1987-10-13

[Stage Direction]
possibility of imposing on Canadians a general tax on goods and services, including food; whereas food constitutes a vital element in day-to-day life and the imposition of this tax would have the effect of seriously penalizing certain categories of taxpayers such as the aged, families, unemployed, low-income taxpayers, youth, et cetera; wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject all measures that would have the effect of imposing a sales tax on food products.

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-third report of the Striking Committee. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN THIRTY-THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from residents of Vancouver Island and the coast of British Columbia who humbly request the Parliament of Canada to take action to stop the destaffing of lighthouses on the coast of British Columbia. The petitioners further request that there be a moratorium imposed on this program until such time as a proper study can be done. In addition, they wish the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) would appear in Campbell River at the first public meeting to account for the program initiated by his department.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of State responsible for the status of women (Mrs. McDougall), that the thirty-third report of the Striking Committee presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[DOT] (mo)

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the pleasure of tabling a petition signed by residents of the National Capital Region. They humbly declare that; whereas since September, 1984, the federal Government has imposed on Canadian taxpayers 25 new taxes or tax increases, in particular on medical and dental supplies, snack foods, candy and soft drinks; whereas the federal Government in its tax reform proposal is studying the


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a certified petition signed by 31 residents of Calgary who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to change the taxation laws of Canada, specifically the taxation of senior citizens. These people have worked and paid taxes all their lives and the undersigned petitioners believe that senior citizens receiving $45,000 or less per year should not pay income tax or any other taxes.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the residents of the Yukon territory who wish to take this opportunity to express their concern over the fact that they were not consulted about nor were a signatory to the Meech Lake Accord. They therefore call upon Parliament to withdraw the requirement for unanimous consent for the creation of new provinces and to further ensure that aboriginal rights are entrenched. They call for further aboriginal conferences as well.

October 13, 1987
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is is agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) continuing debate.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, among the things said on Friday in this debate still ringing in my ears quite clearly was the reference by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to the fact that the relations between Canada Post and the union are venomous. I agree with that observation. However, I have to add that the federal Government has a big responsibility for having allowed this relationship to reach such a stage. I will devote a few minutes to that aspect of my remarks.
What comes to mind first is the role the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has played in this matter so far. He has certainly not helped. If anything, he has fueled the fire. Second, the introduction of this Bill has provoked the workers to no end. What we are seeing today is a situation where management and labour are virtually at each other's throats and almost waging an all-out war. In the process, the future of the corporation is at stake. That is a very sad state of affairs. Instead of calming the waters and cooling the atmosphere, the Government came forward with this legislation which is comparable to throwing a match into a latent fire.
Until this Bill was introduced we had a type of labour action, a rotating strike, which permitted the movement of mail. Canada Post claimed that 80 per cent of the mail was going through. Evidently the rotating strike permitted the public to be served. However, this Draconian Bill provoked the all-out general strike we are now facing.
The Bill contains measures which force us to conclude it is a bad Bill. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) eloquently referred to Clause 11 on Friday. That provides for a
five-year suspension from union activities which could be interpreted as breaking the spirit if not the substance of the Charter. In addition, the Bill contains a directive to the Canada Post Corporation which leans in favour of the Foisy report. That is something the Bill should not do. If Canada Post has been given the mandate to operate as an independent employer, which it was six years ago, then it should not be told which way to go in subsequent negotiations, mediation and arbitration. In other words, the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim that Canada Post is operating at arm's length from the Government, at the same time through legislation tell Canada Post it should be inspired and directed by a specific document produced prior to the legislation.
It is also a bad Bill because of its timing. It is important to put on record that at this time Canada Post and the unions agree that the operation of the Post Office will break even in 1988. Therefore we must asked, why this push to privatize certain aspects of Canada Post when we are so close to the break even point? It does not seem to make sense to inject such a contentious item when the parties agree that the corporation will reach the break-even point next year.
The issue of jobs touches many people. It is a highly emotional issue and has been mishandled by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The fact is that ideologically the Government favours breaking the backs of unions and making their role in society extremely difficult, if possible at all.
You must have heard, Madam Speaker, about acid being spread on furniture within some of the buildings of Canada Post. That was immediately interpreted as an action by the union. Why would that conclusion be drawn when the workers are locked out of the plants?
It is also worrisome that despite its deficit Canada Post finds it possible to pay the scabs it is hiring to replace the workers $150 plus bonuses. Why does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs constantly interfere in the proceedings during Question Period? He does that at the expense of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) who has to find a solution to this conflict.
If the Government were acting in good faith it would pressure Canada Post to pull out these scabs. It may also introduce legislation to outlaw scabs at the federal level. That move would create an atmosphere at Canada Post tenfold less negative, worrisome and tense than it is now. The union would likely return to rotating strikes which would mean that the home delivery of mail would be almost regular, as it was until last weekend.
By removing the scabs Canada Post would signal to the union its desire to resume negotiations in good faith. The parties are far apart and must resume negotiations to justify the calling in of a mediator-arbitrator. That would fit in with the development, for the long term, of good labour relations.
October 13, 1987

The employer has a major responsibility to show good faith in this very difficult situation.
The Bill has one positive aspect although it need not be brought in through this legislation. Clause 5 extends the term of the collective agreement to September, 1988, or September, 1989. That extension of the agreement could pave the way for the resumption of negotiations rather than the introduction of this type of legislation which is only adding to the discontent, tension and violence we are witnessing these days.
The Government could announce its intention to extend the collective agreement. A mediator could be appointed. Instead of proceeding with this Bill the employer and the union could return to the table to find a solution without direction from the Government through Parliament on the direction which should be taken.
The Government now has an opportunity to demonstrate that it means what it says, that Canada Post is an independent agency. As this debate is taking place there is a lot of unhappiness across the country. This matter ought to be resolved at the negotiating table and not by the imposition of a decision of Parliament on the collective bargaining system which has served this country and its workers very well.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and would appreciate a response to it. It astounds me to hear representatives of the Liberal Party who sat in the last Government berate the present Government on this issue. It was the previous Government which poisoned the climate in labour relations in the Post Office so badly that we have the situation which exists today-spying on employees, harassment and intimidation. The operation which the postal corporation has worked into a fine art was started by the Liberal Party when it was in power. It started contracting out and franchising. All of the evils which we see today were started by the Liberal Party. It refused to deal with fair questions of automation raised by the employees. It was unwilling to deal with important job loss issues in a fair manner. Under the Liberal Government we lost delivery of home mail. The whole litany of poor service to the public started under that Government.
How many times did the previous Liberal Government force workers back to work in extremely negative contract situations which I believe were designed to break CUPW and remove the rights of people working in the Post Office? I know that the previous speaker was not guilty of those offences. He often cried out as a lone voice in that Cabinet. However, considering the dirty hands which his administration had, I would like to hear him justify the Liberal Party's criticism of the present Government.


Mr. Caccia:: Madam Speaker, it is easy for the NDP to express synthetic indignation on matters like this, having never been in Government and never having had an opportunity to carry the responsibility of governing. That is a typical stance of the NDP.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
There is a provision in the Labour Code on automation, introduced by the Liberal Government, to protect workers from dislocation due to the adoption of new technologies in the work place. That measure was hotly contested in the 1970s by employers. Finally, despite the opposition, the measure found its way into the Canada Labour Code. It was put there to protect workers under federal jurisdiction when their job security is at stake.
That is one of a number of measures included in the Labour Code which, I remind the Hon. Member, is not an invention of the New Democratic Party. Canada enjoys a federal labour code which covers a variety of situations because over the years the governing Liberal Party developed a substantial body of measures which are the envy of observers of the labour scene in other parts of the world.
It is true that we have occasionally passed back-to-work legislation through the House. I remember a number of occasions when the service that affected the public came to a complete standstill. This is not the case now with the Post Office. I must say that it is regrettable that mail service today is possible because of scab labour, but until last weekend mail was being delivered because there were rotating strikes and the public was not being inconvenienced.
When we passed legislation in previous years, we did so when it was more than evident that the public was being put at an enormous inconvenience, either because the trains had come to a stop or the harbours were not functioning. Those were real emergency situations which demanded the intervention of Parliament at a certain point.
However, I submit to the Member that we are not facing that situation yet. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate and consistent for a Liberal to object to this type of legislation and to urge the Government to remove the scabs, give a signal on the part of management that there is goodwill to resume the negotiations and to sit down and find ways of developing a common ground.
I admit that the situation is deteriorating, not because of an attitude by one side but mainly because the Government is introducing Draconian legislation that is fueling the fire rather than taking initiatives that could have a positive effect. I hope that answers the Hon. Member's question. If he wants to ask another question I will be glad to attempt to reply.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member side-stepped the question. Perhaps he could deal with the specifics.
The legislation before us today is Draconian. Certainly, the Government, with the postal corporation, created a situation in which the employees could not win. The Corporation has poisoned labour relations with the encouragement of the Government.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
When the employees went on strike the Government acted on behalf of the Corporation by forcing the employees back to work, with some of the most negative legislation this House has seen. The Liberal Party, when it was in government, played that game with postal workers.
The Hon. Member gave an interesting expose on the Canada Labour Code. Previous Liberal Governments played this game the Conservatives are playing today, in which they destroyed the opportunity to bargain collectively and obtain a decent contract. They were responsible for poisoning labour relations in the Post Office to the point where it was virtually impossible to obtain an agreement. When the employees were forced back to work, all the cards were in the hands of the Corporation. It was the Liberals who began the process of franchising and it was they who refused to deal with the critical question of job loss as a result of automation in the Post Office.
Will the Hon. Member come directly to the point and deal with the record of past Liberal Governments, which compares almost exactly with the present Conservative attempt to crush the postal unions and violate the rights of workers in the Post Office?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has it all wrong. He is really manufacturing issues.
He wants to create the impression from his own vivid imagination that the Liberal Party was out to destroy unions. If that were so, why have we, beginning with Mackenzie King, introduced a system of collective bargaining that has over the decades managed to resolve almost 99 per cent of the disputes in federal jurisdiction? Laws that were introduced by subsequent Liberal Governments have placed a high value on the important role that labour has to play in society and on the legitimate power labour must have in order to negotiate with the employer. Liberal Governments have developed a body of legislation and a system of resolving disputes which is probably one of the best in the world.
Perhaps the Hon. Member suffers from selective memory. Even those aspects he has put forward are incorrect. We did not shy away from protecting workers from automation. As I stated earlier, we did not shy away from reinforcing labour through labour educational programs to the tune of some $1.5 million a year between 1982 and 1984, in order to allow labour to develop its research and educational programs to perform an effective role in society.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I simply want to urge opposition Parties to expedite passage of this Bill because failure to do so on the part of this Parliament would be very irresponsible and could lead to consequences that I do not believe anyone in the House wants to see.
Much of the debate about this Bill has dealt with the question of whether the Post Office is operating reasonably and properly in the circumstances. I suggest that those who
review the contemporary history of the Post Office and come to the conclusion that what is happening now is improper, unfair or unreasonable is engaging in selective review.
I commend to the House a recently published book entitled, Post mortem, written by David Stewart Patterson, who is a reporter with The Globe and Mail. In his book, he reviews the contemporary history of the Post Office and talks about the various attempts by the Post Office to deal with its labour-management problems over the years.
Various Postmasters General and Ministers responsible for the Post Office have tried every technique known. The New Democratic Party approach would be to give the unions what they want. That is what the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and Bryce Mackasey did when they were Postmasters General.
Today, there is a situation in the Post Office in which independent third-party adjudicators have found that the wage costs with the Post Office are 20 per cent above national norms and productivity is 20 per cent below national norms. The total excess labour cost because of these two factors is between $460 million and $800 million a year in taxpayers' money. This is money that could be spent on day care, economic development or on job creation.
This situation exists not because the workers are lazy but because of acquiescence to militant union demands. The present work rules are impossible.
One of the salutary effects of having replacement workers there now is that management has been made aware that an inexperienced replacement worker, when management is not saddled with these horrible work rules, is much more productive. More mail is being processed by inexperienced replacement workers who are not saddled by these work rules. Something has to be done by a Parliament which feels in some way or other responsible to the taxpayers.
What were the other approaches? The previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), has left the Chamber but forgets that in 1978 the Liberal Government brought in legislation to end a strike before it began. He was a supporter of that Government yet he stands here and sanctimoniously criticizes us. The approach that that Government took did not work. It did not help to cure the problems of the Post Office, nor did it help labour relations.
In 1981 the Liberal Government used another approach. It said that it would let the workers go on strike. For 42 days the Post Office was shut down and the cost to the small business sector in Canada was $3 billion. The Opposition is saying that the Post Office should not bring in replacement workers and the Government should not legislate an end to the strike. But what are the alternatives? I suggest they are, one, give the union everything it wants; two, shut down the Post Office.
October 13, 1987

What is the alternative which the Opposition would have us pursue? When one contemplates winning elections, one has to contemplate taking responsible positions. Let us look at four alternatives. First, give the union everything it wants-and everybody knows that many of the problems we have now are as a result of excessive union demands which have been catered to. Second, shut down the Post Office and let the economy bear the cost, which is what the previous Government did in 1981. Third, you can allow the Post Office to operate with replacement workers. I hear the Opposition saying that that is not effective. Fourth, you can legislate an end to the strike. I hear the Opposition saying that we cannot do that either. What is the position of this Opposition which says it should be given the trust of government?
The legislation which my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) brought forward is fair and even-handed. The Government is referring the dispute to an independent third party. A fair system is to have an independent third party adjudicate our disputes when we cannot agree, be it our judges in court or arbitrators in labour situations. To suggest that it is more responsible to let economic warfare carry on is wrong.
Let me say in parenthesis that the accusation has been made that the Government is out to break the union. If you are out to break a union you let the strike run for weeks and months with replacement workers so that the pressure builds up on the workers who are no longer working who see that the replacement workers are delivering the mail as effectively or more effectively than they did. Strikers start to argue with the union leadership and demand an end to the strike. That is how you break unions, Madam Speaker. If that were our Government's objective, we would let the strike run.


Raymond John Skelly: That is the next step.


Harvie Andre: Because the mail is getting through we would let the strike run until the union's rank and file turn on the leadership and kick them out. That is the way you break a union. That is not what we are trying to do here. We are trying to put an end to a very difficult situation.
In this morning's Ottawa Citizen on the front page there is a quote from Darrell Tingley, the National Vice-President with CUPW, who said "-it is turning into a war zone out there". I have an incident report, as the Post Office calls it, as at six a.m. this morning.


Ms. Copps:: Caused by your Government's legislation.


Harvie Andre: There is the mouth from Hamilton again.
In Atlantic Canada on Friday a bomb threat was received at a Saint John's plant. A customer in Moncton who dropped off his mail had his car damaged while attempting to leave. In North Sydney, a bus driver and replacement worker were injured when rocks were thrown through a bus window. In Bathurst, Canada Post vehicles were damaged and a CUPW member was arrested for assaulting a management employee. In Dieppe, New Brunswick, tires of vehicles attempting to
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
enter the facility were slashed. On Saturday in Grand Falls, Newfoundland, replacement workers were assaulted by pickets. In Bathhurst, rocks were thrown at trucks entering facility. In Sydney, windows were broken, locks on external doors were broken and broken bottles and nails were spread throughout the parking lot. On Sunday, a security guard had his car damaged in Kentville. In Fredericton, a picket was charged when she damaged a taxi entering the facility. A pop bottle was thrown through the window at the home of a private sector subpost office operator in Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia. On Monday, a female picket was caught between an incoming transport truck-


Sheila Maureen Copps: A point of order, Madam Speaker. A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can assure the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that the Speaker is not deaf. The Member has risen on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, in reading out the occurrence list which includes a number of allegations of things that have happened in homes and private residences, could the Minister tells us whether there is still a law in this country that people are innocent until proven guilty? How is it-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, a number of those incidents have been promoted by the postal service and the security and intelligence group. The Minister should be renaming these incidents-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Both Hon. Members, and each and everyone in this House, know that those are not points of order but points that can be raised in debate or during the question period which will follow the Minister's statement. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: On Monday, a female picket was caught between an incoming transport truck and a guard rail at the facility. The picket was taken to hospital with a possible broken leg. In Halifax, there was a fire at the main entrance of the postal facility. In Quebec, on Friday, in Sherbrooke, a bus carrying replacement workers had windows broken. On Saturday in St. Therese, two management supervisors were shoved while entering the facility.
In Rouyn, a replacement worker was followed by pickets after finishing her shift. Her car was stopped and she was harassed. On Sunday in Quebec City, a replacement worker was hit with a thrown brick. In Sherbrooke, 24 letter boxes were damaged. In Montreal, a street letter box was set on fire.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
On Monday in Quebec City, seven pickets were arrested as trucks and replacement workers entered the plant and later four security guards were attacked by pickets. On Friday, in Toronto a police officer who was attempting to remove a picket from the path of a bus was struck by the bus. Buses carrying replacement workers had their windows smashed, a management employee was assaulted by pickets. In Windsor, on Friday night, 50 pickets were throwing rocks. In Sudbury, a customer's car was damaged by pickets. On Saturday, two union members were arrested in Ottawa, one for trespassing and the other for smashing a window. In Toronto, at the east letter processing plant, two replacement workers were injured when bus windows were smashed by rocks. A female supervisor had a picket shove a burning two-by-four at her. Thirteen replacement workers were taken to hospital after sitting in battery acid that had been placed on chairs in various rest areas. At the bulk mail facility, four management employees were chased by pickets. They were badly shaken. A regular Canada Post contractor was offered $1,000 to hitch onto the wrong trailer or to take out his trailer and then dump the mail at the Toronto bulk mail facility. In Windsor on Saturday afternoon, pickets were placing children in front of vehicles to bar entry and exit to facilities. Shortly after, a postal inspector was assaulted by pickets while crossing the line. On Sunday, in Toronto, over 200 replacement workers chose to spend the night in the south central facility rather than cross unruly picket lines. They were available for day shift work on Monday. On the Prairies, on Friday, the Saskatoon facility received a bomb threat.
On Saturday, in Winnipeg, a bomb threat was received. In Edmonton, the windshields of both a Canada Post car and a security employee car were smashed. On Sunday, a Canada Post truck was unable to enter the Calgary facility as no police were at the site. On Monday, in Brandon, a picket brandishing a bat broke a mirror on a bus. On Monday in Windsor, an Ontario replacement worker was assaulted while waiting to board a bus to take him to sort mail. In Kitchener, a replacement worker was injured by a stone thrown through the bus window. On Friday, in Port Alberni, on the West Coast, a post office customer was involved in a fist fight with an picket; a regular highway services contractor was run off the road. In New Westminster pickets were seen pouring sand into the gas tank of a truck. On Sunday, in Port Moody, a replacement worker was assaulted while trying to cross the lines. He was assisted across by the district manager who was knocked to the ground. Picket lines were established at subpost offices; these independent businesses are not involved in the dispute between CUPW and Canada Post. On Sunday, in Victoria, two Canada Post managers were struck with the stick portion of picket signs. On Monday, in Vancouver, a convoy of buses that was carrying replacement workers was blocked from getting into the Vancouver plant by a trolley bus that had its wires cut. In Victoria a replacement worker was assaulted by a picket.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order. I believe if you refer to the Standing Orders, Madam Speaker, you will realize that there is prohibition against reading lists of great length in the House. I wonder if you could exercise that prohibition.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Minister will continue to tell us more after the list is completed. I think it is quite pertinent to the debate, and I have no intention of stopping the debate at the present moment.


Harvie Andre: The point of that list is to make it clear to the House, the public, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), who has now left the Chamber-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 am sure that the Hon. Minister does know of the rule which forbids a Member to mention the presence or absence of Hon. Members in the House. This is the second time during his speech that the Minister has done so. I would appreciate it if he would not do so again.


Harvie Andre: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and 1 should point out that the Hon. Member has returned.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Although the ruling vis-a-vis the reading of the list was that the Minister would be allowed to continue, I am sure that the Minister would wish to comply with the Standing Order that requires him to table documents from which he reads in a lengthy fashion. I would ask the Minister, through the Chair, to table the document.


Harvie Andre: I have read the complete document, but if the Hon. Member does not wish to wait until Hansard, she can have what I have read. I do not mind.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I believe that there is a requirement to table the document. I distinctly saw the Minister reading and quoting from a document at great length. Before he takes some of the pages out of the document, which he may not wish to be made public, and I see him removing pages from the stapled version, would the Minister please table the document as per the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has heard the Minister state that he was quite willing to table the document from which he was reading. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: The fact of the matter is that we are getting involved in a point of order regarding whether I need to table my notes or not table my notes, and what is a document. These are notes prepared for me on what has happened. There is no principle in the Standing Orders that requires me to table my notes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, there is.
October 13, 1987


Harvie Andre: Rather than get involved in this, perhaps the Chair will not allow-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On the same point of order, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Contrary to the statement of the Chair, in my hearing, the Minister did not state that he was prepared to table the document. The Minister stated that he was prepared to give it to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). In order that other Members of the House may have access to the same information, which the Minister purports to be true, I would certainly wish to see the documents, and ask that the Chair request that the Minister table those documents.


Harvie Andre: If I may be permitted to finish my remarks, which I can do quickly, without further interruption from the Opposition, then I will deal with the matter in question.
The purpose of reading this list of incidents and bringing them to the attention of the House is to make Members aware that there are activities which are posing a serious danger-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am pursuing the point of order because I do not believe it is the decision of the Minister whether or not he chooses to table the document. The Standing Orders specifically require that if there is a document from which he quotes at great length then he must table the document. It is part of the Standing Orders. I believe the Chair is aware of the Standing Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do understand and know of the Standing Order to which the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is referring. The Hon. Minister first stated that he was prepared to give his notes, the document, to the Hon. Member. At first the Chair understood that it was an official document. The Hon. Minister has now put the point in a very succinct fashion by stating that they are notes which were prepared for him in order to address the House this morning. A Minister does not have to table personal notes. It will be his decision whether or not to give the Hon. Member a copy of his notes. The Chair cannot make a ruling on this.
I hope that this is the end of this point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would just like to draw the attention of the House to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 138. In Citation 390 there is a long list of criteria enumerated that are to be applied when determining if government papers or documents should be produced.
I wish to ask the Chair to refer to all the citations in Beauchesne, not only 390, which pertain to the long established practice that, where a Minister reads from a document, as the Minister has done, all Members of the House, not only the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), should be given the benefit of that list in order that they can refer to the accuracy of the statements that have been made, and also have the privilege of using those examples to perhaps argue with the Minister in debate of the House.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was raised that the Minister stated he was reading from his notes and not from a document. The Minister did mention that he was quoting from the daily occurrence report. I am sure the ears of every Member in the House picked up when the Minister stated that. The document the Minister referred to ought to be tabled in the House; not given informally to one Member but given to every Member of the House.


Harvie Andre: I believe the Hon. Members have simply rehashed a point upon which you have already ruled, Madam Speaker, so there is no need to go any further.
The point I am trying to make which the Opposition does not wish me to make-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is there a ruling?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair at this point is referring to Citation 327 where it states:
327.(1) A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House-
From my understanding of what the Minister has stated, what he is quoting from is not a despatch or a state paper. Henceforth, I see no obligation for the Minister to table the document.
On the other hand, I would ask that the Minister consider making it available to the Hon. Member, as the Minister has stated he would.
This point of order has now been ruled upon, and I will not accept any other intervention on it.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I rise on a further point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it a separate point of order?


Raymond John Skelly: It is a separate point of order.
I made notes on the Minister's statement. The notes indicate that the Minister used the term "a daily occurrence sheet".
It has been fairly clear that we do not have a daily occurrence sheet from which he was quoting. He must have been quoting from some other more informal source, and I think the Minister ought to correct the record rather than smear postal workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member assured the Chair that this was a different point of order. Obviously it is not, and this point has been ruled upon. The Minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to make, which the Opposition does not want me to make, is that we

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
know from reports over the long weekend that there is damage and that there have been numerous incidents of violence across the country. People have been injured, fortunately not seriously yet. Well, broken legs or being hit by bricks is pretty serious, but no one has died and no one, so far at least, has required extensive medical treatment, we think.
However, how long will that be the case? If opposition Members say that they are prepared to delay this legislation for as long as they are able to use the rules to do so, then they ought to recognize that in essence they are saying that they are prepared to see this violence continue and are prepared to accept that injuries may occur. That would be very, very irresponsible on the part of any parliamentarian in the House. They have a position to take. They have made their positions known. They have articulated the disputes they have with the Government, as is quite proper in this place. It is quite proper in this place that we then divide on it, that we have the vote and we proceed. The use of delay tactics for the sake of delay tactics when we are talking about the personal safety of Canadian citizens is something I would urge the Opposition to give very careful consideration, before deciding on any position of delay for delay's sake. That was the purpose.
On the question of the point of order and the supposed document, the notes I have been reading from, I am supplied with this information on a regular basis. It is part of my job as a Minister to be up to date and aware. I brought it to the attention of the House fully in debate. I was quite prepared to share documents, but in view of the actions, the attitudes, and the precedent which might be established, I will regrettably say "no" to that action, for to say otherwise would be a note of approval or recognition of the appropriateness of opposition actions in this regard, which I do not think is warranted.


Mr. Murphy:: Madam Speaker, unfortunately the way the Minister ended off his speech by refusing to table the document indicates the real problem in this dispute, and that has been the attitude of the Minister.
He has quoted from a document. He has used part of a document. He has given not only the House but the public a certain viewpoint because of the document from which he read, but he refuses to give the entire document to the House or to the people of Canada. I think that is a sad reflection of the way the Government has handled the dispute.
I may point out that if we had the entire document we may see other problems which could be associated and directly related to the role of Canada Post.
There have been documents in the past, documents which I have raised in the House, the internal documents of Canada Post, of what happened in the letter carriers' dispute, where they admit that they intimidated workers despite the fact that the Canada Labour Code clearly spelled out that they cannot force a worker to do the work which is normally done by someone who is on strike. The Canada Labour Code points
that out very clearly, yet Canada Post broke that law, did it on an ongoing basis, and did it deliberately.
It is not just my opinion or the opinion in the internal document. It was also the opinion of the Canada Labour Relations Board when it found against Canada Post, when it found that Canada Post was not obeying the law of the land.
Obviously the failure by the Government to produce the entire document is an attempt by the Government to leave an impression without giving the public the benefit of the entire picture. I think that is propaganda and I think it is deliberate on the Government's part.
The reason I rose to speak was not to comment upon the document. I wanted to comment on the fact we just heard from the Minister responsible for Canada Post. He spoke for over 20 minutes in the House and did not spend one minute on the issue that has caused the strike. He did not mention franchising-out. He did not mention what has happened to women workers who are getting a decent salary working at wickets across the country and will not be working as a result of the position taken by Canada Post.
What will happen to those jobs? They will be taken by other women who will be working part time and for minimum wages. It is ridiculous to have the Minister rise in the House to do all the fear mongering he can but not deal with the issues which have caused the dispute. That was regrettable. I wish the Minister would at least try to defend his position with regard to franchising-out those jobs and what it will do to the salaries of women workers across the land.
In closing I must say that the attitude of the Minister is the cause of the national strike. It is not just a matter of postal history. It is a matter of what is happening at this time. Certainly there have been disputes in the Post Office in the past, but the problem at the present time is the issue of franchising-out, and it is because the Government refuses to negotiate it that we have a strike at this time.
Before sitting down, I must point out that each and every one of the occurrences which he quoted, from the document he pretends not to have, happened after the Government moved to legislate an end to the strike. They did not happen when it was a rotating strike. They happened after the Government forced the hand of union members across the country, and I think he should admit it. The violence out there, the national strike out there, was caused by the Government. It is interesting to note that editorials in The Edmonton Journal and the Winnipeg Free Press have indicated that this is a strike caused by government.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, very quickly, in terms of the accusation of deliberate intimidation during the LCUC strike, the Hon. Member is wrong in his assertions and is wrong in his claims. There was one incident in Halifax involving a truck of mail and a local supervisor. Mail is handled both by CUPW and LCUC workers; sometimes the divisions are not clear. The local manager asked CUPW workers to help unload the truck.
October 13, 1987

They refused. He accused them of insubordination, and it turned out that they filed a grievance and the Canada Labour Relations Board said that they did not have to do the work. It was a local manager who made a decision at the point. To translate that into an orchestrated routine of intimidation and law-breaking is extreme at the least.
The Hon. Member invited me to get involved in one of the issues at the table. I have deliberately avoided doing that because I happen to think that it should be negotiated at the table between Canada Post and the letter carriers' union.
I realize that the Hon. Member and his Party have certain obligations to Mr. Parrot and CUPW which require them to get involved in the details of the dispute and the negotiations at the table, but I think that is improper.
Finally, on the question of violence, I hope Hon. Members have not forgotten that the violence started with the rotating strikes before the Government had made any decision about back-to-work legislation. There was violence in Nanaimo prior to that. To suggest somehow that everything was peaceful, that there was no violence, and that the violence only started upon introduction of the Bill is in fact a distortion of history. I reported to the House about incidents over the weekend. It would have been a much longer list if I had reported on incidents all the way back.
The Hon. Member says that this new thing has to do with franchising and so on. I wonder if he is aware that in 1913, there were 14,132 sub post offices, all run by the private sector. The Post Office has never had as many as that. To suggest that the private sector running the sale of stamps is a new phenomenon is simply not true. In fact it has always been that way with the Post Office since it was formed through the Post Office Act of 1968. As I say, we had the maximum number of private sector post outlets in 1913.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, during his speech the Minister did not in my view at any time address the Bill before the House. Not one of his comments was directed to the contents or the principle of the Bill.
Clause 11(2) in my view provides for a serious and a very difficult penalty. What was the Government's rationale for putting forth such severe, such hard and such regressive penalties?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not go over that, of course, because my colleague, the Minister of Labour did in his opening remarks and I did not think it was necessary to be repetitious. The rationale, I think, was to ensure, to the extent possible, compliance with the law. It had been used previously in back-to-work legislation.
I know the Hon. Member is not suggesting that it would be acceptable for union leadership in this case, or in any other case, to say they refuse to obey the law of the land. That
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
clearly is an unacceptable situation so the question then is, what form of penalty should be used.
As the Hon. Member knows, the Government he supported brought in back-to-work legislation in 1978. Incidentally, it introduced the legislation before the strike started. It was not passed until the strike was three days old, and the union disobeyed. At that time, Mr. Parrot deliberately disobeyed the law. Eventually, after appeals and so on, he served some 60 days or so in jail. That did not seem to serve any useful purpose, so this Government is saying perhaps we ought to look at some other penalties which will encourage compliance with the law.
I do not understand what is so severe about saying that a person who would deliberately disobey the law would thereby lose the right to serve in a responsible position with the union for five years. We are not taking away their freedom, we are not imposing huge fines on them, we are not throwing them in prison, we are just saying that we expect people in responsible positions to behave responsibly and obey the law, and if they refuse to obey the law and behave responsibly then we cannot allow them to be in a responsible position. I do not consider that too severe.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is a severe temptation to comment on the speech of the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. His speech dealt with the question of violence. There is not a Member in the House who does not abhor violence, but the cause of the violence must be recognized. I would say that that cause lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government and the Canada Post Corporation.
The Conservative Government has done more to precipitate the violence in the letter carriers' strike and the violence in the present situation than any trade unionist involved in this dispute. The Government has created a labour relations climate that is poisoned. The Government has allowed the Canada Post Corporation to execute one of the most vigourous anti-union and anti-employee programs that I have seen in many years.
The kinds of intimidations that are going on in the Post Office today are severe. The objective is clear. It is to break the power of the union in the Post Office and to break the union. We have had very interesting examples of this intimidation raised. One I raised by way of example to the Minister is the case of a woman working in Williams Lake in a Post Office. Her family had been in Norway and they returned to Canada with whooping cough. The woman's doctor ordered her and the family to be quarantined. The local postmaster on the other hand said to her, "If you do not come to work, you will be fired". The woman of course followed the advice of her doctor and did not come in. The harassment goes from there. The woman is phoned at home, contrary to conditions in the contract, and harassed by management. The issue is referred to the postal corporation's doctor who poses as a public health official and phones the woman's doctor, extracts confidential

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
information about her illness and then berates the doctor for quarantining the woman and suggests that she should be going back to work immediately.
That is not the end of the story. Not only is there harassment, but absolutely unethical behavior of one medical practitioner to another. Then the postal administration decides that, even though the woman is home with an illness quarantine and is a hazard to her fellow employees, she can no longer have her pay cheques. Her pay cheques will be withheld. She cannot pay her bills, feed her family or pay her mortgage. Another form of harassment and intimidation. This goes on and on. It is the most amazing litany of anti-labour practices that I have heard in a long time. Finally, the woman broke out with active whooping cough and all was forgiven and forgotten because of course she would be an immediate health threat to everyone else around her, but not for the operation of Canada Post. The local postmaster was quite prepared to override a local doctor and jeopardize the health of other employees.
The question has been raised about the whole matter of incentives that postmasters and management are given for attendance bonuses. If they can get the worker attendance level up, there are premiums which accrue to the local postmasters and management officials. It is an absolute prescription in many cases for intimidation and harassment of employees. That harassment goes on. Those employees do feel the weight of oppression in that operation. This is absolutely unscrupulous labour relations.
The worst of all possible situations is of course euphemistically referred to by the Minister as the use of replacement workers. They are known in much wider circles as scabs. They are unfortunate individuals. The Governments, both right-wing provincial Governments and this right-wing Conservative Government, hold these individuals in absolute contempt. There is no dignity in the minds of the Government in the scabs forced into the job. They are told that they will be off welfare if they do not take scab positions. They will lose their unemployment insurance benefits if they do not become Conservative Government replacement workers to break the postal union. If they do not do that, then they lose their incomes. What is an individual to say when crushed between right-wing provincial Governments and the right-wing Conservative Government which holds them in total contempt?
So the workers are loaded on buses, swooped up in helicopters and held in warehouses, and eventually, the time comes to try to shove them through a picket line. I would point out that most of the people working in many of these post offices are women. In many of the post offices in the communities I represent there are five, six or eight women who operate those wicket positions, sort the mail and do the other things required to keep the community service going. They are not ogres. In many cases they are single parents trying to raise a couple of kids. These are the people out on the picket line who the Minister is talking about. The Post Office hires security guards to crash through these women.
It has been communicated to me by the people on the picket line that the violence started when people from outside approached the picket line and responded violently to those on the picket line and the situation deteriorated. Many of the injured were people on the picket line. For my money, these people were sent in as provocateurs to deliberately create violence.
Why would the Corporation and the Government do that? I suggest it is to give the impression to the public that this was a dangerous and threatening situation and the public would then support this Draconian legislation. That is the scenario many people in those communities believe. We had the letter carriers dispute and now this situation with CUPW, and the responsibility for the violence lies in the hands of the Government. It has created a situation which allows the Corporation to harass, intimidate and exploit not only the Post Office workers but the replacement workers as well.
The replacement workers have a great future; either go out and break through the line and participate in violence or lose your social assistance or unemployment insurance. Once inside, if you find you do not like the situation and you are out the door you cannot collect unemployment insurance. They are in a most disgusting and contemptible situation precipitated by the Government. That is a real fact of life for those caught by this replacement workers scam of which the Minister speaks so proudly. It is a typical program of the Conservative Government assisted by the Unemployment Insurance Commission on one hand and the Corporation on another. It is a truly disgusting act, despised by most Canadians.


Mr. Shields:: You are unbelievable.


Raymond John Skelly: Relax, Jack. The Minister talked about 1913 being a time of maximum franchising. At that time we had about four million people in the second largest country in the world. You can understand that anyone around then was probably prepared to participate in some way in a national communications system. Under those conditions it made sense to do so. It does not make sense to do so today. This is an attack on postal workers. The Minister responsible indicated that in his speech. He said the surplus labour cost in the Post Office is so high that we must save taxpayers' money and destroy the working conditions and wages of people in the Post Office. We will do it by franchising.
It is an old trick for destroying the union. You simply go to the private sector and say we have a problem. We are paying for about 4,800 wicket positions. We want to reduce their wages from $14 an hour to $4.50 an hour, about the minimum wage. We would like to put the wicket in the drugstore. Of course, the local Shoppers Drug Mart jumps at it and pays a little above minimum wage for a job that used to command a reasonable salary. People in the Post Office have the benefits of a union agreement which the Minister professes to support
October 13, 1987

at the same time as he is quite prepared to destroy it by franchising-out.
I found out the other day that mail coming to me as a Member of Parliament cannot be picked up at a Post Office. We have to go down to the middle of a shopping mall to pick it up. The other day my assistant was complaining that she could not pick up two very large bags of mail at the back door of the Post Office anymore. She has to drag these things through a mall with no security or anything else. That must change. Many citizens are complaining about the fact they cannot use the Post Office and that the facilities in the back of some store or laundry are completely unacceptable.
The key point is that the Government is prepared to deliver postal service on the backs of workers who are paid a minimum rather than a decent wage. Every member of the Conservative caucus ought to be disgusted by this. Imagine the situation of a single parent. I have confronted this situation on the picket line. They are trying to raise a couple of kids on $12 to $14 an hour and if this thing goes through their jobs are gone. They will be lucky to get the job in the local Shoppers Drug Mart and they will be paid $5 an hour. Trying to raise their family on that means they are better off on welfare. That is what the Minister wants. That is what the Conservative Government wants. That is not what we in the NDP want and we will fight it to the end. It is a disgusting situation for most Canadians and I think they despise it.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: The true test of that is 24 per cent in the popularity polls. It is hard to conceive of a political Party being able to drop even further, but when the postal carrier strike was over it dropped like a rock. After this strike, given the Draconian legislation we have in front of us, the Government is finished. Its popularity will drop even further.
It is of critical importance that this legislation be withdrawn. The Minister asked what the Opposition would do. He said we would totally cave in to CUPW, give them everything they want, send them all to Bermuda for 12 months. Absolute nonsense. I recognize there has to be a philosophical difference in order to have opposition. Yet what the Conservatives believe is that workers do not have rights.


Mr. McDermid:: What a crock.


Raymond John Skelly: The right to bargain collectively with your employer, when it interferes with the Government's goals, results in the trashing of the Post Office. The workers are going to lose.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense.


Raymond John Skelly: My friend says "nonsense". Postmasters in many communities who talk to the employees say they will be lucky if they have a job a year from now. They should start looking for other employment because the Post Office is gone with the wind.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


John Horton McDermid: Talk about scare tactics.


Raymond John Skelly: I am simply repeating what postmasters have told employees.


John Horton McDermid: They are using scare tactics.


Raymond John Skelly: They are simply quoting from the management plan which was put in place by the Conservative Government. A beautiful example is the Post Office in Comox, British Columbia.


John Horton McDermid: Try my riding.


Raymond John Skelly: If the Hon. Member is not responsible enough to look after the concerns of his constituents and protect the postal service, that does not surprise me one iota. I am concerned about that post office in Comox. It is very clear that the actions of the Canada Post Corporation will put that post office away. The staff has been reduced. The contract entitles it to two positions but Canada Post refuses to fill the other. That means that while preparing for the day the individual worker often cannot open until late in the morning. That post office serves thousands of people in the community of Comox and the surrounding area. The individual worker must close for coffee breaks and lunch. By 3.45 in the afternoon the individual worker must close the post office in order to get the day-end accounting done.
Senior citizens in the community of Comox do not have the benefit of coherent postal service because that post office is closed for a good portion of the day with one individual trying to provide service. The Post Office says that it will fix the problem of inconvenience by franchising out. On either side of that post office, within walking distance for senior citizens, two stores now provide franchise service. They are paying their workers the minimum wage rather than the postal contract rate.


Jack Wendele Shields: Not true.


Raymond John Skelly: One of my Conservative colleagues has accused me of lying to the House. He says that is not true. That is absolutely true and there will be a community meeting very soon to deal with that issue in the town of Comox.
If this were the only case of this kind there might be some strange justification for it, but it is not the only case. The Conservative Government has a determined plan to privatize the functions of the Post Office and get rid of its budget and its responsibility for it. Transportation in the Post Office has been contracted out to private companies, as have rural mail service and wicket functions. I have no doubt that if the Government and its agent, the Canada Post Corporation, is allowed to continue, the sorting function will also be franchised out in the future. That will, of course, destroy the union and will put an enormous number of people out of work. They will lose a decent union contract with fair wages and working

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
conditions and will be put into a situation of having no protection, poor working conditions, and earning minimum wage. That is the direction in which the Government will take Canada Post and it is completely unacceptable.
What is the option, Madam Speaker? The option is not Draconian legislation and it is not caving in to the Canada Post Corporation or to CUPW. The option is to create an environment of decent working conditions and accept that union and management should be able to bargain in good faith without the Government and the Corporation poisoning the water hole. This situation was created by deliberate design. The poisoned environment, for which the previous Liberal Government has substantial responsibility, becomes selfjustification for privatizing the Post Office and getting it off the backs of Canadians, as the Conservative Government so often puts it.
We must change this by creating a decent environment within the Post Office and encouraging the collective bargaining process to resolve this matter. That was the purpose of passing the law to create the Canada Post Corporation. It was not to permit the Conservatives to do this to the country.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). Clause 7 of the Bill refers the mediator-arbitrator to the conciliation report. In fact, at the top of page 4 of the Bill it says that the mediator-arbitrator should give due cognizance to the conciliation report. We know that the conciliation report is slanted in favour of the franchising out of postal operations. I would like to ask the Member some questions on this subject.
There are various circumstances surrounding franchising. On the one hand, the Government may decide to close a local post office and have the service provided by a franchise in a drug store or a convenience store. In this situation people who were being paid decent salaries of approximately S13 an hour could be replaced by people earning the minimum wage. On the other hand, in the situation of an entire new subdivision being built where no post offices previously existed the Post Office could decide to have the mail delivered by a franchise operation.
What does the Member think of these possibilities? Does he think that the Government should have directed the mediator-arbitrator to give "due cognizance" to the conciliation report?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the issue of franchising out is complex. There are two ways in which to serve communities in which there is not sufficient volume to justify a full-time operation. There are many such communities in remote areas. My riding is filled with them. On the other hand, when new communities develop where there is a substantial amount of work to be done, creative means can be used to keep operations within a collective bargaining agreement under the framework of the union. The new outlook postal stations have fallen within the purview of the union agreement and have been very
successful. However, the postal corporation is not interested in expanding services. The supermailbox is an example of the corporation's failure to deliver mail to homes in new subdivisions. A chaotic and ridiculous situation has been created.
As the Member well knows, if the Government and the postal corporation wanted to deal in good faith with their employees and the communities they serve we would see solid progress with due and fair cognizance of the situation. The corporation would be trying to keep as many of the positions as possible in the expanded service area within the framework of CUPW and the Post Office. Rather than that, Canada Post has deliberately tried to franchise out in order to get rid of CUPW positions and drop the wage levels from $12 or $14 an hour to $4.50 an hour. I know that my colleague is aware of that and is as concerned about it as we are.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there further questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Saint-John's East (Mr. Harris).


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on debate, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 would like to advise the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that there are still five minutes available for questions and comments and the Hon. Member has asked for the floor. I do hope that she does agree with the Chair for once.


Mr. Harris:: Madam Speaker, would the Hon. Member care to comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) this morning in debate? He said that if responsible officials of the union violate the Act and are convicted they will not be able to serve in responsible capacities in the union. The legislation, of course, says that if an individual is convicted, that individual may not be an officer or representative of the union and shall not be employed in any capacity by or act as an officer or representative of the union at any time within the next five years. Would the Hon. Member comment on this provision? It seems to be an additional punishment on the individual, who may not be employed in any capacity by another entity for a period of five years.
As a lawyer, this seems to be a reprehensible indication of the Government's intention to control the activities of individuals in the union movment of this country. Will the Hon. Member comment on that?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's point is extremely relevant. When an individual is charged with breaking the law of the land, that person must answer to that charge and, if guilty, the court would impose a fit sentence. Once the sentence is served, the individual should definitely be eligible to resume his or her activities as a citizen of Canada. That is a part of the concept of paying a penalty.
October 13, 1987

The Hon. Member raises an interesting situation. This is a mechanism to assist in breaking the union. There is no doubt that the people who lead this union enjoy the confidence of the rank and file. If they are prohibited from holding elected office for five years, they are likely to be voted-in anyway, which will lead to a confrontation between the Government and the union. The Government could then move to put the union under trusteeship, thereby excelerating the union-busting procedure.
This is the most blatant example of union-busting I have seen in a long time. It sets the conditions by which the Government can now have more tools to force the destruction of this union.
I am extremely concerned that the Government did not choose the other route and enforce the Corporation to adhere to the principle that it must bargain with its employees in good faith and adhere to the Canada Labour Code.
Once example of that lack of adherence is the grievance procedure. Management regularly violates the contract and dares the employee to take it through the four stages of the grievance procedure. That is a long procedure and the individual who is suspended, deprived or penalized in some way must endure that long period of time. Therefore, an increasing number of workers are reluctant to do anything but submit to oppressive management. The harassment and intimidation as a result of management refusing to adhere to the grievance system helps to break the union by creating fear among the employees.
The point raised by my colleague today is the end result of one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation we have seen in the House. It is the continuation of a policy that begins with shop management on the floor of the Post Office who have been given the direction to harass and intimidate employees, and fail to follow the established practices in labour-management relations that allow grievances to be dealt with quickly and effectively. The practice of the management, assisted by the Government, is one of the worst examples of labour-management relations I have seen.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member began his speech this morning by saying that there is no one in the House who would condone violence. How does he square this with the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) who said in the House that there are times when violence could be condoned? His Leader also indicated that he supported the statement that there are times when violence would be condoned. Does the Hon. Member, like his Party, condone violence?


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have profound respect for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), who is one of the most thoughtful and diligent people in the House. I think he knows that his remark was made in a mischievous fashion.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
I assume he would not have participated in the Second World War conflict to overthrow Hitler. I suppose he is trying to tell us that violence on the part of Canadians in order to reestablish democracy and fight for self-preservation was not condoned.
I believe my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), was basically saying that the administration of South Africa has inflicted such terrible violence on black South Africans that there are very few options left to them but to rise up and throw off the yoke of violence that has been flung around their necks.
I would ask my colleague why he was opposed to the use of violence by Canadian Armed Forces to overthrow Hitler's regime in World War II.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, first, I might say that I am surprised that no government Members are rising to speak in defence of this particularly ignominious piece of legislation.
This morning, the Minister reponsible for Canada Post, from what he referred to as his notes, cited a litany of excesses which had apparently prompted this legislation. However, the one element the Minister forgot to mention in his speech was that the litany of excesses that have occurred were not prior to but as a result of his Government's imposition of a proposed back-to-work order on the workers involved in the postal dispute.
Further, the Minister laid his cards on the table for the people of Canada when he claimed on the one hand that he had not taken a position with respect to the matters in negotiation while, on the other, he stated quite clearly that the mail is getting through and talked about excessive union demands.
The Minister's statement that the mail is getting through suggests to me that we do not have a national emergency. Furthermore, his statement about excessive union demands quite clearly demonstrates that the Government has a hidden agenda, together with Canada Post, to break the backs of workers across the country. This intent is demonstrated quite categorically by the Draconian measures which have been embodied in this Bill and particularly by the Government's claim that we should consider the recommendations of the Foisy Report.
The Government is laying out the plan for a settlement before one has been negotiated. I remind the Minister and the Government that it was the union that first called for a mediator and that the union was prepared to go back to the bargaining table.
However, it was not in the interests of Canada Post or the Government to have a negotiated settlement because of its agenda which includes breaking the back of the union. What better way to do so than by knowingly and willfully introducing back-to-work legislation that will have the effect of

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
escalating the difficulties on the picket-lines and, in fact, will involve an increase in violence as we saw over the weekend.
The Government cannot then claim this morning that increasing violence must lead to back-to-work legislation when the fact is that back-to-work legislation has created the violence on the picket-line. The Government introduced this legislation knowing this would happen because it wanted to break the back of the union once and for all. How the Minister can stand here in the House-Madam Speaker, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is quorum now. The Hon. Member has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I heard a government Member saying that the Members wanted to hide behind the curtains because they could then adjust the volume. I would like to remind Hon. Members that the volume they will have to deal with is the volume of complaints from constituents who will see through this facade, this feigned national emergency which was created by the Government, aided and abetted by Canada Post. This Government is out to break the backs of working people. I find it passing strange that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who claims to be the great negotiator stands back and says nothing while he permits his Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to introduce a piece of legislation that is so Draconian in its influence that it is possibly a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Of course the Government does not care about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it does not believe that individuals should have access to a Charter of Rights to protect them. That is clear from the contents of this piece of legislation. Any thinking person in Canada who reviews this Bill will realize that the prohibition laid down, including fines of up to $50,000 against individuals and up to $100,000 against unions for not abiding by the terms of the legislation, is heinous enough in itself, but on top of these very onerous fines the Government is suggesting that if any person for any reason does not comply with the contents of the Bill, he or she will be forced, potentially, out of his or her job for a period of up to five years.
If I were the president of my local and in that capacity did not respect the prohibition against picketing or did not come back to work on the first day I was ordered to, I could lose my job for up to five years. Canadians believe that that is bad and is wrong. I think it is very sad that the Government has attempted to create a climate of violence in an effort to justify to Canadians what is really a very onerous and Draconian piece of legislation.
I am not surprised that we heard the Minister responsible for Canada Post here this morning negotiating the contract on the floor of the House of Commons by suggesting that the union had made excessive demands.
Let us look at the demands, Madam Speaker. Everybody knows that the union involved is not the most popular union in Canada but at the same time it has been quite responsible in the issues it has raised for the attention of the public and for the attention of Canada Post, namely, the issues of franchising and part-time workers.
We recall quite vividly the Prime Minister making a promise before all people in Canada that he was going to deal with the issue of part-time workers, who are primarily women. The union in this case has shown the lead with respect to the treatment of part-time workers. Part-time workers under the collective agreement are protected. They do have access in many respects to similar kinds of benefits that might be available to full-time workers. The union would like to improve that situation for part-time workers.
Instead we have the company, aided and abetted by the Government, which does not want to deal with the question of part-time workers, even though the Prime Minister himself promised that resolving the difficulties facing mostly women, who are working part time-many of whom would like to work full time but jobs are not available-would be a number one priority of the Government. Yet when the opportunity was presented to deal with it in the context of these negotiations, the Government turned its back on the working people.
The Government is asking the opposition Parties to pass a piece of legislation expeditiously which succeeds in discriminating against women and violating potentially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying a worker the right to work for up to five years, if he or she is responsible for an infringement under this Bill. This legislation levies fines of up to $50,000 or $100,000 for individuals and/or unions which might be involved in violations, and the Government is coming down hard because it is trying to create a climate of violence in which it can be justified in breaking the back of the union, in the same way that Ronald Reagan made breaking unions a hallmark of his administration in the United States.
It is shameful for a Prime Minister who claims to be a negotiator, and allegedly built a reputation on his abilities to bring the parties together, to stand silently by while his Minister of Labour and his Minister responsible for Canada Post, siding only with the company in not agreeing to the union's demand for a mediator, are trying to create a situation where violence is likely to occur.
As a Member, I will not take the rap the Government will try to lay on us in Opposition, that it is our fault because we do not move quickly with the legislation. The Government moved first by claiming the possibility of back-to-work legislation as early as October 3. The Minister of Labour had already set the stage. The company had no need to negotiate in good faith because it knew the Government would move in with a heavy hand.
Up until the Government moved in with the back-to-work legislation, according to the company's own spokesman, the mail was moving and there was no problem. Canada Post was
October 13, 1987

even spending hundreds of thousands of dollars telling Canadians "to mail your mail. It is getting through. There is no problem." At the same time that Canada Post was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire scabs at $156 a day, and running advertising campaigns suggesting there were no problems, it was telling its own employees not to use the mails. 1 refer to a directive which went out to all people working in the Huron District, which includes Hamilton, London and various areas in that neighbourhood even though Canada Post was telling Canadians to use the mail, that there were no problems. This is how much you can believe the word of Canada Post. It was concerned that pay cheques would not get through for its employees and it sent out a directive. A separate mail service was set up where Canada Post's mail was going from one postal area to another by private car. This directive to all employees said that they were not to get their pay cheques through the mail, as is normally the case, because the mail could not be trusted, but through a special service which was established in the same way the special mail service was established only for Canada Post during the previous rotating walkouts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member. I am sure she will also be glad to have a rest. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, months ago the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) announced an action committee to identify ways to improve the chances of selling western Canada's low sulphur coal in Ontario. If Ontario Hydro alone were to use western Canadian instead of United States coal, there could be up to 13,000 new jobs in western Canada, and significant reductions in acid gas pollution.
At present, American coal is up to $20 per tonne cheaper. In addition, with the Canada-U.S. trade agreement guaranteeing duty-free access to Canada, there will be little incentive for Ontario Hydro, or other industries, to use western Canadian coal. Furthermore, the so-called free trade agreement could prevent us from adopting transportation subsidies that would
lower the cost of moving western Canadian coal to markets in eastern Canada.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister speak to western miners, to whom he promised seven months ago to expand the market of western coal, and explain the consequences of the so-called free trade agreement which gives our energy resources away to U.S. industry, restricts Canadian use of Canadian resources, and removes desirable opportunities for future expansion?


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, they gathered here in the nation's capital on the weekend by the hundreds. They came from all parts of our country and beyond, former officers and men of the Royal Canadian Navy. They came to pay tribute to one of Canada's great wartime heroes, Lieutenant Hampton Grey, the only Canadian naval officer and naval aviator ever to have been awarded the Victoria Cross, and it was done so posthumously.
They came to reminisce, those men who, in the words of an unknown naval aviator, knew fear and excitement, kinship and challenge, joy and victory, because they shared the carrier experience. They are members of CNAG, the Canadian Naval Air Group Association, which was formed at the demise of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canada's last aircraft carrier, Her Majesty's Canadian Ship Bonaventure. They are all men who served in Canada's flat tops. They belong now to a closed shop, a rare breed, and I salute the contribution they made collectively to Canada's naval history, and to the history of aviation in Canada.


NOBEL PEACE PRIZE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica has been awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in developing and forwarding a peace plan for Central America.
Despite economic sabre rattling by President Reagan, and some of the right wing Republicans who hope to succeed him as President, the people of Central America have pushed ahead with the peace agenda which was adopted by the five Central American Presidents on August 7. For the first time in 26 years, Guatemalan guerrillas and Government are talking with each other. Talks are also under way in El Salvador. The Nicaraguan Government has set up reconciliation committees

October 13, 1987
throughout the country. It announced a unilateral cease-fire in one region, and state of emergency regulations have been relaxed.
The violence in Central America has been rooted in political and economic injustice. If the Arias' peace plan succeeds, it will be an important first step in correcting that injustice and helping the people of Central America to rebuild.
Canadians will not only wish to extend congratulations to President Arias, but they will want the Canadian Government to play an important part in helping the peace plan succeed.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, environmentalists across Canada are delighted with New Brunswick's recent decision to sign the joint agreement to reduce acid rain. This commitment means six of Canada's seven polluting provinces have signed an agreement with the federal Government to cut back allowable sulphur dioxide emissions.
Unfortunately, one province is preventing this country from showing solidarity in acid rain abatement. I have invited the Premier of Nova Scotia to appear before the Special Committee on Acid Rain to discuss the inclusion of his province in the Canadian agreement. It is imperative that Premier John Buchanan join the other First Ministers in waging war against acid precipitation.
The potent coal lobby in the United States is quick to point a crooked finger at the lack of provincial co-operation in Canada, and it will continue to do so until all provinces have signed. Without the Nova Scotia Premier's signature on the dotted line, we are hamstrung. I urge Nova Scotia to share in the wisdom shown by the other six provinces. It is patently unfair to the people of Canada to be shackled by our own. Canada must be, and appear to be, united in its effort to reduce our own emissions while expecting the United States to respond in kind.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, last night, I witnessed a tragic sight. I saw more than 200 people who had
travelled for hours by bus to come and talk some sense into their federal Government. I saw men and women, young and not so young, who had to sleep in the gymnasium at the Polyvalente de Pile in Hull, because in Ottawa they have a Government that will not listen to reason. These people had to get organized, and they held meetings that were attended by
5,000	people. They are now here to ask the Government, not for hand-outs, but for a chance to have jobs like so many other Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the people of Matane came here proudly to ask the Government to meet its commitments, to consider the needs of their region and to let them and their children work and prosper in their own region, to which they are very much attached, and to ensure that they will have a sound economy and steady, paying jobs. These people are to be commended, and the Government should be ashamed of letting things get to the point where people have to put on a show of strength.


ETHNIC AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I attended the annual conference of the Chinese Canadian National Council in Toronto. The council, which represents Chinese Canadians in 28 cities across the country, was established in 1980 to protest the inaccuracies and racist overtones of the nationally televised W-5 broadcast called "Campus Giveaway".
Since then the council has focused on many other issues including family reunification, employment equity, women's and minority rights.
A major concern of the council is redress for the head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. Between 1885 and 1923 Canada imposed a head tax of up to $500 on all Chinese immigrants. Ironically, during the same period our Government was providing financial assistance and incentives to other immigrants. In 1923 the House passed the Chinese Immigration (Exclusion) Act which prohibited, among others, illiterates, diseased persons, beggars and vagrants, idiots and epileptics, and persons of Chinese origin from entering Canada. No wonder the Chinese Canadian National Council is asking for an apology and compensation.
This is an issue which all of us should bear in mind as Commonwealth leaders meet in Vancouver to discuss human rights.
October 13, 1987


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the outrageous and unacceptable labour relations practised by Canada Post.
In Williams Lake a postal employee, Linda Rowse, was ordered quarantined by her doctor for whooping cough. The postmaster threatened to fire her if she did not return to work forthwith.
In Williams Lake the postmaster was not only prepared to violate Mrs. Rowse's rights but was also prepared to expose the rest of the postal employees to disease and work loss.
Not satisfied with this harassment and intimidation, the postal corporation then asked its doctor, Dr. Bell Irving, to telephone Mrs. Rowse, posing as a public health official, to obtain confidential medical information about Mrs. Rowse.
Dr. Bell Irving then began to harass Mrs. Rowse's doctor saying that she had no right to quarantine the woman.
Not satisfied with these exorbitant violations, the postmaster then refused to give the employee her pay cheque. Mrs. Rowse broke out with active whooping cough, and all was forgiven.
If these unacceptable acts were not widespread, they could be viewed as an isolated incident. The Government must act immediately to clean up the mess within that corporation and to grant employees within the postal corporation basic rights which are expected in Canada.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, an Amnesty International report indicates that 33 of the 49 countries in the Commonwealth are guilty of serious human rights violations. These include beatings, tortures, and political executions.
The countries cited in the Amnesty report are the Bahamas, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei-Darussalam, Dominca, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, St. Christopher and Nevis, and St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Clearly human rights ought to be on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Vancouver, and clearly we need an ongoing program here.
Some of the offending countries receive Canadian development assistance. The Canadian Government will do right to
use the leverage of its assistance programs to gain justice for people unable to secure it for themselves.
*	* V


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with Hon. Members a part of a letter sent to me by Deborah Coyne of the Faculty of Law, University of Toronto, written on behalf of the Canadian Coalition on the Constitution. She writes:
As you have clearly recognized, the Meech Lake Accord involves major irrevocable constitutional changes that will seriously weaken the national Government such as to put in doubt our future existence as a single, sovereign, bilingual and multicultural nation. The Accord also undermines the Charter and our commitment as a people to respect and promote basic rights and freedoms, and to strengthen protections for minorities across the country.
The coalition believes that the Accord is seriously flawed and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians. The First Ministers must therefore reopen the Accord for changes and renegotiation, rather than stifle the legitimate and widespread public concern as was done during the recent Special Joint Committee hearings . . .
The vote of every Member of Parliament on this issue that will decide the future of this nation is of historical importance. We deeply appreciate your decision to add your voice to the side of those who are committed to ensuring that Canada remains a strong, sovereign and united country with the capacity to build further on the standards of fairness and social justice we have already attained.


FREE TRADE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, farmers and especially dairy producers are concerned because they were misinformed about the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. In all areas, marketing boards have been and will continue to be maintained.
The anti-free-trade coalitions have acted shamelessly by alarming, without reason, both farm producers and their longterm lenders. This is rhetoric that is both unfair and dangerous.
There are federal Members who support the interests of Quebec farmers and there are provincial Members. We have all protected the interests of our farm producers.
The others who are responsible for representing them as a group should retract their previous, unfounded statements and give their members the correct information.

October 13, 1987
Oral Questions
The interests and peace of mind of our farmers are at stake, Mr. Speaker.


BIRTH CONTROL
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, an article in today's Globe and Mail contains the following indictment of birth control: The most effective means of preventing pregnancy-the pill-is dangerous. Women who take the pill face a four times higher risk of dying from arterial disease.
The next most effective method, intrauterine devices, causes infections, haemorrhaging, and can result in infertility.
Women have turned to sterilization as a method of birth control. The need to terminate unwanted pregnancies arises directly out of the abysmal lack of safe, effective choices.
The responsibility for the development of birth control lies with large profit-making pharmaceutical companies.
Birth control is considered to be the responsibility of women when the repercussions of unsafe and ineffective methods hurt us all.
Fertility is not just a women's issue. It has profound and far-reaching implications for our whole society. I challenge the Government to lay aside its prudish and romanticized notions from the past and to take up the challenge of today's society. Provide research dollars for safe, effective birth control choices. Provide support for responsible educative agencies like Planned Parenthood. Ensure coverage through medicare for reproductive services at the provincial level. Decriminalize abortion.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had a guest with me here in Parliament and I took advantage of the occasion to sit for a few moments in the gallery and watch the House proceed with its business. First, my hat goes off to the people in the gallery who are able to keep silent after listening to some of the questions that are asked and statements that are made in the House of Commons.
The second thing I observed that I want to bring to the attention of this House was that for several months now we have been given the line that the Liberals and the NDP
represent western Canada and that they are standing up for the rights of western Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Glen Cooper: I appreciate their applause. Any Member from western Canada who took the time to sit in the galleries for just a few minutes and watch what has been going on would have been treated to a litany of complaints about freer trade and the kinds of things western Canadians have been seeking.
We are now going to be dealing with the elimination of tariffs, those very tariffs which have hurt western Canadians for generation after generation. Those Members across the way do not speak for western Canadians. It is the people pushing for the free trade agreement who do.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has clearly shown how the Tory government is dragging its feet about the Quebec issue. It is dragging its feet about the Matane paper mill and the development of Montreal Island which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret) was supposed to announce following the recommendations made by Mr. Picard. It is also dragging its feet on the East Montreal file.
Mr. Speaker, this morning the citizens of Montreal have stated their position with respect to job creation in East Montreal and an employee of the Angus plant was right when he said: The government does not drag its feet; it has both feet in the same shoe and is helpless.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs why he and other Ministers had been saying that Bill C-22 was not part of the free trade discussions when there was evidence that on October 3 a document had been signed by Canada and the U.S. in which Canada pledged to see through the passage and adoption of Bill C-22. In answer to that question the Minister once again said that "Bill C-22 was not part of the trade
October 13, 1987

negotiations". Later that very same day the Minister for International Trade issued a statement clearly confirming that C-22 had been discussed and was "part of the natural process of these negotiations."
Why was the Minister saying to this House and the Canadian people that C-22 had not been part of the negotiations when that was clearly not the case? Will he not admit now that the Government has been misleading this House and the Canadian people, and trying to hide the fact of a clear link between C-22 and agreement by the U.S. on to free trade?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as we have been saying since the election campaign of 1984, amendments to the Patent Act with respect to pharmaceuticals are absolutely necessary for research and development and health care in Canada, for our international obligations, and the protection of intellectual property. It is on that basis we have been proceeding. Bill C-22 was introduced, and hopefully will be passed by the other place, because it is needed for Canada.
The agreement between the U.S. and Canada, tabled in this House and signed by all parties, does not deal with C-22 because we introduced it because of its benefit to Canadians. We campaigned on it in the 1984 election. Indeed, the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part in June of 1983 said it was committed to changes in the Patent Act. All these things happened long before the trade talks were even initiated.


BILL C-22-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not explained why he said as recently as last Friday that Bill C-22 was not part of the trade negotiations when his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, said in her statement issued later that day that it clearly was. In fact, that was demonstrated to be the case by a document released to the press by the Canadian Embassy.
Why is the Minister trying to evade answering my very clear question as to why he, on behalf of the Government, continues to insist that Bill C-22 was not part of the free trade negotiations when it clearly was part of the negotiations? Why will he not come clean with the Canadian people and, rather than trying to hide that fact, try to explain the link? What is he afraid of? What is he hiding?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to which press release the Hon. Member is referring. The one issued by the Minister for International Trade on Friday says that one of the working parties sent forward to negotiators a draft initialled by the working party chiefs recommending a commitment by the Government of Canada with respect to Bill C-22. The Ministers who were there, the Minister of Finance and the
Oral Questions
Minister for International Trade, said no, and it was not included and is not included as part of the free trade package.
The contents of C-22 were put together by the Government quite separately, starting in September, 1984, and have to do with promoting research and development and better health care in Canada. The Bill reflects our obligations internationally in terms of intellectual property which are not and have never been a part of a free trade agreement. They have nothing to do with the free trade agreement.


DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATION BY WORKING GROUPS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. If Bill C-22 was not part of the free trade negotiations, what were the two working parties doing discussing C-22? Were these working parties not there on behalf of their Governments? Is he trying to tell the House that the Canadian working party was there only to send out for fried chicken for the Ministers?
The fact is that the chickens have come home to roost and the Government has been shown to have been misleading the Canadian people. Why will he not admit that? If he did it would be a lot easier for himself and for this stumbling Government.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would be allowed to answer that question since I was at the table when this event took place. There was some discussion in the working group on this. The members of the working group passed it up to the Ministers and we said, "Absolutely not, this is not a part of the trade agreement".
As the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs has very effectively stated, it has never been a part of the-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why did you sign it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The question coming from across the floor is "why did I sign it?" The simple fact is that I did not sign it, nor did the Minister for International Trade, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister nor the chief negotiator.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Who did?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I should make it very clear that there were working groups-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Who were they working for?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: These working groups were made up of officials from both countries and were working on the components of the agreement. Anything that the working group members agreed upon had to be passed on to the table of Ministers where decisions were being taken. That particular proposal was not ratified by the Ministers since, as my colleague has just said, these discussions have never involved Bill C-22 in any way, shape, or form.

October 13, 1987
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


NICARAGUA-ATTACK ON PROJECT SPONSORED BY FARMERS FOR PEACE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. We learned this past weekend that a Canadian aid project in Nicaragua supported by the Farmers for Peace group which, as he knows, is very active in his own province, was once again attacked by the U.S. supported and financed Contra organization with loss of life and very serious property damage.
The last time such an attack took place the protest raised by the Canadian Government with its U.S. counterparts came to absolutely nothing. Would the Deputy Prime Minister see fit to contact his colleagues who are attending the Commonwealth Conference, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to ask them to raise once again the strongest possible opposition to this kind of attack on Canadian aid projects?
Is it not time for the Government to speak out in an unqualified way against continued U.S. aid to the Contra forces which are now attacking Canadian backed projects in Nicaragua?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact we learned of the attack on that project on October 9. Indeed-, the first attack had been denounced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We had even discussed the matter with Mr. Shultz at the time. We have asked our Ambassador to that country for a report, and are monitoring the situation very closely.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TELL AMERICANS TO STOP AIDING CONTRAS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, that is not an answer to the question. The project has been attacked a second time. Obviously that first protest had absolutely no impact whatsoever on the Americans.
I want to ask the Government, especially in light of the fact that today the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Arias of Costa Rica who has specifically asked other countries to speak out against Contra aid, if the Government will have the courage to stand up and tell the Americans to stop aiding the Contras, stop attacking our projects, stop risking human lives.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the
first attack was strongly protested by the Minister in this House, and some representations were made. Of course we condemn the second attack and are monitoring the situation very closely. We will take appropriate action.


ENERGY-EFFECT OF UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Energy, whoever is answering today with respect to the trade agreement that was initialled in principle between Canada and the United States some 10 days ago.
The Premier of Prince Edward Island is quoted in today's press as saying that in all the discussions leading up to the proposed agreement there was absolutely no mention by the Prime Minister of talks taking place in the important domain of energy.
Will the Government confirm that not only was there no discussion of energy with the Premiers leading up to the weekend on which an agreement took place, but even when the Prime Minister met with the Premiers on the Friday before the agreement was initialled in principle he did not mention the subject of energy although it profoundly affects the provinces? Will the Government confirm this incredible allegation made by the Premier of Prince Edward Island?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it must be made very clear to the Hon. Member that the intent of this agreement and the effect of it is to improve trade in energy and remove the trade barriers in energy between the two countries.
There is no change in the regulation. There is no change in the regulatory practices. There is only a removal of the trade barriers between the two countries, the effect of which will be greater encouragement to investment in our energy resources that will increase our security of supply because investors in Canada will have a greater incentive to invest and more security that these resources can find a market without the obstacles that have restricted that market during the past number of years.


John Edward Broadbent: This Minister, in addition to his colleague last week, must be tuned into Radio Peking because he has not answered the question at all.


ROLE OF PROVINCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, Section 92(a) of the Constitution in 1982 gave to the provinces very specific powers over the control, development and management of their resources. Therefore, does the Government not believe
October 13, 1987

from a moral point of view that the provinces ought to have been consulted on the question of energy? Furthermore, given the new commitments that the federal Government wants to make in terms of internal pricing within Canada by these provinces, does the Government of Canada not agree that provincial agreement is constitutionally required in order for this agreement and its energy provisions to go anywhere?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, clearly, if there were in the free trade agreement with the United States changes leading to amendments to the Constitution, those amendments would follow the procedures already known in Canada for constitutional amendments, so that in such circumstances Prince Edward Island could take action if need be.
But I would call the attention of the leader of the New Democratic Party to the fact that this government has been reviewing its energy policy, since 1984. Our policy which is market-oriented and deregulation-oriented has been largely implemented in the oil and gas sectors.
In September last, long before the agreement was signed, I wrote to the National Energy Board asking for public hearings on the matter of electric power exports. Those hearings took place and Prince Edward Island made some representations.
The National Energy Board wrote to the Minister of Energy in July of this year to make its recommendations known. Those public recommendations were made available to all provinces, and Prince Edward Island can make its views known at every stage.
It is only next winter, after consultation with the provinces, that the Canadian government will take steps on the matter of hydro-electric power exports from Canada.


FREE TRADE-SUPPORT OF PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try once more. My question to the Minister is very simple. Considering the powers the provinces have to control and develop their natural resources, would he not agree that the Canadian government must obtain provincial approval in order to conclude this agreement with the U.S.?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the natural resources, by the Constitution in this country, are the responsibility of the provinces. Nothing in the free trade agreement is against that aspect.
It is very clear that this Parliament, supported by the New Democratic Party, decided to create a National Energy Board with some responsibilities. That is the federal responsibility, and it is supported by the hon. gentleman's party.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: What has that got to do with the question?


Marcel Masse: In Canada the natural resources are owned by the provinces but the trade in natural resources between provinces and at the international border is in the responsibility of the federal Government.


SIGNING OF AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He has said that the free trade agreement has removed the barriers to trade and energy. What this has done has not only removed the barriers to free trade but it as removed energy to the detriment of Canadians. There is, no longer, any protection against shortages of energy in Canada.
There were meetings with the Premiers to inform them about what was going on in these free trade negotiations, yet energy was never mentioned, in the words of the Premier of Prince Edward Island himself.
Was the Government so intent on signing this free trade agreement that it failed to protect Canadians against shortages of energy in Canada and double-crossed the provinces?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the agreement provides for the establishment of various basic rules relating to exports, but it is also true that, apart from these general rules, there is nothing specific that applies to energy. So there are no particular problems with energy exports. There is a government decision to open the U.S. market to all Canadian producers and this includes people in all provinces.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem about the export of energy for the Americans. There is nothing to stop them from taking whatever they want. Has the Government not read the papers this weekend on how the Americans are gloating about what they were able to squeeze from Canadians? We do not even know what energy means. It is not defined.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member had an extensive preamble to the first question. I would ask him to put his question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, is this Government so intent on being liked by the Americans that it gave up its control of the energy sector and all protection to Canadians against shortages in the industry, and Canadian sovereignty as well?

October 13, 1987
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I realize why the Opposition is using scare tactics, but it is totally untrue to claim that Canadians will have to sell their energy to the United States. Canadians will sell their energy if they think they can make a profit. There is nothing in the Agreement to contradict this. I know the Liberal Party wanted to prevent people in Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia from taking advantage of their own natural resources, and that was the case under the Liberal Party's energy program at the time. It cost Western Canadians and Canadians in general a lot of money, and we do not want to get back to that kind of policy, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion. Isn't this project jeopardized by the indecisiveness of the Minister if not by the Free Trade Agreement? For months, and particularly in the last weeks, people in Murdochville, for instance, had to block roads to get answers from Ottawa. People in Sept-Iles are going to take their protest onto the streets, on the 31st of this month, in an attempt to get answers from Ottawa. People from Matane are here to try to get this Government moving.
I ask the Minister the following question. He promised to give us an answer within a month and his deadline will expire in a few hours. Could the Minister ensure us today that we will be given an answer within this deadline?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State Responsible for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The House is aware that a delegation from Matane was here this morning to pressure the federal Government into deciding in favour of a proposed paper mill in the Matane area, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government has been dragging its feet. My question is as follows: Has this project been compromised under the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and United States?


Robert René de Cotret: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTED BY CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister say categorically that our present regional development policy such as tax credits and subsidies, not just for those projects but for other regional development programs as well, have not been compromised by the Agreement signed by this country and United States? Could you say so in no incertain terms, right now, for every project?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I can say categorically that federal programs aimed at resolving regional disparity have not in any way been compromised by the Agreement signed by our two Governments.


INQUIRY IF MINISTER POSSESSES ALL NECESSARY FACTS TO MAKE POSITIVE DECISION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to give us an answer and not a mere commitment to answer "within the next few days", as for the Picard report about which he has not answered as yet.
I ask the Minister if he now has on hand all the elements required, as well as the assurances from the Minister of Finance, in order to make a positive decision?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I shall say to my hon. colleague that when I personally met, for the first time, with the representatives from Matane, about one month ago, I told them that the final data from the sponsor of the project had just been received ten days earlier and that it would take about six more weeks to reach a final decision. I then said that I would give an answer around the 14th, which is tomorrow.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, it takes quite a long time to study matters of such importance. All the studies have been completed, all the recommendations have been received and I am confident that, in the next few hours, we shall be able to give a definite answer to the people of Matane which I want to congratulate for the representations they made today. In fact, they presented in a very dignified and sound way their views on that project. I congratulate them and I can say to my honourable colleague that they will get an answer within the next few hours.

October 13, 1987


FISHERIES
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, in light of the French Government quitting the negotiations over the Canada-France fishing dispute without agreeing to put the St. Pierre boundary question to international arbitration, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what pressure is being put on France to prevent overfishing in 3PS? Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why the Government is still considering spending $7 billion on French designed nuclear submarines when the French Government will not do the civilized thing and proposes to continue overfishing in that zone?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, at the negotiations last Friday the French again broke off negotiations because they felt that the Government was being too firm and resolute in connection with the demands that it was making with reference to fish quotas in Canadian waters. Therefore, they have broken off negotiations.
We have explained to France that, as a result, there will be no quotas for French fishing vessels on the East Coast Canadian waters next year. We are not going to go to arbitration under the Treaty of 1972 for several reasons, one of which is that since they will not go to arbitration on the question of the boundaries between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada, no one can say with finality what are Canadian waters. In addition, France's actions have been so unreasonable that it is making the 1972 Treaty unworkable.
The House can be assured that we are taking a firm and resolute position that the French now certainly understand, and that there will be no give-away that is not absolutely necessary and reasonable in order to settle this situation.
With respect to the question of nuclear submarines, no decision has been made, and it is certainly unrelated to the present controversy.


CANADIAN COD STOCK
Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Government has attempted the "carrot" approach by offering northern cod. That has not worked. The difficulty that we have is with 3PS and the threat by France to overfish that stock to the detriment of fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland.
I wish to know what the Government will do about that situation? Will it put pressure on the French Government to prevent that stock from being depleted, and how will it do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: It was
suggested by the Hon. Member's foreign affairs critic-one of
Oral Questions
the Rambos in the NDP Party-that armed force be used in this situation, and the Leader of the NDP seemed to support that particular Rambo suggestion several months ago.
We are dealing with France in the following manner. We are taking a firm position. We have told them that there will be no quotas next year at all unless they are prepared to come back and discuss this matter reasonably. That is putting tremendous pressure on France because, in addition to the French fishing fleet, the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon will not have access to the Gulf of St. Lawrence or any other Canadian waters.
What other types of pressure may be needed, I do not know. This is certainly very firm pressure upon France which we hope will bring them back to the bargaining table in a reasonable frame of mind.
*
* *


CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT-PROVINCIAL APPROVAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The free trade strategy of the Government has been characterized by contradiction, confusion, and confabulation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Last Friday we saw the mess that was wrought by its introduction of Bill C-22.
I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he agrees with his Minister for International Trade on another issue relating to the free trade talks when she states that no provincial approval is necessary, or whether the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the position taken by the United States trade representative that no deal will go forward without provincial approval?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first, perhaps it would be appropriate for Ambassador Yeutter to concentrate his efforts on selling this very important free trade package to Americans, and particularly to the Congress, rather than engaging in concerning himself with the Canadian situation.
The position of the Government is that this is a deal that has been negotiated, it is good for Canada, it is a balanced package, and it is good for all regions of the country. We believe that given the fact that the Premiers have been involved-and I should say in passing that reference has been made to the fact that the Premiers were not involved in the energy discussions, and that is simply untrue; I am informed that energy was brought up on various occasions; the Premiers were fully briefed on the energy situation,-we believe that we

October 13, 1987
Oral Questions
can continue to work with the provinces and over time, after examining the documents in detail and recognizing the positive benefits, we hope that the Premiers will all come onside.


ENERGY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the words of the Premier of Prince Edward Island were quite clear when he stated the Premiers "were never told energy was on the table. It was not discussed". Now the Deputy Prime Minister is claiming that energy was under discussion. Is he suggesting that the Premier of Prince Edward Island was lying? If he is not suggesting that, could he stand up in the House and clear up once and for all the confusion and the confabulation that have surrounded the Government's selling job, both with respect to provincial involvement, and also with respect to the link between higher drug prices in this country and a sell-out to the Americans in the so-called free trade debate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to comment upon the confusion in the mind of the Hon. Member. But I can say to her that I am advised that the Premiers were briefed on the energy situation not once, but twice, and on several occasions. That was part and parcel of the briefing, as I understand it, and as I am informed.


APARTHEID
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it has to do with Canada's policy towards South Africa and apartheid.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister clarify for the House, and for the Canadian people, what type of aid the Government has in mind when it talks about aid to the front-line states?
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House, on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister, that any new emphasis on aid to the front-line states will not be used as an alternative to or a substitute for tough economic action against South Africa?


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows, I believe, that an important conference is under way in Vancouver, and it would be inappropriate at this stage either to put forward a new position or confirm any previous one. Mr. Speaker, members attending the Conference are there to discuss, and the future will show those discussions to have been fruitful.


ECONOMIC SANCTIONS-COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate if the Deputy Prime Minister could speak for the Government. The Prime Minister has made it clear in the past that Canada would be prepared to invoke complete economic sanctions against South Africa. He has also made it clear that, in his view, there are limits to unanimity.
1 wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does he not think, at this time when the leaders of the Commonwealth countries are meeting here in Canada that, if there is failure to get collective economic action with respect to South Africa, this would be the time for Canada to show the leadership that the Prime Minister has done a lot of talking about, and make it clear that Canada is prepared to go it alone with respect to comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Canadian Government is very clear. The Prime Minister reiterated that position last night on the CBC interview. I would invite the Hon. Member to read it, because it clearly restates the position and strategy involved. As the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary indicated, there is-


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about C-22?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East continues to involve herself in all matters related to questions in the House of Commons, rather than sitting back and listening, perhaps that is the manner in which she would like to see Question Period run.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am listening.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the remark of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.
With respect to aid for the front-line states, the Prime Minister again made it very clear, and I quote, "They need assistance to help them rebuild rail lines, their port system, their transportation and communication links. They need aid for human suffering, and they need military aid. Canada's preoccupation is with the first part of that equation. We believe that it is consistent with our traditions and our objectives and our expertise and our wishes for the region that we help in the infrastructure development, helping human beings, helping transportation, ports, rail lines, and so on as opposed to the military implications".
We are not offering any military aid. That is very clear and unequivocal. It is a different position from that taken by the NDP Party.
October 13, 1987


INDIAN AFFAIRS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. It concerns C-31, a Bill that was passed by this Parliament and is now law. The House will recall that this Bill had to do with the reinstatement of Indian persons who had lost their status and wished to return to their communities.
When the Bill was before committee, the Minister's predecessor said:
The Government is fully committed to ensuring that bands have adequate
funding to enable new band members to be integrated with a minimum of
disruption to community life.
What plans does the Minister have to provide the hundreds of houses needed this year for the women and children who are returning to their communities? There is a shortfall between the Department's budget and the actual needs. This is creating a housing crisis in Indian communities. When will the Minister respond?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill C-31, the Hon. Member is aware that when the legislation was passed the estimates of those who would seek reinstatement were grossly inaccurate. It is now estimated that there will be some
100,000	people of aboriginal origin seeking and obtaining reinstatement as Indians in Canada.
I believe for the infrastructure and housing to date the total is $27 million. I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that within the government process there are discussions to identify the funds. I am having those discussions with my colleagues at this time.


AGREEMENTS MADE WITH INDIAN BANDS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that this year he has entered into a large number of agreements with Indian bands for the provision of these houses. Does he think it is right that he and his Government should be breaking these agreements?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I can only ask my hon. friend if he would identify agreements and I would certainly be pleased to look at them.
As he is aware, through the process there is an ability to put forward subsidized housing dollars for Indian people in Canada up to, in some areas, an average of $30,000 per home.
Also, as the Hon. Member is aware, there is the criterion and there is the necessity of the band being able to complete those homes. We are having those discussions with bands at this time.
Oral Questions AIR SAFETY


AIRPORT WORKERS-SECURITY CHECKS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It concerns the decision of his Government to force existing airport workers to undergo detailed security investigations, even if they have been employed in their positions for more than 20 years.
Will the Minister indicate to the House what proof he has that any employee, past or present, was actually a security threat at Canada's airports?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, all over the world Governments have had to take steps to try to protect the travelling public and their transportation systems from threats from terrorism and armed action which we have seen occurring for some 12 years to 15 years. Every country has had to institute certain checks on personnel who go into certain restricted areas of airports, who have access to aircraft or other sensitive areas like that.
Canada has to follow suit. It is distasteful in a free and democratic country such as ours that we have to take these steps. That is why the regulations have been brought in.
The House adopted amendments to the Aeronautics Act at the invitation of the Government a year and a half ago to give us these powers. We are now implementing these powers. Reasonable notice is given to everybody involved.
Surely it is not too harsh for a person to have to get a permit every five years to have access to these areas. All that is happening now is that when you need a permit, if your permit expires or you are a new employee, you have to go through these checks before obtaining a permit. There will be about
12,000	this year.
This is not unreasonable if we are serious about trying to prevent any possibility of terrorist acts in our transportation system.


REPORTED EXEMPTION FOR STRIKE-BREAKERS
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, if the Government were that serious about security, it would not have issued a telex on October 9 which instructed airport managers and security personnel to exempt any scabs from the requirements of this Draconian approach.
Perhaps the Minister could explain to the people of Canada why it is necessary to have massive security checks on the workers and their families but not on last minute call-ups to try to replace a striking worker. Could he explain that to the people of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what directive the hon. gentleman is referring to and, therefore, I am not going to attempt to explain it.

October 13, 1987
Oral Questions
If the hon. gentleman would send me over whatever telex he says he has, I will certainly look into it. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has to have admittance into these areas should be required to be checked, or they should have a person who has been cleared going with them.
Everyone cannot be checked in 24 hours, so the system is that if you are a new employee you are allowed into these restricted areas as long as you have somebody accompanying you who has been cleared.
Perhaps that is what has been proposed in this situation. If not, I will look into it, but it would be nice to have the information first so that you can check out these matters rather than somebody just trying to catch you with a fast one in the Question Period.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Metro Toronto has become a place where lower and middle-income earners find it easy to get work but almost impossible to locate affordable housing.
The average wage earner cannot afford a house costing more than $135,000, but last month the average selling price in Metro was $186,000 for a family home, and many families are having to spend 40 per cent more of their income for rent.
What hope can the Minister give these people and what information can he give the House that we can prevent this problem from becoming a crisis?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his continuing interest in housing matters relative to Toronto and indeed to all Canada.
In the last three years we have had record housing starts throughout Canada and in Toronto. All the funds in my portfolio, namely, $1.5 billion, are devoted to those most in need. In Toronto in the last year we constructed some 4,500 new units. In Canada we either constructed or renovated some
55,000	units for those most in need.
The province also indicated that they were very interested and have an obligation to respond. They did that in their platform. We are anxiously waiting to see what particulars they will put forward to accommodate the need in co-operation with the federal Government.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and it concerns regional development.
We know, from his answer to my colleague for Shefford, that people in Matane are to be congratulated because my feeling is they won, although unfortunately they had to spend money to come here and beg. Not that this Conservative government wanted to help them, it is simply that the people from Matane forced its hand.
Now, people from the Eastern sector of Montreal want to know how long they will have to wait. This Conservative government has been dragging its feet for three years now about this matter. This morning, the City of Montreal announced its economic recovery plan for Montreal's Eastern sector and here is what I would like to know from the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: What are his plans to pave the way to Montreal Eastern sector's economic recovery? Is he ready to give respond to the CREM report, Mr. Pichette's report? The Minister has had that report for two weeks now and we are waiting for his answer.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it took a lot less time for the previous Government to break down the economy in Montreal East than it took to restore its vitality as we have been doing during the past three years. If we look at the number of jobs created in the Montreal area, we realize it is one of the areas with the fastest increase in employment across this country.
I wish the Hon. Member would look at his statistics and stick to the facts when asking a question. At least it would be easier to give an intelligent answer.


ESTABLISHMENT OF RAILWAY TRANSPORT PREFERENTIAL PURCHASING POLICY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the employee at Vickers was right: The Minister isn't dragging his feet, he can't even walk.
The Minister's answer proves he did not read the CREM Report. In Montreal East, the employment rate is 12 percent. It hasn't gone down in three years. I suggest the Hon. Member and Minister read the CREM report.
This is what the people of Montreal East want: They are sick and tired of the Minister's song and dance. Is the Minister going to respond to the CREM report? Will the signing of the Free Trade Agreement with United States prevent the Government from carrying out one of the proposals made by the Montreal East Committee, which was to establish a preferential procurement policy with respect to rolling stock?
October 13, 1987

Will the Government, despite the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, be able to introduce a policy that will create jobs in Montreal East and protect jobs in the railway transportation industry? Yes or no?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, finding out what this question is all about is quite a challenge!
First of all, the Hon. Member is talking about unemployment instead of employment rates. He does not mention the fact that the number of people in the labour force has increased considerably in the area. He does not mention job creation. And all this is being mixed up with free trade. He overlooked action taken by the present Conservative Government to enhance the economic well-being of the area. The report is being studied, thank you. And we will be able to make some pertinent announcements as soon as the studies have been completed.
If we look at regional economic development generally, because we have to consider all regions, we see that the Government has done very well, while Opposition Members keep trying to impede our progress on all kinds of initiatives that could create jobs, such as Bill C-22, with its prospects for advanced technology, 700 jobs, 1,300 jobs and $700 million worth of investment. That isn't good enough!


ENERGY-CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO P.E.I. PREMIER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister arising out of what he said earlier in the House. In my earlier question I asked the Government to confirm what Premier Ghiz of P.E.I. had said about the energy discussions and I want the Deputy Prime Minister to listen to the question and reply to it.
Premier Ghiz has said that the Premiers were never told energy was on the table and that it was not discussed at any of the meetings of the First Ministers. Since I confirmed with Premier Pawley's office in Manitoba that what Premier Ghiz stated is absolutely true, does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by what he said earlier in Question Period?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Premiers were briefed not only once but twice in September and in July, and on other
Oral Questions
occasions officials were briefed about the energy package as well. Perhaps the Hon. Leader of the NDP might want to put in another call to his friends.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the people of Canada, not to mention the Opposition, had to choose between the reliability of Premier Ghiz and Premier Pawley and that of the Government, I do not need need to tell him whose side they would come down on.


INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Since the Minister has said he was advised, by whom was he advised? Was it one of the other Ministers involved in the discussions? Was he advised by the Prime Minister's office? This is a fundamentally important question. Two Premiers have said one thing and the Deputy Prime Minister is saying another. The people of Canada have a right to get to the truth of this important matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is a very fundamental question. I can advise the Hon. Member that I am giving him the information that has been given to me by a very senior official within the Government of Canada. I know that sometimes the Hon. Leader of the NDP does not like the answers, but just because he does not like them, he does not have to charge them with being dishonest. That is the information.
There is an axiom in this House that when a Minister for the Crown responds to a question, it is assumed that it is the truth, and on the basis of the information-


An Hon. Member:: That's the problem.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we went through this a little bit on Friday and I want to make it very clear that I am not misleading or distorting-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Just like C-22.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East would do well to sit back and listen from time to time because she will never allow the courtesy of a Member to put a question or answer a question without talking from her seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Leader of the New Democratic Party has every right to clarify this and I am trying to clarify it and that is the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I would advise the House that that concludes Question Period.

October 13, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez PRIVILEGE


ALLEGED RESTRICTION OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you advance notice. To put this question of privilege into some perspective, I have to tell you the background of what caused me to raise this matter.
This morning, the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration met and a resolution was passed. The resolution was passed because all members from the Government side voted for it while Members of the Opposition and one Conservative Member voted against it.
The resolution was that members of the committee could not contact the researchers, hired by the committee of Parliament and paid for with taxpayers' money through the House of Commons, unless we got the permission of the chairman of the standing committee.
Under the Standing Order 97(1) of this House, the committee has the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff as may be deemed necessary to carry out its mandate.
A group of government Members came into that committee, having shut down the committee by removing its Chairman last week, and they encroached on my privilege as a Member of Parliament to carry out my duties as a Member by saying that I cannot contact the researchers hired by the committee with the budget that has been allotted to the committee by Parliament, and that I cannot ask them for help in carrying out my duties as a MP, unless I go through the Chair.
If we were to extend that to its logical conclusion, Members of the Opposition could not contact the Clerks of the House for advice on matters pertaining to the operations of the House or our conduct in the House unless we went through the Chair. Can you imagine that? We could not talk to a Page and give a Page an instruction, be it to bring a glass of water or whatever, unless we went through the Chair. We could not contact the legal beagles who are attached to the House to give Members advice in drafting Bills unless we went through the Chair. We could not contact the researchers of the Library of Parliament unless we got the approval of the librarian who is a servant of this House.
I would suggest that my privilege, the privilege of other members of that committee and, by extension, the privileges of all Members of the House, no matter on what committees they sit, have been breached and encroached upon by this particular motion passed by the Conservative members of the committee this morning.
It is noted that the Opposition voted and argued against the motion. We raised all of these points in the committee. We objected strenuously to the motion, as did the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais). I know that he is persona non
grata in the Caucus of the Conservative Party, but the fact is that having done him in as chairman of the committee, they sought to deliver the coup de grace, which was to limit opportunities for members of that committee to carry out their duties under the McGrath report's new view of committees in this House, which is that committees are masters of their own destinies and have the ability to spend their budgets on hiring research staff.
I think it was an abuse of our privileges for the majority to deal with the committee in the way it did this morning. 1 suggest, if you find there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege, that you refer this matter to the appropriate committee for examination.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the sentiments expressed by my friend from Nickel Belt. Once again in the ninth inning we see the Government call upon its bullpen of parachute artists to descend upon the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration and poison the work of that committee. That committee, along with perhaps the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, was the flagship committee with respect to tackling major issues and producing recommendations through a number of excellent reports.
We saw that poisoning in the John Quigley affair and the Georges Grossmann affair. Last week the Government did an end run around the previous chairman. Today it proceeded to terminate the committee's research director without a shred of evidence to suggest that the research was incompetent. That attempt failed, but then unfortunately government Members proceeded to pass a motion which suggested that until the research needs of the committee are dealt with, which will take until the end of this year, no member of the committee will be able to access the research staff of the committee unless he or she goes through the chairman of the committee.
I said in committee, and I say it here, that I will refuse to go along with a motion which I believe is an affront to the privileges of each Member of Parliament. Access to the research staff of the committee, seconded from the Library of Parliament, is not the sole prerogative of any individual Member. Those researchers are responsible for providing assistance and direction to 282 Members of Parliament without requiring the written consent of a committee chairman.
While committees are theoretically supposed to be masters of their own fate, I believe there is good cause to be alarmed by a resolution which restricts the freedom of any Member of Parliament. These researchers are paid by the tax dollars of all Canadians. Not only is it an affront, it is a waste of taxpayers dollars. The researchers are there to complement the work of Members. If we decide we need to utilize their services in order to enhance our work, then this motion does nothing but
October 13, 1987

undermine the integrity and independence of any committee and its members.
I will end by stressing the importance all Members place on the McGrath recommendations. That report suggests that committees are to be somewhat more useful in influencing public policy. The system should allow for greater independence of a committee from the Government. Yet now we have a motion which suggests that MPs are unable to access research information unless consent is obtained from the chairman of the committee.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: How do you know you will not get it?


Sergio Marchi: Then government Members have the temerity to suggest that any Member who does not subscribe to the motion will face some consequences. In my humble opinion that motion is undemocratic. It poisons the possibility of the non-partisan co-operation this committee has had for the last two and a half years. It threatens its independence and is an affront to the individual freedoms of individual Members as well as undermines the purpose of research being available to Members. I hope you address yourself to this very crucial motion, because it is in danger of setting a very alarming course for members of our parliamentary committees.


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to both the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi). In the interest of your making a decision, it would help if we got all the facts on the table.
This morning the committee voted on a motion to evaluate the researchers and research requirements of the committee. The Chair was to report back to the committee before the end of this year. That motion, if not unanimously passed, was at least passed by the majority of Members present.
While there was debate on the motion, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt agreed that it would be in the best interests of the committee and the evaluation if Members of Parliament were not to use the services of the researchers during the course of the evaluation. I therefore find it somewhat odd that the Hon. Member now believes his privileges have been somehow abused. He agreed to the very motion prior to the vote. I find it very unusual that five minutes prior to the motion being put the Member did not feel that his privileges were being violated, supported the motion, and then all of a sudden finds himself in a position where those privileges are being violated.
I invite you to examine the record, and I suggest there has been no violation of any Member's privileges whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: I should indicate that the complaint may, given the facts coming out, be a serious one. I have some doubt as to whether it is a question of privilege. I want to indicate to Hon. Members that the Chair has the point being made, but some assistance could be given, perhaps by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who spoke first, if he could send to the Chair, for my deliberation at the appropriate time,
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
the actual motion passed in the committee. I ask him to do that.
The Chair has the point and will hear several more Members, but we will not spend all afternoon on the issue.
The Hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as a former chairman and a present member of the committee, I want to speak in support of the question of privilege. When I and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) were chairmen of the committee, members of the committee were never required to ask the chairman for access to the researchers which were made available to the committee.
You, Mr. Speaker, were once a member of the Opposition and know that Members in Opposition do not have the same expertise available to them to assist them with their work in Parliament as do the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries who are provided with a lot of research support by their Departments.
It was a great day when, on the recommendation of the McGrath committee, committees were able to contract experts to help them with research. For the last two years members of that committee have been able to call these researchers to get information on matters being dealt with by the committee. I am not speaking of matters which were not being dealt with by the committee.
To pass a resolution that members of the committee cannot have access to the expertise of those researchers who are being paid by Parliament and the people of Canada is a violation of our privileges, because it affects the way we can work in Parliament. We have one or two research people in our offices but cannot afford experts in the areas on which we are critics. Therefore, we rely on the experts who are assigned to committees. These are experts in labour economics, employment economics and immigration who can provide us with expertise.
The issue of unemployment insurance was before the committee last spring. I could call the researcher and ask him to look into former studies done in the 1940s or 1950s on a certain point and report on that to the committee, as well as on the implications of the Forget report on such matters. To require me to ask the chairman whether I can do that is a clear violation of my privileges.
As long as we are dealing with the work before the committee in a broad way, we must have the right to ask researchers to study specific points so that all aspects can be brought out and we can do our work better. If we cannot do that we become eunuchs and the reforms are meaningless.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987 [Translation]


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I was present this morning at the sitting of the Committee on Employment and Immigration, held in camera at the request of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
Mr. Speaker, I heard the representations of the three previous speakers and they did not tell you 5 per cent of what happened in camera this morning. I would ask you, if you want to investigate this matter, to inquire of the members and dispense us from having to consider the meeting as having been held in camera. You will then note that they deliberately held back 95 per cent of the facts to mislead you Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret but the Hon. Member knows that it is not proper to impute motives to other Hon. Members. I would be pleased if the Hon. Member could give a proprer answer to assist the Chair.


Gabriel Fontaine: Because the Chair is asking me, Mr. Speaker, I will readily admit that maybe I should not have voiced my accusations here in the House. I am sorry for the Chair, but as a newly elected member, I was so flabbergasted by some of the representations made that I simply could not keep quiet.


Mr. Speaker:: I am really grateful to the Hon. Member for making a reply which is absolutely proper and consistent with the tradition of this House. But the situation, especially as described by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), is creating difficulties for the Chair, because it is clearly impossible for the Chair to attend the said meeting. For my own sake, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Levis, it might be necessary for the Hon. Member to have this committee business investigated. But it is impossible, considering that our Standing Orders and the tradition of the House are clearly against such an approach. I suggest, however, that the time may have come for a pause in dealing with this issue, especially because I do not yet have the exact motion; as soon as I have it, and after some further deliberation on my part, I might deem it necessary to continue the discussion.
For the time being, however, I seek the cooperation of all Hon. Members to conclude the interventions for now; if I feel it necessary, once I have had the opportunity to examine the exact wording of the motion, the Chair may feel advisable to return to the House to continue hearing the interventions.
I therefore ask whether this approach is satisfactory to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that is a very sound proposal. I will submit to you the exact motion which was passed in the committee. I trust that we can discuss it tomorrow once you have had a chance to review it.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member very much. I notice that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is rising. I hope it is not on this point.


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, I will defer my remarks until tomorrow but I would like to participate in this debate because I do believe that a question of privilege has been raised.


Mr. Speaker:: I want the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell to know that I have noted his comments. I know that there are some other Members, including the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), who were seeking the floor. Until I can consider the matter a little more carefully we will adjourn the matter. As I say, it is only an adjournment. If necessary, I will hear further interventions.
Are there any further questions of privilege or points of order on any other matter?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Northumberland- Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) has the floor.


W.R. (Bud) Jardine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the proposed legislation before Hon. Members today, namely, the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987. As the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) indicated in his remarks yesterday, the introduction of back-to-work legislation is something which the Government finds not only repugnant but frustrating. Given the free democratic society in which we live and the collective bargaining system which reflects the inherent rights of such a society, it is indeed regrettable that situations such as that which we are now facing with the disruption of postal services occur. It is regrettable from the point of view that the parties to the dispute, in this case Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, have been afforded every opportunity that the free collective bargaining system offers to demonstrate a responsible attitude and settle their differences themselves without inflicting such serious hardship on the Canadian public and on the economy of the country.
Hon. Members will be well aware of the vast amount of rhetoric that has been emanating from the two sides in the dispute recently, firmly laying the blame for the failure of the negotiations at each other's doorstep. One has only to examine the report of the conciliation commissioner, Mr. Claude H. Foisy, to appreciate that the current bitter dispute is the collective responsibility of both parties. After reading the
October 13, 1987

report of the conciliation commissioner, one is left with the distinct impression that if the two sides would channel the same energies into the resolution of the issues in dispute as they spend now in criticizing each other, the consumers of postal services in this country would indeed be much better served.
In his report, Mr. Foisy describes the relationship between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers as one which is characterized by profound mutual distrust. While this revelation basically serves to confirm that which has been known for some time, it is of particular concern to the Government which has set specific goals and targets for the corporation to achieve in the coming years.
Let it be clearly understood that this Government is firmly committed to providing Canadians with a postal service which offers an effective and cost-efficient service. The clock is running and it is time that labour and management exhibit of some proof of the ability to come to grips with crucial issues which impact on the Corporation's very raison d'etre-the efficient collection, processing and delivery of the mail.
In his remarks at the beginning of second reading, the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) referred to comments contained in the report of the Review Committee on the Mandate and Productivity of Canada Post Corporation, otherwise known as the Marchment committee. I think it would be appropriate, in light of the proposed legislation before us, to reflect upon the main findings of the Marchment committee as they related to labour relations at Canada Post Corporation.
The Review Committee on the Mandate and Productivity of Canada Post Corporation was established on June 20, 1985, by the then Minister responsible for the Corporation, the Hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty). The committee, whose membership was composed of business, labour and agricultural representatives, was charged with consulting extensively with all interested groups in assessing the corporation's legislative mandate, policies and practices, and to report to the Minister responsible for the corporation on the future requirements for a national postal system. In addition to a series of hearings held across Canada, the committee, chaired by Alan Marchment, visited postal facilities in Canada and consulted widely with officials in the Australian and United States postal services.
The initial observations of the Marchment review committee pertaining to labour relations at Canada Post Corporation are worthy of note. The report states:
The members of the committee are unanimous in agreeing that they have never seen labour relations in any jurisdiction that are as acrimonious as those that exist between Canada Post Corporation management and the postal unions. They are poisonous to the point of the potential destruction of the enterprise. There is a clear lack of trust on the part of each side-management and labour. The relationship is more reminiscent of a class war than any kind of pursuit of mutual objectives.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
This sounds all too familiar to me. It is as if time has stood still in relation to hoped for improvements in the relationships between Canada Post Corporation and its unions.
In its recommendations, the review committee suggested various initiatives to remedy the corporation's labour relations problems. These included joint involvement of the corporation and its unions in developing new methods of consultation and co-operation to permit the settlement of important issues outside of the grievance procedure; joint exploration of opportunities for improving the quality of working life in postal plants and possible incentives for improved productivity; co-operation in identifying and improving hazardous work areas and conditions in the workplace; and negotiations between the corporation and its unions to eliminate restrictive clauses impeding the achievement of efficiency in operations.
Other recommendations include joint co-operation in reducing absenteeism to normal industrial levels; that high priority be given to job training programs; and that action be initiated to consolidate the number of unions within Canada Post. The report also recommended that the corporation continue to contract the operation of sub post offices and explore the feasibility of contracting out more of its ancillary services.
Again, I feel it is worth-while to quote directly from the Marchment review committee report which, in its conclusion and summary of recommendations, states:
Most fundamentally, if the Corporation is to survive into the next century, it must have real collaboration between management and labour and a complete change in the attitude of hostility and distrust which now prevails. Both management and labour must recognize that their futures are intertwined. If Canadians are not soon given, at fair cost, the level of service they need and want, they will increasingly continue to turn to alternate if not competitive modes of communication to the detriment and ultimate demise of the Corporation. Some people have already characterized the Canadian postal system as a dinosaur en route to extinction.
As Hon. Members are aware, the main concern in the current dispute revolves around the issue of preserving job security for its members while management is seeking to open additional sub post offices and award franchises, while gaining increased flexibility in laying off surplus employees. The conciliation commissioner, while acknowledging the right of management to open new sub post offices and award franchising in keeping with its corporate plan, also recognized the right of unionized employees to some sort of job security and recommended accordingly. Despite what has been viewed as a relatively balanced approach to the dispute, the Foisy report has not resulted in a resolution of the issues.
As has been indicated, the Bill before us today will bring about an immediate restoration of postal operations as well as providing for the settlement of all issues in dispute through the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. This method of dispute resolution will provide the parties with one final opportunity to come to grips with the issues themselves and arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement. Otherwise, the task will fall to the mediator-arbitrator appointed under the terms of the legislation.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
The Government cannot and will not allow the economy and the citizens of this country to be subjected to a second prolonged postal strike within less than four months. Such disruptions impact adversely on those dependent on government transfer payments such as the elderly, the handicapped and the poor, as well as on the small business sector.
A work stoppage of major duration in the postal service could result in serious loss of business or even bankruptcy for many small firms that are dependent on Canada Post. Suspended postal operations could result in disruption of collection and cash flow, loss of employment, increased cost through the use of couriers, long-distance charges, increased bank charges and interest payments on receivables.
To summarize, Madam Speaker, Canadians have lost patience with both management and labour at Canada Post Corporation. What Canadians want and what they deserve is an efficient and reliable postal system that is not subjected to labour disruptions at every turn. I urge all Hon. Members to give swift passage to the Bill before us, and I urge the parties to the labour dispute to take full advantage of the opportunity provided by the legislation to determine their own destiny.
This Government continues to be a firm believer in the free collective bargaining process, but we will not hesitate to take decisive action in cases where the parties to a labour dispute abdicate their responsibilities and place the economic or physical well-being of Canadians in serious jeopardy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there any questions or comments? If not we shall resume debate. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I was rather amazed to hear the previous speaker representing the government side saying that the Government believes in the collective bargaining process. What a bucket of horse manure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I have to say to that Member, "You hold the lantern while I shovel". I have seen Governments bring back-to-work legislation to this House, previous Liberal Governments, the short six-months hiatus of the Clark regime, and now this Government. This is the War Measures Act of collective bargaining, Madam Speaker. I have never seen back-to-work legislation couched in clauses, language and specific directions as I have seen in Bill C-86.
Eight days into this strike by CUPW's inside workers against Canada Post we have a Bill to put the workers back to work.


Andrew Witer: Decisive action.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) says "decisive action".


Mr. Allmand:: It was not even a full strike.


John R. Rodriguez: CUPW members were on a rotating strike. The right to strike was given to the inside workers and it was given to the letter carriers. The letter carriers had a previous dispute with Canada Post and they exercised the right to strike. It was a rotating strike.


Mr. Fulton:: Perfectly legal.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, perfectly legal in this country. The strike went on for 19 days and then they got a settlement. With CUPW we have had an eight day strike-and considering the fact that we do not deliver mail on Saturdays and Sundays, we are talking about five days.


James Ross Fulton: Four days.


John R. Rodriguez: Four days.
The right to strike which these workers have has been taken away by this Government in Bill C-86. It has not only taken away that right, but it has done other things. The punishment sections may very well run counter to the whole nature of the Charter of Rights. When you start saying to stewards on the shop floor and to the membership that they will be told which president they can elect, and when you remove the right of the workers to select their executive, which is a basic democratic right of any collective, it is very serious. I can tell you that I have been here since 1972, with a little hiatus of four years-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -and how things have changed around here! In all that time I have never witnessed any legislation brought in this House to put capital back to work. We have consistently in this country seen capital going on strike. If they do not like the environment laws in a province, the way a municipality deals with them or the federal tax laws, they close their doors. That is capital on strike. I have never seen legislation brought to the floor of the House of Commons that forced capital back to work. But consistently we see legislation forcing workers back to work.
What we had was a dispute between CUPW and Canada Post. You can pass all the laws you want with your big majority, Mr. Minister. You can stomp on the rights of workers, but I say to you that you can take a horse to drink but you cannot make him water.


Some Hon. Members:: oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: What is the matter? Is that not the way it goes? Is it the other way?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a fact, Madam Speaker. I have seen previous legislation brought to this House putting postal workers back to work. But legislation never deals with the underlying problems within the Post Office.
October 13, 1987

The last strike I recall very vividly was in 1978. We in the NDP and this side of the House said that if we created a Crown corporation for Canada Post separate from the Government-and there was support among CUPW members-it would provide opportunities for workers to negotiate directly with their employer, that they would be under the Canada Labour Code and not under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which limits the ideas and areas for negotiation, such as classification, occupation, health and safety and the whole question of technologizing the Post Office. Everyone, including the postal workers, said, "Lets go for a Crown corporation and really establish an arm's length relationship with the Government". Let the workers have face to face dealings with their employer. That was done in 1981.
What I am seeing in 1987 is that we have not established the arm's length relationship. We have not allowed the inside workers, the letter carriers or any other group of workers within the Post Office to deal with their problems. We had a business plan for the Post Office laid down by the Minister who is responsible for Canada Post, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). What was the first and foremost injunction to Canada Post? Cut the deficit in some six years. By next year Canada Post has to eliminate the deficit. When the United States Government set up its post office as a Crown corporation, the United States gave the post office 14 years to retire its deficit.


An Hon. Member:: How long did it take them?


Mr. Binns:: How are they doing?


John R. Rodriguez: Today we look at our own Post Office and find that under the present structure it will retire its deficit by next year. There was a business plan implemented by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is responsible for the Post Office, and given to Canada Post officials. We saw them, and Mr. Lander and his assistants briefed our caucus. They were great when talking about systems of moving the mail and all of those business systems. Not once did the discussion turn to people and the welfare of those who work in Canada Post to provide the service. The whole discussion was on the systems of management that have been put into place. We understand that, after all Mr. Lander came from the Delorean empire. We know what happened to that. He has now come to Canada Post and is talking about systems of management and efficiency, and not once did he talk about the workers. That leads to the next issue in this business plan, because that is how the Post Office sees its mandate to cut the deficit, and that is to franchise out the service.
The Marchment commission report was undertaken by the Government. There was a poll taken among Canadians for the Marchment commission report. It showed that Canadians are pleased with the service provided by the workers within the Post Office. Canadians are not saying that the people in the Post Office are not good and efficient workers. What does the
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Government say to the Post Office? "Cut the deficit by next year". What does the Post Office do? It comes up with a new management system of franchising out. Of course, the postal workers are concerned about the franchising out of services. They know it means that their jobs will go down the tubes. They started off implacably saying no to franchising out. The Government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) bring in Bill C-86 eight days into a rotating strike on the instruction of their colleague who is responsible for the Post Office. What do they really wish to do?


James Ross Fulton: It is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.


John R. Rodriguez: That is correct. They are suggesting to Canadians that we should agree to allow jobs that pay $12, $13, $14 an hour to be cut back and that we should give the jobs to people who are prepared to work for $4.50 an hour or $5 an hour. Five dollars an hour is $200 a week based on a 40-hour week. For 52 weeks that is approximately $10,000. All Canadians and all Members of Parliament should not be agreeing to wipe out full-time, well-paying jobs to create a series of low-paying positions. An individual who takes that job could not keep his or her family with dignity.
I wish to touch upon the fact that there are a number of women who work inside the Post Office. A considerable number of women, many of whom are single parents supporting a family, work inside the Post Office.


James Ross Fulton: Three-quarters.


John R. Rodriguez: My colleague states that there are three-quarters, which is 75 per cent. Through their union they have achieved a good wage. The Government is saying, "No, we can get other people, mostly women, who can work for five bucks an hour". That is what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to bust CUPW and to subsidize poverty wages. We are asked to contribute to that. That is why there is no way that I could support this Bill.
Implacably, the union within the Post Office, CUPW, said no to franchising out. It has since compromised, and shown that it is willing to compromise on that issue. It has said it is prepared to go along with franchising in areas where there are no postal services.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, gee.


John R. Rodriguez: Instead of snorting over there, you should read the reports that came out on the union's position.


John Horton McDermid: I have.


John R. Rodriguez: It is prepared to back down on that question. But it is not prepared to back down on closing substations of the Post Office and opening up franchising outlets in the same location, or near the same location, for a quarter of the wages. That cannot be done.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
The Post Office workers, the CUPW, has also said that they are prepared to go along with franchising except where there is a postal station, that it cannot be closed to open a franchising operation. They have backed down on the franchising issue and have counter proposed two exceptions. Where there are no postal services there can be a franchising operation, but it cannot be done where there is a postal station. A postal station cannot be closed to put in a franchising operation.
The Government thinks that it is riding on public sentiment. In my hands I have two editorials. 1 feel that they are representative. One is from the Winnipeg Free Press. No one could accuse the Winnipeg Free Press of ever supporting working-class people. I hardly think that it has ever positioned itself in that manner. The article states, "Why the Government decided to move so quickly and so harshly to end the strike is anybody's guess". I do not have to guess. I know why. The Minister got pressured by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is really calling the shots for the Post Office. That is why we have this Bill. The article goes on to state, "It certainly was not to benefit the postal service or the people who use it". The article closes by stating, "A negotiated settlement would have taken long and hard negotiations in which each side would have had to pay the price of intransigence-Canada Post through lost revenues; the postal workers through lost wages. The public would have suffered, too, but the suffering would have been limited by the rotating nature of the strikes and by the proven ability of Canada Post to get some mail at least past picket lines". That was stated in the Winnipeg Free Press which is not noted for its socialism. It is certainly not noted for support of working-class people.
I have another article from a "real left-wing" paper, The Edmonton Journal. The headline states, "Postal workers licked again". The article states, "Ottawa is using coercion where reason might have prevailed by legislating an end to rotating postal strikes. In the process, the federal Government spurns..." Not my word, Madam Speaker, but that of the editor of The Edmonton Journal. He states, "spurns the collective-bargaining process and erodes the right to strike. Is this an article in The Edmonton Journal? By golly it is, Madam Speaker. He further states, "It invites the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to retaliate in a manner that can hardly make the delivery of mail more efficient".
The editor goes on to state, "Last summer's letter carrier strike languished twice as long before a mediator stepped in; and a general strike by clerks and mail sorters in 1981 was settled-through mediation-after six weeks . . . The ability to strike is virtually the only leverage the workers have in negotiations. To short-circuit collective bargaining for the sake of expedience undermines the rights of all union workers-and brings into question the Government's commitment to productive labour relations".
That article was in the Edmonton Journal. That is not some left-wing paper like The Tribune, or The Toronto Star, although I do have The Toronto Star.
I see you signalling me, Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: You have one minute remaining.


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad you clarified that, Madam Speaker. That is the signal I have been trying to give to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) about the Bill for a long time, that he has one minute in which to repent. It is not too late.
We have learned from all this that the Government jumped hastily because of its hidden agenda. It is all part of the free trade arrangement-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: It is all part of it; it is all part of it. I know what the Hon. Member from Edmonton will say, but it is all part of it-privatization, deregulation, and free trade.
Our postal services compare very positively on an international basis. The Minister should let the process of collective bargaining take place. He should let the market-place of collective bargaining decide the settlement which workers get. He should not be in there ruining collective bargaining with legislation which is so Draconian that I suppose Hitler could vote for it, but not Members on this side of the House.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, we are told that during the strike of outside workers in the month of June, the Government and the people of Canada paid approximately $30 million for replacement workers.
During the labour dispute before us right now, the Post Office advertised for replacement workers long before the strike deadline arrived. While they spent $30 million for replacement workers in June, we do not know yet how much they are spending during this strike.
Would the Hon. Member like to comment upon the policy of spending millions of dollars on replacement workers, moneys which could have been used to settle the strike right away and get it over and done with?


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I sat in the House and I heard about the development of rural dignity. People in rural communities have been decrying the quality of service provided by Canada Post following the mandate which it received from the Government under the table, surreptitiously, and in a euphemism called the business plan of the Post Office, which was designed in the office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They have to cut the deficit, so they have been cutting back on rural mail service.
In Capreol they do not get Saturday delivery any more. Some communities have great big supermailboxes with one key which fits them all. They are right across the street from
October 13, 1987

people who are receiving door-to-door delivery and paying the same taxes.
Referring to the $30 million for replacement workers-


William Warren Allmand: Scabs.


John R. Rodriguez: Scabs. Let us call a spade a spade. They have $30 million for that, but they cannot provide service. Canadians want service.
What would happen if we applied the same principle to other services, the principle that the Post Office is no longer a service and people must pay extra for all these things? What would happen if we tried that on our local fire departments?
Marcus Crassus in Rome in 13 B.C. had the only fire department. Every time there was a fire, he would negotiate with the owner of the villa how much he wanted to pay for putting out the fire. They had privatized the service then. The Post Office is going back to 13 B.C., the time of Marcus Crassus.
I say to the Hon. Member that with $30 million we could provide service. When they put out advertisements for scab workers the situation in society is such that people want to work. Invariably they are young people with no particular skills in the market who are out of work. They are women who are probably on welfare and are being offered $13 an hour. They are new Canadians who do not understand our system of collective bargaining and the democratic process. They are the ones who are enticed by $ 13 an hour to cross the picket line to do scab labour. It is a crying shame. The Government should hang its head.
I know that the Government ran on the campaign of jobs, jobs, jobs. Surely it is not these kinds of jobs. Surely it is not replacing well paid jobs with low paid jobs in an effort to cut the deficit.
I suggest that Canadians want service. They do not mind seeing $30 million spent on improving service and paying for it, rather than seeing $30 million being put into scab labour.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have a brief comment and a question for my hon. friend.
The New Democratic Party is the champion of small business, at least that is what it tells us. Every day its Members rise in the House and say: "We are the champions of small business. Elect us and we will take care of small business".
It turns out that small business made it very clear, both independently and through the associations to which it belongs, that the mail must be delivered; strike or no strike. That is what small business wants and demands of the Post Office, and that is exactly what is happening. Temporary labour is going to keep the mail moving.
In my particular constituency I have a number of small businesses, and if there is an extended strike-and I am
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
talking about a week-they will be in very deep financial trouble. They have come to me and said, "Keep the mail going, keep the mail coming to my particular industry and, more important, have it shipped out'. We get that message. We know that many small businesses will be hurt badly. It is obvious that the strike will go on for a very long period of time. I think the Post Office is carrying out its responsibility in ensuring that the mail is delivered.
The Hon. Member praised the American post office system and said how wonderful it was.


An Hon. Member:: What did he say?


John Horton McDermid: He mentioned how well run it is and that they had 14 years to reduce the deficit and everything else. As he knows, the post office in the United States is an essential service and its employees are not allowed to strike. Is he suggesting that if we give the Post Office in Canada 14 years to reduce the deficit, the New Democratic Party would support legislation to make it an essential service?


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I do not mind the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary making up questions to put to me, but I wish he would not make up my speech.
If he were listening attentively, he would not have heard me praise the American postal service. I simply compared the fact that the American Government gave its post office department 13 years to wipe out its deficit.


John Horton McDermid: The last time you said 14 years, and now you are saying 13 years.


John R. Rodriguez: It is 13 years, from 1971 to 1984.
The Hon. Member made a plea for small business. He said that small business wanted an end to the strike. I have a quote from Mr. Dale Botting of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business who said: "There's no need to pull the plug yet".
I too circulate in my riding, and I listen to small business. Small-business representatives have not been phoning me to say: "Look, John, we are into a problem here, the mail has to be delivered". In fact, some have been saying that this time, their suppliers who run small businesses as well have smartened up. Now they phone and say: "Do not put your cheque in the mail, we will come around to pick it up". They have organized themselves to pick up cheques and to deliver their orders personally.
It was a rotating strike. After eight days of the strike, bang, the Government brought in legislation. If this legislation held any hope of resolving the long-term problem, I would say yes, I would consider supporting it, but it has no hope of resolving the problems in the Post Office. On the contrary, it will only exacerbate relationships between those who have to go back

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
inside that plant once this legislation is passed and the management with whom they have to work.
I think that is always the Conservative response to everything. Use force and might, and might is right. When will they understand that we say "might for right" and not "might is right"? When will they learn that?


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, today we are called upon to speak on Bill C-86. Needless to say, the issue of a postal strike, particularly to those who intend to vote against the legislation, does not constitute a very popular issue with some Canadians. However, I think I would be remiss in my duties if 1 did not take this occasion to speak against this Bill, because it is wrong. When something is wrong, it is the duty of all Members of Parliament to say so. If we do not say so, when a bad Bill is presented to Parliament, many others may be abused in the same way as the people affected by this Bill.
It has been said before that extreme law is extreme injury. It is not justice but, rather, the denial of it. The Bill that is before us today would, in my view, be one of those that I would describe as extreme law and it will cause extreme injury.
Let us for a moment examine some of the provisions of this legislation. For union members, there will be unprecedented fines of between $500 and $1,000 a day. For union officers, there will be fines of $10,000 to $50,000 a day, and for the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, there will be fines of $20,000 to $100,000 a day. I ask, if this is the appropriate level for fines, assuming that this Bill is correct, something I do not assume, then why is it that we have never imposed fines like that in the past?
We have just experienced a labour disruption which in my view had a far greater potential for damage to the country, and 1 am referring to the rail strike of last summer. Did we hear of $20,000 to $100,000 fines in that legislation? No. Well then, if we did not, I can only assume that the Government was wrong in the way it administered that Bill or that it is wrong in the way it has presented Bill C-86 to the House of Commons. My view is that this Bill is wrong.
At the time the Minister first raised the issue of back-to-work legislation, we were three days into a rotating strike, not a full work stoppage but a rotating strike which had lasted only three days. That is when the Government let out utterances to the effect that back-to-work legislation would be necessary.
Some five days later, eight days after the beginning of the rotating strike-let us recall that this was not at that point a full stoppage of mail delivery-the Government imposed the harshest piece of labour legislation this country has ever seen. Why? Was it a full, all-out strike? Was there violence in the streets? No, that was not the case. Yet the Government decided that this kind of legislation was needed at this time.
Of course, a number of editorials have been published which do not support the position of the Government. There are also two opposition Parties in the House which do not support the position of the Government because the legislation that is before us is wrong.

It would have been a lot easier for the Government, Madam Speaker, to let negotiations proceed as usual. I am not one of those people who would stand up and say that, even if we do not get any more mail, even if the system is totally paralyzed, there is no situation that would justify bringing the workers back, because obviously such situations do exist, as we all know. I think Members on all sides of the House will agree that when a strike in an essential service lasts for any length of time, it is time to put an end to it. However, the question is: Have we reached that stage in this case? The answer is no. The answer is no, because, as I pointed out earlier, after only three days of rotating strikes the Government decided to send messages that, as some of my colleagues said earlier, poisoned the negotiations. Five days later, this draconian legislation was tabled in the House.

This law is unprecedented. It is not only unprecedented because of the magnitude of the fines for which it provides, it is also unprecedented in that it was presented so soon after what could hardly be considered a major disruption.
I do not approve, of course, of the violence that has occurred over the last few days, although it has not been considerable. Nevertheless, there has been some violence. I do not approve of violence, whether on the part of union members or on the part of so-called replacement or scab workers, and of course there have been reports of both. Usually and unfortunately, one group tends to get a little more of the spotlight when it decides it will undertake a violent act, but either way, I do not approve of that kind of behavior.
I regret to say it, but neither do I approve of the union strategy of picketing the homes of Conservative Members of Parliament. I am of the view that the home of any member of this House is one place, and perhaps the only place, where he has the right to be in privacy with his spouse and his children without having to face that kind of intimidation. Because I have supported the union, it is with regret that I make this statement. However, 1 do not support that particular activity, and 1 for one can say that if they want to continue to have my support, they will have to cut out immediately that part of their nonsense.
Having said that, I hope both parties get back to the negotiating table to find a peaceful and suitable end to the labour disruption. You might say that is a futile hope at this point given the Bill we have in front of us, a Bill which will inevitably be accepted and become the law of the land. Not that I will vote in favour of it, unless of course the situation
October 13, 1987

warrants it. However, at the time the Bill was introduced, back-to-work legislation was not warranted, least of all the Draconian law we now have before us.

Madam Speaker, the service Canadians have received from Canada Post during the past year has not greatly improved. I should point out that in ridings like the one I represent, and I would urge the Hon. Member opposite to pay special attention, because the same probably applies to his riding as well, it should be said that in my riding for instance, we have people who live in Orleans, in the National Capital Region, who,-although they are in an urban area, do not have the privilege- and it should be considered a right, but at this time it is a privilege-of having home mail delivery.

We even have an unusual situation in one of our communities. People living in downtown Orleans in my riding, a community of 75,000 people, have as their postal address the Town of Navan, eight kilometres away. That is about the same as residents of Ottawa having Gatineau as an address. According to Canada Post the reason is so that they could have contractors instead of union employees deliver the mail to the supermailboxes. The Navan Post Office does not use union employees, and if Canada Post gives people a Navan address, even though they do not live there, then that justifies delivering the mail door-to-door by that means. That is the kind of service my constituents in the Orleans area are getting right now from Canada Post. It is a devious attempt to circumvent paying union labour in the community.
When Canadians listen to the news, they do not always get that side of the story. They of course hear that Canada Post is trying to deliver the mail and something bogged down here because of a labour disruption. Some people look at that and say, "It is the union's fault again. Someone in the union is too aggressive or something or other and has caused this situation." That is not always the case, and I have just described a situation where nothing short of a loophole has been used to deprive my constituents of the mail service they should be getting, with the side effect of giving them as an address the name of a community they do not live in.
Can you imagine living in that town and trying to get something delivered, say a furniture company to deliver the refrigerator? They end up in the wrong town.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, come on.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), who will soon be defeated, sits there amazed that this kind of thing is happening.


John Horton McDermid: You can come down to my riding any time. I would love to have you there.


Don Boudria: I do not blame him. I was speaking slowly so I know he understood everything. He should realize that these
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
kinds of things are going on. He does not. If he would come to my constituency he would find out. Tories seldom come to my constituency because they are not welcome there.


John Horton McDermid: You are welcome in my riding any time.


Albert Glen Cooper: You had my picture in your householder.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), for whom I have great respect, says his picture was in my constituency mail-out. That is true.


Albert Glen Cooper: You just want to be seen with great people.


Don Boudria: I think very highly of the Hon. Member notwithstanding his shortcomings in being a Tory.


John Horton McDermid: It is not fair to refer to his stature.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He said "shortcoming" not "short standing".


Don Boudria: In closing, I cannot support this kind of legislation. I would not want to support any kind of back-to-work legislation at this time because I do not believe we have reached the stage where it is warranted. An Hon. Member referred to the fact that even the Canadian Federation of Small Business said there is no need to pull the plug yet.


John Horton McDermid: What Member?


Don Boudria: Even they did not think it was the appropriate time for back-to-work legislation.


John Horton McDermid: Take a look at what their membership says.


Don Boudria: Even if it were time, and inevitably there is a time for that, this is the wrong kind of legislation. It is harsh, Draconian and unfair. People will remember that the Tory Government is so desperate that it is willing to run roughshod over the rights of Canadians in order to enhance their tarnished image. That is the sorry state of the Progressive Conservative Party.
[ Translation]
It is too bad the Conservative Party has reached the point, Madam Speaker, where they are so desperate they are ready to do just about anything to restore their tarnished image. That will not work, because Canadians are intelligent, and Canadians are informed consumers. As informed consumers, they purchased some merchandise in 1984. They are now disappointed in this Conservative merchandise, and they intend to drop this product at the first opportunity. This first opportunity will be the next election, and I say to Hon. Members opposite that Canadians are fed up with this kind of Government, and that the Government, instead of trying to restore its image and resorting to all kinds of publicity exercises, that this Government should spend some time and energy on doing its job, which is to govern Canada. That is what they were elected for, not for the kind of legislation and bills we have before us today.

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member told a story which well illustrates the master plan behind a lot of the initiatives and legislation the Government has brought forward. The story he told was that of the community in his riding where people were given an address of a town other than the one they live in because of some Post Office machinations which would make it possible to use non-union labour.
Since 1984 there has been a move afoot to eliminate well-paid working people, to create a society with two levels of Canadians; an elite group of very well paid professionals and others, and a much larger group at the bottom which will be competing for the available jobs in this anti-union, free trade regulated environment. We will see the elimination of that portion of the middle class made up of well-paid working Canadians who constitute the vast majority of the riding which I represent. They are on the hit list. They will be eliminated in the evolving economic agenda of the Progressive Conservative Government.
We will see in this country a process which is much more accelerated in the United States, that is, the elimination of what we would call in a general and, I admit, inaccurate sort of way, the middle class. The Government must remember what Aristotle said about the middle class. He said that the larger the middle class the less likely there is to be a revolution.
Through this kind of legislation and other initiatives we are creating in Canada the potential for never-ending conflict, not only among working Canadians as they cut each other's throats for jobs which do not pay as well as they used to, but between the two groups of Canadians of which I have spoken, with this legislation as it interacts with all the other things the Government has done.
That is very regrettable because one of the things which characterizes Canada more than any other western nation is the group in the middle, whether they be well-paid postal clerks, teachers or whatever, who make up the support group for many of the things which are uniquely Canadian, our medicare and other social programs which we have managed to build since 1945. All of that will be at stake in the restructuring of our economy and the relationships between labour and management, government and its employees, and Canada and the United States which the Government is so set on doing.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the excellent points he raised in his intervention. I would like to correct the record by saying that from post office to post office in Navan and Orleans is eight miles rather than eight kilometres. It is even worse than I had indicated earlier.
There has been a tremendous inconvenience imposed on the people of that area. Imagine someone saying, "That letter I
sent you the other day says that I live in Navan, but don't go there to find me because I actually live in Orleans. It is just that the Post Office has an unusual, convoluted way of addressing us. We live in Orleans but are supposed to pretend that we live elsewhere".
I wrote a letter to the Minister responsible for Canada Post (Mr. Andre) and he wrote back to me about a year and a half ago, after a four-month delay, and explained to me how the people who live in Orleans but are supposed to pretend they live in Navan, according to Canada Post, are supposed to address their envelopes. They are supposed to indicate their name and their street and then "Navan (Orleans)" and end with the postal code.
Would you, Madam Speaker, indicate your address as "Ottawa (Gatineau)"? Surely not. That is ridiculous. In fact, Ottawa and Gatineau are closer than are Navan and Orleans. That is an indication of the unusual and inappropriate activity which Canada Post is engaging in to try to save a few dollars. This is causing major disruption.
The Member who just spoke referred to the two levels of Canadians which the Conservative Government is creating by eroding the middle class. The Member is obviously right. We have seen Budget after Budget which has created major disruptions and imposed tremendous tax increases on many Canadians. In his first Budget Speech, I believe, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that Canada has a shortage of the rich. I am sure my hon. colleagues will remember those words. I disagree that Canada has a shortage of rich people. We have a surplus of poor people, and that is the problem. The Government is trying to increase that number in order to please its many wealthy friends.
Canadians want good, fair Government. They want a Government which will stop trying to use every devious method on earth to enhance its image which has been so badly damaged by all kinds of excesses, abuses of power, conflicts of interest and every other scandal that you can think of. Being the non-partisan person that you are, Madam Speaker, you will understand that the Tories have abused their power in the past. Canadians want good, honest, and sincere Government. They want the Tories to cut out the nonsense that they have been perpetrating on the Canadian people.


Mr. Duguay:: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a comment to my hon. colleague with reference to his comment that this is the wrong kind of legislation. For most of my life I worked in a secondary school. I always believed that the appropriate way to deal with young people was to let them make their own decisions, always reserving the right to introduce some maturity when they carried on in a way unbecoming even to young people.
I judged rather quickly that many of the things which were said on each side in the debate last week were inappropriate. However, yesterday afternoon I saw with my own eyes a very
October 13, 1987

clear indication of why the Government should legislate these people back to work.
Without ever trying to contact me at my office or at home, 50 workers from CUPW showed up in front of my house to intimidate me and my family to the point that my children asked me whether it was safe to go outside. For that reason I believe that this is the correct kind of legislation. When mature adults do not know how to behave and resort to intimidation of people and their families, it is appropriate to put them back to work.
We are not only putting them back to work. We are prepared to appoint a mediator who will become an arbitrator. We are telling the Post Office and its workers that if they want to resolve this problem themselves they are quite welcome to do it with the help of a mediator, but if they want to resort to intimidation of the Canadians who are suffering the most as a result of this, those who lose their mail service, they should expect Parliament to put them back to work. I hope we do it right away.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway)- Administration of Justice-Recommended television coverage of criminal trials; the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris)-Regional Development-Government projects in St. John's East, Newfoundland/Request for speedy start to projects; and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar)-Public Service-Recognition of principle of wage parity/Adjustment mechanism.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The time for questions and comments has elapsed.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Don Boudria: A Tory asks me a question and does not allow me to answer. That is your sincerity.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: It is questions and comments.


Don Boudria: He asked me a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Chair would be prepared to allow one minute for the Hon. Member to answer the question, but the Chair first wants the Hon. Member to withdraw that comment which the Hon. Member has made. It was a comment referring to the Chair and putting in doubt-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: -and by casting doubts on the impartiality of the Chair. If-


Don Boudria: It was not toward you, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If somehow the Chair has misunderstood, I will certainly apologize to the hon. gentleman. However, if what I heard is correct, it should be withdrawn.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I apologize if you believe that any comment I made was directed toward you. I was addressing myself to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) who refused me consent to answer the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That does not help.


Don Boudria: It was not addressed to Madam Speaker. I am severe toward my opponents, but it is not my practice ever to criticize the Chair.
I just want to answer briefly the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay). I indicated in the House a few minutes ago that although I support the union in its position, I want to dissociate myself totally from the picketing of homes of Members of Parliament. In my view, M.P.s' homes are one location where Members of Parliament should have privacy. In my view, that is sacred for all of us. They did not picket my home, but the homes of Conservative Members. I said that I consider that kind of activity inappropriate and I want to dissociate myself from anything or anyone who does that to any Member of the House, regardless of their Party.
Notwithstanding that, the proposed law before us is still unjust. As I said in my opening remarks, extreme law is extreme injury. It is not justice, but the denial of it and I stand by that view.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, the House has been debating this motion for two days now. The House was on notice since last Friday that this matter would be debated

October 13, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
today. Therefore, I think it is fair to assume that any Member who wishes to participate in this debate will be here today.
I am asking for the co-operation of the House to complete second reading so that we can get the parties back to the bargaining table, prevent further violence on the picket line and get the mail moving at peak efficiency. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux):
That, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), the House continue to sit beyond
the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing
consideration of second reading stage of Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the
resumption and continuation of postal services.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the Deputy Government House Leader. Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And more than 15 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: More than 15 Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with a view to determining the amount of time necessary to complete debate at second reading of this Bill. I want to be fair to the opposition Parties and indicate that the Liberal Party thought it would be able to proceed to Committee of the Whole House this evening. The New Democratic Party was not prepared to give that assurance.
As I have indicated to the House, this legislation is important and we want to get the parties back to the bargaining table and avoid further violence on the picket-line. We wish to get the mail moving.
Therefore, I want to give notice pursuant to Standing Order 117 that at a future sitting of the House the Government will propose a motion allocating one sitting day for the completion of second reading stage of the Bill.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the incredible significance of the right to strike in our society. It is not my intention to speak with a sense of self-righteous sanctimony, but simply to point out to Members of the House and, hopefully, to people throughout the country that tremendous gains have been made by average Canadians thanks to the right to be able to withdraw their services freely.
I believe that we as a legislature should be extremely hesitant about trampling upon that right to strike. Only in the most difficult or dramatic set of circumstances, when the good of the country is clearly the dominant consideration, should we be prepared to override that right to strike. This is clearly not such a case. It is a case where a strike has been perpetuated by a Government that brought in back-to-work legislation at a time when it was not required, at a time when, frankly, it was designed to destroy the morale of workers and to make much more difficult the future progress of the Post Office.
I think it is important for people to keep in mind just three strikes that I choose at random. First, the Ford strike which took place in Windsor in 1945. It brought to my city and to the people who live there for the first time the recognition by that company that people had the right to form a union, to defend the union and to see to it that the union had a financial base for the future. It was out of that that the Rand formula eventually came which has contributed immeasurably to labour peace in Canada.
The second strike I want to mention is the General Motors strike in Oshawa in 1936. The strike led to the resignation of Liberal cabinet Ministers, including some from my part of the country, who said very clearly that when it came time to ride with General Motors or walk with workers, they would walk with workers. It is a sentiment which I think we should recall and recall with pride.
I think too, as we sit here in Ottawa, that we should consider the strike here by clerks which led for the first time in this city to a fair rate of pay for women clerks compared to their counterparts in the civil service. We have to recognize that strikes have been steps toward social equality and social fairness within our society.
There is a myth about CUPW, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that it is some kind of renegade union which understands no discipline and is prone to violence. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that as a Member of Parliament I visited the picket lines this past Friday in my City of Windsor. The people who work in the Post Office there also walk the picket lines. They were prepared to give up tremendous amounts of pay to do that. They are average Canadians, the sort of people you would meet next to you on the bus and walking down the street, but they were not people-and in this they were typical too-who were prepared to have their rights stepped on by a Government which brought in back-to-work legislation at a time when there was not even a full-scale strike in place in Canada.
I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, and all the people in the House and across the country to consider what it does to the faith of men and women like ourselves, brought up to believe in democratic rights. There is no question that their strike is a legal one. Before that strike had even reached a stage where it existed as a full-scale strike, the full force of Parliament was brought down on their heads. What faith does it give them in the future? What faith does it give them in their government institutions?
There are a lot of issues in this strike. There is the issue of franchising which will have the effect of reducing the wages which are received by a lot of women, from the good wages received in the Post Office to the lousy wages received in many convenience stores. But what about forcing people in the Town of Lasalle in my constituency to travel seven miles before they can get their mail, whether it is registered or something like that, that has to be picked up at the Post Office? This is
October 13, 1987

inconvenient service and totally ridiculous. There is also the issue of strike-breaking and whether a Crown corporation representing Canadians should ever, ever strike-break. 1, for one, do not think that it should. I think strike-breaking is something which should be totally outlawed. I think it is something which should never be carried forward by the people who represent, in some sense, all of the Government of Canada.
There is the question too of service. There is no question that the service offered by the Post Office of Canada has deteriorated badly, not because of the workers in the Post Office but because of the management which has messed the institution up and made it something completely different from the institution of which Canadians used to be proud in the days after World War II.
This legislation with its huge fines and harsh attempts to push union leaders out of the roles of leadership in the future, its refusal to go for a mediator first, is an approach which has terrible consequences for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reid):: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member but it being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ADVISABILITY OF REDUCING LEAD CONTENT IN PAINTS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reducing the allowable lead content in all consumer paints, particularly those used on products for children, from the existing level of 0.5 per cent to 0.06 per cent.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that has an environmental inspiration, and at the same time it has a health goal. It is intended to protect the health of Canadians from lead, and in a sense it is driven by a comparative study between the lead that we allow in Canada to be used in paints, and the lead that is allowed to be added to paints south of the border.
I will briefly explain the background leading to this resolution. In Canada under the Hazardous Products Act there are regulations which specify how much lead can be used in pigments and in paints that are utilized in the production of furniture and toys used by children and adults. In these regulations a specific limit is set, namely five parts per thousand, as stated in the motion. That is five parts per thousand of the total solids contained in the coating to be applied to the specific item that children play with, or the item used by adults.
Hazardous Substances
The two main pigments that are used in Canada are red lead and lead chromate. By contrast, the permitted quantities in the United States are only six hundred parts per million, which is roughly one-tenth of what is permitted in Canada. In Canada the content of lead in paints that are used commercially and applied to toys and other wooden products that are put into circulation for the market-place is virtually 10 times greater than that permitted in the United States.
Through history and through time it has been well established that lead is far from being a healthy matter. On the contrary, it is a matter that endangers human health. If ingested in certain quantities, it can have some very serious consequences on the mental capacity of human beings.
Therefore, the reason for this motion is to bring to the attention of the House the necessity to change our regulations and make them more restrictive in order that in future the paints to be used in the production of children's equipment, toys, and the like, will contain one-tenth of the lead that is presently permitted.
Let me add that at the present time lead-based compounds are without restriction. I am referring not to paints but only to compounds which are widely used as paint additives. These lead-based compounds also ought to be examined from the point of view of human health, and be regulated to within the same scope and breadth in order to better protect the health of Canadians than we have so far.
Who is at risk in particular may interest you, Mr. Speaker. Particularly at risk are the consumers who are using articles that are covered or coated with such paints, but also consumers and individuals who may be sanding walls of old interiors or exteriors where lead paint has been used, and where large quantities of lead can be inhaled while sanding those old paints. Therefore, it is an operation that must be watched by anyone who is engaged in it and is unware of the consequences of lead on human health. Also at risk is the tiny consumer, the child in the crib who may be biting at items, toys, the bars of the crib itself which are painted with lead-containing paints, and who innocently and inadvertently may be ingesting some of this lead that is definitely rather dangerous to health.
I welcome the presence in the House today of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). I am sure that he will wish to examine this matter and make representations to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) on the question of lead contained in paint.
For instance, the paint used on children's furniture and toys could be marked as a safe item. There is no doubt about that. But it is important that the Canadian consumer know that it is allowed to contain up to five parts per thousand of lead. Many experts in the field consider this level to be far too high, particularly in relation to children and because of the habit of children to chew on anything that they can get their hands on.
The second threat is one that could be related to the fact that paint does peel and flake off. As I mentioned a moment

October 13, 1987
Hazardous Substances
ago, it can be removed by the process of sanding. In this manner, children can be contaminated, and also grown-ups, particularly those engaged in sanding operations.
There is an excellent book by Barbara Wallace and Kathy Cooper entitled The Citizen's Guide to Lead. This book has inspired this motion, and 1 am drawing most of the information related to this motion from it. In that book, Mr. Speaker, you will find advice to protect your constituents and the consumers in your Niagara area from lead in dust resulting from home renovations, and also from the potential danger of children getting in touch with the paint which coats toys.
Some people may wish to know how to identify paint that contains a high level of lead in their homes. There is a method to establish if lead is present in paint. When a 10 per cent solution of sodium sulfide is applied to paint that contains lead, the paint turns black. That would be an indication that the paint has a high content of lead. One may decide to remove it. In that case, it is recommended that one be very cautious and wear a mask, cover-alls, and other protective clothing while engaging in the operation of removing the paint.
It is important-and I would like to use the few minutes available to me-to indicate that lead is not only present in paint, which is the main thrust and purpose of my motion. The Royal Society of Canada conducted a study which was made public in September of last year. It analysed or broke down the sources of lead in the environment and attributed to lead in paint and lead solder on cans some 10 per cent of the total. It also attributed some 63 per cent of lead present in the environment to the burning of leaded gasoline in cars.
Lead in gasoline is now being gradually reduced in Canada to a level which will be comparable to the level that now exists in the United States, but only by January 1, 1993. In other words, between now and the end of 1992 we will still have levels of lead in gasoline which are particularly high and harmful to human health. Therefore, it is a process of lead reduction which leaves much to be desired and ought to be accelerated if we start from the premise that lead in the environment is not healthy.
I refer in my motion to lead in paints, but I cannot overlook the importance of reducing over the shortest possible time the presence of lead from the usage of that type of gasoline so as to improve the quality of the environment, particularly from the point of view of children. It has been established that the health of children is particularly affected by the presence of lead in the environment and in the pollution caused by automotive traffic.
One of the reasons given for the fact that children are particularly affected is their size and height which brings them much closer to the level of emission pipes of cars, trucks and the like. Therefore, they are closer to that level than adults and, because of the fact that they are also very young and their physical make-up is more sensitive, they are the ones who
suffer in a more visible manner from the impact and consequences of lead in the environment.
This is one of the main reasons for hearing quite frequently urgings not to let cars which burn leaded gasoline idle for hours and hours in cold weather and not to leave, as a good health guideline, any engine running unless it is absolutely necessary. Even if an automobile is burning leaded gasoline which contains a reduced quantity of lead, it is still a type of combustion which affects human health.
I believe that the practice of misfueling ought to be raised in the minute or two still available. Certain car engines have been manufactured to use only unleaded gasoline, which unfortunately costs more than leaded, despite urgings from those of us in the Opposition for the Government to change the tax structure so as to bring the prices of the two gasolines in line and possibly have an eventual tax structure which would make unleaded gasoline less expensive than leaded. Unfortunately the fact remains that some consumers have tended to misfuel, namely, to use leaded gasoline in their cars instead of unleaded. In the process they have ruined the catalytic converters in their engines, which was rather foolish. However, in the process they have also misused the trust placed in them as consumers, namely, the trust that when one buys a car which runs on unleaded gasoline one is supposed to purchase unleaded gasoline, not leaded gasoline as some tend to do.
This is one of the reasons that we find that recent models of cars which run on unleaded gasoline can only be filled with a type of nozzle that is narrow enough to fit into the gas tank opening.
I have made reference, stretching the rules of relevance, however, to unleaded and leaded gasoline because the Royal Society of Canada pointed out that the consumption of leaded gasoline represented a very large percentage of the lead which affects the quality of the environment.
Returning to the purpose of my motion, I conclude by urging the Government, in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare whose presence I welcome tonight, to address the question of the content of lead in paint and to urge and promote the adoption in regulations of a level which would be one-tenth the present level permitted and would bring the level of permitted lead to .06 per cent. This has been on stream, as a result of an EPA initiative adopted in the United States, since the late 1970s or early 1980s.
In the end it protects the health of infants and children. It improves the protection afforded to young consumers in their early stages when they use items which are available on the market that may at times even be marked as safe but are not as safe as they should be, because the content of lead used in the coating may be 10 times as high as that used in other jurisdictions.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion presented by
October 13, 1987

the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) regarding the permissible lead content for consumer paints.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, among other Departments, has been concerned for many years about the risk posed to Canadians by lead. The Department is aware that humans are exposed to lead from many sources. For example, trace levels of lead are found in the air, in water, and food. The Department is also aware that children are more susceptible than adults to the toxic effects of this metal.
In the past, when the need for action was demonstrated, the Department took several measures under the Hazardous Products Act to limit the exposure of Canadians, particularly children, to this insidious toxic metal. These initiatives were taken either in response to a specific need, as with the 1971 regulations governing the release of lead from glazed ceramic dinnerware, or as part of the over-all federal government policy to reduce the use of lead in the environment.
One of the first initiatives under the Hazardous Products Act was the establishment of a limit for the quantity of lead in liquid coating materials such as paint used on children's furniture. The limit which came into effect on May 1, 1970, is 0.5 per cent by weight.
Following this, on November 4, 1970, children's toys and playthings, painted or decorated with a coating that contained lead in excess of 0.5 per cent, were banned. On August 21, 1973, similarly coated pencils and artists' brushes were banned. Effective January 1, 1976, paints sold to consumers for home use could not contain more than 0.5 per cent lead. These requirements remain in force today.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has demonstrated unfailing concern for the safety of Canadians. On numerous occasions, actions under the Hazardous Products Act have been taken to remove hazardous products from the market-place and to protect Canadians. In addition, the Department devotes considerable effort to ensuring that existing regulations continue to provide adequate protection for Canadians. Recent examples are the revisions to the regulations for cribs and children's sleepwear.
The motion of the Hon. Member is that the Government should consider the advisability of reducing the allowable lead content in all consumer paints, particularly those used on products for children, from the existing level of 0.5 per cent to 0.06 per cent. Prior to 1950, lead pigments and other lead compounds were used extensively in paints, but new technology and materials have virtually eliminated lead from household paints. Lead pigments are no longer used and, although small quantities of lead dryers are apparently necessary for some formulations, they too are being replaced.
In 1974, as the Hon. Member was saying, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission concluded that a level of 0.5 per cent lead in paint was safe. In 1976, the U.S. Congress
Hazardous Substances
directed that the commission determine if a lead level in excess of 0.06 per cent but less than 0.5 per cent was safe. Although there was a little new information, powerful consumer advocacy groups supported by Senator Edward Kennedy intervened in the hearings held by the commission in support of the 0.06 per cent limit.
Subsequently, the commission decided that the available scientific information was insufficient to determine if the lead levels between 0.5 per cent and 0.06 per cent were either safe of unsafe. Therefore, the legislative process in the United States dictated that the new lower limit of 0.06 per cent be established.
Canada has not experienced the outbreaks of severe lead poisoning from paint ingestion observed in the United States. I think it is important to note that in most instances, lead poisoning in the United States occurred with children who suffered from an affliction called "pica", an abnormal tendency to compulsively chew on things, and who also had access to old paint heavily laced with lead. As I stated earlier, such paints were manufactured long ago, decades before the Hazardous Products Act was proclaimed.
In recent years, information obtained from a sampling of hospitals across Canada indicated that there are no confirmed reports of lead poisoning from paints. The experience of other information sources such as medical associations, consumer complaints and representations from consumer advocacy groups is similar. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that Canadians are not adequately protected by the regulations for paints under the Hazardous Products Act.
In addition, it is my understanding that the scientists at Health and Welfare Canada maintain that the 0.5 per cent limit for lead is adequate. Officials in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will continue to monitor this situation to ensure that Canadians are well protected from lead in consumer products subject to the Hazardous Products Act.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for bringing in an excellent resolution today which will be one important measure toward improving the health of Canadian children. Of course, we need many more measures to attack the problem of lead poisoning.
Of course, we are becoming more and more aware that even very samll quantities of lead in the air, in the soil, in paint, in water and from other sources will have a developmental effect on children. There are effects on their ability to grow, on their mental development and on their hearing. Of course, in larger quantities, lead can cause blindness and even death. These are the acute effects of lead poisoning.
The evidence we are beginning to get now as to what amounts of lead are commonly found in the blood of children is shocking. These levels are very dangerous indeed. I take a

October 13, 1987
Hazardous Substances
particular interest in this subject because in my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood, in South Riverdale, there has been an enormous amount of exposure to lead from a company in the area. Indeed, right now, soil that has been lead contaminated is being removed.
The children in that area, of course, are exposed not only to the lead in the soil and the lead which comes into their homes by way of dust, but they can be getting it through lead in water pipes and through food. Of course, many of the older homes used lead paint. Children do touch things and put their hands in their mouths, and it is a cumulative effect.
We just cannot be reassured by this very complacent Government that everything is being done correctly or that, because lead in gasoline is gradually being reduced, the problem is being taken care of. It is not being taken care of because children are exposed in so very many different ways.
It may be that there is no safe level for exposure to lead, and children, of course, are particularly vulnerable. The supposedly safe level for lead of 25 micrograms per decilitre of blood was set in 1985. It is probably too high. I might note that in my riding, a very large number of children have been shown to be at risk at this very, very high level of exposure. Now we are beginning to get information which suggests that at levels typical for Canadian children of 10, 12 or 15 micrograms per decilitre of blood, there can be effects on learning, on stature, on birth weight and on hearing.
I note that in the southern part of my own riding, the average level for children is 15 micrograms. The average in urban Canada is 12 micrograms, and the average in Ontario, when considering rural and urban areas together, is 10 micrograms. We are not talking about just odd instances or children with abnormalities who have some tendency to put things in their mouths. We are talking about thousands of children who may be developmentally handicapped. They may go into adult life handicapped by exposure to lead in a variety of ways.
We know that the best way to attack this problem is to reduce and eliminate lead in gasoline and paint. Those are two convenient ways to begin to reduce the problem. Obviously it will be harder to get rid of lead in other forms, and we need a comprehensive approach. However, the proposal before us is certainly a most reasonable one. It is to reduce:
-the allowable lead content in all consumer paints, particularly those used on products for children, from the existing level of 0.5 per cent to 0.6 per cent.
Where did these numbers come from? Interestingly enough his lower limit is the allowable limit in the U.S. right now. Here we have the irony of a country which has not been very good on environmental health matters with a better model than we have. The Government ought to be ashamed that we have Members of Parliament urging that an American standard be adopted in order to give Canadians better
protection than they already have from their own Government. I hope it is ashamed and will consider doing just that.
Lead is still allowed in paint in Canada. The words "lead free" mean up to 5,000 parts per million, whereas in the U.S. it is down to 600. Yet Environment Canada has been very complacent about this. They take the view that, with respect to the reduction of lead in gasoline, the problem has been resolved. We have done enough and do not have to worry any more. That is certainly not the case at all.
The Hon. Member referred to the lead and gasoline problem and I want to refer to it as well because we need a comprehensive approach. We want to see progress in particular areas but we need to reduce lead emissions from gasoline as well. Studies show that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of lead in children's blood is directly attributable to lead in gasoline. The figure is probably higher on an indirect basis. Yet our standard of .2 grams per litre, which we went to this year, was adopted in the U.S. in 1982. We are behind the U.S., and yet the Government adopted an advertising approach reminding people of their duty as citizens to buy unleaded gasoline, this instead of appealing to their pocket-books in a very practical way by hiking taxes on leaded gasoline in order to encourage use of unleaded.
I note as well that the Department of National Defence uses leaded gasoline routinely. It is a major government Department with an enormous number of motor vehicles and it is contaminating the environment in which children have to grow up. The Department is causing a serious health hazard, and that is most reprehensible. The federal Government ought to change its policies. The taxpayers' money is being used in a way which is causing ill health and possible mental retardation among very young children.
Children are much more vulnerable than adults. They are shorter, more exposed to exhaust fumes, and in certain cities, and my own is a prime example with an enormous amount of traffic, they are particularly exposed. They have more soft tissue and the toxins concentrate in those tissues. We therefore have a responsibility to see that they have the protection they need so they will be able to develop properly and not be harmed by lead. Some 30 per cent of lead absorbed ends up in the brain or soft tissue where it interferes with the production of key proteins. That has an effect on nerve cells.
I simply want to conclude by pointing out that this is a problem of massive dimensions. Pollution Probe estimates that half of Canada's pre-school children are at risk as a result of these low levels of lead to which they are exposed. This is not good enough. We need tougher standards. We need comprehensive coverage including paints, toys, exterior and interior paints, and gasoline. This is a serious problem and I strongly endorse the resolution before us today. I urge the Government to take much speedier and stronger action to give health protection to our young children.
October 13, 1987


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate this afternoon. I first want to say to the Elon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) that his ongoing concern in particular areas of the environment is always interesting. Then we have the new NDP critic, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). She left the committee which we feel is the most important, namely, the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Certainly we will miss her input. However, I am sure her interest will continue in the committee dealing with the environment. She has already created a reputation in that area. However, we miss her in the committee dealing with communications. Some of us still have some bad habits which the Hon. Member may have to come back to correct.
I also want to say that we are very pleased that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) was present for most of the debate this afternoon. It is rather uncommon for a Minister to hear speeches during Private Members' hour, and we are certainly pleased he was here to listen to most of them.
I want to comment on the motion presented by the Hon. Member which refers to the permissible lead content in consumer paints. This is of great interest to all Members who have concerns about the environment, certainly those with young children who are most susceptible.
For many years the Department of Health and Welfare shared the concerns of the Member about undue exposure to lead by inhalation or ingestion. Certainly there are a number of sources which contribute to the total body burden of lead. They do not all come from paint alone. Daily exposures most commonly result from naturally occurring levels in food, airborne lead, especially in urban and industrialized areas, inhaled dust, and, to a lesser extent, from consumer products and even our drinking water. The Hon. Member's motion states that:
-the government should consider the advisability of reducing the allowable
lead content in all consumer paints, particularly those used on products for
children, from the existing level of 0.5 per cent to 0.06 per cent.
The level proposed is, as was pointed out, the regulated lead content of paint in the U.S. It was enacted into law by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission on February 28, 1978. This content level was based on consideration of the extensive number of lead poisoning cases occurring in children from core areas of cities with deteriorating buildings. These old buildings contained painted woodwork and walls that contributed significantly to total lead intake in children who chewed upon painted wood or ingested chips of paint flaked from the walls. The 1978 rule of the U.S. commission superseded early legislation requiring paint to contain less than 0.5 per cent lead in 1976 and 1 per cent in 1971.
Canada has carefully considered the health effects of lead and acted promptly to reduce daily lead exposure in all segments of the population. Starting in 1969 the Government of Canada took action under the Hazardous Products Act to prohibit the sale of certain products containing lead above
Hazardous Substances
specific ceilings. For example, all pencils and paint brushes as well as furniture and toys to be used by children may not be coated in paints containing more than 0.5 per cent total lead content; glazed ceramic cookware must not release lead in excess of seven parts per million when subjected to standard testing; paints sold to consumers for use inside or outside homes or on any furniture or product are regulated if they contain more than 0.5 per cent lead.
A number of food commodities have maximum tolerable limits prescribed under the Food and Drugs Act. The Department of the Environment acted to require lead levels in gasoline to be drastically reduced and eventually eliminated. Exposures to lead in the workplace have decreased dramatically over the decade.
The Department is currently reviewing all lead regulations under the Hazardous Products Act and the Food and Drug Act to ensure that Canadians are adequately protected. In order to decide upon the need to further reduce the lead concentration in paint it is necessary to consider the health effects data that indicates the extent of lead intoxication in Canada, the most significant sources of human exposure to lead, and current uses of lead in paint.
From information obtained from Statistics Canada and contacts within Canadian hospitals, diagnosed cases of lead poisoning that can be attributed to ingestion of paints are rarely seen in Canada. In addition, the total number of cases of lead poisoning from all environmental sources has decreased since the early 1970s.
Canada never experienced the health problems associated with lead absorption from ingestion of lead paints to the same extent as seen in the United States. From 1950 to 1970 in that country it became clinically evident that children were being unduly exposed to high concentrations of lead through ingestion of paint chips, plaster, or old wallpaper saturated with paint found in houses constructed before 1940. Before 1940 lead compounds were more liberally used by the paint industry.
In 1978 the legislation in the United States establishing a ceiling on the lead content of household paint at 0.06 per cent was enacted in response to the crisis experienced at that time. The 0.06 per cent value was chosen because it represented the background concentration in paints to which lead had not been intentionally added. In addition to this legislation, large public health programs were initiated to remove the layers of paint from older urban housing. These two American initiatives as well as the greater public awareness of the problems associated with undue exposure to lead led to a reduction of blood-lead levels in children in the United States. Blood-levels in children in the United States are beginning to approach those found in Canadian children. Therefore, it is working.
It is often not clearly understood or explained that frequent reports of lead poisoning in children who had ingested paint

October 13, 1987
Hazardous Substances
peelings or chips involve a type of white lead paint that has not been made in North America for over 40 years. Modern white paints contain titanium dioxide rather than white lead as the pigment. Such paints present little hazard. Until a few years ago small quantities of coloured lead pigments were frequently used in yellow, orange, blue and green paint. Voluntary action on the part of paint manufacturers led to the use of alternative, non-lead pigments. Today only very small amounts of lead-containing compounds are occasionally used as drying and binding agents in consumer paints.
The Hazardous Products Act regulates the sale of interior architectural paints containing more than 0.5 per cent lead in the dried film. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs routinely analyses interior paints to ensure compliance. In recent years most consumer paints have been found to contain lead at levels considerably below the 0.5 per cent limit.
Exposure to lead is experiences primarily via naturally occurring levels in food and inhaled particles. There is little evidence that consumer paints contribute significantly to human exposure to lead in Canada, even in children. A number of recent studies have been conducted on blood-lead levels in children both in Canada and in the United States. In general, urban children living in high-density areas tend to have higher blood-lead levels than children in less dense areas. This has been attributed to greater exposure to lead arising from automobile emissions. Clusters of high blood-lead levels and even overt clinical symptoms may be seen in communities where deliberate inhalation abuse of gasoline is prevalent.
Scientists within the Department of National Health and Welfare have carefully examined recent research results on the effects of low levels of lead in the body. They have concluded that there is a need to reduce the existing intervention level of 40 micrograms per decilitre of blood to 20 to 25 micrograms per decilitre of blood.
This conclusion was based upon new and old scientific evidence of effects in the most sensitive portion of our population, that being children. An intervention level is used to trigger an active program to identify the sources of an individual's exposure to lead and a strategy to reduce the body's lead levels before health may be affected. In addition, the World Health Organization has proposed, and the Department has supported, a revised maximum allowable weekly intake for lead in children of 25 micrograms per kilogram of body weight.
The need to reduce intervention levels should not be confused with a need to reduce lead levels in paint. Most consumer paints presently available in Canada have lead contents below that prescribed by legislation, and lead intake via ingested paint is considered by officials in the Department to represent a minor route of exposure in Canadian children.
Nevertheless, I should impress upon the House the need for us to be prudent and to reduce potential Canadian exposure to toxic substances, when feasible, to levels considered to pose no significant risk. I can tell the House that officials of the
Department of National Health and Welfare are currently discussing the feasibility of the mandatory elimination of all lead-containing additives in paint products to which children are exposed.
Scientists within the Department will continue to monitor this situation to ensure that Canadians are well protected from exposure to lead and other toxic chemicals in consumer products, food, and the environment.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Motion M-54 put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). At the outset I would like to say how pleased and interested I was to hear the comments of the Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Caldwell). As you know, that Member has a reputation for being sensitive to environmental issues as well as a whole range of other issues. It is a credit to the people of his riding that they had the foresight to send him to Parliament. He has been a tremendous addition to this place, and I and other Members have been very pleased to have been associated with him these past three years.
The motion which we are debating today states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reducing the allowable lead content in all consumer paints, particularly those used on products for children, from the existing level of 0.5 % to 0.06 per cent.
The proposal makes a certain amount of sense in the same way as a motion supporting motherhood would make a lot of sense. Lead is a well-known environmental poison and is highly toxic to humans. That is undebatable. Once released into the environment it does not move through natural pathways to more remote locations. Compared to other heavy metals it has a very long environmental persistence and, therefore, is a product which we should be very concerned about and aware of. If there is widespread exposure to lead now, future generations will also be exposed to the lead which is already in the environment or is being added to it every day.
There is no doubt that releases of lead into the environment and human exposure to it constitute, therefore, major environmental and health problems. Having said that, I must, nevertheless, point out that the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport is redundant. The motion asks the Government to consider the advisability of reducing the allowable lead content. I maintain that the Government, through its highly trained and extremely competent specialists in the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Environment have already considered the advisability of such a reduction and found that it is not warranted.
Canada has already carefully considered the negative health effects of lead and has implemented a variety of effective measures which strictly control the use of lead, curtail the release of lead into the environment, and keep the exposure of Canadian citizens to lead well within safe limits.
October 13, 1987

There are two primary causes of human exposure to lead. The first is the naturally occurring levels in food, and the second is through atmospheric particles which are inhaled. Lead is a normal constituent of the earth's crust and trace amounts of it are found naturally in water, soil and food. The Hon. Member's motion is directed specifically toward paint. However, there is little evidence to indicate that paint of itself is a significant contributor to human exposure to lead in Canada, even among children.
It is true that the public tends to associate lead poisoning with the ingestion of paint by children. Certainly, this issue received a great deal of attention particularly in the United States several decades ago. In fact, in the years before 1940 lead was commonly used in paint in concentrations a great deal higher than we find today. From 1950 to 1970 it became clinically evident in the United States that children were becoming unduly exposed to high concentrations of lead. These came through the ingestion of paint chips, plaster and old wallpaper that had been saturated with leaded paints. These sources of lead were found primarily in houses that had been constructed prior to 1940.
In response to this crisis, the United States passed legislation in 1978 that established a ceiling on the lead content of household paints. This ceiling was set at 0.06 per cent.
In addition, wide-scaled public health programs were set up to strip old paint from older urban housing. In brief, this was the source of public concern over lead in paints.
I believe it should be pointed out that, thankfully, Canada has never experienced the health problems associated with lead absorption from the ingestion of lead paints to the degree that has been found in the United States. According to information from Statistics Canada, formerly the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and compiled from data provided by Canadian hospitals, diagnosed cases of lead poisoning that can be attributed to the ingestion of paint are extremely rare in this country.
This experience is paralleled by information provided from other sources, such as medical associations, representations from consumer advocacy groups and the monitoring of consumer complaints. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that Canadians are already adequately protected from lead in paint through regulations for paint contained in the Hazardous Products Act.
Canada has an effective package of safety measures designed to limit the exposure of Canadians, particularly children, to lead, regardless of source. They are part of the over-all policy of the federal Government regarding lead, which is to control and reduce releases of lead into the environment.
The Hazardous Products Act to which I referred earlier limits the quantities of lead present in liquid coating materials.
Hazardous Substances
Therefore, paints sold to consumers for use inside or outside the home, or for use on any furniture or household products are regulated if they contain more than 0.5 per cent lead. I should add that exposures to lead in Canadian workplaces have declined dramatically over the past decade.
Most important, Environment Canada has moved to drastically reduce lead levels in gasoline and will eventually eliminate lead from gasoline entirely. This is extremely significant because motor vehicles are the greatest single source of lead in the environment.
The Government is already taking effective action to protect Canadians from the deadly effects of lead, whatever the source. In the specific area of paint, which the Hon. Member's motion addresses, levels of lead in most paints produced today are already well below the present safeguard level of 0.5 per cent.
When accounts appear of lead poisoning in children who have ingested lead-containing paints, they are invariably linked to paints of type that have not been manufactured in North America for over 30 years. Modern technology, in combination with voluntary restraint on the part of paint manufacturers, has done away with the need for further restrictions such as those contained in the Hon. Member's motion.
For example, modern white paints contain titanium dioxide rather than lead as a pigment. Voluntary actions by paint manufacturers as well have lead to the use of alternative nonlead pigments. At present, lead is only used in paint compounds where its technical properties make its replacement difficult. According to analyses routinely carried by Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, most paints have been found to contain lead only at levels considerably below the 0.5 per cent limit.
I suggest that Canadians are already well protected from lead in paints. Therefore, the Private Members' Motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport is unnecessary and I suggest that the energies of the House could better be directed toward more genuine and pressing environmental and health concerns that confront Canadians, such as the clean-up of the Great Lakes and the Niagara River.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I want to address Private Members' Motion M-54 which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
This motion was ostensibly drafted to address one aspect of the problem of lead in the environment. There is no doubt that lead is an element highly toxic to both humans and the environment. Exposure to high levels of lead can cause serious and acute symptoms. Fortunately, advances in industrial hygiene have virtually eliminated acute lead poisoning.
However, chronic exposure to low levels of lead in the environment is also a serious health concern. Low levels of lead are known to interfere with haemoglobin synthesis. They are suspected of causing neuro-physiological and behavioural

October 13, 1987
Adjournment Debate
effects, as well as teratogenic effects. That is, they are suspected of being able to cause injury to a foetus without affecting the mother. They are also suspected of inducing growth inhibition and hypertension.
The Hon. Member's motion focuses on lead in paint. It states:
That in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of reducing the allowable lead content in all consumer paints,
particularly those used on products for children, from the existing level of 0.5
per cent to 0.06 per cent.
I believe it can be demonstrated that consumer safeguards already on the books give Canadians more than adequate protection from chronic exposure to low levels of lead.
Health and Welfare Canada expressed its concerns about the potential effects of lead pollution on human health in the early 1970s, and it identified those human sources of it that contributed to an increased body-burden of lead.
Consequently, action was taken on many fronts. Baby foods were put into lead-free containers. The lead content of paint was regulated. Lead emissions from secondary smelters were controlled. The maximum lead content of gasoline was initially set at 0.77 grams per litre and has since been lowered even further, as I will explain later.
Let us examine the use of lead in paint since that is the area singled out by the Hon. Member's motion. The use of lead in paint in Canada is subject to the requirements under the Hazardous Products Act. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to this motion, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret that 1 must interrupt the Hon. Member.

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, as you know the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has in it a provision, Section 11(d), which sets out that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Every single
word in that particular section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is significant and important. Perhaps it is impossible to pick out one phrase or one word that is more important than another but there is particular significance in the two words in that section "public hearing". Those are very important words and they are in the section for a reason. That reason is that all hearings and trials held over the years in our courts were not always held in public. In fact, traditionally many of them were held in private and the public had no access whatever to those courts or hearings.
It was as a result of that that some very unfortunate and frightening things went on behind closed doors of courts and hearing rooms which were not open to the public. One thing that comes to my mind is the history of intimidation, even the torture, of some witnesses to confess or to tell a story which perhaps was not true. In many cases it was not true at all. In the courts years ago there was behind closed doors this effort to fabricate evidence by torture and by other means that would not be exposed to the light of day because the public could not see what was happening.
Years ago in England those courts were known as the Courts of Star Chamber. It was because of the Courts of Star Chamber and the horrible reputation which they had, a reputation which I suggest would approach the courts of the Spanish Inquisition, which made the public and the legal system realize how significant and important it was to have open and public hearings. As a result that has become part of our civil liberties and it has become enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Until recently when we thought of public hearings and public court trials, we thought in terms of a court room which the public could come in and out of at will, subject to not disrupting proceedings. The door was open and members of the public could come into a court room, sit down, watch and listen and leave when they wanted to. That is what we have traditionally thought of as a public hearing.
Very recently as you are aware, Madam Speaker, there has been a change in the concept of a public hearing. With the new electronic media it is quite possible to have television in a court room or a hearing room so that not only a few members of the public, limited by the size of the seating capacity, but virtually every person in the world would have access and could be part of that public hearing process. That is a new concept, something which we have not come to as yet in this country.
We have seen in the United States on American cable television the broadcasting and televising of some rather interesting and perhaps lurid trials, some of them murder and some of them divorce trials. Some have caught a great deal of public attention. Through that publicity and through the fact that Americans have had the advantage of television in public hearings and in court rooms, we in Canada have started to become interested in this concept. Approximately six different royal commission hearings in Canada have been televised. The public has been able to watch and see on a daily basis,
October 13, 1987

sometimes for many months, the proceedings of those royal commission hearings.
The result is that we in Canada now have a growing interest in the televising of court proceedings as part of this public hearing process that is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights. In June of this year the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended that there be televised trials held in Canada on a two-year experimental basis. That was followed in July by recommendations by the Ontario Royal Commission, headed by Mr. Justice Thomas Zuber of the Ontario Supreme Court, who also recommended that, on an experimental basis for the public interest, there be televised proceedings of criminal justice trials. In August the Canadian Bar Association followed with a similar recommendation. A great deal of interest has been indicated. A great many recommendations have been made by at least three different investigating bodies.
It seems to me it is time for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to take a stand on this issue. I know that perhaps he is concerned about grandstanding in the courts. Perhaps he is concerned about what goes on in the House of Commons with television here. But, bearing in mind his own comments that the public has to know and find out about the criminal justice system, this is a method of doing it.
I hope that tonight the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Minister of Justice will be taking a leadership role and recommending the institution in federal courts of television for trials, and also taking a leadership role in urging provincial Ministers of Justice and provincial Attorneys General to do the very same thing in provincial courts.


Patrick George Binns: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). The Hon. Member has raised many points with regard to the advantages of television coverage of criminal trials.
The question of electronic media access to the courts is a complex one. There are at least three elements that make it so. First is the degree and purpose of access; the question of which equipment is used; and the question of which courts should have this access. The complexity of the matter, as the Hon. Member has suggested, has been reflected and studied and yet remains to be studied.
In June of this year, the Law Reform Commission of Canada recommended that a national experiment be conducted to examine what effect, if any, the presence of the electronic media would have on participants in the criminal process, such as witnesses, lawyers, judges, and jurors. As an interim measure, the Law Reform Commission recommended that electronic media coverage be permitted immediately in criminal appeals, and that the use of audio recorders be allowed in criminal proceedings as a means of ensuring
Adjournment Debate
accuracy in the transmission of statements made in open court, but not for broadcast purposes.
The Ontario Courts Inquiry conducted by Mr. Justice Thomas Zuber of the Ontario Court of Appeal recommended, as the Hon. Member has suggested, amending the necessary Ontario legislation to permit the use of tape recorders in the court room as a method of taking notes. The Zuber inquiry called for electronic media access to the court rooms of Ontario for an experimental period of two years.
This past August a special committee, established by the Canadian Bar Association to examine the issue of cameras in the courts, released its recommendations which called for full media access to all appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. This recommendation was adopted by a wide margin by the National Council of the Canadian Bar Association. However, a further recommendation calling for a two-year trial program to give access to the electronic and photographic media to cover proceedings in Canadian trial courts was adopted by only a very slim margin.
The Minister believes that these are all very serious and even fundamental concerns which have been raised. Certainly he must consider the public's right to know, the freedom of the press, the educational value of broadcasting court proceedings, and even the opposition to the suggestion of this kind of television coverage.
Opponents often refer to the prejudice of the right of an accused to a fair trial, invasion of the privacy of defendants and victims, intimidation of witnesses, grandstanding and even advertising by counsel, the physical disruption caused by cameras in a court room, the sensationalization and distortion of proceedings.
Constitutional responsibility over the whole question of electronic media access to superior, district, and provincial courts lies with the respective provincial Governments. Nevertheless, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is following the public debate on the matter, including the remarks of the Hon. Member tonight, in part because the question arises in relation to federally constituted courts as well. He awaits with great interest the outcome of the study by Chief Justice Clarke's committee which has been undertaken on behalf of the Canadian Judicial Council to look into the same matter.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT PROJECTS IN ST. JOHN'S EAST, NFLD./REQUEST FOR SPEEDY START TO PROJECTS


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise to elaborate further on the question which I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on August 13, 1987. It dealt with projects announced by the Government during the one-month period leading up to the by-election in St. John's East on July 20. We had some $33 million worth of projects which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) took great pains to try to

October 13, 1987
Adjournment Debate
convince the public were done in the ordinary course of government business.
If that were the case, I would expect that in the almost three months which have passed since that time we would have had $33 million per month or another $100 million worth of announcements of projects in St. John's East. We have not heard anything further on those announcements, and constituents in my riding are quite concerned about when those projects will in fact be started.
I understand that some work has been started on some of them. Eiowever, on August 13, I essentially asked for a report on when work would be available for the unemployed in Newfoundland, particularly on the projects to which I referred-a wharf restoration project in Long Pond, a project in Foxtrap for harbour improvements, the Bauline breakwater which was announced at a cost of $1.5 million, and the breakwater at Flat Rock which will cost $1.2 million.
I understand that there is some problem with these projects and fisheries improvements for $6 million in St. John's. I would like to have a firm commitment from the Government on when these projects will actually be undertaken.
I understand that these announcements were made in the ordinary course of government business, so one would anticipate that all studies had been done, that all preliminary work had been done, and that they were ready to start spending the money and commencing construction on these projects.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary, in answer to my question, to outline the scheduling of these projects, particularly the ones referred to in my question on August 13-the breakwater in Bauline, the breakwater in Flat Rock, the Foxtrap harbour improvement program, and the wharf restoration in Long Pond at a cost of $6 million.


Patrick George Binns: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon).
No one in the House is more concerned about small craft harbours than myself because indeed I have many of them in my riding. The Government has now undertaken a massive harbour revitalization program to bring my harbours in Prince Edward Island, his in Newfoundland, and others across the country into a good state of repair.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member for St. John's East recognizes that in addition to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans providing essential harbours and services to the commercial fishermen of Newfoundland, there are also substantial employment benefits to fishing communities derived from the construction and annual maintenance of these harbours. Our Harbour Revitalization Program, which was announced by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last June,
has already committed over $3 million to projects at Flat Rock, Foxtrap, Outer Cove and Bauline in the riding of St. John's East. These projects are now in the engineering stage and will go to public tender and then proceed to construction.
In the Province of Newfoundland, there have now been 25 projects approved under the special program of a total value of over $20 million. While most of the projects are in the engineering stage, tenders have already been called on several projects and construction has started at Lower Island Cove and St. Bride's. Contracts for most of the remaining projects will be awarded prior to the 1988 construction season.
I might add that in addition to the Harbour Revitalization Program projects that have been announced for Newfoundland fishing harbours, the Minister has also approved some $11 million of repairs and construction at 120 Newfoundland fishing harbours from the Small Craft Harbours regular 198788 maintenance budget. Virtually all of that work is already under way. To date this brings the total of approved harbour work in the Province of Newfoundland to $31 million. I would conclude by saying that probably not since John Diefenbaker's Government has there been so much effort and money committed to revitalizing small craft harbours in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), I must say, looking at the gallery of the House of Commons, I have never felt so well protected. Should I become sick, I know I will be in good hands.
PUBLIC SERVICE-RECOGNITION OF PRINCIPLE OF WAGE PAR1TY/ADJUSTMENT MECHANISM


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, it gives me a certain amount of concern but also some pleasure to rise to speak on this issue because I think it is a very important one. As you have said, we may feel well protected but I think a profession that has been often neglected has been the nursing profession, not just in our country but in society in general.
Of course we have a very serious problem before us at the moment. I have asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Mazankowski Cotret) if he would take action quickly because the Human Rights Commission made a decision in July which provided that registered nursing assistants should receive equal pay for work of equal value. Of course, that skewed the balance that had existed traditionally in the nursing profession. There had been a historical differential of 25 per cent in the pay rates of registered nurses and registered nursing assistants.
In 1985, the President of the Treasury Board suggested that there be joint bargaining negotiations. The registered nurses working for the federal Government at the time entered into those negotiations with good faith. They were quite happy to be a part of that joint negotiating team and to look at equal pay for work of equal value. However, since then, the Human
October 13, 1987

Rights Commission decision has certainly put that out of balance, and I must say that the decision is retroactive to 1980.
We now have the situation of federal hospitals staffed and supervised by nurses who are in some cases actually getting paid less than the people they are supervising. I am quite sure that the Government would recognize the fact that this is a totally unacceptable and unjust situation. I think it requires immediate action.
The answer that has often been given is that the Government does not want to interrupt the process of collective bargaining. This is not the process of collective bargaining. We are talking about something that is totally out of whack at the moment. It must be corrected quickly.
Nurses are not a militant group. The fact that the nurses are present in the gallery of the House of Commons this afternoon tells us how deeply upset they have become about this whole situation and how they feel that they are being greatly mistreated. What we want is some way of looking at equalizing the pay differential.
In 1977 we had an arbitration decision involving the Wellesley Hospital. I recognize that is an Ontario decision but it established the right to the differential, and that it had in fact existed over the years. That decision is enough of a precedent that I would like the President of the Treasury Board to look at it and establish some kind of mechanism outside of the joint bargaining table in order to achieve equalization.
I cannot think of any other profession which would have tolerated this situation as long as this one has. We are talking about people responsible for the delivery of medication, implementation of doctor's orders, channelling patients into the proper rehabilitation areas, and looking after liaison with the families and friends of patients so that they understand the situation. They are doing all of that and at the same time supervising other people to make sure the work is being done, yet this is not recognized in their pay. Over the last week we have talked a lot about the rights of working people and their need for an equal voice. This situation is upsetting the whole health care delivery system. We know that if the nurses wanted to bring everything to a halt, they could do it. They do not want to do it. They want some justice in the decisionmaking process.
It took a great deal of thought on their part before they decided to go to work in jeans and T-shirts and so on instead of their professional garb. They have come to the House of Commons tonight to say: "This is what we are as professionals". They are saying that all they want is equal treatment. I urge the President of the Treasury Board to quickly put some kind of mechanism in place to bring this to a quick resolution.
Adjournment Debate
I know the Government has said it will put the entire labour relations system out of wack. It seems to me that for many, many years other professions have managed to do that to get equal treatment. The time has come to look at our nurses and recognize their profession and the fapt they are giving us quality care. It is fine to give them compliments but it is much more important to give them a reasonable pay cheque so that they can have a decent standard of living and respect the people they work for as well as the patients they are delivering care to.
I ask if the Government has come up with some kind of mechanism which will bring pay equalization to these nurses who work in institutions under the administration of the federal Government.


Patrick George Binns: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for her interventions on this very important question. On September 29 the Hon. Member raised this question with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He indicated that he not only appreciated her question but that it was a very important matter, one that he was very concerned and sincere about. He said:
Hopefully we can come up with a solution to this problem because, as the
Hon. Member recognizes, this would impact right across the country on
various other areas as well.
A joint union-management initiative to study the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value service-wide within the federal Public Service was launched in March of 1985. This Government's initiative is not only the first voluntary proactive initiative taken by the employer under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but also the largest proactive equal pay study to be undertaken. I should say as well that the Government and the President of the Treasury Board are pleased that the public service unions are participating jointly in this activity.
The initiative is well under way. Currently 4,419 public service employees are completing questionnaires on the job functions each one of them performs. The data gathered through this process will be evaluated under the job evaluation factors of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions to determine the working conditions and to determine the relative value of each job. The evaluation results will then be analysed in relation to the wages which have been negotiated or set out for each of the occupational groups within the Public Service.
The female-dominated hospital services group comprises a principal focus of the ongoing study. I would like to note that as a result of a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act this group recently received a wage adjustment to equalize their wages with the male-dominated general services group. Registered nursing assistants are members of this group and benefited from this wage settlement. The resulting wage

October 13, 1987
Adjournment Debate
increases to the registered nursing assistants has narrowed the salary relativity between registered nurses and RNAs.
The employer is sensitive to employees concerns about traditional reporting relationships and this particular matter is currently being examined. At the same time, we must recognize that traditional wage relativities may reflect the undervaluation of work performed predominantly by women, the issue which the Government is addressing through its equal pay initiatives. Upon the conclusion of the equal pay study targeted for the fall of 1988 the President of the Treasury Board will consider its recommendations and I am sure he will respond in an adequate manner.
The joint union-management initiative on equal pay for work of equal value will not solve all the labour issues we have within the public service, but it will address the very important issue of gender-based pay discrimination.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.27 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers