1987-10-14

[Stage Direction]
[Translation}

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, according to a report from Labour Canada, the income gap between men and women became even wider in 1985. The number of women entering the labour market increased by 46.3 per cent between 1975 and 1985, compared with 15.3 per cent for their male colleagues.
Women working full and part time are paid only 59.6 per cent of what men are paid. It is also true that among women, 35 per cent are enrolled in professional degree and postgraduate courses, compared with 6.8 per cent of men. Only 16 per cent earn more than $25,000 annually, compared with 48 per cent of their male colleagues. The gap, measured in dollars, shows a difference in salary of $11,613 per year.
This report, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates the importance of employment equity programs and the need for an employment policy for women. When is the Government going to take action on this issue? Bill C-62, which has no teeth and no substance, is not going to give women their rightful place on the labour market and in our society.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when an ambulance arrives for a loved one who has suffered a massive heart attack one normally believes that the attendants on board can perform techniques to save him or her. Unfortunately, this is not so.
According to the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation of Canada, nearly half of the estimated 50,000 Canadians who have heart attacks each year die en route to hospital. Thousands of deaths, including those resulting from car accidents and other emergencies, could be avoided if paramedic care were available at the scene.
Ontario has expanded its emergency medical services so that a number of cities, including Ottawa, will have attendants this fall trained in one advanced life support skill.
Today and tomorrow the ACT Foundation will be holding a national competition in Toronto where emergency medical attendants from across Canada will perform life-saving procedures on victims of simulated heart attacks and accident-related emergencies. Their goal is to stimulate maximum public awareness of this critical and largely neglected area of emergency care. I wish them all very good luck.


CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT WEEK CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF COOP ATLANTIC
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the week following Thanksgiving is well established as Cooperative Development Week. It serves as an annual opportunity to appreciate the role of co-operative organizations and credit unions in community-based economic development. This year the week also provides an opportunity to assess the trade deal with the United States.
Members of Parliament recently received a letter from Coop Atlantic in which we were told:
Even if Canada could easily obtain the advantages which the negotiating team (sought), there would be solid ground for co-operators to oppose a Canada-U.S.A. free trade deal. In a unified continental market the odds favour large, vertically integrated, national and multinational corporations.
It is in the nature of such organizations to aim for maximum profits and minimum social accountability. This places them in direct opposition to the democratic principles which co-operatives espouse. They operate through centralized, hierarchical control; co-ops operate through broadly-based community participation. They exploit resources to maximize present profits; co-ops stand for careful stewardship of resources in the future.
The members of Co-op Atlantic, Mr. Speaker, believe in a much larger Canada than does the Government. They favour beneficial fair trade with many partners rather than a bilateral deal which could limit other economic and trade options while

October 14, 1987
concentrating corporate power at the expense of local ownership and control.
I urge the Parliament of Canada to listen to these words of wisdom from co-operatives in Atlantic Canada.

The CECs say they are snowed under, and they realize that the system penalizes the workers. An efficient way must be found as soon as possible to accelerate the processing of these pay cheques. Our solution might be to computerize the card processing system. In any case, this intolerable situation should not be allowed to go on. When will the responsible Minister take action and put an end to the delays in issuing Manpower Adjustment Program cheques?


ORDER OF GREY NUNS-250TH ANNIVERSARY TRIBUTE, THANKS, AND WISH FOR LONG LIFE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: This year we are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Grey Nuns. We pay tribute to Marguerite d'Youville, the founder of the Order of the Grey Nuns. Her work, continued for two and a half centuries by a group of exceptionally dedicated women, quietly involved in meeting the daily needs of the community, has given us hospitals, schools, orphanages, and shelters for the needy.
Is there a family in Quebec that does not have at least one relative with the Grey Nuns? We have all known the excellent services they provide, and many of us still enjoy those services provided by the Grey Nuns. They are not dead. They will never die. Their material achievements may perish, but the education and philosophy of life these women have inculcated in our mothers, aunts, cousins, sisters and brothers that, Mr. Speaker, will not die. It is a lasting intellectual and social contribution that will continue to grow. I wish to pay tribute to our Grey Nuns and say a heartfelt thank you and long may they live!
* *
*


TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, we live in an age where modern technology is serving us in many ways. Thanks to advanced technology, repetitive tasks can be done at very high speed, and considering the state of our technology today, it is hard to believe that in 1987, some Canada Employment Centres continue to use a practically obsolete system for issuing pay cheques.
Mr. Speaker, our employment centres use a manual system for processing cards used to issue pay cheques to participants in the Manpower Adjustment Program. This extremely primitive system is responsible for delays of from 15 days to three weeks in issuing pay cheques. It is very inconvenient for the workers concerned, who, in many cases, cannot afford to wait that long for their pay cheque.
* *
*


SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, the recent signing of a free trade agreement is being positively received by most Canadians. As can be expected, it is being criticized by the "Old Democratic Party" and the Liberals.
I quote from The Globe and Mail of October 7, 1987:
Canada's free trade deal with the United States looks stronger as we get to know it.
It does not threaten Canada's social programs, including regional development schemes.
It does not affect Canada's cultural industries and policies. It does not threaten the automobile industry. In fact, the essential feature of the auto pact-duty-free access to the United States-will be more secure in a comprehensive deal that also stiffens North American content requirements. It does not threaten agricultural marketing boards or the supply management system.
These are things free trade does not do that its critics demanded that it should not do.
I commend The Globe and Mail for its objectivity.
* *
*


MARINE SAFETY
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, opposition continues to grow to the Tory Government's plan to automate and destaff West Coast light stations.
The Coast Guard and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) seemed oblivious to the fact that no one, aside from them, wants this change.
Even the members of the B.C. Conservative caucus have joined municipal and regional leaders, fishermen, recreational boaters and lightkeepers in opposing this action. Last week the Minister of Transport rejected his B.C. colleagues' intervention, suggesting that they are even more irrational than the bureaucrats.
October 14, 1987

Last week the Coast Guard indicated that it will be terminating a lightkeeper position at Saturna Island, three months before its proposed elimination. Even more outrageous is the fact that this action was to take place 11 days before the first public meeting on the Leblond Commission report. Fortunately, they recognized their error and rescinded that action.
I hope it is not too late to drive home to the Minister of Transport one more time that opposition to his change is virtually unanimous. Therefore, I invite the Minister to come to Campbell River on October 29, to hear what the community feels about lighthouse automation and destaffing.
The Minister of Transport has hidden too long on this issue. Let him come to B.C. to hear firsthand what the people there feel.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec Est):: Mr. Speaker, let me express my pride with the initiators of the successful agreement in principle on free trade with the United States. We have gone through a first stage that is both meaningful and important. The Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, has written a new page in our history. He proved that in matters of trade no borderline can hold out against the will of nations striving to open up their horizons and seek new opportunities. By signing a free trade agreement with the world's largest trading partner, we are getting closer to first place.
The link that is being established with Mexico and also the 600 million Latin-Americans south of the United States will in my view enable us, in a matter of years, to negotiate and forge special links with that huge market in America.
Conservatives in Ottawa have realized, Mr. Speaker, that a government's role is to manage, legislate, lead, prevent and foresee. Thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for that courageous, audacious, well-thought, strategic step.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, last night I attended a meeting with the Mayor of Dominion and the town council to discuss the future of the post office in this small rural town in Cape Breton. It is clear
that Canada Post wants to change the system of mail delivery in this town and rid itself of a full-time staff of postal employees.
The zeal of Canada Post to close this small rural post office is only surpassed by its apparent bungling of consulting and communicating with the residents of the Town of Dominion. The people of this community want to meet immediately with senior officials of Canada Post to determine the criteria being used to close this post office. They want to know what alternatives Canada Post has under active consideration. They also want to know the date the notification period officially begins and will there be continued home mail service? In essence, the people, as well as the representatives of the Town of Dominion, want to keep their post office open and open all year round. They do not appreciate the shabby and arrogant behaviour with which Canada Post and the Minister's office have been treating them in this regard.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the overlooked benefits of free trade is what it can do for the Third World. A Canada with a strong economy is a Canada strong enough to help develop under-developed countries. A Canada with only enough resources to maintain itself is not a Canada that can share with the Third World.
Only a Canada with enough trade to generate wealth over and above what 25 million people need for their own living can be a Canada able to help others.
Let us also see that free trade will not be confined to the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. Free trade is the greatest help that all developed countries can give to the Third World. What incentive is there for a country to develop if it does not find markets for what it produces?
If Canada and the developed world open our trading doors to countries still developing, we will do more to help the Third World than all the giveaways have ever done.


ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Governments can be held liable for the millions of dollars of property damage resulting

October 14, 1987
Oral Questions
from salt on the roads. The costly corrosive effects of salt on our cars, farmlands, streets and buildings, as well as its harmful effects on our soil, fish and wildlife, are now legally recognized. Even the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) admits: "Salt is known to have certain adverse environmental effects".
The federal Government should now launch a national campaign to convert away from salt to methanol or calcium magnesium acetate, known as CMA. A recent scientific report by Dunn and Schenk notes that using either substance would cut our winter de-icing costs in half. Both CMA and methanol improve traction, act as corrosion inhibitors, with no adverse effects to soil or water. What is more, both can be made from natural waste cellulose.
I made an offer as late as this past August for the Minister to begin test trials of these two road de-icers in my own riding of Skeena. The road linking Smithers, Terrace, Kitimat and Prince Rupert offers a variety of winter highway conditions. Existing vehicles can be used to apply CMA. Wood waste is readily available and Kitimat is home to the ocelot methanol plant.
In light of yesterday's Supreme Court decision and the fact that winter is fast approaching, I would urge the Government to undertake immediately a Canadian test program for CMA and methanol. They are cheaper, more efficient and a more environmentally sound method of ensuring safety on our winter roads for all Canadians.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, it is sad to witness the continued government manipulation of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration. First it blocked the Georges Grossmann and John Quigley investigations, then it eliminated the former chairman. Yesterday the Government turned again to its bullpen of parachute replacements who descended upon the committee and poisoned the atmosphere by demanding the immediate firing of the research director.
No legitimate reasons or evidence were offered. Instead, their reasons were rooted in innuendo, unsubstantiated allegations and blatant partisan motivations. Government members also moved a motion to bar any Member from utilizing our researchers until a thorough evaluation of our research needs is completed. It is a motion which, in my opinion, is irresponsible, undemocratic and an affront to our rights and privileges as Members of Parliament.
This is a committee that offered leadership and vision. Now, thanks to the Government, it has become a sad and depressing
sight, showing what happens when a Government moves in to kill free speech and independence of thought in our committees. Our system and all Canadians are the losers because of it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, in Somerset, New Jersey, the President of the United States, referring to the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, said, and I quote from the transcript:
If past is prologue, we know what the results will be. Almost 200 years ago, trade barriers vanished in the United States part of this continent after the new Constitution took effect. Almost immediately, a stagnant national economy began to boom. The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is a new economic constitution for North America.
The President is really saying that the Canadian economy is becoming part of a North American economy under American direction. Why did the Government of Canada sign a trade agreement that represents a new economic constitution for North America, a trade agreement that is a sell-out of our independent economic identity on the northern half of this continent?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition continues to make outlandish statements and sow the seeds of fear and apprehension in the minds of Canadians. I think he recognizes- and he is a bit of a salesman himself-that this is an arrangement that has to be sold on both sides of the border.
Clearly, the United States administration, indeed, members of Congress, who believe in the liberalization of trade, will be out selling the package. I think the President of the United States was engaged in that particular effort during the process of the debate in Canada. I would hope that we might engage in an enlightened debate without the use of fear and without the use of exaggeration, but really sticking to the facts.
I invite the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to reread the document and to stick to the facts. Quite frankly, I think that Canadians are prepared to engage in an enlightened debate. I invite him to join in that process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 14, 1987


CONTINENTAL RESOURCE POLICY QUERY
John Napier Turner: The
outlandish statement, to use the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, that I cited was not the words of an anonymous American official. They were not even the words of Clayton Yeutter. They were not even the words of the Secretary of the Treasury, that intimate friend of the Minister of Finance. They were the words of the President of the United States.
You know, Mr. Speaker, in 1844 our American friends used the phrase "54/40 or fight". They wanted the border somewhere up around Prince Rupert. A year later, in 1845, our American friends coined the phrase "manifest destiny", which really meant that they wanted to run the whole continent. As late as 1952, under the Paley Commission, the United States coined a new vocabulary "resources for freedom". They wanted a continental energy policy. Now they have got it.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why it is that after the Americans for 140 years have been trying to get a continental hegemony, a continental resource policy the Government yielded to a continental resource policy rather than giving us a Canadian national resource and energy policy in order to build our economy on those resources.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the conclusions of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition are dead wrong. The fact of the matter is we have had an Auto Pact agreement in this country for 22 years, which is really a free trade arrangement.


Mr. Broadbent:: No, it is not.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is he suggesting we are less Canadian by virtue of the fact that we have had a free trade arrangement in automobiles which has seen exports grow from $1.2 billion to $64 billion; which has seen jobs increase from 80,000 to 130,000; which has seen investment increased by about $10 billion in the last 10 years? Are we less Canadian as a result of that, Mr. Speaker? Is that the position of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is wrong if he cites the Auto Pact as an example of free trade. It is a sectoral agreement guaranteeing Canadian participation, Canadian jobs, Canadian employment, and a Canadian share of the auto market.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: What this Government has permitted is a breaking of the East-West connection of this country in terms of energy. Now the energy of this country is directed south. That is exactly what has happened under this policy.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation]	~


CULTURAL SOVEREIGNTY-METHODS OF APPLYING AGREEMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, according to documents that are still being revised and made available by the U.S. Trade Representative, the Free-Trade Agreement gives the United States the right to claim compensation. If future steps taken by Canada in the cultural area harm their interests-I am directing that question to the Deputy Prime Minister-why did the Government sign an agreement that enables the Americans to retaliate against us if we take steps to protect our culture? How did we get ourselves in that situation, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister stated on several occasions that culture was not being negotiated with the United States?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada signed no such document to which the Hon. Member refers, and he is putting a misinterpretation on it.
While we are in the process of quoting, I would draw attention to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and his book, Politics of Purpose, in which he talks about where people stand. It was a rather expedient conversion on his part. This is what he was prepared to do vis-a-vis the United States. Perhaps he would like to explain this to the House and to the Canadian people. On page 183 it states:
We might wish to export water not for money (as we sold power under the
Columbia River Treaty), but in return for access to your markets.
Is that still the position of the Leader of the Opposition?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


An Hon. Member:: Turn-about Turner.


CULTURAL POLICIES-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: The Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, and the Minister of Communications have stated that our cultural industries would be protected in any trade negotiations. With good reason Canadians have been hesitant to trust the Government. We now know that the Government has made changes in the postal subsidies, it has removed tariffs on our sound recordings and printed material, and now there is a revised October 8 document which the Deputy Prime Minister would like us to believe is not a real document. Nonetheless, that document does state, "However, the U.S. retains the right to redress any

October 14, 1987
Oral Questions
adverse commercial effects of any future cultural measures enacted by Canada".
In the absence of the Minister of Communications, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why did the Minister agree to have our cultural policies frozen? Why did the Minister and the Government agree to a U.S. veto over any new Canadian cultural initiatives?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is another instance of the misinterpretation of a particular section of the agreement. That is not what was agreed to. That is not what that section states. What it does state is exactly what is in place now. Whether this country has a Liberal Government, an NDP Government, or a Conservative Government now, and if it takes action in providing a subsidy in any cultural area, that is distorting trade between the two countries. The other country can take action on that. But there are two safeguards that are introduced in the agreement which are not presently in place.
One is that any disagreement would be referred to a dispute settlement body. The second point is that under the current U.S. law they would take an action under Section 301 which has no monetary limitation to it. This particular provision sets a specific monetary limitation to any action that could be taken.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, 1 would suggest that Mr. Jack Valenti got to Mr. Reagan again. The Minister answers in the same manner in which he tried to destroy, through capital cost allowance, the film distribution industry in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Finestone: I would like to know how can Canadians trust you and the Government?
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it not true that any new Canadian film distribution policy to improve our meagre 3 per cent share of the market will now be subject to retaliation under this new deal? If this is not the case, will you allow your Minister of Communications to table her new Bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Naturally, the Chair is hesitant to interrupt the Hon. Member. But I do wish to remind Hon. Members that, in this Chamber, unlike some others, it has been the tradition, and one that Hon. Members wish to maintain, that we do not refer to other Members in a personal way. I would ask that the Hon. Member be careful.


Sheila Finestone: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, to make it clear.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is clear enough.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me respond if I could to the Hon. Member's question. First, I want to make it absolutely clear that we have strengthened our protection against U.S. action under the free trade agreement from what it is today, under the existing law today. That is a fact which is indisputable.
I would like to make a second point to the Hon. Member. She casts some allegations on our attitudes toward the film industry and other cultural industries. I ask her to go back two Budgets and see, I think it was, something somewhere between $50 million and $100 million that we provided to support the growth and development of that industry in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member does not like to hear the truth, but the fact is that that money has been expended in support of that industry.


Sheila Finestone: Oh, oh! Bring in the film Bill.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot hear what the Hon. Member is saying.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. President Reagan clearly understood the direction of this new agreement when he said that it was heading toward "a new economic constitution for North America". I also add immediately that spokespersons for the Mexican Government also described it that way. They said that the Mexicans would "never enter into such an agreement with the United States".
Does the Government of Canada not understand that when it proposes such major changes in energy, in services, and in investment it is giving up fundamental aspects of our sovereignty, that is to say, our own national right to control our national destiny? Will it come to its senses and put an end to this deal now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, rather than the Hon. Leader of the NDP listening to Mexicans, perhaps he might start listening to Canadians.
For example, the Automotive Industry Association of Canada summed up its result as follows: "This is a tremendous opportunity for the automotive industry". The chairman of the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board is pleased with the Government, and says: "We have a major market in the U.S. and I am very glad that we are able to expand it". David Fulton, President of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, said: "The agreement would mean the end of current beef tariffs between the two countries".
October 14, 1987

Re fishing, Mr. Cummings said: "The most important aspect to us is a dispute resolving mechanism that we got. It is a hell of a gain for Canada". I could go on.
He should listen to the Premier of the Province of Quebec. He should listen to the energy sector and the textile sector. These people, speaking on behalf of their particular industries, believe that the free trade arrangement that was negotiated by the Government is good for Canada and good for their industries.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister that the people of. Canada expect Ministers of the Crown to answer the questions they are asked.
If the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand this agreement, I can tell him that President Reagan understands, the Mexicans understand, many provincial Premiers understand, and we understand. We are not going to yield our sovereignty in this country to the likes of that Government over there.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister will not deal with that question, there is another important aspect of the agreement for which his own Government has provided. He will find it on page 35, and it says the following:
The parties to this Agreement shall ensure that all necessary measures are
taken in order to give effect to its provisions, including their observance,-
And it goes on to say:
-by state, provincial and local governments.
Since the clause I have just quoted says that the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States are required to get the appropriate agreements by state and provincial Governments, and since there are major changes in services and energy, which are clearly within the constitutional domain of the provinces, is the federal Government now going to live up to its obligation to get agreement from the provinces for such fundamental changes? That is the issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is talking about energy, I would refer him to the Premiers of the three energy producing provinces, namely, Mr. Getty, Mr. Vander Zalm, and Mr. Devine. They all agree with the thrust of the free trade proposal because it is good for the energy sector and it is good for Canada. Why doesn't the Hon. Leader of the NDP start paying a little attention to what is good for western Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He knows what is good for Oshawa, and we support him on that. Why doesn't he support westerners for a change?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that as a former car dealer he knows the Auto Pact was not a free trade pact. Any day of the year they would put that in place in western Canada, we would support it 100 per cent. We want its investment protection safeguards.


PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: One last question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has decided to ignore the provinces altogether. According to the Agreement with the United States, the federal Government has an obligation to consult directly to obtain the support of the provinces.
Does the federal Government intend to act according to the principles of the Agreement, yes or no? That is the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the negotiation I think that the federal Government set a tremendous precedent in terms of consultation, in keeping the provinces and in keeping the sectors informed, and even offering to keep the opposition Parties informed on progress involving the talks. That will certainly continue.
It is very interesting that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party talks about how great the Auto Pact is. Maybe he would like to explain to the Canadian people why his Party opposed it in 1965.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


John Edward Broadbent: Get your act straight. Have an election on it, Don; go ahead.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tell the truth for a change.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nystrom:: Don't forget Hatfield is more popular than Mulroney.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


CANADIAN CULTURAL POLICY
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I was about to comment that there have been two Tory Leaders who put their faith in free trade to the electoral test in the last two months, and we know what has happened to them; they don't even have a seat to stand on.

October 14, 1987
Oral Questions
The Minister of Finance was talking about misinformation. I want to quote directly from the statement released by the United States Government, which is a partner in this particular trade deal. It says: "The U.S. retains the right to redress any adverse commercial effects of any future cultural measures enacted by Canada".
My question is very simple. Does that not clearly demonstrate that as far as the Americans are concerned they now have the right to retaliate against any future Canadian cultural policy? Does that stand not fly in the face of every assertion made by the Prime Minister, by the Minister for International Trade, and by the Minister responsible for culture?
In other words, we have given the Americans the right to hold a veto over any future cultural policy enacted by the Government.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. We have the right as the Government to do whatever we want to further our culture in this country.
It says very clearly in the agreement that culture is exempted from the agreement in terms of investment. It is exempted in the agreement under the specific chapter on culture.
The United States are saying that they reserve the right under the GATT which they have today. If the Hon. Member thinks back to Bill C-58, they took some actions in retaliation on that as well.
Nothing has changed. Culture is not a subject of this agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, so much for the claim of the Government that it has secured access for Canadian goods and services. The Government has obviously gained nothing if the Government says the situation has stayed the same. The Minister says we cannot have the status quo. You have entrenched the status quo in this agreement.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Which way do you want to go?


EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON JOBS IN ONTARIO
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask another question about misinformation from the Minister. The Ontario Government tabled yesterday a study undertaken with the private sector that shows over
400,000	jobs in Ontario alone will be affected by the free trade deal. That far exceeds the 300,000 some odd jobs which the Economic Council predicts might be gained. My question is for the Minister of Finance.
When will the Government provide this House with a clear and proper evaluation of where the new jobs will be and where
the job losses will be? When are you going to start telling the truth to the Canadian people as to who will win or lose under this deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if I might go back to the Hon. Member's preamble on culture, which way does the Member want it? First, he says that he wants us to have full access and make culture part of the agreement. Then he says "No, I don't want to have culture as part of the agreement."


Lloyd Axworthy: No.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I do not know which way he wants to go.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is your problem.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Sometimes when you are riding the fence it is dangerous.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As to the Member's question, I have the same article from which he was reading. If he reads down further in the article it says "It will be wrong to say that all of these 400,000 people will be affected".


Lloyd Axworthy: How many will be affected? Tell us.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In other words, people are saying there will be some industries that will be subject to greater competition.


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us about it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But a lot of those industries will improve their competitiveness. They will not see jobs lost. We will see that, as a result over-all, jobs will be created. The Economic Council knows that. We will have updated studies on this so that the Hon. Member can make some judgments. I hope that he will come to some honest judgments on the conclusions reached by others.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the Gallery of the Newfoundland and Labrador Committee on Standing Orders, lead by the Hon. James Russell.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



October 14, 1987


ENERGY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL RIGHTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Section 92(a) of the Constitution clearly gives the provinces ownership rights over natural resources including energy. That includes the right to determine the rate of development, production and sale of a resource. What the trade deal states is that Canada will not impose any quantitative trade or cost restrictions on energy exports. At page 35 it states that Canada will take all necessary measures to provide permanent and full U.S. access.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that this deal attempts to remove provincial resource rights and that their consent as provinces must be obtained for this deal to have any validity whatever in law?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The answer is a categorical no, Mr. Speaker.


James Ross Fulton: That is very interesting, Mr. Speaker.


ACCESS TO GASOLINE SUPPLIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.
How can the federal Government promise in this agreement to give proportional access to the U.S. in cases of shortages of supply? Let me make it abundantly clear what that means. When the next oil crisis comes, which will come as surely as the sun rises, a driver, a car owner, in Prince Rupert or Montreal, being told that there are restrictions on his or her access to gasoline will not be able to fill up, but will know that at the same time U.S. drivers south of the border can fill up on Canadian gasoline. You tell me what the hell kind of a deal that is.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope Hon. Members could constrain their enthusiasm. I might say to the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister that in his reply perhaps he could restrain any temptation to reply in kind.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the kind of deal Mexico wouldn't sign.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, before the Hon. Member starts swearing at me, perhaps he might learn a little bit about the energy business. I know he is just a new critic.


An Hon. Member:: They dumped the old one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can best answer the Member's question by quoting a Senator from western Canada, Senator Olson who, I think, put the energy provisions of the free trade
Oral Questions
arrangement into perspective. If the House will allow me, I will quote because I think it should bring some objectivity to the debate. The Hon. Senator said: "We were committed to share with the United States before. We have been committed to sharing our energy resources, particularly oil with the United States since 1974. If there was a shortage, there is nothing new in that. I also know very well, as does the Leader of the Government, that if we got into a very serious situation where there was a shortage that required us to share our natural gas flow with the consumers in the United States, we would do that. In any event, there is no question about that. So what is so great about that? I have read the agreement and there is nothing in it that advances us from where we are today".


CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. With all due respect to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Hon. Senator, they are both wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Ontario, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have all said that prior to the signing of the free trade agreement there was no substantive discussion on energy with the provinces.
Why did the Government on such important issues as nondiscriminatory access to our energy supplies support a proportional sharing of our resources? Why did the federal Government not discuss these items with the provinces or at least even mention to the provinces that these were on the table?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought I answered that question yesterday. Further to my response yesterday, the Deputy Trade Commissioner was quoted on CBC news last night as saying that he, in fact, did provide the energy briefings himself. Premier Devine said: "Energy has always been on the table because it is a big trading item. For someone to say that we didn't have oil and gas on the table or it wasn't in the negotiations is simply not accurate".


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is a big difference on items such as this that are in the first free trade agreement with the United States and changing the carburetor on your car. I am talking about substantive issues. It is obvious that the Americans wanted this in the free trade agreement.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Why, Mr. Speaker, did the Government have a hidden agenda on energy with the United States when signing this free trade agreement, completely oblivious to everybody else outside the

October 14, 1987
Oral Questions
Government and without any consultation with any other party whatever?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member was an ardent proponent of the National Energy Program. There was only one problem with that program, it didn't work.
All that is being done here-and I am glad to see a smile on the Hon. Member's face because I think he acknowledges that fact-is enshrining the policy that was enunciated by this Government in 1985.


BANKRUPTCY ACT
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As the Minister knows, the bankruptcy laws in this country are hopelessly outdated and leave little or no protection for wage earners, suppliers, and consumers.
In the new legislation which the Minister is presently contemplating, will he put protection in for wage earners, suppliers, and consumers?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly the intent. We hope to bring forward legislation in the near future which will provide wage earner protection. We will have better consumer bankruptcy legislation, making it simpler and cheaper. We are exploring ways in which suppliers can be protected from what are close to fraudulent practices that occur all too often under the laws that exist today.


SERVICE INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The United States scored a great triumph over Canada in negotiating a free trade agreement in services. The U.S. is a service exporting country and Canada is not. The service industry accounts for two-thirds of our economy and generates 70 per cent of our employment. Did the Minister secure provincial agreement to free trade in services which are under provincial jurisdiction?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have said, there has been extensive discussion on all aspects of this agreement with the provinces, both at the First Ministers' level as well as at the officials' level. The Hon. Member should reverse her statistics and try to put a positive view on it. Yes, a large part of our economy and of our employment is dependent on services. However, could she not look at it a little positively and say in this open market with the U.S. maybe we could export some of those services?
The people I have spoken to since the agreement was signed, many of whom are in the service industry, are quite excited about the opportunities now afforded them because they can export services and follow up on some of their products with their service people to ensure they get the follow-up service required to make that market work for them.


PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION OVER SERVICE JOBS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the U.S. exports services and we do not. Some 83 per cent of all service jobs are held by women. Did you negotiate-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has an important question and I ask her, as I have asked others, to refrain from using the personal pronoun "you".


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, what provisions did the Government make to protect those jobs which are under provincial jurisdiction, 83 per cent of which are held by women?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Hon. Member to the Economic Council Review which discussed a number of aspects of the outcome of a free trade agreement. One of the conclusions they drew was that women would benefit more-


Mr. Rodriguez:: They did not study the service sector.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Maybe I better address this entirely to you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Minister I would certainly listen, as will other Hon. Members, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is from a background paper from the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women: "A free trade arrangement with the United States would improve economic prospects for Canadian women". The Economic Council of Canada agreed with that conclusion and said women would benefit more from a free trade agreement than would men.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
October 14, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Author!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.


Mr. McDermid:: Is that an autographed copy, John?


John Napier Turner: He quoted from my 1968 best seller-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -Politics of Purpose.


John Horton McDermid: You can get it for 39 cents.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to move this book for 20 years.


Mr. de Cotret:: We understand why.


John Napier Turner: The speech from which the Deputy Prime Minister quoted, using a technique which unfortunately the Prime Minister uses from time to time and which does not reflect its full import when it was made before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on water policy, had as its thesis-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


John Napier Turner: I will get to the question. At page 176 the thesis was: "Hold on a minute!", I said to those Americans down in Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: On your knees!


Mr. Speaker:: I might say to Hon. Members that I know it was a long time ago but I shall bend the rules of relevancy. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will do you a similar courtesy when you write your book.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I said:
Hold on a minute! We say there is Canadian water, and there is American
water. (And there is Mexican water), but we do not like the new vocabulary
which calls our water continental water.
That was the thesis of that speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But then you would sell it.


John Napier Turner: It was supplemented by a speech to the Marine Club in Toronto entitled "A Canadian Water Policy", found in the same book. I commend it to the hon. gentleman and ask him if his reference to water today is
Oral Questions
an indication that water is part of the continental energy policy agreed to by the Government?


John Horton McDermid: You like the colour of the book, too: red, white and blue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the right hon. gentleman wants to shoot straight from the heart on this particular issue. The answer to his question is absolutely no.
However, there was another very interesting quote which-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -is very closely associated with this point. He said, in connection with the quote I used earlier, at page 183:
I don't want to sound tough. I hope 1 am merely being realistic.


John Napier Turner: Now that is a far better quote. I commend it to the House.


CANADIAN RESOURCES POLICY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman, who comes from Alberta, not admit that a better resource policy for Canada, and by implication he has included water in this policy, is a policy that allows us to build up our manufacturing base, particularly for new industry, around our resources-


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly what we are doing.


John Napier Turner: -rather than allow those resources to be swept into a continental market? Would that not be a better policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what is important and what this Government has tried to do is create a climate conducive to the development of our energy resources. That is good for western Canada, indeed for the whole nation. It is good for the west and it is good for Ontario.
Why does the Hon. Member continue to insist upon going back to the relics of the past? I know when he was out of politics he was not a very fond admirer of the National Energy Program. What he is advocating today is obviously another flip-flop. He wants to go back to the old days of regulation, central control-


Mr. Frith:: Not a policy made in Washington.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and an invasion of the rights of the provinces.

October 14, 1987
Oral Questions


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that page 34 of the preliminary transcript of the free trade agreement specifically continues an egregious American protectionist measure, namely, the 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that his Government promised Canadians that tax would be lifted as part of a free trade deal. Therefore, can he assure Canadians that his Government has formally proposed and the American Government has formally acknowledged Canada's desire to negotiate the end of this tax?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to point out where this Government said that with the negotiations would come the end of the 15 per cent tax on exports of softwood lumber to the U.S. What is taking place at the present time is negotiations between the federal Government and the provinces towards establishing replacement measures in the provinces to get rid of that tax. That is what is going on right now. The agreement ensures that it will not happen again, that is for sure.


CLOSURE OF SAWMILLS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Government knows that the 15 per cent duty has already cost the operations of several sawmills in northern Ontario. Indeed, another one is closing today which will mean the loss of some 300 jobs because it is going on indefinite lay-off status.
The Prime Minister announced a program of adjustment for areas which are negatively affected by free trade. Will those mills which closed as a result of the preparatory concessions made by the Government be compensated and receive assistance under that program?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were fair and looked into the mill closings, of which I have a record here, he would learn that the mills which have closed down had been operating for quite a period of time at a loss. They were inefficient mills. Softwood lumber production is clipping along at a record rate this year. These mills did not close down because of the 15 per cent sales tax.
When that 15 per cent tax is returned to the province it is permissible for the province to use that money to help the workers who are displaced when mills close down.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for regional development. Since Abitibi Price's Kenogami factory at Jonquiere is investing $150 million in equipment to produce supercalendered fine paper, the same grade that would be produced at Matane but in this instance, without federal subsidy, could the Minister inform the House whether market studies now being analyzed by our senior officials have shown there is room for a new paper mill producing the same product, and is the Government considering the impact federal subsidies to the paper mill in Matane might have on other, existing paper mills, including the one at Kenogami with its 1,200 employees?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that all the necessary sectorial studies that are customarily carried out for projects submitted to DRIE, to ensure there is a market and a demand that can accommodate the business that is to be subsidized in some way or another, either through existing programs or through special subsidies.
These studies have been completed and are, of course, part of the dossier on which an announcement will be made very shortly.


FREE TRADE-REQUEST FOR DETAILS ON HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Oral Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister has been referring to the energy question like a self-styled expert. I would therefore like to ask him for some clarification with respect to hydro power.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister-on page 17 of the Agreement, Canada has agreed to eliminate a discriminatory price test on electricity exports. Will this section allow the Goverment of Quebec and more specifically, Hydro Quebec, to go on charging the Americans three times as much as it charges Quebec consumers? Will it also allow Hydro Quebec to cut rates for the benefit of regional development? Could the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance perhaps explain?
October 14, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the Province of Quebec has made it very clear-


Jean-C. Lapierre: He wasn't there. You were there.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my answer if the Hon. Member will permit me. The Premier of the Province of Quebec has made it very clear that he supports this agreement in every way. He thinks it is going to be very good for both Quebec and Canada.
With regard to the specific question, there is nothing which will prohibit Hydro Quebec or any other hydro company from offering rates in their province which are conducive to development in that particular province. They can sell at whatever the market will bear in the United States. If they are short-term sales, they may sell at low prices or high prices.


Lloyd Axworthy: You had better reread the agreement.


FREE TRADE ACCORD-ENERGY-CUSTOMS BARRIERS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stated that this agreement would change nothing to the regulatory practices in the energy area. I just do not understand how he could have said that yesterday, after having signed an agreement which in part reads: "Both sides have agreed to prohibit restrictions on imports or exports, including quantitative restrictions, taxes, minimum import or export price requirements or any other equivalent measure". Could the Minister repeat what he said yesterday, that is, that the agreement would only mean a removal of the trade barriers? Does he not feel that regulatory practices will be affected?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that. Hydro Quebec, which is the subject of the Hon. Member's question, can set rates for the Province of Quebec. If it wants to enter into a contract with New Hampshire or New York State it can enter into a longterm contract with electric power commissions in-


Mr. Ouellet:: At what price?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: At whatever price they can negotiate with the purchaser on the other side.


Lloyd Axworthy: But it can't be discriminatory.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise that the time for Question Period has ended. I notice that the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is rising. I will try to ensure that she is heard tomorrow.
The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) on a question of privilege.
Question of Privilege-Mr. Hopkins QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE


STATEMENT BY MINISTER-FREE TRADE BRIEFING
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of remarks made today by the Deputy Prime Minister. He has led the House and the people of Canada to believe that the Government has done its best to offer briefings to inform the Opposition about the details of the free trade agreement.
It was my job to line up some briefers for the Ontario Liberal caucus last night. We approached two officials who were involved in the trade talks to brief the Ontario Liberal caucus on the details. Late yesterday afternoon we received word that they were unable to do so because they did not have Privy Council permission to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Cabinet did not want officials to appear before the Ontario Liberal caucus to brief Liberal opposition Members.
Therefore, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) misled the House this afternoon when he said that the Government is trying to keep the Opposition informed. He knows full well that the briefing he offered to the Leader of the Opposition previous to the agreement was on the condition that it be confidential to the Leader of the Opposition. That does nothing for the public view. It does nothing for the members of the caucus of the Official Opposition. The Cabinet is refusing to give information to members of the Opposition and the Parliament of Canada about the free trade agreement and the Deputy Prime Minister should not be standing in his place misleading the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a point of order. It is a rather unusual outburst from a gentleman for whom I have a great deal of regard. I hope he would want to reconsider the statements he has made.


Ms. Copps:: It's true.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if there is a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), then let us hear it too and I will deal with it at the same time.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Are you the Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist Hon. Members. This is not a point of order. It comes to the Chair and the House as a question of privilege. I am having some difficulty finding a question of privilege. It is a complaint; it is an argument. There may very well be other places to which the Hon. Member could take the argument. I will hear the Hon. Deputy

October 14, 1987
Point of Order
Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), but I do not think we need to spend a prolonged period of time on this, at least at this time under a question of privilege.


Mr. Rossi:: Let's get the truth.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it would not be my intention to prolong this discussion. However, the Hon. Member knows that we did offer, during the course of the negotiations, confidential briefings to the Leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Official Opposition. That was turned down and that is fair ball.
I have been in Opposition as well as in Government. I think the Hon. Member recognizes that it is not proper to offer briefings to one Party and not the other. That is a long-established rule which the Government employs. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that under the aegis of a standing committee where there would be members of all Parties in attendance, we would certainly arrange to have briefings at any time. I think that can be arranged.
We hope to convene the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade very soon so that it can be seized with this issue and all the details can be examined in full. However, I say to the Hon. Member that if he is a member of a standing committee that wants to be enlightened on certain aspects, I am certain that under the aegis of an allparty agreement that can be arranged.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we are one of the strongest trading nations in the world. One of our largest untapped markets today is mainland China. China is our second largest customer for Canadian grain producers and is one of our oldest and most important customers. Not only are the Chinese good customers, they have become good friends over the years. We have established a respectful relationship which is friendly and cordial.
I submit that nothing but real harm to our relations with mainland China could result if we allow disparaging remarks in the House that show disrespect to that country while at the same time showing a real lack of sensitivity-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a point of order. He may very well have a valid point, but I must remind him that it is not a point of order, but a point of argument.
Someone may or may not have said something in the Chamber to which the Hon. Member takes exception but,
unless the Hon. Member can quickly give some direction to the Chair as to where his comments are proceeding, I do not see it as a point of order, at least so far.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it happened twice in the House. The first time I overlooked it.
I refer you to page 9912 of Hansard where the Leader of the New Democratic Party said:
The Minister, in addition to his colleague last week, must be tuned into
Radio Peking-
I suggest that that is not only disparaging to Mainland China, it is very ignorant and disparaging to ethnic Chinese Canadians. I think it is bigoted and should be withdrawn. That is my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's point is specifically that, according to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, a comment by the Leader of the New Democratic Party amounts to a bigoted comment and ought to be withdrawn.
In view of that position taken by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, I would of course hear from someone from the New Democratic Party. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is seeking the floor.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing offensive about referring to Radio Peking. There is nothing whatsoever offensive about that particular remark.
We know that China is a tremendous customer for Canadian grain and potash. Any advertising of that radio station might be a positive feature.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I submit to the House that the Parliamentary Secretary's statement is absolutely mischievous and provocative, and is designed to cause harm to the Leader who meant no harm at all. The Hon. Member should withdraw his nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the first time or perhaps the last when Hon. Members on both sides feel they wish to air, through a point of order or a question of privilege, what they believe is a grievance.
While the Chair certainly accepts a certain amount of latitude in these matters, I must indicate to the House that this is not a point of order. It may well be a complaint and I would ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to perhaps have some discussion with other Hon. Members.
I think the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) clearly indicated that all Hon. Members agree that whatever language is used in this place, it certainly ought not be intentionally used to slight any of Canada's friends or any Canadians of whatever ethnic background in this country. With that, I think we can leave the subject.
October 14, 1987



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), Mr. Speaker, I have the honor to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-2973, 3322977, and 332-3096.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 250 petitioners drawn from all parts of the constituency, particularly from Amherstburg, La Salle, Malden, Harrow and southern parts of Essex-Windsor. They are deeply concerned with respect to the Fermi II nuclear plant which has a terrible safety record. They suggest that it poses a clear and present danger to their lives and their property. Due to the abysmal record of accidents at the plant, they petition the Government to take active measures to ensure that a joint procedure is established to review this, involving both Canadians and Americans, before Fermi II is permitted to go to full operation.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present a petition signed by 306 residents of Kitchener and the Waterloo region. These 306 signatures added to the 1,325 which I presented on August 19, brings the total number of signatures to 1,631 petitioning the Government to bring forward its tough legislation against pornography.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a duly certified petition from a number of residents, mostly from Ganges, British Columbia, who are very concerned about the danger posed by the presence of nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels in Canadian ports. Considering the danger to the environment and Canadian citizens, they call upon the Government not to purchase nuclear-powered submarines for Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House from residents of the central coast of British Columbia. They petition the Government to stop its wrong-headed policy of automating and destaffing lighthouses in British Columbia. The petitioners point out that they depend for safety on those lighthouses and are absolutely opposed to their destaffing and
Ways and Means
automation and the reduction of safety services on the coast of British Columbia.
The petitioners are thoroughly in favour of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) getting himself out to Campbell River, British Columbia, on October 21 to hear the concerns of those citizens firsthand.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that a Ways and Means motion respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges, to give effect to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof, laid upon the table on Friday, October 2, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Time Allocation

[Stage Direction]
October 14, 1987

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, under Government orders, you will note that we have on the Order Paper a motion for time allocation. Immediately prior to moving that time allocation motion, I would like to inquire once more if there is any disposition on the part of the opposition Parties to expedite debate. The Government is prepared to complete second reading, to move into Committee of the Whole House and to complete third reading this evening in an effort to pass this very important Bill. We are concerned and we want to get the parties back to the bargaining table. We want to prevent any further violence on the picket lines and we want to keep the mail moving. I would like to ask once more of the opposition Parties, if I may, prior to moving this motion, if there is any disposition to expedite debate so that we can complete third reading of this Bill tonight?


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, as much as we are not happy with the contents of Bill C-86, we believe we have reached a stage where we could probably better put our points across by moving amendments. To do this, we would welcome moving to committee stage.
Because of the language of the Minister, 1 do not know if he is still swinging the sword of Damocles of time allocation over our heads. I would urge him not to do that because this would necessitate a two-hour debate on procedure which, in my view, is meaningless. 1 would rather discuss the substance of the Bill. It would probably take longer if we go through time allocation. That is where we are in the Liberal Party.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we will not be co-operating with the Government. We believe this legislation is not balanced. It is not fair. The Government has the ability to move time allocation, and if that is the action it wishes to take it can take it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my colleague from the Liberal Party. Regretfully, I move:
That, in relation to Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, one further sitting day be allotted to the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated just a few moments ago, we do not believe this is fair legislation. I think there is an attempt by the Government to railroad this legislation through the House of Commons. It is unfortunate that that is the case. Our Party has indicated in our
speeches in the House the areas on which we believe there should be amendments to make this legislation more fair and equal in its treatment of both management and the workers. To date we have not received a response from the Government to indicate which amendments it is likely to accept and which amendments it is going to reject.
We would hope that in the two-hour time period we have now that the Ministers of the Government will rise in the House of Commons and give us some indication of whether or not they will be open to amendments to this legislation. I have already spoken to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) and told him what areas of the legislation we believe should be amended in order to make it more fair and compatible and more acceptable to both sides in the dispute.
Having said that, we do believe that as long as postal workers have the right to strike, as they have under the law of this country, the Government should allow the dispute to continue or, even more constructively, should allow Canada Post to negotiate. As I said in my opening speech on this debate, it is the Government that is causing the strike. It is the Government's refusal to allow Canada Post to discuss at the bargaining table the issue of franchising that is causing this strike. We in the New Democratic Party caucus believe that the workers, through their union, have the right to take that very important matter to the bargaining table and that they should expect that Canada Post will discuss this matter. It is this item that is causing the strike. It is the major item in dispute. As long as the Government, for its own political agenda, refuses to allow this item to be negotiated, we are going to have a labour dispute in this country.
It is the Government's refusal to negotiate in good faith, and I want to make that very clear, on the matter of job security that is causing the strike at the present time, just as it was the Government's move to introduce the legislation in the House of Commons that provoked a national strike. We did not have a national strike until this legislation was introduced into the House of Commons, it was only after this unfair one-sided legislation was introduced that a national strike right across this country was provoked.
I have difficulty understanding why the Government will not allow this item to be discussed and negotiated. After all the speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Minister responsible for the status of women about the need for affirmative action and the need to ensure that women have jobs with adequate salaries, it seems completely contradictory to have a Government policy which is going to take these jobs, with fairly decent salaries, which are basically held by women, and franchise them out to a number of locations right across this country. Again, women will be hired, but on a part-time basis. They will receive basic minimum wages-no benefits and no likelihood of a decent pension plan. The Government has to be responsible for what it is doing. It knows full well that the net result of this franchising-out policy is that jobs at the wickets in Canada Post right across the country will disappear. Yet the people who will be picking up the new jobs
October 14, 1987

will be women, and those women will be receiving, in most cases, salaries at the minimum wage level.
It is interesting to note that in this debate in the Elouse of Commons we have not heard from the Minister responsible for the status of women. We have not heard from any government Member defending the franchising-out position and what it will do to women workers across this land. Not one Conservative of the over 200 who are in this House has got up to defend what will happen to the salaries of women who will be doing the work that is presently being done by Canada Post.
We have had the Minister responsible for Canada Post in his usual unbiased way talk about the costs being too much in the Post Office and that things are terrible. One would almost think that he is not the Minister responsible for Canada Post because he says things are so terrible there. He must be doing a terrible job as the Minister responsible. But things will get worse if we take away those wicket jobs, the preferred jobs, the jobs that people work for years and years in order to get, in order to have day-time jobs, fairly clean jobs, from them. They will then obviously not find those compatible, acceptable, and rewarding jobs.
To do that simply because the Government wants to privatize part of the postal service is completely ridiculous. It is unnecessary. It is, as I said, causing the national strike that we have taking place at the present time. I would ask the Government again, because it does have the opportunity to debate today, why it is so essential to take those jobs from women and make them minimum wage jobs? Why is that so essential to this Government? That is what will happen. The Government knows that is what will happen.
The Minister responsible for Canada Post got up and said that no one will lose jobs as a result of this measure. He said, "We will make sure that Canada Post will do something to ensure that those people who are presently at the wickets can go and sort mail. They can do other jobs in the Post Office". But that is not necessarily a good option.
First, the jobs that people have worked for years and years to get will be taken away. Second, it is not always the casein some of the smaller post offices across the land that four more mail sorters are needed, because there are already four mail sorters. They are there doing that work at that time. Eight mail sorters will not be needed. What will happen? Will people be forced to leave the communities they work in, or will they have to quit working at the Post Office?
This is a matter of job security. Because it is a matter of job security it belongs at the bargaining table. Yet you have heard from the Minister responsible for Canada Post, Madam Speaker, say, "No, it is management rights. We will not negotiate that". That is not management rights. It is the security of those families across the land. They have a right to take that to the negotiating table. It is the pigheadedness of this Government and its refusal to allow negotiations to take
Time Allocation
place at the negotiating table that have caused a national strike.
If the Government was willing to move, if the Government was willing to allow the issue of franchising-out to be negotiated, where it will take place, when it will take place, how it will take place, then I think this issue could be resolved. But the negotiations have to be allowed to take place. If the Government is saying that it will not discuss the item, then, obviously, it will not be resolved. A mediator may come in and there may be an arbitration award handed down in two or three months. That may make people think that the labour dispute has been resolved because the arbitrator has acted and made recommendations. But if the issue is not satisfactorily resolved for both sides, both management and the workers, then we will have more years of disputes within the Post Office. I am not saying violence. I am not saying provocation, but it will obviously set a very bumpy relationship between management and the workers, because they could not discuss at the negotiating table the item that is of concern to both parties.
So, Madam Speaker, we have to oppose this measure. We continue to oppose it. What we want to see from the Government is an indication not only that it will accept some of the amendments we have suggested but also that it will allow negotiations to take place at the bargaining table. The only way that that can happen is if the hands of Canada Post are freed and it is allowed to negotiate this item at the bargaining table.


Jacques Guilbault: Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that we on the side of the House regret that the Government has decided to use time allocation, a procedure that amounts to gagging Members in order to speed up the debate on Bill C-86. Ironically, using this procedure will probably make the debate go on longer than it should, because when the Minister introduces the motion for time allocation, it is followed, as you know, by a two-hour debate for the sole purpose of finding out whether the motion will be adopted. This means we spend two hours talking about procedure instead of discussing some of the amendments that could be made to this Bill. While the amendments would not make it perfect or even acceptable-depending what the Government wants to do with its majority-they would at least have the effect of making us to stick to the substance of the Bill.
It is regrettable that, once again, the Government, supported by its vast majority, is using a Standing Order of the House to impose its will and to try and get approval for a Bill that has some very dangerous aspects.
First of all, I may say that as far as we are concerned, it was not the right time to introduce this Bill.

I want to say that in our opinion the timing with respect to bringing Bill C-86 before the House was wrong. First, I think

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
that we have to agree, all of us, that there was no national emergency. We were not facing a strike that had the effect of crippling the Canadian economy. This is not a rail strike where commodities such as grain, coal, and other essentials are not moving throughout the country, something which we had to endure a few months ago. In this case, we have a situation in which we have a strike which was comparatively more calm than the letter carriers' strike. Certainly, the violence was kept to a minimum up until the time the Government chose to bring this ill-fated Bill forward. According to the Government, the mail was largely moving. According to a statement this morning in Le Journal de Montreal, which I will read in French-
[ Translation]
"The Canada Post Corporation claims it received nearly 32 million letters and parcels during the weekend and that it delivered them on Tuesday".
Canada Post admitted that despite the fact there was a strike and probably because of the fact the Corporation decided to us strike breakers, the mail was being delivered, which adds credibility to my argument that the Government was ill-advised to introduce its Bill at this time.
Furthermore, negotiations were still going on between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. We think the Government should have done the right thing, which was to act ont the request we made to the Minister on the floor of the House about two weeks ago, to appoint a mediator who could then work unhampered, without this sword of Damocles, without the threat of this legislation we have before us today. The mediator would have been able to consider the conciliation report tabled earlier, and perhaps by today the strike would have been settled. However, by introducing back-to-work legislation which is always cordially detested by the workers concerned, whether they happen to work for Canada Post or in any other sector, the Government is taking the risk of having a prolonged strike and of increased violence, and that is what is happening.
I think the Government is largely to blame for the fact that the strike is continuing and that the atmosphere on the picket line is getting worse, as postal workers are becoming increasingly irritated at what is happening, at being faced with back-to-work legislation and seeing people, otherwise well inten-tioned and who only want to earn a few bucks, being forced by the Government to face Canada Post's regular workers, which necessarily will lead to violent confrontation.
Furthermore, the Bill contains measures that are all wrong.
I had a chance to discuss them with some of my colleagues. Clause 7 of the Bill appears to force the hand of the mediator-arbitrator by enjoining him seriously to consider the conciliation report. Whoever has read this report knows perfectly well that in some parts, it supports Canada Post's plan to franchise postal services. And that is one of the most controversial issue at stake between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
I say that it was a mistake for the Government to phrase Clause 7 of the Bill in such a manner as to give the impression that the Government is giving instructions to the mediator-arbitrator to consider favourably the conciliation report. Those who have read the report know that it is slanted in favour of franchising out postal services. This is one of the hottest points that is dividing Canada Post and the union.
I have to agree that the wording is worse in French than in English. In English it states that the mediator-arbitrator should "give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner". This may be interpreted by some as considering it very seriously, whereas to others it may be read as giving simple consideration. On the other hand, in French using the words-

-"prendra serieusement connaissance" does not leave any room for interpretation. This strictly means that the mediator-arbitrator should rely on the conciliation report and in that sense, for a Government which has been bragging since the beginning that it has allowed Canada Post to manage its own affairs and that it has tried to intervene as little as possible in that conflict, we see a clause where the Government gives clear instructions to the mediator-arbitrator. However, I must admit, because I already have had several discussions with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), that he seems to be open-minded and that he would be ready to accept amendments to that clause, and this augurs well, and in due course I intend to introduce an amendment to curb the effect of that clause.
However this will not solve the problem in Clause 11 which I feel provides for excessively severe penalties and also additional ones, because there are fines much greater than in the past to punish those who would go against the legislation.
However, I must admit that in that case I was less successful in my negotiations with the Minister and I will have to propose an amendment to shorten the five-year period during which a union leader or a Canada Post official could be prevented from holding office. I will have to fight against that clause, since the Government does not seem to be ready to admit that it is most dangerous and could infringe human rights.
This being said, Madam Speaker, I have to add before concluding that I object to the time allocation motion or to the guillotine set by the Government and, in any case, I will rise again to state my views about the contents of the Bill which I find inequitable.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, the Post Office is an institution that is close to the hearts and souls of Canadians virtually everywhere. It is a place where, in every village and hamlet of Canada, if the federal Government is to have a presence, it has it there. It is a place where fishermen
October 14, 1987

and farmers gather and exchange views and ideas. It is a place where people exchange friendly letters. It is a place where bills are paid and cheques are received. Having said all of that as to how it touches us emotionally, let me say that Canadians clearly and dearly are looking forward to a settlement of this present dispute.
I submit, Madam Speaker, that there are only four alternatives which the Government has to enable it to approach this particular subject. First, it could shut down the Post Office. It could be shut down simply by allowing a strike to proceed; the two parties to come into dispute and to allow the Post Office to be closed and not serve Canadians. Of course, that approach was tried by the Liberals in 1975, and with some support from the New Democratic Party. It was tried in that there was a 42-day postal strike. During that period of time the small business community everywhere expressed the view that this was crippling the country, destroying business, and putting other innocent Canadians out of work. In response to a question by a media personality, the leader of the inside postal workers union stated that he could not care less that there was some significant damage being done to others.
Apart from shutting down the Post Office by allowing a protracted strike, a third option would be to give in to the demands of the postal union. Again, that approach has been tried. It was tried by the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) when he was Postmaster General of Canada. It was also tried when the Hon. Bryce Mackasey was Postmaster General of Canada.
Much of the present view of Canadians regarding to how they look upon the present conditions and salaries of the Post Office is tied to the fact that we gave in to postal demands which seemed to be excessive at the time. We could order them back to work and put an arbitrator in place as a fourth option. We could use replacement workers and have the Post Office continue to operate. I believe it is clear that Canadians everywhere want to have the postal system operating.
I want to take a look at the present situation which I think is bringing about conditions that are of concern to and perhaps very close to and in some instances already dangerous for picket line workers. I submit that it is inappropriate for members of the Opposition to prolong the debate, especially when members of the Liberal Party are in a position to bring forward in committee of the whole the amendments they seek. They have had discussions with the Minister and they recognize that there is a willingness to co-operate. I believe that approach to be a responsible one. However, the longer we hold up the back-to-work legislation, the more we risk some dangerous situations taking place on the picket lines.
Those situations have already been enumerated in the House, but I think it is appropriate for me to repeat them. In Victoria, a picket struck a supervisor, and CUPW members interfered with mail collection from street letter boxes by
Time Allocation
harassing the drivers. In Vancouver, 16 replacement workers were assaulted as they were entering a marshalling site. In Regina, a picket kicked the door of a pizza delivery vehicle, and another picket threw himself on its hood. In Saskatoon, a number of replacement workers' car tires were slashed, and a picket smashed a window in a bus carrying replacement workers into the MPP. The man was arrested by police. In Edmonton, a picket was arrested for mischief after throwing bricks at a bus carrying replacement workers. In Winnipeg, the mail room in a high rise apartment building was broken into. In Cornwall, Ontario, a hockey stick smashed through van windows. A female replacement worker was hit. She was taken to hospital. While she was okay, the President of the CUPW local was arrested and charged with mischief. In London, a picket was charged with assault. Also in London, the lobby mailboxes of 15 apartment buildings were vandalized with glue in the locking mechanisms.
Turning to Atlantic Canada, in St. John's, a CUPW member was charged with common assault, and 15 vehicles received punctured tires while waiting entry into plant grounds. In Saint John, two vehicles received slashed tires, and two quarts of paint were spread on a tractor. In Moncton, a bus carrying replacement workers was hit with eggs and blue paint bombs. In Gagetown, charges of mischief are being laid against CUPW members for smashing eggs on a vehicle. In Fredericton, a picket was charged after striking a man with a picket sign, and two other pickets were charged after throwing eggs. The tires of a bus used to carry replacement workers were slashed, and potatoes were put in the exhaust of the bus.
We must bear in mind, as the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) indicated, that there is a willingness to look at some of the amendments and accept the reasonable ones. However, for members of the New Democratic Party to take the view that somehow it is inappropriate to move forward with this important piece of national legislation until all of their unreasonable demands are met, places risk and onus upon them in respect of the dangerous potential in the picket line situation.
Let us look at the question of franchising-out. Let me say, probably as sincerely as anyone can in that I come from a constituency which has 113 individual communities, that franchising out more than anything else will ensure postal service for those communities long into the future. In some villages and hamlets where the Post Office presently exists, the only other facility is a local store. When a postmaster or postmistress retires, there is virtually no one in the community willing or ready to take up the service. Franchising out means that the local grocery store next door will be able to take up the service and continue to offer it to the community. As the Government of Canada, we project that some 6,000 new rural services will open across Canada in the next 10 years, yet members of the New Democratic Party would like to hold out that somehow that is inappropriate.
Since many of them represent communities much larger than those in my riding, I want to tell them that the Post

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
Office is an institution which handles one of the largest volumes of money of any business in Canada. It is close to that of the automotive industry. Despite that fact, it is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days per week, which does not meet the needs of modern day society.
The situation today is that many families are single parent families or both spouses are working. We need a postal service that is open early and open late, that gives service during noon hours, and that is located in convenient locations. In many medium-sized cities with present postal services, people must make trips to the post office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and the post offices are located in inconvenient places.
In conclusion, let me say that what the other Parties are saying is that the nub of the issue for them is the real reason the legislation ought to go forward, so that the country can get on with serving its public as it wants and needs to be served.


Marion Dewar: me that this Bill the Government has introduced is a just and fair. The Government is stopping negotiations, saying that it is okay for women to work for less. That will be put into law, making sure that is how they work. That is what the Government is really doing. But it is not just women that which the Government is getting at. It is getting at families, reducing standards of living and hurting people.
This kind of legislation before us is Draconian. This is the kind of legislation of which we should be ashamed. Surely we should spend every minute of our lives delaying this legislation, making sure that we will not have to hang our heads in shame, having become a party to it. We in the New Democratic Party have no intention of facilitating the Government by passing this kind of legislation. Do not say that we feel badly about it. We are proud of it. We are very proud to support the principle that dignity and quality of life is something people deserve.
We also recognize that it was the Government which brought on the strike. It was not CUPW. The Government said very early that what it was going to do was hire replacement workers and franchise out, that it could save a whole lot of money and there was no need for high paying jobs, and by "high paying" it meant $12 and $13 an hour. Maybe the Government thinks it could get the minimum wages changed to $2 or $3 an hour; then it would be very happy because it could exploit that many more people, and then say that that many more jobs had been created. Canadians no longer want that kind of thing to happen. I think the next election will show that people do not want that to happen. These people were willing to go to the negotiating table, they were willing to go on rotating strikes and come to some compromises. They were willing to have true and good bargaining take place; the people wanted to arrive at things that are fair. That type of thing has been stopped and suffocated by the Government. The Government instead has hired scabs and pitted people against each other.
Of course there is violence on the picket line. If you knew that your family would be hungry, that your future was gone and that your job was no longer secure you would feel violent. This country went to war for freedom in 1939 because we felt that those rights existed. I never thought that war was a solution to anything, but lots of people thought that war would protect freedom. The Government is supporting and encouraging violence because it is driving people to frustration, to fight for the survival for their own quality of life and the ability to feed their families.
The kind of Bill we have before us says that we no longer respect that. With this kind of legislation we are stepping back into the 1920s and the dirty thirties. That is what the Government is trying to do to the country. It will not get away with it because there are too many people who know that the quality of life and dignity of the human being and the family is far too precious for us to accede to the Government saying, "exploitation, exploitation, exploitation".
Time Allocation
It is urgent that this debate continue. I think it needs to continue by any manner or means so that we will be able to stop this legislation from passing.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in this debate to put an end to the conflict between the Canada Post Corporation and its various employees. This is rather a difficult situation and I suggest that, as the Governement, we just cannot allow it to continue.
I certainly realize that the best thing would be for both parties, namely the Union and the Canada Post Corporation, to reach a negotiated settlement. But considering that both parties are so very far apart, as the Government, we cannot wait until acts of violence occur or allow employees to go without their salaries, not getting their pay cheques at the end of the week, or delay for weeks making a decision or adopting a legislation as we are doing now.
Madam Speaker, I may have a few points ... I suggest that Canadians would want to know what is going on in these negotiations. As far as the conflict between Canada Post and its employees is concerned, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) has provided a detailed chronology of events and described the efforts made to settle this conflict through conciliation, and here are a few points which were mentioned by conciliation commissionner Claude Foisy in his report.
The conciliation commissioner's report points to a number of very serious omissions on the part of the parties to these negotiations. It was obvious there was no desire to reach a compromise, and they consequently failed their duty to negotiate a collective agreement. Despite all the rhetoric and attemps to have the public see the other party as responsible for the deadlock, what has been reported by the media during the last few weeks, Madam Speaker, is sufficient evidence of the parties' unfortunate performance at the bargaining table and their refusal to take seriously their duty to their members and to the Canadian people.
Here are some comments that appear on page 2 of the conciliation commissioner's report. When he met with the parties for the first time, there were 120 items on the table, that is, fifty-two management demands and sixty-eight union demands. That is a considerable number of items at this stage in the negotiations. Madam Speaker, listen to this. The commissioner then pointed out an amazing fact: the number of items was the same as at the very beginning of the negotiations. In other words, before the conciliation commissioner became involved, the parties had not agreed on any of the 120 items at issue. They only managed to sign a few clauses they had agreed not to change in the previous agreement.
In his report, the commissioner gives his evaluation of the negotiations, and anyone who reads this part of the report will be readily convinced that the talks reflected a total absence of constructive collective bargaining. The commissioner indicated

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
that the parties spent a lot of time translating their demands into clauses for the agreement. And this is what he added: Except for the last day of the talks, which was August 12 this year, exchanges between the parties did not go beyond matters of principle and their justification. Consequently, as far as specific recommendations on the wording were concerned, the commissioner was not in a position to assess all the practical implications. In most cases, he accepted the wording as proposed by the parties. And if this approach leads to practical problems for the parties, they will have only themselves to blame, said the conciliation commissioner, since they had more than five months to send me their comments.
Madam Speaker, this paragraph alone should be enough to make us realize the obvious lack of constructive attempts to reach an agreement, as well as the frustration the commissioner must have felt in his attempt to bring the parties closer together on these issues.
Madam Speaker, what the Government is proposing is that for ninety days, a mediator-arbitrator will try to reconcile the parties. After ninety days of talks, the items still at issue ... at that time, an arbitrator will be appointed and will settle the items still pending. Madam Speaker, I assume that meanwhile, postal employees will go back to work and will continue to be paid, and the rule or the principle followed customarily in collective bargaining when there is no agreement will be to use the services of an arbitrator, who will then settle the dispute. So why should we wait indefinitely and run the risk of having violent incidents? I also think it is important that Opposition Members should let this legislation be passed as soon as possible, to avoid financial loss for the parties concerned and so that Canadians can receive their mail and these people can go back to work.
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that yesterday, representatives of union members in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area were at my riding office in Jonquiere, to tell me about their concerns about the current dispute.
What surprised me was how those people were "demotivated" by what they were experiencing in the work place. I have a feeling the higher echelons or instructions coming from the top are simply ignoring the needs of union members-there is a lack of work motivation, and what I perceived upon listening to those employees is not normal. I wonder if their union leaders are aware of the needs of people, at the grassroots, people in the different post offices, what they experience, their concerns and expectations. My feeling is they only care about major issues and fail to look below at what is going on in the field.
It is my hope their leaders will also go and find out about the real needs and expectations of their members in the field, because a corporation that has 72,000 employees-Canada Post Corporation-is a big corporation in terms of jobs. They should make sure that working conditions are improved at Canada Post Corporation. Right now this seems to be a must. Something has to be done in that area.
I will therefore concur with the Government so that the Bill be passed, even though actually I would have preferred that being done through the normal negotiation process and an agreement being reached.
But in view of the circumstances, because of the deadlock, we must assume our responsibilities and make sure those people do not unduly lose money because of a protracted strike.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I want to speak to this motion because in introducing it the Government is doing the same thing it is doing with the Bill itself; that is, it is trying to force its plan on the Post Office workers and force its will on this Parliament. In enacting this legislation the Government is showing the highest form of hypocrisy. It creates a crisis and then attempts to resolve it by Draconian means. The hypocrisy of the Government is very clear even in the title of the Bill itself.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) told the House over the last couple of days that the mail was going through and the Post Office was operating efficiently. Yet his Government puts before the House a Bill entitled "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services." If the postal service is operating and the mail is getting through, why do we need a Bill to continue postal services?
Pressure was being put on Post Office management through this collective action in an attempt to negotiate a decent collective agreement. What did the Government do? Instead of letting that process continue, it advised the House and its Post Office managers that it would not let a strike go on for very long. What was the result? Its Post Office managers refused from that point on to engage in any meaningful negotiations with the workers. The Government, by its actions, set the stage for the end of negotiations, because of a lack of good faith bargaining by Post Office management.
During the period of rotating strikes there was no major disruption of postal service, and this despite the fact that the Government allowed a Crown corporation to engage in active strike-breaking through the hiring of scabs. To permit a Crown agency to engage in that kind of union-busting activity was a shameful act on the part of the Government. That outrageous behaviour brought about this situation which has caused massive problems throughout the country.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) gave a litany of reasons why this strike ought to be ended. However, he did not tell the House that all of the incidents which he listed occurred after the Government introduced this Draconian back-to-work legislation which takes away the rights of workers. These instances occurred because the Government introduced this legislation. That is an example of the hypocrisy we hear in this House.
October 14, 1987

The Government says it wants to stop violence and confrontation and get people back to the bargaining table, but it provoked the confrontation in the first place through a set-up, and then by telling the workers that they would be forced back to work with perhaps the most Draconian labour legislation that we have seen in recent years in this country.
There was further evidence of the hypocrisy of the Government in the words of the Member for Crowfoot. Ele talked about how important the postal service is to rural Canada. As a Member from a rural area he is no doubt very aware of how important the postal service is to rural people, not merely for the delivery of letters but as a source of information about the federal government and as a gathering place.
That is why when the Government threatened the postal service in rural Canada there arose a grass roots movement called Rural Dignity, of which I am sure the Hon. Member is aware. That organization set out to fight the closing of rural post offices, to prevent the Government from taking away their postal service, their link with the federal Government, and the decent jobs and status which postmasters and postmistresses had in rural communities.
Everyone who comes from a rural area or is familiar with rural Canada knows that the postmistress is a very important and highly regarded member of the community. She is quite often a commissioner of oaths or justice of the peace as well and has looked after the needs of the rural community in official matters. That is not a job which can be done by a clerk earning a minimum wage, who has other jobs to do as well. A person operating a grocery store cannot provide postal service at the same time.
I have a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) on August 14, 1984 when he was the Leader of the Opposition. The letter is to the national president of the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association. It reads:
The Progressive Conservative Party feels that Canada Post's current program of rapid debt reduction is unrealistic, and is the underlying cause of problems with regard to both declining postal service and ventures into ill-conceived schemes to generate greater revenue.
The Prime Minister said:
It is not possible for me to promise at this time that a Conservative government will re-instate full rural postal service within a year, or that all laid-off postal workers will be immediately re-hired. I can assure you, however, that restoring the quality of service will be our top priority with Canada Post.
The Prime Minister has not done that'. Instead, his Government has allowed Canada Post to downgrade the services of the Post Office and is now participating in an unholy alliance with the managers of Canada Post to introduce Draconian legislation into the House to force their plans upon the workers of Canada. Contained in that legislation are some of the worst provisions I have ever seen with regard to labour.
The legislation provides that if an employee of Canada Post who holds a union position violates this law he will not be
Time Allocation
allowed to work for the union for a period of five years. This kind of Draconian legislation is comparable to banishment, or the outlawry of the middle ages. That is what the South Africans do when they do not like what journalists write. They ban them and they are no longer allowed to work in South Africa.
The Government does not want this legislation to be debated because it is afraid that the people of Canada will learn what is really contained in that Bill and what is really going on. We should never see such legislation in this House. It should never be passed as quickly as the Government wants it to be passed. It must be fully debated. All Members must have an opportunity to speak and tell the people of Canada what the Government is doing.
This legislation is detrimental to the workers, the postal service, and the people of Canada.
The Government has allowed postal service to deteriorate under the plans of Canada Post. It is doing nothing to improve the quality of service. This legislation will make things worse in the Post Office and worse for the workers and the people of Canada.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate today on the imposition of time allocation on Bill C-86. We have just heard from the new authorities of the New Democratic Party. I congratulate them on entering this House but, having listened to what the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) had to say, it is obvious that they need a history lesson.
The words came out in full colour this afternoon. The Member for St. John's East must have used the word "Draconian" 30 times. I am not sure he knows the meaning of the word. He heard it from one of his colleagues earlier today and suddenly everything is Draconian. We have heard that expression before from the Member from Nickel Belt who, when speaking on this motion, spoke to the Members behind him. He did not even have the courtesy to speak to the rest of the House of Commons.
The Member for Hamilton Mountain talked about women. She is the great protector of women. Does she know how many people, including women, were put out of business because of the last postal strike? Nine thousand people lost jobs due to the last major postal strike and many of them were women.


John R. Rodriguez: What's your source?


Felix Holtmann: My source is the Federation of Independent Business. Madam Speaker, one must wonder who the New Democratic Party supports. Those Members support the union. They support the union because it finances their Party. They do not represent management or the users of the Post Office. They do not really care about women or the users of the Post Office. Let us review the history of the negotiations. The negotiations have been going on for the last 15 months, yet the

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
NDP does not want to legislate them back to work. The NDP will be the negotiators for the union and make the negotiations fly. I suggest to the House that a union leader would have serious reservations about hiring any one of those New Democrats to negotiate.
One must question where the NDP stands. They expressed concern for a woman who may be losing a job. No woman is losing her job at the Post Office. They know that the new system of franchising would be established only upon retirement. How does that put a woman out of work?
My hon. colleague noted that in fact the new franchising system may create even more jobs. What is wrong with that? What have you got against more jobs?


John R. Rodriguez: Four dollars an hour.


Felix Holtmann: The fee has never been mentioned or negotiated. The parties were unable to come to a conclusion after 15 months of negotiation, yet the NDP wants to extend these negotiations and the strike. It wants to create more damage and injury to the economy of Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Like free trade.


Felix Holtmann: How do they expect that to be creative?


John R. Rodriguez: You do not believe in collective bargaining.


Felix Holtmann: Certainly we believe in collective bargaining, but obviously in 15 months it has not produced a collective answer.


John R. Rodriguez: The right to strike is part of collective bargaining.


Felix Holtmann: The NDP takes the attitude that it will only support the strikers and let the process continue for another 15 months. Alternatively, it would support the view of the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), which is to let the strike continue and ruin big and small industries in this country. It does not care.
While members of the NDP will say they support the average small-business person during the next election campaign, where were they when they were needed?
New Democrats suggest that this legislation is Draconian and hypocritical.


John R. Rodriguez: You are a big hypocrite!


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) is trying to present his point of view to the House. Perhaps you could ask members of the new democratic party at least to give him the courtesy of allowing him to say what he wants. They may not like what he is saying, but surely he has the right to say what he wants.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have not said a word.


Mr. Keeper:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member said that our friend to the right-


John R. Rodriguez: Far right.


Cyril Keeper: -was attempting to express himself and get his message across. But clearly he was trying to provoke a reaction from this side of the House. Otherwise, why would he be saying such nonsense? I think the Hon. Member is achieving his objective. Let the debate continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: While listening very carefully to the exchange that was taking place in the House, the Chair had the feeling that both the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) and some members of the New Democratic Party were enjoying that part of the exchange. I am sure that Hon. Members will want to take the opportunity to answer the Hon. Member, but he should be given the time and the opportunity to have his say.


Felix Holtmann: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 1 hope you will tack that extra time that was literally stolen from me this afternoon on to my time for debate.
Let us review what the strike was about and why we would, in fact, legislate the inside postal workers back to work. They were not striking in order to improve the high level of absenteeism, which is 17 days for inside postal workers, compared to an average of seven days of absenteeism among other workers in Canada. I heard nothing from the NDP about that situation which is very prevalent among inside postal workers.
While that is not something about which those workers can be proud, the NDP will find a way to say that it is great.
The reason they are on strike is to scuttle management's objectives to bring good, clean, efficient postal service to Canadians. When the NDP supports that type of action, one really wonders how 36 of them were elected as Members of Parliament.
The federal Government must return some sense to the situation. The workers are not even arguing over wages, which are good compared to those in the private sector.
History has proven that we cannot afford a lengthy postal strike because of its damaging effects on the country. Certainly, no one in the House should condone the violence which has been alluded to, although members of the new democratic party have said that violence can be condoned sometimes when it comes to international affairs. That Party, which claims to be the protector of the people, even condones violence. I believe that the Leader of the New Democratic Party even talked about gun-boat diplomacy, referring to some fishing off the coast of Newfoundland. That Party wanted violence. We do not want violence, and I think that is very evident in the actions taken by the Government.
October 14, 1987

The reason we are moving time allocation is that anything further to be said by the Opposition will simply be repetition. I already indicated that one Hon. Member repeated the word "Draconian" 40 times in his speech.
We want to avoid violence. Clearly that is the objective of the Government and the reason for supporting the back-to-work legislation. Furthermore, the majority of Canadians want back-to-work legislation. Why does the Opposition not agree for once that we are doing what Canadians want? Canadians want their mail to move.


John R. Rodriguez: They do not want free trade.


Felix Holtmann: He wants to get into the free trade debate. He will have his opportunity to do so. I suggest that Canadians might even want free trade, but they certainly want free access to the mail without controversy, fights or abuse on the picket lines.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I must say at the outset that it is a tragedy that the Government found it necessary to limit this debate rather than examine this legislation in a thorough and comprehensive way. Rather than taking the time to consider our suggestions for amendment, or seeking to change or even withdraw the legislation, it is limiting the debate and trying to bulldoze ahead. However, knowing the Government well, we are not surprised by its action.
i want to explain what the Government is trying to sell Canadians with regard to Canada Post. These days, politics is largely a matter of image. The Government treats the Post Office like a business. It is trying to sell the Post Office to the Canadian public as a business. Why has the Government chosen to do that? It is because, for many Canadians, that has connotations of efficiency, of being cost-effective and of providing a good service. So this is the image the Government is trying to sell. However, the reality is that when it comes to service, the Government has watered down the standards of service. Rather than working out how it could make sure the letters arrive in time, meeting the standards that are already in place, the Government has watered down the standards.
It still takes eight days in many cases for a letter to get across town. Therefore, the reality does not fit the image the Government is trying to sell. It tries to get across to the Canadian public that if we treat the Post Office as a business, it will be cost effective and the best thing for the pocketbook. The reality tears apart that image because when the Government franchises post offices it gives away post offices that bring in the best revenue. A business person who is interested in a franchise from the Post Office is not going to take one of those post offices that are losing money. It will be the one that makes a revenue. So the Post Office and the Government are giving away revenue which will create more deficit for the Post
Time Allocation
Office. This is completely contrary to the image the Government is trying to project when it calls the Post Office a business.
The point I want to make is simply that the Government is trying to sell a pig in a poke. It is trying to sell an image, because that is the nature of modern politics.
The reason the Government brought in a motion to limit debate is that it is trying to sell another image, which is one of the Government being tough, in control and capable of governing this country. Well, every Canadian knows that the reality of this Government is that it is completely incompetent and lacks the capacity to set a direction and maintain it. It certainly lacks the compassion to set a direction which is in line with Canadian values.
There are other ways of looking at the Post Office rather than simply looking at it as a business. One of the ways I would like to suggest is fairly commonplace but still important. Why do we not look at the Post Office as a public utility? Why can it not be like the Manitoba Telephone System, which is owned by the people of Manitoba, delivers good service, and is what it is, which is a public utility? It is under the democratic control of the community in which it is located, and this is very important when it comes to rural communities.
When this Government treats the Post Office as a business, what happens is that when that business is in a rural community, if it cannot make enough dollars to balance the books, it is closed down and the service is cut off, tearing away one of the pillars of our rural communities. So rural Canada is up in arms against the Government. Rather than treating the Post Office as a business, why not look at it as a public utility and recognize that the post office in a rural community is an investment? It is part of our willingness to preserve rural life.
It is not our ideal to have everyone living in a city. Canadians ought to have the option of living in a rural environment. The economics of having to centralize everything in the large urban centre does not make any sense in the modern context in which we are trying to improve the quality of life. This is the time when we should be investing in rural community life so that people who want to live in that kind of environment have the option to do so, rather than tearing out the roots of our rural Canadian communities.
Another aspect of looking at the Post Office as a public utility rather than as a business is that we can cross-subsidize services. In other words, we can be involved in those services that make a profit and use those profits to support the services that lose money. Not only that, if it is a public utility, if it follows public policies, then it can set national standards, which brings us to the whole question of women's equality. Why treat the Post Office as a business if it means that we will have to cut women's wages? Why is it that when 80 per cent of the people who run rural post offices are women already receiving low wages, the Government moves to cut back their wages drastically? In Wilno, Ontario, the Government is offering the Postmistress one-fifth of what she earned before.

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
It is not a freeze in her salary, it is not a cut, but a complete slashing of her salary, she was offered one-fifth of what she was offered before, this is what the government is doing when it treats the post office as a business, trying to create a great image when the reality is a horror story.
There is another way to do it. We want the Government to wake up. Rather than introducing motions in this House to cut off debate because it does not want to hear about alternatives, it ought to listen to what people on this side of the House are saying. The Government ought to listen to what rural Canadians and women are saying and should learn from it so it can develop a policy for the Post Office that makes sense.
Over the last 20 years the Post Office has been going downhill because it has been bounced from one Minister's desk to another. It has been ignored for 20 years. Twenty years ago Canadians were satisfied with their postal service. They had confidence in it, and the people who worked for the Post Office had pride in their work. But the Post Office has gone downhill through neglect. It is time for the Government to rethink the Post Office and it is time for Canadians to rethink the Post Office and time to have a real national debate. Why do we have a Post Office? The debate should not just be a process of grandstanding by a Government that is sinking in the quicksand of its own unpopularity. Why do we not have a real debate on the Post Office? How can it be run efficiently? What is its purpose? We can then design a Post Office that can work and function and pay decent wages so that people do not have to live in poverty in order to work there. People should have the option to work in an environment that is healthy, and the Post Office should be able to support rural Canadian life so we do not contribute to the abandonment of rural communities.
I am very disappointed in what the Government is doing in moving this motion to limit debate. What it is in fact doing is seeking to sell a pig in a poke to the Canadian public. It is trying to say it is tough. It is saying: "We have taken on Jean-Claude Parrot and we have made him say "uncle". Why is it trying to do that? Because its own public image is in the garbage pail, and the Government has earned the right to be there. Its image is like junk mail. It has given junk mail to the Canadian people and the Canadian people have said that this is a junk Government.
It is time for the Government to wake up and realize that grandstanding is not enough. When push comes to shove, when it comes to the bottom line, the question is whether the Government is governing in a way that is competent, not whether it is doing well with its public relations efforts.
How well is the Government actually governing the country? If it were to think about what the Post Office is for and to establish a decent plan to achieve the objectives of Canadians, which is to get their mail on time-in a couple of days rather than a couple of weeks-Canadians would like that. Canadians also want the workers to have pride in working at the Post Office. The vast majority want to know
that their Public Service is paying liveable wages. They do not necessarily demand that someone be able to eat caviar on their wages, but certainly that they be able to have three good meals on their table rather than being forced to live in poverty.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Madam Speaker, I wish to join in this debate on time allocation regarding the dispute in the Post Office. This time, I shall address the Chair and I hope that I will not be interrupted by some Hon. Members who appear to take this issue much less seriously than they claim, before TV cameras, for all Canadians to see.
Madam Speaker, I think that this dispute has lasted longer than opposition Members seem to realize. They just need to watch TV. But they forget that there has been 15 months of negotiations that were getting us nowhere. The parties have been playing at musical chairs for 15 months. And after all that time the negotiators had to admit that they could not even see the light at the end of the tunnel and could not find one single point that could be settled.
I hope that all Canadians and particularly those in my riding who phoned to tell me that it was about time to resolve this dispute will realize that, in the past, we never have negotiated a settlement. We used to yield to every demand, to buy peace and to settle disputes at any cost.
If you look at the report of the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Claude Foisy-We were told, time and time again, that there was no progress in the last 15 months of negotiations and that the major point of contention, franchising, would trigger an all-out war. Madam Speaker, we are in the midst of that war which has already taken its toll. While workers put their life in danger on picket lines, our colleagues opposite keep saying: There is no hurry, let us continue the debate!
The situation is much more serious. Instead of continuing the debate we must solve the problem. As Government Members, we cannot act irresponsibly as the Members opposite who would like us to give everything to the unions. I think that our primary responsibility is to ensure that the negotiations will be meaningful and to solve that problem at a reasonable cost.
As you are aware, a large number of our constituents complain about the lack of motivation in our Post Offices. There is an incredible lack of motivation-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) has the floor. The normal courtesy should be extended to him by Members opposite. Even the Chair cannot hear his remarks. I would say that the conversation between Hon. Members is a bit too loud. The Hon. Member for Duvernay.
October 14, 1987


Vincent Della Noce: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, they do not even have the courtesy to listen as we did when they spoke.
As 1 was saying, there is a serious problem of attitude in the Post Office. I can see it in my riding, and I am sure many of my colleagues could say the same. Now, in our post offices, the customers get bawled out. People are very frustrated. I was even told, and I had the same experience myself, that it is impossible to get a smile from a post office employee. It is frightening! My colleague for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) said that there is a total lack of motivation in the postal service. I believe him. No one smiles, no one cares. It all belongs to the Government. We go on strike, and our demands are met. Sure. That is what we used to do. Today, Mr. Foisy mentioned in his report that Canada Post had the right to franchise postal services. I found some newspaper clippings, and I have an article, published in Le Devoir on October 9, that I would like to quote: "As far as postal services are concerned, this Bill could put an end to a quarter century of bungling, when politicians bought peace at any price. It is too bad-"
I hope Hon. Members will listen, because this is for them! "-the NDP Opposition has not understood this and is taking advantage of this opportunity to make some cheap politics instead of taking the longer view to consider the public interest."
Here is another one: In the past, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers managed to make major gains in strikes under the Liberals, who caved in to demands for a settlement at any price.
Well, we certainly cannot blame the unions. I want this to be quite clear, Madam Speaker. I am not against the unions. When they get something they want, I say more power to them. But 1 think we have to go further than that to settle the problems at issue here. Obviously, we want to put an end to this dispute, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) was quite accommodating: If there is anything you don't like, we might be willing to change a few words!
No, they said. Let the strike go on. Things will get better. We can have a debate and make some cheap political gains and even get on television on the evening news! Madam Speaker, that is not what the business people are saying in my riding. They say: Settle the problem once and for all. They need the service, which is very important to small businesses.
They also talked about scabs and strike-breakers. The fact is that in Quebec it is even harder than in the rest of Canada because that problem was settled during the big strikes we had in the past. 1 don't like strike-breakers. I am against all that. You can't do that.
However, I must say that Quebec has dealt with the problem, and maybe other provinces across Canada will do likewise to deal with a problem that, I think, can only lead to violence. The real purpose of the Bill is to have our mail delivered without violence. It seems that after 15 months we
Time Allocation
have not succeeded. There were negotiations, but they failed. People are sick and tired of playing musical chairs. We are going to wait again. Are we going to wait another 15 months? Are we going to wait another six months? Are we going to wait for someone to die? This week a woman was wounded in both legs. Do we want her to die? Do we want more people to get hurt? I think we are trying to make something out of nothing.
There is no way to bargain. Maybe they should impose a negotiator who might be more successful. The unions and the NDP are saying that jobs will be lost, and that the negotiators dealt with this and that.
Madam Speaker, are you aware that there are in Canada 12,000 postal counters? Only 417 of them are manned by unionized workers. There is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The Union is saying that 4,200 jobs are already jeopardized, creating the impression of further lay-offs. Would you believe that these people think there are going to be 4,200 lay-offs? They are wrong. The Corporation has offered job security to all its employees. The people who are listening to us must be wondering: What are they fighting over? What are they negotiating? They are negotiating the franchising of the postal services.
We have reached a point where a small group of employees want to tell their employer: That is the way you are going to do it. As you probably know, Madam Speaker, I was once a boss myself. I was a boss and a union supporter once, and I have never allowed my employees to dictate to me how to run my business, because each time I did, I lost money. For instance, I have negotiated with, watched and listened to my employees. I have worked with them and obtained some success.
Madam Speaker, they should not claim that some jobs will be lost; it is all right for the NDP to try and make cheap political gains, but no job will be lost. Violence must stop. I do not like the way things are going. I wish that within the past 15 months, the parties had reached a negotiated settlement. The Minister of Labour said the same thing, and we are part of the Government, not the Opposition. We must act responsibly and decide in the best interests of Canadian businesses and individuals, making sure that they are getting their mail. Our honourable friends opposite should go to the United States: They would realize that there are no strikes there any longer. There is service. In the United Kingdom, they are getting their mail within 24 hours, while here, we are not even able to get it within a week, with a smile.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, it is a sad day for Parliament and democracy. Every single time that the Government, with its vast majority and its great weight, has to use closure and the limitation of debate in the House, it is a sad day. It is a sad day that it has imposed

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
limitation of debate on this particular piece of legislation. I am saddened by this Draconian piece of legislation.
It also saddens me that it looks as though the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party got together, because on this limitation of debate motion I have only heard one Liberal speaker on this particular Bill. It is unfortunate that the Official Opposition has not seen fit to participate in fighting what at other times they would stand up and shout against as the tyranny of the Government. I am saddened by that because they pretend to be the champions of the working class. In fact, when the chips are down they run for cover.
What does the limitation of debate in the House say? First, it says that the Government is incapable of dealing with this serious problem. The very introduction of back-to-work legislation in the form of Bill C-86 is a clear indication that the Government has failed, in spite of the fact that it had a hands-on relationship with Canada Post. There has not been the arm's length relationship which we heard would take place with the creation of Canada Post.
I recall the President of Canada Post, Mr. Lander, stating to a committee of the House that I attended that he could not tell us what the business plan was for the Post Office, because it had not been approved by the Government. So the Government approved the business plan for the Post Office. What was that business plan? It was simply to cut back the postal services to Canadians.
Therefore, this limitation of debate is a clear acknowledgement on the part of the Government that it is incapable of dealing with Canada Post and the problems in the Post Office. It is incapable of ensuring that postal services to Canadians would not only be expanded but enhanced. It is a complete failure on the part of the Government to deal with the Post Office, in much the same manner as the Post Office is incapable of dealing with the industrial relations within the Post Office and with the workers who are involved in the Post Office. It must come to its political masters and say, "Put them back to work".


Cyril Keeper: Bail us out.


John R. Rodriguez: Bail us out, save our face. We have been failures. Instead of saying to Canada Post, "You go back to the table and negotiate a collective agreement with your employees", the Government has come forward to use the jackboot on the workers in the Post Office. I can only classify this as PTL, punitive Tory legislation.


Mr. Benjamin:: Praise the Lord, brothers!


John R. Rodriguez: I want to tell them that it is not too late to repent. I say to them, repent now, the hour is not late, because in fact the moment of reckoning is at hand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Bill C-86 should be filed in the dead-letter wicket. This legislation is an acknowledgement of failure by the Government. The Post Office was in quite a mess when Bryce Mackasey was the Postmaster General and headed the Post Office during the 1978 strike. I recall that very well. I recall Bryce Mackasey, in an attempt to resolve the strike with the Post Office, phoning me up and saying, "Can you get Joe Davidson over here? I want to see him". I recall that vividly. I recall saying to Joe Davidson, "Look, here it is. Here is the technological change clause". He took it out of his pocket and said, "There it is. It will solve the problems in the Post Office". It was laid right on the table, and Joe Davidson looked at it and said, "Well, who is going to sign this?" Mackasey said, "I will sign it. I am the Postmaster General". And Davidson said, "What guarantees do we have that this will continue after you are gone?" Mackasey said, "Well, you have the word of the Government". What good was the word of the Government, Madam Speaker? Sure, we got the Post Office out of the Canada Labour Code. We got it out of the PSSRB. Now it is under the Canada Labour Code, it is a Crown Corporation, but now it has PTL legislation. Is that any improvement?


Mr. Blaikie:: What does PTL mean?


John R. Rodriguez: Punitive Tory legislation, that is the new lexicon. That is what we have over there led by Pierre Bakker. We were all led to believe that going to a Crown corporation, going on the Canada Labour Code, will mean that henceforth the Post Office and its employees would be able to resolve their disputes. What have we got nine years later?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Betrayal.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a betrayal. It is absolutely a betrayal.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Have you got your shovel, John?


John R. Rodriguez: It is vengeance with a passion, that is what it is. If one can imagine a Tory in passion, I want to state that they have a pretty vivid imagination.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is a volunteer.


John R. Rodriguez: I have never seen a Tory with passion.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Oh, come on, John.


John R. Rodriguez: Anybody that could move a Tory to passion-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here reflecting for a few moments. I wonder if I may seek to buy the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) his supper tonight?
October 14, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is pondering on whether it should ask for the unanimous consent of the House before agreeing to the Hon. Member's suggestion. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I really wish the Conservatives would show some passion for the collective bargaining process. If they had a passion for justice in the workplace, if they had a passion to try to provide service to Canadians through Canada Post-


Herbert O. Sparrow: That is what we are doing.


John R. Rodriguez: They are not providing service. I have received letters from across the country. We have the Organization of Rural Dignity because the Government has consistently cut back rural postal services. It has consistently cut back urban postal services.
We have had demonstrations. We have had people taking the Government to court over the whole matter of urban postal services. The record is clear.
This piece of legislation and the closing of debate in the House of Commons will not improve collective bargaining in the Post Office. It is using the jackboot of tyranny to put workers back to work in that workplace.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, of course if the NDP Members opposite were to shut up, perhaps they would finally listen to what we have to say.
I would like to refer to the last speakers to show our television audience what can happen in a debate. We had earlier one of our Liberal opponents who rose quite beyond himself and told Canadians watching television what an immoral, what a horrendous thing closure was on such an important matter. It was both immoral and important because, as he said, we will be discussing procedure for two hours rather than the subject matter of the Bill. I would like to tell the Hon. Member, who by the way has just entered the House, that during the 10 minutes he spoke-of course he took two minutes to play the offended virgin, which left eight minutes during which he addressed the subject matter and the problem at the Post Office.
On the other hand, Madam Speaker, we just heard a very delightful and eloquent speech from my NDP friend. This clearly shows their attitude in this case. What a joke! They laugh, they mock the conflict to show that on the Government side what is going on is absolutely ridiculous. But what is going on on the Government side? We returned to the negotiation table after some time, and I would like to quote the following from Le Devoir. "After 10 days of postal strike, the Government decided on back-to-work legislation. They are 10 days
Time Allocation
too late." It is not a laughing matter. It is absolutely not a laughing matter, nor is it a matter for procedural bickering either, Madam Speaker.
What would this Bill do, actually? We are telling people: You are taking the Canadian people as hostage. You will go back to the table, we are appointing a mediator who shall within a certain timeframe, keeping a steady eye on the report submitted previously, manage to make his views known. And that is important. We should, or rather the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) could have said : I am enacting a special legislation, you are going back to work, and here are the working conditions. But no. We want to proceed in a democratic way.
But we are past the time, Madam Speaker, where settlements were taking both the Canadian people and the Canadian Parliament as hostages. The time has gone, Madam Speaker, when regulations only were taking hostage the Canadian people as well as the Parliament of Canada. Canada Post Corporation was privatized in order to remove the political aspect of the system and we have been here for a week laughing and mocking and taking Canadian men and women hostage. We agreed with the strike earlier. We do not think about older people nor the thousands of men and women who are concerned by the present situation. And in our speeches, we pretend to maintain the quality of the service. But let us wonder about the quality of service for the past 25 years. Why is it that the sales of companies such as Courrier, Purolator and so on are ever increasing? The sales . . .


An Hon. Member:: Because they are private companies!


Jean-Guy Hudon: Not because they are private companies, but they offer a better service and we paid attention to that.
As for us, when you listen to the NDP members, we have less mail, less service to offer because if those people were coming back, volumes would really be important and the quality of service should yet be improved. The best guaranty of job security is the quality of service being offered.
When I was director of personnel administration in a school board, I kept repeating that the best job security you can have depends on the quality of service you offer to the people you have been hired to serve. That is why, incidentally, Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party will be re-elected because they offer the best service Canadians want and have ever had during the past 20 years.
Madam Speaker, if you read editorials which support us, you will find one in the Gazette, for instance, under the headline " It had to be done". And yet, that paper is not known to be always supportive of the Party in power. You also look at the special legislation, and an editorial by Pierre Vennat in La Presse: Clearly, the Mulroney Government was right when it decided to end the postal dispute by introducing a Bill to that effect.

October 14, 1987
Time Allocation
In four or five minutes, Madam Speaker, we will be called upon to vote and I will support time allocation for the debate on that issue, because we have been discussing procedure for the past two hours, discussing closing the debate. The debate must be closed. We must give back to Canadian men and women who are entitled to services, the power they have as citizens. At this point, after two or three weeks, we have had enough and that is final. The best safeguard, the best work quality as I said is the quality of service they should provide. They said this was a sad day. It is not necessarily so terrible, except that we may have wasted two hours-we should have passed the Bill earlier in order to move to other business that is important to Canadians.
I think that everything has been covered by the Hon. Members who spoke and we are now coming to the end of the debate and I would like it to be serene and calm. Are we rich enough, can we afford in Canada to deprive all our citizens of services they are entitled to? This we will never repeat too often. The Canadian Parliament, the highest authority in the land-of course the Senate has a different view-the Canadian Parliament essentially has the power and the right to give back to the citizens the services they should have, and we should stop listening to a few people who, in a system like ours, in a democratic system, have a right to make their views known, but the fact that they have a strong voice to bellow out their points does not necessarily make them right.
I like to refer to the old story of the parishoner who one day went up to the pulpit to read the sermon prepared by the parish priest for the next day. The sexton had written in the margin: "Weak point, use loud voice." When one is not too sure of what to say, one makes jokes, one uses a loud voice, one shouts to impress one's truth. I can say that in the constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry, in Valleyfield, there are dozens of people who are calling because they expect service. I represent them also. It is not only on behalf of union leaders whom I hold in high esteem that I am speaking out, but also on behalf of mothers, senior citizens and all those who are expecting something through the mail.
I suggest that the time has come to put an end to this hostage-taking of the Canadian people and that the parties should get together-a corporation has every right to change the direction of its operation as it pleases. Madam Speaker, in Valleyfield, which is not a city as big as Montreal, with between 30,000 and 33,000 inhabitants, not a week goes by without some convenience store owner showing up at my office to say: Mr. Hudon, it would be nice if I could get a small postal counter. I think it is a very good idea. Why not? Everybody agrees that we should bring the service closer to the customers, provided that this does not endanger any job security or other rights.
As I was saying earlier, Madam Speaker, the best security for these people would be in the quality of their service. Why refuse them that? Every application for a postal counter should be judged on its merits, and very often, we are faced, not with arbitrary decisions, but with decisions such as: Here,
we may have gone a little bit too far, it would be necessary to make personnel cuts. I am sure that the postmasters ... the Valleyfield postmaster at any rate, would take this into account when making such a decision. However, I should say that it is sometimes much simpler to make a decision when the staff is reduced and that normal rather than Draconian steps are taken.
This is quality service. Such service for Canada Post would be as that provided by Courier and Purolator which pick up letters and make home deliveries. They do not say: "I have your letter and I will deliver it when I feel like it".
The quality service is a kind of decentralization. I feel that people should be ready to accept such a move. It will give Canada Post a greater volume. People have lost confidence. The Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) cannot restore confidence and I fully agree. However those are fruitless and childish struggles that we are facing now and they prevent us from going any further.
I think that we should be serious enough to see that this is justified and I appeal to my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to stop performing antics with this issue and to vote really for the well-being of Canadians and for quality service.
The parties will return to the negotiation table and for 90 days, the Bill will appoint a mediator who will be instructed to consider all disputed issues and to try to find a common ground of agreement between the parties. But this is excellent! They do not say: Go back to work, you have 4 percent and we do not talk about it any more. This is excellent! If they have persuasive arguments, Good Heaven, it will be a good table to put them forward ... an area of agreement with the parties .. . if he cannot do it within 90 days, he will make an arbitral decision on each point of controversy.
I trust the skills of the judge or mediator-arbitrator who will be appointed. I am confident that with this, with good arguments, Canada Post Corporation will sit at the table with the Union and that the parties will put forward their arguments; maybe we will see the light at the end of the tunnel, Mrs. Speaker.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam
Speaker, in the two minutes remaining in the time allocation motion, I have a couple of comments. When the Deputy House Leader for the Government moved the motion today he indicated that time allocation was not needed and, therefore, the Bill was needed to do three things: to get the parties back to the bargaining table; to end violence on the picket lines; and to keep the mail moving. The Government does not need any legislation to get the sides back to the bargaining table. It needs to instruct Canada Post to start bargaining fairly and that it is no longer bound by the corporate plan directed by the
October 14, 1987

Government. To end violence on the picket line, you eliminate the cause of the violence, which is the use of scabs. There was no violence during the rotating strikes-
Some Elon. Members: Yes, there was.


Iain Francis Angus: -except when Canada Post started to bring replacement workers in.
We had a strike in Thunder Bay at the Great Lakes Forest Products plant. One thousand five hundred men and women went out on strike, but there was no violence because there were no replacement workers, no scabs. People there understand the system. The Government has to accept responsibility for the violence.
As to keeping the mail moving, I come back to my first point, that if the Government were serious about keeping the mail moving it would have instructed Canada Post that it was no longer bound by the corporate plan, a plan that will not increase service but will lead to a deterioration of service in the communities.
I hope tomorrow during the full debate I will be able to finish my comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member.
As it is 5.26 p.m., the two hours provided for the study of the motion before the House are over, in accordance with Standing Order 117.
Consequently, in accordance with this Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put all the questions necessary to dispose of this motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: Call in the Members.
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.

October 14, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
At this time, the Chair may want to ask for unanimous consent of the House to call it six o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, we just spent two hours being castigated for shutting off debate. There are still 10 minutes left. Let the Opposition debate.