1987-05-26

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, 1 have the honour to present to the House the report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the Seventy-seventh Interparliamentary Conference in Mango, Nicaragua on April 27 to May 2, 1987, in both official languages.
*
* *


PETITIONS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a stack of petitions from residents of Falkland, Avola, Lions Bay, Sorrento, and Monte Creek, British Columbia.
They are concerned about the proposal of the federal Government to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1990 for the Canada Post Corporation and believe that it will result in cutbacks, in deterioration of service in the Post Office, and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers, particularly those in rural areas.
They also believe that proposed measures have already resulted in the closure of many rural post offices and the cancellation of routes in rural communities, which will mean a drastic reduction in services in these small communities.
Therefore, they call upon the Government to make improved service the highest priority for Canada Post and to instruct the Government to abandon the policy of closing rural post offices and cancelling rural postal routes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to table the following petition which indicates in part that all human beings are deserving of legal protection from unjust attacks upon their lives and that the present law regarding abortion does not provide such protection; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so that unborn human beings are protected by law from abortion.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present petitions signed by residents of Fort Frances which call upon Parliament to support the passage of Motion M-37.
[ Translation]
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 114.


Mr. Nunziata: How many inmates in federal (a) maximum (b) medium (c) minimum security institutions are over the age of 60 and, in each case, what is the age and parole eligibility date of the inmate?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Our
response is as follows:
(a) Number of inmates in maximum security institutions: 8
Parole
Date of Birth	Eligibility Date
1924-01-14	1992-06-21
1925-10-15	2005-12-18
1922-10-12	1978-02-10
1920-05-21	1979-02-17
1925-06-24	1988-05-28
1921-02-17	1973-11-23
1922-09-04	1988-09-13
1925-01-19	1992-06-21

May 26, 1987
Order Paper Questions
(b) Number of inmates in medium security institutions: 73
1923-06-13	1992-05-21
1921-05-17	1987-03-19
1923-06-18	1977-06-19
1921-04-01	1990-04-21
1921-07-07	1986-03-29
1926-04-13	1986-09-04
1917-07-19	1974-03-20
1921-04-21	1987-12-18
1921-11-18	1988-01-24
1925-06-04	1987-03-21
1925-07-09	1987-01-17
1926-01-01	1991-07-04
1923-05-20	1990-04-18
1923-12-05	1977-03-20
1920-11-20	1974-09-23
1926-01-17	2009-12-25
1918-10-28	1977-08-15
1924-01-24	1976-01-16
1925-03-30	1977-03-12
1922-02-26	2002-02-10
1919-09-25	1990-02-04
1922-10-06	1988-07-24
1923-10-02	1981-09-29
1919-06-11	1995-09-05
1924-03-12	1986-01-30
1913-09-03	1974-05-24
1924-12-14	1987-10-23
1924-09-20	1985-10-02
1919-07-05	1973-10-10
1925-09-15	1982-10-02
1923-06-11	1987-08-07
1926-03-04	1987-05-31
1925-07-28	1988-03-10
1924-12-25	1987-05-15
1912-06-15	1979-09-10
1914-02-15	1993-11-15
1924-08-28	1987-05-23
1925-07-16	1990-05-11
1911-10-01	1989-02-28
1920-05-01	1977-10-01
1926-04-19	1993-04-08
1925-03-11	1986-08-22
1925-05-13	1979-05-29
1923-01-11	1994-01-12
1924-10-04	1984-06-05
1920-08-31	1986-09-08
1916-03-29	1988-01-23
1922-09-23	1988-01-09
1908-10-31	1988-05-10
1921-08-26	1976-04-06
1913-10-26	1980-11-21
1915-02-15	1988-02-28
1917-07-01	1970-11-06
1917-04-03	1969-10-15
1924-03-19	1972-03-18
1924-06-03	1983-08-08
1916-06-23	1956-07-13
1901-07-22	1966-05-03
1925-01-23	1983-04-08
1921-02-17	1987-10-02
1924-12-16	1967-05-24
1916-05-10	1987-10-08
1920-05-13	1986-07-06
1923-03-26	1986-06-06
1923-08-25	1988-10-27
1914-02-02	1979-10-27
1926-03-11	1983-12-16
1913-03-10	1987-07-27
1923-10-19	1971-07-02
1916-05-06	1987-09-03
1915-11-27	1987-09-12
1924-08-25	1980-07-19
1921-01-07	1990-08-26
(c) Number of inmates in minimum security institutions: 37	
1914-12-04	1987-12-24
1924-06-03	1986-12-15
1925-03-11	1992-01-16
1921-04-27	1986-08-21
1916-08-05	1988-03-27
1925-11-23	1987-05-26
1920-01-10	1989-10-06
1921-10-10	1987-12-15
1924-01-31	1981-10-09
1919-01-20	1988-08-03
1925-03-13	1986-05-31
1921-09-24	1987-03-04
1922-12-12	1988-03-26
1922-07-29	1989-03-16
1922-06-22	1988-02-13
1917-04-06	1969-07-16
1920-01-13	1995-04-03
1922-06-27	1988-05-02
1923-01-17	1988-04-14
1919-08-25	1987-06-03
1919-12-27	1984-09-01
1921-07-21	1989-04-17
1925-04-15	1985-12-15
1925-03-19	1972-08-17
1926-03-09	1985-09-30
1918-12-13	1989-06-04
1923-03-01	1984-11-15
1920-12-30	1986-10-04
1924-07-11	1987-04-16
1925-05-05	1986-09-25
1909-10-02	1990-08-02
1920-05-13	1985-09-26
1916-07-28	1972-10-28
1923-10-02	1988-10-15
1923-04-07	1976-06-28
1923-08-31	1980-07-31
1925-07-11	1969-06-21
[Translation]	
Mir. Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions	
be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamen-	
tary Secretary	has been answered. Shall the remaining
questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.	
[English]


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that before
calling Orders	of the Day 1 undertook to return to the
May 26, 1987

Chamber this morning with a ruling and I am prepared to give that ruling now.
I would ask the attention of the Chamber and I assure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) that I will not be overly long.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on Thursday, May 21.

I have studied quite carefully the question which the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) asked and about which the Minister complained, as well as the exchange which then followed. I am grateful to all Hon. Members who took part in the discussion, because they dealt with points which go beyond the narrow limits of a definite issue, points which interest us all considerably and which I shall deal with in this ruling.

In a previous ruling, which I delivered on May 5, I warned against the over extended use of our absolute privilege of freedom of speech. At the time, I said:
Questions concerning conflict of interest guidelines are, of course, legitimate.
Members are entitled to use facts they have been able to obtain and verify as
the basis for such questions.
The question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver- Kingsway was clearly related to conflict of interest, although he stated by way of a supplementary question that he was not suggesting that the Minister was in a conflict of interest situation. He did, however, in the course of his question, refer by name to an individual who was involved in fund raising for the Hon. Member's constituency association. This led some of the Hon. Members who participated in the discussion to express concern with regard to the potential for abuse of our absolute privilege of freedom of speech, particularly when individuals outside this House are referred to by name. It is not simply that such people could be slandered, with impunity, without any redress available to them, but that wrongdoing may be implied simply by making a personal reference.
The media are swift to report any matter which smacks of scandal or impropriety, and false impressions can be created, not necessarily intentionally, by reporting parliamentary questions of the kind put by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway to the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I think I should repeat what I said before, that the absolute privilege of this place is something that is necessary for free
Privilege-Mr. Andre
speech. It is necessary because Members of Parliament have to be able to speak freely without fear. That, of course, is why we have this privilege and its history is clear. But we are living in a day when anything said in this place is said right across the country and that is why I have said before and why I say again that care ought to be exercised, keeping in mind that the great privilege we do have ought not to be abused.
The Hon. Minister in raising his complaint, did so not only on his own behalf, but also in defence of the gentleman referred to in the question. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) echoed this concern in referring to "the phrasing of questions which slander within the walls of the House not only the Minister but innocent people out there".
The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) as chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, has a particular interest and concern in this fundamental area of our responsibilities and expanded on this aspect of the matter. Frankly, I appreciated his thoughtful expose of the problem, and the concern he expressed over what he described as "an evolving practice in the House of Commons of using names in here of people who are not Members of the House and, therefore, have no opportunity, no right and no chance to defend themselves."
I am sure that all Hon. Members would agree that we have a responsibility to protect the innocent, not only from outright slander, but from any slur directly or indirectly implied.
With the indulgence of the House, I should now like to refer to the issue of conflict of interest in the context of a Member's relationship with those who are active in fundraising on behalf of his or her constituency association. These remarks, of course, can apply to the relationship between any Member and any person in a riding association of that particular Member having to do with whatever activity might be in support of that Member.
The Hon. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs freely acknowledged that some Members of his riding executive were employees of oil companies. He also said:
I suggest that there are in this Chamber over 100 Members who have farmers as members of their associations but who nevertheless regularly participate in agricultural debates and vote on agricultural measures. I submit that there are at least 30 Members opposite whose association memberships include union executives, and yet they regularly participate in discussions and votes pertaining to labour matters. In no such instance would it occur to me to suggest a conflict of interest.
Those are the words of the Hon. Minister during the discussion on this particular point.
The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) agreed with the Minister that members of oil companies are entitled to be members of his organization. The Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), in what I think can be said a forceful intervention, endorsed these views and pointed out that many of the members of his own riding executive were farmers. Presumably no one would contest the propriety of the inclusion of

May 26, 1987
Supply
doctors on the riding executive of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), of lawyers on that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), or of women on that of the Minister of State for the status of women. Reductio ad absurdum perhaps, but I think this illustrates the point.

Before going into the question of privilege itself, I felt I had to express a few general considerations on the points connected with it. It is always useful to set guidelines and I feel that we should avoid as much as possible mentioning by name people who are unable to defend themselves in any context whatsoever against innuendos. I suggest also that in the absence of any concrete evidence, we should avoid suggesting that there might be a conflict of interest simply because a member of a county association is involved in an activity of some sort or is a member of a given profession.

1 come now to the complaint of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. 1 have already stated that questions concerning conflict of interest guidelines are legitimate, and I did not rule out of order the question of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. The Hon. Minister, nevertheless, saw in the question an implied slur against himself and another individual named in the question. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway assured the House that he made no accusation either against the Minister or the other person. His assurance was quite unequivocal, and I must take this into account. In addition, the Minister's direct and forthright statement, and the contributions to the discussion made by other Hon. Members, satisfy me that the Minister's reputation has suffered no damage and that no one is likely to question his integrity.
I, therefore, find that I cannot accord this matter precedence over other business. However, I would again remind the House that while questions concerning conflict of interest guidelines are legitimate, great care should be taken in framing them. I would particularly exhort Hon. Members to avoid referring by name to persons who do not enjoy our immunities. There may, from time to time, be exceptional circumstances in which the national interest calls for the naming of an individual. Such circumstances are rare, however, and I am sure that none of us would wish to take the slightest risk of harming an innocent person.
1 would, however, like to add something. As I indicated before, matters like this are giving the Chair considerable difficulty. Of course, the Chair must, when a question of privilege is taken arising out of questions which offend someone, keep in mind that the question I have to decide, on a question of privilege, is whether or not the question has reduced the capacity of the Hon. Minister to do his or her duty as a Member of this place. That is the narrow question I have to face, and in this case I have no hesitation in saying that, as a consequence of the questions and the exchange that followed, the Hon. Minister's integrity is left without any question at all.
In my view, there has been no damage done to the Hon. Minister. As I have said, no Minister could have made a more frank response to the alleged innuendo of the question. Free speech in this place is dependent upon order. It is very-important, especially when considering the extraordinary privileges we all enjoy here, that a lot of common sense be used.
I also want to say something else. I said the other day that the Opposition has the undoubted right to ask questions and to probe, and I also said that the Opposition has the undoubted duty to do so. I do not think there is any student of parliamentary history who would quarrel with that affirmation. I intend to be very vigilant in ensuring that those rights and duties are properly protected in this place. However, if ever there is an occasion when a Member feels very strongly that something should be revealed here, then I would ask that Hon. Members pursue that particular issue through a fact-finding mission of some care. If it is not required to do so in this place, then the appropriate procedure is to lay a charge and there are procedures under our rules providing for that.
In the interests of order, common sense and some concern for each other, I would ask all Hon. Members to be extremely careful on these matters. I thank all Hon. Members for their interventions the other day which, frankly, I found helpful.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) moved:: That this House condemn the government for allowing the deterioration of Canada's postal service by undermining the principle of fair and equal services to all Canadians through the substitution of "super mail boxes" for door to door service and by the closure of rural post offices, and by exacerbating already disintegrating labour-management relations within Canada Post by removing labour representation from the Corporation's Board and by other confrontational actions, thereby increasing the threats of postal service disruptions or even shutdowns.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when we became a nation, a confederation, the Government had two principal roles; the first was to protect and defend the realm and the second was to deliver the mail. This Government cannot even deliver the mail. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in our view, which is supported by our spokesman and colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), home delivery is an essential service that must be reinstated in Canada. When establishing the Canada Post Corporation in 1981, the then Liberal Government recognized that mail is an essential public service. It is neither an extravaganza or a luxury-it is a basic service that should be available to all Canadians.
May 26, 1987



In 1981, the mandate given to Canada Post was threefold; it was first to improve labour-management relations, second, to increase productivity and better postal service and third, to reduce the deficit. Each of these priorities was to be given equal weight. Thanks to that clear mandate, we saw for a while some progress in improving labour-management relations in the post office and on the deficit-reduction side. However, in the Budget of February 1984, the Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), made it clear that the main priority of the post office was not to deliver the mail but to balance the books.

All that, Mr. Speaker, without any discussion here in this House, without any debate, without any regard for service improvement, without any regard for the improvement of management-employee relations. One thing only is allimportant: to balance revenues and expenditures. We also want Canada Post to eliminate its deficit. But let us not forget the American experience. Their postal service needed 14 years to achieve that goal. It did not happen overnight.

By redirecting post office management to dwell almost exclusively on cost-cutting, the Government threw out the baby with the bath water. Services are being cut and Canadians are being short-changed. There has not been a postal strike since 1981. Now, because of the almost exclusive concentration of the Government on cost-cutting, labour-management relations have deteriorated to the point that there is talk of a strike. If there is a strike, the responsibility will rest clearly on this Government, because it has so reordered the priorities of the post office that management and labour are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to work out their differences.
There are even some who hold the view that the Government wants a strike in order to make massive reductions in post office staff. Surely that would be too callous and too stupid even for this Government. However, we are putting the Government on notice today. It had better get its act together.

The Government should first reinstate the mandate given to the Canada Post Corporation in 1981 to improve labour-management relations, increase productivity and provide a better service, while reducing its deficit. Let us give management and workers the tools needed, and they will fulfil their mandate.
I am not blaming today the management of Canada Post Corporation, nor union leaders. Members of management are working within a framework. The Government directs them to make every effort to achieve savings. They try to comply with
Supply
instructions. Their actions only reflect the mandate given to them.

Prior to Canada Post becoming a Crown corporation, the Liberal Government of the day had an interim policy of providing community mailbox service to new communities awaiting door-to-door delivery. It was never intended, and I repeat, it was never intended, that this temporary service should become a permanent replacement for home delivery. However, in June 1985, in response to the Government's fiscal instructions, the Post Office made supermailboxes a permanent feature. From that point forward, no Canadian who moved into a new subdivision in any part of Canada would receive door-to-door delivery.
By the end of 1991 there will be close to one million supermailbox addresses. At an average of two people per address, that means that there will be about two million second-class Canadians. That is unfair, unjust and discriminatory. We believe that every Canadian deserves fair and equitable service, every Canadian deserves equal treatment from his Government, particularly in the postal service, and every Canadian pays the same 36 cents for a postal stamp and so deserves the same delivery and the same service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: In addition to unfairness, my colleagues have reported to the House repeatedly that the boxes do not even work. Some have been broken. For some, one key opens every box in the neighbourhood. Some were frozen over. Some could not be opened. Snow made some boxes inaccessible in wintertime. Surely one is not constrained from asking, did no one in the Government recognize that we still have a rough Canadian winter?
Some time ago in this House I asked the Minister responsible to get rid of the supermailboxes. I asked him to restore door-to-door delivery. In response all we have had is a massive advertising campaign to convince Canadians that the supermailboxes are a great idea. They are not a great idea. They are not even a mediocre idea. They are a lousy idea and we ought to get rid of them.
How are the physically handicapped supposed to get to these boxes to pick up their mail? What about shut-ins? What about the elderly with low incomes who want to keep in touch with their families and who may not be able to use long distance? It is totally unacceptable that the Government is going to force an 80-year old widow to trudge through the snow in 40 degree weather to try and get her mail from a frozen supermailbox. That is assuming the mail is even there. Her pension cheque may not even have been delivered. She would then have to trudge back empty-handed after exposing herself to that kind of deprivation and sometimes risk. That is not the sort of thing

May 26, 1987
Supply
Canadians want to tolerate, and that is the sort of thing we are calling the Government to account for, and about which we are putting it on notice.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the Tory vision for the future, I want no part of it, nor I am sure the majority of Canadians.
Let us look at other "bright" ideas put forward concerning rural mail-the elimination of home delivery, that is delivery to roadside boxes, and its replacement by superboxes at major intersections.

Our farmers are already in deep trouble. A way of life in our rural communities is being threatened by the crisis in agriculture. Yet the Government now proposes to make it more difficult by forcing them to drive 10 or 15 miles a day, every day, just to see whether they have any mail. What about the closing down of rural post offices? We could see as many as 5,000 rural post offices being replaced over the next five years, these are social centres in many rural communities.
In The Ottawa Citizen this morning I noticed a letter from a former parliamentarian, in fact one of the greatest parliamentarians in my day in the House of Commons, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. His letter dealt with this very subject. He pointed out another aspect of closing down rural mail and I quote him:
But it is not as great a hardship as Canada Post is perpetrating in rural areas, by closing post offices in small settlements and by eliminating rural mail delivery. Closing public post offices and substituting wickets in stores or private houses will be deeply resented because of the loss of privacy by the users. Canada Post should not have the authority to do that.
We agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Pickersgill.
The issue before you and the House is very simple, Mr. Speaker. Canadians want the mail delivered. They want it delivered daily. They want it delivered door-to-door. That is the issue and we put it before this House. When Canadians mail a letter they want it delivered, they want it delivered personally, and to the person to whom they sent it.
It is not complicated, yet what do we see? We see rates going up and service going down. We have one of the most expensive postal services in the world and we are not getting value for money. The reason is that the Government does not seem to understand that the Post Office cannot cut its mandate to deliver the mail.
What good does it do to balance the books by eliminating services? That is the easiest strategy in the world and it is also the stupidest. It does not take any planning at all-just cut the service. We suggested and the unions have suggested to the Government that the way to balance the Post Office's books is to improve the service, make it more imaginative, modern and competitive. That is the way to balance the books, not cut service to Canadians from one end of the country to the other.
The Government, through the Post Office, cuts the mail service. Who cares if a few million Canadians are shortchanged? Who cares if a few million Canadians are turned
into second-class citizens because they are not getting the same standard of service? Who cares if the elderly or handicapped cannot get to those supermailboxes? Who cares if in the process the Post Office loses its credibility? Who cares, the Government says, if other competitive services arise because people simply stop using the Post Office? Who cares? Obviously the Government does not care, but I believe most Canadians do care, and deeply. They feel this is fundamental. They pay taxes and, once more, they pay for stamps and they want equal service right to their door.
We believe that door-to-door mail service is an essential service, a basic service, that should be available to all Canadians in every part of Canada. We intend to see that basic service restored and that is a clear, full, and unequivocal commitment to Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Questions and comments?


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be utter confusion in the House today and I think we better get the record straight. It was the Liberal Government which stopped expansion of home delivery in 1974. We had cold winters in 1974. It was a Liberal Government that started the supermailbox program in 1982. The Liberal Government gave full authorization for that. The Liberal Government allowed Canada Post to develop and build these supermailboxes at a cost of millions of dollars. They were first installed in 1983 under a Liberal Government. I checked with Canada Post and not one letter or any other objection whatsoever came from any Liberal about the supermailboxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I think it is facetious of the Liberal Party to condemn the supermailboxes when they are the very people who authorized them to be designed, built and installed.
I read the letter of Mr. Pickersgill today. He was here 30 years ago when they started to install green mailboxes. I did not hear him object to that. The green boxes were first used by the Post Office over 30 years ago. The corporation under the previous Liberal Government used green boxes in both rural settings and to service urban growth. There is nothing new about these boxes other than the fact we have made improvements to them.
Another issue I did not hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) talk about was the cost. Where is the money for door-to-door delivery going to come from? 1 did not hear one word about that. It is going to cost something like $500 million to $1 billion to provide door-to-door service. I would like to see it back, but we also have to talk about where the money is coming from.
The Leader of the Opposition also mentioned that there are no improvements in the Post Office. That is not correct. There
May 26, 1987

have been a lot of improvements at Canada Post since Mr. Landers took over. Over the last two years the volume of work mail has increased by 6.8 per cent while the number of employees has decreased by over 2,000 at a savings in excess of $60 million. This represents an efficiency improvement of 7.5 per cent. During the same period the over-all efficiency of the service sector in Canada increased by only 2 per cent.
Since 1984, 206,000 homes and businesses, a number equivalent to a city the size of Ottawa, were provided with service using 750 fewer people. That is efficiency. This represents an address growth of 2 per cent with 4 per cent fewer delivery people. We must all act in a responsible manner. If we are going to restore door-to-door mail delivery for all of these homes we will have to discuss the cost.
One of the issues that has been discussed in the Government Operations Committee is declaring Canada Post an essential service. We have heard from many witnesses over the last two years that they could not survive another strike. Dozens of small businesses have had to close down. They just cannot afford another strike. We have seen the evidence.
I have recommended to the committee that we get quotes from the private sector for delivering mail in the new urban areas which are serviced by the supermailboxes. That is an alternative which I have offered. It costs $25 an hour to put a postman on the route. If we want to have postmen in all these areas we will have to discuss the cost.
Is the Leader of the Opposition proposing that we borrow money or that we have a 50-cent or 60-cent stamp to pay for the additional cost of door-to-door delivery? He has a responsibility to tell us what he wants done. Does he want us to borrow the money and have a bigger deficit, or does he want us to increase the price of stamps to pay for the door-to-door delivery he has requested?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has not recognized the fundamental thesis 1 was advancing, which is that Canadians are entitled to equal postal service for the 36 cents they pay for a stamp. It is the Government's responsibility, through the Post Office, to improve services and labour-management relations, to widen the variety of services available through the Post Office, and to balance the books through improved service and not by cutting service, potentially at the expense of two million second-class Canadian citizens, and that will be the result of the Government's practice.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support of the Leader of the Official Opposition for door-to-door delivery. I heard what the Member on the government side said with regard to costs. The adoption by the Liberal Party of the policy of door-to-door delivery is different than its policy was when it was in office. Are the Liberals now also prepared to enable the Post Office to be involved in revenue-generating activities? This is a strategy for solving the problem of costs which the Government has failed to examine and pursue. In fact, when the Liberals were in office they failed to pursue that as well.
Supply
Does this new Liberal thinking involve not only fairness in terms of door-to-door delivery, but also a realistic look at revenue-generating activities for the Post Office so that we can balance the books while delivering service?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in our meeting with the postal unions we said that we were quite willing to look at constructive ways of widening the range of postal service in an imaginative, revenue-producing way.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I am interested in the so-called Liberal doctrine of fairness and equity in terms of access to the service of the Post Office and the cost. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) knows that not all people live in Vancouver Quadra or Rockcliffe. If the Liberals have that kind of doctrine, why is it that all Canadians who live in rural areas and have to pick up their mail in rural post offices are required to pay a fee for maintaining a box in addition to the expense of having to drive to the Post Office to pick up their mail, often in 40-degree below temperatures?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who lives in Prince George in the constituency which he represents, he will know that I am speaking for people in his area too when I ask for better service. Surely he does not deny that the quality of service should be a mainspring of the postal commitment to the country.
Without being overly critical, I must say that it takes 14 days for a letter to be delivered from Vancouver Quadra to the House of Commons in Ottawa. I do not know whether he receives any better service in Prince George, but when I am up there later in the summer I will travel some of the rural routes with him. We will see what his own constituents want. I think he will be convinced of the argument I am making.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I know the right hon. gentleman has developed a sizable reputation for his involvement in business. He has been on the board of directors of a number of corporations. I suspect that during those days corporations were going through what we now call down-sizing because of increased expenses and reduced cash flow. In view of his experience in the private sector, how would he advise the corporation, which one might say is bankrupt every year since it needs a cash infusion from taxpayers, to expand its services in the way in which he asks it to?


