers with American couriers, it was us, the NDP, who were fighting to get this clause into the bill.
The hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) talked about courier service. He stated they do not use the postal system. When a representative of the courier service appeared before the committee, I asked whether it was correct that courier services in Toronto were gathering bundles, taking them to the Post Office, mailing them and having their courier service trucks in Montreal meet the Post Office truck and then make the deliveries. Do the people of Canada know that is going on in the Post Office? The hon. member said they were not using the Post Office. I say to him that they are using the postal services. It was admitted in committee.
There are other NDP amendments which I would like to dwell on just briefly. First, I would like to mention that we persuaded the minister to include a section in the bill which provides for the gazetting of any closure of a postal facility and any closure of a postal route. This amendment will give rural residents across the country some protection in the event
Adjournment Debate
that their postal service is threatened by cutbacks. Before these cutbacks go into effect the residents will have the option of appealing to government, and hopefully these pleas will not fall on deaf ears.
Finally, we are proud that the government accepted our strong amendment regarding mail opening. We are frankly concerned, however, that the government may reverse itself on this commitment once the McDonald commission tables its report. As the minister knows, such a change will require an amendment to this bill, and I can assure him that such an amendment will not come easily.
We do have two concerns with this bill and 1 would like to quickly enumerate them. We are very concerned that the government rejected our amendment respecting the rights of contract employees. We felt that small contract employees who wanted to become part of a trade union should have the right to join. The minister rejected that. This bill takes away the right of these employees to bargain collectively. We find that unfortunate, to say the least. As the minister knows, the Canada Labour Code provides for collective bargaining rights for contract employees in the private sector. For the government to provide such rights to other workers and deny them to their own workers is hypocritical and unfair.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House this afternoon to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) some questions that are important to the fishermen along the Fraser River and the coast of British Columbia. I had just heard the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) try to get some kind of answer from the minister about his disposition toward the negotiations with the U.S. and the Chinook salmon run in the Fraser River. All the minister could say was that he had had a very positive answer from the U.S. officials. That is really not good enough. We have heard that from the minister and his officials for the past ten years. It did not matter what was being negotiated in terms of the fisheries agreement on the west coast, it always sounded good before it happened.
The fishermen have long memories of the negotiations that have been going on, of the promises that were made during those negotiations and what they got at the end. I asked the minister if he had that kind of positive agreement in writing
9142

April 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
and if there was going to be any kind of balance or equity in the agreement he was going to sign with the U.S.
I am afraid the minister gave me the same kind of runaround he gave the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta. I can understand why the minister is so anxious to have the fishermen use the barbless hook. He has long practice in getting off the hook. Regardless of how important a question is, he always manages to get off the hook by talking around the question.
The situation along the Fraser is catastrophic. The U.S. fishermen around Point Roberts are catching, in a ratio of nine to one, the Chinook salmon that ought to be coming into the Fraser River and that ought to be the rightful catch of the Canadian fishermen.
I cannot understand the contradictory position taken by the Canadian government when the minister's own officials go to the Law of the Sea Conference and agree to a treaty-it has not been signed yet-whereby anadromous fish like salmon belong to the country in which they originate. That is the agreement of the Law of the Sea Conference. But when it comes to the west coast fishery, then the minister wants to agree to a 50-50 package with the U.S. fishermen. That is an incredible contradiction.
Why does the minister insist on being a long-distance minister for the fishermen on the west coast? I can understand that he would go quite frequently to New Brunswick where his home is. In the past year, however, he has been in British Columbia once. He spent one day there and even then did not meet with the fishermen. I am asking him whether he is content to be the minister of east coast fisheries or whether he plans to be the minister for west coast and inland fisheries as well?
The fact is, that as far as his responsibilities are concerned, he has written off the west coast. He gave me a high-flown answer about what he and his department and his officials have done for the west coast with the salmon enhancement program. Mr. Speaker, that was funded something like seven years ago, at $150 million. That was 1975 or 1976 dollars.
That is not worth $80 million or $90 million. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) looks for funding for the CBC, it is always in current dollars. This minister did not have the fortitude to work for the fishermen in such a way that that salmon enhancement program would be funded with current dollars, yet he had the audacity to boast about it in the House today.
I received a letter today from the Liberal Party of Canada. I received it in my office. It was a request for funds. The only truthful thing in the letter was that the Liberal Party is hard-pressed for money. Mr. McLeod had the audacity to say that the Liberal Party is a grassroots party. If it is so grassroots, why was there a delegation of 22 fishermen here today and yesterday knocking on the doors of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If the Liberal Party and this Liberal government are so grassroots, why does the minister not go to
British Columbia and meet the fishermen there? 1 challenge him to go to the next fisheries convention and spend two days at that convention. Dollars to doughnuts, he will not take the fishermen up on that. If he spends one day there, they will be happy. If he spends two days there, he would need a leave of absence from the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: I received a letter from them too.


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says he received a letter from the Liberal Party too. That is terrific. We can tell they are hard-pressed, but this minister, who wants to be part of a grassroots government, will not have the courtesy and sense of commitment and responsibility to go out and meet with the fishermen there.
Last Sunday there was an audacious situation. The fishermen were meeting in a hall with one set of government officials who were telling the fishermen one thing; another set of officials were meeting with the sports fishermen and telling them another thing; and the minister was somewhere else. The minister makes long distance regulations. He is not meeting with his advisory board; he is going among them. Officials out on the west coast apparently have no contact with the industry or the fishermen involved, and they are making regulations which are totally out of touch with the needs of the community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada and the United States have had several rounds of discussions centring on interception fisheries. The next round of talks is scheduled for April 26 to May 5. In addition, we have also been discussing with the State of Washington the immediate need for co-operative Chinook conservation measures, particularly as they relate to U.S. fisheries in the Point Roberts-San Juan Islands area-Washington commercial areas 7 and 7A- where a large number of Fraser run Chinooks are taken in the U.S. seine and gillnet fisheries.
The State of Washington formally advised us in writing on April 2, 1981 that unless there are significant changes in the problem from mid-April through late October the State of Washington is prepared to close the commercial net fisheries directed at Chinook salmon and, during any commercial net fisheries for other salmon species, require purse seines and reef nets to release chinook and a 5Vs inch maximum mesh size for gillnets.
In addition, the northwest Indian councils have agreed to the restrictions and will be formally advising the Department of Fisheries and Oceans accordingly in writing.
The above arrangement should result in savings of up to 45,000 Chinook from purse seines and 5,000 by gill nets, many of which will return to the Fraser and other river systems. As
April 9, 1981

an example of previous United States catch rates, in the 1977 area 7 and 7A fishery seines took 53,000 gillnets took 23,000.
For the first time it appears that real progress has been made in obtaining co-operation from the United States on conservation measures.


IMMIGRATION-LACK OF EDUCATION AND HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, on April 3, 1981 I posed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) about the lack of education and health services for children of illegal immigrant parents. In the same question I asked him what steps he intends to take to stop the increase of this illegal population in Canada. Canadians have for many decades been able to take pride in the fact that in Canada we have a just society. In the best of all possible worlds, Canadians have endeavoured to develop a system of justice, well-being, and general fairness to all. However, there are times that, with all our good intentions, we still manage to overlook certain sections of our society.
It is on this note that I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the thousands of children across Canada, who live surrounded by anxiety and fear because they are either born in Canada to parents with illegal immigrant status, or brought into the country illegally as small youngsters. In fact, the majority of these innocent victims are not only unable to register in schools, but they are also denied the proper medical attention most of us take for granted.
As an ex-principal of several public schools in Toronto, I am fully aware of the moral dilemma that principals and school boards are often faced with when confronted with immigrants with illegal status.
On the one hand, the administrators would like to demonstrate humanitarianism and register these children in schools to ensure that they receive proper education, knowing very well that the longer these children remain in hiding, the more difficult it will be for them to ever catch up academically and socially with no education and limited exposure to our Canadian culture.
On the other hand, the policy of most boards of education is that they cannot accept any children into the school system who do not produce proof of permanent residence or proof of application being made for landed immigrant status.
Thus, these children grow up as non-persons legally, without school records, registration numbers and other identification everyone else takes for granted. When they are old enough, they are unable to secure employment and unable to receive welfare because they lack the necessary papers and official identity.
Unfortunately, only crime or illegal employment offers them a way to make a living without questions being put to them about legal status. To no one's surprise today, thousands of these immigrants without legal status are frequently exploited
Adjournment Debate
by unscrupulous employers who deny them medical care, pensions, and the other benefits normally available to Canadians and landed immigrants.
Although it is difficult, if not impossible, to confirm the number of such children, I have been quoted figures that range from 3,000 to 30,000. However, even if the figure were 300, the problem is critical because these children are growing up in Canada illiterate, emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted.
I am not advocating an amnesty program, especially when one considers that the previous amnesty, for a three month period in 1973, brought out more than 20,000 illegal immigrants who were in hiding. Yes, it would be very undesirable to permit amnesties to become regular and predictable features of our immigration policy. Rather, I suggest that as a compassionate nation, we take the appropriate steps to bring in tougher regulations and systems of immigration security. To some, this may seem harsh and cruel, but we do now have a most critical situation on our hands that must be alleviated. I am sure these stricter regulations are kind and more humane in the long run.
In this context, I congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for establishing a task force to look into improvements in the procedures of the Immigration Act and regulations, as he said in his answer on April 3. However, the minister failed to answer my question of April 3, 1981, when I asked him what he intends to do to stop future immigrants from entering Canada illegally. None of the past ministers of employment and immigration had a solution to this problem either. Therefore, I propose a solution for the government's consideration.
All visitors coming into Canada should be required to complete in duplicate a simple identification card including name, address, date of birth and destination. Such slips could be completed on the plane or ship just prior to arrival at a Canadian port of entry. One copy of the identification slip would be handed to the customs upon arrival in Canada, the other handed to the customs upon leaving Canada. With the use of computers, officials would be able to run a monthly or annual check as to which visitors remain illegally in Canada.
I should like to hear from the minister whether such a system could be considered by the government to curb the number of illegal immigrants entering Canada.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), to assure the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) that all steps possible under the Immigration Act and regulations are being taken to control illegal immigration to Canada. In spite of these efforts, there are still those persons who knowingly enter and remain in Canada illegally; in many cases accompanied by their children. As a result of the actions of their parents or guard-

April 9, 1981
Adjournment Debate
ians, these children lack legal status in the country and, therefore, are not entitled to medical and educational services.
The hon. member need not be reminded that in Ontario, as in other provinces, medical and educational services remain under the jurisdiction of the province and are not made available to those lacking legal status. Notwithstanding this information, those parents who failed to consider their children's future health needs before bringing them to Canada illegally still have a course of action. The minister stresses that it is their responsibility, for the children's sake as well as their
own, to present themselves at a Canada immigration centre. Each case will then be dealt with individually and fairly, with full consideration of all compassionate and humanitarian aspects, especially when children are concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, April 10, 1981