1987-02-04

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the United States' economy would get a multi-billion dollar stimulus if Congress passed a law to curb acid rain, says Management Information Services, a research company in the U.S. The annual net gain to the U.S. economy would range from $7.5 billion to $13 billion. The economy would gain even though such industries as coal mining would probably lose jobs and sales.
The boost would come from spending to clean up emissions from coal-fired industrial and utility boilers. Most utilities that would be affected by acid rain controls are in the Midwest. But the study states that this region would also benefit because it has the basic heavy industry to make much of the expensive emissions cleaning equipment. Across the United States there would be a net gain of 100,000 to 194,000 jobs, depending on the shape of the final legislation.
The acid rain issue in pure dollars and cents may be the language President Reagan and those in Congress opposed to a control program understand. Will the Canadian Government make good use of this information?


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to urge Parks Canada to confirm the amount of money it will contribute to the development of Grassy Island National Park at Canso. I would also like to know when this money will be flowing.
Grassy Island is the site of North America's first fishing fort. It is situated off Canso, Guysborough County.
In addition to recognizing the historical importance of this site, the development will greatly contribute to economic development in the area. Grassy Island National Park will be a tourist attraction drawing thousands of people into this area. It
will greatly enhance attempts to diversify the economic base of the area.
In response to directions from Parks Canada to obtain local funding, I have worked with community groups, the MLA for Guysborough, Dr. Chuck MacNeil, and the Mayor of Canso, Raymond White, to do just that. In this respect we are close to reaching our objective.
I now want Parks Canada to outline the details of its commitment which is to supplement the local contribution and to effect full development of Grassy Island National Park.


EXTENSION OF SITTING HOURS TO DEBATE BILL C-18
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we witnessed a blatant abuse of parliamentary procedure and tradition when the Government called to extend the hours of debate into the evening and until 3 a.m. in an effort to close off debate on Bill C-18. It knew full well that many members of the Opposition were fulfilling their duties and responsibilities on standing committees or legislative committees, and could not be in the House to oppose this closure tactic when it was introduced by the Government late in the afternoon.
This thoughtless, naive, bullying tactic by the Government flies in the face of our parliamentary reforms. It demonstrates a lack of respect for and appreciation of the role and responsibility of opposition Members, and it shows a disregard and contempt for Parliament, its history, and its traditions.
The Government's thoughtless and crass manipulation of parliamentary procedure encourages divisiveness between Members. This does nothing to encourage or enhance the level of civility in Parliament.
I ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) to intervene immediately to enact changes to the Standing Orders so that this blatant abuse of Parliament does not occur in the future. After all, the Government through its actions and attitudes ultimately sets the tone and mood of the House.

February 4, 1987


THE LATE NORMAN MCLAREN
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members will join me in paying tribute to Canadian filmmaker, Norman McLaren, who died last week at the age of 72. His 45-year career, mostly in the service of the National Film Board, produced over 60 films which stand as international landmarks of our culture. McLaren explored the frontiers of filmmaking. He pioneered a wide range of production techniques, including pixillation, which joins disparate images to create continuous action, and is now in wide use.

Norman McLaren also led the way by developing a technique for direct recording on the sound track. Throughout the world Norman McLaren was awarded more than 200 prizes for his films, including Cannes' Palme d'or, yet he did not seek recognition as a film producer.

When informed that Neighbors, his hauntingly simple allegory for the nuclear age had won an Oscar he replied, "But who is Oscar?"
For all but two years of his prolific career as a filmmaker, Norman McLaren was a civil servant. As we reflect on his passing and celebrate his work, we have reason to be proud of our National Film Board.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Last
Saturday, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend a Rural Dignity meeting in Agassiz in British Columbia's Fraser Valley East riding. Six hundred people were at the meeting, and their message was loud and clear: We do not want to be consulted only to be told that you are going to close our post offices. What do we want? To be first class citizens. All Canadians want to keep their post offices.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) was present at the Monday meeting. He asked the question to the Minister and assured us we would be consulted. Consultation is not what people want. Again today we read in the newspapers that the Minister responsible for Canada Post is repeating his promise to consult people before closing post offices. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous, an insult to all Canadians. Rural residents will no longer accept to be treated as second class citizens. They want the same postal services throughout Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday CN Rail announced that a further 449 jobs will disappear from the Moncton main shops by year end, 279 of which will be completely lost to the local economy.
The Government must give this matter its immediate attention. I urge that a co-ordinated effort by all government Departments be undertaken to identify and attract new industry to Moncton which will help to offset the CN decision. In addition, CN management must identify these lay-offs as technological, organizational or operational change, not work related, and have appropriate benefits applied.
I would urge that those CN unions that refuse to ratify the special agreement between Canadian General Electric and CN to employ some 578 persons at the Moncton shops, reconsider the decision and its effect on their fellow workers in Moncton. All levels of government, CN, and the unions must live up to their respective responsibilities in an effort to lessen the effects on the Moncton economy.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the United States exploded its first nuclear test of 1987. In so doing it set back the chance of a comprehensive test ban for at least five years.
The Soviet Union has given notice that its moratorium on testing would end if the United States conducted another test. The Americans have given it every reason to resume testing. They show no interest in serious immediate negotiations to ban nuclear tests.
The Americans used to argue that a comprehensive test ban could not be concluded because it could not be verified. However, when the Soviets became willing to discuss verification, the U.S. shifted ground. It argued that testing was necessary to maintain confidence in its nuclear deterrent.
However, there is another reason. American nuclear tests are also part of the Strategic Defence Initiative. Star wars already threatens the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and American deployments are eroding SALT II. President Reagan's reliance on such unilateral action shows that we will have to wait for a change of U.S. administration before any progress can be made toward a comprehensive test ban.

February 4, 1987


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to announce to the House today that an agreement in principle was accepted by the International Longshoremen's Association this morning at 7.10 a.m., which would end the labour dispute at the Port of Quebec City.
The union executive will present this memorandum of agreement to its members on Friday, in the hope that it will be accepted and that work at the Port of Quebec will be able to start as soon as possible, perhaps this Sunday.
I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate all those who took part in the negotiations, and who dedicated their time and effort to settling this dispute so that the federal Government would not have to pass back-to-work legislation.
Union representatives and management have taken very seriously the advice of various intervenors in the industry who warned the two parties about the precarious situation in which the Port of Quebec finds itself today, and as a result, the parties negotiated in good faith in order to reach an agreement that would be satisfactory to both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the agreement concluded today will be ratified this Friday, which will be very good news for the people of Quebec.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a crying shame that the Government has failed to produce its long awaited refugee policy. Former Ministers of Immigration have promised for two years that the Parliament of Canada would have a new and revamped refugee policy. The last Throne Speech promised that it would be a priority and a commitment of the Government. The current Minister said that last fall was the date. Then he changed his mind and it was to be the end of 1986. Then it was to be the beginning of 1987, and we still have no revamped refugee policy.
Rabbi Gunther Plaut did a landmark report on the current status of refugees in Canada. An immigration committee has studied the matter patiently and has produced a number of reports on the subject. Communities, churches, and various coalitions across the country have mobilized. They are now saying that they are frustrated at the lack of action on the part of the Government in terms of refugee policy.
It is time that we stop promises and rhetoric. The evidence is in. There is a new phenomenon in respect of refugees. We are
no longer going abroad to recruit a quota of candidates from refugee camps. People arrive at our shores claiming refugee status. We need a policy which comprehends the new reality and is fair to refugees. Let us have this policy so that all Canadians can be proud of our record in years gone by.


EXTENDED SITTING-CONDUCT OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House have evolved over the years and are designed to give every Member of Parliament and every Party an opportunity to support or oppose any measure through sound debate, showing full respect for the views of others.
Last night and early this morning we saw one of the most disgraceful performances which ever took place in this hallowed Chamber. For nine hours members of the NDP abused the rules and played silly games among themselves. They were so undisciplined that they would not even respect the sensible suggestions made by the Deputy Speaker who displayed remarkable patience and restraint.
During the whole period NDP speakers, instead of dealing with the merits or demerits of the Bill, just spewed hatred and ridicule on the heads of other Members of Parliament.
It was a mockery of Parliament and a complete waste of Parliament's time when so many urgent matters of concern to Canadians need attention. Then, just after 3 a.m., the House Leader of the NDP stood up and moved that second reading of the Bill take place, the very thing the NDP prevented during the whole nine hours. Who can understand a socialist?


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians generally, and western Canadians in particular, are anxious about the long promised Polar 8 ice-breaker contract. They have been told that the original proposal for a $450 million vessel built to Coast Guard standards was rejected because it cost too much. People recognize that a competing Canadian bid to build a cheaper vessel to commercial standards encouraged that rejection. They became concerned when they heard that the Coast Guard did not like this alternative. They were especially concerned to learn that a foreign company was working to satisfy the Coast Guard.

February 4, 1987
Oral Questions
Western Canadians generally, and Conservative Members of Parliament specifically, became very anxious when they learned that the foreign company had invited Lavalin Inc. of Montreal to serve as project manager for construction of the Polar 8 ice-breaker. Is Montreal to become the ice-breaker design centre of Canada as well as the aerospace centre? Have western Canadian interests in Calgary and Vancouver been bypassed in the competition? The award of the Polar 8 contract is becoming another political football for the Mul-roney Government.
* *


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last June 26 this House unanimously passed major improvements to the Canada Pension Plan. CPP disability benefits were increased by at least $136 per month beginning in January, 1987.
I rise today to report the theft by the Ontario Government of these disability benefits from the people who all Parties agreed were the neediest in society. When the new increased disability cheques were sent out in January, the Ontario Government, apparently alone among all provinces in Canada, reduced the provincial payments to the disabled by a corresponding amount. Not only does this mean that the disabled in Ontario do not benefit from the disability pension increase, but the richest province in Canada used the money we provided for the poor to reduce its deficit. People could be even worse off because reductions in provincial payment levels could eliminate their provincial drug cards.
The Ontario Liberal Government is a minority Government. This unjustified and miserly action must be reversed. Members of all Parties should contact their provincial counterparts to reverse this heartless action.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and relates to his fish deal with France. Yesterday he waved the treaty around. Let me say to him that he is once again playing fast and loose with the facts. Surely there can be nothing more pathetic, Mr. Speaker, than a Prime Minister trying to justify his own actions by attempting to rewrite history.
The facts are these. In 1972 Canada had a recognized 12-mile limit. This treaty by Article 3 would have had the French out of the Gulf under that 12-mile limit by May 15, 1986; last year. In 1977, Don Jamieson, a great Newfoundlander, as the Minister of Transport will agree, negotiated a 200-mile limit. In 1980 Romeo LeBlanc negotiated the French out of that limit by May 15, 1986. What has happened is absolutely the responsibility of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why did the Prime Minister undo the great work of the late Don Jamieson on behalf of Canada and on behalf of Newfoundland?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the treaty has been tabled. It speaks for itself. There is no doubt as to what the treaty contains. It is very clear that in the absence of an interim arrangement there was a reversion to the provisions therein-


Mr. Tobin:: Where is the 1980 agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which provided, under the Liberals, for unquantified, perpetual rights to the French-


Mr. Rompkey:: Not so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -to fish in Canada's zone. What we are in the process of doing, with the leadership of the distinguished Minister of Transport who is the representative of Newfoundland and Labrador in the federal Cabinet-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He was.


Mr. Axworthy:: He is in his last term.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -is a process that will protect the historic fishing rights of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are most of all concerned about the rights of Newfoundlanders before anything else. We have recognized the complexity of this problem, but we know the rights of Newfoundlanders are central to any solution to it.


OFFICIALS' ACTIONS-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right that the treaty speaks for itself, but he misinterpreted that treaty today. Article 3 makes it quite clear that the French were to be out of the Gulf by May 15, 1986.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not try to reach back to 1713 to the time of the first treaty on fisheries, the Treaty of Utrecht. The Prime Minister, in dealing with the French, had an option. He could have said no to the French and he did not.
February 4, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why did the Prime Minister's officials from his office and the officials from the Department of External Affairs overrule the Canadian negotiators and make a quick sell-out to the French?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in regard to both the preamble and the essence of the question, my right hon. friend knows full well that the information on which he bases his question is completely erroneous. I am being very polite. It is an absolute falsehood.
It is false from beginning to end. The fact of the matter is that when confronted with a dilemma we were faced with the sellout of the Liberal Party, the Government of which he was a member, and I will allow the Canadian people to make up their minds about the true import of a treaty which had grave consequences for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. That is why the Government of Canada, in cooperation with the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, is working so hard to get out of this problem created by the Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CANCEL AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that treaty certainly speaks for itself. It does not support the position advanced by the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to rewrite history and rely on past Liberal administrations, I can tell him that we would not have sold out on lumber, we would not have sold out on the farmers, and we would not have sold out on fish. When will the Prime Minister quit selling out Canadians? Will the Prime Minister cancel the agreement he made with France, today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that a former Prime Minister of Canada would allow himself to succumb to such easy and remarkable jingoism as that expressed by him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Here the NDP is sending in the navy, and the Leader of the Opposition is repudiating the traditional Liberal position, while the only position the Government of Canada has adopted is one that is desirous of trying, having been stuck with this mess, to help the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador out of one hell of a mess that was created by the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair should observe that long questions invite long replies.
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERMEN
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, the resident expert on jingoism in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have just come back from a week of travelling the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, a great, historic fishing area. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the people of Newfoundland-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a number of ways of telling other Hon. Members things but they are not really in the preamble to a question. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question. The Hon. Member is very good at doing so and he may do it in a direct way.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland do not want excuses, apologies, or ill-conceived distractions. They want justice, nothing more and nothing less.
Given that this agreement was reached and signed behind the backs of Newfoundland fishermen, how can the Prime Minister insist on imposing an agreement on Newfoundland fishermen that will take bread and butter off their plates, an agreement on which we were not consulted and an agreement to which we will never agree?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as has been repeated numerous times in this House, the fishermen of Newfoundland, the industrial representatives of Atlantic Canada, and the Province of Newfoundland were fully consulted on all of the elements of the agreement. All of those elements were fully explained to them in detail prior to the conclusion of an agreement which does not give away one codfish to France beyond the present year in which they are fishing according to normal arrangements.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, to use the Prime Minister's obviously acceptable language, that is an absolute falsehood! It does not give away a single fish, it gives away thousands of metric tonnes of fish they did not have before.


REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not realize that unless this deal is declared null and void he will never again enjoy the confidence of fishermen, and his Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Louder!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -will never enjoy the confidence of fishermen? Cancel this deal now.

February 4, 1987
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this malicious attempt to sow fear and misunderstanding in the hearts of the people of the province which the Hon. Member purports to represent is part of the serious problem we are trying to rectify.
If there was any giveaway one could read Article 2 of the Treaty of 1972 which stated: "In return the Canadian Government undertakes, in the event of a modification to the juridical regime relating to the waters situated beyond the present limits-to recognize the right of French nationals to fish in these waters." That was confirmed by a Liberal Government without terms and in perpetuity.


NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER'S PRESS CONFERENCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions to direct to the Prime Minister on the same subject. They are very direct questions and I will put them in my usual quiet and very precise way.
At a press conference this morning the Premier of Newfoundland, Brian Peckford, is quoted as saying that for the First time in nine years of negotiations Newfoundland has been cut out of the process. He stated further that he believed this was a deliberate action on the part of the federal Government. I want to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to stand and tell the people of Newfoundland, the people of Atlantic Canada, and this House, that he will can this agreement and do it the right way.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland has been cut out of nothing. The agreement signed in Paris two weeks ago provides for a parallel set of negotiations between now and the end of December in which the Province of Newfoundland and all other Atlantic provinces, and the representatives of the industry, will be fully involved. Those discussions commence this Thursday in St. John's.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, at the press conference this morning Premier Peckford pointed out that he has the support of all Atlantic Premiers. He was on the telephone to Premier Getty to call a First Ministers' Conference to indicate their support for the position of Newfoundland with respect to this agreement between Canada and France. This is a major crisis in federal-provincial relations. I ask the Prime Minister, do we really need this kind of conflict? I thought we had left behind the Liberal days of bad feelings between federal and provincial Governments. Is he now prepared to admit that a mistake was made and he will start the process over again?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this agreement-


Some Hon. Members:: Cod!


Thomas Edward Siddon: All varieties of Atlantic fish, if you like-was to protect the interests of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada in the face of massive overfishing by France in the disputed zone known as 3PS, and to bring under control once and for all the French fishing in Canadian waters by negotiating a set of interim arrangements.
[DOT] (M30)
As the Prime Minister has said, the Hon. Minister of Transport, who represents the interests of Newfoundland in outstanding fashion in the Cabinet, will continue to represent those interests and ensure that no fish are given up if it will in any way jeopardize the economic status of Newfoundlanders.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Other regions of Canada are starting to recognize that cod is to Newfoundland as wheat is to the Prairies, as lumber is to British Columbia, and as nickel is to the Sudbury area. Does the Prime Minister not recognize that those involved intimately in the exploitation of these resources should be part of the negotiating process from beginning to end?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I share the enthusiasm of the Hon. Member in his defence of the legitimate rights of Newfoundlanders with regard to their resources and their capacity to build their future. That is why one of the first things we did as a new Government was to sit down, on an urgent basis, with Premier Peckford and the Government of Newfoundland, pursuant to good counsel and leadership provided by the Minister of Transport, and negotiate a solution to a historic injustice which had been inflicted upon the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by the Liberals with regard to offshore oil. The Government was motivated by a sense of fairness and openness with regard to the people of Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You sold us out.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That Newfoundlander over there should be ashamed of himself. He sat in silence-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You sold us out! Let's go to Newfoundland and debate it.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CANCEL AGREEMENT
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He has made much of national reconciliation and cooperative federalism. That is a main plank in the Prime Minister's platform. How can he square those very noble ambitions with the fact that Newfoundland was not consulted about this deal? In fact, the overwhelming opinion in the province, the Atlantic region, and across the country is that
February 4, 1987

this deal smells. If the Prime Minister really wants to treat Newfoundlanders with fairness, as he just said, will he now listen to the very clear voice which is coming from Newfoundland and cancel this deal?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the position taken by members of the Opposition is puzzling in that it seems to suggest that we should not attempt to improve the lot of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador. This agreement does not give away one codfish beyond this year. That is exactly what this agreement is designed to do. Representatives of the Government will be in St. John's on Thursday and Friday and on an ongoing basis to ensure that we look after the interests and rights of the people of Newfoundland above all else.


VIEW OF CONSERVATIVE MEMBER
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans says that Members on this side are speaking with confused voices. A respected member of the Conservative caucus, the Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, a respected fishing captain, speaks for all Newfoundlanders and ourselves when he says "cancel this deal". If the Minister of Fisheries wishes to retain any credibility, he will do just that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, it is the route of cowards to cancel a deal which grants Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador an opportunity to discuss, in a civilized, helpful way, once and for all, a serious irritant, the resolution of which will bring benefit to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


TERMS OF ATLANTIC ACCORD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Prime Minister. In his answer to the Member for Nickel Belt he pointed out the Atlantic Accord. Under the Atlantic Accord provincial Governments have a right to be consulted and must be a part of the decisionmaking process. Why did his Government not do the same thing with regard to the loss of cod?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there are those who might have criticized any effort to negotiate the Atlantic Accord. In the face of difficult circumstances and much misunderstanding, it is a mark of leadership and courage to sit down, as the Government is doing, to negotiate a lasting, positive and beneficial solution to a problem such as this. This is the essence of leadership, not of opposition.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that former Prime Minister Trudeau could not have said it better.


NEWFOUNDLAND PREMIER'S REQUEST
Rodney Edward Murphy: I will address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Why is the province not
Oral Questions
being consulted on this very important issue? Why is he not agreeing to the request of the Premier of Newfoundland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as I have said at least twice in the House this afternoon, representatives of the Government and officials of the Departments of External Affairs and Fisheries and Oceans will engage in discussions for a period of several months, starting this Thursday, with a view to resolving, in an amiable, harmonious fashion, a serious problem for which the Opposition offers no solution other than to confront or ignore.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-TERMS OF PROPOSED UNITED STATES STEEL IMPORT LEGISLATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question, too, is for the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a copy of the U.S. Senate Steel Import Stabilization Act which is currently before the U.S. Senate. It threatens 50,000 Canadian steel jobs. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, given the mess he has made of the fishing deal, given the mess he has made of softwood lumber, given the mess he has made of shakes and shingles, and given the mess he has made of the drug Bill, at the very least will he be prepared to state today that the free trade talks cannot continue as long as this threat to Canadian steel jobs remains on the U.S. Senate table?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, this points out very clearly why we need a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States. The Opposition seems to want to take the cowardly way and walk away from everything. I cannot understand their stand on these issues.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reference to "cowardly" was made by the Member. I asked the Prime Minister what he thought about the steel issue. He will remember that during the last election campaign he sent a letter to every constituent in the riding of Hamilton East promising that he personally was going to protect steel jobs.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF BILL FROM U. S. SENATE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, given that the Prime Minister has already sacrificed shakes and shingles, he has sacrificed lumber, he is sacrificing drugs, will he at the very least-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Chair, of course, must sometimes give some latitude on preambles. However, when a second preamble is, for all practical purposes, a complete repetition of the first, I know the Hon. Member would want to put her question.

February 4, 1987
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister let the U.S. Senate know, in no uncertain terms, that this Bill must be pulled from its agenda or we will pull out from the free trade talks?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been keeping his commitment to the steel industry. We have had quarterly meetings with the United States Government, the latest of which was last Thursday. Those meetings have been very productive. Our steel producers have been restraining themselves on exports. We deal in free trade in steel.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You don't have to tell us about steel.


John Horton McDermid: If the Hon. Member will give me a chance, I will respond. We will stand by the program which is in place now. We are fair traders in steel. We do not believe that this Bill will reach a final conclusion in the Senate.


CANADIAN CULTURAL ISSUES
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is with regard to the free trade talks. Will the Prime Minister tell the Americans that Anne of Green Gables is not a threat to American culture? Will he tell them that even if we beam The Beachcombers reruns to them non-stop that American culture will not be at risk? In short, will he undertake to explain the facts of cultural life to the Americans, that with their population ten times ours the economy of scale is ten times in their favour and the risk is tenfold against us?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I assume the Hon. Member is referring to a comment by Mr. Yeutter. In my judgment, his comments betray a stunning ignorance of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: His remarks are completely insensitive and totally unacceptable to the Government and the people of Canada.


CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister help put an end to the ignorance of the Americans about what is meant by cultural sovereignty, specifically by naming the cultural industries not on the negotiating table, which are broadcasting, film, music, and publishing? Will he unequivocally state that those industries are not up for grabs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will take the opportunity to consult
a speech that I made in this regard at the University of Chicago, she will see it indicated among other things that:
If we and our American partners cannot strike a deal that will achieve these goals, a deal will not be struck. Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada.
They are not at issue in these negotiations.


UNITED STATES OFFICIAL'S COMMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. To coin the old expression: "We are looking for action, not words". Will the Prime Minister take action against what he has properly stated as the unacceptable statements by Mr. Yeutter? Is he prepared to send a diplomatic note to the President of the United States protesting the statement by Mr. Yeutter and clearly state, so there is no mistake whatsoever in the administration, that our cultural industries and identity are not negotiable? Will he take that specific action today so that there will be no misapprehension on the American side?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have conveyed that view repeatedly to President Reagan, to the public of the United States, to the administration and, most recently, to Vice-President Bush and Secretary Baker. If Mr. Yeutter or anyone else would care to entertain their own view, I suppose it is a free country. However, our position is very much the one I have stated, from which there has been no change at all. If the Hon. Member wants my view of Mr. Yeutter's comments, I have already given it.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister understands full well that Clayton Yeutter is not a private citizen expressing his own view but a senior trade spokesperson for the United States Government. I believe that it requires action on the part of the Government to react clearly and officially to the declaration made by Mr. Yeutter and say that it is unacceptable. It should clearly state all the specific items that we will not negotiate and not put at risk.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I just said. That is my position and the position of the Government of Canada. It is very clear and has been consistent throughout the piece. Let me quote from an article on December 1, 1986, dealing with this issue and involving my hon. friend. It states:
"We want to trade around the world with every nation of the world. We don't want to lock ourselves in (with the United States)", yelled Axworthy from one microphone.
Screamed Johnston from another: "If you want to protect cultural industries, you do so through bilateral agreements with the United States".
That is the position of the Liberal Party. Our position is that they are not up for grabs.
February 4, 1987


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND.
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Lynn Verge, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Newfoundland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I commend the Minister for recently increasing the CPP disability pension benefits by approximately $140. Unfortunately, the Ontario provincial Government has chosen to be the benefactor of this federal increase by reducing its payments by almost the same amount, thereby negating any benefit to disabled pensioners in Ontario. In fact some of them even risk losing their disabled pensioner's drug card.
Disabled pensioners are frustrated and confused by the Ontario Government's expression of concern for the poor on the one hand, while taking money from them with the other. Will the Minister clarify this for the House?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be clearly understood that on January 1 this year the changes that were brought about by negotiations with the federal Government and the provinces resulted in disability beneficiaries receiving a maximum increase of $150.89 a month. Prior to the implementation of those disability benefits, I wrote to every province indicating that it would be the federal Government's position that, while the provinces have the responsibility of setting social assistance rates, it would be our position that we would expect the amount of increase of disability would be passed on directly to those who needed that benefit, namely, the disabled of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Will you table those?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, I am willing to table those letters. I have had responses from some provinces. I have also said that I would be interested that these people would not lose what is otherwise known as non-Financial benefits such as drug cards or health cards.
I say to the Province of Ontario today that I have very clearly expressed that in a letter. I hope it will find its way through to passing on the money to the disabled, as was the intention of Parliament.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-INTRODUCTION OF U. S. STEEL IMPORT LEGISLATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He will know that the Bill that has been introduced in the American Senate will have a very negative impact on our steel industry by restricting steel exports to the United States by one-third. Will the Prime Minister indicate if he and his Government are prepared to stand up for the Canadian steel industry and, if so, will he be precise in what steps the Government plans to take?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have very clearly conveyed the views of the Government and the people of Canada on that specific measure, most recently to Vice-President Bush and Secretary Baker. There is no doubt that our view is that this is an unacceptable piece of legislation and ought never to apply to Canada. We are fair traders in steel and this should never impact on us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That response makes me tremble because it is the exact same response the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs made in the House when questions were put about the softwood threat. They said that there was nothing to worry about because they made their representations and sent letters. That was exactly what was said over the last few months, and we know what happened to softwood.


CANADIAN POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of how the Government caved in on the softwood issue and the impact it is having on Canada, with the present threat to the Canadian steel industry, what precise steps does the Government plan to take to ensure that this legislation does not proceed through the American Senate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I already indicated the extent to which we view this seriously and will act properly in that regard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Please don't send Pat Carney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend raises questions about softwood. I understand that he is from the Province of British Columbia.


Mr. Fulton:: You guys were incompetent. Let's get that straight.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I understand that the Government's position on softwood was endorsed by the IWA, by the Government of British Columbia, by Premier Vander Zalm and many members of the NDP in British Columbia because clearly it

February 4, 1987
Oral Questions
was a solution designed to help British Columbians keep money in the pockets of the people of British Columbia-


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you acted sooner you would not have needed that silliness.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he not agree that there are sufficient grounds for a public inquiry into the Oerlikon affair in light of recent reports in The Globe and Mail that Raymond Lette of Lette and Associates related to an acquaintance that Oerlikon informed him that the company had been told to deal with Mr. Bazin, a long-time Progressive Conservative and friend of Mr. Mulroney? The source went on to say: "We have been lawyers for Oerlikon for many years and we got this call saying 'Raymond, we are sorry about this but the one time-".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have to be reasonable limits on Members reading newspapers to each other. The Hon. Member will put his question, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I am just finishing the quote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Will the Prime Minister therefore grant the public inquiry?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think all Members of the House, and indeed all members of the public, are rather startled at the stunning conversion that has taken place in the mind of the Hon. Member. He was quoted on CTV as saying: "My personal feeling now, Pamela, is that we should probably await the results of an RCMP investigation".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have a new position flowing from this Member every day, depending upon which newspaper he reads or what bit of innuendo and flack he can pick up.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to go before a public inquiry-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: -to defend the statements I have made. I have nothing to hide. Is the Government prepared to order a public inquiry into the Oerlikon affair?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think what Hon. Members will be wondering is what set of statements the Hon. Member is prepared to defend. He has been all over the map on this issue so he will have a lot of latitude- to defend any one that he may very selectively choose.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who, a few moments ago, expressed a willingness or a wish to keep money in the pockets of the people of British Columbia and not send it to the United States. My question is about the potential sale of West Kootenay Power and Light to American interests.
The Prime Minister should know that under American law it would be illegal for a foreign country to take ownership of such an American utility. Will the Prime Minister tell the people of British Columbia why his Government is taking such a donothing attitude on this question? Why does it seem to be misreading public opinion? Will he not admit that if this were a takeover of, say, part of Ontario Hydro or Hydro-Quebec by an American utility there would be a hell of an outcry and the Government would never permit such a thing?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question was fully answered in the House yesterday by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I invite the Hon. Member to read it.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF DECISION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, since the Investment Canada decision valiantly announced on Christmas Eve, the people of the Kootenays and the southern interior of British Columbia have brought new evidence before the B.C. Utilities Commission, including the fact that the American company was gouging ratepayers at home. Given that this is new evidence that Investment Canada has not heard, is the Government prepared to listen to the people and have another look at this takeover decision?
February 4, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Public Utilities Commission of the Province of British Columbia is looking into this matter and it certainly has an interest. I understand it is a public hearing. 1 also understand that some members of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia support this issue-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not true!


James Ross Fulton: That was a straight lie, and you should not keep saying it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is what the suggestion was yesterday-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Well, he lied.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is a lie. Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York Centre.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has flatly contradicted what Senator Bazin and the Prime Minister had to say about the role the Senator played in obtaining the contrat for Oerlikon. The Prime Minister and the Senator deny there was any lobbying nor any other activity before August 1, 1986. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, however, has acknowledged that he received representations from Mr. Bazin regarding Oerlikon on March 14 and May 1, 1986. This is a flat contradiction, not of what the media reported but of what they themselves said. So which is the correct version?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding from what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said is that the only dealing he had with Senator Bazin was when Senator Bazin was acting in his capacity as lawyer for Oerlikon. Is that inappropriate? I do not know what the Hon. Member is trying to pursue. The question was fully answered yesterday.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Have an inquiry.


REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is wrong. In his press release Senator Bazin stated that he began his work on August 1. The representations, which the
Oral Questions
Minister admits he received, were on March 14 and on May 1.
I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Which of these versions is correct? Who is telling the truth?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that any lawyer has a right to represent his client to the Government or to other people if he wishes. The real issue which is before the House today is which allegation made by the Liberals is the truth and what story do they stand by today.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Deople of Manitoba are angry with the Government because of the awarding of the CF-18 contract to Montreal instead of Winnipeg. They watched in disbelief the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has had some indication from Hon. Members that, perhaps, we are not getting enough questions in during the Question Period. I have to say that part of the reason is that there are long preambles which invite long answers. I would ask the Hon. Member, who I know has an important matter, to put his question.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a grant to build a hog processing plant in Neepawa, the Canada Packers plant in Winnipeg will implement a reduction in its staff. It will lay off 450 people on April 1. Since this plant has been in existence for more than 50 years will the Minister instruct his senior officials to meet with the Government of Manitoba, Canada Packers, and the union to see what can be done to help these workers with retraining programs and not just leave them to the mercies of unemployment insurance benefits? Many of these people have worked 20 or more years for the company.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of my colleague is important because it relates to the problem faced by laid-off employees when plants close down.
As a rule Department of Employment and Immigration officers set up an assistance process whenever a large number of workers are to be laid off by a company. I am sure that in this case the Winnipeg employment centres and the Manitoba Government have taken action and are working with us and doing their utmost to establish Government programs or other measures designed to find jobs for the workers laid off by the company involved.

February 4, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HELP SITUATION IN WINNIPEG
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister who we understand is in charge of organizing a plan to rebuild the western economy. Is the Minister prepared to meet with the Manitoba Government to discuss what is happening in the city of Winnipeg and to help devise plans jointly so that the manufacturing sector in Winnipeg, which has been so successful in the past, can be revitalized?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern. Naturally we will be working with the Government of Manitoba, and all Governments in Canada, to address issues such as the one the Hon. Member has raised. I remind the Hon. Member that our Ministers are meeting with government officials on an ongoing basis. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's suggestion into consideration and follow up on it.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday CN announced a further downsizing of 449 workers at the Moncton Shops. The Prime Minister is aware that both New Brunswick Ministers have done absolutely nothing on the shops issue, nor has the present Minister of Transport or the previous one who assured us that there would be no massive lay-offs in Moncton. Will the Prime Minister intervene now and instruct CN not to proceed with the massive lay-offs announced yesterday?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there was no new announcement yesterday that announced anything that has not been known since the end of last June. The announcement yesterday was in response to union requests for information about the future of the shops.
The reason that these lay-offs have to go into effect is that two unions, the union of machinists and the union of boilermakers, continue to be obdurate in preventing Canadian General Electric from going ahead with its plans in the Moncton area which would re-employ 303 employees.
In response to the question for information, CN has given information on how the lay-offs will take place. We regret this. We have done everything we can to ameliorate it. But these two obdurate unions refuse to listen to anyone's pleas in connection with these 303 jobs in Moncton.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent. A short supplementary, please.


REQUET THAT MONCTON SHOPS BE KEPT OPEN
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, what is happening in Moncton now is scandalous and shameful, all the more so because the Government does not want to do anything. If the Prime Minister is sincere when he states that he wants to offset regional disparities in this country, why does he not direct CN management not to transfer it work load to other shops, but to maintain operations at the CN shops in Moncton?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, at least the Hon. Member should be fair and realize the problem. CN has to stand on its own feet to comply with the directive of past administrations which we continue to apply. It must be allowed to conduct its affairs in a businesslike manner. It will still have a payroll of approximately $90 million annually in Moncton. It has just opened the new Maritimes intermodal terminal, which is a $17 million facility.
We will continue to do everything we can with a special $4 million fund that has been provided, including $2 million from CN, to ensure that Moncton continues to expand, and that other jobs are provided.
That is what we are doing. What are you doing?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville. One question, please.


ECONOMIC SITUATION OF THE YOUNG
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Youth). For a year now we have been waiting for the Government's youth policy.
According to yesterday's press reports, if they want to make ends meet, young Quebecers who are unemployed or on social welfare have to act as guinea pigs for Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue biological researchers. Are we to conclude from these facts that the Government policy is to let young people be used as lab specimens if they want to survive?


Hon. Jean Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the article mentioned by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville and, like many other people, I deplore the fact that Canadian youths should be
February 4, 1987

forced into such a situation. I would point out that it is the kind of economic problem which dates back to a number of years. Since then we have set up, among other things, an entrepreneurship program, and in the not too distant future I hope that my provincial colleagues and I will be in a position to unveil new initiatives designed to come to grips with youth unemployment problems.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the time, I did ask the Hon. Member to keep it to one question. A very short supplementary, please.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Is it the
response of the Minister of State for Youth to youth who are on social assistance, who are uneducated and unemployed, that they enter into business?


Jean J. Charest: No, it's not. Let me advise the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville that the problems he is referring to certainly did not happen overnight. The Hon. Member knows that. If he is sincere-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Where is your youth program?


Jean J. Charest: Please let me answer.
If the Hon. Member is sincere, he will recognize that the solutions will not come overnight. But this Minister is committed to finding long-term real solutions and getting out of the rhetoric that we have been hearing from the other side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: You have been giving him coaching lessons.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: He went to the George Baker school of acting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to advise that Question Period has come to an end, and that includes informal questions back and forth.
*
* *


NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT, 1986 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Deferred division pursuant to Standing Order 13(4)(a):
February 3, 1987-Consideration of the motion of the Minister of Transport for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport of
National Transportation Act, 1986
Bill C-18, An Act respecting national transportation, and on the motion of Mr. Lewis, That this question be now put.
Mr. Speaker:: It being three o'clock	p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 13 (4) (a) the House will		now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Lewis to		
the previous question in relation to Bill C-18.		
Call in the Members.		
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Lewis) which was		
agreed to on the following division:
Division No. 60)
 YEAS Members		
Andre	Gormley	McKnightAttewell	Gottselig	MerrithewBeatty	Graham	MinakerBertrand	Gravel	MooreBinns	Gray	NickersonBlackburn	(Bona vent u re-1 les-de-	Nowlan(Jonquiire)	la-Madeleine)	OberleBlais	Greenaway	O'NeilBlais-Grenier	Grise	PetersonBlenkarn	Guilbault	PietzBlouin	(Drummond)	PlamondonBosley	Halliday	PlourdeBouchard	Hamilton	PorterBourgault	Hardey	PriceBradley	Harvey	RedwayBrightwell	Hawkes	ReidBrowes	Hicks	ReimerCadieux	Hnatyshyn	RomanCaldwell	Hockin	SchellenbergerCardiff	Horner	(Wetaskiwin)Charest	Howie	ScottClark	Jacques	(Victoria-Haliburton)(Brandon-Souris)	James	ScottClinch	Jardine	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cochrane	Jelinek	ScowenCollins	Joncas	SiddonComeau	Jourdenais	SparrowCook	Keileher	StackhouseCossitt	Kempling	StevensCrofton	Kilgour	TardifCrombie	Kindy	(Charlesbourg)Crosbie	King	Taylor(St. John's West)	Ladouceur	ThackerCrosby	Landry	Towers(Halifax West)	Lanthier	TremblayDarling	La Salle	(Qu6bec-Est)de Cotret	Layton	TremblayDella Noce	Lewis	(Lotbini&re)Desjardins	MacKay	TurnerDesrosiers	Mailly	(Ottawa-Carleton)Domm	Malone	Van De WalleDuguay	Mantha	VankoughnetEdwards	Martin	V6zinaEllis	Mayer	VincentFennell	Mazankowski	WarnerFontaine	McCain	WhiteForrestall	McCrossan	WilsonFraleigh	McDermid	(Etobicoke Centre)Gagnon	McDougall	Witer-139Gass	(St. Paul's)	G6rin	Mclnnes	Gervais	McKenzie	Girard	McKinnon	
February 4, 1987
National Transportation Act, 1986

Members
Allmand	Gray	NystromAlthouse	(Windsor West)	OrlikowAngus	Grondin	OuelletBenjamin	Guilbault	PennerBlackburn	(Saint-Jacques)	Pepin(Brant)	Heap	Prud'hommeBoudria	Henderson	RiisCaccia	Hovdebo	RobichaudCassidy	Isabelle	Robinsonde Jong	Jewett	RodriguezDingwall	Kaplan	RossiEpp	Keeper	Toupin(Thunder Bay-	Killens	WaddellNipigon)	MacLellan	Young -46Finestone	Marchi	Fulton	Mitchell	Gagliano	Murphy	Garneau	Nicholson	Gauthier	(Trinity)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Accordingly, the next question is as follows: Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves that Bill C-18, an Act respecting national transportation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Andre
Attewell
Beatty
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiire)
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Bradley
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cossitt Crofton Crombie Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Darling de Cot ret Della Noce Desjardins Desrosiers Domm Duguay Edwards Ellis Fennell Fontaine Forres tall Fraleigh Gagnon Gass Gerin Gervais Girard Gormley


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, until the McGrath report's proposal for installing an electronic voting system is accepted, I intend to object from now on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie) which was
agreed to on the following division:
Allmand Althouse Angus Axworthy Benjamin Blackburn (Brant) Boudria Caccia Cassidy de Jong Dingwall
(Division No. 61)
 YEAS Members
Gottselig
Graham
Gravel
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greenaway
Gris6
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Halliday
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Hockin
Horner
Howie
Jacques
James
Jardine
Jelinek
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kilgour
Kindy
King
Ladouceur
Landry
Lanthier
La Salle
Layton
Lewis
MacKay
Mailly
Malone
Mantha
Martin
Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McCrossan McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Mclnnes
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
++NAYS
Members
Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone Fulton Gagliano Garneau Gauthier Gray
(Windsor West) Grondin Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)
Merrithew
Minaker
Moore
Nickerson
Nowlan
Obcrle
O'Neil
Peterson
Pietz
Piamondon
Plourde
Porter
Price
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Roman
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Siddon Sparrow Stackhouse Stevens Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Qu6bec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbini&re)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carieton)
Van De Walle
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
White
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Witer-138
Heap
Henderson
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Jewett
Kaplan
Keeper
Killens
MacLellan
Malepart
Marchi
McCurdy
Mitchell
February 4, 1987

Murphy	Pepin	ToupinNicholson	Prud'homme	Waddell(Trinity)	Riis	Young -51Nunziata	Robichaud	Nystrom	Robinson	Orlikow	Rodriguez	Ouellet	Rompkey	Pcnncr	Rossi


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was late for the vote and I am very sorry because I would love to have put two votes together with my Party.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Chapter 104, Section 11 of the Statutes of Canada 1974-75-76 and Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, two copies of the Order in Council on the Protocol to the Taxation Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the French Republic for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and capital.


GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:
That the first report of the Standing Committee on government operations, presented to the House on Monday, December 5, 1986, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with this motion because I believe the Post Office plan should go back to committee. The report card on this plan given to the Minister responsible for the Post Office has an F on it.
Sergio Marchi: F plus.


Mr. Keeper:: F minus. The Post Office plan is a failure, both in its process and its politics. The plan must go back to committee so we can hear witnesses other than the President of the Post Office. The committee must be able to travel and hear the views of ordinary Canadians concerning this plan.
Motions
I want to deal with three aspects of the plan. I want to deal with the service implications, the poor service the plan implies.
I want to deal with high postal rates. I also want to deal with the undemocratic way in which this plan was developed.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a good plan, in fact it is a failure. It is not good for Canadians. This plan should be returned to committee and the average Canadian consulted. The committee should receive testimony from the public as well as from the Post Office.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on post office services as far as the plan is concerned and on the plan's development strategy.

People are fed up with the lousy service they get from the Post Office. It has been deteriorating for probably 10 or 20 years under both Liberal and Conservative Governments, and it has to be turned around. People in rural areas feel threatened by the Post Office plan. Their fears are not assuaged by the reassurances that the Minister gives regarding rural post offices. He knows people are worried about the possibility of their post office being closed, but what does he say? He does not stand up and forthrightly say there will be no post office closures and we will improve post office service. What he says is there will be no post office closures in rural areas without consultation. We will hear what you have to say for 90 days. That does not reassure people because their experience with the Post Office has been that it is like talking to a deaf person, or a brick wall; you cannot get information out or opinion in. People have no confidence in a process of consultation involving the Post Office. When they hear the Minister give them assurances of consultation before their post offices close, what they hear is that their post office is going to be closed, because that has been their experience.
The Government plans to close rural post offices. The privatization of rural post offices is referred to as the turnover from the public to the private sector. This will involve a reduction of service. The Government talks of the amalgamation of post offices which will result in the closure of post offices. In fact, the President of the Post Office admitted in the Government Operations Committee that hundreds of post offices will be closed. He would not say when or where. People will not be told until it has already been decided that their post office is to be closed. They will have 90 days to complain about it.
Rather than taking that approach, the Government should consult with people on the over-all policy of the Post Office. The Government should ask people whether they want the national deficit reduced through cut-backs in postal service or whether they want a good postal service.
The supermailbox is the Conservative answer to door-to-door service in suburban communities. It is unjust that some

February 4, 1987
Motions
people must use supermailboxes while their neighbours get door-to-door delivery. It is a bull-headed policy which the Government cannot maintain over the long term. It is also politically stupid and insensitive. It is astounding that a Government, which is in third place in some public opinion polls, would alienate its base of support, the people in middle income suburban communities who have paid $150,000 or $200,000 for their homes. Those people pay the same taxes as everyone else but receive less service. In addition to being unjust, that is politically stupid.
After bull-headedly deciding to go ahead with the super mailboxes the Government mounted a $1 million advertising campaign. However, the boxes did not work. The $1 million spent on advertising was a complete waste. It was shown on the national news that one key would open many compartments. That is the image which was created for the boxes. Every dollar spent trying to create a positive image was completely wasted. The Government tried to foist these boxes on rural communities as well.
Mail service began to deteriorate under the past Liberal Government and has gone steadily down hill under the present Government. The most aggravating aspect is the slow delivery. I have mailed notices of meetings in my riding to businessmen and community people, as have my colleagues. These notices were mailed a couple of weeks in advance, in compliance with the published standards of the Post Office, but arrived too late. Ordinary citizens have the same complaint. It can take eight days or a couple of weeks for a letter to be delivered from one side of Winnipeg to the other. Letters sent from Vancouver to Winnipeg can take two weeks to be delivered rather than three or four days.
These aggravating delays in mail delivery turn people off. The small business community has been turned off as well by the Post Office's inability to deliver on time and efficiently. People have turned to courier services for which they pay much more. Conservative ideologues like to threaten the Post Office with privatization. However, in many respects the Post Office has already been privatized because people are paying for courier service to avoid the poor service of the Post Office. As a result, the public service is losing revenue.
Poor service impacts on the people who work at the Post Office. It results in job loss, salary cuts, and being driven into poverty. Many people believe that postal workers are overpaid. I would use as an example the cleaners at the Post Office. They used to be public servants and earned around $10 per hour. Due to contracting out they are now paid only $5 per hour. For even a single person to live on that wage in Toronto is to live below the poverty line. The policy of privatizing existing public service jobs is driving people into poverty. That is an abominable policy. I wish the Government would become aware of what it is doing and consider the consequences of its own policies.
People are not willing to accept increases in postal rates
because they are getting poorer and poorer service. Until the
Post Office is turned around, no one will be willing to pay
increased postal rates. People are aggravated by rising rates when service is decreasing. Rates have risen considerably. The Post Office has, in effect, requested an annual rate of increase. It will be coming back every year for a rate increase. It will be like the Chinese water torture. The drops will fall one at a time and it will drive you out of your mind. The Post Office must improve its service before it can justify increased rates.
The cost of many postal services other than first-class stamps has increased. Small business has rejected these rate increases because they threaten their economic survival. If there is one sector that is dependent upon the Post Office it is small business, and the rate increase for small business is a much higher percentage.
Let us consider the impact of these increases on Canadian culture which only yesterday was threatened by the American representative who demanded that Canadian culture be put on the free trade bargaining table.


Mr. Gormley:: Do you know his name?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Yeutter. He is threatening to strip Canada of its cultural sovereignty because he wants it on the bargaining table.
The Post Office policy affects Canadian culture with respect to magazines, such as Maclean's, the Canadian counterpart to Time, as well as other cultural and intellectual magazines and periodicals published by non-profit organizations or churches. They have subsidized rates, and increased rates threaten the existence of these magazines. Ordinary Canadians, small business and Canadian cultural industries reject the rate increases.
I want to comment on the development of the Post Office policy. This policy was formulated behind closed doors with no opportunity for public input. The Committee refused to hear public witnesses, but we intend to continue to exert pressure until it hears public witnesses. The Committee and the Minister have refused to travel. It is no wonder that the policy failed in its development and its delivery of service.
The Government's basic strategy toward Post Office policy is wrong-headed. The Post Office cannot deliver mail on time with a policy that operates on the barest minimum. We need a full service Post Office so that it can compete in revenuegenerating areas and provide cross-subsidization to those aspects of the Post Office that are costly.
In conclusion, this plan must go back to committee because it is a failure. There must be public consultation through travelling committees so that ordinary Canadians can have their say.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that this plan for our post offices is a failure. It is a bad plan, and it should be sent back to committee so the public can give its opinion. It is a failure
February 4, 1987

because it involves a reduction in services in rural areas, in the suburbs and poor mail delivery generally.
Mr. Speaker, we must take another look at our post offices. The Minister should look at the substance and the strategy and not just the rhetoric Canada Post is spouting, if he wants to give people the assurance that nothing is going to happen, at a time when post offices continue their service reduction. This plan is inadequate and should go back to committee so that the public may be heard.


Mr.   de Jong@: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. All Members of Parliament have received numerous representations about the Post Office from their constituents. I have received hundreds of phone calls and letters from people in Regina East, lodging various complaints about such things as the supermailbox and its implementation. One constituent told me that the Post Office informed him that it would place a mailbox in a certain location but ultimately installed a different box directly below the bay window of his new home. That certainly created much inconvenience for him and his family.
Throughout most of the fall we heard various questions put to the Minister in charge of the Post Office. The Minister frequently said that these very interesting representations may be valid complaints which the Committee should consider fully. That is why I was surprised to hear that the majority Conservative members on the Committee essentially shut it down and refused to allow full and open hearings. The Committee certainly did not invite Canadians to make representations and it certainly did not travel across the country.
Many of the letters I received contained suggestions which the Committee could have considered had it been allowed to travel. Perhaps it could have arrived at a consensus which would have developed a program and policy for the Post Office that would meet the needs and desires of Canadians. Yet the majority Conservative members on the Committee simply shut it down.
Will the Hon. Member explain how this occurred? Was he aware as an opposition Member on that committee that the majority Conservative members would shut it down? What were the reasons given to him for shutting down the Committee?
It is important that we remember that the House was supposed to have gone through a process of parliamentary reform in which the Committees would have greater independence and individual Members of Parliament could represent the views of their constituents rather than those of their respective parties. There was a hope that parliamentary reform would give Canadians better legislation resulting from a consensus rather than confrontation. It is obvious that when the Conservatives shut down the Committee dealing with the Post Office they kicked sand in the face of parliamentary reform. Will my colleague give us his opinion about that?
Motions


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, without trying to take partisan advantage of the opportunity, let me simply say that the Committee failed to live up to its responsibility to examine the plan that was presented to us. We heard from the President of the Post Office at some four meetings, but there were no public representations. For example, the Consumers Association of Canada was not invited to speak to the Committee, nor was the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or ordinary citizens. I wanted to hear their representations because I knew the plan had been developed in private, without public input.
After the back-bench revolt by the Tory Party when the Post Office plan was first revealed to them, it is my understanding that the Conservative members of the Committee essentially helped the Minister save face by taking the plan to committee. Then they sounded off about their own complaints. But they did not bring forward any substantive recommendations that would change the direction of the plan. That is where the failure lies. In addition, the failure lies with consulting people. So the hearings were token hearings. We needed more time to continue with them. We needed to involve the public.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my friend to report to the House on a tour he made up in my part of the country, which is northern Ontario. He came up at the invitation of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and myself and he visited some communities with us. We met with residents in both urban and rural areas. Can the Hon. Member tell us what those people said to him? What message did they ask him to bring back to the House of Commons?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I remember these meetings in northwestern Ontario very vividly. One was in an urban area and one was in a rural area. In the rural area the community involved was small. I went with my colleagues expecting perhaps a handful of people to show up. The meeting was scheduled during the day, and if I remember correctly it was a Friday afternoon. The turn-out was tremendous. I would say there were 30 or 40 people who attended the meeting in a small rural setting. Perhaps one-third of the entire population was in attendance. They felt that the post office was part of their community. The person who ran the library was there. She pointed out that the library could not function without deliveries from the post office. Small business people dependent on the post office attended the meeting. People active in local activities relating to the area of forestry were in attendance. Their concern was with respect to the repair of their machinery and that sort of thing. They depend upon the post office.
When we were in the urban area we had an enormous turnout. I do not want Hon. Members to think that I am exaggerating when I say this, but there were hundreds of people in attendance. They were angry about the inadequate service the post office was delivering and about the threat of continued reductions in service. These people came out in force in a small

February 4, 1987
Motions
urban northwestern Ontario community to let us know in no uncertain terms that they felt that the post office provides an essential service and that it was an abomination to try to turn it into a profit-making enterprise.
Essentially, these people recognize that it is a public service for which they have to pay through their taxes, and for its maintenance. They were enraged that they were not receiving good postal service.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on this particular motion. Perhaps I should rephrase my remarks by saying, I am never sure when speaking about the Post Office if that is any more a pleasure than speaking in defence of borrowing Bills, death or taxes. I will endeavour to respond to a few of the concerns that my friend from the New Democratic Party has raised.
I would like to begin by saying that in my capacity as the deputy chairman of the Government Operations Committee, which has been studying the Post Office corporate plan, I am sometimes struck by the great divergence of views, and in the way in which they come together in the House of Commons. I know Members opposite are well-intentioned on matters concerning postal service, and they have very good concerns. But when I hear them talk about the proceedings of these committee meetings it is almost as if we were at different meetings. It is almost as if we were not dealing with the same issue. I hope to put some light on this particular committee report that explains to Canadians many of the challenges that face the Government, and all of us, in terms of postal service and what Canada Post wants to do.
By way of background, the Government first received the Post Office corporate plan in November. In what the Opposition and the media are fond of calling the back-bench revolt, and as a revolting back-bencher-or perhaps better stated, a back-bencher who did have some concerns about the issue-I was pleased when the Minister looked at what the Post Office corporate plan proposed and said, "I think we should give parliamentarians an opportunity to review this in the light of what they know as representatives of the people of Canada".
I think if members of the Opposition would be fair-and I do not want to accuse anyone of politicizing the matter-they would admit that, given the responsibility of Members of Parliament, in reviewing postal service we speak for Canadians. The Progressive Conservative Party is the Government. It is the Party with the greatest number of rural seats, and it certainly speaks well for rural Canadians. But members of the Opposition have asked, why don't we call witnesses? In a standing committee that is a very valid concern.
We pointed out to the NDP in particular that the March-ment Committee had issued its report. The Marchment Committee was the committee appointed by the Minister to investigate Canada Post. In fact, many of the recommendations of the Marchment Committee Report found their way into the Canada Post corporate plan. I know all Members of
Parliament have read the Marchment Report, at least if they are concerned about postal service in Canada. The appendix to the Marchment Report sets out quite clearly the number of groups with whom the authors of the report met. They met with unions, users and consumer groups. In nation-wide hearings they left not one group unheard. The report was tabled just a few months before the Canada Post corporate plan was tabled.
Let us have a look at what Canada Post is proposing. We have an in-depth report based on interviews with witnesses in hearings across the country. In the spirit of parliamentary reform, and having all of this documented evidence, why must we go back and do it again? I am a rural western Canadian. I know what my constituents want. They did not want many of the things proposed by Canada Post. So what did we do about it? The committee held lengthy hearings, some of which lasted well in excess of three hours. There were a series of meetings in which we brought the technical officials of Canada Post before us. We asked them very difficult and specific questions. Members of Parliament were able to conclude from the questions and the answers that we had some concerns about what Canada Post was proposing.
I came across as what could be known as the heavy in all of this. After hearing repetitive answers from Canada Post executives I came to the conclusion in December that I did not believe we should meet much more as a committee. I say that because the issues were far too important to let stretch out any longer. My concern was that we issue a report that was thoughtful, concise and exact. We did just that. In our report we put forward a series of recommendations. I will read them for the record and for the people who are viewing this debate. Based on that, I think everyone will agree that many of these are balanced and fair recommendations.
The opposition Parties were justifiably concerned. They said that we should travel the^country and hear witnesses. I think we were faced with the problem of trying to act quickly and effectively to ensure that Canadians are protected. We had to act so as not to make it an overly-politicized exercise in rhetoric, talk and vituperative condemnation which, God knows, this place already has too much of.
So we issued our committee report. The committee report touched on a few central issues. As a western Canadian I am perhaps showing a bias in my input. The changes proposed in rural mail delivery, the changes proposed in rural post offices, and the reductions in subsidies for weekly newspapers and periodicals are the three points that most concern me. We also had some thoughts on other issues; the delivery service in new subdivisions, the technical deficiencies of the supermailboxes, and reliability of service.
We made a series of recommendations, and the Government responded to them very quickly. In so doing, the Government and Canada Post responded in a fair and balanced manner. The qualifier that I wish to add at this juncture is that I am
February 4, 1987

not pleased with what Canada Post has done in response to at least one recommendation. That is why as a Saskatchewan Member of Parliament on the government side I have been working very hard with the Minister and Canada Post to ensure that we will see compliance, and beyond, with that one recommendation. That recommendation involves rural post offices.
I will digress and run through the committee recommendations. The committee recommended that the present pattern of rural mail delivery not be changed. We came to this conclusion as rural Members of Parliament. In many areas rural route service has been decimated by Canada Post over the last three, four, five years, and it cannot withstand any further reductions.
Generally, I do not overly politicize things in the House, but I will allow myself one political observation. Members of all three Parties had the opportunity of appearing before the committee. The hours were intentionally kept long and the forum open for as many thoughtful Members of Parliament as possible to come and cross-examine Mr. Donald Lander, the Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post, and grill some of his technical officials.
Committee records will bear out that we had so many Progressive Conservative government Members that often the meetings went on very long, and questions had to be limited because of the overwhelming degree of interest in this process. There were Members from new subdivisions, and Progressive Conservative Members from the cities talked about supermailboxes, mail delivery, and general levels of service. Rural Progressive Conservatives talked about rural post offices, rural routes, and those concerns.
The lamentable lack, particularly of Liberal Party Members, and New Democratic Party Members, was indeed disgraceful. The opposition Parties represent a significant number of Canadians. All told between the two Parties they were able to muster five Members of Parliament for an exhausting grilling on something as fundamentally important as postal service. I will leave the politics aside, but I think that Canadians should know-


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member said that he did not wish to politicize things. Would he acknowledge that during each of these committee meetings not only myself as a New Democrat was there-


John Kenneth Gormley: That's a point of fact.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member made an accusation-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is engaging in debate. He will have the opportunity to ask questions of the Member in a few minutes.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member is misleading the House at this point.
Motions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for the Battlefords- Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley).


John Kenneth Gormley: I appreciate the feeble bleatings, I was going to say, but that may be political. It is very important that we do put on the record the type of concern that government Members had on this issue.


An Hon. Member:: So much good it did.


Cyril Keeper: Myself and others were at each one and you cut off the time in the end.


Mr.   de Jong@: How come you guys backed out on the committee?


John Kenneth Gormley: The committee made the recommendation that the present rural delivery pattern-Mr. Speaker, I must ask your indulgence. The NDP are indulging in name calling and trying to yell me down. I ask your indulgence to call for order.


Mr. Heap:: Why don't you just tell the truth?


Mr.   de Jong@: If they were honest truths and honest points.


John Kenneth Gormley: I am attempting to make a few points. It is very difficult when the NDP are back to their old games. I cannot hear myself think amidst this NDP heckling and complaining.
Rural route service would not be interrupted. That was our recommendation. The Minister rose in the House and said that because of the effects on rural route service to many Canadians, who are already justifiably feeling like second-class citizens with postal delivery, there would be no further closures of rural route service.
As the deputy chairman, and as a rural Canadian, I feel vindicated by that. That was the first opportunity to say no to something that I did not feel was right for rural Canadians.
The second point we made was that Canada Post would not implement wholesale closure of rural post offices. We went on to say that, prior to any considered closures, Canada Post devise and provide the committee with more specific guidelies regarding the closure of rural post offices. These should reflect regional differences and needs.
Canada Post, as part of its corporate plan, tabled a mathematical formula involving proximity between communities, number of boxes affected, and that type of variable. To those of us who live in western Canada, and rural Canada, it is impossible to establish with one formula a system for post offices that will work in Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, rural British Columbia, or Ontario. The committee made that recommendation in good faith. That recommendation was made to tell Canada Post to come back to us and let us see its plans. This was the recommendation that I had the most concern about.

February 4, 1987
Motions
In his acceptance the Minister wrote to our chairman and stated:
Although there will be cases where post offices are amalgamated and alternate postal service will be offered, this will be done over a ten year period. Canada Post does not intend to implement wholesale closures of rural post offices.
He further stated:
On the subject of the possible amalgamation of some rural post offices, I am in agreement, and so is the Corporation, with the point made by the Committee that a simple amalgamation formula cannot be imposed arbitrarily and uniformly on a country as broad and as diverse as Canada.
Canada Post recognizes the need to be sensitive to local concerns that vary from community to community. During the hearings, the President of Canada Post made the commitment that there would be no amalgamations without local consultation, and that in future a 90-day notice will be given of proposed service changes to permit this process to take place.
On the face of that, the Minister has made the commitment that our committee did make a valuable contribution. I am very concerned when I hear officials from Canada Post say that they plan on retaining essentially the same formula for amalgamating and franchising rural post offices. Obviously, Canadians and committee members will not accept having it both ways. Either Canada Post should report back to the committee before it plans any further action, or it goes ahead with what it was going to do. I do not believe that is good enough.
A number of government Members have been dealing with the Minister and we plan to have the committee again hear about this specific subject of rural post offices within the next several weeks. We are very concerned with what has happened in terms of this particular recommendation.
I know that I am taking a long time on rural service, but that is the area of particular concern to me as a western Canadian government Member of Parliament.
Other recommendations were made, for example, that the subsidies for weekly newspapers not be reduced, and that religious publications not lose their second-class mailing status.
The Minister wrote to us as follows:
The subject of second-class mail privileges for newspapers, periodicals and books is part of the larger issue of cultural subsidies for which my colleague the Minister of Communications is responsible. I should point out that the Government is presently paying more than 70 per cent of the cost of sending publications through the mail.
This particular approach has not been revisited since 1969 and, accordingly, the Department of Communications with the assistance of Treasury Board and Canada Post will be consulting with the publishing industry on this issue over the next several months.
The Minister goes on to explain that he believes that the issue of second-class mailing rates for newspapers and periodicals should not be dramatically altered. I think all of us as Canadians agree with that, but there is a difficulty which I should like to bring to the attention of members of the NDP. I was about to get political. I was going to call them the friends of free enterprise, but I will not get political. We have concessionary mailing rates for periodicals which range from very large newspapers and periodicals, such as Maclean's
magazine, on down to the Meadowlake Progress, the Maidstone Mirror, and the Spiritwood Herald, newspapers which I read in my constituency.
.
*


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The New York Times.


John Kenneth Gormley: I hear an NDP Member who invests heavily in the stock-market informing me that he reads the The New York Times.
Should taxpayers be subsidizing the profits of very large, successful enterprises, or should they continue on a cultural needs basis to subsidize small weekly newspapers? I know of no Canadian who would agree with small weekly newspapers being adversely affected. If the taxpayers of Canada are paying 70 per cent of present subsidies, I would like to have another look at some of the larger publications.
We made the recommendation that religious periodicals should not lose their second-class mailing privileges. It is selfevident, obvious, and sensible. For several months Canada Post-in fact it pre-dates the corporate postal plan-has been in disagreement with several religious publications over what it calls "sufficient content". As a government Member representing people who regularly read The Lutheran magazine, The Presbyterian Record, and such periodicals, I do not find that to be an acceptable excuse on behalf of Canada Post. Many religious publishers and editors have pointed out the concern about other periodicals receiving a subsidy and their periodicals not being able to receive some kind of mailing assistance.
In this context the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister responsible for Canada Post have made it clear that these issues will be dealt with. We have seen The Presbyterian Record regain its full mailing status. We have seen the statement by the Minister that on a case by case basis we will look at magazines and that those which are bona fide religious publications will receive mailing privileges. Unfortunately, it is not sexy, it does not sell a lot of papers, and it does not get a lot of headlines to talk about an eminent, reasonable, and sensible position.
The Opposition gets carried away with the issue and refers to girlie magazines receiving subsidies whereas religious publications do not. If that were the case it would be unacceptable. If we review what the Minister has done and what he instructed Canada Post to do, we see that the method is being dealt with reasonably.


Cyril Keeper: But The Lutheran magazine does not get it.


John Kenneth Gormley: I hear the Hon. Member. I am aware of that. In fact, I was just in Radisson the other morning, a very good community in the heart of my constituency, to meet with a number of people from the Lutheran congregation. We spoke at some length about the matter, and I gave them my personal assurance that we would be bringing this case to the attention of the Minister. I am hopeful that upon review of The
February 4, 1987

Lutheran publication there will be no doubt about whether it should receive a subsidy.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is up. I have not touched upon five or six recommendations. I also have a few thoughts on the status of Canada Post as a Crown corporation as opposed to a government Department. I have a number of comments I wanted to make dealing with general service to Canadians. Unfortunately time constrains all of us. In the helpful, hopeful, and constructive way of which I know NDP Members are capable, perhaps they will ask some good questions and I will have a chance to clarify a few of their concerns.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should not have apologized to the House for being political. That is what this House is all about. I remember the comments of Robert Thompson. I think he was a Social Credit Member from Alberta and then he became a Conservative Member for a Fraser Valley riding in British Columbia. He became so frustrated in the House that he said: "Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a political arena".


John R. Rodriguez: Keep politics out of the House!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes. Surely that was the quote of the decade in that this House is a political arena.
I was amused when the Hon. Member for The Battlefords- Meadowlake (Mr. Gormley) described Conservative Members going to the committee one after the other and presenting their views. It sort of sounded like lemmings going to the sea, lemmings jumping into the sea. Perhaps it is a sort of beginning for the next election. Conservative Members will be as scarce as are Beothuks now in Newfoundland.


John Kenneth Gormley: Do you have a question?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes. I received a letter dated January 21, 1987 from the general manager of the Post Office in Vancouver. It was addressed to me as his Member of Parliament. He indicated that in order to streamline and enhance mail collection, they would be relocating street letterboxes. He went on to indicate that to minimize any customer inconvenience, they would be posting blue notice forms on any box being relocated or removed. The notices will inform people of the location of the nearest mailbox. Any box which does not have a notice form will remain in the same location. They expect to complete the project by February 28, 1987. If a senior citizen runs down to post a letter, she will see a blue notice posted for her convenience saying "sorry, you had better go to the other box" which could be half a mile away.
When will the Conservatives stop destroying the Post Office in Canada? They are to get rid of post office boxes in the streets of an urban riding.


John Kenneth Gormley: It is the pick-up boxes.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The letter said that they will be posting blue notices on the boxes to be relocated. They are to cut down on
Motions
the number of boxes in the streets, the red boxes, the symbol of the Post Office.
When will they stop? How far will they cut back in postal service? In this urban area they are to get rid of mailboxes, which will inconvenience people. If we think they are mad at the Post Office now, wait until they go to mail a letter and they are faced with not being able to get the box open and a blue notice telling them to go down the street a mile. It is ridiculous.
Is this Tory blue? Is this les bleusl Is this what we are to get from the Tories-blue notices on mailboxes? When will it stop? When will they stop cutting back in the Post Office and start thinking about the convenience of ordinary Canadians?


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I think the intent of the question was concern. As usual, NDP Members phrase "when did you stop beating your wife" questions. Obviously I will not respond to the tenor of the question, the usual partisan rhetoric of which they are capable. However, I think the Hon. Member's concern stems from the whole question of urban service, particularly the so-called superboxes. I know that they are a concern in the newer subdivisions of Vancouver.
When the committee undertook its study, it found that as early as 1974 Canada Post began the group pick-up box concept in subdivisions. Of course that fact made opposition Members go loony because they keep calling it the "Conservative postal plan".
Canada Post is a Crown corporation. It has undertaken some service reductions. We must weigh these service reductions in the context of door-to-door service, for example, whether taxpayers of Canada will pay for a cost of some $500 million. Will urban dwellers pay $500 million to have services extended to new subdivisions? I know that is the concern.
In respect of his specific question on the relocating of red mailboxes, obviously I cannot comment upon the specific case. As a good Member of Parliament I know he would have found out exactly why it was being done. As part of the group pickup box concept in newer areas, Canada Post is ensuring that so-called superboxes will actually be closer than the old green group boxes which many people have had in their subdivisions since 1974.
Specifically referring to his question, I obviously do not know what they are doing in Vancouver, but I know the Hon. Member would make the appropriate inquiries.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I was in Agassiz in the riding of Fraser Valley East. After having listened to the Hon. Member's speech, I am wondering whether the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) spoke to the Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Government Operations. He said he would speak to government Members upon returning to Ottawa to tell them the exact message of the people of Agassiz. These 600 people in this rural area indicated to him and to all other Members who were there that the message was clear. "We do not want you to come here to tell

February 4, 1987
Motions
us how you are going to close the post offices. We want to hear that this plan is being thrown away and that the post offices in rural Canada remain".
The gentleman said that we had every chance to ask questions at the committee. I was the Member at the time questioning the Chairman or the President of the Post Office. We had only two witnesses. At that time the motion was proposed to shut off the committee. How can the Hon. Member say that we had asked all the questions? I had only started that day and I asked two questions because I had no right to ask further questions. Why did the Member last week walk away from the committee when the Member from Winnipeg asked the Chairman of the committee to reconvene so that we could ask questions again on the Post Office's plan? How can the Member say that we had all the time to ask questions? How can the Member say that he listens to people and knows the problems of rural Canada, and yet when he is in committee he does something else?


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I will answer those questions with pleasure. First, the Rural Dignity movement is a very worthy group. I applaud the organizers of Rural Dignity in doing what they have done. It is a broad-based coalition made up of many of my friends from rural municipalities, villages, rural postmasters and postmistresses. Yes, I think they are getting the message across. They are reinforcing, along with the help of the entire rural caucus of the Progressive Conservative Government, the importance of ensuring a way of life in rural Canada. No one speaks for rural Canada like our Party speaks. Because of that I can say, without giving away too much, that the Hon. Member will find that rural post offices are safe as long as our Government and our Members are looking after that concern.
With respect to the committee, Mr. Speaker, it is lamentable what the Member, who was at some of the meetings, has said. Why did he read the drivel in Canadian Press from that little reporter who came to the committee hearings and twisted and distorted the things that I did? I am a former journalist. I know that journalists have their bad days. I will not comment on the little worm from Canadian Press who for some reason believes he has to malign my actions personally.
With regard to the particular committee to which the Hon. Member is referring, we had a motion at the beginning of the meeting to revert immediately to the rural postal service when just days before we had had a steering committee meeting and, by unanimous consent, made the decision to wait for another week or two before getting on to Canada Post. Why did I walk away, Mr. Speaker? I was in another committee meeting at the time. I was called and was told that this motion was coming up. I came to the meeting and I spoke to the motion. I said the same thing I am saying here, that the motion was needless because we had already agreed to another committee date. That is what I said. I said it. I left. Again, the little
termite from Canadian Press decided, for whatever reason, perhaps having a rough day, that somehow I had done something wrong. The Hon. Member was there and he should not be believing what he is reading in the paper when he saw and heard my explanation with his own ears.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment based on the question which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) already raised, namely, Canada Post's action in removing pick-up mailboxes in Toronto. I understand Canada Post is proposing to do the same thing in Vancouver and in other major centres. The reason that Canada Post is apparently doing this-at least the explanations I have received-were twofold: First, that Canada Post wanted to improve service, and second, that pick-up boxes on street corners were no longer used the way they were in the past because most people mail letters and other mail from office buildings. That is fine if you happen to work in an office building, but if you happen to live in a residential urban community, such as mine, which has a tremendously high population of senior citizens, I fail to see how that can possibly improve the service for people who want to use that service. But the removal of pick-up boxes is causing tremendous difficulties for a lot of people. In one area of my riding, Kingston Road, which is about two or three miles long, Canada Post sent a truck right along the whole thoroughfare and removed every mailbox. While I understand that this committee did not really study or take evidence on that particular aspect of Canada Post's operation, I certainly think it is something the committee may want to take a look at. Lack of mail boxes presents great difficulties to elderly people or to people who have mobility problems, especially in winter months if they are expected to walk an additional 10 or 20 blocks to mail a letter which, very often, you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, is their only contact with their own family or the outside world. It is an extremely important question to them.


John Kenneth Gormley: I think that is an excellent question, Mr. Speaker. I realized in the cross-examination of Canada Post's executives the very interesting changes that took place in demographics, in work and in life habits. I think the Member would agree that, yes, most mail is now mailed from downtown office buildings, which is something I did not know or did not think of. That certainly does not diminish the importance for senior citizens of having accessible facilities where they can drop a letter in the post box. I think Canada Post should be aware of that. I know that in the areas where there are supermailboxes with the mail slots they are not going any further than 200 yards from any dwelling. If Canada Post is moving red boxes and if, in fact, someone must walk a great distance as a senior citizen, I do not think that is fair. I would hope that the Hon. Member for the Beaches (Mr. Young) with the help of all Members would get to Canada Post and make it aware of that and have the situation changed.


February 4, 1987

[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by recalling what happened a few days ago in the House when the Minister responsible for Canada Post, and I think it was last Thursday, clearly said there would be no post office closures, and all Government Members gave him a standing ovation. Outside the House a few minutes later, we heard that was not exactly what he meant.
Again this morning, Mr. Speaker, in an article in the Montreal La Presse, the Minister said, and I quote:
Canada Post still intends to close several hundred of our 1,700 small rural post offices across this country and to privatize 3,500 more, the Minister responsible for Canada Post, Mr. Michel Cote, confirmed yesterday.
I would like to repeat verbatim what the Minister said, and I quote:
That is probably what will happen- But what is important is how it will be done.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, it means they are going to close some post offices. That is clear. The Minister said so to Canadian Press, and here is the text: Canada Post is going to close post offices. But it is all in how they will do it, which means they are going to wait and consult with us first. Mr. Speaker, this is really not consultation but information. They are going to inform Canadians in rural areas that one, two or three months from now, according to Canada Post's schedule, their post offices will be closed down. Why not tell it exactly like it is instead of playing with words, which is what the Minister has been doing for a whole week?
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals share the legitimate concerns of all Canadians about the present state of the postal services in this country. By establishing the Canada Post Corporation in 1981, the Liberal Government recognized the fact that postal services in Canada were an essential public service. That is why it gave Canada Post a balanced mandate, which included improving labour management relations. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that since then we have not had a major postal strike, and that Canada Post has been given a mandate to boost productivity, improve services and reduce the deficit.
Canadians have noticed some progress in recent years. Employer-employee relations are better and, as predicted, the Canada Post operating deficit has declined sharply, from $588 million in 1981-82 to $347 million in 1984-85, and to $184 million in 1985-86. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, improvements in productivity and service quality are not as promising, and the Liberals feel that their efforts should now be directed towards that objective.
Our approach is the exact opposite of the course set by the Government in the February 1985 Budget when the Minister of Finance made it clear that the priority of Canada Post was to reduce its operating deficit. Mr. Speaker, the situation did improve to a certain extent over five years and planning was beginning to bear fruits. In its report the Marchment Commis-
Motions
sion recommended that Canada Post be given at least five more years to wipe out the deficit. But in his February Budget the Minister of Finance said: No way, you have until 1988 to get out of the red. Canada Post management turned around and said: We are taking the necessary steps to balance our books. Obviously, these measures involve closing rural post offices, while home delivery will be only to the so-called superboxes, easy to open and impossible to close! A few months ago we saw some truly incredible scenes when Canada Post was in a great hurry to introduce this new system. It was acting on the new plan before the Minister had a chance to table it in the House. The superboxes were not introduced by Canada Post on November 5. We have been talking about the boxes for about a year, and we pointed out to the Minister responsible for Canada Post that Canadians didn't want the boxes and that they were poorly designed. But the Minister kept answering: Be patient, there is a comprehensive plan for our postal system.
Mr. Speaker, over a year ago, Canada Post started closing down rural post offices. In 1985-86 alone, 114 rural post offices were closed. Mr. Speaker, this means that on November 5, the Minister responsible for Canada Post was telling us what we already knew and what the Minister never wanted to admit before tabling the plan.
I also want to talk about consultation. The Conservative Member who spoke earlier said that the Minister was generous in allowing Hon. Members to have a discussion with Canada Post and to consult on this plan, a plan which as I said before was already implemented. Not only that, Mr. Speaker. It was a last minute arrangement. The Minister had no intention of consulting the House, but when he presented the plan to his own caucus, it probably caused a minor revolt, and that is why at the last minute, as you will recall, presentation of the plan had to be delayed because the Minister had to make some concessions and refer the plan to a committee. The committee did not sit for very long and heard only two witnesses: the President of Canada Post and the President of the Board of Directors of Canada Post. The morning when the Conservative Members decided to end committee proceedings by moving a motion to prevent us from asking more questions and hearing more witnesses so as to begin drafting our report forthwith, Opposition Members were there and prepared to ask questions, but so were a number of Government Members and they too had questions to ask. We were not given any opportunity to do so. We were convened to produce the report with which you are familiar. If I may, perhaps I should refer to this report and indicate to Hon. Members and all Canadians the points of the report on which we disagree and why. First, Mr. Speaker, we reject the Canada Post recommendation-endorsed by the committee-to implement a permanent policy aimed at delivering mail in community superboxes as a substitute for direct home delivery for all new housing projects in suburban areas.
Mr. Speaker, the action plan of the Canada Post Corporation clearly states that, from now on, which means that this is
3118

February 4, 1987
Motions
permanent and not temporary, all new residential sectors will receive their mail in superboxes.
Mr. Speaker, this decision means that we have created two classes of citizens. One class with home delivery and another with delivery to a postal box. However, Mr. Speaker, these people pay the same taxes and the same price for their stamps. Why should they not be entitled to the same service?
As for the other recommendation, we reject what Canada Post has proposed. In this case also, to meet the deficit reduction objective of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), Canada Post wants to change the postal service received in rural areas and replace individual services on rural routes by a service of community superboxes at major intersections.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I was able to attend a meeting organized by Rural Dignity, a group which is putting pressure on the Government to cancel this plan and to ensure that rural post offices will remain open. One Saturday afternoon, 600 people met in Agassiz, in the Fraser Valley-East constituency of British Columbia. There were all kinds of people. There were parish priests, mayors, city counsellors, citizens, farmers, professionals-everybody in the area attended the meeting. Their message to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) was clear: We do not want to be consulted. We want our post offices to remain as they are. For those people, the post office is a national presence within their community. There was even someone who rose to tell us that closing down the post office does not just mean closing down the post office-the postmaster will not be the only one losing his job. Small businesses could also close down. Because by forcing rural citizens to travel to another, more distant town to have access to postal services, they might then do their shopping in that other place. This means small businesses-the stores, the shops that are in that small town are unhappy about their post office shutting down. They may even be forced to quit themselves.
That is how the shutdown of a rural post office can cause the loss not just of one or two jobs within the post office itself, but also many other jobs in the area's economy. It means there is a social economic impact and the Government must realize what Canadians want where postal service is concerned. Why are Canadians not in agreement with that proposal? Because, Mr. Speaker, the Government, the committee that looked into that, and we hope to be able tomorrow to convince it to reopen the matter within the committee, can travel across the land and actually listen to those Canadians who are faced with a situation they find unacceptable, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker.
We cannot accept either the recommendation made by Canada Post and adopted by the Committee concerning the implementation of a rural post office franchising policy. Mr. Speaker, they are now talking about amalgamation. Well, amalgamation means closing, for if you amalgamate two post offices, each in a different village, one of them will have to close. Therefore, amalgamation means closing.
If they implement the franchising policy, we are certainly not going to keep all the post offices we have now.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the Government should be transparent concerning the Canada Post Corporation and tell Canadians exactly where it stands on this issue. In fact, through franchising of a post office under the responsibility of a postmaster which may be paid $12 an hour, it is seeking ways to have someone do part of the job for $4.50. Mr. Speaker, what Canada Post is trying to do in 1987 is to use cheap labour. Is that acceptable, Mr. Speaker?
Another recommendation. We agree with the solution proposed by the Committee which recommends that the rebates on postal rates should not be reduced and that weekly and religious magazines should not lose their second class mail status. I think it is important that Canadians should be able to receive certain magazines and newspapers at home. Our culture is at stake, and we agree with the committee that asked Canada Post to maintain the privileges enjoyed by periodicals, local newspapers and magazines. It is probably not the responsibility of Canada Post to subsidize culture. It is up to the responsible department, and it would be better if we had some kind of policy as soon as possible, because if the Government wants Canada Post to balance its books, Canada Post has to take care of delivering the mail and providing postal services, not culture. So I hope we will soon be advised of the Government's policy on cultural subsidies for the delivery of these papers and journals.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly cannot support the recommendation made by Canada Post and adopted by the committee that Canada Post be authorized to publish the proposed rate increases, in the Canada Gazette: an increase of 2 cents for first class mail and 9 per cent of the average rate applied to businesses. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where services are being cut, home delivery is being phased out, post offices are being closed, and now they want to take away second-class mail privileges for certain types of newspapers.
First class mail will cost 2 cents more and the increase for all other postal services will be almost 10 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is happening? It will cost more for reduced services. We object to that, and should the Government go to the trouble of consulting Canadians, Mr. Speaker-not information but meaningful consultation-it will find out that Canadians are quite prepared to pay a little more for service, for home delivery, for the assurance that rural post offices will remain open and that the postal service will really be up to par.
You are indicating that my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond- Wolfe, for a question or comment.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to congratulate my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who has done a quite remarkable job in the last few
February 4, 1987

months. He has travelled extensively and consulted many people to collect all these protests against the initiative of the Government.
I have been in politics for eight years and I do not think that any issue has provoked us many comments, letters and articles.
I receive every day at my Ottawa office very emotional messages from senior citizens and people who live in remote areas and who are very worried about the Government's initiative. Naturally, as my colleague has pointed out, the Minister has said on a few occasions that no post office will be closed. However, he very quickly corrected or modified his statement by saying that some post offices would close, but only after consultation. He also added: We shall go to the regions and consult the people because we want to know what they think. He concluded by saying: In any case, we shall give them adequate notice. In fact, this process is not really consultation, but simply an exercise in telling these people that they will lose within a very short time the essential services they now enjoy.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my colleague who has so eloquently expressed the many concerns of Canadians. During all his travels and at all those meetings, how are the people reacting to the possibility that the existing service will be considerably reduced? In addition, as I am aware of his concern for small businesses, I would like him to explain what tragic consequences the Government initiative could have on many small businesses in Canada.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question, and I would like to answer immediately the second part of that question which concerns small businesses. This afternoon indeed-and of course until this morning we did not know this debate would take place-I had scheduled a meeting with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business to discuss that postal problem. Of course, all Hon. Members received from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business a letter in October strongly opposing any postal rate increases. We are as much aware of course as the Federation that we have a deficit problem, so we must reduce it, and this is why this afternoon we met probably to discuss and find the means to eliminate that deficit problem, not only by reducing services, but perhaps also to find means of increasing revenues without thereby increasing the burden for users of postal services.
Concerning what people say whenever there are meetings, as I said earlier, I already was in Vancouver; Monday I will be in Toronto, and I have already met groups in Montreal. In Montreal, for instance, there are at least sixteen postal urban areas. Those are people who protest, and they are people who had a chance to save their money and buy new homes. And now, because they bought new homes, they are penalized and will not be able to get home delivery as other people do who bought their homes perhaps four or five years ago. This is something of course that people do not accept. They feel they are second-class citizens. There are even people who feel court action should be taken, and they are talking about having
Motions
groups formed to take legal action under the Canadian Charter of Rights. They feel this is discrimination. Why should someone who has a home on Montreal Island, especially in the Montreal area, not far away, three or four blocks away, get home delivery? Why have it on one street and not two or three blocks away, even for new homes? I know that in Toronto and Vancouver the same problem exists.
There are, for instance, people who write or phone us saying that upon coming home after work to the beautiful houses they just bought with beautiful lawns, they find holes in which Canada Post, without notice, has started pouring concrete in order to put up the famous superboxes, which as we know, Mr. Speaker, are easily forced open. The keys are no good, or one key will open them all. Of course people are mad at the way Canada Post has wasted money on those superboxes. A contract was signed without even a guarantee on those boxes.
When one figures out that the difference between home delivery and superbox delivery is $30 per house, it is no wonder people do not accept that. Without dwelling too much on rural areas, I think I already stated how, for instance, people in Agassiz, in Fraser Valley East, are concerned about those measures.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend the post office critic for the Liberal Party. I know very well that the Liberal Party is always most progressive when in the Opposition, but what is the difference between the present Liberal policy on post office and the policy of this Government? If I remember correctly, the Liberal Party introduced the green boxes a long time ago, eleven or twelve years back, and now we have the superboxes. What difference is there? Also, if the Liberal Party were in power, what would have been the difference between the Liberal Party and this Government now?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to explain the difference. Yes, there is a difference. Let us start with the urban areas. It is a fact that under the Liberal administration Canada Post or the Post Office Department put up green boxes. We never denied that. But it was a temporary measure, until let us say, that community would be organized and the postal service would be gradually provided. I can say that in my own city, and this is the argument, I already had a discussion with the Minister who said: This has been a Liberal policy since 1974. Saint-Leonard, Ville d'Anjou, in my constituency of Saint-Leon-ard-Anjou, are cities that developed over the last ten years. Still, we all have home delivery, except smaller sections which had remained undeveloped but were developed after 1984 and which get their mail through postal boxes. At that time, we could get organized. But since November, people know very well they no longer will have a chance or the possibility of getting home delivery. So, the difference is that this Tory Government authorized Canada Post mail delivery to postal

February 4, 1987
Motions
boxes as a permanent policy. So, from now on, Canadians no longer can hope that six months perhaps down the road they will have home delivery, unless the Minister in charge of Canada Post drops that corporate plan.
As far as rural areas are concerned, I think Hon. Members can check the record, because I believe under the previous Liberal administration we did not close down post offices, we opened new ones.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I would like to begin by thanking my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), for giving us the opportunity to have this relatively short discussion in the House of Commons on a matter of interest to thousands of Canadians. I would like to thank him for his perseverance in committee, as well as in the villages, towns, and cities of Canada, in keeping the concerns of Canadians alive. He has fought against the actions of Canada Post which were precipitated by the policies of the Conservative Government of Canada.
We keep thinking that we finally have an unequivocal commitment that this will not happen. Then, lo and behold, the Minister goes out of the House and says something slightly different. He leaves the door open and seeds confusion about what will happen.
I was interested in the speech of the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). He indicated that in a couple of weeks the matter of whether or not rural post offices will be closed or merged will be brought before committee. I was pleased to hear that because it means that my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg North Centre, has successfully badgered the Conservative Members of that committee into coming to their senses. He has planted a seed, which is now germinating, into another hearing on this very vital issue. At the end of my comments I would like to assist Conservative Members in that continuing review.
I have spent a fair amount of my time on this issue along with my colleague, the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), and the Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry). Together we represent all of northwestern Ontario. Many of our citizens rely on the mail for the vast majority of their communications. Regardless of whether they live in isolated homes along the highway or in small villages, they count on the postal service. It is essential for them. The Member for Winnipeg North Centre has been to Hurkett, Kakabeka Village, and Thunder Bay to hear the concerns of citizens, consumers, business people and unions with regard to the operations of Canada Post. It was very clear that there was no demand for cut-back in service. In fact, there was a demand for increased service because people recognize the essential nature of the service which Canada Post should provide.
Part of our job in this House is to pass along to our colleagues the thoughts and words of citizens of the country with regard to Canada Post and its services. Let me begin by quoting from a letter and resolution by the municipality of Neebing within the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan. This letter, which was sent to Mr. Lander, President of Canada Post Corporation, states:
Re: Reduction in Rural Mail Service
Enclosed please find a copy of a resolution passed by our Council regarding proposed reductions in postal service in the rural areas.
Members of Council wish to express their concern to Canada Post Corporation that the suggested changes will not only serve to isolate rural residents, but will also impose undue hardship on those individuals who will be forced to travel 25 to 30 miles (each way) to obtain their mail.
It is hoped that Canada Post will attempt to develop more practical approaches in reducing its costs of operation, that will not impair the quality mail service to rural residents.
Many citizens of my riding have written to me to express their concern about what the Government and Canada Post may or may not do with postal service, and also to indicate their support for a postal system.
I will read a few excerpts from letters without naming individuals because I do not have their permission to do so in the House of Commons. However, I know they will be pleased that I have taken the opportunity to read their concerns into the record. First:
As a rural resident and a user of the Nolalu Post Office-
A small village Post Office in the rural part of my riding:
-I am quite angry at the proposed closure.
We have been told that the reason for the closure is that the Post Office is not creating enough revenue. Since when is the Canadian postal service a moneymaking business? Is it not a service supplied to the public, paid for by the public?
Has any of the government officials involved in the decision of closing the Post Offices lived in a rural area and used them? Perhaps if they did they would understand our situation.
We, the public, have been told that we will have to use the Post Office in Kakabeka Falls. This office is 24 kilometers from here. Most families, in this area, only have one vehicle. How can we use the Post Office when the hours are not suitable. Most people work and cannot get their mail between 9 and 5. What happens when our bills come late and we are charged interest because we can't get to the post office on time? I will certainly not pay the interest when it is not my fault.
Another letter comes from a gentleman who is widely known in all of northwestern Ontario. He is an elderly gentleman who writes:
Our postal service at Nolalu is being discontinued. Because of a severe cardiac problem I am unable to come and go.
Could you and your Government see fit to continue this service to we who do not live in 'favoured' places.
These letters show varying concerns of people in rural communities. Another letter states:
I am writing to you and other members of Government who were put in office to represent our needs, that I myself and other residents of my township are not in favour of having our Post Office closed, and therefore bringing this matter (our needs) to your attention for help in saving our Post Office.
February 4, 1987

Our employees of our Post Offices have volunteered to stagger their hours of working to meet the needs of our residents to enable them to have access to the Post Office, but the Government dictates the hours for the Post Office. Therefore, the residents of the community can't use our Post Office, and therefore the Post Office is not meeting its revenue. Most of the residents of our community work Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. We are at least a good 30 miles plus out from town, so therefore many residents are leaving for work at 6.30 a.m. to 7 a.m., and not returning back home until 6 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. at night. The hours of our Post Office are Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., and closed on Saturdays. My question is, how are we supposed to put money into our Post Office with those hours? Why can't the Post Office have the hours to meet the needs of the residents of our community?
I could on and on to talk about letters, cards and phone calls. Next to questions about unemployment insurance cheques, the largest complaint in my constituency concerns the level of service by Canada Post. People are unhappy about the delay in mail delivery. They are unhappy about the possibility of losing services.
They tell me that they do not want supermailboxes because it will not provide anything new to them in the rural area. They already receive those services and more, with mail being dropped off at the end of their driveways.
People have told me that while it may not be authorized, they can leave money in the mailbox so that the mail deliverer can put a stamp on the letter and leave change in the mailbox. A supermailbox cannot provide that service.
I want to talk about central post offices in communities where there are no rural routes. These post offices, which are within a reasonable distance for those in the community, become a focal point for activity. We hear about campaigning and canvassing at small community Post Offices which open at ten o'clock in the morning because citizens congregate there to pick up their mail and conduct community business. That activity will be destroyed if rural post offices are eliminated.
While we thought the issue had been resolved, the Minister re-opened it as a result of comments he made in the House recently. The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) said, as quoted at page 2979 of Hansard on February 2:
-I can give the Hon Member the assurance that there will be no closures or service changes at the Canada Post Corporation and its rural Post Offices until the recommendations proposed by the Committee are acted upon. Mr. Speaker, the recommendation referred to a period of consultation with the Canadian people on the post offices that might be affected.
Clearly the inference is that the Government will consult and talk to local MPs and others but will make the ultimate decision. There is nothing in the Minister's response to indicate categorically that not a single rural post office will be closed. The Minister is talking about a process that is not new because before this information was revealed Canada Post had been sending letters to my constituents saying that it would stop their particular routes. That was its method of consultation, but it quickly backtracked once we became organized.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is rot-gut, and you know it.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member says: "That is rot-gut".


J. Michael Forrestall: Table the letters.
Motions


Iain Francis Angus: Perhaps he would like to see the letters that were delivered.


J. Michael Forrestall: Send one over to me.


Iain Francis Angus: I do not have them here but I will give the Hon. Member a copy of the information. It was very clearly a retraction by Canada Post when it realized it had been caught. Is that the Government's version of consultation? Our experience leads us on this side of the House to believe that the Government will attack post offices one at a time until they are closed down.


J. Michael Forrestall: Stop spreading fear.


Iain Francis Angus: The Government will close them down one by one in its blind devotion to making the Post Office break even. I wish it had a blind devotion to making it work better because people would then have more faith in the Post Office and begin using it more often.
I invite the Hon. Member to participate in the debate. Perhaps he could tell us why mail that is destined for Thunder Bay or leaving Thunder Bay must go to Winnipeg to be sorted? The result is that some of our mail ends up in northern Manitoba and we receive mail belonging in northern Manitoba. This adds many days to our delivery service. Rather than using the plant in Thunder Bay to process mail efficiently, Canada Post is so concerned about cost recovery that it goes to obscene lengths in an attempt to squeeze every nickel and dime out of the system. It should focus on improving the service.
Why was there the development of an independent parcel delivery system in Canada? It was not because of this Government but because the previous one did not put enough emphasis on quality of service to ensure that there was no need for a private parcel service. Because that was not emphasized, one now exists. It is competing with Canada Post and taking revenues away from it.
Why did the Government intervene at Canada Post when it was experimenting with a mail order shopping service which would have allowed people in small communities to buy items through catalogue shopping, thus increasing the revenue of the Post Office? Why did the Government quash that? Was it again as a result of blind devotion to ideology as opposed to a willingness to garner enough revenue for Canada Post to provide those services? That is the real question that has to be considered.
Tomorrow, at the appropriate time, I wish to table in the House a petition signed by residents from the South Gillies, Nalalu, and the Kakabeka Falls areas, residents who are concerned about their postal service. The petition is clear. It was written by the petitioners. It was not something we provided a thousand copies of and said: "Go out and fill this and we will raise it in the House of Commons". They initiated it. They clarified the preamble and the prayer to ensure that it

February 4, 1987
Motions
conformed with the rules of the House of Commons. This petition is from an organization of concerned citizens who want to ensure that their post office is saved.
This is not a matter on which we will be silent. My colleagues and I will continue to press the issue. We recognize that the main problem is not with Canada Post. It has to abide by the mandate that the Government of the day gives it. Clearly, what we have to do is change that mandate. It is simple. The only real way to change that mandate is to turf out the Government. We must then put in place a Government which believes in service to the people and not cut-backs, not squeezing. We must put in place people who believe in efficiency with quality care and quality service.
I feel the matter needs more airing. It is important that we heed the words of the Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Party earlier in the debate with respect to the need to continue the dialogue. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations
presented to the House on Monday, December 15, 1986, be not now concurred
in but that it be recommitted to the committee for further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find that the Hon. Member's motion is in order. We will now proceed to the 10 minute question and comment period.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke, who played along with what appears to be current New Democratic policy, which is to frustrate the objectives of Government in getting on with the business of the House, and who joins with and is strengthened and comforted by his companions in sometimes questionable law, could respond to three or four points which I wish to make.
The NDP voted with the Liberals and ourselves to create a Crown corporation. I ask the Hon. Member to respond to the following questions. Why did they do that at that time? Why did his Party participate in that decision at that time? We were seeking self-sufficiency for the proposed Crown corporation within five years. Why has the Hon. Member now changed his mind? Why are he and the members of his Party now going down another road? Why are they now playing another tune? To what fiddler are they dancing now?
As I suggested, they advocated and supported a Crown corporation which would be self-sufficient in five years. Yet, today, they are advocating positions that would add six cents to ten cents or more to the cost of mailing a letter in Canada. Why have they gone in that direction? Can the Hon. Member answer that question? What philosophy is the Hon. Member serving? He is a socialist, and I accept that. I work with him. He is a hell of a nice fellow, but he is inconsistent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Don't accuse him of being a Tory. That's like being a Progressive Conservative.


J. Michael Forrestall: Socialists like the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) are opposed to the use of the private sector in any context whatsoever.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What are you talking about?


J. Michael Forrestall: I sit here and listen to you day in and day out, year in and year out. I accused the Hon. Member a bit earlier of being sophistic in his argument, and he was. Sophistry is not becoming to Members of Parliament. The Hon. Member knows that. I tell you to be careful. If we throw out Mr. Lander you will have no postal service whatsoever in Canada. You foster and you breed in the rural areas of the country a mistrust and uncertainty that is not becoming the Parliament of this country. You are using unfounded arguments. You are supporting your unions. Your unions are supporting you in fostering this unrest.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have heard on approximately 10 different occasions over the course of the last few minutes the Hon. Member refer to another Hon. Member with the word "you". "You" is usually referred to when one is addressing the Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker. I trust Your Honour will bring my colleague across the way to order and have him address the Chair in the way that is customary in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair. Of course I have been around here long enough to be fully aware that I must address you, Mr. Speaker. In the past I have been accused of asking the Speaker whether or not he would ask an Hon. Member why he feels he can be sophistic.
I would ask the Hon. Member why it is that he and the members of his Party find it so convenient today to take a position that such a short time ago they did not take. Does the Hon. Member not want the Crown corporation to be efficient? Does he want to support the unions in trying to bring down the efforts of the Crown corporation? It is less than perfect. There will not be wholesale and massive closings of rural post offices. There will not be massive changes, as the Hon. Member argues. Indeed, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Hon. Member whether or not he would care to send me these hundreds of letters which he is receiving and to which he referred a little while ago.


Iain Francis Angus: The letters have already gone to the Minister and to the President of Canada Post. The question about cost recovery over the long term in terms of breaking even will not occur overnight, or in two years. That is insanity.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: I am pleased to participate and comment on the important motion put forward by my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).
February 4, 1987

I rise on behalf of my constituents in Burnaby to express serious concern and anger at the manner that Canada Post has responded to the community of Burnaby in terms of service. Canada Post is seeking increases in postage rates at the same time that it is seriously eroding the quality of service to our communities.
We were recently informed by the regional office of Canada Post in Burnaby that some 130 street letter boxes were to be eliminated. There was no consultation whatsoever with the local council. The Mayor has expressed his very strong opposition to this plan. There was no consultation with myself as the local Member of Parliament. Instead, Canada Post simply dictated to the people of Burnaby that they will lose this service of 130 street mailboxes. At a time when Canada Post is seeking an increase in postal rates, that heavy-handed attitude is absolutely unacceptable.
We have been told that a small blue sticker would be placed on the mailbox that will be eliminated, and at the end of a month that mailbox will be gone for good. This is a direct result of Conservative government policies aimed at cutting back on the quality of postal service in communities such as Burnaby.
Why was there no consultation with the people of Burnaby before this type of decision was made? Why has the Post Office insisted on cutting back service in other areas? Recently I was successful in having a sub-post office reinstated in south Burnaby at the Metrotown area. Until that time, the previous sub-post office had been entirely eliminated. The service at the south Burnaby post office was completely inadequate. It had long delays and line-ups.
Myself and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party insist that before there is any increase in postal rates, service be improved. Far from being improved, as a result of the cutbacks in mailboxes, the poor service, and the lengthy delays in delivery, there has been a deterioration and erosion in the quality of mail service in Burnaby. The Conservative Government is responsible for this decline in postal service.
I am pleased to rise today to support the motion of my colleague which calls upon the Government to come to its senses and restore quality postal service in Burnaby, and elsewhere in Canada.


Iain Francis Angus: It is clear from what my colleague has said, and when comparing what has happened in my riding, that it is typical Conservative thinking that the best way to get at the Post Office is to make it more difficult to use, so let us eliminate as many of the drop boxes that we can, and let us restrict the hours of operation of the post offices so that people cannot get into them. Quite clearly, I am wondering whether the Government wishes the Post Office to fail. What is its ultimate game plan? Is it trying to shut down the Post Office, or is it setting it up for privatization? What is the Government up to?
Motions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the first report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations in connection with the Post Office. I am also pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the amendment put forward by the NDP, and also to make some general comments with respect to the Canada Post situation in my constituency.
I listened with interest to the first comments made by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) from the perspective of rural Canada. I also listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) from the perspective of a new community with growing suburbs and new homes that were without postal service. I then listened to the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) and his comments dealing with the situation from the perspective of northern and rural Canada. Then I listened to the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby sounded somewhat familiar to me, because I have the perspective of an urban Member with a long established constituency. It is not a constituency with rural postal routes, or one that has new subdivisions blossoming up. It is a long established community with some modest changes, some infill, some increases in density, some new apartment buildings, and some new townhouses. There are no vast changes or vast rural areas. I see the situation a little differently, and so do my constituents.
When I was first elected to Parliament two and a half years ago I was personally aware, and I knew from the comments that had reached me from my constituents, of an uneasiness about the postal situation. That uneasiness has gone up and down over the last few years. The Post Office is not a problem that has suddenly burst upon us over the last two and a half years.


Mr. Baker:: It has been apparent for some time.


Alan Redway: It has been with us for some time, as my Liberal colleague says. In fact, it dates back to the days when the Government that he supported was around. We went through some fluctuations in mail service, particularly with postal strikes that were rather devastating to the services that we had. We seemed to come out of those strikes and into an era with irregular postal service. We did not seem to be able to put it all together. Somehow the Post Office never seemed to be able to put it all together, the way it seemed to be in what I would refer to as the good old days, the days that I recall when I was a boy growing up, and even a few years ago when the postal service was something that could be counted on. When you put a letter in the box, it would be delivered to where it was going within a day or two. Those days are long past. They did not pass within the last two years, they have been long past for some time.

February 4, 1987
Motions
The Hon. Member for Burnaby referred to the problem that I and my constituents have been having, that is, the removal of the street letter boxes. That is something that has hit my constituents very severely. It arrived in the last few months in the constituency of York East and in the surrounding constituencies. I hear from residents in various constituencies around, particularly from Broadview-Greenwood, the Beaches, and also from Don Valley East and Don Valley West. I know that the Members for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) and Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) do an excellent job in looking after those problems. But at the same time I certainly hear the rumblings when the street post boxes are removed.
I might say that dozens and dozens of these street postboxes have been removed in my constituency. Every time that one is removed, I receive telephone calls and letters. Recently I have been receiving petitions. In each case I have been in touch with Canada Post and with the Minister responsible for Canada Post, urging them to replace those street letterboxes. I do that not just because I receive one or two telephone calls and some petitions, but because of the composition of the population in my constituency, the demographics of it. The fact is that it is very substantially made up of senior citizens. My constituency has more senior citizens in it than any other constituency in Canada, with the exception of Victoria, British Columbia.
When one of these street letterboxes is removed in my constituency, it is not just a case of it disappearing and the residents being able to go a few blocks away to find another one. My constituents and I are faced with a problem. They are senior citizens. In many cases they are relatively immobile. It is just impossible for them to get to another letterbox which is in any way convenient. In fact, many of them have drawn to my attention that they actually had to take a bus or a subway train to get to a place where they could mail a letter. That is ridiculous to them and ridiculous to me. Surely it must be ridiculous to Canada Post and the Minister responsible.
Fortunately, a number of these street letterboxes have been returned at the urgings of constituents and at my urgings. These petitions have been effective in getting back some of these postboxes. I am hopeful that we will be able to get a lot more of them back in the very near future. I am certainly making representations right now to the Minister. I am optimistic, I might say, that he and the President of Canada Post will see the light of day and return these street letterboxes.
I was interested to hear the Hon. Member for Burnaby say that his constituents were receiving some notice of the fact that postboxes were being removed. That has not happened in my constituency. I am surprised to hear that it has happened in any constituency across the country. However, in the cases where they have been removed, I have been hearing about them in a hurry, as have other Members of Parliament. Once again, I am optimistic that we will have a goodly number of those street postboxes returned to us.
That particular problem struck my constituency just prior to Christmas-time, just before the next great problem with Canada Post-the question of taking away second-class mail privileges from religious publications. That is a particular difficulty in my constituency because it is the home publication base of The Presbyterian Record. Not only is it published in my constituency, but it is the location of the head office of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. In addition, the editor of The Presbyterian Record is the Minister of St. Mark's Presbyterian Church in my constituency. As one might imagine, there are many members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada who receive The Presbyterian Record on a regular basis. Suddenly they have been faced with the prospect of an extreme escalation in the price, affecting not only the church itself but those who have to pay for it, the church members. They were understandably concerned. They were in touch with me and with other Members of Parliament.
After representations by myself and other Members of Parliament, after petitions and letters which deluged Canada Post, the Chairman of the Board of Canada Post and the Minister responsible, I am pleased that the President of Canada Post announced that second-class mailing privileges were being restored to The Presbyterian Record. This proves that one can get some positive response if one makes the proper waves and rattles the bars enough. Hopefully other Members of Parliament will do that for other religious publications. I heard today that The Lutheran publication is having the same sort of problem.
That problem landed on our doorstep, as I said, just prior to Christmas-time. At about the same time another problem landed on my doorstep relating to the whole question of new subdivisions. We do not have vast new subdivisions in York East, but we have new apartment buildings and townhouses. One extremely peculiar situation came to my attention from one of my constituents relating to a townhouse-apartment building complex, a co-op housing complex, built in a triangular shape and fronting on three streets. Two of the streets are prior existing streets and one is a new street, a brand new street. The townhouses and apartment buildings built on the existing streets with existing names receive door-to-door delivery. The townhouses receive door-to-door delivery even though they are brand new. The apartment buildings built on existing streets in the same complex receive the usual apartment mail delivery in mailboxes in their lobbies. However, on the new street, which is part of the same complex, the apartment buildings receive the usual apartment type of delivery and the townhouses have green boxes, soon to be replaced by superboxes, I suppose, sitting hundreds of feet away.
It makes no sense at all. It is one housing complex, but the situation exists because of a technicality that some of the townhouses were built facing a new street whereas the other ones were built facing existing streets. The ones on existing streets receive door-to-door delivery and the others do not. It makes no sense at all.
February 4, 1987

Once again we have made representations to the President of Canada Post and to the Minister responsible. I hope, for heaven's sake, that they are listening to this debate and that they will straighten out the mess and ensure door-to-door delivery in that portion of the complex as well.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For some time now the Hon. Member has put on record his concerns about postal service relative to his constituents. I am sure he is sincere. I wonder whether he would take this opportunity to move an extension of the hours, so that we could vote on the resolution and get the matter to committee for a full hearing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway).


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, those are three concerns in connection with the Post Office which have been pointed out to me and which I have taken up on behalf of my constituents.
Another concern was raised immediately prior to Christmastime. It concerned the Christmas card system of mailing last
Motions
year. About a month and a half prior to Christmas, Canada Post suddenly introduced an incredibly silly system whereby one had to buy special envelopes in order to obtain a decent lower rate for the mailing of Christmas cards. If any other government body or private company had introduced a system with such incredibly short notice like the one utilized by Canada Post, they would have been shot.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. I want to draw to a close, but let me say that I cannot support the amendment of my colleagues in the NDP. However, I support the motion to endorse the first report of the committee because I note that it provides for a continuing review of Canada Post by the Standing Committee on Government Operations. That is exactly what we need. We need a watch-dog on Canada Post, and this committee will do the job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned.

Thursday, February 5, 1987