John Napier Turner: The experience I had in business indicates to me that if you want to balance the books of the business or increase its profit potential you do not cut its main product.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks I would like to comment on some of the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. He says "do not cut the deficit". He says, "above all, meet the demands of the Opposition first and foremost". He implies that we should not worry about the

May 26, 1987
Supply
deficit. When challenged on it he says that he would do this through better management, better services, by somehow being more efficient and so on. As my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), pointed out, that is precisely what is happening. In fact, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) had done a little homework he would be aware of it. I suggest he might have started by reading the report of the review committee on the mandate and productivity of the Canada Post Corporation, the March-ment Committee, which is a very simple, very terse, very complete description of the problems of the Post Office and the solutions to those problems. If he examines what the Post Office has been doing vis-a-vis this committee report he will see that that is precisely what the current executive of the Post Office has been doing.
The situation in the Post Office really started during the time that the first Government of which he was a member was in power, in 1970 and 1971. As a result of innovations brought in by his colleague, the Hon. Erik Kierans, presumably with the blessing of the Cabinet of which he was a member, the staff of the Post Office increased from 40,000 to 60,000. That was a 50 per cent increase with no equivalent increase in the amount of mail. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that full well. He knows that until then, the Post Office had a good delivery record and was well respected as an organization. It only deteriorated as a result of the innovations brought in by the Government of which he was a member. It is only in the last two years that we are beginning to get the operations back on track.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition also said that everyone must have the same service. Again, he knows that since the Post Office was created almost a century ago there has never been one uniform service for everyone in the country. There has been general delivery, rental boxes, green boxes, delivery door-to-door and rural routes. The Hon. Member is advocating a change from what has been in place for almost a century, by calling for uniformity.
Finally, let me respond to his comments that the handicapped, elderly, shut-ins and others do not get door-to-door delivery. If he were to check with the Post Office he would discover that everyone of those persons receive door-to-door delivery in their area, even those areas of expansion where supermailboxes are being put in place as a result of the policy began by the Liberal Government in 1983. The fact is that those people in the category described by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition receive door-to-door delivery. Those who are physically incapable of getting to the box will receive door-to-door delivery.
The motion put forward by the Opposition today represents a flagrant disregard and lack of understanding of the challenge that Canada Post Corporation faced after years of Liberal mismanagement. The Opposition let the postal service deteriorate to the point where it was abominable. The labour
relations environment has been poisoned, and the management of the Corporation has not been given the freedom to act on its mandate. It is a postal service that was driven into the ground by political interference, more of which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is proposing. The most blatant example of this was the absence of a clear delivery policy.
The Opposition talks about fairness. Is it fair that the Liberal Government froze the extension of door-to-door delivery some 24 years ago, then refused to direct the then Post Office Department to implement a permanent alternate delivery system for Canadians? In fact, green groupboxes were installed all over the country as a temporary measure. While those temporary measures began rusting away, and postal customers grew more and more frustrated, the Liberal Government refused to direct the Post Office to develop a delivery policy. Instead, it applied band-aid solutions.
Through the 1970s, the Post Office Department knew well in advance when an election was about to be called because the Liberal Government would thaw its freeze on letter carrier delivery just before the election or by-election. That was its policy. This is but one area of the Liberal Government's abuse of the Post Office that left Canadians frustrated and postal employees equally frustrated.
Delivery was not the only area where the Liberal Government failed the Post Office Department. There was no clear rate policy, except that there should be no talk of a rate increase at any time that could impact on an election. Rate increases came after the election, never before. Rates lagged to the point where there was no increase in revenue while the Treasury Board marched on, buying peace and making outrageous settlements with the postal union that included restrictive clauses that effectively tied the hands of the postal management. The House will recall Joe Davidson of CUPW who said in the 1970s: "The public be damned". That is the legacy that the Liberal Government gave to Canadian postal users.
The fact that the Leader of that Party can stand in the House and say that this Government allowed the postal corporation to deteriorate is evidence of how the Liberal Party thinks. Now they believe it is perfectly acceptable to ask their children to pay for postal service to make up for their mismanagement. There was a $500 million deficit in 1982-83 as a result of mismanagement for which future generations will have to pay. In essence, the position of the Liberal Government, and now apparently the position of the Liberal Party, is that future generations will pay for the cost of delivering the mail today. That is not responsible.
I could go on to talk about the travesties of the Liberal Government, but that is not constructive. Constructive is the approach of this Government to the woes of the postal service.
Let me deal with some of the progress Canada Post has made. After that 42-day strike in 1981, there was a consensus in the House among all Parties that it would be preferable to have the Post Office become a Crown corporation, to remove it
May 26, 1987

from political interference in which Treasury Board Ministers would weigh the political costs versus taking the responsible action vis-a-vis management. There would not be as much opportunity for political interference by Members who wanted to assure their re-election or damage the opposition Party by using the postal service to do so.
The Crown corporation was created in June, 1985. A few years after its creation, one of my predecessors, as Minister responsible for Canada Post, announced the Marchment Committee to study the mandate and productivity of Canada Post Corporation, to see how the system was working after four years of operation as a Crown corporation, and to determine what changes would need to be implemented to ensure that the system would be there in the 20th century.
Members of that committee were drawn from the private sector. The committee travelled across the country and consulted extensively with all interested groups, especially postal users. Following the hearings, the Marchment committee made 43 recommendations to the Minister with respect to Canada's postal service. The Government passed these along to the board of directors of Canada Post Corporation. The recommendations of the Marchment committee were the basis of a five-year plan tabled in the House in November.
The Government is not running Canada Post by ignoring it, or by directing the corporation to act in the Government's political interest. The Crown corporation is expected to manage its operations in the same way that we expect the management of Air Canada to manage its responsibilities, the management of CNR and Petro-Canada or any other Crown corporation to manage their operations. We expect the corporation to manage its operations properly, in the interests of the shareholder and not for the political benefit of the politicians who happen to be responsible at any particular time. That is the only responsible mandate that a government could or should give to a postal service.
I want to deal with some of the recommendations of the Marchment committee, and compare them with the direction Canada Post has taken. The first recommendation of the 43 made by Marchment was that the primary goal of the corporation should be the provision of a consistently reliable service within acceptable standards for first and second-class mail. We agree absolutely. The major thrust of the entire 1986-87 corporate plan is more reliable service, including more reliable service to more points of call. Every year some 130,000 new addresses are created in Canada as people move into new homes and open new businesses. Canada Post moves promptly to serve all these addresses in ways that are both convenient to the customer and efficient in terms of costs. Canada Post is moving to end long line-ups at general delivery counters where people pick up their mail, and to get rid of the green boxes that people say they do not like.
Canada Post will make it easier to buy stamps and other postal products, by using the expertise of the private sector to sell stamps and other postal services in places where postal customers shop and at times that are convenient to postal
Supply
customers. In fact, over the next 10 years the number of places where people can buy stamps and other postal products will increase by 50 per cent, bringing the total number of locations to approximately 18,000. I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition said this was a retrograde step which will mean less service. There will be a 50 per cent increase, with 6,000 new postal outlets at places where people shop, whether they live in the country, the city or the suburbs. Those who go to the drugstore, to the supermarket or to the shopping centre will be able to buy stamps at retail outlets that are open until nine o'clock or ten o'clock at night, as are other shops. Presently, stamps being sold through Post Office operations alone are only available between nine o'clock and five o'clock, when customers are also working. Therefore, this improved service can only be an improvement. This has to be nothing but an improvement. Furthermore, it will in fact improve the service and, indeed, be more beneficial financially to the corporation and to the people of Canada.
The second recommendation of the Marchment Committee was that an acceptable level of service be defined as two days maximum for local mail and three days maximum for mail within the same province and four days maximum from coast to coast. The second page of the corporate plan of Canada Post Corporation, which was tabled in the House in November, reads:
Canada Post will adopt minimum standards for the delivery of properly prepared first class lettermail, all to be measured from after the date of mailing: of two days within the same city, three days between major centres within a province; and no more than four days between major centres from province to province.
That is a realistic commitment to service, service which is being met constantly. That service has improved and is consistent and reliable is evidenced by the fact that Canada Post now handles a greater volume of mail than it ever did before. Customer confidence in Canada Post has increased and the volumes are there to prove it.
The Marchment Committee also recommended that Canada Post develop a more reliable system for measuring on-time delivery performance from mail box to recipient and that this performance measurement be done by independent external researchers. Canada Post is in the final stages of negotiating a contract with Clarkson Gordon, a respected independent auditing company, which will audit its performance on a quarterly basis and report that information to the public. The Opposition, or any other critics will then not be able to make the claim: "The service is going to pieces", because the evidence will be there by independent auditors. That will remove a political arrow from the quiver of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, so he should bear that in mind as he writes his notes for the next election campaign. We will have independent auditors to challenge any assertions of poor service he might make.
Those are the plans of Canada Post for consistent, reliable service which postal customers told the Marchment Committee

May 26, 1987
Supply
is the number one priority. The number one priority is to know that when a citizen mails a letter it will be delivered within a certain period of time. That is being addressed and we will all be able to know it.
The Marchment Committee also told the Government that the corporation should continue to be financially self sufficient in order to relieve taxpayers of the need to subsidize users of the postal system, beyond those subsidies specifically provided by Parliament. The corporate plan is aimed at ensuring that Canada Post will not require Government operating funds beyond the fiscal year ending March 1988. This financial turnaround which will ensure that future generations do not have to pay the postal costs of postal users today, will not be achieved through excessive increases in postal rates.

Mr. Speaker, postal rates, as the price of any other service, have to be increased from time to time. However, Canadians will no longer experience any large and unexpected increase in the cost of mailing a letter.
Canada Post has undertaken to base its future rate increases on inflation rate, that is the rate of increase of its own costs, and to limit the increase to 1 or 2 cents per year.

The other two factors which enter into the break-even equation are improvements in the efficiency of the corporation's operations and increased volumes, which translate into increased revenues. As I heard the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that is what he was suggesting the Post Office should do. In fact, it is doing that. Increased volume comes from greater reliability and the two go hand in hand. The better the service you give the customer the more business the customer gives you. However, increased volume creates a net contribution only if additional costs incurred are significantly lower than additional revenues. To spend $1 million to gain an additional $500,000 worth of revenue is not really a paying proposition. Yet, that in essence is what the Opposition is talking about.
Price control through reductions in operating and overhead costs have been successful in the turnaround to date. These reductions occur as the amount of mail which can be processed mechanically increases. To this end the corporation is improving the processing capability of current equipment through modernization. The corporation is also purchasing state of the art equipment which reduces the number of times mail must be passed through it to be sorted. Improved productivity and improved reliability go hand in hand.
Introduction of state of the art technology is only one part of improving productivity. The other part is eliminating many of the restrictive practices which now prevent Canada Post from running its business on the same basis as any other business or industry. Those restrictive operating practices were embedded in the labour contracts Canada Post inherited from the previous Liberal Government when Canada Post was launched as a corporation five years ago. They stem from the days when
negotiations with postal unions were not carried on by the people who actually managed the postal operation, the only people who could really know the full implications of a proposed contract change. Those restrictions also resulted from legislation which was used to end postal strikes. Peace at any price was the motto, anything to make certain there was no postal strike while the Liberals were looking to re-election. In this round of negotiations, the corporation is seeking to end these restrictive practices.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition thinks increased efficiency and better operation are the ways to get better service and reduce the deficit. That is in fact what I am told the post office is attempting through these negotiations, so I presume the Opposition is supportive of that initiative.
The Marchment Committee recognized that in years prior to becoming a Crown corporation, years of Liberal Government, wage increases in the Post Office outstripped those of both the private sector and other elements of the Public Service. The report also recognizes that we have to bring the over-all costs into line, not by asking employees to take salary cuts which would not be fair. I would not advocate, nor would the management of the Post Office, that anyone take cuts in wages won by hard bargaining in the past. However, Canada Post is asking for more flexibility to manage the corporation like a business so it can achieve the efficiency talked about by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and we can provide the increased service for which everyone is asking.

Mr. Speaker, the Marchment Committee has also recommended that the Corporation should review its management structure in order to reduce the number of levels between its employees and senior management. This is the recommendation that has been acted upon the most rapidly by the Corporation. During the first year of its five-year plan, the Corporation has reduced to six the number of levels of its management. During the same year, it has cut the highest level of its management by 26 per cent.

Canada Post is cutting into the overhead. It has made a 26 per cent cut in upper management, as an example of the kinds of things it expects to happen so we can reach the efficiency and better service called for, while at the same time breaking even.
The Post Office is on the right track. We cannot cure 25 years of mess in just two years. Most importantly, we as responsible parliamentarians have to give Canada Post the opportunity to do that. We cannot continue to interfere politically for short-term political objectives or for short-term political motives and expect that this long standing problem will cured.
I ask all Hon. Members to try to be responsible and understand what is happening. I ask them to learn more about the Post Office and recognize we all have a responsibility. Yes, we have a political responsibility to try to get re-elected and
May 26, 1987

form governments, but we have a bigger responsibility to this country to act responsibly in regard to important institutions such as Canada Post.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize first the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), then the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and then the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the offset that I will have the opportunity during this Opposition day on the Post Office to put the facts straight from the record rather than from the Minister's opinion. However, I would like to ask the Minister if he would like to answer a question which is being asked ever since Canada Post introduced the supermailboxes in Canada, with the concurrence of the Conservative Government... In committee, we put the question to the President of Canada Post Corporation and to the former Ministers responsible for postal services. I wonder if the present Minister could tell us as well as Canadians how much it costs to put the superboxes in place, how much it costs to build the small sidewalk and the box itself and what is, for example, the expected life of these boxes? Has this been planned? How long will it last? What is the maintenance cost? As Canada Post has always told us, the cost of home delivery of mail by letter carrier is $113 per home per year. However, if mail is delivered to superboxes, the cost is around $80 per year and if mail delivery to superboxes is contracted out rather than left to unionized letter carriers, then the cost would be 45 $.
If Canada Post is accountable, as it says, could we be told how much these radical changes, these changes in essential services, which it would want us to get used to will cost? What is the true cost? Is there a plan? Has the whole question of superboxes been examined? We must remember that not so long ago, as soon as the supermailboxes were introduced, a number of problems surfaced. It seems that Canada Post did not even have a safeguard program. Could the Minister tell us exactly what the status is on superboxes and what is their cost? Unless the intent is to play around with an operating deficit and a capital budget. . . We know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has the habit of presenting a Budget but we would like him once and for all to talk in terms of accountability and about the fact that Canada Post is accountable to Canadians . . . But we would also like Canada Post and the Minister in charge to tell us the truth.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, while I do not have on the tip of my tongue all the figures, my understanding is that the capital costs associated with supermailboxes can be recouped in about three and one-half to four years as a result of savings. So there is a three-and-a-half to a four-year recovery cost which means
Supply
that this is a very good investment. I say that to comfort the Hon. Member who seems worried about the amount of the capital expenditures.
1 should also point out that we can have some comfort in this fact because the United States has used superboxes since 1978. It ceased any expansion of door-to-door delivery at that time in terms of new suburbs. Again, in this area, as in a great many others, we have the American experience from which we can learn. That is one of the reasons why the Post Office is quite confident that this move makes good economic sense. I think the figures are there, if the Hon. Member wants to pursue the matter further.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister with regard to the issue of door-to-door delivery in suburban areas. A number of weeks ago the Minister responded to a question in the House from a back-bench Member of his own Party. The question was about the need for service in suburban areas. The Minister seemed to have left the door open at least a crack regarding the possible provision of door-to-door services. He indicated that this year he was focusing on costs and deficit reduction. He pointed out that next year he would be in a position to look at service.
What I want to know from the Minister is this. In attacking the Opposition today, which advocates the provision of door-to-door service, is the Minister slamming the door shut on the whole question of door-to-door delivery in suburban communities? Is he abandoning the possibility that suburban communities will receive treatment equal to the rest of urban Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the supermailbox, the community mailbox, has been around for some time in the United States, which was ahead of us. We have had them in Canada for a number of years. When a survey was carried out of people who received service in this fashion it was found that 93.4 per cent were very or somewhat satisfied with that type of service.


Mr. Orlikow:: That is nonsense!


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member likes polls which support his position-


David Orlikow: I will send you my correspondence on it.


Harvie Andre: His correspondence results from the fact that he and his colleagues went around knocking on doors saying, "Look, its outrageous that you are not getting door-to-door service. You should write a letter". So the person says, "Well, what the heck, I will write a letter". Then members of the New Democratic Party count the letters and say, "My goodness, people are outraged".
The fact of the matter is that if members of the New Democratic Party think it is time to get ready to move their Leader into 24 Sussex and that door-to-door service should be provided everywhere where it is not in Canada now provided, I

May 26, 1987
Supply
think they have a responsibility to explain where the additional $1.5 billion will come from over the next four years. Will they take a responsible position and tell the House from where that money is to come? Do they want stamps to go up the 10 cents or 12 cents that is required? Are they prepared to see income taxes go up? Are they prepared to see money come out of unemployment insurance? From where are they prepared to see the money come?
The Marchment Committee established that what people want is reliable service. They want to know that the mail will be delivered. They want to know that when it is posted it will arrive at its destination within an appropriate period of time. That is the first priority which they set out to the Marchment Committee.


Cyril Keeper: Answer the question directly.


Harvie Andre: That is what is being worked on. If the Hon. Member thinks, never mind that, it is important that it be put into a mailbox on the fence or the side of the house, even if it is two weeks late, then let him advocate that position. Otherwise I think he can only responsibly say from where the money will come.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Minister. It was certainly interesting this morning to listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the architect of our debt. We will never forget his performance as Finance Minister when he turned a $700 million surplus into a $5 billion deficit. He talked about providing service and doing this and doing that. 1 did not hear one word from him about from where the money would come. We now know why we are in such a mess today. He made irresponsible comments this morning. I see that he has left the Chamber with his tail between his legs.
I am glad the Minister talked about the size of the executive. That is an issue I worked on in 1983 and 1984. The size of Canada Post's executive was allowed to grow to a size of four pages when listed. It had something in the order of 30 vicepresidents. The list of executives went on and on. Since we formed the Government we have reduced the size of the executive, thus saving a tremendous amount of money for Canadian taxpayers.
There has been a lot of false and misleading information spread around about rural mail delivery. Can the Minister enlighten us fully on what will happen with rural mail delivery?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there will be no closing of any rural routes, contrary to the accusations made by members of the Opposition for their own political purposes. If any changes are made to rural post offices, they will be made after consultation, first with the Member of Parliament, and then with the community. Things will have to change. I suppose I should have brought with me the name of the community in Manitoba in which the postmaster retired and did not want to do the job any more. There was no one in the town who wanted to handle
the post office. There were no businesses in town. There was no choice. There are only seven families left in that community. There was no choice but to set up a group mailbox. People had to go to the next town, where they bought their groceries anyway, to buy their stamps.
That situation goes into the statistics. Members of the Opposition say, "Aha, Canada Post shut another post office. They said they would not do it and they did it". That sort of thing happens as demographics change. I guarantee that the net result of any changes will be improved service, not reduced service in those communities, because a good chunk of those 6,000 new postal outlets that will be opened will be opened in rural Canada.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, as of a year ago I had 1,500 suburban residents who did not receive door-to-door delivery of their mail, as do residents in the older part of my constituency. These people are angry because they believe they are being treated as second-class citizens. They can only get their mail from supermailboxes. They are no different from suburban residents in the area of Winnipeg-Assiniboine or of Winnipeg-St. Boniface. They want to know why they are being treated as second-class citizens and why they cannot get the same service as that offered to residents in the older areas. If it is too expensive for them, they ask, is it not too expensive for people in the older areas? What would the Minister tell these people? They believe they are paying their fair share of taxes and, despite that fact, they are being treated as second-class citizens.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if one lives on a farm-


David Orlikow: I am not talking about the farm.


Harvie Andre: We are talking about classes of citizens.


David Orlikow: I am talking about city residents.


Harvie Andre: We are talking about classes of citizens. If one lives on an acreage outside of town, if one moves to the country for its clear air, one is not attached to the sewer system or to the water system. One needs a well and a septic tank.
The fact of the matter is that one cannot guarantee the same services to everybody in the country, wherever they live, be it in downtown apartments in centre-town areas, in the suburbs, or in acreage areas around cities.


David Orlikow: We are talking about urban residents.


Harvie Andre: The fact of the matter is that it has never been that way.
It used to be that the New Democratic Party was the Party of the future, the Party of change. Now it is the most reactionary Party in the House. I am surprised the Hon. Member is not on his feet decrying the fact that we no longer have daily milk delivery. How about the handicapped people who no
May 26, 1987

longer have milk delivered to their houses? Should he not be on his feet raging? They do not have daily bread delivery any more. I mean, it is outrageous that people must go out in the cold of night and winter to buy bread. Oh, my God, is that not a terrible thing?


David Orlikow: Answer the question.


Harvie Andre: The NDP should be outraged at this terrible reduction in service, that we no longer have bread and milk delivered to our homes. It is a scandal. We should do something about it.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by making it quite clear that the New Democratic Party feels that door-to-door delivery should be extended to all suburban residents, that all urban residents should be treated equally.
I personally made a tour across the country and visited various suburban locations. I consulted with the people about mail delivery and discovered that a very significant proportion of the people living in suburban locations felt betrayed by the Government. They felt that they were being treated as second-class citizens and that it was simply unfair that they should be denied the service which their neighbours or people across the street received. I visited communities in which the entire communities were surrounded by residential areas which received door-to-door delivery. It is incomprehensible to these Canadians why they should be treated as second-class citizens when they pay the same taxes and the same postage rates.
I welcome the conversion of the Liberal Party to this policy. I welcome the fact that the Liberals have seen the light. They have come out clearly as saying that they favour door-to-door delivery. In fact, they went a little further in the House today, saying that they would support revenue-generating activities at the Post Office. I welcome the Liberal Party catching up and taking this policy stand.
I am a little shocked by the Government's attack on the Liberal Leader for the adoption of this policy. It is interesting that the Minister said that the old policy of the Liberal Party was to freeze the extension of door-to-door delivery until an election and then make it available when an election was coming. He indicated that that was how we knew an election was coming. Rather than criticizing the Liberal Government for doing that, Canadians want the Minister to thaw. They want him to change his policy. They want to be treated fairly. They would like door-to-door delivery extended to all urban residents, so that it is not an election issue and cannot be played with, sort of like turning on the tap a bit when we are approaching an election and shutting it off when the election is over. I call upon the Minister and the Government to treat Canadians fairly. I call upon the iceberg to thaw.
We in the House are addressing the question of postal service by way of an Opposition motion for the third time in the last few months. It is a measure of the failure of leadership on the part of the Government when it comes to postal service. In
Supply
fact, it is an indication of the false leadership which it is providing in this area. The Minister has become the "Pied Piper" of the postal service. He plays a beautiful tune and he promises to deliver the mail, but he is leading us down the garden path.
What I want to examine thoroughly today is just what the Government is saying with regard to postal service and what it is saying in the present context. I will deal with what is the Government's policy with regard to the Post Office and then the politics of the whole question of postal service.
I will begin by looking at what the Government is saying. It is quite simple. The Government is saying that if only the unions would give in people would receive service. The management of the Post Office has said that if only the unions would give up clauses in their collective agreement everyone would have service and the deficit of the Post Office would disappear.
It is a rare occasion when the President of the Post Office speaks out. He is usually closeted away. He has a reputation for being like an oyster, for keeping his thoughts to himself. However, when did he choose to speak out? He chose to speak out in the middle of the negotiations which are ongoing right now and said in effect if only the unions would give in, we would solve the problems of the Post Office.
Rather than playing the role of mediator, rather than problem solving, rather than finding a way for the negotiations to come to a successful conclusion so that people would be assured of continuing service, the Minister jumped into the fray with his big boots and tried to kick the unions while they were down. He said that if only the unions were not so powerful, if only the unions did not have such restrictive collective agreements everything would be fine at the Post Office and everybody would get service. He indicated that there would be no cost problems and that everything would be hunky-dory.
If three parties are involved in providing a service, is it credible to think that only one of them is to blame, that only one of them is responsible for the lack of adequate service? In this case we have the Government, the management of the Post Office, the unions, and the workers. Is it really credible to pick out one party and say that it is the one to blame? Is it credible to say that management's hands are clean, the Government is virtuous, but the unions are to blame? The Government is seeking to blame the unions for its own lack of leadership in the area of providing postal service.
I know from my experience as a parent-and I am sure it is the case with any Canadian parent-that when there is a squabble going on, usually it does not make any sense to blame one of the people involved. My two young boys are very energetic. They often play very co-operatively with each other. However, when they get into a fight, when they are screaming and yelling and I cannot take it any more, I rarely find it productive to blame one of them, to say that it is David's fault and not Eddie's fault. This is the approach the Government is

May 26, 1987
Supply
taking. It is trying to take the approach that one party is to blame. That is not realistic. It does not fit with human experience.
Let me give another example, Mr. Speaker. When we are talking about labour-management relations and service at the Post Office-and obviously to provide service we need successful labour-management relations-we are talking about making a deal. Usually a deal is between two Parties, but in this case there are three Parties because the Government is directly involved. What is a deal? It is the result of give and take. It is not the result of one party giving in and the other party taking, because you cannot make a deal that way.
Let us look at the most recent deal with which Canadians are familiar, namely, the Meech Lake Accord. That is a deal. We can criticize it, we can say it is inadequate or it is great, but fundamentally it is a deal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wanted to bring Quebec into the Constitution. Quebec had its five demands. Other provinces had different demands. There was give and take.
If we are to have continued service at the Post Office we have to bring about a negotiated settlement. We have to have a deal, which means give and take. What the Government is saying up to now is take, take, take, that the only one to blame for the lack of service at the Post Office is the unions. That is what the Government is saying in the present context. Is it any surprise that the unions feel they have their backs up against a wall?
Management at the Post Office is asking for the elimination of the cost of living clause, which is a normal part of most collective agreements these days. The cost of living is going up, but if the Government is successful in its economic policy presumably inflation will not rise at an exorbitant rate so this clause will have no impact.
The Government is asking for the elimination of 8,700 jobs. If you were working in a situation in which 8,700 jobs would be cut from your workplace, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would feel insecure, just as I am sure most Canadians in a situation like that would feel insecure, and can understand why people are asking for job security. So it is not surprising that unions feel they have their backs up against the wall. It is necessary for us to have a negotiated settlement in this area for service to continue. Just blaming one of the three key parties involved will not bring us the solution that we need. Nor will it assure continued service.
It surprised me to learn that the Government was using a part-time conciliator in the negotiations between the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Government. The Government had appointed someone who had no time available on his calendar until October and could only make time available when other items were cancelled. Is that a serious approach to important negotiations? The Government should have appointed someone who was available full time, the best
conciliator available in the country, because these negotiations are crucial to Canadians.
Let us now look at this situation in a broader perspective, the perspective of Government-Post Office policy. What choices do we face with regard to Post Office policy? Do we go with the Conservative Post Office policy or do we continue with the drift established under previous Liberal and Conservative Governments, a drift that has got us nowhere, or are there other alternatives?
First, what is the Progressive Conservative policy? It is to put the priority on eliminating the Post Office deficit and consequently cut service. While the Government is seeking to eliminate the deficit it is preventing the Post Office from getting involved in revenue generating areas. Not only is the Government seeking to eliminate public subsidy of the Post Office, it is also seeking to eliminate the possibility of crosssubsidization, which is another way of paying for the service. The Government has put the priority on deficit cutting rather than on service.
The Government has substituted mailboxes for home delivery. The Government is treating Canadians in suburban locations as second-class citizens. We heard the Minister justify this today by saying that the Americans have done it first. We know that the Prime Minister is an admirer of Ronald Reagan, but surely we do not have to follow, lock, stock and barrel, what the Americans do.
With regard to rural service, the Government has over the last few years been cutting back on rural routes and it has been closing post offices. There has been no firm indication up until now that the Government is willing to change its policy regarding rural Canada. This whole question of reduced service has spawned an organized protest movement throughout rural Canada, demanding that the Government cease to be a threat to rural life. It is time that the Government woke up and took rural service seriously.
The Government, to reduce service in the rural area, is following a policy of privatization, a policy it is following in the urban areas as well. Customer services are being turned over to the private sector. The Minister said that you can get more convenient hours that way. Then why not change the hours of the existing post offices if that is the key? In the process of franchising post office outlets, what the Post Office and the Government is doing is giving away revenues. The only post offices that you can franchise are those making money. No one will want to take on a franchise for a post office if it is losing money. The ones that you can franchise are those presently making a profit. Revenues will be given away which will further starve the Post Office, aggravating the deficit situation. Along with that will be a continued policy of service reduction at the Post Office.
Another area of policy which the Government has made clear by its actions rather than its words is in the whole area of on-time delivery. How fast do you get your mail? We see letters take a week to go across town or a couple of weeks
May 26, 1987

between cities. Instead of tackling that problem and finding out how to solve it the Government has watered down standards. Instead of same day delivery the Government has gone to second day delivery. The Government has sought to produce statistics of reliable service by watering down the service.
What we have is a government policy which is one of reduction in service, of increase in postal rates and of focusing on the deficit rather than on service. Service is what Canadians want. Over the last 20 years under Liberal and Conservative Governments the quality of the postal service has gone down.
But there is an alternative, Mr. Speaker. We should decide once and for all why we have a Post Office and recognize that it is a public service. We no more expect the Post Office to make a profit than we would to expect health care to make a profit or airports to make a profit. We subsidize the transportation industry which ties the nation together. It is legitimate to use taxpayers money to subsidize and pay for a public service. Why do we pay taxes if it not for public services? The Government wastes a great deal of money in certain areas. What about taxation write-offs? I am thinking about the closets of the Prime Minister, money that came out of public funds. What about the capital gains write-off that gives money to very high income earners? The Government wastes money but when it comes to a public service such as the Post Office, an essential communications service, a legitimate use of taxpayers' money, not much is done. Let us not run away from that. At the same time, let us enable the Post Office to compete in areas in which it can make a dollar, gain revenue and cross-subsidize. This is a policy common to transportation and communication systems in Canada and could work for the Post Office as well. There is an alternative to what the Government has proposed.
I would like to step back from this question and take a bird's-eye view of the politics of the situation. The Government is seeking to blame the unions for the lack of adequate postal service. By using the unions as a scapegoat, it is hoping to gain public approval. The Prime Minister is trying to play Ronald Reagan. He is trying to take on the big unions and whip them into line in order to gain public approval for himself. He is pretending to be the champion of the public when in fact he is avoiding the real issue. This approach will not provide the kind of service we need. By blaming the unions, the Government is trying to satisfy its back-benchers, those people who are willing to use the Post Office as a whipping boy.
Canadians want results. They want good postal service. They want their mail to be delivered on time. They want the same kind of service as their neighbours receive. They want rural communities to be supported rather than undermined by reductions in postal service. Canadians want the Government to take a problem-solving approach to postal service rather than one of blame. They want the Government to look seriously at the Post Office and to establish a bottom line for service, the kind of service Canadians want. Canadians want
Supply
the Government to structure the postal service so it can be paid for adequately, recognizing that it is a public service.
Once again we find ourselves addressing the question of postal service because nothing has changed since the last time we addressed it. Nothing has changed because of the lack of leadership of a Government that is seeking to take us down the garden path. The Minister responsible for the Post Office has become a Pied Piper who is singing a sweet tune but is not delivering the mail.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) talked about fairness. I would like to make a comment or two and then ask him a question.
In my riding there are hundreds of farmers who have to drive anywhere between one mile and 25 miles to get their mail. They do so at their own expense. If they do not want to stand in line at the post office or if they want to get their mail after hours, they have to pay $10 or $15 per year for a box.
In my riding, there are hundreds of people who live in towns and villages and have to walk to the post office. If they do not want to stand in line or if they want to get their mail after hours, they too have to pay $10 or $15 each for a box.
There is a city in my riding of about 11,000 people called Airdrie. It is located on both sides of the main highway going through that area. Nobody there gets their mail delivered. They have to go either to the main post office or to the subpost offices to pick up their mail. Again, if they do not want to stand in line or if they want to pick up their mail after hours, they have to pay $10 or $15 for a box.
There are about 7,000 people in the City of Drumheller and the rural population around the City of Drumheller is another 5,000 or 6,000. They too have to pay for boxes. They do not get their mail delivered to their homes.
When the Hon. Member is talking about fairness, I wonder how he rationalizes the fact that thousands of Canadians get their mail delivered right to their homes without paying one cent. They do not have to pay for boxes, nor do they have to pay extra taxes for that service. It is an extra service. Is that fair?
Is the Hon. Member prepared to try to make the situation fair by recommending that all city dwellers pay $10 or $15 per year so that they are paying the same as people in rural areas? We talk so glibly about fairness, but I would like to hear the NDP Member indicate how fair he is prepared to be. Is he prepared to recommend that city residents who get mail delivered right to their homes pay $10 or $15 each per year?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member's question because I think it is a good one. What I find unfair about what the Government is doing right now is that it is cutting back on rural postal service in different ways than it is cutting back in urban areas. However, the common element is a watering down of service.

May 26, 1987
Supply
The Government has said that those living in new suburban developments will not get door-to-door delivery and will have to have a box. Canadians who live in those areas obviously feel slighted, that they are being treated unfairly, because just down the street others are getting their mail delivered to their doors. In fact, there are suburban communities in which those living on part of a street have to go to the box and those living on another part of the street get door-to-door delivery. That is where that resentment and feeling of unfairness comes from.
What is unfair about the Government's policy is that it is not only reducing service in the urban areas but it is also reducing service in the rural areas. I know from my visits to rural communities that the post office is seen as being an essential element of a rural community. If the post office is pulled out, one of the essential services of a rural community is pulled out. I find it unfair that the Government is closing rural post offices and is shutting down rural routes, home delivery in the rural areas.
The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is a government Member. If he feels that paying $10 for a box is unfair, why does he not get the Government to change it? If he thinks, as he has suggested to me, that urban residents should pay $10 for home delivery, why does he not get the Government to do that? He is the Member who is in Government. He is the Member who has the power and the responsibility. I would ask him to ask the Government why it continues the policy of reduction in rural services. Why does he tolerate that?


Mr. O'Neil:: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from today's debate that many members of the Opposition are not aware that in small-town Canada and rural Canada, for decades many people have walked a mile or so to the community post office. Door-to-door delivery in those areas was never contemplated.
I would like to follow up on the question put by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) which was not answered by the critic for the New Democrats. How can the Hon. Member justify the preferential treatment given to urban dwellers? Perhaps he can respond by saying that in Mulgrave and Port Hawkesbury, which are in my riding, door-to-door delivery should be introduced. However, my constituents are far more realistic than that. They expect responsible Government and fiscal management.
If I went to my home village of 1,000 or 1,500 people and said we are going to have two or three postmen delivering mail every day to their door I do not think they would be very impressed with our fiscal responsibility. They are well aware of the financial position of the country-not of the Government but of the country. They are well aware of the debt load that not only they but their children carry. They are well aware that the greater the financial burden on all Canadians, the greater the risk to important social programs. They are well aware that the greater the resources freed up for social
programs, the greater the security for their long-term social well-being.
I have to say to the NDP critic that his Party cannot have it both ways. They either want to put in place a sound financial structure for the people of this country to ensure the long-term future of important social programs, or they do not. It seems to me that what I continually hear from the NDP is nothing more than the case being put forward on behalf of the big unions. I can tell him that no union dues are checked off at the pay office and directed towards my campaign.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the last comment of the Hon. Member. He says no unions give money to his campaign.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Union dues.


Cyril Keeper: I wish the Hon. Member had balanced that by indicating what the banks gave to his Party's campaign. The major banks gave $50,000 to the Conservative campaign. If the Hon. Member wants the debate to consist of those kinds of insults, we can do that. However, I think this is a time to deal seriously with the question of postal service.
The Hon. Member talked about a strong financial structure for the country. I agree with that. I agree that there should be an end to waste in the spending of public money. It should start with the tax system. Why has the Government insisted that anyone who makes capital gain of $500,000 can do so without paying any taxes? That is an unfair use of public money. Why do we have $30 billion or $40 billion a year in tax write-offs? The Auditor General has asked if this money is being used effectively. Those are seriousquestions concerning whether we have a sound financial system and whether we can provide the services we need, including postal service.
The Hon. Member talked about preferential treatment for urban dwellers. I wish he would get up in this House and fight for adequate service for rural residents rather than seeking to divide and rule and sow the sentiment that somehow urban dwellers are getting special service-


Lawrence I. O'Neil: It is true.


Cyril Keeper: -and therefore it is all right for his Government to continue to cut back on rural service, savage his rural community, and undermine the existence of rural Canada. If he wants to address a postal service issue, that is the issue he should address.
As everyone knows, Britain is a country governed by a rightwing free enterprise Conservative Prime Minister, yet that country has postal service twice a day. It is taking on thousands of new workers in the Post Office in order to deliver the mail. It is possible to have a sound financial structure and even a Conservative philosophy and still give good mail service. Why does the Member not take up that challenge and fight for rural postal service rather than trying to create negative attitudes towards urban dwellers?
May 26, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are about to resume debate. [Translation]
Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) wish to resume his speech after oral questions?


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to call it one o'clock and allow the Hon. Member to begin his speech after Question Period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, Carmen Quintana, a university student who was savagely beaten last July 2, will be leaving Canada to return to Chile next month. She will be testifying against the soldiers who doused both her and a friend with gasoline and then set them afire during an anti-government demonstration in Santiago. They were then wrapped in blankets and driven to the outskirts of town where they were both dumped in a ditch. Carmen survived but her friend died four days after this horrendous display of cruelty.
Carmen Quintana's courage to face her adversaries now in a court room is to be admired and honoured because she is returning to a terrorist regime where the word justice has a definition other than that with which Canadians are familiar. The Chilean system of justice violates the dignity of their people which is seen in how Pinochet's Government is handling Quintana's case.
The lieutenant in charge of the army patrol that attacked Carmen and her friend was freed on $25 bail after the army prosecutor reduced the charge from manslaughter to negligence for failing to take the youths to hospital. In other words, the brutal and deadly burning of youths who are seeking democracy is endorsed in this terrorist country.
Carmen Quintana testified before the United Nations in February and is calling on Chileans and Chilean sympathizers
to unite against the dictatorial regime of Auguste Pinochet. I now call upon the Government of Canada to do the same and let the Government of Chile know that Canada is watching Carmen Quintana upon her return to testify in Chile.



CHALLENGE '87 EMPLOYERS URGED TO HIRE STUDENTS DURING SUMMER

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not usually forget their first jobs. In less than one month as Canadian schools terminate for the summer hundreds of thousands of students will be looking for summer jobs, usually their first job which often has a tremendous impact on a person's future.
This tremendous energetic resource should be encouraged and promoted whenever possible. If businesses small and large, and private individuals across the country, would make a small effort to hire a student for a full-time or part-time job this summer, the rewards would benefit Canada as a whole.
I encourage all individuals to remember their first job and hire a student this summer, which will result in tremendous rewards.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Energy stated recently that if the National Energy Board turns down the application to convert the Sarnia- Montreal pipeline to natural gas liquids, first, Montreal East will lose petrochemical investments to the tune of $750 million, and the 20,000 petrochemical jobs in Quebec would thereby be in jeopardy.
The Quebec Minister also stated large oil corporations oppose the project and multinational corporations would rather have the pipeline carry to Sarnia the oil delivered by tankers in Montreal, which would mean for the short term, mainly the medium term and the long term, the death of the Quebec petrochemical industry and the loss of thousands of jobs.
It is important and urgent, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) make representations to the National Energy Board, as requested by his provincial counterpart.

May 26, 1987



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Atlantic Canada is unacceptably high. In some areas the official unemployment rate is 30 per cent. The unofficial rate is much higher. Since September, 1984, the Conservative Government has slashed its budgets for regional development and job creation. Atlantic Canada has been hardest hit by these cuts.
However, what did the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recently say? On Tuesday of last week he claimed that his Government had created jobs in Atlantic Canada at twice the rate of the previous Government. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Then, on Thursday, the Prime Minister gave a regional breakdown of his Government's job-creation record. He seemed to have forgotten what he said only two days before. On Thursday he said, "Some 46 per cent of the jobs created were in Ontario, 28 per cent in Quebec, 22 per cent in western Canada, and so on". The "and so on" is Atlantic Canada.
The figures show that three regions got 96 per cent of the jobs created while the "and so on", the Prime Minister's new description of Atlantic Canada, got only 4 per cent of the jobs. The words "and so on" are an insult to our region. The unemployed in Atlantic Canada are fed up with the Prime Minister's exaggerated rhetoric. What they really need is concrete action by the Government to create jobs.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the visit of the President of France is a historical, major event for Canada, and testifies to relations of trust with our Government.
As a Member for Quebec, I am pleased to see that the French President recognizes that Canada is a bilingual country, while recognizing Quebec's cultural identity.
If the representative of a French unilingual nation reached that conclusion, I sincerely believe it is because of the efforts of this Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who recognizes Quebec's distinctive nature, what with Quebec's entry into the Canadian Constitution.
Moreover, as the Member for Drummond, I can testify to the economic co-operation between France and Canada, in view of the recent location of a number of French industries in my constituency.
For example, Societe Yvan Paques Inc., Soprema, Disque Americ and Fromagerie Lemaire, who just reached an agreement with France, are concrete examples of that cooperation.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by referring to the partnership started in 1985 between Cascades Corporation and Beguin Saye, which now benefits the economies of both countries by creating jobs on both sides of the Atlantic!



WELFARE


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in Toronto, Canada's most prosperous city with the lowest unemployment rate, there are now 180 voluntary agencies doling out food baskets to people. In my city of Winnipeg there are now 98 groups doing a similar job. Many of the people who need help from these food banks are children. The same situation is happening in every city and town in Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
People do not want to depend on charity to meet their needs for food. Surely it is time for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to meet with his provincial counterparts in order to assess the reality of the disaster which has befallen us, and to realize that the present welfare system is not working. Surely it is time for him to work with his provincial counterparts to change the system so that people will no longer have to depend on charity as they do at the present time.



TOURISM


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Fleur de Lis Trail in Cape Breton is a major tourism issue. This tourism issue does not only get support from opposition Members of Parliament, but also from municipalities, including the Municipalities of the County of Cape Breton, the Town of Louisbourg, the Municipality of the County of Richmond, the Cape Breton Island Mayors and Wardens Council, as well as the Cape Breton Island Tourism Association.
All of them have called upon the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia to provide the necessary funding for extension of this very famous and highly scenic
May 26, 1987



DEBATS DES COMMUNES

[Stage Direction]
trail. Unfortunately, the Government of Nova Scotia, aided and abetted by the federal Government, has done absolutely nothing.
We have called upon the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to consider the possibility of providing moneys under the Federal-Nova Scotia Agreement on Elighway Strengthening. Unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) and the Minister of Transportation in the Province of Nova Scotia have turned thumbs down to thousands of Canadians in that particular region of our country seeking assistance to build an extension to the Fleur de Lis Trail.
I call upon the federal Government to reverse this negative decision and to come through with some positive contributions in order to increase tourism opportunities in industrial Cape Breton.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, in my riding the forest industry is critical to our long-term economic health, to the maintenance of jobs, and to the creation of new employment. Forest management practices are therefore of utmost concern to me.
In Nova Scotia approximately 75 per cent of the land is owned privately. This contrasts with the situation in other provinces where most land is Crown owned.
To address the management needs of private wood-lot owners, the Government of Canada is funding forest group ventures. The province is also a sponsor. These are co-operatives formed by wood-lot owners. Land owners receive financial help to administer land management programs and to cover the cost of the silviculture work itself.
Today I want to recommend to the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) that a group venture application to be submitted by more than 80 Antigonish County land owners receive early approval.
This group is aggressive and responsible and knows from first-hand experience the benefits of good forest management.
Since my election, four such ventures have been established in my riding. I look forward to announcing funding for this group as well.
5. O. 21 NARCOTICS



GOVERNMENT'S ACTION ON DRUG ABUSE-NATIONAL DRUG STRATEGY

Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, our Government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to combating drug abuse in Canada, with a new five-year plan announced yesterday. I wish to congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on this comprehensive action plan.
For years Canadians have expressed concern over drug abuse. Unfortunately, they have not known where to get accurate information, or where to turn for support and assistance when dealing with drug related problems.
The federal Government has taken a leadership role in educating Canadians on this social menace with the Action on Drug Abuse plan. I know that these measures will give parents in Canada hope for a better future for their children.
The national PRIDE office located in my riding, a drug education organization comprised of parents, teachers and police, has witnessed drug abuse by children at the elementary school level.
I might add that last week it had its national convention in Saskatoon, attracting over 1,600 people from across Canada. PRIDE estimates that nearly 600 children have dropped out of school in Saskatoon, a majority of these cases a result of drug abuse.
Attacking drug abuse is not only important for the preservation of our society as a whole but it is important for those Canadians who may, like these children, become victims of drugs. It is for these children that I give my fullest support to the plan of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, you will know, as other Members know, that growing attention is being paid to what is known as the depletion of the ozone layer.
Although I know that Governments are working in a coordinated fashion around the world to arrive at the policies and steps which need to be taken, one thing we could do right now would be to diminish the production and consumption of commodities and substances associated with the depletion of the ozone layer. One of those commodities is known as foam plastics or styrofoam.

May 26, 1987
I ask all Hon. Members to consider that Parliament and many other institutions across the country contribute to the problem of the depletion of the ozone layer by persistent use of styrofoam cups and foam plastic containers.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of the House to consider whether or not in the very short future we, as the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, could set an example for what Canadians could do collectively and individually in the short term in respect of this environmental problem, and consider the use of alternatives in this case.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, for many years the imprisonment of Mr. Danylo Shumuk, a Ukrainian dissident, was a matter of concern in the House. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and other Members of Parliament, including myself, brought his plight to the attention of the Canadian people and the Soviet authorities on many occasions.
Mr. Shumuk was the longest prisoner of conscience in history, having spent over 40 years in Nazi and Soviet prison camps.
This past Saturday I had the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Shumuk to Canada on behalf of the Canadian Government. He will be living with his nephew and family in Lumby, a community in my riding of Okanagan North.
Upon his arrival, Mr. Shumuk acknowledged publicly his debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and particularly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as to other Members of Parliament who supported his cause. He said:
I came to Canada because freedom is the very essence of life. I have
abandoned my own country. 1 came because I was not free. I am here because,
despite all my losses, I gained freedom which means everything to me.
Members of this House can be proud of the role they played in helping Mr. Shumuk achieve that freedom.



CHILDREN


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 24, the Child-Find organization released 15,000 balloons
in Montreal on the occasion of National Missing Children's Day. A photograph of a missing child was attached to each balloon. Several fathers and mothers launched balloons bearing photographs of their own children. The release of these balloons was a very moving moment for all who took part in a ceremony that was repeated in all Canadian communities where Child-Find is represented.
Mr. Speaker, sad to say, a considerable proportion of missing children are children who have been abducted by their own parents. Abduction of a child is illegal and should not be condoned, whether by strangers or by a divorced parent.
Although the Divorce Act has been amended, it does not have enough clout to prevent this kind of thing from happening. We think it is important for the Government to act with greater firmness in this area.
I therefore urge the Government to act quickly to enforce the new Divorce Act more rigorously, in order to stop the abduction of children, and I also recommend setting up followup and support programs for the parents of missing children.



CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONS IMPACT OF VISIT BY PRESIDENT OF FRANCE

Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had the pleasure of welcoming to the House Mr. Franpois Mitterand, President of the Republic of France. The speech he gave on this occasion was one of the best speeches we have heard here for some time. I may add that his speech and his visit mark a major chapter in our history, and I am convinced that there will be lasting benefits as a result of this visit by France's number one man.
Personally, and as Chairman of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, I am delighted with the new direction that Mr. Mitterand's visit has given to relations between our two countries, and I trust that in future, they will draw their inspiration from the humanitarian ideals of this great politician.
Friday, I am going to France to head the Canadian delegation to the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association. I may say that after the President's speech, I am looking forward with even greater enthusiasm to this official visit.
May 26, 1987



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this morning Jim MacNeill, Secretary General for the World Commission on Environment and Development, appeared before the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry. We discussed what Canada can do in the implementation of the Commission's report.
For instance, Canada can speak strongly in favour of the implementation of the recommendations when the General Assembly of the United Nations meets next October. Or, the Government can have the report examined by each federal Department and agency. Such a review may reveal policies that are not sustainable. For example, on energy we might find out that instead of promoting fossil fuel combustion, namely, coal, gasoline and the like, we should instead promote energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources of energy. Or, take agriculture. We may find that Canada's existing policies are incompatible with sustainable development as indicated already by the Senate report on soils. Or, take the flow of Canada's foreign aid. We may discover that the quality of assistance needs to be substantially improved in order to sustain development.
I urge the Government of Canada to elevate the environment and sustainable development to the centre of the decision-making process if we are to ensure economic growth for generations to come.



NARCOTICS


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Government's move to act against the serious problem of drug abuse. This problem was brought home to my attention recently by information concerning problems in the Niagara Peninsula in our schools. We, as parents, were warned that our small children might be given stickers that apparently transmit LSD type drugs through a child's skin. The stickers were in the form of a star or cartoon characters.
What kind of individuals do we have in society that would jeopardize the health and life of our children in this way? In the midst of this, I am disappointed to see reports from the Opposition's critics questioning both the seriousness of the drug problem, and even the Minister of National Health and Welfare's (Mr. Epp) sincerity in trying to deal with it. I would suggest to them for once forget such partisan comments and co-operate with the Government. Everyone must realize that
Oral Questions
drug abuse among children and, indeed, Canadians, threatens the well-being of all of us.




Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I, for one, would like to challenge the Government's commitment to fighting drug abuse.
Last night in our committee we heard from the Native Council of Canada which has been seeking a meeting with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) for over a year, a meeting to discuss the very serious problem of those teenagers in Alberta who died after drinking photocopy fluid. The Minister promised them a meeting last year.
He still has not had the guts to meet with the Native Council of Canada which Council pointed out that half a million native Canadians living off reserve and non-status Canadians will not be covered by his drug abuse plan, half a million Canadians who have been ignored by this Government, half a million Canadians among whom the level of substance abuse, both through alcohol and drug abuse, is three times the national average.
Why would the Minister refuse to meet with the Native Council of Canada? Why has he ignored the tragic deaths of those teenagers in Alberta who died after drinking photocopy fluid?



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY AMINTORE FANFANI, PRESIDENT OF COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to draw the attention of the House of Commons to the presence in our Gallery of the President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Italy, His Excellency Amintore Fanfani.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are delighted with the presence of Signor Fanfani

May 26, 1987
Oral Questions
here and we are pleased that President Mitterrand of the Republic of France is also in Canada. I think all of us appreciated very much his thoughtful speech of yesterday.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister what progress he made with the President of the French Republic on the serious issue of France's completely unacceptable claims to fishing rights off the East Coast. Did the Prime Minister get any commitment from President Mitterrand to accept the simple fact that the waters off Newfoundland are Canada's waters and Canada's waters alone?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we had some very good discussions with the President and with his ministerial group on a number of occasions yesterday and today in regard to this problem which I set out here in the House, and which the Minister of Transport addressed directly to the President of France at a luncheon meeting yesterday. We conveyed very directly and very seriously the concerns of Newfoundland and Atlantic fishermen, the questions of importance to them and to the sovereignty involved in this matter, and I certainly got the strong impression from the President that it was his desire to cooperate by attempting to seek a satisfactory resolution to a very difficult problem.


FISHING QUOTAS IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE-ATTITUDE OF FRANCE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been unable to settle the dispute over the 200-mile economic zone, that is obvious. So I wonder whether he did manage to solve the overfishing problem created by the French in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is a different but related question. Will France put an end to such overfishing, or should the Prime Minister again admit that no progress was made yesterday or today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that no progress has been made unless one's interlocutor did accept one's position at a meeting. He knows very well that this is not at all the way international relations are conducted. We do have a serious and very complex problem on which the Canadian delegation focused during yesterday's constructive debate.
I got the impression that the President of the Republic fully appreciates the significance of this problem for Newfoundland fishermen. The Minister of Transport could not have been more direct when he raised this question and its social implications for Newfoundlanders, as well as the overfishing problem. All aspects of this matter were vigourously dealt with by the Canadian delegation and hopefully we are getting closer to a solution. As a matter of fact, both Governments are negotiating and we hope the presidential visit will help solve this problem in an efficient manner.


AGRICULTURAL TRADE SUBSIDY WAR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister appears to have had about as little success with President Mitterrand as he usually has with his good friend President Reagan.
May I turn to the agricultural trade war? Did the Prime Minister succeed in obtaining any commitment from President Mitterrand to use his influence with his European partners to bring an end to the hazardous and very costly trade subsidy war with the United States that is wreaking havoc with Canadian farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend is worried or concerned about progress with President Mitterrand. He was a member of previous Governments and I think he would be the first to admit that the very presence of the President of France yesterday and his comments to this nation indicated that there has been tremendous progress.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: In regard to the specific question of the agricultural trade wars and the subsidies, that too was raised not only in a bilateral context and alluded to by the President himself yesterday in his speech but in the larger context of the Venice Summit where Canada and the other industrialized nations will hopefully be making progress toward the elimination of what has become a completely unacceptable situation for our farming community.


OVERFISHING BY FRENCH OFF EAST COAST
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with foreign powers this Government, to date, by allowing the French to overfish, has behaved like the wimp of the western world. Now for the first time it appears as though the Prime Minister understands the seriousness of the French overfishing on the East Coast. Yesterday he said: "France must surely be aware of the seriousness of the issues it raises for our fishermen in Atlantic Canada as well as for Canadian sovereignty." Did the President of France, after listening to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, say that he is now aware of the seriousness of the issue and that this country considers French overfishing to be a threat to our sovereignty? If so, what was his response?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the President of France, after having the opportunity of listening to me putting before him the situation as seen from the point of view of a Maritime Canadian and a Newfoundlander, and after having explained to him the position of the Newfoundland fishermen and the dependence of Newfoundland upon the fishery, displayed sympathy with and a sensitivity for our position. He indicated he thought with goodwill on
May 26, 1987

both sides and good political management this is an issue that can be successfully resolved.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, a government official is quoted as saying following the meeting that the Minister of Transport spoke eloquently for 15 minutes. I wonder in which language.


PRESENT SITUATION BETWEEN CANADA AND FRANCE
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the President of France said: "I want to come close to the soul of the Canadian people". We are not worried about the soul of the Canadian people. The Government should be concerned about the salt-water sole and the codfish and the herring that the French have so blatantly overfished this past year.
1 ask the stand-in for the Prime Minister whether we are now any closer, even a small step closer, to preventing the French from overfishing Canadian waters for the next four years while the negotiations are ongoing, like they did this past year? Were they even asked to stop overfishing? Or, are we just to be content with the impotent act of closing our ports like big tough guys, whoop-de-do, ports they do not even use in the first place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, certainly La Comedie Fran(aise could use the hon. gentleman. As to my language, I assure you it was one of the official languages. I pointed out to the President of France, who I found to be very sensitive on all sides-


Mr. Waddell:: He is a socialist.


John Carnell Crosbie: Socialists outside the country are usually much better than the ones you find inside.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Absence makes the heart grow fonder, I suppose.
I suggested to the President of France that there was no connection between the need to go to arbitration on the question of the boundaries of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the question of quotas. They are not linked. I suggested that the arbitration matter should proceed without attempting to use it as a reason to get greater quotas from Canada.
With respect to the question of the closing of ports, the effectiveness of that step is shown by the fact that the French delegation on many occasions, both yesterday and before, have asked us to rescind that measure. They would hardly ask us to do that if it was such a no-account matter as the Hon. Member says it is. It is a sign of an erect and capable Government pursuing a vigorous policy.
Oral Questions


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM-POSSIBLE PETRO-CANADA BID
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources by saying that it was certainly a pleasure to see the Conservatives rise in the House and give a five-minute standing ovation to a socialist, whether Canadian or otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The recent issue of the Financial Times reports that Petro-Canada is considering making a bid for Dome Petroleum along with other corporations.
The Minister stated in the past that Petro-Canada could make such a bid if it did not include Government funds. Is this still Government policy?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in the way of a comment on the preamble of the Leader of the Socialist party, I would like to tell him his Party could take a lesson from the Government on how to welcome foreign heads of state, whether socialist or capitalist, Mr. Speaker.
Second, in direct answer to the question, I explained on a number of occasions in this House that Petro-Canada has a business mandate. That mandate was given by this Government, and the mandate is there. Within that mandate, it behooves Petro-Canada to make decisions pertaining to its business operations.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the Minister correctly the Financial Times may be on to an important Canadian development. Is the Minister now saying that it is government policy that Petro-Canada can go ahead, perhaps with two other companies which are mentioned in the same story and, if it is deemed to be in its commercial interest, can make a joint offer for the purchase of Dome Petroleum?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this Government's position has been clear and specific. First, we want to solve the Dome problem through the private sector in Canada. Second, we also stated that Petro-Canada has a business mandate.

May 26, 1987
Oral Questions
I intervened in no way for or against, as to the direction Petro-Canada should take.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be quite clear? Is he saying that because the Government prefers a private sector solution Petro-Canada cannot, even if it deems it to be in its commercial interest, participate in such an offer? Or is he saying something which could be in the Canadian interest, that if Petro-Canada so decides, and if it has the capital at its disposal, it can, in conjunction with TransCanada Pipeline or some other companies, make an offer for Dome?
Will the Minister clarify this very important commercial and energy question now?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the socialist Party is raising a whole series of ifs. It is not for us at this point to answer all the ifs that may come up in the matter of Dome.
I will repeat for your benefit the principles on which we work-we have ensured, by our action, by the policy we developed, that other corporations would bid for Dome. We ended up with three bids. Dome as a corporation is reviewing those bids with its lenders, its shareholders, and as everyone else the Minister is looking at and monitoring the process.
We are seeking a solution by the private sector. On the other hand the Government, a number of months ago and indeed at the beginning of our mandate gave Petro-Canada a mandate to operate as a business concern. It is its responsibility to make day-to-day judgments regarding its action, Mr. Speaker.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On February 16 at hearings held by the committee of the House looking into the automotive industry the Minister, in response to questions, said, "You talk about threat of jobs, overcapacity-but I disagree with that. Here we have jobs. We know that".
At that same time his own Department had prepared studies which show that we are facing a loss of a minimum of 15,000
jobs in automotive parts manufacturing and the automotive industries. Why would the Minister give a committee of this House those kinds of assurances when his own Department had prepared studies showing the absolute opposite to be the case?
Can he tell us now whether he will start listening and responding to the reports of his own Department and come clean with a policy which will respond to the severe crisis being faced in our automobile industry?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many reports issued by different associations. The Government is very sensitive to the industry. We have demonstrated our intention of dealing with that and to issue a policy on the auto industry.
However, before we do that we want to consult and really answer the needs of the auto industry. We want to do that after full consultations with the mayors and the industry itself. We want to establish a policy which will answer the future needs of this industry and ensure that Canada will be prepared to answer future challenges.


TIMING OF POLICY INTRODUCTION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister that we are not talking about studies of some group or association. We are talking about a report which was prepared by his own Department. If I can offer a small suggestion, it might be worth while reading that report because it suggests that we are facing deindustrialization of the automobile industry unless the Government does something.
At the same committee hearing the Minister promised that there would be an automotive policy in two months. That was in February-four months have gone by. Can the Minister tell us now when the Government will present to the industry and to this House a clear statement on automotive policy? Will it be this week, next week or mahana, or never?


Michel Côté: Again, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Government is well aware of the problem faced by the automobile industry, and we have expressed our intent to settle this problem after carrying out a thorough consultation of the industry. Everybody knows that the industry will be faced with over-production in 1989-90 and it is the Government's responsibility to set up policies which can help Canada and the industry to meet these needs in the future.
That is our intention, and as soon as we have fully consulted the industry and received its recommendations, we shall develop policies which meet the needs of the industry.
May 26, 1987


POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM-INVOLVEMENT OF PETRO-CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my questions are in fact supplementary to those of my Leader, the Member for Oshawa. I listened carefully to the answers of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He indicated that the Dome matter was one for the Canadian private sector. He, of course, is aware that Petro-Canada is a Crown corporation.
Has the Government told Petro-Canada not to get involved in this deal? If that is not so, if Petro-Canada decides to get involved in the deal, does it have the green light from the Government to do so?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position is clear and definite. We are seeking a solution of the Dome problem through the private sector.
Second, Petro-Canada has a commercial operation mandate.
Third, the Government has received no application from the Petro-Canada board of directors about the Dome issue.


PROPOSED PURCHASE BY AMOCO CANADA
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the solution so far is that Amoco, the large American oil company, is still the leading candidate to buy Dome. Is there any truth to the remarks in the article in the Financial Times which says that federal officials have been advised by Mr. Simon Reisman, Canada's free trade ambassador, not to interfere in the sale of Dome to Amoco? Is that true? Is that the real reason why the Government, in spite of public opinion polls, in spite of Canada's future energy security and in spite of demands by the Canadian people for a Canadian solution, is still favouring Amoco, the large American oil company?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the answer is a clear and definite no.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial
Oral Questions
Expansion. He has just told the House that he is waiting to consult with the auto industry before bringing down a new automotive policy. Is it not a fact that he met with the industry on April 16, over a month ago, and that he received recommendations from the industry?
He has had reports from his own Department in his hands since 1986, saying that if the present situation continues, under which Japanese and other offshore manufacturers are not compelled to obey the requirements of the Auto Pact on jobs and content, it will displace jobs in Canada? What is he waiting for? Why does he not act now? Why is he putting at risk the most important manufacturing sector in Canada?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I said and I repeat that the Government is well aware of the particular problem of the automobile industry. We intend to act after having fully consulted the industry and the organizations concerned. This means the automobile industry and all politicians concerned with this issue. On April 16, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, I met the industry representatives and we agreed to hold a series of consultations and meetings to talk and deal with the conditions and recommendations raised by the industry. On the basis of these discussions, we shall submit a policy to the Government and indicate later on what are the terms of this policy.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the real reason that the Minister is not announcing an automotive policy is that the whole thing is being held up so as to enable the faltering free trade negotiations to continue? If that is the case, will the Minister abandon that approach, bring down the policy, and not continue a position in which he is saying that the Government wants the United States and Japan to write Canada's automotive policy? Will he do his job and act now in the interest of Canadian jobs, and not let someone else in another country write our policy for us?


Michel Côté: Again, Mr. Speaker, I shall simply repeat to my hon. colleague that we are in the process of developing policies after having had consultations with the industry, in contrast with what happened in the past when, on many occasions, the previous Government established, without consultation, policies which did nothing to meet the needs of the industries concerned.

May 26, 1987
Oral Questions


NARCOTICS
Mr. Eloward McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I am sure most of us welcome the long awaited announcement of his National Drug Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Of course the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has found in its consultations that this program is designed not to attack an epidemic but an endemic which is characterized chiefly by abuse of alcohol and over-the-counter prescription drugs.
Now that the Minister has announced his program, will all of the work of the standing committee and the report that is to be published in September be trashed, or will the committee have a role in developing the details of this new national program?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for its support and the Hon. Member for his comments. The work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare has not been pre-empted by yesterday's announcement as a result of the work done on behalf of the Government, by the leadership the Prime Minister gave on the issue, or by the further details that will be given by various members of Cabinet this week.
1 believe the Hon. Member also knows that there are a number of issues with respect to treatment, prevention, and education which will need the co-ordination and help of members of the standing committee, of provincial Governments, of various Departments within the federal Government, and especially of people who work in drug and alcohol addiction centres across the country.
Yesterday we gave a very clear indication of the finances and the various amounts of money that are available for different programs.
As the Hon. Member will know, the provinces have primary responsibility in much of the treatment area. We have indicated to the provinces that we are putting this money forward to develop programs, especially where youth treatment gaps are identified. I very much look forward to recommendations from the standing committee in that area.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I hope the Minister will provide the standing committee with the details of his program.


NATIVE COUNCIL OF CANADA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question derives from the committee hearings last night where we learned that the
Native Council of Canada has been denied programming funds to address the problem of alcohol and drug addiction in off-reserve native communities. In view of the emphasis placed on that problem in his program, why has the Minister refused for the last year to meet with this group which is involved in the problems of a half million off-reserve native people?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, I would be very pleased to appear before the committee, not only to discuss the program but to table the various details, as my colleagues are presenting the various aspects of the program this week. I look forward to an invitation to discuss them.
With respect to the Native Council of Canada, let me say to the Hon. Member that I identified one of the problems in my first answer. The Hon. Member will know, as will my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that we have the NADAP for on reserve alcohol and drug programs. He will also know that there are treatment gaps for off-reserve native people, both status and non-status. As well, there have been problems as to provincial and federal responsibility.
I do not think that is a proper response and that is why the program was designed in such a manner that we can give youth treatment and other treatment to those very people.
I am willing to meet with the Native Council of Canada. Quite frankly, I think that is a spurious argument in an attempt to deflect from the real cause of the issue.


USE OF PAM PRODUCT IN AEROSOL FORM-DEATH OF TEENAGER
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning off-the-shelf items. About two weeks ago in the City of Mission, we lost a young teenager as a result of using a product called Pam in the aerosol form. This has taken the lives of several youths in this country.
Will the Minister take these particular commodities into consideration when he is dealing with this problem, because it is one that has been brought forward to me and to other Members of Parliament?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for bringing that matter to my attention. I was aware of that, as well as the whole area of glue sniffing and gasoline sniffing. The program which we put forward was not only a drug abuse strategy, but an alcohol abuse strategy and a substance abuse strategy.
The point I am making to the Hon. Member and the House is that we want to make the programs that were outlined most effective, knowing that the best way to do so is by working with those people who work with Canada's young people, who work in the addiction centres and who know the streets and know the issues and who, frankly, need the money and
May 26, 1987

programming. That is the manner in which we designed the program that I announced yesterday.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in the House a few minutes ago that the presence of President Mitterrand in the House of Commons yesterday was an indication of progress.
I want to tell him that the people of Newfoundland regard the Government of Canada's veto of President Mitterrand's planned stop in Gander, Newfoundland, as an indication of a lack of will by the Government of Canada in resolving the Canada-France fish dispute.
Given that measures were announced, including the closing of Canadian ports, as a means of pressuring the French to stop illegally overfishing in Canadian waters and the French have continued to overfish illegally, what new measures are being considered by the Government of Canada to be implemented to stop illegal French overfishing in Canadian waters?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there were two allegations in that question. With respect to the stop-over by the French President, the news report on which the Hon. Member is relying is inaccurate. It is false. It is wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Prove it.


Charles Joseph Clark: My word is being called into question, from her seat, by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. If she wants to follow a formal procedure in the House and find the courage to do that, she may do that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have just stated the facts, and I know the Hon. Member will accept them.
Second, it has been our view that one of the important things to be accomplished in moving this file forward in a way that will be helpful to both Canada and to France is to have the French understand clearly the importance of this problem to Canadian fishermen and to the people of Newfoundland.
There can be no doubt that after the presentation by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, yesterday, the President of France and his Ministers understand very clearly the depth and the importance of this position to the people of Newfoundland and Canada.
Oral Questions


CLOSURE OF CANADIAN PORTS TO FRENCH FISHING FLEET
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, unless the line that was established by the former Member for Yukon is still in place all the way into Liberal caucus meetings, then it is hardly befitting the Secretary of State for External Affairs to tell us what is true or not true and what was said or not said by representatives on behalf of the Government of Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's right.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -with respect to the veto of a planned and requested stop by the President of France at Gander, Newfoundland. Those are the facts, and the Secretary of State knows it.
I repeat the question. The Government of Canada announced closure of Canadian ports as a measure to force the French to stop illegally overfishing in Canadian waters. The Government said at the time that it was the first measure to be taken to try to impose the law of Canada. It has failed.
What new measures are going to be implemented, and when are they going to be implemented?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member had support, from her seat, from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East for his allegation. She was the only one to support him because his facts were simply wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is there still a wire-tap into Liberal caucus meetings now?


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Hon. Member for Hamilton East will restrain herself, Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the restraining should probably be left to the Chair. The Hon. Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wish you well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there was no veto. Second, as I said in reply to the earlier question, and the second was a repetition of it, it was our view that it was very important that the French understand clearly and directly the importance of this issue to-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Why didn't he go to Newfoundland?


Charles Joseph Clark: -Canadian fishermen. The question is: "Why didn't he go to Newfoundland?" That was a decision taken by the French. What we did was bring Newfoundland-

May 26, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we did was bring Newfoundland and Newfoundland's concerns directly and personally to the attention of the President of France through the eloquent person of the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he is aware that Tanya Inwood, the Russian wife of Kirby Inwood, a resident of Toronto, was again told yesterday that she and her eight-month old son, Misha, would not be able to leave the Soviet Union to live with her husband here in Canada.
The Soviet authorities have alleged that Mrs. Inwood possesses "Soviet defence secrets". I just returned from the Soviet Union last week. I spoke with many refuseniks who have also been denied exit visas with the ludicrous and cruel excuse of state secrecy.
Surely this case warrants a strong intervention by the Government, by insisting that the Soviet authorities allow Tanya Inwood and her son, Misha, who incidentally is a Canadian citizen, to emigrate to Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think the visit made by the Hon. Member and the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville on behalf of Parliamentarians Interested in Soviet Jewry was a very helpful and constructive visit. I want, as Foreign Minister, to express my appreciation to them for their work.
I agree with the Hon. Member. This question deserves, as it has received, very active intervention by the Government of Canada. We have made representations on at least 12 occasions.
As the House knows, this issue is one that is of deep concern to the Government. It is an issue of great emotional importance to the Canadians involved. It is an issue of general importance to everyone in the House. We have worked hard on it, on the Inwood case and on other cases. We will continue to work hard on that and on other cases.
In some circumstances we succeed. We have not yet succeeded in this case, but we intend to continue to try.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I realize that the Minister knows western Premiers are meeting in Humboldt today and that part of their agenda includes diversification of the western economy.
I have here a document from the Minister's Department which outlines the marketing strategy of the new program called Industrial Horizons, which is yet to be announced and launched by the Department.
Why is there this delay in the launching of the new Industrial Horizons Program, a delay which concerns me because the western diversification initiative is a very important component of the Industrial Horizons Program? Why is there this delay? Does the Minister not realize that the economic problems in western Canada are extremely serious?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said that the Government has been moving towards regional diversification as he had indicated in the last Throne speech. Since then, the Prime Minister has stated, and repeatedly so, his intention to see that Government deal with this issue as fast as possible.
Mr. Speaker, we have announced our intention of formulating policies with regard to the problems facing Western Canada. If I were the Hon. Member, I would also examine the record of the Government since it came to power in September 1984, particularily with regard to projects in Western Canada, and more specifically, what has been done for example in the riding of Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the announcement to the effect that Versatile will remain open and that Ford New Holland will open for business, the assistance to Cominco, which was also directed to Western Canada. Numerous projects have created and maintained employment as a result of policies of the present Government which address these concerns.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, he still did not tell the House why he has not launched the Industrial Horizons Program, or do I have to announce it on behalf of the Government?


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. I also have here an internal departmental description of the western diversification initiative, along with the different task force sectors which are described. When I go through the document I see no suggestion whatsoever of new funding or fresh money for western diversification.
What I want to know from the Minister is whether or not the Government is now going to commit itself to a lot of new
May 26, 1987

money to diversify the economy of western Canada, because the document does not say that? Are you going to do it or aren't you?
Hon, Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again engaged in mutterings similar to what he engaged in during the course of the debate last Thursday. That is all they are, Mr. Speaker. I want to be as charitable as I possibly can to the Hon. Member. I can tell him that the documents he has represent the fact that he is out of touch, out of date, and he speaks for no one but himself and his group of leakers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are all Tory leakers, Don.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He told the House a few weeks ago that when western Premiers called and demanded help for western prairie interests that he would respond.
Today Premier Grant Devine of Saskatchewan called on the federal Government to give a commitment of a minimum of $1.6 billion in a special grains program for the 1987-88 crop year. Now that the Premier has called on the Prime Minister to provide this assistance, will he respond in the way he said he would in the House and give a commitment to provide this additional assistance in the 1987-88 crop year?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the point that I made earlier, I think last week or the week before, was merely that in contrast to previous administrations, of which my hon. friend was a member, when western interests were involved and telephone calls were placed from western Premiers to the Prime Minister in Ottawa they went completely unnoticed and unanswered, I indicated that when western Canadians were in difficulty and through their Premiers they communicated with me, there was a response on behalf of the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Benjamin:: And what is your response?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asks what is the response. I am trying to give it.
I was out in Saskatchewan, in his province last week. There was, I think, a recognition by the farmers in Saskatchewan of
Oral Questions
the tremendous assistance that had been brought about by the billion dollar deficiency payment introduced last autumn which is the largest deficiency payment, I am informed, in the history of western Canada. There was an acknowledgement that that was very helpful.
There was an indication that there were problems coming up next year. We committed, of course, to try to work through the Minister of Agriculture with the farm groups, with individual farmers and with the Governments in this regard. We continue to do precisely that. I think that is the spirit which will solve these problems.


UNITED STATES AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR FARMERS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. The United States, France and the EEC countries all provide a commitment to their farmers as to the level of financial support they will provide over and above the market value of the grain.
Why is it that the Government is not prepared to give a commitment now for the new crop year, the crop coming off this fall, to provide at least the same returns from the marketplace and the financial assistance provided by the Government as other countries are doing for their farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have been, as my hon. friend knows, very helpful to agriculture in western Canada. Agricultural assistance has, by and large, increased by some 350 per cent since this Government was sworn in. I think farmers are-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where's the answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to provide an answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell us about the next crop year.


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the larger implications, surely my hon. friend is not suggesting that this Government undertake the kind of policy that exists in the United States and in the European Common Market which has given rise to an agricultural trade war, which is precisely the kind of instrument that is debilitating western farmers.
We are working through the Cairns Group, through the OECD last week, through a meeting yesterday with the President of France, and we are meeting today with President Fanfani in regard to the Venice Summit, to take corrective action to ensure that this crippling artificial trade subsidy practice on the agricultural side, which is literally stealing Canadian markets and lowering Canadian commodity prices, ceases. My hon. friend should not be recommending the kind of solution which causes the problem rather than solving it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is a no, a firm no.

May 26, 1987
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out that while we got started late today, we are now pushing it a bit. I would ask Hon. Members to make their questions very short and that Ministers respond likewise. The Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of Fisheries. The Minister of Transport made an eloquent statement of Canadian concerns about the boundary dispute and the depletion of cod stocks off Newfoundland to the French President yesterday. President Mitterrand himself made a reasoned response indicating that he favours a speedy bilateral solution, and if that is not forthcoming, an early reference to third party arbitration.
In light of this expression of reason and eloquence, what steps does Canada now plan to take to make sure that France is more forthcoming in the negotiations on the boundary dispute so that we do not have to be involved in this continued depletion of our cod stocks and that we will not get involved in any further sell-out of those stocks?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member comes so late with his question on behalf of his Party, the Party which advocates forceful gunboat diplomacy in dealing with this issue.
I would remind the Hon. Member that a process of negotiation is under way and that this week's visit by President Mitterrand to Canada will give the President a perspective on Canadian concerns, as was indicated by the Prime Minister and described eloquently yesterday by the Minister of Transport. We expect that to have a very salutory effect on the solution which we seek to this serious problem.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary, please.


EFFECT ON CANADA-FRANCE RELATIONS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Government has indicated that it is only going to have more of the same. Did the Government make it clear to President Mitterrand that it regards the St. Pierre-Miquelon boundary dispute and the implications for Canadian cod resources as being absolutely central to Canada-France relationships, not peripheral, and that if there is going to be any improvement in those relationships, that that depends upon a satisfactory solution to the boundary dispute, satisfactory to Canadians and to Canadian fishermen?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will find that question rather repetitive as it was answered by the Prime Minister in more than one way in this House today that this issue is, indeed, a serious concern to Canada and was well addressed in the meeting with President Mitterrand yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East. One question, please.


MEDICAL CARE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. More than two months ago I raised concerns in this House about the dismemberment of medicare in Alberta. The Minister to date has sat by and done nothing while we see the Government of Alberta cutting out eye examinations, foot care, and birth control counselling from its medicare plan.
Can the Minister stand in his place today, as he did last week, and justify these cut-backs, suggesting to the women of Canada that birth control counselling should not be a medically necessary service? Is that the position of the federal Minister of Health? If so, he should resign.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have always wondered why Premier Peterson was so pleased when that Hon. Member left his caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She is demonstrating every day why.
We have not stood idly by, Mr. Speaker. I will inform the Hon. Member again, and the Liberal caucus if they do not know, that medically insured programs under agreement between the Government of Canada and any provincial health care system are maintained under the Canada Health Act and the block funding under the EPF about which all of us know.
With respect to other services, some provinces go beyond contractual arrangements. They can decide whether or not they will be covered directly by the province or paid by the person who accesses the system. It has always been that way.
Further, with respect to the Alberta situation, we have asked for a list of services which it now intends not to cover under its insured program. To date there has been no indication that Alberta is outside the Canada Health Act.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the time for Question Period has now gone by. I have a question of privilege by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
May 26, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from a statement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) in this House on May 15, 1987. I served notice on you, Mr. Speaker, as soon as possible following the statement of the Minister.
The question of privilege I will try to present here this afternoon arises from certain statements made by the Minister on May 15.
First, on March 19, 1987, the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration tabled its report in the House. At the very end of that report the committee indicated to the House and the Government that the committee requested that the Government respond to this report in accordance with Standing Order 99(2). Standing Order 99(2) reads as follows:
Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
1 draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the operative word, "comprehensive".
Having said that, I want to point out that on May 15, the Minister tabled his letter to the chairman of the Standing Committee in which he said that, "the Standing Committee has suggested that we consider the recommendations as a package and we have done so".
There is nothing in the Standing Committee report that asks or even suggests that the Minister deal with that report as a package. There is no package deal. In fact, the Standing Committee's report to the House and the Government asked that the Government respond under Standing Order 99(2). We wanted a comprehensive response.
Furthermore, the only mention of the Standing Committee in the Minister's statement appears on page 8 of the statement where he said:
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to take this opportunity to thank each member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration for their work on the Unemployment Insurance Program.
Their report was most helpful in our consideration of not only the current program but the other proposals for reform we received.
The committee suggested we consider its recommendations as a package and we have done so.
I am tabling today a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee reflecting the contents of my statement which will serve as the Government's response to the Report in accordance with the Standing Orders.
In other words, the Minister said that his statement of May 15 is to be considered the comprehensive response to the Standing Committee.
First, we did not ask for a package deal or for a package consideration. Second, we asked that the Minister and the Government respond under Standing Order 99(2) which calls for a comprehensive response.
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
Furthermore, as recorded at page 6145 of Hansard of May 15, 1987, the Minister said:
In the past six months the Government has considered carefully the advice of all of the commissioners. As well we have studied the recommendations of the Royal Commission in Newfoundland, the Macdonald Commission recommendations and those of the Standing Committee. Members of this House will know that there are sharp and irreconcilable differences among these studies.
Again, that is a false statement. In fact, the Standing Committee made a comparison between the Standing Committee's recommendations and the Forget Commission's recommendations, and that study was available to the Minister. I have it here and I will table it so that the Minister may peruse it if he has not yet seen it. We found that there were 22 areas in which we reached agreement. There was no disagreement between Forget, Macdonald and the Standing Committee on 22 areas. When the Minister said that there were irreconcilable differences, he knew not of which he spoke.
We asked for a comprehensive response. Let me take a look at some of the recommendations. We recommended that there be a common entrance requirement of 10 weeks of insurable employment. Was there a comprehensive response to that in the Minister's statement? We recommended that a common two-week period be retained. Was there a comprehensive response to that recommendation? We recommended that the benefits remain at 60 per cent of weekly insured earnings but that the possibility of phasing in an increase of up to sixty-six and two-thirds per cent in the future be explored by the new commission. There was no comprehensive response to that recommendation. We recommended that the waiting period be eliminated entirely for maternity and adoption benefits. Was there a comprehensive response to that recommendation in the Minister's statement? No way. We recommended that the current practice be retained for work-sharing arrangements. Was there a comprehensive response to that in the Minister's statement? No way. I am simply picking some examples out to build a case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is listening very carefully. I think the Hon. Member is probably straying into debate. I would ask that he stay clearly on the point.
I am sure the Chair will appreciate the point when it comes to the time when I will have to reflect upon it and respond. However, I think the Hon. Member is perhaps going over into debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stray from the point. The point I am trying to reinforce is that we made recommendations with respect to benefits, with respect to the administration of the program and with respect to the structure of the Unemployment Insurance Program. In fact, the Minister's statement of May 15 did not respond to that in a comprehensive way. In fact, it is in contravention of Standing Order 99(2).
I believe the Standing Order is being abused. The Minister said, for example, that the Standing Committee requested a package consideration, but it never did. There is no evidence to

May 26, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
suggest that we asked for a package consideration. The Minister also suggested that there were irreconcilable differences in our reports. As a member of that committee, I cannot accept that the Minister could so breach the rules and get away with it.
I believe that there are some courses that may be followed. You may want to ask the Minister to table a new report, Mr. Speaker, or else apologize to the members of the committee for his misleading statements. Finally, I am prepared to move a motion, which would be seconded by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), that the whole question of response by the Government to Standing Committees be examined by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure and that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) be called to that committee to answer charges that he misled the House by saying that the members of the Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration wanted a package deal and that he blamed the members for the nonreform of the Unemployment Insurance Program as enunciated in his statement of May 15. I am prepared to move that motion. My hon. colleague from La Prairie, a member of the committee, is prepared to second that motion.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty to rise on this question of privilege, since I am a member of the Standing Committee of the House on Labour, Employment and Immigration, a committee that submitted a report to the Government on the Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance.
The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) gave notice of the motion he has just read and described. He claimed that his privileges as a Member of this House had been infringed upon, basically because of the Government's brief response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration on the Unemployment Insurance Report and the reference to the Committee's 90 excellent recommendations that formed an indissolvable unit and were in fact supported by a various employer and employee organizations and other groups.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the fact that 89 of the 90 recommendations received the unanimous approval of the three Parties represented on the Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Government Members on the Committee, including my colleagues from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn), Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom), York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), myself, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Member for the Liberal Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) worked for a total of nearly 100 hours, examining unemployment insurance in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been a lot easier to consult the back-benchers of all three parties in the House, to find out whether their recommendations were to be seen as a unit or as separate entities. Mr. Speaker, no one bothered to. No one came to see any of the members of the Committee. No one asked any questions. Nobody made any enquiries. No one contacted me personally to find out whether the recommendations formed a whole or were to be seen separately. And by the way, I have been sitting on committees ever since I was elected to this House in September 1984, and I have never seen a committee report that received full approval.
Mr. Speaker, not quite like the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, I am not so sure whether it is the Minister's fault, or whether senior officials failed to recognize the essential role played by the Parliament of Canada and the Members in governing this beautiful country of ours. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I have to go along with the premises of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt. We must demand a full and frank response to our recommendations and to those made by other standing committees of this House. Otherwise, we should ask the senior officials to govern without a democratically elected Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I will never and cannot tolerate the perpetuation of a parallel authority, which became a practice under the previous Liberal Government that let officials dictate how to organize and administer the country.
Mr. Speaker, we, Members of this House, were democratically elected, and we make recommendations for good government. In this case, we have the Members of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration who were working morning, noon and night, and sitting six, seven or even eight times a week, with each sitting lasting for five to five and a half hours.
Let me tell you: When the President of the Commission on Unemployment Insurance, Mr. Gaetan Lussier, who, as it turns out, happens to be Deputy Minister of Employment-


Mr. Speaker:: Please. I appreciate the seriousness of the problem-a complaint with some difficulties; however, we should not stray away from the core of the argument and I think that, just like the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the Hon. Member is now straying into debate. The Chair therefore suggests that other Members might be willing to conclude their remarks, for as I said clearly, the Chair fully appreciates the point of view of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). There might also be no point in making lengthy speeches. The Hon. Member for La Prairie may therefore wish to conclude his remarks, and I suggest that this might be done briefly.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I understand your decision and your suggestion. It is however important for me to document the points on which I am presently seconding the motion of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
I was saying that when the Chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission was heard by the Committee, I asked
May 26, 1987


DEBATS DES COMMUNES
[Stage Direction]
him personally what would happen with the report of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that we were studying and dealing with, whether it was going to find its way to the circular file, to file number 13, or whether he was going to submit it with suggestions to the Government, If I remember well, he just shrugged his shoulders and smiled. Nothing, no answer.
Mr. Speaker, when 90 equally important recommendations are tabled and recommended in a report, I firmly believe that they deserve a little more than those two little pages as an answer. But mostly with respect to the question we want to have debated, those recommendations which were not presented as a package should not have been considered as a package deal. Mr. Speaker, a department with nearly 25,000 employees and, believe it or not, 214 vice-chairmen, 214, could have tried a little harder.
That was not the greatest effort at productivity 1 have witnessed in my life as an Elon. Member, a businessman or a public man. It is the duty of the House, Mr. Speaker, through the Committee of Elections, Privileges and Procedure, to ascertain what a Government should do with respect to the recommendations of a Standing Committee within reasonable limits.
You have advised me, Mr. Speaker, to keep it short, but I cannot help mentioning that when I am sitting on that Committee and I ask precisely the Deputy Minister what he is going to do with the report, I always get the same answer: He smiles and shrugs his shoulders! All his face is saying: Out the garbage!
Maybe we should indeeed call as witnesses in this House all the senior officials responsible for the vagueness of the Minister's answer. They are his advisors. Therefore-
Mr. Speaker:: I am really sorry to interrupt, as I consider the argument of the Hon. Member to be quite serious. It is an argument which concerns other Members of the Committee also, and I can assure you that the Chair fully appreciates the argument, and therefore there is no need to keep on with this matter as it is clear that the Hon. Member is now debating the matter.


Philip Derek Lewis: 
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help Hon. Members. The Minister, of course, has every right to respond if he wishes. The Chair has the point.
I do want to inform the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) gave me notice of this a number of days ago and I agreed that I would hear it later. If there is fault, it is with the latitude allowed by the Chair, not with the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will obviously respect your decision as to when questions of privilege are heard. I suggest that under parliamentary tradition the very reason for a breach of privilege taking precedence over all other matters is that a Member's ability to act as a Member of Parliament has been impeded. I suggest that these items are to be heard as quickly as possible rather than when it is politically opportune for someone to make the argument.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think the last comment of the Parliamentary Secretary does not become him nor does it become the role which he plays as the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I discussed the issue of raising the question of privilege with you and we agreed that I should raise it today. The fact is that the longterm performance of Members of Parliament has been impeded by a practice which has become very prevalent in this House. Committees work very hard and they table reports, and then the Minister stands up and gives a blanket statement that nothing will change or that the Government will do a particular thing. However, the Government never, never comes to

May 26, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
grips with each of the recommendations made by a standing committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's not true.


John R. Rodriguez: The Minister went on in his statement to make all sorts of untrue statements.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to try to be more concise, but also more substantial than those who raised that question of privilege. I think that things have been clear from the start. I regret, however, that House procedures should be used to try and transmit messages that cannot get across any other way because the other side does not care.
Well, things are very simple. I will quote our Standing Orders on the tabling of documents in the House.
In French it reads: "Dans les 120 jours qui suivent la presentation d'un rapport d'un comite permanent ou special, le gouvernement depose, a la demande du comite, une reponse globale."

In English it reads:
Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special
committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a
comprehensive response thereto.
I think that is very clear. That was done before and there was no question of privilege raised at that time. I would like to refer to something which can be found in the report tabled by the committee.

The Committee considers that its recommendations should be taken as a package. I think the question is clear, it is quite obvious. I repeat: The Committee considers, and on that committee, Mr. Speaker, sat-


John R. Rodriguez: On what page?


Benoît Bouchard: I let you speak without interrupting.

I allowed the Hon. Member to speak. I understand that that is the way of the NDP. They speak but do not allow others to speak.


Cyril Keeper: Tell us what page you are citing.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat what I said. The committee requested that we give a comprehensive answer, and that is exactly what we did. As long as we are in government we will have the right to use the word "comprehensive" as we believe it should be used. It is the right of the
Government to say that the answer it has given is a comprehensive one.
Finally, exactly the same answer was given to the sixth report of this standing committee on the backlog in the treatment of the status of refugee claimants. Exactly the same response was given one year ago and my friend did not raise a question of privilege. The Hon. Member need only look at his files. When the Hon. Member has something to say which he would like to be heard all across the country, there are ways to do it other than through a question of privilege.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two brief contributions to this discussion. In the presentation of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) he referred to a document, and he may have left the House with the impression that it was a committee document comparing the Forget report and that of the committee. It is in fact a working paper prepared for committee members by a researcher and not a document approved by the committee.
I see that the Hon. Member is indicating agreement. I believed that since the Hon. Member had offered to table the document, if you accept it, it should be labelled clearly as the production of a single researcher for the benefit of committee members rather than as a document approved by committee members.
I would also bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that in the two sessions of this Parliament the committee has presented a total of seven substantive reports to which there has been a differing pattern of responses. Some have been very detailed, indeed recommendation by recommendation, and one at least, to which 1 think the Minister referred, was very similar to this particular response.
I think you will find that that response was raised by the Member from Scarborough on a question of privilege in the previous Parliament. The previous Speaker in the previous Parliament dealt with the issue of a similar report. I just bring that to your attention as a potential precedent that you might wish to consult.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I was surprised that the Hon. Minister tried to excuse his conduct on May 15 by pleading precedent. I happen to be concerned with the fifth and sixth reports, having worked on them for well over six months. It is similar to the situation that the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has described with the report on which he worked.
In fact, the then Minister treated this House shabbily by simply refusing to answer the fifth report within 120 days, at which time he tried to excuse himself by saying that he would answer that in conjunction with the sixth report. The fifth report was primarily on refugee processing and the sixth report was on the backlog. I objected at that time but was overruled by the Speaker. However, it is untrue to suggest that no
May 26, 1987

complaint was made when the then Minister played fast and loose with the Standing Order.
When the time came due for a response to the sixth report, the then Minister gave the same shabby answer that he was not ready to answer. He simply said, in effect: "I have not done my work and I will not answer now, notwithstanding the rules". I objected again and was again put down by the then Speaker.
However, I did object and in fact retained a lawyer to take an action of mandamus against both the Minister of Employment and Immigration at that time and the Minister of State for Immigration. Procedural games were played by the Justice Department to prevent my entering that action, which were finally defeated. The action was entered, and within two days, the then Minister of Employment and Immigration was asked by a government Member what he would do about an answer to the report. She replied that the Minister of State for Immigration would be answering soon.
Against that background, the Minister of State for Immigration made the May 21 announcements. Not only were they incomplete, they also instituted new regulations that were operative as of that day, so that it was impossible to deal with both the question of privilege and the new situation created by the new regulations announced on that day. At that time I concentrated on trying to respond as positively and constructively as possible on behalf of my Party to the new regulations, which were unclear at that time and are unclear to this day. At that time they were not even made known to the officials who had to carry them out. That has been the subject of a complaint.
I consider it most inappropriate and most misleading, however unintentional, of the present Minister, who does not even have the courtesy to stay in the House to end the trouble he started. I would quote that as a precedent for his misconduct.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) would realize that it was only inadvertence that led him to comment on the absence of the Minister. The Minister was only briefly out of his seat and was actually coming back to the Chamber. It only shows why we have the rule that we do not comment on the absence of an Hon. Member in this place.
In fairness to the Official Opposition, since it is an allotted day of the Official Opposition, I think I must advise Hon. Members that I have the point. I believe the Chair has certainly given sufficient latitude to hear the argument. I think some of the argument is debate.
I want to assure the Hon. Member for Spadina, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) that as far as the Chair is concerned there was an arrangement made to hear the
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
matter today, or this week if not today. That arrangement was made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and the Chair, and that must stand. If there is any complaint from Hon. Members, the complaint must be brought to the Chair.
With respect to the issues that have been aired in these interventions, the Chair will consider it all very carefully. I shall report back to the Chamber as soon as I can. I assure Hon. Members that I have the point and that I treat it as a serious complaint on the part of those who brought it. I will consider very carefully whether it is a point of order or a question of privilege.
I do caution Hon. Members to remember that there are limitations on the extent to which the Chair can interfere with proceedings that are either in a committee or proceedings that are sent from a committee to a Department. However, I have the point and I will deal with it fully. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and others that the Chair clearly understands what the complaint is about.
Resuming debate. I would ask the co-operation of Hon. Members. There is no need to continue the debate on the question of privilege. Unless the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais)-

-the Hon. Member for La Prairie on another question of privilege or a point of order.


Fernand Jourdenais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for La Prairie has the floor.


Fernand Jourdenais: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask you for some guidance. Can I still raise a point of order about the statement by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary who said a moment ago that the opposition and the Hon. Member where involved in petty politics. I stood up and supported him. I do not belong to the Official Opposition, but I want the work done by Members to be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the point raised by the Hon. Member for La Prairie has already been raised by another Hon. Member. Naturally, it is not acceptable, in the House, for an Hon. Member, whether from the Government or the Opposition side, to talk about the motives or the honor of another Hon. Member. That rule is very, very clear and as far as the Chair is concerned the matter is closed.

I should also advise the House that there was another question of privilege to be heard this afternoon. The Hon. Member has very kindly deferred it until tomorrow. In fairness, I think the Official Opposition Members should be allowed to continue their debate.

May 26, 1987
6408_______________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr, Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemn the government for allowing the deterioration of Canada's postal service by undermining the principle of fair and equal services to all Canadians through the substitution of "super mail boxes" for door to door service and by the closure of rural post offices, and by exacerbating already disintegrating labour-management relations within Canada Post by removing labour representation from the Corporation's Board and by other confrontational actions, thereby increasing the threats of postal service disruptions or even shutdowns.
Alfonso Gagliano: This morning, Mr. Speaker, we began today's opposition debate on the postal service in Canada. To us Liberals the postal service is very important, and we have shown this earlier today when the Right Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) set the tone for this very important debate to express the views of the Liberal Party on the Canadian postal service.
Of course the position of the Minister responsible for Canada Post has been a great disappointment to me. Instead of taking this opportunity to unveil new measures to establish fair postal services he did nothing but level criticism at the Official Opposition, asking us to be responsible when in fact he himself has taken irresponsible action in the past few weeks, Mr. Speaker. Not so long ago the President of Canada Post stated-we must remember, Mr. Speaker, the context of very tense labour negotiations when he made his speech-the President of Canada Post said: "Strike or no strike, we will deliver the mail." A few days later the Minister responsible for Canada Post endorses the position of the President of Canada Post.
So, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister responsible-in this context, irresponsible might be more fitting-for Canada Post is asking us in the Opposition to be responsible, I wonder to what extent he understands what is at stake here, the seriousness of the situation facing us today when, in a few weeks and possibly sooner, our postal service may come to a full stop.
Mr. Speaker, in order to set the record straight, I will begin with the second reading debate on the Bill which established the Canada Post Corporation. In this regard, I refer to the Debates of the House of Commons of October 24, 1980, page 4075. At that time the Postmaster General, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) said, and I quote:
Had management explained more clearly to the employees what it intended to do, had it involved the employees in the change, had it guaranteed, from the very start, everyone's job security, the employees would have understood that the machines were not meant to replace them but rather to help them in their work, and union leaders would have taken part in the operation rather than opposing it.
In the same speech, he added:
Crown corporation status will not remedy all our ills or difficulties. Every organization, be it government or industry, faces normal operational problems. However, with the streamlining of many of the facets of our operations and the support and good will of the employees, the Canada Post Corporation will be able to provide all Canadians with the postal service to which they are entitled and which they deserve. I want now to reiterate what I have said-
Those are the words of the former Minister.
-publicly and privately to union representatives, that is, I intend to have union representatives on the board of directors in order that they can get directly involved and participate fully in the good administration of the corporation.
That is the spirit in which the Canada Post Corporation was established in 1980-81, Mr. Speaker. It was precisely in the spirit of a full co-operation between management and staff. No modern and aggresive business can implement a successful corporate plan without a full co-operation between management and employees.
We only have to look at facts, Mr. Speaker. Since 1981, there was no strike. The reduction of the deficit was one of the goals, as well as to provide a better service and improve labour relations. Even as regards the reduction of the deficit, Canada Post made improvements since 1981 and the corporation improved its services in some areas.
But in 1984, Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members tried to imitate the Liberals during the election campaign and they promised the moon, the earth and everything else. But once in Government, they took off their masks, became real Conservatives and started to cut in services.
The excuse was that these cuts had to be made for the sake of deficit reduction, Mr. Speaker. We are very much aware of the problem and we agree on the necessity to work towards that reduction. However, we must not place the burden on ordinary people only, on those who are less fortunate than others, but we must call upon everybody. Mr. Speaker, what have we seen since 1984? Those who have been called upon to reduce the deficit are older people, handicapped people and small business people who have no alternative but to use Canada Post, whereas larger businesses can well afford private couriers ... It is a truism to say that if postal workers go on strike, small businesses will be the first ones to be penalized. Mr. Speaker, these people will suffer because the Government, by not allowing Canada Post enough time to reduce its deficit, will be forcing a strike, and these groups will bear the brunt.
However, again for the sake of reducing the deficit, the Government had no hesitation in guaranteeing bank deposits over $60,000 in two Western banks. Of course, no small businesses had deposits over that amount, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the Government did not hesitate, despite the fact that the operation cost us perhaps six or seven times the amount of the Canada Post deficit. I could give lots of examples, such as the Reisman Brothers case, the Port-Cartier penitentiary and so on. We know that in many instances this Government has been squandering public funds! But it has to make cuts when ordinary Canadians, and a service that
May 26, 1987

everybody needs are concerned. I would hate to forget as well the Old Age Security pensions de-indexation.
So, Mr. Speaker, if the Government wants to reduce the deficit, it must ask all Canadians to tighten their belts. But in the case of Canada Post, only the elderly, the small businesses, the handicapped, the housewives, will suffer from the poor postal service resulting from the policy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who said in his 1986 Budget that Canada Post must get rid of its deficit and balance its books by 1988.
Mr. Speaker, just this morning, my Leader, the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, said that it took the United States 14 years to achieve that result. But in Canada, a country so diversified, with only 25 million people and a territory larger than the United States, we want to reach in four to five years an objective that the Americans took 14 years to achieve. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. But in that case, the Minister of Finance decided to axe expenditures at Canada Post, and the management of the Corporation-under the direction of the Minister, has decided to cut the services, and we see the results.
Canadians are not satisfied with the service. We cut the door-to-door delivery by installing supermailboxes which are far from being "super", Mr. Speaker; they open by themselves, one key can open many of them, and there are also snow removal problems. Not long ago, a committee showed us pictures of the supermailboxes which had been installed for four to five months, and they were in a poor state. After only four to five months . . . Imagine how durable these boxes are! Just this morning, in response to a question, the Minister said that the investment will be paid for in four to five years thanks to all the savings made.
Mr. Speaker, we must analyse and put into perspective a number of things; since the effects of savings cannot be felt immediately, cuts have to be made. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the March 25, 1987 editorial of Le Droit, dealing with Canada Post Corporation:
How important is postal service in our society? If one is to believe the complaints of users, it is one of the rare issues which concerns everybody-the role of the postal service is similar to that of public transit, but it is of greater importance. After all, some people never take the bus or the train, but very few people do not receive mail.
However, given the size of its operating budget, Canada Post-is the least costly among Crown corporations. Given that the Government has had to provide 184 million dollars to Canada Post in 1985-86 fiscal year and that this accounts for only 6,2 percent of its operating budget, one is led to believe that no other Crown corporation of comparable scale (60,000 employees) has been able to match such a performance in modern day Canada ...
In the case of Canada Post, the federal Treasury has never had to finance more than 12 percent of the corporation's budget since it has become a Crown corporation, on October 16, 1981. In fact, the Government's share has gone from 10,3 percent in 1982-83 to 6,2 percent in 1985-86. The Federal Government contribution increased up until fiscal 1984-85-the 12 percent high previously mentioned-after which it decreased, as we know. However, in the face of such satisfactory performance on the part of a Crown corporation, the Federal Government is acting as if Canada Post should bring in the same kind of dividends as are to be expected from the sale of beer, wine or lottery tickets. In a country as vast as ours, the postal service must be considered an essential service and, as such, it should be managed in strict conformity with the committments undertaken by Government under the enabling legislation.
Supply
We therefore have, Mr. Speaker, in the March 25 editorial of the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit dealing with Canada Post Corporation, a clear indication of the type of Canadian postal service corporation which Canadians would like to see.
Mr. Speaker, with the Government's authorization, the Canada Post Corporation has reduced service not only in cities, but also in rural areas, that is to say, in both larger and smaller centres. Of course, everybody has heard about the closing of post offices in rural areas. Travelling from coast to coast in Canada, I have had the opportunity to hear just how concerned Canadians are about the Government's intention to get rid of these small post offices which were the very soul of villages.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to describe how we, as Liberals, see post offices in rural areas. And I quote:
"In small towns and villages, the post office remains the establishment most frequently visited by local people. It easily becomes an information centre for the whole community. That is where people go to get information on such matters as social services and obtain income tax returns, as well as scholarship and job application forms. Postmasters often serve as resource people. The federal Government is present everywhere in Canada, and the post office remains a familiar place which brings the Government down to the dimension of man. The post office is a universal meeting place. It creates links in the community. It is a unifying force which gives the community and each and every one of its members a feeling of belonging."
This is how we see post offices in rural areas, in small villages, Mr. Speaker. I was quoting from a statement made by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), the former Postmaster General.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are quite concerned about what is going to happen to their post offices. They are also quite concerned about what is going to happen to their postal services. Every morning when they open their newspapers, in whatever language it is printed, they read about threats of strikes. Instead of acting as a mediator and trying to calm apprehensions, the Government throws oil on the fire and says: We have to be tough, we have to be rough, we have to crush the workers because we must carry out this plan which calls for the elimination of nearly 8,000 jobs.
Well, as I was saying at the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, for a corporate plan to be applicable, accepted and successfully carried out, you need the co-operation of both the administrators and employees. For the time being, the Canada Post Corporation has not obtained this co-operation. Quite the contrary. Together with the Government, it has sought confrontation by presenting its corporate plan without consultation. It has also taken action which is contrary to the spirit of co-operation on which the postal service was based at the time of its creation. When we were in Government, we, Liberals, had promised to have labour representatives on the board of the Canada Post Corporation for the very purpose of

May 26, 1987
Supply
creating the spirit of co-operation needed for a harmonious work relationship, to fulfil the mandate of ensuring a better postal service, reducing the deficit and maintaining a fair climate of labour relations.
Mr. Speaker, we have to be aware that we shall never have a good postal service if confrontation between labour and management does not stop. Up till this morning, on this opposition day, the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation had the opportunity to give a clear signal to both parties by saying: "Let's sit down, please. Let's talk. Let's settle the problems. Let's see how it could be done. We could delay the privatization plan." That is the recommendation of the Marchment report which the Minister quoted this morning, but only the parts that suited him. Indeed, he did not say for example that the Marchment report recommends to wait till 1990 before considering the privatization of Canada Post, for it is only at the project stage, Mr. Speaker. He wants to privatize all retail outlets. He wants to install superboxes so that mail can be delivered by private contractors. Now do you think the Corporation's 60,000 employees will say: "Yes, Mr. Minister, because you want to reduce the deficit, we will do that at once!" It will have to be worked out through the negotiation process, with common sense and a lot of time. It took the Americans 14 years to work it out. But here, with only 25 million people, in a country as diverse and as vast as Canada, we want results within five years, Mr. Speaker.
It shows how unrealistic this Convervative Government is. Ever since they took office the small guy has had to pay while the rich always get more.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, today we condemn the Government for creating a situation that could lead to violent confrontation. Why violent? Let me explain. 1 have in front of me a press release issued by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

In its press release this morning, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business asked Gallup to conduct a poll to see whether or not Canadians wanted a postal strike. I am not surprised by the results.
Everybody in Canada wants the mail delivered. They do not care about a strike or the deficit; they want mail delivered. That is what is important, and the Government does not understand it.
The Government is using the confrontational method because it wants to reduce the deficit. The Canada Post Corporation was doing okay until the Minister of Finance said: "You have to balance your books in fiscal 1988".
It took 14 years for them to balance their books in the United States, and they want it done in Canada in five years.
I see you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that my time is expiring. Mr. John Bulloch said in the press release this morning that Canadians simply want the mail to get through and that they
do not want to be used as pawns in a show-down with the forces, the forces being the Government, Canada Post management, and the union.
Canadians want their mail delivered. They want door-to-door service. They want to keep the rural post office as an identity, as a symbol of Canadian unity. I ask the Government and the Minister responsible for Canada Post to stop this confrontational attitude undertaken a few months ago, sit down with management and labour and come up with a plan acceptable to Canadians, workers and management.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my colleague, the critic for the Post Office, who I think speaks knowledgeably and passionately about this issue. He has been at the forefront in trying to bring some sense into the Post Office.
When he talks about having the mail delivered not only door-to-door but as a unified service across the country I think he is hitting a significant nail right on the head, the same one that Canadians from coast-to-coast want the Government to understand.
What about a community with a postman, a postwoman or a postperson who delivers mail on one side of the street and then crosses over and does not? What kind of citizenship is this? There is only one kind of citizenship and that is first class citizenship.
But what about the person in the a subdivision who asks why the Government rationalizes not delivering door-to-door because of financing when that new subdivision gets an entirely new infrastructure from other levels of Government, new schools, new churches, new recreation facilities and new transportation arteries? Why is the Post Office different? Perhaps the buck is being passed to the municipalities. The Government is saying that the municipalities are not telling us in advance when these new subdivisions are being created. Therefore, the Post Office has no way of budgeting for them. I would like the comments of the Hon. Member, who has been very much involved in terms of the inequities this creates within a community and between communities vis-a-vis the concept of the supermailbox and whether it is economically efficient. Or is it almost the same when you consider the cost of having to maintain those supermailboxes vis-a-vis the fixing and the replacing of them?


Alfonso Gagliano: 1 want to thank my colleague for the question, Mr. Speaker. In the past we had green boxes. Whether there was a lack of co-operation or a problem in management, the Post Office was unable to absorb all the new communities that sprang up so rapidly. Past policy was to have green boxes so people could receive their mail at the corner of the street on a temporary basis until the Post Office could organize the delivery route and install door to door delivery.
May 26, 1987

Some Members go around saying that the supermailbox is Liberal policy. I invite anyone to come to my riding of St. Leonard. It was built in the last 15 or 20 years. The only streets without door-to-door delivery are those built in late 1984, 1985 and 1986. My own house was built in 1983-84. I have home delivery. Two streets away people do not. I took a walk this week-end and 1 found not far from my house supermailboxes on a continuation of an existing street. Because the continuation of the street was built in 1985, people who live on that continuation do not have door-to-door delivery. That is the kind of discrimination that Canadians do not want to take. They are right. They pay the same taxes whether municipal, provincial or federal. Everyone pays 36 cents for a stamp. If one has to register a letter, one pays the same price whether or not one has home delivery. We are creating second-class citizens.
We have a deficit problem and we should face it rationally. Management and unions should sit down to try to improve performance in the Post Office, but not by way of confrontation. We must leave confrontation to the 1970s because we know the results of it. Canada Post Corporation was created in 1981 to avoid the confrontation which the Conservative Government and the new management of Canada Post is creating right now.


Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but 1 shall comment first.
I am a Member with a rural area in Ontario. I have not had one post office closed where there was a need for one. Let me clarify that. Literally no post office has been closed in my riding where there has been a call for the existing rural postal delivery service.
I have been here through several Liberal Governments. I had far more complaints during those times than today. It seems we have a real scare tactic campaign today. Petitions are being organized, with which I will deal a little later.
Many rural Canadians are receiving their mail today delivered by the rural carrier who has been there for many, many years. The Liberal Opposition is trying to stir up discontent among Canadians. I think this is a disservice. I do not know who is distributing petitions, but they are out there and they are organized.
Is this a deliberate attempt to scare rural Canadians? If it is, this is a disservice on the part of both opposition Parties. If they are concerned about Canadians, especially seniors, they should help them to understand the current situation which was put in place by the former Liberal Government. Opposition Parties should not be trying to make political points by distorting things. Let us call the facts for what they are.
I eagerly await the Hon. Member's reply to my question.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member in his own riding has no closures of post offices. I would recommend that the Hon. Member read the postal plan because he will see there is a plan to close 5,000 post offices.
Adjournment Motion
The Opposition is not playing with scare tactics; Canadians are scared.
1 have here different letters and statements from rural Canadian organizations and mayors. For example, there is one here from the Mayor of Trinity Bay who writes:
The few businesses we have and on which we depend for our financial survival, have been kept here by services like the post office. Centralization for the sake of economy should not go to such extremes as to threaten the existence of small communities . .. We earnestly request that you look at ways to maintain the post office even if you must share with others some of the more costly aspects of the service. Sharing, where we live, is another word for survival and we know what it is all about. For God's sake do not help to destroy us!
That letter was sent to Donald Lander, President of Canada Post, on February 2, 1987.
Another letter reads as follows:
Since there are no banks situated in the community, we are required to deal with banks in Red Rock or Nipigon, both approximately 25 miles to the east or in Thunder Bay, 45 miles to the west. Most banking transactions are carried out by mail due to the travelling distances and costs involved with personal attendance. Money orders are purchased with all cash coming into the municipal offices.
Quite often, especially during tax collection periods, there may be thousands of dollars collected weekly which must be mailed to the bank ... The loss of the rural post office would be a great inconvenience. I would be required to travel great distances to the nearest post office to purchase postage supplies and pick up registered mail.
That letter was written by Mrs. Helena Tamminen, Secretary-Treasurer, Township of Dorion, Ontario, and sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on December 22, 1986. These are letters not from members of the Opposition but from concerned citizens and local elected officials. Perhaps the Hon. Member should take a tour of Canada to see that people are really scared of the business plan that his Government has approved.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig)-National Revenue-Administration of farm fuel tax rebate program; the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille)- Airports-Provision of fire-fighting services-Department's regulations; and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp)-Citizenship Courts-Delay in processing applications-Appointment of Judges.

May 26, 1987
6412_______________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That this House condemn the government for allowing the deterioration of Canada's postal service by undermining the principle of fair and equal services to all Canadians through the substitution of "super mail boxes" for door to door service and by the closure of rural post offices, and by exacerbating already disintegrating labour-management relations within Canada Post by removing labour representation from the Corporation's Board and by other confrontational actions, thereby increasing the threats of postal service disruptions or even shut-downs.
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at this point in the debate introduced by the Opposition, a debate of course that is of concern to all Canadian citizens, that may concern them because as the Hon. Member stated a few minutes ago, they want to sow fear in the hearts of people for political gains.
What I would like to do at this point, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps make a historical review of the Canada Post Corporation, or the Canadian postal service.
The postal service as we know it today started in the mid-19th century. It was established to meet the needs in terms of exchange of information felt by the business and industrial world and by that increasing part of the public that could read and write.
Since then, tremendous changes happened and the postal service is just as essential today as it was before the invention of the telephone, the computer, the airplane and the communications satellite. But if it is to survive, it will have as any other service to adapt to a changing, modern world.
When the postal service was inaugurated in Canada during the 1850s, most Canadians were living in rural areas, on the farm and in small towns. Today, although rural Canada remains an important component, the great majority of Canadians live in major cities or suburbs.
At the beginning of the postal service, manpower was inexpensive. People worked long hours for a small salary, which meant businesses could allow a high labour content while selling their goods and services at competitive prices. People had no automobiles and public transportation did not exist. In order to pick up or mail their letters, they had to either walk or harness.
Today, they drive to the stores, the supermarkets, or they drop their mail in mail boxes at their jobs. That postal service really did not change. But such is not the case of other service industries.
Nowadays, people won the right to a much better salary for significantly reduced work hours, so that productivity must be increased if costs are to be controlled.
The Canada Post Corporation has a mandate to bring the Canadian postal service into the world of the 21st Century.
This means to alter traditional procedures for the provision of a postal service and we know that any such change is not easy. However, the Corporation has undertaken to abide with a fundamental principle in the modernization and adjustment of postal services in Canada. It is to make sure that all Canadians wherever they live enjoy a reliable and cheap postal service. Methods will perhaps change. It is possible that partnership arrangements with private sector which are as old as postal services themselves will be further altered. However, the postal service,thanks to imaginative solutions, will always meet the needs of future generations of Canadians.
It should be noted that the Corporation has promised to give a 90-day notice of any change made to the rural service. The new plan of Canada Post will mean a better postal service for all Canadians.
When the Marchment Committee asked Canadians what they wanted more especially from their postal services, they clearly answered: reliability. The Corporation is improving its operations and modernizing its facilities so that Canadians may expect a reliable mail delivery service.Each year, there are 150,000 new addresses in Canada as more people are settling in new homes or are launching a new business. The Corporation will act quickly to provide a practical and economic service to those new addresses. It will put an end to the long file at the counters of the general delivery service where people have to pick up their mail and will remove the green community boxes which are rightly despised.
It will be much easier to buy stamps and other postal items. The Corporation will make use of the skills of the retail industry namely cornerstores, general stores, drugstores, and supermarkets, to sell stamps and to provide other postal services where people do their shopping and at times that are convenient to them. Furthermore, the number of outlets selling stamps and providing other postal services will increase by about 50 p. 100 within the next 10 years. That means that people will know where to go after 5 or 6 p.m. to buy stamps.
Canada Post will limit rate increases. In the future, the cost of mailing a letter will vary only according to inflation. There will be no more sudden and dramatic increases in the price of stamps. People will benefit from these improvements in the postal service without any tax increase.
Canada Post will be financially sound as any other business which offers a good service. In this way, people will not have to pay twice, first at the post office, and second through their income tax. There will be no more postal deficit to be added to the national debt which our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.
May 26, 1987

At this time the corporation has some 12,000 sales outlets where one can buy stamps and other postal products and services. This number is broken down as follows: 6,000 post offices manned by employees of the Corporation, 2,000 auxiliary offices operated by large and small businesses, and 4,000 agencies that sell stamps. The Corporation will increase the accessibility of its services. Therefore, the total number of outlets will increase by 50 per cent over a period of 10 years with better access to these outlets.
Nowadays, it happens quite frequently that post offices are not located in shopping areas. Several post offices were centrally located when they were built initially a few generations ago, but now due to shifts in population, businesses have moved somewhere else. Most of the time, post offices are open when it is the least convenient for working people to get there, and they are closed during the business hours of other retail stores. Existing post offices are also more likely to be located where parking is difficult than where there are lots of free parking spaces. Those are some of the reasons why the Corporation will more and more place retail sales into the hands of the private sector, of business people who are already serving the public by selling groceries, stationery items, drugs and all kinds of other products. Postal items could be sold in stores where people are going already.
Those businesses are already located where people make their provisions and are open longer hours than most post offices. In addition, they are usually located where it is easy to park a car as in shopping centers. Those measures are also based on sound management principles. The wages of those stores' employees are comparable to those of private sector businesses and the Corporation can increase the number or the quality of its retail outlets without having to build new postal offices facilities. We know that, in the end, those costs are borne by postal service users.
Improved service plans in rural areas of Canada undoubtedly mean that several forms of relationship with customers, some of which were established more than a century ago, will change gradually. So that those changes will be well understood by members of the communities concerned and that those people will be heard in the process, as I said earlier, Canada Post will give a 90-day notice of any change it is contemplating. That period will be used to consult people and their elected representatives before any change is implemented.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post Corporation is improving rural service in several ways. One is to provide the supermailbox to its customers, which means that in small municipalities, people will no longer have to go to the Post Office nor to stand in line for the general delivery at limited business hours. They will just have to go to their supermailbox which will generally be closer to their homes, and to remove their parcels and their mail whenever it suits them.'According to a recent poll, 94 per cent of the people who tried the supermailbox are very pleased. This supermailbox gives them the same degree of safety and of
Supply
convenience as a rented postal box with a lock. The supermailbox however is free of charge. In addition to collecting your mail and your parcels, you can mail your letters in the supermailbox.
The Corporation would also increase the number of outlets where the people who live in rural areas will be able to buy stamps and other services. Their number will increase from 5,000 now to 7,000 within 10 years. These measures are part of a global plan aimed at improving access to the services offered by the Corporation through increased co-operation with the private sector. By increasing the number of those outlets in rural Canada, the Corporation will take advantage of the resources of local business people and entrepreneurs instead of using offices it would have to build or operate itself.
In many cases this will mean longer business hours and a more convenient location. At the present time, several post offices are open only from 30 to 40 hours a week. Private sector outlets are normally open much longer. These outlets of postal products and services operated by the private sector will be located where people go shopping, which will exempt them from having to stop in several places.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it must be reminded that that 90 days, advance notice will allow consultations with people and their representatives before those changes become effective.
The transition will not affect significantly those concerned. It will be spread over a long period of time so that the impact on employees could be alleviated through promotions, resignations and retirements.
It is to be reminded also that new business and employment opportunities will arise in Canadian rural communities from further co-operation with the private sector. Needless to say that those opportunities will be available as well to Canada Post employees. And they could also take advantage of new possibilities within the Corporation itself as new positions will be created to control private retail sale outlets.
Postal service expansion plans for a viable universal mail service at Canada Post are more important to rural Canadians than to their urban counterparts. Competitor operations, such as private couriers, have revolved around larger urban centres where there is more mail. Unlike Canada Post, those businesses are not required to provide a universal service to those little or less populated rural areas.
In the next decade, and possibly the following years, Canada Post will proceed with a comprehensive survey of the market for every future outlet. In fact, a market survey is mostly an analysis of preferences, of consumer requirements and needs, and such analyses are common practice in the private sector. They will determine what sites and services from coast to coast are suited to consumer needs and whether or not postal products and services should be made available on a given site. Before any decision is made, Canada Post will consider factors such as demand, clients, community preferences, parking lots as well as other existing retail sale outlets in the vicinity.

May 26, 1987
Supply
All these factors will help it choose the most practical place to locate these products and services. It must determine where customers work, and shop, and at what time they prefer to buy postal products. The goal of the Corporation is to increase and improve the quantity and the quality of its services to the benefit of the user.
Market surveys have been undertaken in nine medium-sized communities in Canada. The results will determine where and how postal services will be offered. The Canada Post Corporation will carefully study each location to make sure that customers will be better served. And if it wants to remain competitive, it must make it easier for its customers to buy its products and services. Post offices are more costly to operate in terms of salaries as well as in terms of capital expenditures and operating expenses required by this type of large obsolete buildings.
Franchising is an important feature in the new plan. Businesses will buy from Canada Post the right to sell postal products in a given area. They will also buy their stamps and other products at wholesale prices as for any other merchandise purchased for resale.
What is new is the relationships between the Corporation and private sector businesses which will be more similar to those between travel or car rental agencies and their franchisers. More services will be offered, working hours will be longer and will include evenings and week-ends, and sales outlets will be more conveniently located. The image of the Canada Post Corporation will be consistent and clearly posted. Sales outlets will be much more attractive and will project a lively commercial image from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
The Corporation has already implemented a pilot project in Metropolitan Toronto and has announced another one for Winnipeg where it has to leave its rented accommodation. According to Canada Post, customer reaction was very encouraging. In both cities, all retail clerks affected by these new measures were or will be reassigned to local postal operations.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post considers the welfare of its employees as an important part of its plan. As its business volume increases, it will be more capable of integrating its employees. But the goal of the Corporation is to increase and improve the quality and the quantity of its services to the benefit of users. It is very important that this service be centered on user's needs.


Alfonso Gagliano: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one comment. The Hon. Member referred to a Canada Post policy calling for the closing of post offices. She referred to the famous 90 days, and I would like to emphasize now that in reality, Canada Post had difficulty in enforcing this regulation, and I am under the impression that it never took it seriously, until quite recently. The Standing Committee on Government Operations which addressed this problem came out with a
unanimous report which is so strong that it conveyed to the Canada Post Corporation the message that it should truly have a consultation process and a recommendation that individual post offices should be closed only when, after consultation, all the people involved agreed. However, when the people involved say that a post office should remain open, it should not be closed. In a way, this would be a veto given to the public. On the basis of the representations made to us, we did not feel that the Canada Post Corporation was properly applying the regulations. The Minister had announced following the tabling of the corporate plan . . .
Mr. Speaker, I have a question. The Hon. Member referred repeatedly to the fact that there would be more post offices, that this would give private enterprise an opportunity to develop postal services in their own corporations and commercial environment. So, instead of having a post office close at 6 p.m., there could be, for instance, on Thursdays and Fridays when stores are open until 9 p.m., so-called "extended" hours.
I would like the Hon. Member to tell us what she thinks of this point, on which even the Minister himself touched this morning. Now, in urban centres, there are small post offices located in drugstores, for instance. As a matter of fact, there is one in the building where I have my riding office and I can tell you that if I go down there to try and buy stamps or have a letter registered after 4.30 p.m., the door is closed. It closes even before the central post office which is located a little further away.
The Government would like to have us believe that, by turning over post offices to the private sector, we would have access to the post office almost 24 hours a day, but such is not the case. For the time being, at least, as she said, that is the way the Government would like it to be, but I think that this would mean a counter where stamps are sold, not a real post office where one could send a registered letter or a package.
I would like the Hon. Member to comment on this.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, I understand my hon. friend's concerns. He represents a riding just as I do. What we both want is for our fellow citizens to be well served.
Through this privatization of a new service, the purpose of which is to reduce administrative costs, it is clear that the little post office in the drug store which closes at 4 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. was not given a full franchise. It is because not so far away, there is another post office.
We say that when the post office as it now exists closes for any reason, including the fact that the postmaster has retired, we would transfer the services to the private sector, either in a convenience store, a drug store or a supermarket.
Because he will get paid a commission on the stamps he sells and the service he provides, the owner will be eager to stay open as long as possible during his business hours, and we all know how long convenience stores remain open. I think that people generally will benefit, because, after 5 p.m., instead of having to wait till the next day to buy stamps or do any other
May 26, 1987

business, they will be able to obtain service up to 6 p.m., 7 p.m. or 8 p.m.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my honourable friend. It refers to the privatization of post offices in urban areas, as well as the franchising policy. I would like her comments on three points.
First, is she aware that before this franchising policy, the Corporation had opened new offices, under new management, open longer hours? I mention this because these public post offices provided the same services as the private post offices. And one of the arguments in favour of this policy of privatization are the extended hours and greater access to the public. We could do the same with public post offices.
My second point is this: What is your reaction to the fact that by franchising post offices, the Government or Canada Post are going to lose revenues because it will only be possible to privatize profitable post offices as no businessman would accept to operate a post office which is losing money? This policy will translate into a loss of revenue for Canada Post and will have an impact on the deficit.
Also, I would like to know her opinion about the salaries of the people working in post offices. These people are now being paid $12 an hour while after privatization, they will be paid the minimum wage of $4.55 which, in a City like Toronto, is the poverty threshold. Will such a policy not reduce people to poverty?


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, the public post office versus the private post office, as far as customer or people service in concerned, certainly people will prefer... In fact, when you have a location in a small community, whether rural or semi-urban, where service is available for 12, 15 hours a day, people cannot help being satisfied, and they will have the same service.


Cyril Keeper: But that is possible also with the public post office.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Perhaps I did not understand correctly your first question, but anyway I will try to answer the second and third questions.
You say there will be a loss of income. Look, businessmen who need the service always go there, postal service will always be required. So they will have a choice. If they only want to buy stamps, they can always go to the convenience store or private services, but if they need something more involved like overseas mail, which perhaps the convenient store could not handle, there will always be the post office available to them. So, the income is there. I do not see how income will decline at the Canada Post Corporation.
Third, you refer to salaries. Well, it will be private enterprise, or private enterprise wages. There will be a fair balance just the same, if in the same service location an employee, whether assigned to paper supplies or produce, perhaps, if he is in a store and that right next to it. . . So, employees in the
Supply
same business will have competitive wages. I do not see why an employee assigned to the postal service would earn less than somebody else in the same store. After all, it is private enterprise.
As you know, all that privatization is aimed at saving Canada Post's money. Who is paying for that deficit? It is always the individual, always the taxpayer. Often, people come to my office and tell me: If the Government gave us such or such a service, we could have a subsidy for this or that. My first reaction, all I tell them initially is this: Look, if you are prepared to pay more taxes, O.K., we will give it to you. But each time you receive a service or a grant, it is with your tax money. We get it from your pocket. At that point people realize that it is really their tax money we are managing, and they may then be perhaps more reasonable in their representations, their expectations.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, for the third time in the last few months this House is debating the condition of postal service in Canada. Today we are indebted to the Official Opposition for moving the motion condemning the Government for allowing the deterioration of Canada's postal service by undermining the principle of fair and equal service to all Canadians.
As a Member who represents a largely rural riding, there are certain points about postal service that concern me more than others. Today I want to address the closure of rural post offices and the closure of rural postal delivery routes, which I notice is not mentioned in the motion but which I am sure is implied by it. I also want to mention the situation of confrontational actions within the postal service, initiated by the board of Canada Post and initiated and covertly supported by the Government.
The situation with rural areas is one that I believe is comparable to the introduction of the supermailbox in suburban areas, but one where the potential consequences of the actions that have been taken are indeed for more serious in the case of the rural and smaller communities.
We have seen a history of actions taken by the Government that are intended to diminish and downgrade postal service and put Canada Post, both the unions and the corporation itself, in the position of being a scapegoat for other failures, including those of the Government.
We have seen the Government defended by its members on the Standing Committee on Government Operations. We have seen the committee adjourned for lack of a quorum when some members departed.
The Minister responsible for Canada Post was replaced in February of this year after a storm of protest. We have heard some favourable comments from the new Minister which, unfortunately, have not been translated into any action to

May 26, 1987
Supply
improve the conditions under which postal service is delivered in Canada.
The new Minister said that no closure of a rural post office or change in postal service will be undertaken. The Government said that postal service was more important than balancing the Budget by next year. However, we have not seen actions taken to put flesh on these skeletal commitments.
The committee's proposal that there should be consultation with local committees has apparently been discarded or at least devalued by the Minister saying that the final decision to close rural post offices or make other changes in rural mail service will be made by Canada Post. I respectfully submit that this response missed the point. I believe it is understood that the final decisions always lay with Canada Post. The problem was that Canada Post was not taking adequate notice of the users of the postal service or the representations of their elected representatives and their spokespeople.
I believe that it is incumbent upon Canada Post to consider very seriously the input that it receives when carrying out its responsibility to make the final decision with respect to the location.
The second report of the Government Operations Committee states: "Your committee is appalled by the heavy-handed approach taken by Canada Post in the past in its attempts to close certain rural offices. In many instances, consultation was totally lacking. It is your committee's view that rural communities deserve better treatment".
The committee went on to say: "Your committee realizes that demographic and other changes occurring in rural regions may occasionally result in the need for a post office closure or a change in postal service".
The committee recommended that in the future a minimum of 90 days' notice be given regarding each and every anticipated closure to allow for consultation to take place.
I understand that the Post Office has taken notice of that recommendation, apparently not through any good offices of the Government, but on the analysis that this was indeed the sensible, politic thing to do, as well as a fair and reasonable step to take within the context of a democratic society.
Of course, the values of information and consultation are dear to all Members of the House. They are values that cannot be translated into concrete effects unless Canada Post is willing to consider fully the information, the opinions, the wishes and the aspirations that are communicated to it by the users of the postal service.
I want to talk briefly about the situation of Canada Post being called upon to balance its budget. This objective was obviously placed on Canada Post unilaterally because there appeared to have been no consultations between the Government and Canada Post as to what might be a realistic, workable and viable business plan to enable Canada Post to reach that objective of full revenue dependency.
Of course, our system provides the Government with the right to impose such a decision, but such a right should be exercised with much more care than the Government evidently did in this case. Instead, it imposed this arbitrary deadline on Canada Post. In response to that deadline, Canada Post came up with a plan which some could scarcely describe as other than arbitrary, as is reflected in some of its objectives. Canada Post indicated that over 10 years it would close, amalgamate or privatize all of the 5,221 rural post offices. It proposed to eliminate rural lot line delivery to 100,000 customers.
Our Party believes that this plan is one that could not be considered by Canadians as providing a fair solution to the problem of the postal service paying for itself and making the appropriate changes to the postal service in order to meet the Government's deficit reduction objectives.
Privatizing 3,500 rural post offices would not be the answer. Replacing the post office with a stamp outlet in a pharmacy or a corner store will not compensate a community for the loss of such an essential institution as the post office, nor will it replace the service that the post office provides. Mail sorting would cease in rural communities. It would be further centralized. Jobs would be lost. Many secondary services which are presently operated would be obviously curtailed.
Moreover, a tradition would die. I believe that I was the first person to mention in the House that in some communities the post office is the only institution that flies the Canadian flag. I did so not to set up some form of sympathy-seeking image but simply to record in the House what I have observed in some places to be the fact.
The post office in many remote and rural communities is central to the ideal and the identity the residents of those communities, in their often widely dispersed outlying areas, feel in their identity as Canadians. In many ways the post office is the only tangible contact that some of them have with their Government. Thus it was that there was some resistance in rural communities to the idea of the post office even becoming a Crown corporation because it would mean that the link between the people and the Government would essentially be severed by the turning of Canada Post into a Crown corporation.
Some of the consequences that I have seen in my riding are obviously detracting from that relationship that should exist between every Canadian and the federal Government. I saw rural routes discontinued in Dinorwic, in Pine Wood and in Rainy River, routes eliminated and people having to travel considerable distances to pick up their mail. Indeed, I have seen lifetime customers taken off the delivery, people who had received their mail at a particular location in a box for decades no longer being able to get it there but having to travel to town, and in one case up to 70 kilometres on a round trip to pick up the mail.
May 26, 1987

These are not the only people who feel disenfranchised and left out because of Canada Post's efforts to reduce its deficits. Remote fly-in communities in my constituency, almost all Indian reserve communities, want to operate for themselves the local post offices which have been controlled for many years by companies such as the Hudson Bay Company which have their roots outside the community. This is something that the Post Office should look at now that the Hudson Bay Company has sold many of the stores which operate these post offices. Is it an appropriate time to look at a post office that is controlled by the community and where the economic benefits, the economic opportunity of operating the post office, in communities where there is very little in the way of economic benefit, can go to the permanent residents of the community?
In some communities delivery service is so erratic as to be appalling. It is a matter of pure conjecture and speculation as to whether the mail-bag will get off the plane on the day that it is supposed to get off the plane. The principle of fair and equal service that is mentioned in the Opposition Day motion is indeed a principle that in many communities in my riding is honoured more in the breach that in the observance.
For example, we have the case of communities that are totally unserved by Canada Post. These are communities where there is no mail delivery, communities such as Lac la Croix, Poplar Hill, Slate Falls, and MacDowell Lake. These are communities in which the only way of getting mail in is through the courtesy or generosity of a small airline, or even a private aircraft owner, who will pick up a bag of mail at the post office at his or her own expense of time and cost and bring it into the community on a sporadic basis, on the basis of when the opportunity to fly to the community occurs. That surely is not fair and equal service. There are other instances in which fair and equal service as a principle has been totally undermined.
In the case of a house in Fort Frances that stands on one corner of an intersection, the owner must go to the post office to pick up his mail while at the same time on the other three corners of that intersection the home owners benefit from door-to-door delivery. That is an example which I am sure we could furnish the details of to the Minister if the Minister cared to take an interest.
[Translation)
Faced with the Government's inaction on this issue, what are Canadians doing? Last December, Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of attending a major meeting in the small community of Esprit-Saint, near Rimouski. In this community of some 600 people from what I was told, there was a meeting of over 800 people. It was the largest audience, not including my party's conventions, I have ever addressed as guest speaker. The meeting was also attended by the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens) whom I now see in the House. It was during that meeting that the group "Dignite rurale du Canada" was formed to convince the Government not to make the cuts suggested in the corporate plan of the Canada Post.
Supply
Mr. Gilles Raymond, from Esprit-Saint, was elected president of this organization, which is seeking a fair and equitable treatment for rural regions. It should be emphasized that this meeting had the support of representatives from other Canadian provinces, including Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and British Columbia.
This organization, born in a Quebec village, now extends from coast to coast. For "Dignite rurale du Canada", the cuts contemplated in the plan threaten the very foundations of rural life in Canada.
As was noted by Mr. Raymond at a recent press conference, rural residents have the reputation of being stubborn and will never accept second class citizen treatment. And that is what is a stake in the Canada Post plan. Now that "Dignite rurale du Canada" includes representatives from all over this country, from all kinds of groups and organizations, from postal service users to postmasters and postal unions, it will speak with a booming voice throughout rural Canada, and we shall hear a lot from these people over the next few months.

I am happy not only to have been at the founding convention but to have seen the progress that Rural Dignity of Canada is making in bringing these important matters of postal service to the attention of the House of Commons and to the attention of the people of Canada.
Before I conclude I would like to turn briefly to some of the confrontational actions which are instanced in the opposition motion. We have had recruitment, the attempted recruitment of part-timers for a salary of $4.50 per hour on the understanding that they are to be willing to cross a picket line. We have had the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), whose rhetoric very rarely stays below the level of the inflammatory, say that maybe the military could deliver the post in the event of a strike-a great contribution, one must admit, to labour-management harmony.
O)
We have seen Canada Post stripped of representatives of labour on its board. While I do not say that Canada Post or the Government is entirely responsible for any confrontations which might occur-and I recognize that these things have a dynamic of their own-frankly we must acknowledge that the combative attitude of the Government and the obscurantist rhetoric which it allows some of its members to use cannot do anything but exacerbate the situation. Some of the roll-backs which have been demanded are obviously intended to provoke.
In today's edition of The Toronto Sun we have a report about security frisks which they are planning to introduce. Obviously this is something which could have been done in consultation with the unions, had management possessed the willingness to do so and if they had not had as part of their agenda the provocation of unions by unrealistic bargaining demands and the sort of pinpricking and harrassment to which they have subjected the unions.

May 26, 1987
Supply
I realize that I am almost out of time. I would have liked to have taken time to offer some recommendations to the Government, bearing in mind that it is, after all, every Member's responsibility to offer good advice and counsel even when it has obviously fallen on deaf ears so far.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in debate on a truly Canadian problem, a truly major concern to all Canadians.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on the motion put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). It concerns the continued deterioration of Canada postal service by undermining the principle of fair and equal services to all Canadians through the substitution of "supermailboxes" for door-to-door service and by the closure of rural post offices.
I should like to stop there and emphasize "the closure of rural post offices". I will return to that particular aspect of the motion a little later.
The motion continues as follows: "by exacerbating already disintegrating labour-management relations within Canada Post by removing labour representation from the Corporation's Board and by other confrontational actions, thereby increasing the threats of postal service disruptions or even shut-downs".
Indeed the subject matter is an important one. I believe the contents of the opposition Motion adequately represent the concerns of many Canadians with regard to this particular subject matter.
It should be noted that there have been numerous discussions about this particular Crown corporation. We have had the minority report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations which examined the 1986-87 to 1990-91 Canada Post corporate plan. In examining the corporate plan it becomes obvious to many, but particularly to those of us who have the great privilege of representing small rural communities throughout Canada, that there is a desire and an intention on behalf of the Government of Canada to prejudice, even more so than it already has, the aspirations of Canadians who live in small, rural, remote communities.
In less than 15 years from now we will be in the year 2000. I think in recent years there has been a trend toward a greater concentration of Canadians in urban areas as opposed to rural communities. Notwithstanding that particular fact of Canadian life, it is important for those individuals and for Members of Parliament who represent urban constituencies to understand and appreciate rural Canadian life.
I should like to name a few of these communities in my constituency such as Donkin, South Bar, New Victoria, Gabarouse, Sydney Forks, East Bay, St. Peter's, Louisburg, Dominion, Glace Bay, and Waterford. It is true that they do not have a CN Tower. It is true that they do not have a dome. Hon. Members opposite laugh, but it is rural Canadian life.
One of its pillars has been the institution of post offices. I know that Tories have-


Mr. Kempling:: One every two and a half miles.


David Charles Dingwall: I know the Tories do not have the same sort of appreciation for rural community life as Hon. Members on this side. I understand that. However, I guess I fail to understand and appreciate those who expound the theory and philosophy that they understand rural Canada when they, both individually, as Members who have come to this great Parliament and have taken their oath to represent their constituencies to the best of their ability, and collectively, support government measures which at best-and I know you would concur, Mr. Speaker-are Draconian and do everything to retard the economic viability and the esprit de corps-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the Post Office?


David Charles Dingwall: -in rural communities across the country. I had great admiration for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I guess I still do, but he should know, as one who comes from a constituency in western Canada, that the institution of post offices is important to rural life. It is a meeting place for members of the community to visit with others, to exchange information, to obtain information, and of course to receive their mail. This may mean the winning of a particular grant or honorarium from Government, whether national or provincial. It may be a letter from a loved one out of the country. It may be a variety of communications. Nevertheless, they have played a very important part in Canadian life.
When I listen to Hon. Members opposite talk about the closure of post offices, I find it rather frustrating to hear them, with great fanfare and smiles on their faces, say that they can close post offices without concern for the people who live in those communities. Let it be said that the symbolism that that represents to Canadian rural life is extremely important. I would think Hon. Members opposite would not want to see Canadian symbolism vis-a-vis the auspices of our postal stations across the country deteriorate if they believe as I do- and I am certain they do-in terms of Canadian unity.
The question which rural communities ask Members of Parliament, the question with which I have been confronted as a Member of Parliament is a simple one. If we lose our post offices today, what will we lose tomorrow?


Mr. Malone:: The Liberals.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member opposite wishes to "humourize" this important subject. He will have an opportunity to do so as the debate progresses. Perhaps it will be before all of us realize that it is the next election when they will have to answer for their sins. There will be many sins for which they will have to answer.
May 26, 1987

If we lose the Post Office, what do we lose next? That is the question, Mr. Speaker. The community I represent called Marion Bridge is made up of a cross-section of different individuals of different political persuasion, young and old, the unemployed and those who run small businesses who happen to live in that rural part of Cape Breton known as Marion Bridge. They were appalled to hear that the Government is contemplating closing their particular facility. They asked "What will we lose next?" Of course, the answer that government Members give is that that is not important, the ramifications, the linkages, are not important. I suggest that those ramifications are important. A rural post office whether in Summer-side, Prince Edward Island, Westmoreland-Kent, St. Leonard-a more urban area than mine-but wherever those post offices close, there are linkages. All Members of Parliament ought to be very concerned about that. Of course, the chairman of the Alberta Conservative caucus agrees with me, at least I am led to believe he does. In February, 1987 he is alleged to have said-I hope I am quoting his correctly because I would not want to steal the Hon. Member's thunder-"Canada Post discriminates. It is an unfair organization, bigotted, biased against rural people". If you were going to close post offices in rural Canada, I think the Hon. Member's statement has a great deal of merit.
I hope in the ensuing weeks and months that there will be a clearly defined statement by the Government with regard to all rural post offices in Canada, not just the select that happen to be represented by Members on the government side. I know my colleagues from the great island are in support of that.
What are the consequences for small towns and villages as a result of the closure of the rural post office? The former Minister responsible for Canada Post, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) said, "In villages and small towns across Canada, the Post Office remains one of the most frequently visited places by citizens of the community. The Post Office has, over the years, become a much needed resource centre. Members of the community know where to go in order to obtain information on a variety of subjects. The federal Government is everywhere in Canada. The Post Office is still the most familiar place which brings information to people. The Post Office is a meeting place, a meeting place for all and creates a bond between members of the community. It is a unified force which gives one the feeling of belonging".


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Are you sure that was not a church?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: That was said by the Hon. Member for Papineau, former Minister responsible for Canada Post. I think that underlines quite adequately the importance of rural post offices. I do not want to talk from a partisan perspective.


Philip Derek Lewis: David, come on.
Supply


David Charles Dingwall: I do not want to conclude my remarks in a partisan way. I want to congratulate Canada Post for seeing the sins of some of its decisions. It was to close the post office in Marion Bridge in my constituency but we are now told that we do not have this as a Governor in Council. We are told that the Government is not going to close that particular post office. How many post offices in rural Canada is the Government going to close.
I think Members of Parliament ought to give continued serious consideration as has my colleague, our critic in this area, to the effect of the closure of rural post offices. I want to be among the many to congratulate him for his persistent and continued fight on behalf of those many Canadians who live in rural Canada.


Philip Derek Lewis: Who are the other ones?


Cyril Keeper: He has converted the Liberal Party.


David Charles Dingwall: The situation in which we find ourselves is that Canadians from differert walks of life have now stated their views on the importance of a Canada Post Corporation. I know on the other side of the coin there are problems in Canada Post. We know of the delays, if you will, in delivering the mail. We realize that the deficit of that Corporation is a concern to all Canadians. I think we also realize that that particular Crown corporation, when you compare it with others, is not as bad a performer as some government Members would lead us to believe. For instance, what was Canada Post created for? To gather and distribute mail, not to make profits for the federal Government as we know is the case with provincial liquor control boards and lottery commissions. That is not to suggest that governments, regardless of their political persuasion should not attempt to try to balance the cost and revenues. Should the citizens who I happen to represent in rural parts of my constituency always be the victims of such government cut-backs? Why can it not be other areas of government activity if that is the way the Government wishes to proceed?
Given the size of the operating budget, Canada Post is probably the public service which costs the Government the smallest amount of money, having given Canada Post only $184 milion in fiscal 1985-86 or 6.2 per cent of the Corporation's total budget. The Government has to recognize that no other Crown corporation of comparable size-60,000 employees-has in modern history achieved a comparable performance. I make that statement, not suggesting that the Government is entirely wrong for trying to balance the books. But I think it has to be said, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of Crown corporations which do not perform as adequately as Canada Post. For the sake of comparison, one could look at the performance of other Crown corporations such as CN or CBC. Our Public Broadcasting Corporation has an operating budget of $1.1 billion. The public purse contributes $881 million to that particular Crown corporation. The rest of the money is raised through advertising contracts let out by the Corporation.

May 26, 1987
Supply
One can argue, and argue effectively, that perhaps the goals and aspirations of the CBC, as opposed to the goals and aspirations of Canada Post, are different. They are serving different purposes, et cetera. I wish to make the point for for Members on both sides that when you look at the effectiveness of this Crown corporation it has not been as bad as Members opposite would lead us to believe.
In the case of Canada Post Corporation, the Government has never had to finance more than 12 per cent of the organization's budget since it became a Crown corporation on October 16, 1981. In fact, the federal contribution went from 10.3 per cent in 1982-83 to 6.2 per cent in 1985-86. There were increases in the federal contribution until the fiscal year 1984-85, the famous 12 per cent indicated earlier, and then the decrease with which we are now familiar.
That is the corporate side. In the several minutes I have remaining, I would like to touch on the human side of Canada Post. I talked about the importance of rural post offices to this country. I say very sincerely that they are important to the economic life in various communities. What is also important is the human aspect of post office closures and what those closures are doing to labour relations and morale in the post offices.
I have spoken to a number of union members who work at post offices in some of the major and not so major centres. I have not found a great desire on their part to go out on strike. Rather, I found that they have a desire to raise their families and to have job security. I do not find anything inherently wrong with that, but, as my colleague has pointed out as well, I do see signs of a Government that seems to want to seek out a confrontation with Canada Post. I hope that is not the case. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is shaking his head. I do not know if he is saying yes or no.


Philip Derek Lewis: Not the case.


David Charles Dingwall: He said it is not the case. I hope that is so.
We must remember that if there is a confrontation, the management of the corporation must assume its responsibility because it is a function of management that it set the example for the rank and file to follow.
I say to the Government that it is wrong to close rural post offices across Canada because of their importance to rural Canadian life. I would hope that the Government would curtail this confrontational attitude which seems to have besieged Canada Post Corporation and which I believe is affecting negatively the esprit de corps within the corporation as well as the effectiveness of the delivery of mail.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, on the question of rural mail delivery and post offices, two assurances have been given by the Minister responsible. First, he has assured us that no rural routes will be cut, but because of the organized attempt at
scare tactics in much of this debate and in media discussion, that message is not getting through. Second, the Minister has made it clear that post offices in rural Canada will not be closed in an arbitrary manner. In cases of attrition, a post office might be re-evaluated with a view to improving the service to the people in the area. That in a nutshell is very much the position as 1 understand it put forward by the Minister on the important question of postal service.
What is reprehensible is that there have been organized attempts by special interest groups to instil in the Canadian public a fear that postal services will be cut off, that rural routes will be cut off any day and that post offices will be closed any day. The people fear that they will simply wake up some morning and there will be no mail delivery. Of course, that is far from the truth. It is a product of the imagination of special interest groups and serves no constructive purpose.
Canadians who are genuinely interested in mail service and in ensuring the continued high level of mail service deserve to know the facts. They deserve to be treated in an honest manner by all groups interested in participating in the debate on Canada's postal service.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has made some comments that are worth exploring a little further. Quite frankly, if one could accept the Hon. Member's thesis in its entirety, one would then logically say that perhaps the rural post offices that have been closed will be reinstated. Second, one would ask who has caused this fear. He has indicated that it has been special interest groups.
Let us look at special interest groups. Say, perhaps, a letter carrier, an individual who runs a very small post office in a community or a contractor who delivers mail sees rural post offices being closed. Is there anything inherently wrong with those who may be affected or are likely to be affected seeking out others who may share a similar view and a similar purpose? Is there anything wrong with them coming together to discuss the importance of a particular rural post office and the delivery of the mail? I do not find anything inherently wrong with those sorts of interest groups.
Representatives of many interest groups have come to see me. Perhaps some of them were of different political persuasions, but nevertheless, they were concerned about the importance of rural post offices to their communities. I do not fault them one bit for that and I do not think Members of Parliament would want to fault them for it either intentionally or unintentionally.
In conclusion, it is nice to hear members of the Government say that members of the Opposition are only using fear tactics. If that were the case, I do not think union representatives, municipal leaders and farm federations would be demanding that the Government change the provisions of its corporate plan or, more recently, change some of the actions it has taken.
Rural post offices are very important. I believe that because of the fight members of the Opposition have put up over the last number of weeks and months, we have given this issue
May 26, 1987

such a high profile that we have been able to force the Government to back-track on some of its decisions. I hope that will carry on into the weeks and months ahead as we progress into a new session of Parliament or indeed our next Government.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is full of poppycock, the whole can. He knows full well that he did not have anything to do with turning around the management plan of Canada Post. It was Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament in caucus who brought the matter of Canada Post's management plan to the attention of the Government, and it was members of the government Party who called for the review and brought the review forward. The Hon. Member is now trying to hitch-hike.
Almost the major part of his speech was devoted to trying to scare the glue off the stamps by pretending that every rural post office would close. He knows full well that he is factually wrong and this is nothing but rumours in the media. Therefore, will he stand in his place and give us the list of post offices in rural communities which he knows have been closed? Tell us what post offices have been closed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have obviously struck a nerve. The normally sleepy-that is not fair. He is a dreamy Member of Parliament. 1 do not know why he would want viciously to question the intentions of the people of a community such as Marion Bridge, for one, which happens to have a Conservative MLA.


Philip Derek Lewis: There are a lot of them in your part of the country.


David Charles Dingwall: Not for long. You guys are seeing to that.
While the Hon. Member has this holier than thou attitude let us just for a moment assess the people of that particular community. As a Tory perhaps he will have the guts to go to Marion Bridge in Cape Breton before a public meeting and tell those people they have it all wrong if they believe their post office is going to close. The Hon. Member and his Government have been closing rural post offices.


Philip Derek Lewis: Name one.


David Charles Dingwall: The Government is talking about attrition in the Post Office. What happens when a person reaches 65 years of age? What does that add to the effectiveness of the delivery of mail? You would have to be completely and utterly stupid to conclude, as the Hon. Member has just concluded, that it would not have any appreciable effect on the delivery of mail.
The Hon. Member says with great fanfare that the Opposition is using fear tactics. He likes to emphasize that term. Perhaps he should answer the mail of senior citizens who wait patiently for their cheques, whether it be an income supplement or a cheque they may get from their provincial or municipal Government. There are literally hundreds of them
Supply
who have written to me regarding that. They are fearful not because of what the Opposition or the media has said. They are fearful because of the Government's actions to date in closing post offices and the effect this is having on their lives.
The Hon. Member ought to come clean and tell it like it is. The Government is trying to close down rural post offices in those constituencies represented by Liberal and NDP Members of Parliament. That is what you are trying to do.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I'll be darned!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate this opportunity to enter the debate. I have listened with great interest to my hon. friend who just spoke. When we challenged him to name one post office closed by our Government he was unable to do so.
The motion condemns the Government for allowing deterioration of the postal service. It cites a host of misleading statements about postal service and management relations. I think it became very evident as the debate progressed that Hon. Members opposite have completely failed to prove their case, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight. The House will know that the Liberal Party was the Government of the day when the majority of Canada Post problems really began. The Post Office came out of the 1960s and 1970s with a host of challenges. Its reputation for maintaining anything resembling a regular service was damaged by recurring strikes resulting from the Liberal Party's inability to handle labour negotiations. The rate of absenteeism was allowed by the Liberal Party during that time to go up to double the norm. The situation became more complex because the Liberals allowed the bargaining unit to be divided into some 30 separate parts. Settlements were costly and eroded the fundamental rights of management that were needed. That is why our Party argued for a Crown corporation to deliver the mail, and when the previous Government saw the light and brought in the Canada Post Act, our Party supported it. However, that did not mean we could cure the problems of the Post Office immediately.
First we had the 6 and 5 program of the Liberal Party. That put a halt to negotiations with the postal unions during the early part of the corporation's mandate. Two years passed without any meaningful bargaining between the parties. Under our Government there has been one agreement reached with all the bargaining units covering some 48,000 employees. That was the longest period of labour stability in the Post Office since 1968 when the unions were given the right to collective bargaining.
The opposition Parties are trying to suggest that there is going to be a postal strike. It is unfortunate, as was suggested earlier, that they are using scare tactics by saying we intend to force a strike. We are negotiating in good faith and progress has been made. Yet we realize there is a need for fundamental

May 26, 1987
Supply
changes in the contract to deal with such issues as productivity, the efficient use of manpower and equipment, reduction of absenteeism, flexibility in operations, and a move towards competitive wage levels.
One thing we are trying to do, as opposed to the previous Government, is to focus the negotiations at the table and take them away from the media and the political arena. Under our Government the negotiations are being conducted by seasoned negotiators. The issue is not being politicized because, as far as we are concerned, it is an operational question, not a political question. We believe it is in the best interests of Canadians to let the Canada Post management and the unions negotiate their collective agreements with each other without political interference. Working together will bring about a reasonable settlement and a respectable and viable postal service. We believe the parties themselves can best set those parameters. We feel confident the Parties can reach a fair, effective and equitable collective agreement. We know that our side is bargaining in good faith and we feel that is happening on the other side, too.
I want to talk now for a minute about what Canada Post is supposed to be providing to Canadians, that is, a reliable, efficient and predictable postal service which will enable Canadians to receive properly prepared mail at a reasonable cost. We do not say that we will be doing it in exactly the same way as it has been done in the past. This is a big and sparsely populated country. The services vary according to the population density and the local conditions. For example, a downtown area may have the density to justify door-to-door delivery of mail by letter carrier. There is just not the density to justify the same service in smaller towns or rural areas. This does not mean that the people living there are second-class citizens. It means that the commitment to deliver the mail is met in different ways.
I represent the Town of Penetanguishene of 5,000 people, all of whom go to the post office to get their mail. They did so under the Liberals and are doing so under the Conservatives. That is no great hardship. There is, however, some criticism to be made of the previous Liberal administration because the post office is at the bottom of the hill. However, they go to get their mail.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will continue to have a variety of ways of delivering the mail. To my colleagues from the big city who expect everything handed to them on a platter I say that that is too bad. In Penetanguishene they go to the post office and pick up their mail. We live in an era in which people are more mobile. The convenience store is the norm. I do not have any difficulty with people going somewhere to get their mail.
1 want to talk for a minute about the supermailbox. Canada Post introduced the supermailbox to allow customers to receive mail and also to send it. It is suggested, and I agree, that the supermailbox is a big improvement over the green group mailboxes. When we say that we are going to eliminate the ugly green boxes over the next three years and replace them with the supermailbox, I am sure we will have the support of everybody in this House. I see my colleague, the critic for the NDP, smiling and nodding agreement. I am pleased to have his support on that. The corporation adds some 130,000 addresses each year as new homes and businesses are created. This is the best way of dealing with the problem. That is why Canada Post is developing new concepts and community mail centres.
I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, a letter which will be circulated to all Members of Parliament. It is dated May 15, 1987, and I have just had it translated. It is addressed to the Hon. Harvie Andre, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It says:
Dear Harvie:
Please record me as a strong supporter of Canada Post's super mail box program. I am completely opposed to any further increases in the price of stamps to provide universal door-to-door mail delivery. That money can be better spent on social programs or tax reductions.
In my opinion super mail boxes should be provided, everywhere there is not door-to-door delivery, immediately! All green group boxes should be replaced immediately! They are a disgrace!
In this day and age door-to-door delivery is as inefficient and impractical as door-to-door delivery of bread and milk. This is a day and age when more and more people are out of their homes each day. They pass by potential super mail box locations regularly. In fact, many of my constituents have never had door-to-door delivery. It is an unnecessary luxury, not an essential service.
Therefore, count me as a super mail box supporter. In addition, when all the super mail boxes are installed for those who presently do not have any service, please write me another letter and I will support a complete conversion to super mail boxes for everyone.
That is where I stand on the question of supermailboxes.
I want to talk about some other things with regard to our present mail system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Doug, can I have the last three minutes?


Philip Derek Lewis: The material I have is very important and, as you can see, I am driven to speak.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, old buddy.


Philip Derek Lewis: I want to talk about the present postal system. We believe that it does not meet the needs of the public. The post offices were built long ago to meet the demographic patterns of the day, those of another era. That is why in many cases the post office is not located where people do the rest of their shopping. There is no place to park and it is not open at the same convenient hours as stores.
We believe that Canada Post should use the convenience and expertise of private retail businesses to make its services and products more available to Canadians. Under the administration of the Liberal Party you could buy postage stamps only at the post office. Through franchising we will make it as easy for Canadians to buy stamps as it is to buy cigarettes and lottery tickets. I do not know why the NDP does not support that concept of supplying a service to Canadians.
May 26, 1987

My hon. colleague shakes his head when I suggest that we will make it easy for Canadians to buy stamps. Why not? What is the matter with the storeowner who sells a lottery ticket also selling a stamp? What is the big mystery about stamps? Why can Canadians not buy them anywhere they want? The New Democratic Party does not want people to be able to buy stamps anywhere.
Let it be shown on the record that the Conservative Party wants to make it easy for Canadians to buy stamps. We believe it is a commodity which one should be able to purchase anywhere. That is the reason behind our policy for franchising Post Office operations. We want to make it easy to buy stamps, register letters and send parcels. It is a tragedy that the NDP is against this.
There has been some suggestion that we are amalgamating post offices and eliminating obvious redundancies. That is not a new matter. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future. We want to make the system more efficient. In the future we will not be building buildings and hiring people to provide access. We will instead use the modern tool of today, the supermailbox. We will consult with people when we amalgamate post offices, as my hon. colleague suggested. We are committed to a reliable service. We are committed to delivering the mail.
The vast majority of the mail is delivered on time. However, the percentage of failures spread over the number of people affected can certainly make it look as though there were some problems. We admit that this service is not as reliable as we want it to be and was not as reliable as we wanted it to be in the past. Our administration is reviewing the system and procedures.
I regret that my time is up because there is so much more I wanted to say about the remarkable record of the Government in dealing with Canada Post. I did want to have an opportunity to answer questions from my hon. colleague, the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr.   Deputy-Speaker@: The debate being concluded, proceedings on this Opposition motion have expired, pursuant to Standing Order 82(12).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) on April 7, 1987, regarding the administration of the farm fuel tax rebate. At that time the Minister of National Revenue assured the House that he and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had been discussing the possibility of improvement to the administrative efficiency of the program. He sought ways in which the program could be made even more beneficial.
The program is already very beneficial to the producers. It is not, however, particularly beneficial to the many bulk fuel dealers who are forced to carry the delivery costs of this program. The farm fuel tax relief program reduces the burden of farm input costs. It is one of the ways by which the Government is helping Canadian farmers fight the cost price squeeze. The rebates on farm gasoline and diesel fuel effectively offset the federal sales and excise tax on these products. These rebates have saved Canadian farmers more than $100 million in 1986-87.
The problem with the farm fuel tax relief program is not with the treatment of the consumer, but with the application of the program to bulk fuel dealers. There are essentially two kinds of bulk fuel dealers. There is the commission agent who holds his inventory on consignment. Thus, the inventory he holds is free of any sales tax. There is the independent who purchases his fuel from a manufacturer and pays sales tax on the purchased fuel. His inventory is tax paid.
All dealers can sell fuel to the primary producers free of tax. However, the crux of the matter is that the independent bulk fuel dealers have to apply to the federal Government to secure a refund of the sales tax which they have already paid on their inventory at the time of purchase from the refiner. The independent has to secure a refund, but the commission agent does not. In other words, the independent bulk fuel dealer must carry some of the Government's cost of delivering this program while the commission agent does not have to do so.
What is the cost to the independent dealer? It is the interest foregone for various periods on almost $29 million in tax rebates between December 1, 1984 and December 31, 1986. It should be noted that the independent dealer has no choice but to claim rebates on behalf of their customers. While this is an elective provision of the program in theory, the real world gives the independent fuel dealer no other choice. If he does not collect the rebate on behalf of his customer, he loses the customer.
It is worth noting that any delay between the time of sale by the independent bulk fuel dealer to his customers and the time he actually receives reimbursement of that tax upon application to the federal Government is an inappropriate cost to the dealer to deliver the federal Government program. Furthermore, any delay puts the independent dealer at a competitive disadvantage to the commission agent. In other words, the Government program, which should treat all dealers the same

May 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
way, in fact treats one group more favourably than the other. I remind the House that most dealers are one person or at least one family operations.
I endorse the recommendation of over a year ago of either a provision for a cash advance or a float to dealers; or the payment of interest to dealers on the tax rebate owing by the Government.
It is worth noting that the turnaround time on refunds has improved from the 60 days that it was at the beginning of the program to about 40 days, as I am told by dealers. Elowever, I am told by bulk fuel dealers that they often have to apply for the current month's refund when they have not as yet received the previous month's refund. I submit that this is too much of a cost for those independent bulk fuel dealers to bear.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government as you know has been financially helping Canadian farmers through a number of important programs. This is done among others through the Canadian Special Grains Program under the Western Grain Stabilization Act.
As far as consumer taxes are concerned, the fuel tax rebate is one of the most significant. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that it was implemented soon after the Conservative Government was elected in 1984. It enables farmers and other primary producers to recoup the federal sales tax levied on fuels used for production purposes.
Practically all compensation programs entail certain management costs for the beneficiaries and the suppliers. Under the present system, it is not easy to provide help to one selected group of final users when the tax is levied on manufacturers' sales. In those circumstances, a rebate application must be filled to obtain the benefit of the program. Farmers can fill their applications themselves. The application may also be submitted either by the retailer who sells fuel to farmers eligible to the rebate, or the refinery itself.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that many farm fuel retailers enjoy extended payment terms to refiners. I have also learned that currently, Revenue Canada is sending rebate cheques to retailers 22 to 25 days after duly completed forms are received. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it may happen that a retailer receive his tax rebate before he pays his fuel supplier, and perhaps even before his farmer client pays for the fuel.
Admittedly, Mr. Speaker, all applications are not processed as rapidly because of delays due to clerical errors or because the user's status has to be checked. However, I am convinced that most of them are processed within a very short time.
If the Hon. Member is aware of cases where retailers experienced undue delays, I would ask him to inform Revenue Canada in order that the latter may take the necessary steps. I believe the Minister of Revenue to date obtained good results as to sending rebates to retailers.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, the cash advances recommended by the Hon. Member do not seem to be warranted for the time being.
[DOT]	(1805)


AIRPORTS-PROVISION OF FIRE-FIGHTING SERVICES- DEPARTMENT'S REGULATIONS
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, this evening my question on the Adjournment Debate is related to a matter of grave concern to many people. First, it concerns the travelling public.
My question relates to safety and the way in which our firefighters and those who work to deal with crashes of aircraft cope with emergencies at our airports. My question tonight relates to the way in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has evaded his responsibilities in dealing with the protection of the public when it travels in aircraft and the protection of flight crews which have the responsibility to fly aircraft into our airports-in fact, it relates to the safety of all concerned.
The Minister was asked by myself on March 31 about this matter. At that time I brought to his attention the fact that the Government is trying to save a measly $1 million by cutting back from seven to five the required number of people who should be on hand to carry out fire-fighting, safety and crash emergency work.
A further point I made was that the number of personnel hours has actually been reduced and that, in fact, some of our airports have acted at times, from midnight until 8 a.m. on one occasion in the case of Regina airport, with no fire-fighters at all at the site while very large planes arrived. This lack of concern about the well-being of the public is absolutely scandalous.
[DOT]	(1810)
I should like to ask again the question which the Minister evaded. Why is he trying to save $1 million by cutting back on safety? In fact the Canadian Association of Airline Pilots brought to his attention that they do not even feel safe in landing airplanes in Canadian airports in light of the developments resulting from a change in air transport safety policy by the Minister. He has cut back the number of dollars available to bring in people when crews are short staffed because of illness or whatever. There is no money to bring in people under those circumstances.
We also see that the handicapped are gravely endangered by the new policy. We hear pious words from the Government about its concern in the area of transportation for the handicapped. In fact, some dollars have been put into the effort. On the other hand, they have been nullified and the lives of the handicapped are endangered.
The minimum number of people required to put out a fire is five people with five trucks. We know perfectly well that four
May 26, 1987

trucks and one person being used to direct is not adequate. The job of fire-fighters is not only to put out the fire or to make a passageway so that people can escape from the airplane. We also know that they have an obligation to go on board the airplane if necessary to save passengers. For example, if the crew inside is overcome, it is the task of fire-fighters to save the people on board. We know perfectly well that four trucks with four drivers and one person directing is an impossible situation.
Contrary to what the Minister tried to lead us to believe, the task is not merely to clear a passageway. One primary task of fire-fighters is to go aboard airplanes to save lives. We certainly know that handicapped people need extra help. Also we know that the trucks have rescue equipment with which to save people, not merely put out fires. The purpose of rescue squads is to save lives. One would in fact think that it would be the primary concern.
The reply of the Minister of Transport was totally inadequate. In fact, he played with words in order to confuse us rather than be forthcoming about the fact that his changes in the regulations have greatly endangered the public, the people who are flying airplanes, and in fact fire-fighters themselves, by reducing their ability to call in people when someone has reported sick to bring their staff up to full strength or to call in people to fill in for other part-time workers.
About half the time we find airports manned by the minimum number according to the statistics given by CALPA. Sometimes they do not even have the required number because of problems such as illness or other reasons.
I would suggest that the Minister was playing with words when he suggested that there was no reduction in staff because there are 657 full-time employees. However, all provisions for on-call staff are obliterated. Most airports work with a minimum number now. Therefore, with no on-call staff available, there is in fact a reduction in staff.
This morning Transport Canada staged a mock airport disaster at Pearson International Airport. Thousands of dollars were spent on videos to show how a disaster would be taken care of. First, there were some hitches. Second, and contrary to what the Minister of Transport said, what actually happened was that the Mississauga fire-fighters were at the airport standing by, on hand, whereas in reality it takes from 15 minutes to half an hour for auxiliary fire-fighters from Mississauga to reach the Pearson International Airport. It was a fraud, and the Minister of Transport should own up to it.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the Hon. Member on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). It provides me with an opportunity to speak on this very, important issue. This Government has repeatedly stated that safety is our highest priority. That position has not and will not change.
Adjournment Debate
Fire protection standards at Canadian international airports are based on the recommended practices of the International Civil Aviation Organization, otherwise known as ICAO, which has been accepted by international airports throughout the world. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that applies these same high standards at domestic airports across the country. The average number of fire-fighters at Canadian airports is 25 per cent higher than the United States average. Twice as much per passenger is spent on fire-fighting and rescue services at Canadian airports as in the United States.
If the criteria for provision of fire protection services currently used in Australia were applied in Canada, then only 41 airports would qualify for fire-fighting service as compared to the more than 100 airports currently receiving this service.
The primary role of crash fire rescue, CFR, is to prevent, control or extinguish fire involving or adjacent to an aircraft for the purpose of protecting the aircraft fuselage and providing an escape area for its occupants. Once the primary task is done, the CFR crew assist in the evacuation of occupants from the aircraft.
CFR services are only part of the over-all response to an aircraft accident. Support personnel are necessary to mount an effective response to a major accident in order to provide the evacuation of passengers and medical treatment to the injured.
Each support team has specific assigned roles and is comprised of airport-based personnel and externally based emergency services.


Roland de Corneille: Not true.


Thomas Gordon Towers: The prime function of CFR services continues to be preventing, controlling and extinguishing fire situations. I would point out to the Hon. Member opposite that this is not the case in the United States and other countries where firefighters are required to perform other duties, such as the rescue component, security and paramedic and ambulance services.
The important role played by, for example, airline flight crews, ground crews, airport fire-fighters, other airport workers, fire and police services in adjacent communities, ambulance services and medical staff in responding to an airport emergency, cannot be overstated. Mobilization of this extensive support network is necessary to mount an effective response to a major accident. Canadian airport personnel devote a great deal of time and effort to the development and testing of emergency plans at airports in order to ensure a full and effective response should an accident occur.
In recent years, the older equipment has been replaced with modern equipment and fire trucks that can be operated to capacity by one person. This gives more flexibility in deploying the full fire-fighting team. We now have 74 new crash vehicles on order to meet replacement needs and additional new requirements at airports. There will be increases and decreases

May 26, 1987
Adjournment Debate
in staff and equipment at airports from time to time as The Secretary of State found occasion to recognize that changes occur in airline services and as new technology and	anniversary in the House, and on that day I responded to him.
equipment becomes available.	As well, he found another occasion to announce the Prime
I am pleased to confirm the good work being done by	Minister's declaration of the week of April 12 to 18 as the first
members of the airport fire-fighting teams in providing CFR	annual Citizenship Week. With these realities before us, what
services to the travelling public. This valuable service is being	can we say about the failure t0 ensure that the system of
performed in a consistently excellent manner, bringing credit	Citizenship Court judges is adequate to the need in the
to those involved.	growing cities of Canada?


CITIZENSHIP COURTS-DELAY IN PROCESSING APPLICATIONS- APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 of this year I asked the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie) the following question:
Is the Minister aware that thousands of people in such cities as Calgary await processing of their citizenship applications, meanwhile having lost the right to travel using the passports of their countries of origin?
The Secretary of State of Canada replied:
yes, 1 am aware of the problem. We are trying to address it with existing resources.
I then followed with the question:
How soon does the Minister expect to appoint enough citizenship judges to ensure that people will not be kept waiting months to receive Canadian citizenship during this fortieth anniversary of the Citizenship Act?
To that question, the Secretary of State responded:
the report from Dr. Sutherland is now available. In fact, I received it on Friday afternoon. I hope to make appointments by mid-May.
The matter of having enough citizenship court judges to ensure that persons who wish to become Canadian citizens can do so expeditiously is an important matter to every person involved in the process. As I suggested in one of my questions, it involves the specific hardship faced by those persons who have applied for Canadian citizenship and have to wait many months, living in uncertainty because they have lost their right to travel on the passports of the countries from which they came. If anything were to require their return, if compassionate circumstances were to arise, they might find themselves in very real difficulty. That human aspect of the situation calls on the Government to deal expeditiously with this matter.
I would like to suggest that the problem that has arisen is symptomatic of other difficulties the Government has created and that the failure in this area is typical of the slowness of action in other areas, such as the revision of the Official Languages Act and the presentation of amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act which have been promised for many, many months and for which we continue to wait. It is symptomatic of the failure of the Department headed by Captain Canada, as he himself likes to be called when speaking to students, to focus on the shortcomings in the appointments of Citizenship Court judges by the Secretary of State. I say this with all the more energy because this is after all the fortieth anniversary of the Citizenship Act.
Citizenship Courts themselves are an essential experience for those who want to become Canadians. It should be a good experience. Yet, because of the delays that have arisen for some who will soon be fellow citizens, they are experiencing just the opposite of the kind of good government they should experience. This experience of inefficiency was forcefully presented to me in Calgary where 4,000 persons have applied and some have waited for as long as eight months. This really underscores the urgency of this matter.
I do not suppose all of these potential Canadians realize that the problem has to do with the patronage system which prevails in the Canadian Government. They do not realize that in the past months, the persons who were appointed by the previous Government have come to the end of their terms and this Government, through the well established system of patronage that exists, has allowed appointments to lapse without acting expeditiously to appoint new persons. This, of course, leaves us wondering about the patronage system which operates through the Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet. This is, in fact, a little lesson in the nuts and bolts of the Canadian political system that is being experienced by these soon to be fellow citizens.
Since the last weeks of 1986, there has been a further difficulty in that some of the persons who had been appointed, and specifically two judges, came into controversy because of the kinds of questions they asked and the kinds of conversations they carried on with applicants for Canadian citizenship.
I recognize that that has probably complicated things for Captain Canada and, I suppose, has justified some investigation of the situation.
Clearly, the process of examining applicants for Canadian citizenship should be carried out in a careful, impartial and dispassionate manner. I always appreciate the opportunity to take part in Citizenship Courts in Thunder Bay. In this way they present Canadian life and Canadian Government in the best possible way.
I want to note that the Secretary of State of Canada was quoted last month in The Globe and Mail as saying that good government makes good politics. All we have to do is practice good government. I could not agree more. Applicants for Canadian citizenship are waiting for just that kind of demonstration. We have not had any judges appointed since the middle of May. In fact, there has been only one renewal and one new appointment over the last five months.
May 26, 1987

If I were to provide some further advice to the Minister concerning Citizenship Court judges, I would commend to him a phrase he himself used, something that was said by one of our Fathers of Confederation, Thomas Darcy McGee. He said more than 100 years ago that we should lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, rise above all low limitations and narrow circumscriptions, cultivate that true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races, in order to make of our boundless province, so rich in known and unknown resources, a great new northern nation. That is the spirit in which Citizenship Court judges should be acting, and I trust that the Minister will shortly be appointing judges who can fulfil their functions in just that spirit.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State understands quite well the concern expressed by my colleague the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) about the appointment of citizenship judges. He even shares this concern and has already taken steps to address the problem.
On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of Canadian Citizenship to which my honourable friend referred a while ago, the Minister devoted quite a lot of time and attention to the whole issue of citizenship and, in particular, to the significance of the privileges and responsibilities which this status involves. The Minister will table shortly for discussion purposes a major document on the citizenship issue. The purpose of all this is to update our Citizenship Act and strenghten it to emphasize the rights as well as the challenges attached to our status as Canadian citizens.
This new direction in the legislation must take into account a number of related issues. We have made every effort to improve the whole system involved in granting citizenship,
Adjournment Debate
which implies that we have also had to review the citizenship judge appointment process.
Last January, the Minister entrusted the Chief Citizenship Judge, Mrs. Elizabeth Wilcock, with a mandate to review this process. In turn, Judge Wilcock asked Carleton University Professor Sharon Sutherland to review the Citizenship Court system and submit a report.
This report has just been submitted to the Minister who will soon take further action. To us, this question seemed too important to be dealt with in a hurry, before we had the study and recommendations of Professor Sutherland. Now that the Minister has had time to review this report, he wants to move swiftly. He expects to be able to proceed with new appointments of Citizenship Court judges very shortly.
Last week, a judge of the Edmonton Citizenship Court held hearings in Calgary. Hearings pertaining to applications received at the end of January and beginning of February are being scheduled, and this delay of some four months is reasonable when one considers that the normal time frame is four to six months. I want to assure the House that urgent requests from people who need a Canadian passport to travel abroad, for example, are processed in priority.
As I mentioned, if there is a temporary backlog in a court, judges from other courts come and help their colleagues. The problems encountered these last few months are due to the thorough review undertaken by the Minister, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that a more effective and more efficient system will result from it for the benefit of the thousands of individuals who will wish to join our great country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

May 26, 1987

[Stage Direction]
of
FRANCOIS MITTERRAND President of the French Republic to
Both Houses of Parliament in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa on
Monday, May 25, 1987
The President was welcomed by the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Guy Charbonneau, Speaker of the Senate, and Honourable John A. Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
Hon. John A. Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Order, please.
Mr. President, on behalf of all Members of the Senate and the House of Commons, we welcome you to the Parliament of Canada.
We are honoured to have you in our midst.

I now invite the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to introduce our distinguished guest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. President, it is a profoundly moving occasion for me to introduce you to the Members of our House of Commons and Senate. Your presence in this Chamber marks a highpoint in relations between our two countries.
The visit you embark upon today is without doubt inspired by friendship. Yet we know it must be viewed equally in a broader context, one that embraces both continuity and change.
Your purpose in coming here was to affirm the enduring ties that bind us: language and culture, our allegiance to the values of freedom and democracy, and the solidarity that has drawn us closer in times of crisis.
From the trenches of Picardy in one war, to the beaches of Normandy in the next, thousands of Canadians have made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty.
As they are remembered in the hearts of their fellow citizens in Canada, so is their memory honoured in France, from Vimy Ridge to Beny-sur-Mer. One is a famed memorial, and the other a simple country cemetery where French and Englishspeaking Canadians, officers and enlisted men, without
distinction as to language or rank, have found a final resting place together.
Nowhere is our nation more united, Mr. President, that in such small corners of yours. In rendering homage at our National Cenotaph this morning, you have not only honoured all Canadians, but also the memory of those brave souls.
The durability of France, the constancy and creativity she represents, are personified today in one of her most distinguished sons, a great President who has our respect and admiration and whom we welcome.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yet at the same time, your official visit comes amid the irreversible tide that sweeps all shores and demands a new perspective.

Our country has taken decisive steps in the course of an intensive but necessary evolution which has made us more aware of our own identity.
We have summoned the national resolve and the clarity of purpose to face the vital challenges of our time. We resolved them in our own country, among ourselves, as we should, in the full exercise of our sovereignty. In so doing, we have found the way to a new national consensus. Today, Canada is following that path with determination, fully aware of our responsibility toward the future.
Twenty years after General de Gaulle's visit, you will find, Mr. President, a Canada at peace with itself, aware of its diversity and resolved to recognize it with respect, tolerance and generosity. In the week ahead you will cross a country that spans a continent, a nation confident of its role and eager to contribute its share to world peace and justice.
For the first time a President of the French Republic will officially travel across Canada to the heartland of the Prairies and then on to a great metropolitan area in Toronto. For the first time he will bear France's greetings to Canadians of Acadian descent after renewing the special cordial ties between his country and Quebec.
Today we turn a new page in the history of the relationship between France and Canada. We cannot change the past, but we can shape our future. What matters is the chapter we write together. It holds great promise for political rapprochement, industrial co-operation and increased trade.
Mr. President, on behalf of all Canadians may I tell you that your presence here today will contribute enormously to the renewal of that relationship.
[ Translation]
Another way to fulfil these hopes is by achieving francophone solidarity. History will credit you as the artisan of the Paris Summit, where heads of state and government from some 40 countries, and all five continents, gathered last year.
May 26, 1987

The agreement we reached with the Governments of Quebec and New Brunswick, as you know, removed the final obstacle to building a new solidarity within the French-speaking community. The Government of Canada eagerly joined this worthy venture.
The interests of Canada as a whole, embracing both French and English cultures, demand that we foster our participation in La Francophonie and the Commonwealth. This double window on the world makes Canada the meeting-place of two of the great currents of international relations.
As a manifestation of our commitment to La Francophonie, it was our desire that Quebec City be the site of the second Summit this coming September. Let no one overlook the significance of holding the Summit on the banks of the St. Lawrence. It is a clear and serene recognition of Canada's, and Quebec's, role in the francophone family.
We desire to fulfil this vocation as equals, following an approach focused on modern and concrete objectives.
Other, equally pressing considerations, warrant and require closer ties with France.
These stem from Europe's importance in international politics and economics. As an inexhaustible reservoir of human resources and skills, and as an enlarged community, Europe plays a pre-eminent role in world affairs.
Flow could anyone overlook the unified domestic market of 320 million consumers the Europe of the 90s will become? And how could anyone not see that France lies at the very heart of the grand design of Europe?

That is another reason why we are working to develop even closer ties with your country.
But our co-operation must be nourished with substance, and must develop around initiatives that touch the basic interests of our two nations. We must expand the scope of our bilateral activities, involving scientists, for example, and business leaders. Above all, we must never relent in the persistence of our efforts. For we are only at the beginning of the road, which is as long as the successes awaiting us can be far-reaching.
And there shall be problems, perhaps some serious problems, along the way. The issue of fishing quotas and the fixing of the boundary line for the offshore limits around St. Pierre and Miquelon constitute a test of our political maturity and ability to resolve our differences through the promotion of our mutual interests. France must surely be aware of the difficult nature of this controversy, and of the seriousness of the issues it raises for our fishermen in Atlantic Canada, as well as for Canadian sovereignty. 1 know, Mr. President, you share my view that this matter be resolved fairly.

Your stay among us comes at a moment in history when the dynamics of the situation and our own aims have converged. We have before us a wide field of responsibilities. We have before us opportunities which history, and our own peoples, will not permit to slip away.
The time has come not only for awareness, but for action; not only to renew promises, but to fulfil them; not only to evoke our roots, but to make them bear fruit.
We Canadians cherish our unique heritage from France, her elan, her culture, her humanism. We cherish her as one of our two mother countries.
Loyal as they are to the values of the past, we are also mindful of the realities of tomorrow. That is why Canadians choose to go forward together, with you, with France.
Mr. President, I speak on behalf of all Canadians in saying how happy and delighted we are to have you among us.
All week long, Mrs. Mitterrand and you will receive the special welcome we reserve for our fondest friend. At every stop, you will be reminded that Canada is, for France, a land of friendship and brotherhood.
Members of the House, distinguished Senators, I am honoured to present to you the President of the French Republic, Mr. Franqois Mitterrand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Franqois  Mitterrand@President of the Republic of France: Speakers of the House and the Senate, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen. 1 am moved by the tribute I have just received on behalf of France and 1 am honoured by this most cordial welcome to your Parliament.
After meeting this morning with Her Excellency the Governor General and with the Prime Minister, 1 now have the privilege of speaking to you, ladies and gentlemen, the elected representatives of Canada and guardians of the institutions that have made your country one of great democracies of the world.
Actually, 1 was a parliamentarian in my country for 35 years, in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Since 1981, however, when I was elected President of the Republic, 1 have had to leave all that behind me. 1 do not have the right to enter the very precincts where I worked for so many years and where, in fact, 1 seldom received such a unanimous welcome. Sometimes there are feelings of regret, and when visiting one of our friends, as I am doing today, 1 like to compensate. I take a personal pleasure, as well as pride, in representing my country before assemblies like yours, and 1 want to thank you once again.
Perhaps I may comment, first of all, that Canada's political structures, that your country's economic and social framework and the positions you defend at the international level, reflect a focus on common ideals.

May 26, 1987
France and Canada share the conviction that they cannot conceive of a future without pluralism, without alternating majorities, the unrestricted expression of divergent views, and the rule of a majority that respects minorities.
On behalf of the French people, I would like to transmit to you, and through you to every man, woman and child in this country, the feelings of friendship of our country for yours. The message that France sends you is one of friendship and solidarity. And I could repeat, word for word, what was said by the Prime Minister, and I thank him for saying them. Because of the kind of society we have chosen, and notwithstanding differences that are grounded in our respective history, geography and customs, dialogue is second nature to us.
Indeed, our past has made the relationship between Canada and France a rather special one. Since the beginning of modern history and the time of the great explorers, the French have played a major role in the life of your country. The descendants of those who came here originally, who today number several million, represent over one quarter of the population and occupy a unique and inimitable position alongside their English-speaking compatriots. We see communities that are dynamic and enterprising, faithful to their traditions but also very much of this modern day and age and this continent. Unique and, at the same time, universal, they contribute to the rich diversity of this great country of yours. Canada's bicultural dimension brings joy to the heart of every Frenchman, and to my own, I can assure you, and perhaps I may also say a few words, although there would be so much to say, about the sacrifices made by your fathers and brothers in two World Wars. Whatever their origins and wherever they had their homes, whatever opposing sides they may have taken in the past, they were now fighting on the same side, with us. Would victory and freedom have been possible without the presence of these young men from all over the world, and particularly from Canada?
Prime Minister, you mentioned several historic places where the memory, suffering and death of so many are mourned, and where tragedy is still present in the hearts of so many mourners. It was the price we had to pay for freedom.
Ladies and gentlemen, we owe so much to your soldiers, and I would like to take this opportunity, at this solemn moment, to address these words to your compatriots who are listening to us now.
If I may, I would like to comment on some of the major issues of the day. My choice will be rather arbitrary, because otherwise there would be too much to say, and too little time to say it.
The world is in a crisis. Some people would say it always is. In any case, we have the feeling that the crisis we are experiencing today may be worse than at other times in our
history. Our problems are similar. We have to fight unemployment. We have to create a new environment to create new jobs and to prepare our countries for the next century. We must intensify all forms of intellectual creativity, we must intensify research and increase the capabilities of our intellects from childhood onward, so that we will finally have the means to master the secrets of the material world and thus enhance the human condition. We have to modernize our production equipment. We have to make our economies more competitive, since we are largely dependant on external trade. We have every interest in further developing trade between our countries. One imagines that Canada's natural tendency would probably be to trade mainly with the United States of America, while ours would be to trade with our Common Market neighbours. Nevertheless, I think that considering the modest level of our trade relationship, our two countries could do far more and far better. I hope that during this visit, we will be able to explore some possibilities for the future.
In fact, various agreements concluded in recent years have provided for increased co-operation in space, oceanology, oceanography and biotechnology, all of which involve new procedures that will stimulate industrial innovation. In January, we agreed to facilitate relations between our small business groups. Although relations between our scientists, industrialists and business people are little developed, there has been definite progress, both bilaterally-I am thinking of the SPOT satellite-and in connection with multilateral projects, and I refer to the European Eureka project. When our interests clash, on occasion, as on the fisheries issue, I believe that with a little common sense, concern for the law and the political will to settle disputes, we should be able to resolve these problems.
Ladies and gentlemen, at this point I would like to comment briefly on the world economic situation. The problems have been identified, and a response is of the essence. Prime Minister, in two weeks or so, we will be meeting again in Venice, where we shall have to deal with some of the problems that are of international concern.
I want to stress the urgency of some of the decisions to be made, and on an occasion that would seem entirely appropriate for discussing, in full recognition of the sovereignty and equality of our respective countries, the major problems we share, I would like to take this opportunity to outline four principles.
The first of these directions would be for countries with a trade surplus to use whatever leeway they have to boost their own growth and stimulate the growth of other countries.
The second direction would be to promote the recovery of the international monetary system by taking steps to stabilize exchange rates with respect to mutually agreed reference zones, to lower interest rates and to better co-ordinate efforts to control market speculation.
Thirdly, we should try to remove protectionist barriers in every area, since protectionism is present everywhere, in the
May 26, 1987

services, industrial and agricultural sectors. I know that discussions are under way with your neighbour, the United States of America, a special free trade agreement within the framework of GATT and along common rules. I wish you the best of success, granted that we have accepted common rules that apply to you as to ourselves. However, let us be open on this. Let us quit fighting over deadlocks between Europe and the American continent or Third World countries. Let us admit that protectionism is found in each and every country, and that what may be left for us to do is to compare and identify where protectionism is openly allowed in legislation or regulation, where it hides in hypocritical fashion behind the customs and traditions, where it takes the form of imperialist action, or simply where it so often appears by way of laisser-faire when leaders responsible for managing the world should in fact strive to reach an agreement for the well-being of all nations.
I have mentioned those three directions, but what I have is foremost in my mind at the present time is the fourth one. It is a concern with the future of the Third World, of developing countries, and especially with the problem of indebtedness. One may consider postponing the date of payment, extending repayment schedules for the most indebted countries. One could think of designing more generous procedures in the Club of Paris. But in my opinion, at the present time, we should mostly consider, without excluding any other solution, recycling on a multilateral basis part of the financial surpluses of those countries which do have surpluses. We should think of Japan, we might after all think of Germany too. Whoever reaches that stage, enjoys a fairly prosperous economy, should become very clearly aware of a new stage of responsibility. We would then increase the means of the international monetary fund. We would increase the capital of the World Bank and help those countries of the Third World which are among the poorest get through this tragedy which will eventually hurt the whole world.
I frequently tell my fellow citizens that there are probably two major war threats for the next century: The atomic bomb or nuclear war with unending confrontations leading to a competition that may reach a paroxysmal stage, but also the widening of the gap between rich and poor countries. Both our countries, though, are among the few which have decided to assign a significant percentage of their national product to the co-operation with the least developed countries.
I am aware of the increasing share of the Canadian revenue which is set aside every year throughout the world, through private initiatives or through the actions of public agencies, to fight under-development, and I thank you for that. I thank you, for that cause has been a deep, longstanding concern of mine.
As for France, it has significantly increased its assistance, especially in the past six years, and is intending to reach as
quickly as possible, as recommended by international institutions, the figure of .7 per cent of its Gross National Product to be used for development assistance.
But what is the reality we are facing today? Southern countries or so-called southern countries are hurt more than others by the slowing down of international growth, by the dramatic fall in the prices of raw materials, and by the burden of their debt.
Is it normal that the poor countries should be forced to refund every year more than the new amounts getting in? Can they ask their populations to produce more and more all the time while receiving an ever smaller share of the product of their work?
Remember when a procedure was set up in the early 1980s, when some countries in the Middle East had considerable surplus capital. Let us do it again, let us follow that procedure. Since the end of the Second World War, those circumstances have occurred several times. I hope your country as well as mine are willing to take a leadership role in this vast initiative which will lead responsible, industrial, advanced nations to understand that there lies the answer for themselves as well as for others to the great question mark of our time.
Of course, ladies and gentlemen, the future of our planet does not only depend on the capabilities of states to ensure an adequate economic growth for the world. That will not solve all the needs of mankind. That future depends even more immediately on their capacity to preserve peace.
I made some comments on the organization of markets, on the fight against monetary disorder, on the necessary assistance to the development of poor countries. But I would like to say a few words about peace.
Having been invaded three times in 75 years, France is very much aware of the drama this represents, I can assure you. I referred to the help of Canadian soldiers. I lived through World War II myself, and I was born during World War I. How could my generation not be essentially marked by this nearly cyclical return to confrontations which, in the case of Europe alone, were the signal of a tragic civil war from which we are barely beginning to recover!
Shortly after the second conflict my country became a signatory to the Charter of the United Nations and its underlying principles. As a permanent member of the Security Council, France never hesitated to support the international organization. She helped it fulfil its duties, she denounced encroachments upon the rights of nations and individuals, she contributed as required to the peacekeeping operations. On behalf of the United Nations, France is still present on sites where the strongest passions clash.
The fact remains that the ratio of military strength, especially between the two most powerful nations, has led to massive stocks of weapons and a dangerous imbalance.
Despite efforts, the disarmament negotiations have not made it possible to limit, let alone reduce the massive strategic

May 26, 1987
arsenals of the United States of America and of the Soviet Union.
The so-called ABM treaty, to this day the only major arms control agreement still in force, is the object of vigourous debates which make us fear it may be weakened and even disappear.
Only the negotiations on so-called intermediate nuclear weapons, which do not cross the Atlantic but can reach all European countries, now show some signs of progress. And I say loudly from this podium that France hopes they will be successful. Let us not forget, incidentally, that the object of disarmament is to increase rather than to decrease security, to maintain rather than to compromise balances.
Our hope is that an intermediate nuclear weapons agreement is only one step towards disarmament, a step linked with the strategic disarmament on one hand-some 11,000 nuclear warheads in the Soviet Union, 12,000 to 13,000 in the United States of America-a step linked with the strategic disarma-nent on one hand and, on the other, with the disarmament of conventional forces, chemical weapons, or any other kind of weapon of whatever range which may lead to confrontation. All this within the limits of control, of flawless verification, that is to say of full respect for previous commitments.
France, as you know, is not party to the ongoing negotiations. She was not asked to sit at the disarmament negotiation table. Had she been asked, she would have refused. Indeed, as long as the two major powers remain at the stage where they are now, with the number of nuclear warheads I just mentioned, before asking others, particularly Great Britain or France which do have weapons, of course, but barely one hundred or two hundreds, great progress would have to be accomplished. Such is the theme I developed before the United Nations in 1983. But my country, like her neighbours, simply has to be concerned over a conflict or over the ongoing disarmament negotiations. And if we aim to preserve our independent strategy of nuclear deterrent, upon which we believe our security rests, we want to add our efforts to those of others to reduce tensions.
Ladies and gentlemen, France lies only a few hundred kilometres from the world on the other side of this Europe cut in half, from Teheran to Yalta. With her immediate neighbours she founded a community, six at first, a specifically continental group, then nine, ten, twelve. This Europe, we would like it to be able to organize its economy, 320 million people, a wider market than that of the United States of America, much wider than that of the Soviet Union, a body of technical and scientific competence, larger than Japan's, a historical capacity not to dominate-for henceforth such words cannot apply to the world's future-but to guarantee the presence of each of the states and nations of which it is made up.
Such is our first choice, our first will, our first objective. We want to build Europe and we are dedicated to this end. We are confronted with many obstacles. I was a young parliamentarian in 1948, nearly 40 years ago, attending the first European Congress, three years after the end of World War II, a congress chaired by Churchill. The Germans were there, and in each of our families grief, sorrow, separation and suffering still marked our mind when they had not marked our body. And yet a few of us were seeking reconciliation, to begin by France-Germany reconciliation, to help the other nations of Europe. Building Europe as we are doing today is not to dream nor to project onto an unknown horizon the too well known difficulties we are experiencing today. Europe is our main objective, but not the only one. The other, as I have already said, is to contribute to world harmony, to make sure that France, a country which maintained a presence for so long in Africa and elsewhere, as it still does, but differently, uses every opportunity to bring cultures closer together. Hence the importance of La Francophonie.
By the way, I am coming back shortly to your country to take part in the second Francophone Summit, in Quebec City, next September. You will have seen much of me within two seasons, but I am not complaining and I am not expecting to return the following year to Ottawa, where the Seven will meet again according to the agreed schedule, under a somewhat systematic moira which makes us meet year after year, always to face the very same problems, but in different locations.
Europe, the francophone brotherhood, universal enlightenment through peace and development, all these issues bring me to say that I could not conclude these remarks before your Parliament without raising with you the issue of human rights. In doing so, according to a theme which I have often developed in my own country, I shall borrow a quote which was also used by Hemingway in the title of one of his major works, For whom the bell tolls: When a freedom somewhere in the world is lost, when the right of a man is denied, when a life is unfairly broken, the bell tolls not only for that individual, but also for all of us. The struggle for freedom which you may lead, together with a great many others, in your daily actions is consistent with the major battles which have been fought for centuries to liberate man and every individual in the states where freedom would be secured. That may also be part of learning about democracy; in view of the present state of the world and current trends, we have every reason to fear for freedom. How good it makes me feel to be able to say that in a forum of free men and women! It is certainly the secret reason behind this deep understanding which unites us, above and beyond our conflicts and quarrels. We are part of that family.
I am well aware of the problems you have to face in your own country, as you certainly are of those which are spreading in mine.
I am not forgetting the special duties of my country-I will stress them tomorrow and the day after-to that part of Canada which once belonged to France and which, to this day,
May 26, 1987

continues to reflect its culture, language and tastes. I send very warm greetings to all the men and women who are listening to me and who have lived and are still living that experience, but I fully realize that a country as great as yours needs to collect all its varied components to stand up and act.
The ideals which I have tried to define are in line with those expressed by the Prime Minister and make up our heritage- and when I say our heritage, I mean yours and mine.
Let us be proud of this heritage. Let us not try to impose it, but let us try to convince. If Canada and France are seen by the world to be taking together simple but necessary action, as they did in the past and as they will even more in the future, along the path which we have chosen, then a visit such as this will have its place in our destiny, one which our conscience dictates, one where friendship and brotherhood prevail, one which will see Canada and France as two countries and nations increasingly associated in their daily progression and able to propose to the world a few remedies to the ills of the world, a world which is concerned and dying, but also a world which is born in each of your regions, provinces, states, everywhere from east to west, and from north to south, a huge country where the future is being born. There are, at times, a few men and women lost in the immensity . . . but there are cities, large centres, an industry, a growing agriculture, there is hope everywhere and a capacity to overcome obstacles. Yes, you have a lot going for you, ladies and gentlemen. Let me tell you simply this, without trying to lecture anyone: Know how to harvest your grain and make your flour.
A country like France, an older country, which has suffered a lot and will suffer again, has also unlimited potential and opportunities, because everything remains to be done for the coming century. That is why I often ask my fellow citizens to unite, not to ignore their own differences-everyone is entitled to his or her preferences, and I have mine-but to unite every time it is necessary to stand for the country or for mankind.
Well, I said everything I wanted to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, 1 would have liked, not to speak much longer, but to participate in a much broader exchange. I was very gratified by the warm welcome from the Prime Minister whose speech was well structured and, moreover, delivered in two languages. How pleasant it would have been, with you . . . Naturally, there is an opposition and a majority and I know both, ladies and gentlemen. I do not know which side is best. Depending on the circumstances in which I was involved, opposition or majority appeared to be better. But there is nothing worse than speaking for others. You are a sovereign country... How pleasant it would have been to be able to talk with you, with each of you, to become a parliamentarian again for a short while, lose probably this magnificient unanimity . . . But let us not lose it, ladies and gentlemen. 1 am through. Thank you for your warm welcome. Long live Canada! Long live France!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Hon. Guy Charbonneau (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President, Madam, we would very much have appreciated hearing more, because in this federal Chamber French is familiar to us and even custumary in the legal sense of the word, but it is a very rare occasion indeed to hear in this place a voice from France that is of recognized literary value, especially if it is that of the President. We were aware of that dual capacity in which'you spoke, and we were assured that the clarity and the contents of your comments would testify to it in this exclusive place where we are highly honoured by your visit. I thank you on behalf of my Senate colleagues.
We wish that your stay among us be surrounded by an atmosphere of cordiality, because our relationship with your country could not be bound in formality. Our countries are unique, but so are our bonds, and this perhaps is what makes them more delicate on occasion.
Approximately one third of Canadians are culturally linked to France. Those indestructible bonds forged in the past have unfortunately not been paralleled in the economic field for reasons history tries to explain. As you yourself often suggested, we must on both sides strive to recreate those flows between our two worlds, and the impetus at least has been given. We know very well that in the area of international trade, you must reckon with a number of partners since you succeeded in that bold Common Market experience. Of course, that did not happen without many difficult adjustments. For our part, we would also like to offer you an enlarged market of continental scope.
As you know, we are negotiating with our neighbours down south, and the outcome is still uncertain. In the event of success, our language duality would be an asset for you to gain access to a North American market.
To come back to cultural exchanges, would you allow us, Mr. Speaker, in your quest of a multimillenial past, to visit with you the Solutre Rock in a lay pilgrimage? As I suspect that you do not miss the opportunity to enjoy the gifts of nature offered by Pouilly on the one hand and Fuisse on the other, you could count on us to also partake in that pleasure.
With the near bicentennial of your Revolution, I would like to recognize before the statesman you are what Canada owes France.

The outbreak of the French Revolution and the fear that disturbances would spread to Canada encouraged the British Government to institute a more liberal form of government in the colony. The Constitution Act of 1791 divided Canada into two colonies, Upper and Lower Canada, and provided each with an elected legislature. Although the Constitution was cautious in the democratic powers it conferred, it represented the first step in Canada's path to nationhood and eventual independence. In those days, toasts were drunk to the French Revolution at a banquet held to celebrate the coming into effect of that Constitution.

May 26, 1987

Mr. President, for your 1789 Revolution, for our cultural heritage, for the example set by your Pan-European economic expansion, for your eloquence here, may we express our deep gratitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. President, we are especially honoured to welcome the President of the Republic of France, not only as the leader of a great nation, but as a special friend of Canada.
Your visit marks an historic moment in the life of our Parliament. It is a reflection of the lasting friendship and special relationship binding our countries.

France is not only the ancestral homeland of million of Canadians, it is also a sacred land where our soldiers died to make on two occasions right and freedom triumphant.
The cultural heritage left by France in Canada is an essential constituent of our nation.
Our attachment to the strength and influence of the French language and culture in the world has been clearly shown in the Francophonie Summit as a privileged tool.
The action of parliamentarians complements government measures as could point to you our colleagues in this chamber
who actively take part in the proceedings of the International French-speaking Parliamentary Association.
The Canada-France Interparliamentary Association and France/Canada friendship groups include women and men who are eager to contribute to the strenghtening of bonds in all areas of activity.

Your visit to Canada, Mr. President, provides us with an unique opportunity to celebrate the deep friendship shared between France and Canada. It also serves as a means for us to explore ways of expanding our relations, particularly with respect to economic and trade matters and to seek common ground to respond to the challenges facing our two nations.
On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to reiterate how pleased and honoured we are in welcoming you and Mrs. Mitterrand in this Flouse. We ask you to convey our fraternal greetings to parliamentarians of your country and to all fellow citizens.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I now adjourn this meeting.

Wednesday, May 27, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers