1987-10-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the four petitions numbered as follows: 332-3104, and 332-3202 to 332-3204, inclusive.



JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General entitled "Open and Shut". The response is entitled "The Steps Ahead".



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the twenty-fifth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CUSTOMS TARIFF


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of State Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-87, an Act respecting the imposition of duties of customs and other charges to give effect to the international convention on the harmonized commodity description and coding system, to provide relief against the imposition of certain duties of customs or other charges, to provide for other related matters, and to amend or repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition from a number of residents of Gold River and Tahsis, British Columbia, who would have the House of Commons insist that the Government abandon its plan to automate and destaff light stations along the coast of British Columbia in the interest of safety and improvement to navigation.
The petitioners are in favour of the imposition of a moratorium and are certainly in favour of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) attending the public hearings in Campbell River, British Columbia, on October 29, 1987.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by residents of Toronto and London, Ontario, in which they object to the Government's housing policy. This being the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless, they believe that the Government's definition of essential needs is preventing hundreds of thousands of Canadians living below the poverty line from receiving Government housing assistance.

October 15, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray Parliament to increase immediately the amounts given for co-operative housing assistance.


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 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.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in a long series of petitions which have been presented from my constituency with respect to the serious dangers of the Fermi II nuclear reactor in Michigan.
This particular petition is signed by residents of Windsor, Essex, Harrow, Woodslee, Tecumseh, Oldcastle, as well as Anderton and Amherstburg. The petitioners call very strongly for a Canadian presence with the United States to review the safety measures which exist for this nuclear reactor before it is permitted to go to full operation.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, October 14, 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 Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has completed his speech. The question and comment period following the Hon. Member's speech is now available to Members.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) said he had spent some time on the picket line in Windsor. Would he indicate what he learned about the unusual and unfair way Canada Post has been treating those employees who are not directly involved in the Government's attempt to destroy CUPW?


Steven W. Langdon: First, 1 thank my colleague for the spontaneous question.
There are casual workers for the Post Office in my constituency who are not part of this strike, not part of the picket lines and do not receive strike pay. Yet, when they reported to Canada Post facilities last night to receive their pay cheques, they were told that they were not to get those cheques until the strike was finished.
They were further told that they were trespassing on private property by trying to go to the formal area where, during previous strikes, they normally received their weekly cheques as casual workers.
These workers are most often people who face particular financial difficulties. They are often single parents or workers who have been able to pick up this casual job after being unemployed. This money is absolutely crucial to them, particularly because they do not get strike pay and do not have the possibility of receiving unemployment insurance quickly after the refusal by their employer to honour work which they have already done.
Such a practice is absolutely inexcusable and demonstrates the extremely poor management practices of Canada Post. It is the reason that strikes such as this, which have been so devastating to the postal service in this country, have become commonplace.
We have also been told by union officials that this is not an isolated example, limited to Windsor itself, but is something that is actually being applied across the country. Casual workers who have already put in their time to Canada Post are unable to get their pay cheques which are quite properly due to
October 15, 1987

them from the corporation. I think it is most unfortunate. It is a very sad commentary on the Post Office.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's speech on this critical issue. Is it his understanding that the short-term goal of the Government in terms of its directives to the postal corporation is to actually phase out the postal system of Canada as we know it in terms of the small rural post offices and community post offices in the suburbs? These are places where many of us can meet many of our constituents at one time because many residents visit the small community post office between 10.30 and 11 o'clock. Is it his understanding that it is the plan of Canada Post Corporation to phase out our postal service as we know it, and is doing so essentially under the direction of the federal Government?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the deterioration of service which has taken place in the rural parts of my constituency that one must have this fear about the future which my colleague has mentioned. One has to have a sense that Canada Post no longer sees service to small communities and rural parts of Canada as a priority in the future. I think it is pursuing this lack of priority by cutting back support for rural postal routes. I think it is looking very closely at closing down post offices in small communities in my constituency.
The rumours certainly have gone around with respect to post offices, for instance, in La Salle, which is one of the small communities in my constituency, that they would be shut down and people would have to pick up their mail in the future at so-called convenience stores or drug stores which, in the case of the particular community of La Salle, are seven or eight miles from the main heart of the town itself. The post office is right in the middle of this old French community. So the signs are there, although I hope that it will turn out simply to be the efforts of this Government to pressure Canada Post far too hard and that a new Government, when it is elected, will see that Canada Post shifts back to its original commitment to provide service to our rural communities and our rural people right across the country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is consent for the following order to be passed by the House.
That, when Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, has been given second reading this day, it shall stand referred to a Committee of the Whole; and
That the adjournment proceedings this day, pursuant to Standing Order 66, be suspended; and
That the normal hour of daily adjournment be suspended and the House shall continue with consideration of the said Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, indeed there have been discussions and we have had some very clear indications from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) that the amendments suggested by the labour critic of the New Democratic Party are being considered, that he is at least open to evaluating those amendments and will respond at the appropriate time, we hope in the affirmative. Therefore, we feel it is important that we get on to discussing ways and means of improving this legislation and this special order is a way to facilitate that debate.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, we were then ready to go to committee because we thought the time had been reached where we could better put our point of view across through moving amendments. We have also had discussions with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) who showed an open mind and who appears to be receptive to some of our amendments. Therefore, in this respect, we are quite willing to agree with this order, and 1 say that on behalf of my Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent in respect to the order?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were two minutes left in the question and comment period of the speech of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Resuming debate.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too want to participate in debate on Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. I want to remind the House that when this Bill was tabled there were postal services and mail was moving. Yes, there were a series of rotating strikes followed by a series of lockouts by Canada Post, even though it likes to suggest it was a scheduling problem more than anything else. By the time this Bill was tabled there was no emergency, no hue and cry in the country from any sector. In fact, there were suggestions by a lot of groups which would normally be considered anti-Post Office and anti-CUPW that things should be left well enough alone.
This Government, for whatever reason, and we have our suspicions, decided to bring in this legislation. It decided to use the heavy hand of its majority to accomplish phase two of its over-all vision for Canada Post. In phase one, of course, it is trying to dismantle a system, by no means perfect, instead of rejuvenating it, using this legislation to force upon the workers a collective agreement that is in tune with the corporate plan. That corporate plan is one that will actually lead to a further deterioration of postal services.
During my speech this morning I want to give some examples of this new efficiency, this new level of service that

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Canada Post is trying to provide to the people of Canada. Because my immediate knowledge tends to be focused on my riding, I will deal with riding issues.
We have this new beast in Thunder Bay; it is not called a franchise outlet; it is not called a sub post office. In fact, we are not sure if it has a technical name, but it is commonly referred to as a parcel outlet. This is a place where one has to go in order to get a parcel or registered letter that was unable to be delivered to one's door. In the old days, the courier service, a contractor employed by Canada Post, would drive up to one's door, usually at speeds which were unsafe for neighbourhood children, but that is a different issue, and finding no one home-let us remember that the majority of families have two wage earners these days-the parcel or registered letter would go back to the station.
At the station a card would be prepared, matched with the parcel or registered letter, and shifted over to the letter carrier section for delivery the next day to the recipient's home so that when the recipient arrived home from work there would be a card in the mailbox saying that a parcel or registered letter could be picked up at Postal Station F or P, or whatever the letter of the branch of Canada Post.
The next day, unless the individual was on a shift that gets him or her home early, more than likely it would be picked up on the third day, but no later. Because of this new efficiency it takes three or four days to claim a parcel or registered letter from what is called a corner store, which is usually in the middle of a block, or a confectionery store that has place for two cars to park. These parcels or registered letters are stored in the livingroom of the owner. Usually these are confectionery stores that are at least an hour away from, for instance, a senior citizen who used to be able to walk to the post office. Now these people have to walk to the bus stop, which is about the same distance from the senior citizens' apartment building as the post office, take a 20 minute bus ride to the other end of the old City of Fort William, go to the confectionery store and hopefully get their parcels. There is no guarantee they will be there because every time you add another step to a process there is another chance of human error. These errors have already occurred. Then they go back and wait for the bus for anywhere from 10 minutes to 20 minutes, and sometimes for up to 40 minutes, and then back for another 20 minute bus ride. So this new, improved efficiency for those seniors takes them at least another hour to get a parcel that they used to be able to walk to the post office to get as part of their daily routine.
I use the seniors as an example because, as we know-and all of us have received calls, not during this particular labour-management dispute but in others-seniors rely on the mail. They rely on parcels. We like to call them care packages from the kids, or from a sister or brother. They tend to use the mails more than do a great many of us. So they have a situation in which they are being forced to go well out of their way to
obtain a service that was once available to them just around the corner.
In the other half of the City of Fort William they do not have to go that far. In fact, the parcel outlet is in a drugstore, which is in a small mall about 1,500 feet from the main post office. But it is in an area in which it is difficult to park. It is a busy shopping mall. So it is more difficult for people to gain access. What about that main post office? What is happening there? Well, as part of what I see as the over-all plan of Canada Post, management appears to be doing its best to anger the customers, to frustrate the customers, to make them angry at the staff.
Do you know what they do, Mr. Speaker? At the busiest time of the day they assign most of the staff to non-wicket duties. We have had situations in which there has been only one clerk on a counter that has room for six or eight on duty, and the line up is out the door. It is no wonder that the Government says people want this new improved service. Of course they want it, they are being turned off and turned away from the traditional outlets.
CUPW has not said that they do not want services provided in areas that do not have them. They would be more than happy to have them staffed by full-time Canada Post employees, not a drugstore clerk who will do the post office duties when they are not selling cosmetics or whatever. That is the other thing that we have seen happening.
Let me turn to the community of Atikokan at the other end of my riding. It has a central post office. It has no home delivery. Nor, quite frankly, is home delivery wanted in that community because, as my colleagues have said before me, in these smaller communities those post offices are a communications point. They play a focal point in the community. Politicians know that if they want to greet the whole town they show up at ten o'clock in the morning, or at eleven o'clock, and pretty well everybody comes to the post office to pick up their mail.
What does Canada Post want to do? It wants to develop one of these postal outlets somewhere else in that small community of 4,500 people. So there would be the frustrating situation of being sent, or going down, to the post office with a parcel and being told to go across town to pick it up instead of using the logical one-stop shopping service that is currently available.
They are talking about closing rural post offices on Saturdays. It is being said that there is not enough business on Saturdays. What does that do to the people of northwestern Ontario whose livelihood comes from the harvesting of trees and the digging of ore and have to live out of town Monday through Friday and only come into town on weekends? What does that do to them? It disenfranchises them.
The Post Office should be trying to develop a postal system that will attract new volumes of mail, that will ensure that the revenue is there to pay for the services that the people of Canada want, without having to charge an arm or a leg for a
October 15, 1987

stamp, and at the same time providing a vast range of services that would introduce new revenue to Canada Post. The Post Office is not doing that.
Let me go to the Bill itself and talk about a couple of things in it. I want to express my concern about the imbalance in this Bill. It is clearly a Bill weighted heavily in favour of Canada Post and heavily against the workers and their union. For example, setting aside the monetary penalties which are very severe for someone who violates this law, let us take a look at the responsibilities for the union leadership and the responsibilities for the management leadership and the respective penalties.
As we know, either a union officer who defies this law or a company official who defies this law is forbidden from holding office or employment for five years. When one looks farther in the Bill one finds in relation to "Obligations of union" the following:
The union and each officer and representative of the union
(a) shall, forthwith on the coming into force of this Act, give notice to the employees that, by reason of the coming into force of this Act, postal operations are forthwith to be continued or resumed, as the case may be, and the employees, when so required, are forthwith to continue or resume, as the case may be, the duties of their employment-
The union officers have to tell their members that they have to go back to work, but the company is not forced to bring them back to work until it wants to. We saw during the rotating strikes where Canada Post management made a point of delaying in bringing those workers back. They said that the scabs had to finish their shifts.
In Thunder Bay we had the ludicrous situation at the mail sorting plant where the workers were kept out an extra day; and, yes, there were scabs in there attempting to sort the mail. But at the main post office where the wickets are, and where there were no replacement workers, no scabs brought in, only management employees, they were kept out for an extra day.
Canada Post has shown already its irresponsibility in this matter. Yet here in this Bill we are giving it the right to delay calling back the workers. But the leadership of the unions, whether at the national level or the local level, have to jump. Are they required to have a telex out within one minute of the 12-hour point when this law comes into being? This is hunting season up in northwestern Ontario and conceivably some of the leadership may be out enjoying the recreational life that is offered in northwestern Ontario. Will they be prohibited from holding office because they took a weekend off and did not jump when the Government said that they should?
What right does Parliament have, what right does the Government of Canada have, to tell the rank and file of CUPW, whether it is at the local in Thunder Bay or at the local in Atikokan, or the national union, who should be their leaders? That is up to those men and women. They are the ones who decide. Think of the position that they are placed in.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
I suspect that there is a mythology in the Conservative ranks on how unions function, they really believe that orders flow from the top to the bottom, and when Jean-Claude Parrot says, "Do it", they do it. It does not work like that in the real world. Through a secret ballot the membership of a local of CUPW could decide that they were going to remain on strike. As a body they would suffer certain penalties, of which they would be aware. They would know that their local or their national would be fined. They know that as individuals they would be fined. But by giving that direction to their leadership, they would also be saying that, because of this Bill, the leadership would not be able to continue as the leadership for five years. That is an extremely difficult position to put anyone in. I would not want to be one of those labour leaders under this Bill; it is so Draconian.
This is why we wish this part pulled out, why we have been pushing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), who hopefully has enough clout to convince his Cabinet colleagues to back off on this Draconian measure. It goes beyond rationality.
I have some background in labour relations as a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and I have some understanding of the difference between mediation and arbitration. I know that the two are not one and the same. The mediator learns a lot from both sides in confidence in order to try to pull them together and find that middle road that will allow an agreement to occur. But if that same person then becomes the arbitrator, who then decides to pick from this and pick from that, it places both parties in a very difficult situation. It means that mediation will not and cannot work. Both sides must have faith in that mediator.
If the two were split, and if within the framework of this Bill the mediator was given x number of months to attempt to come up with an agreement, and for those parts where he was unsuccessful to turn them over to a different arbitrator, one who was not privy to the confidential talks in mediation, then that would make this bad Bill slightly better.
I will be brief, Mr. Speaker, because I see that my time is running out. The third item is the reference to the Foisy report. Once again, this is another example of the manner in which this Government chooses to favour management. During the back-to-work legislation for the railways we argued that the arbitrator's report should be included because it was favourable to the unions. The Government said it did not wish to do that, it was not appropriate to put those things in legislation. Because this report is favourable to the management of Canada Post it wishes it included.
We can see the game, and it is consistent with the game that has been played all along by the Government. It is anti-worker, and anti-union. This is clearly not a Government that is in favour of an efficient Post Office, and services to the community. It is doing its best to reduce the services. It is doing its best to attempt to break the union. Quite frankly, it is desperate to win something, anything. It thought it could win

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
against the letter carriers but was unsuccessful. It thought it could win by provoking a national postal strike, which quite frankly the Government did provoke because it was only after this legislation was tabled that the rotating strikes and lockouts escalated into a national strike. It has to accept the responsibility for that. But it will not win this one either. There is not the hue and cry out there. People see through the activities of the Government. They know what it is up to and, just as in everything else, they will not support the Government now, and certainly not at the next election.


Mr. Murphy:: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) for his very fine speech on this issue. I know that in the past he has been involved in back-to-work legislation, especially in opposing the back-to-work legislation of the railway workers. I wonder if the Hon. Member would spend a few minutes explaining why this legislation is much worse and more pro-management in the manner it is structured than other back-to-work legislation that has come through the House of Commons.


Iain Francis Angus: I thank the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) for his question, and I wish to publicly thank him for the work that he has done in regard to this legislation and the other back-to-work Bills that we have seen from the Government; we have probably seen more from this Government than previous administrations over the years.
As one looks through these Bills, one begins to pick up the pattern and understand how this Bill relates to the over-all plan of the Government, and the over-all plan of Canada Post, which are one and the same. We have heard in the House that Canada Post refused to do anything until the Cabinet adopted its business plan. The business plan was predicated on the whole concept of franchising out, of carving out components of the Post Office and turning them over to the private sector.
The Foisy report was incorporated into this legislation. It came down clearly on the side of Canada Post with regard to franchising, in spite of a remarkable willingness by CUPW to modify its position and say yes to franchise outlets in areas where there are no services. CUPW wishes to see a strong Post Office because it is important to their members. With a strong Post Office there is better job security, workers get a fair share of the revenue, and there are opportunities for advancement.
I do not know if you have ever gone to a sorting plant, Mr. Speaker. I have, and have seen those areas where people are stuck in front of pigeon-holes sorting the mail day after day, or night after night. I think they do an incredible job, I really do. But it is a job that eventually creates problems for them. It is tedious, mundane, and repetitive. Consequently, there are two realities. We have to reward them for that repetition and the mundane aspect. I do not mean to demean it, because it is an important job. But to keep people in that job we must pay them a decent rate of pay. We must also give them an opportunity to move out. I have seen press reports, and I know a number of people in the Post Office, so I know what those day jobs at the wicket counters mean to them. It means a sane
life-style. It probably means that the marriage will survive. If a person works from twelve to eight five days a week for six or seven years, and his or her spouse is working an eight to four shift, something has to give. This hope for a move allows some stability. It is almost like a carrot out there to give the person something to look forward to. I think the media have done a very good job of portraying the importance of the 4,400 wicket jobs.
If we allow the Government to franchise out that aspect, to eliminate the front line or the human face to human face contact, and turn it over to minimum wage employees who come and go, we lose something in the over-all system.
I think the Bill is weighted much more in favour of management than was the railway legislation or the longshoremen's legislation. The Government must give further consideration to the kinds of changes we have been suggesting.
We recognize that a Bill will pass this House which will force men and women back to work. However, let us make it a fair Bill. Let us not give Canada Post the option of when it has to bring back its workers. Let us make sure that the rule applies to management as it does to the workers. Let us not have unfairness. Let us remove the penalty clause which is clearly aimed more at the union than at management.
Will the President of Canada Post be turfed out of his job? If he violates the law, yes, but I somehow suspect that the Government would find another Crown corporation to put him in, as opposed to Jean-Claude Parrot who cannot go to another union; he is a postal worker.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, in view of my colleague's comments on the penalty clause, particularly the penalty which provides for the prohibition of a union officer belonging to a union for five years, I would like to ask him his view on it in terms of constitutionality. Is there anything at all in the legislation and in what the Government has said about equivalent penalties for everybody from the president down to the most junior foreman of Canada Post who fails to recall employees immediately upon passage of the legislation?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for his question.
Those people who are familiar with legislation will know that Bills contain marginal notes on the left-hand column which explain each clause. Clause 11(1) has the marginal note "Additional punishment-union" and Clause 11(2) has "Additional punishment-employer". The wording of the subclauses clearly indicates that they are not balanced. I have seen press reports that indicate that very knowledgeable people in the civil rights field feel that this penalty is in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I guess one would only know that if the law is passed, if somebody violates the law and is found guilty of violating it, and a challenge is taken to the
October 15, 1987

courts. 1 do not think we should take that risk, and that is why I want it removed.
Clearly there is no penalty for an employer or an employer representative who does not call wicket clerks back to work for eight o'clock the morning after the Bill is passed. The Bill is supposed to come into effect 12 hours after the Royal Assent. However, if a local manager or supervisor decides that he will not bring back those people until a day after, meaning yet another financial penalty for employees because they will have lost another day's wages, there is nothing in the Bill to punish him.
We had the same argument before when dealing with back-to-work legislation. In fact, we were able to convince the Minister of Labour to withdraw a similar clause from another Bill because we argued that it was unfair, unjust, and not balanced.
I hope the Government reconsiders these aspects because it is important that legislation such as this is balanced, rather than in favour of one side or the other.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this morning on Bill C-86, an Act to ensure the continuation of postal services to all Canadians.
As regrettable as such action is, for I really believe in the rights of union workers, I commend the Minister for bringing forward legislation at this time to protect the innocent victims involved in a labour versus management dispute at the Post Office in that postal services to many people suffer.
There are hundreds of very responsible unions in Canada which successfully negotiate settlements with businesses right across the country. This system functions very well. However, with the right to strike also comes a responsibility and an accountability. We have clearly seen that the track record of CUPW is very poor. It has essentially lost that right because of its track record, because of continued disruptions and hardships placed upon small businesses whose cash flow has been severely hampered in prolonged strikes of the past.
Many hundreds of businesses have gone bankrupt and thousands of jobs have been lost. Old age pensioners have waited anxiously for their cheques in the mail, not knowing for sure whether they will come. The same applies to the disabled and those who receive mother's allowance and baby bonus cheques. We are in the midst of a United Way campaign which raises significant funds to help the needy and disadvantaged in Canada. All such things are being placed in jeopardy.
Unfortunately we have seen the actions of the past few weeks. We have seen the irresponsible actions of the unions on the picket lines. We have seen them sticking glue in mailboxes. We have seen them issuing directives saying that they will do everything to disrupt postal service at various postal depots. This clearly indicates that it is not a responsible executive.
We should not jump to the conclusion that they speak for all inside postal workers. There are many inside postal workers
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
who are very responsible and carry on their duties in a very conscientious way. However, I believe that many of these people are afraid to come forward and express their dissatisfaction with the actions of the CUPW executive for fear of reprisal, and we can certainly understand that. The unfortunate part is that all unions are tarred with the same brush by the irresponsible actions of the past few weeks and over the past few years.
In the last 10 years there have been 711,000 days lost through strikes and illegal strikes at the Post Office. We have to ask why. If we take a look at the over-all plight of the postal workers we see the inside postal workers earning a salary with all benefits in the range of $24.50 an hour. We see an absentee rate of full-time postal workers of 19.05 days a year, roughly four working weeks. That is scandalous. Compare that to the rate in private industry of six days per year. Interestingly we see a turnover rate in the post office of 3.52 per cent. That is virtually a zero turnover rate. If you compare that to private industry, it speaks volumes. It tells me as one Canadian that people obviously are reasonably content or they would be leaving. They know when they have job security, reasonable wages and benefits. So why leave?
In London alone in the quest for replacement workers there are 2,000 Canadians who are willing to take the job, its conditions, the hourly wage, the benefits at the Post Office. We are seeing union management saying that it is not prepared to accept $24.50 an hour, and is not prepared to let anybody else do the job. It boils down to a very important principle. Management has to have the right to manage. For too many years the CUPE executive have been trying to manage and run the Post Office. 1 say unequivocally that public opinion is fed up with its actions.
I see in my own office, as a result of this legislation, as well as my own private Member's Bill, which is coming up shortly, to take away the right to strike and declares for all intents and purposes, the Post Office to be an essential service, an overwhelming positive reaction. People realize that CUPE has not shown itself to be responsible or having had the best interests of Canadians at heart. CUPE is prepared to jeopardize and compromise the postal service for its own benefit. This is unfortunate. I have had about 200 calls to my office in the last few days, 197 to be exact, 189 in favour and 8 against. Most of those identified themselves as inside postal workers.
We ail realize that there is a responsibility incumbent upon management. Clearly it takes two to tango. It would not be just to point the finger at the union without pointing out that there are areas of discontent and problems within management of the Post Office. Clearly the spirit of confrontation has built up animosity and we have to work toward resolving that. Yet to the credit of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) he has done everything he can do to bring these parties together. He brought in Mr. Drouin and Mr. Foisy who conducted extensive

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
hearings and brought forward recommendations that were initially given credit by the unions.
In the key area of the union dispute, that being franchising and job security, let it be clearly understood-never mind the smoke and mirrors-that the recommendation and the offer by the Corporation and in the Foisy report was that existing jobs would not be in jeopardy-no existing employee would lose his or her job. This gives the Corporation the latitude and liberty to run the Corporation in an efficient way to ensure better service to all Canadians, and more accessible service, may I say.
In my own community I can drive around the corner and go to a convenience store with a postal outlet. I can pick up a parcel on a Saturday. The service available is second to none compared to what the Post Office has offered in the past.
Indeed, Canadians will benefit. We have to be physically responsible. We cannot continue to guarantee any number of jobs at any cost. We have to attempt to run an efficient business operation. Bear in mind that this is a Crown corporation, one that was incorporated in 1981. There is a perception that the Government is running the Post Office. We are trying to do the opposite. We are trying to allow that Corporation to run efficiently and economically and, I am happy to say, it would be making significant progress if it were not for these unfortunate strikes and disruptions of service.
My own personal Bill, C-269, goes beyond the Minister's Bill. The Minister's Bill is essentially calling for the parties to come back to the negotiating table and have binding arbitration. However, my Bill not only calls for that but it takes from CUPE the right to strike and, for all intents and purposes, declares the Post Office an essential service. I feel this is necessary.
As I said in my earlier remarks, I feel that the uncertainty of postal service, the growing lack of confidence and cynicism among Canadians about the service and the Post Office's unreliability is hurting the Corporation in a dramatic way. Businesses are starting to use alternative services. People are saying that they cannot be sure that if they send a cheque, a contract or a very important document, that it will get to its destinations on time.
The concept of taking away the right to strike for postal workers is not new. It is not as though I were inventing the wheel. The situation has existed in the United States and it has worked very well. You can mail a letter in Buffalo and it will be delivered, virtually guaranteed, in Florida the next day. If you mail it on Monday it will be there on Tuesday. This speaks volumes.
As I say, the Minister has appointed a very noted labour negotiator, Mr. Bill Kelly, to try to bring the parties together. As capable as he has shown himself to be in the past, he has expressed his frustration with the attitude of the parties. In view of that, it is very clear that the the Minister has no
option. The Minister must take the action has taken in bringing this legislation before the House.
I commend the Minister for assuring Canadians that the mail will be delivered and that there will be continuity of service. Pensioners will not have to go to bed at night wondering if their cheques will be there in the morning, wondering whether they can pay their rent or buy their food. The Minister has given reasonable assurances to those small businesses that so desperately wait for cheques to come in to pay their employees, to pay their payables, to pay their taxes and indeed to be good corporate citizens.
As regrettable as such legislation is, I do commend the Minister for showing the resolve and the determination to protect all Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. friend. He referred to replacement workers. The first instance I can recall of replacement workers being used to a large extent was during the strike at the Pocklington plant, which resulted in violence. Even though the workers were in a legal strike position, the company brought in strike-breakers, scabs, replacement workers.
With some pride, the Hon. Member indicated that in his community of London there were 2,000 people who wanted to be scabs and to do the work the inside workers were doing. I know my hon. friend follows labour relations, and he knows that in his part of Ontario there have been labour disputes at General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. I wonder if he can think of any other instances of replacement workers being brought in.
It seems that the Government is saying it supports scabs who cross picket lines. When there are management-labour disputes in the City of Kamloops, replacement workers are not used to run the city. When the pulp and paper mills there have labour disputes, they do not bring in scabs to continue the operations of the mills. However, Canada Post does this.
Does the Hon. Member believe that that is the appropriate thing to do? Could he describe for us other labour-management disputes in which replacement workers have been brought in on a large scale? At the same time, could he tell us if that is because the management of other organizations are much more sophisticated? I am thinking of management that recognizes the validity of a management-labour dispute and the workers' right to withdraw their services and bring pressure on the bargaining process. I would enjoy hearing the Hon. Member's comments on this.
Does he think that it is progressive labour relations for management to bring in scab workers on armed, steel-plated buses with blackened windows? Is this the Government's impression of a progressive management team, is this what we want to see as a model for the rest of Canada? Could he outline where this is used in other jurisdictions?
October 15, 1987


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and for the points he has made. The workers do have a right to strike. However, the Government has the right and the responsibility to move the mail and to ensure that Canadians receive all services. It only clouds the issue to use as an example a meat-packing plant. That is totally irrelevant to the important issue that most Canadians believe it is their right to have proper and reliable mail service.
For that reason, I think it is important that replacement workers are brought in. They are not scabs. They are individual Canadians like the Hon. Member and I with families and' loved ones. They are human beings. For a Member of Parliament or anyone else to refer to another person as a scab is distasteful to most Canadians. They are replacement workers who are willing to accept job conditions when other people are not prepared to accept those conditions.
I am not saying this as a blanket statement. I am talking about what is really an essential service to Canadians. I do not suggest that this is a desirable approach to take in a blanket fashion. But I do say that in a case such as the Post Office when so many people are caught in the wide net of a postal strike, the Government, if it is responsible and doing its job, must ensure mail delivery to all Canadians.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to put to the Hon. Member who has just spoken. First, I would like to follow up on the question put by my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap. I would be very interested in hearing the Hon. Member describe previous cases in the history of this Crown corporation of strike-breakers being used. I think the use of strike-breakers is an extremely provocative action. It was seen to be an extremely provocative action in the case of the letter carriers strike. Despite the fact that it has always been an essential service, is this not the first time that Canada Post has taken this extremely provocative step?
Second, at the beginning of his remarks the Hon. Member referred to the hundreds of responsible union settlements which take place across Canada. I think it is important to keep these settlements in mind. The reason those responsible settlements have taken place at Chrysler, Ford and General Motors is that there is always a possible cost to the employer if a settlement is not reached, just as there is a possible cost to the worker who has to go out on the picket line and lose wages.
In this case, was the possibility of a responsible negotiating process not badly undercut by the obvious willingness of the Government right from the beginning of the dispute to legislate people back to work? Did this not make it next to impossible for the Crown corporation to bargain with any sense that it would lose something? It knew that if a strike took place the Government would step in and send the workers back to work. There was, therefore, no potential loss to make them responsible at the bargaining table.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for his question. I am afraid that he has selective amnesia with regarding the actions of the Government over the past months. The Government appointed Mr. Drouin and Mr. Foisy, who conducted extensive hearings, and finally appointed the noted labour negotiator, Mr. Bill Kelly. The Minister and the Government have made a very conscientious effort to reach a negotiated settlement.
It is clear that CUPW had another agenda. The major issue is not wages or other benefits. The major issue is, who is running the Post Office, CUPW or management. With the greatest of respect, I believe that CUPW ran the Post Office for too many years under the previous administration. It is time that management be allowed to manage.
With regard to the Member's first question about a precedent being set with strike-breakers, I cannot cite specific examples off the top of my head, but I believe, with due respect, that it has happened on isolated occasions before. However, by the same token, I do not believe that we have any choice when we consider the position in which Government and the postal corporation has been placed. The mail must be delivered. If the people who are there are not prepared to do it at $24.50 an hour plus benefits, we must get someone else to do it. There are 2,000 people in London who said that they would do it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am happy to take part in this debate, if for no other reason than to express my disapproval of the manner in which the Government is handling this matter. None of us relish this debate or like the situation. This is not the first time we have been through this. This is about the tenth or twelfth time we have been through it in the years that I have been here.
On no other occasion when the Government has felt compelled to bring in back-to-work legislation to end a strike or lock-out was the use of strike-breakers or scabs-and that is what they are-encouraged or allowed. On a couple of occasions which I can recall the Government legislated a settlement with which neither side was very happy, but at least it was fair and even-handed. Any legislation slanted in favour of one side is undemocratic and unfair.
I do not dispute that from time to time an occasion will arise when purely as a last resort, after every other effort has been exhausted, legislation will be necessary. On the odd occasion in previous years even the Minister has met with both sides, separately and together, in an effort to reach a settlement under the principles of collective bargaining. That is a longstanding tradition in this country supported by all sides of the House.
Legislation which takes sides invites and incites violence. Otherwise law-abiding, decent citizens of Canada are so frustrated and angered that they believe they have no other

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
choice. How would any of us feel in the same situation? 1 am certain that every one of us would feel exactly the same.
The union asked for a mediator on Wednesday and on Wednesday afternoon Canada Post said no. On Thursday the Government introduced the legislation. The union was then left with no choice but to discontinue rotating strikes and call everyone out all over the country. This is a most incompetent manner in which to handle this situation.
This Bill was not necessary, certainly not yet. The mail was moving no slower than it moved before. On average it takes four to five days for my mail to move between Regina and Ottawa, regardless of which direction. Some takes as long as 12 or 14 days. That reminds me of the old saw we heard when the price of postage was raised to 17 cents. It was said that 2 cents was for postage and 15 cents was for storage. I have often wondered whether, of the 36 cents charged now, 6 cents is not for postage and 30 cents for storage.
Every union and every union member in the country has recognized for many years that technological change and automation will reduce the number of people required to do the work and will affect their lives and livelihoods. They have recognized that for many decades. I experienced it myself as an employee of a railroad. In the overwhelming majority of cases the displacement and disruption caused by technological change and automation can be kept to a minimum through mutually agreed upon methods, to the benefit of one side and with the least possible harm to the other.
For the last 15 or 20 years the management of Canada Post has been on a union-busting kick. It has been determined to barge ahead with automation and technological change, regardless of the cost. It has spent $500 million or $600 to put in automated sorting equipment which did not work. Rather than taking two or three days for the mail to move between Toronto and Winnipeg, it took five or six days. It did not work. However, in its drive for automation it did not care and still does not care. I can only conclude that since the management of the Post Office has been hired by the Government, the Government does not care about either the kind of service Canadians receive or the kind of treatment the employees are given.
There has not been bargaining in good faith. The Government has approved the business plan of the Post Office, which calls for franchising without regard to provisions for job security.


Mrs. Sparrow:: That is not true.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The mediator's report says that the inside workers who are displaced by franchising will have job security at wicket positions. However, the Post Office can simply reduce the number of wickets by franchising locations nearby. The employees of Canada Post are not stupid. They get angry
when they see through that kind of chicanery, and I cannot blame them.
When you have a good employer, you have good employees. When you have good management, you have a good union. The Post Office has not had good management for many years. Many of us hoped that relations at Canada Post would have improved when it was made a Crown corporation rather than a government department.
Relations did improve for some time, but then the Government became obsessed with reducing the deficit by cutting losses and cutting costs, even if that meant cutting service and mistreating employees. The bottom line syndrome took over and Canada Post brought down its business plan in line with the Government's directives to reduce its losses.
I do not believe that there is a profitable post office anywhere in the world, except perhaps Liechtenstein or Monaco. I understand that the British Post Office may break even and perhaps have some small surplus from time to time. Perhaps we can learn something from it. It also provides a far greater number of services than Canada Post provides.
Yesterday, an Hon. Member speaking on this issue complained that the employees' fight to obtain job security was an unreasonable demand. I thought the 19th century Tory mentality disappeared with the election of the present Government. However, I was wrong. Those social and economic dinosaurs are back in greater numbers than ever.
In my constituency, mail delivery takes as long or longer than before, whether it is to a postal box, through sub-post offices or even by door-to-door delivery. Canada Post attempted to close a sub post office in a shopping centre in my constituency. It meant that people in the immediate area had to go a mile and a half south or a mile and a half north to another sub post office. Within 48 hours, 4,000 citizens in that immediate neighbourhood went to that sub-post office located in a	drugstore-which,	incidentally, has unionized
employees-and signed a petition demanding the retention of that sub post office. That must mean something.
The public relations official for Canada Post in Regina had the nerve to say that these people could take a bus. There are many senior citizens in that part of the city. If they took a bus it would cost them a dollar each way. Who would spend a dollar to buy a 36-cent stamp? Perhaps some dummy in the management of Canada Post believes it is a good idea, but the citizens of Canada do not.
In all my years of public life I have yet to find a single Canadian taxpayer of any political stripe who has objected to a loss in the Post Office as long as they got the service. When Canada Post delivered mail on a one-day or two-day delivery basis until the early 1970s, there was a loss every year. Canadians are quite prepared to share in the cost of the provision of the best possible postal service through general tax revenue. Of course, the objective should be an efficient postal service which could break even or even make a few dollars. But
October 15, 1987

the Post Office is not a business, it is a public service. Imagine what would happen if we attempted to make the provision of sewer lines, water lines, streets and sidewalks operate as a business?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Every city does it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know of any city that makes a profit on roads, sidewalks, sewers and water lines. They are all essential public services which certainly do not pay their own way. In fact, they represent a total loss, and taxes must be raised and paid by all citizens of the community, as they should be, to share in the cost of an essential public service. The people of this country want service first.
The Transport Committee just returned from a trip to Europe.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Incidentally, it is the first time that the committee has been able to travel outside this country in over 100 years. We had much more reason to travel than some other committees that I can think of.


Mr. Andre:: You are always on trips, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wish I could catch up to the number of trips some of my colleagues on both sides of the House have taken. We met with the management, members of boards, presidents of companies and government Ministers from Britain, Holland, Belgium, Germany and France. We saw the airport at Heathrow, the Tilbury docks in London, the Port of Rotterdam and the airport in Amsterdam. All of us were given Eurail passes and rode the trains, including the Grand Vitesse between Paris and Leon. I wish we could give the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and VIA Rail management Eurail passes so they could see what is happening elsewhere when it comes to moving people.
However, in all of those locations, the question was put to some of these officials if they had any labour difficulties or strikes. Have you had any strikes? On every occasion, as my colleagues in committee will verify, they raised their eyebrows, saying it is inconceivable that there would be a lock-out or strike in those industries, all of which are of a public service nature. One individual scratched his head, I think it was at Heathrow Airport in London, and said, "Yes, I think we did have a strike seven years ago for four hours when the air traffic controllers went out". They have a system there, not only collective bargaining, but a degree of industrial democracy, that the unions and management both look upon a strike or a lock-out as a failure on the part of both sides.
Legislation like this that legislates in favour of one side over the other flies in the face of good industrial relations. It incites unions, particularly individual members of those unions, to take actions they would never even consider under a decent
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
and fair system, and they have not been operating under a decent and fair system in the current negotiations. They have not received fair consideration from the Government in this legislation.
Let me rely on a couple of publications that are not known to be of socialist inclination, New Democratic Party propaganda, or anything like that. Of all publications, The Edmonton Journal, in that heart of free enterprise and free market force-if they keep going the way they are there would be good reason to call it "Redmonton"-stated on October 9:
Ottawa is using coercion where reason might have prevailed by legislating an end to rotating postal strikes.
In the process, the federal Government spurns the collective bargaining process and erodes the right to strike. It invites the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to retaliate in a manner that can hardly make the delivery of mail more efficient.
It goes on to state:
For its part, CUPW has shown sensitivity to Canadian consumers by staging rotating strikes instead of suspending all mail service.
Another great bastion of free enterprise and the market forces, the Winnipeg Free Press, referring to the services only being modestly disrupted because of the rotating nature of the strikes, stated:
The postal service was not a model of efficiency but it was not dramatically less efficient than at other times.
It went on to state:
Why the Government decided to move so quickly and so harshly to end the strike is anybody's guess. It certainly was not to benefit the postal service or the people who use it.
The eventual outcome of that dispute ought to be based on two clear principles: the postal unions have the right to fight for job security for their members; the post office management has the right to run the Post Office.
I do not disagree with that. The Winnipeg Free Press ends its editorial by stating:
The time might have come when the Government had no choice but to take action. It has not come yet.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the same thing applies today, five days after that editorial was written.
This kind of Draconian move was totally unnecessary. The Government has shown an unmitigated bias in support of Canada Post in order to put in place Canada Post's so-called business plan as speedily as possible so as to reduce its deficit. That is its number one priority regardless of the quality of service the people of Canada receive and regardless of the rights of the employees.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have one question to put to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I believe he mentioned in his remarks that if we have bad management and bad practices, we are going to end up with bad labour relations and that it was management and the Government which were responsible for bad relations of the Post Office. I do not know whether the Hon. Member had the opportunity to read the latest book on the Post Office written by David Stewart

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Patterson of the Globe and Mail. It is called Post Mortem and 1 recommend it to the Hon. Member.
One of the things outlined in the book is that over the last 15 years there have been several Ministers responsible for Canada Post, Postmaster Generals before the creation of the Crown corporation and Ministers responsible after that. There have been three complete changes in the upper management of the Post Office in that period of time; Jim Corkery, being the first of this group of three, came from the Ontario division of the Post Office. At that time it was a department of Government. When it became a Crown corporation there was Michael Warren, who brought in a whole new management team. We now have Don Landers who is running the Crown corporation with another new management team.
What we have had over the last 15 years is three completely different sets of managers. We have had different approaches from governments because there have been different governments in that time. However, one consistency throughout the last 15 years is that we have had the same labour union leaders, Jean-Claude Parrot and Bob McGarry.
Is it the Hon. Member's position that in fact we have had the incredibly unlucky situation in which three complete sets of managers, with different philosophies and approaches, have all happened to be terribly wrong and totally responsible for the bad labour relations, while on the other side of the equation the consistent and same union leaders are blameless and in no way responsible for the sad state of labour relations?
The Hon. Member and I agree that labour relations in the Post Office are in a terrible state, but I really find it a little difficult to blame it all on Government and management when we have had three different approaches, three different sets of managers, while on the other side we have had the consistency of approach, a militant approach, over the last 15 years. Is there no blame to be attached whatsoever to that side of the equation, that everything rests with the incredible misfortune of coming up with three new sets of managements, all of whom are totally incompetent when it comes to managing labour? Is that the position of the Hon. Member?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think my hon. friend has missed the point. Perhaps I did not make it well enough and I will try again. I said if we have good management we will have a good union. If we have a good employer, we will have good employees. Surely over the last 25 years the experience we have had in Canada must tell us something. When it gets to the point where the Winnipeg Free Press starts calling into question the competency of the Government and the management, it has to tell us something. That is not coming from union members or union leaders. I do not think that Mr. Parrot has been the leader of the CUPW for the last 15 years. I think it has been the last seven or eight years since Mr. Davidson passed away. Compared to Mr. Davidson, Mr. Parrot is a saint. In fact, he has been complimented as many times as being the most responsible yet in the postal unions.
As far as the letter carriers are concerned, last month is the first time in their entire history that they have struck. They have been more than patient. By the way, postmasters out in rural Canada belong to a union as well, although they call it an association. Ask them about the management of the Post Office over the last 15 years.
The Hon. Member says that they have hired three different sets.


Ms. Mitchell:: They should hire women for a change.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not know what kind of sets they are into. Can they find better sets than that? They sure as hell were matching sets. They matched in terms of not being able to comprehend what the essential reason for and the purpose of their position is at the Canada Post Corporation. It is to provide service in the handling and delivery of mail in Canada; and that takes first priority over everything else.
Service has been chronically reduced. Communities and citizens have been ignored and given the run around. Do you call that good management, Mr. Speaker? They have been given double-talk.
There was a situation, for example, at one time in the Regina Post Office which had hundreds of pending grievances, some of them going back six years. Most of them were very minor and could have been settled between the union rep and the foreman on the floor of the sorting room. No, they had to go upstairs, and then to Saskatoon, and then to Winnipeg. Sometimes they even went all the way to Ottawa. No wonder the morale is bad. By the way, some of those grievances the union refused to take up because it did not figure that the member had a case. The union is not right 100 per cent of the time, and I have never suggested that for one minute. Nobody is 100 per cent right and nobody is 100 per cent wrong in almost everything.
But they have not, I submit, been unreasonable in fighting for something so fundamental, something that took all these years through collective bargaining, and all those years of struggle; that is, the rights and benefits to which they are entitled. If one pays good one will get good work. If one pays minimum wage, or something like $5 an hour and one wants turnover in one's workforce, then one will sure get it. If one wants to get incompetents-


Mr. Horner:: Who gets $5 an hour?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When you franchise out post offices and they are done on tenders and the lowest bidder gets it, then that lowest bidder will not be paying $10 or $12 an hour. You know it and I know it, Mr. Speaker.
I am not saying that those three sets of management that have been hired in the last 15 years are bad, personally. I have no doubt that they are very smart, wise and competent gentlemen. But I want to submit that that same management
October 15, 1987

has to work in accordance with what is Government policy. One could separate Canada Post as a Crown corporation, but the buck still ends up with the Government of the day. Government policy has been to try to get Canada Post to eliminate its deficit over a period of years, and to start making money. When there is a policy such as that in a service industry-


Harvie Andre: Like the British Post Office, which you praise.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If my hon. friend would take a look at all the other services provided by the British Post Office that Canada Post does not provide, he would find that there are people in that country who use the Post Office for a lot more than just buying a stamp, mailing a letter or picking up mail. I do not want to compare the two because there is a high density population there and very short distances, so the two are not comparable. That is probably one other reason why they have a better chance to break even, or even to make a modest profit.
That is the other thing that the successive managements of the Post Office in Canada, all of them, have completely forgotten. We always will have a higher cost in transportation and communications. It is inevitable and it is unavoidable. We are geographically the second largest nation in the world. We are in a northern climate, cold and harsh, with a small, widely-scattered population. Of course our costs will be higher.
One has one's head in the sand if one thinks that they can be brought down in line with the United States or some countries in Europe. That is out of all reality. Our costs will be higher, and I resent that being taken out on the employees of Canada Post.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since we will be starting a speech on debate, is it the pleasure of the House to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the European Economic Community dramatically increased its shipments of subsidized beef from Ireland and Denmark to
Canada to some 50 million pounds per year. The Government imposed quotas and then backed off. Subsequently the Canadian Cattlemen's Association launched a countervail suit against the EEC. That was sustained by the government agencies in Canada.
Recently we learned that this countervail duty of 80 cents a pound on subsidized beef from the EEC has been turned down by a GATT panel. The GATT panel report will be presented to the full GATT committee. Canada has an opportunity to turn down that report, and maintain the countervail duty.
I call upon the Government to turn down this report and continue the countervail duty on EEC beef to bring order to the Canadian agriculture and meat marketing situation.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, our Government has just made an offer to the Donohue company and Rexfor, a Crown corporation, to set up a regional paper mill in Matane.
Today, I wish to thank and congratulate my honorable friends for giving their support to this major economic project. A few stages remain to be covered before the construction work can begin. Now all the interested parties have finally given their go ahead, to the greatest satisfaction of a proud and resourceful population.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, by supporting this project, our Government shows to the whole of Canada that regional development remains a priority for the Conservative Party. It is now the responsibility of promoters Donohue-Maxwell and Rexfor to make a decision.
Now, the people in Matane know where all the parties stand. There are still a few details to iron out before this matter is finally settled.



CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT WEEK TRIBUTE TO WORK OF CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT

Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is Co-Operative Development Week in Canada. Cooperatives have become such an integral part of our lives that many of us tend to take them for granted or, worse yet, view them as a vestige of some bygone era. In fact, they continue to be a modern way of adapting economic activity to democratic

October 15, 1987
principles. One member, one vote, is such a basic revolution in control of our economic institutions that it is small wonder that some of our Governments, recognizing only the power of money and not of people, still have to be reminded of their existence.
S)
The co-operative ideal is admirably suited to small, community-based economic and social endeavours, from grocery stores, credit unions, daycare, and housing projects to the very large agricultural co-operatives. These same democratic principles of widely held control have worked for large-scale institutions as well; witness the wheat pools in the West, the dairy pools across the country, the credit union centrals, and co-operative insurance. They are living examples of the socialist belief that people can control and direct their own economic destiny through self help, a basic principle for our Party which springs from the same basic belief in the power of ordinary people to direct their own lives.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had this to say about the two Territories;
This Government has actively promoted the steady expansion of responsible government in the Yukon and the N.W.T., and will continue to give both territories the support they will need for the next stages in their constitutional development.
Now that the N.W.T. Legislative Assembly has been duly elected, one of those stages, that of holding a plebiscite on the boundary agreement, should be initiated soon, especially since the Treasury Board has frozen funding to the Nunavut Constitutional Forum until a plebiscite can be held.
This major obstacle to political evolution should be resolved before the next issues of provincehood or the turning over of more provincial responsibilities can be negotiated.
I urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) and the Department of Justice to show leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of the next Government Leader of the Northwest Territories.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the importance for our communities of the so-called Employment Development Program and the Unemployment Insurance Act, Section 38, program implemented by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Every year, a great many employers, organizations and workers within our ridings benefit from these programs.
If I mention these facts to the House, it is because we are at a time of year when the application forms for the Employment Development Program are normally issued to organizations and employers anxious to submit projects.
But what is happening this year? There is no trace of any application form or any formal announcement by the responsible Minister concerning their extension. What is happening to these programs? Nobody knows for sure. However, information from reliable sources seem to indicate that the Employment Development Programs and even the Unemployment Insurance Act, Section 38, program might not be extended this year. It is high time for the Minister responsible for these programs to speak out.
We are absolutely against their elimination, unless some similar programs aimed at the same clientele are announced by the Minister very shortly.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton);: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members of the House are aware, an unfortunate spill into the St. Clair River occurred in my constituency of Sarnia-Lambton two years ago. Since that time, I and many other concerned citizens and organizations have frequently brought to the attention of the federal Government the serious problems created by federal employees using worse case scenarios to describe the events in Sarnia-Lambton.
I am most distressed to see a recent article in the August, 1987, edition of "Environment Update", an Environment Canada publication, written with all too familiar disregard for accuracy.
For the record, here are a few facts which appear to have been left out of the article. First, the company itself reported the spill to the appropriate authorities. Second, the company started a clean-up before any government orders were given. Third, to address the unique problem of contaminated
October 15, 1987

sediment in a swift flowing river, the company developed new technology to remove over 90 per cent of the remaining contamination. Fourth, despite media reports to the contrary, none of the chemicals involved exceeded the short-term drinking water standards in any water supplies.
I have often addressed the House stressing the need for balance and fairness in reporting. 1 would urge Environment Canada to write another article in the same publication which truly reflects the tremendous developments of the last two years, not just a replay of the events of the past.



CLIMATIC CONDITIONS


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, while urging the Government not to support the decision of the GATT review panel which would allow heavily subsidized EEC beef to enter Canada and create a very uncompetitive situation for Canadian cattlemen, I draw to the attention of the House the extreme drought situation which exists in central British Columbia.
There has been no significant rainfall for many months. The usual semi-arid region is fast becoming a desert as streams dry up, lake levels fall dramatically, and water tables drop. The result has been catastrophic for the sports fishery and is causing extreme problems for both cattlemen and orchardists alike. Provincial and federal support is required to find alternative sources of water.
I urge the federal Government to amend Section 2.4 of the ARDSA program which would allow funds to be made available for both Crown and deeded land suffering under extreme drought conditions. As well, I would urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to approve fast tracking for applications presently coming in under the existing Section 2.4 of the ARDSA program.



PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's results of the Gallup Poll are another clear indication that the Conservative Government is fading fast.
Mr. Speaker, the results of this poll and the election results in New Brunswick have made it clear that despite all the
handstands, all the representations and initiatives made by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government during the past month, and I am referring to the Francophonie Summit, the Commonwealth Conference and the Free Trade Agreement, Canadians know preferably well that all this is not being done for the sake of the Canadian people but simply in order to enhance the Prime Minister's image.
Mr. Speaker, the results of the Gallup Poll and the election in New Brunswick are a clear indication that after being fooled once during the last election campaign, Canadians no longer accept or believe this Prime Minister.
I therefore urge all Conservative Members to tell the Prime Minister; from now on, do things that are good for Canadians and stop trying to improve your image. Start working for the common good of the Canadian people.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Costa Rican President Oscar Arias for his role in the formation of the Central American peace plan. By awarding the prize to Mr. Arias, the Nobel committee has sent a clear message of support and encouragement to Central American leaders for their efforts to bring peace to this troubled region.
Canada should do likewise, Mr. Speaker. As a country blessed with social and political stability, Canada should spare no effort to help bring similar stability to Central America. I call upon the Government to indicate clearly its willingness to offer whatever help and assistance are required to ensure the plan's success.
But the most urgent and important thing that Canada could do would be to condemn unambiguously, both publicly and privately, the continued funding of the Contras by the Reagan administration and do all in our power to get the U.S. Congress to end all overt and covert aid to the Contras. This would assist Central American efforts to bring peace to the region and it would also make it clear that Canada is not willing to be silent while Canadian aid projects and Canadian lives are put at risk, as was the case recently in Nicaragua, by American supported activities.
The peace plan represents a window of opportunity for Central America and for the peace of the world. Now is the time to tell our friend and neighbour, the United States, to stop acting like a bully and respect the collective Central American wisdom and will for peace that the Guatemalan Accord so clearly demonstrates. A Central America in charge

October 15, 1987
of its own destiny is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, Benjamin and Tanya Bogomolny, former refuseniks, visited Parliament yesterday, exactly one year to the day since they left the Soviet Union. Tanya has had a bout with cancer and is one of a group of patients who have been trying to join families in Israel and obtain treatment in the west. Benjamin is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest standing refusenik up to now.
"What accounts for your getting permission to leave," I asked them. "It was the actions of the International Cancer Patients Solidarity Committee headed by Montrealer, Dr. Jerry Batiste, and the intervention of the Canadian Government" was their clear reply. They were here to thank Canada for its efforts and to remind Canadians that there are other cancer patients and thousands of refuseniks who are still waiting for permission to leave.
Meriting particular attention are Naum Meiman, and Benjamin Charney, both cancer patients who are seriously ill and need specialized treatment. The fate of these people depends upon the continuing efforts of Canadians and our Government and parliamentarians. It depends on us, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, once again I hesitate to refer to the operation in the Ministry of Regional Industrial Expansion as the Keystone Cops but that is exactly what it is. Yesterday we saw the ridiculous spectacle of the Minister claiming that negotiations had reopened for the sale of Firestone to Cooper in the United States. At the same time as he claimed negotiations had reopened, a fact which had escaped every other player in the negotiations, he refused to have any federal government involvement as long as negotiations are going on.
When will the Minister realize that with 1,300 jobs in Hamilton at stake, he cannot leave it up to his officials to make telephone contacts? He cannot leave it up to his officials to write letters when there is a mail strike going on. He has to
take some personal leadership, get on top of the dossier and make sure that a deal is made to save those 1,300 Hamilton jobs. He should stop fooling around, and if he is not prepared to do that, he should resign.



PRIVACY


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Government for its response to the justice committee's report on the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act. In particular, I am pleased that there will be more control on the use of Social Insurance Numbers.
There is a growing concern on the part of all Canadians about Social Insurance Numbers and this concern has been addressed. The federal Government will require all federal Departments and agencies to obtain Treasury Board approval for any current use of SINs not authorized by statute or regulation. There will also be a prohibition against the collection and the use of SINs by any federal Department or agency for any new administrative purpose unless specifically authorized by law.
In addition, the Government will require that no right, benefit or privilege be withheld from and no penalty be imposed on any individual for refusal to disclose his or her SIN to a government institution except where it is specifically required by law. I am pleased as well that there will be a public awareness campaign launched to heighten knowledge of the Access to Information Act. I think these are changes that should be welcomed by all Members of the House because they are a significant step forward.



NORTHERN ONTARIO INITIATIVES PROGRAM


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), the Minister responsible for the Northern Ontario Initiatives Program known as FED-NOR, has recently announced the composition of the program's advisory council. As I expected, this council has become another patronage patch in a lush garden of government appointments.
The chairman is a former Province of Ontario Conservative cabinet Minister. The vice-chairman has close associations with the Minister himself. One of the members is the father of a sitting Ontario Conservative MPP and a former cabinet Minister. Another is a former Ontario Conservative MPP. Still another is the wife of a past president of a Tory riding association.
October 15, 1987

All of this I can accept with good grace, I hope, but I have one question. In that vast area between the City of Timmins and the City of Thunder Bay and between Lake Superior and Hudson Bay, the constituency of Cochrane-Superior, was there not one single, solitary Conservative who could be found as worthy to serve on the FEDNOR advisory council?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday the Minister was asked in the House about media reports indicating that the original version of the trade agreement with the United States and signed by him contained a reference to the Government's drug Bill known as Bill C-22. Referring to Hansard of Tuesday, October 13, the Minister is quoted as replying as follows:
The question coming from across the floor is "why did I sign it?" The simple
fact is that 1 did not sign it, nor did the Minister for International Trade, the
Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister nor the chief negotiator.
I believe the Minister of Finance, but I have in my hand what purports to be a copy of the original trade agreement with the United States referring to Bill C-22 explicitly, and signed by Michael Wilson, the Minister of Finance; Pat Carney, the Minister for International Trade; Derek Burney, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister of Canada; and Simon Reisman, the chief negotiator on behalf of the Government of Canada. Is there another Michael Wilson authorized to sign a trade agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada?
-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is purposely distorting. That which was tabled in the House by the Prime Minister last week is the official document. That is the agreement we signed on October 3 in Washington.
I have made absolutely clear-and stand by what I said- what was initialled by people in the working groups, that was presented to the main negotiating table and was rejected by us. What was signed by my colleague and the other two who signed the agreement is what was tabled. If the Leader of the Opposition does not accept that, then he is not accepting my word.


Mr. Axworthy:: That's right.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, to use the words of Sir Winston Churchill, I have never heard a Minister
Oral Questions
of the Crown describe the exact opposite of the truth with so much precision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PASSAGE OF BILL C-22-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this document bearing the signatures of the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade contains the following sentence on page 37:
Canada has agreed to pass the pending amendments contained in Bill C-22 in respect of compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals.
This document was presented to Ministers and signed. It was then distributed to reporters at our Embassy in Washington, quickly retrieved, and other pages were substituted.
Is the Minister saying that this agreement which he signed was changed after he signed it? Is he saying that this is not his signature but a forgery? Is the Minister saying that he signed this agreement without reading it first, particularly page 37? Or is the Minister really saying that there is an understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States with regard to the pharmaceutical Bill and that the Government of Canada, including the Minister, does not want the people of Canada to know about it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made it absolutely clear that what I signed is what was tabled in the House a week ago last Monday, 1 believe. If the Leader of the Opposition is not accepting that, he is implicitly calling me a liar and I challenge him to stand up and say that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Put your seat on the line.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Cut out the bravado.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What a big phoney you are.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE ORDER APPEARANCE OF SENIOR NEGOTIATORS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think I have a solution for the Minister. Since the Minister of Finance, who was supposed to direct the final stages of the negotiations on the Agreement with the United States, today denies he was involved, is he prepared to ask the senior negotiators who drafted page 37 and the document I have here, which mentions the price of drugs, to come before the House and explain who instructed them to change the document after it was signed by the Minister of Finance?

October 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have made that very clear. I would like to repeat the answer I gave in response to this question on Tuesday, I believe. The part of this document to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, which was initialled by two working group members, one from the American side and one from the Canadian side, arrived at the negotiating table where I, the chief negotiator, the Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, and the Minister for International Trade sat. We saw this part that had been signed by the working group member. We said: "That is wrong", and we rejected it on the spot. Bill C-22 is not part of this agreement. It never was to be a part of this agreement, and we rejected it on the spot.


Mr. Lapierre:: How did it get in there?


An Hon. Member:: How come you signed it?


Mr. Speaker:: Questions that are being asked are serious and have overtones that are not particularly easy for the Chair. The Minister is attempting to respond and I would ask those, especially the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman who asked the question, to give the Minister a chance to respond.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A voice from the backbenches of the Liberal Party asked why 1 signed it. The simple fact is that I did not sign it.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I also want to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. He has described one scenario of events.
Let me ask him if the following scenario is true or false. Is it not true that a document bearing his signature along with other Ministers was distributed by the Ambassador of this country to a group of reporters, that this same document was then withdrawn and had a certain portion-a sentence relating to Bill C-22-erased, and then redistributed?
The document holding his signature has a major portion of a line dealing with Bill C-22 erased. I would say that an American President had to resign when a tape was erased. Why does the Hon. Minister not take the same course and realize that unless he is prepared to get to the basis of facts and bring the negotiators before a committee he should take the same stand and resign?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have made it absolutely clear, and if the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry does not accept my point of view, I tell him to call me a liar. Call me a liar on the spot. I have stated what is the fact, and if the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry does not agree with that, make that allegation on the spot.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will reverse the offer-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would say to the Hon. Minister that as yet no one has made that accusation. I would say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who is rising on a supplementary, that I would hope that he would not think it necessary to make that allegation.


REQUEST THAT NEGOTIATIONS AND AMBASSADOR BE CALLED BEFORE COMMITTEE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of Finance again. If he is saying that the version of the events that took place in the Embassy library are wrong, then why is he afraid to allow the chief negotiators and the Canadian Ambassador in Washington to come before a committee and testify under oath, one way or the other, as to which version of the events is right? What is he afraid of? If he is not afraid, why does he not take the honourable course that Ministers of this Parliament have taken for years, that when they have in fact done something wrong they take responsibility for it?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fennell:: You did not resign.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get a new printing press.


Lloyd Axworthy: I went before a committee. He is afraid to. He is a big chicken.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, the approach the Liberal Party is taking now. I will stack my credibility up against that Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Go ahead.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will also say that anybody who has been a part of these negotiations, particularly the item that is at question to date, is happy to appear before a committee during the time this trade agreement is discussed. You will find, Mr. Speaker, that my interpretation of the events, my statement of the facts, will stand.
The other thing I think is very interesting here is the way Members opposite are not willing to address the facts of this agreement. They know that this agreement is good for Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 15, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that it will stand up for years to come as one of the greatest agreements that any Government has entered into, but they are reduced to this type of-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rodriguez:: You just blew your credibility.


John Carnell Crosbie: The rat pack has a leader at last.


BRIEFING NOTES PREPARED FOR AMERICAN OFFICIALS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has raised an extremely important question based on the document we were all asking questions about last Friday, and received essentially the same answers from the Ministers of the Crown at that time, denying its authenticity. My questions are based on another document 1 obtained last night. These are briefing notes prepared for U.S. Secretary Treasurer Baker and Mr. Yeutter after the agreement was signed. The first paragraph under "Intellectual Property" in that document states:
What the U.S. got: Canada will liberalize its rules on compulsory licensing
of pharmaceuticals. Canada will enact pending amendments contained in Bill
C-22, andfurthermore, the Parliament of Canada-
-will review within ten years the further improvements for protection of
pharmaceutical inventions.
This is a document, I repeat, prepared for the use of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. I want to ask the Government of Canada today if it stands by what it said? Is it saying that the United States officials are not telling the truth?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this particular document but I stand by what I have said in this House before and what the Deputy Prime Minister, I believe, said a week ago tomorrow or a week ago today-I forget the precise date. Bill C-22 is not-and I repeat is not-a part of the agreement.


Jacques Guilbault: Was.


Some Hon. Members:: Was.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It was never a part of the agreement ever. The comment was made there that we will pass Bill C-22. That is brand new news. We have already passed Bill C-22, so there is nothing-


Lloyd Axworthy: Not yet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Twice.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Parliament? This is the House of Commons. This is not Parliament. Come on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This House of Commons has passed Bill C-22.
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Only John Turner speaks for the Senate.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We cannot control the Senators-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Even John can't.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I thought the Leader of the Opposition was able to control the Senators, but I guess that is not possible. They still hold the gun to his head. Everything he does, he is run with a little pirouette here, like a little marionette. Marionette John.


FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister that he will know as well as I do that what he is involved in is an extremely serious matter. The document that I quoted is an American document which says it was part of the deal, part of the agreement, and it not only says Bill C-22 was part of it, it describes a commitment made for further changes to be made within the next 10 years, which is additional information.
I want to go to another area in the same document concerning the so-called protection the Government obtained in the cultural domain. Mr. Jack Valenti, a Hollywood film mogul, said recently before Canadian audiences on television that he objected to the proposed new film legislation that was to be brought in by the Government of Canada. Subsequently that was denied by the Minister involved, but I want to read what it says in this document about what was agreed on that subject. It says, and I quote:
They-
With reference to the Government of Canada.
-have also promised to solve Jack Valenti's problem on film distribution
within the next two weeks.
Could the Government tell us what that means?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me comment first on the preamble to the last question about some promise we are going to do something about pharmaceuticals in 10 years, time. That is totally the result of the imagination of the person who wrote that briefing note for Secretary Baker, or whoever it was.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That was never even discussed. On the question of Mr. Valenti's problem, there was no commitment, no understanding to solve Mr. Valenti's problem. The Minister of Communications has stated quite clearly that the Government has a commitment to ensure that Canada is treated as a separate market for film distribution. That commitment still stands.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, some of us are inclined to believe something, let me put it this way, other than that. We

October 15, 1987
Oral Questions
are going to look with interest at the Bill the Minister has promised to introduce.


ENERGY-EFFECT OF TRADE AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I have a third question in the domain of energy. The Minister himself said to me in the House on Tuesday, October 13, with regard to energy changes when we made the accusation that substantial changes were being made that were going to impinge directly on our sovereignty, including regulatory changes, and so on: "There is no change in the regulation. There is no change in regulatory practices". I quote from the energy section of the document- and the U.S. document devotes more space to energy, I say in passing, than to any other particular matter-where it says with reference to changes agreed to by the Government of Canada:
Canada has agreed to: (1) limit the application of its "surplus test" for energy exports to a monitoring function, with any possible future restriction subject to the proportionality and nondiscriminatory pricing conditions above: (2)-
Agreed again to.
eliminate its requirement that uranium exports be upgraded to the maximum extent possible in Canada prior to export; and (3)-
Another changeeliminate a discriminatory price test on electricity exports.
I could go on. Does the Minister still stand by what he said incredibly in the House the other day, that there is no change agreed to by the Government of Canada in the energy domain, or are the Americans talking through their hats?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the whole of the Hon. Member's question, but he has just repeated what is in the document itself.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Have you read it yet?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is there in black and white.


John Edward Broadbent: And you said there was no change and I am telling you what the Americans have said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What I said was-this document, so all Hon. Members know what I am reading from, is the elements of the agreement-this affects the ability of the two countries to enter into trade, not regulation, to trade between the two countries on energy products. The Hon. Member mentioned uranium. Some relief on both sides of the border has been achieved in terms of trade-


John Edward Broadbent: You said in the House there was no change.


An Hon. Member:: The uranium producers like it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would listen carefully, I said there were no changes in regulations. There are changes in trade barriers. Trade barriers have been lifted. There is an ability of both countries-


John Edward Broadbent: And the elimination of regulations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is a change in the ability of both countries to trade freely with each other in matters involving energy trade. That is one of the great achievements here, because as some of his colleagues will tell the Hon. Member, this will allow the Province of Saskatchewan, as an example, to sell more uranium into the United States market where today there are major restrictions.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN SENATOR
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Members the presence in the Gallery of Senator Robert Hill of Australia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-BILL C-22
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The body of evidence building today in this House that the Government of Canada included Canadian drug prices as part of the free trade agreement is overwhelming and, I suggest, irrefutable. The Minister has not just left his fingerprints as evidence of that, he has left his signature.
Will the Minister explain to the House how it is that senior officials working for cabinet Ministers of the Government of Canada, and senior officials working for cabinet Secretaries of the Government of the United States, could have included in this document bearing his signature, without the knowledge of Ministers of both Governments, the following words: "Canada has agreed to pass the pending amendments contained in Bill C-22 in respect of compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals".?
How did that happen without the knowledge of Ministers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is identical to a question to which I responded on Tuesday and to what I was asked today by his Leader and the Hon. Member from Winnipeg. The only thing that I can understand from what the Hon. Member from Newfoundland is saying is that he disagrees with what I have said, and he is not accepting my word. I thought that there was a very, very clear tradition in the House that Members accepted the word of an Hon. Member-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Not since Mulroney.
October 15, 1987


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -or put his seat on the line.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think that perhaps the Chair can assist all Hon. Members for a moment, and the public that is watching and listening, by repeating something which has been part of the tradition of this House of Commons since its inception, that is, no Member calls another Member a liar, and the word of an Hon. Member is accepted. If there are circumstances, and there might be some time in the long history of Parliament, when, for any particular reason and based on some evidence, an Hon. Member is not prepared to accept another Hon. Member's word, then there is a proper and appropriate way to charge him.
I have to say to all Hon. Members of this Chamber, and to the public of the country that is watching and listening, that it is impossible to have a civil debate or a civil Question Period in this place unless all Hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber understand that what I have just said is fundamental to the decency and effectiveness of the House of Commons of our country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I have said many times that this place is made up of people of great idealism, courage, passion, and decency. That is why it is the great place that it is. I would hope that for the rest of this Question Period all Hon. Members on all sides would listen carefully to questions that are properly put, give Ministers a chance to respond, and unless they have been recognized, please keep their opinions to themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFERENCE IN DOCUMENT TO BILL C-22
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think that all Hon. Members would be wise-as indeed 1 shall be-to adhere to your words and to your advice to all of us. That is why I want to go back to the Minister and to repeat the question 1 asked. His response and his challenge were not, Mr. Speaker, in reaction to my question. My question, and I repeat it, was this.
How does the Minister explain that senior officials of the Government of Canada, working for Canadian cabinet Ministers, and senior officials working for the United States Government and accountable to U.S. cabinet Secretaries, could have included on page 38 of this agreement a matter relating to Canada's commitment with respect to Canadian drug prices when in fact the Minister of Finance is now telling the House that this matter was not part of the free trade agreement, this matter never was part of the free trade agreement, this matter has nothing to do with the free trade agreement? I ask the question: What is it doing in the document?
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the histrionics will not get the Hon. Member any more credibility-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Answer the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have stated very clearly that this document to which he refers was agreed upon between two members of a working group. It then was-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Without your knowledge?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Without my knowledge.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And you signed it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If the Hon. Member would let me continue the explanation that I have given three times now already in this House, I will.
It was then brought to the negotiating table. As soon as I saw it I said that that is not a part of this agreement, reject it. It was taken away. The new document-the Hon. Member is holding up something that happens to be appended to that document. He would have appended it to that document, not me, because there was never-


Brian Vincent Tobin: That was issued at the embassy.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -any part of the agreement that we signed that was tabled in the House of Commons a week ago Monday that had anything to do with Bill C-22. That is an absolute fact and I have stated that three times.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He is changing his story right now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member shakes his hand at me. I challenge him to stand up and tell me-


Brian Vincent Tobin: You are like the condemned man laughing at the hangman as opposed to the lever. Grow up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am looking at the New Democratic Party and I am wondering which of its Members would like to be recognized.
The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN COMPANIES FROM TAKEOVERS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, according to this confidential document for U.S. Secretary Baker, to which my Leader has already referred, the free trade deal between the United States and Canada would cut from 7,500 to only 500 the number of Canadian companies protected from unregulated take-over by the United States. Will the Minister of Finance confirm this cut-back by 87 per cent in the companies protected from U.S. take-over in Canada? Will he confirm this give-away?

October 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm off the top of my head whether that number is correct. But what I do know is that, yes, we did-


John Edward Broadbent: The Americans checked the numbers.
protectionist measures that we all expect will come from the United States if we do not have this agreement.
That is the benefit of this agreement. That is why we have signed it. That is why we believe that over all there will be a good deal of economic benefit and more jobs created in this country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -raise the threshold levels to $150 million and that has the effect of removing a number of companies from review.
But let me point out to the Hon. Member that there is a good reason for that. We have seen over the last five years the investment that is being made by Canadian companies into the United States increasing by 20 per cent or 21 per cent, and investment coming north into Canada increasing by about 7 per cent. That is because Canadian companies do not have assurance of access to that market.
If we do have access to that market, and companies have the confidence that it will be there, then that investment that has been going to the States will come to Canada, create jobs in Canada, increase Canadian ownership in Canada. Surely, the Hon. Member can see the benefits of that type of an agreement with the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY-CANADIAN CONTENT
Steven W. Langdon: I am talking about take-overs, not new investments.
The same document states that Canada will henceforth "impose no export, local content, local sourcing, or import substitution requirements on U.S. investors", and "on third-country investors as well".
Will the Minister admit that this prevents Canada from ever requiring Japanese auto firms, for instance, to meet the 60 per cent Canadian content rules in this country? How many job possibilities are lost to Canadians as a consequence?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble following the precise wording of what the Hon. Member is reading. I believe that the last part of the quote that he read out to the House is incorrect.


Steven W. Langdon: It is there.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let us go back to the overall benefits of a free trade agreement. There is practically no economic organization in the country that does not expect that the over-all effect of a trade agreement with the United States will increase jobs in Canada over and above what would be the case had we not had an agreement. Furthermore, those comparisons are made relative to the status quo today and do not take account at all of the potential impact of increased
* *
*


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, who played a major role in past constitutional talks. The Prime Minister has stated that the Government will promote the expansion of responsible government in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories.
When this Government speaks of political development of the Northwest Territories, is it restricted to the devolution of provincial-type powers to those Governments?


B. Keith Penner: That is a set-up, Tom.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, a member of the Opposition unfortunately makes a mischaracterization of a very important question. I appreciate receiving that question from an outstanding representative of the Northwest Territories in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am pleased to report that the Government and the Conservative Party continue their commitment with respect to the devolution of political authority and power to the Territories. Under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Government is considering strategy and an over-all approach with respect to this very important question.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in the process of developing this particular policy, the representations of the distinguished Member who asked this question will be very much in the forefront of the consideration of the Government.


FREE TRADE-REQUEST FOR DETAILS CONCERNING DOCUMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister of Finance to explain what happened at the Canadian Embassy in Washington. It is quite obvious that what the reporters present saw was not an optical illusion or a
October 15, 1987

mirage. They definitely read an original document, bearing the message:

Attached are 39 pages of agreed text setting out the essential elements of a
free trade agreement between the United States and Canada, each was
initialed by the negotiators.
They got that document. That is what they saw signed by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade.
Tell me what happened. Why did the Assistant Press Secretary, John Fieldhouse, pull out the document and come back with another one? What happened?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question because I do not know what happened in the embassy that day. What I have said, and I have given my word to the House, and through the Speaker to Members opposite, that what was tabled a week ago Monday was what was signed by my colleagues and myself at the negotiating table in Washington.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance telling me that the Canadian Ambassador in Washington distributed a forged document to reporters the first time around?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is a false document. That document was not signed, it was not part of the agreement, and I have made that absolutely clear.


ENERGY-EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON CANADA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In confidential briefing papers prepared for U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker, and trade representative Clayton Yeutter, questions were posed and answers given regarding the U.S. victory on free trade.
One of the questions posed involved energy. While recognizing that Mexico has larger oil and gas reserves than Canada, the question on energy was the following. "What about a North American common market with Canada and Mexico?" The answer was, "The political climate in Mexico is not ready".
Would the Minister of Finance explain to Canadians why a small country with large gas and oil reserves would not participate in such a deal, while a large country like Canada with small reserves would?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am surprised that an Hon. Member from a western province would not understand the benefits of this deal to the development of his province and other producing provinces in Canada. It will
Oral Questions
result in the development of energy resources in western Canada, which will benefit the whole country.


Mr. Mazankowski:: The rest of the country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The rest of the country, including western Canada. This is not a continental energy agreement.
We have made a number of moves to deregulate the energy industry over the past three years in Canada, but what we were finding was that trade restrictions in the United States were inhibiting our ability to sell those energy resources into the United States.
This does not change any of those regulatory practices which have already been agreed to, but it does free up the markets in order that we can sell those resources into the United States, and gain cash flow to develop further resources in Canada to the benefit of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REFERENCE TO REDUCED ENERGY COSTS IN UNITED STATES
James Ross Fulton: My supplementary question is directed to the same Minister.
I am a third generation western Canadian. We want manufacturing in the West not just pipelines down into the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Right on. Do you ever learn over there?


James Ross Fulton: The document goes on to state that this deal will "reduce average energy costs" in the United States.
I wish to ask the Minister why any Canadian in their right mind would support a deal that will see costs go even lower in the United States because right across the board, gas, oil, electricity in the United States are already lower. Why should we pay higher costs in order that they can have lower costs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the key elements of this agreement is that it will encourage the development of manufacturing industry in western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Nelson Andrew Riis: How?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I should take my old school chum, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, back to economics. A larger market can support a broader manufacturing base. With the market opening up south of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, there will be more manufacturing companies.


Mr. Nystrom:: Rubbish.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He does not want free trade for the west.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I know that the Hon. Member does not want free trade for the west.

October 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: You should have gone to second year economics.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We see this as a way of
developing a more broadly based and diversified manufacturing and industrial sector in western Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: We will take you on in the west any day. Let's have a fight in the west right now.


MINISTER'S SIGNATURE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the spirit of your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to question the integrity or the word of the Minister of Finance. But I do wish to challenge the competency of this Minister in regard to these negotiations.
Earlier in the Flouse he stated that he did not sign the document when referring to the fact that Canada has agreed to pass the amendments contained in Bill C-22 in respect of compulsory licenced pharmaceuticals. I suggest that the Minister of Finance signed two documents, this particular document, which was not tabled in the House, and this document which has been tabled in the House.
I would ask the Minister to explain, for the benefit of Canadians, why he is refusing to admit that he signed two documents, one making specific reference to changing the pharmaceutical legislation in this country. Why?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are getting right back to the very fine line that you drew attention to a minute ago. I signed one document. That document was tabled in the House. If there was an error made in the distribution of documents in the Embassy, I cannot control that. But I can control what I sign, and the Hon. Member has my word for it. If he disagrees with that, say so now.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR REFERENCE IN DOCUMENT TO BILL C-22
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I will accept his word.
I ask the Minister of Finance to explain the following to the House. The Prime Minister sent him to Washington to be in charge of the negotiations. Was he in charge of the negotiations? Who on the negotiating team made this flaw in the particular agreement? If they made that flaw, will he have them come to Ottawa next week, not in two months' or three months' time, to explain the obvious or apparent contradiction in the documents?
Would the Minister of Finance do the honourable thing and request those officials to be here next week to explain to Members of Parliament why this contradiction is in the document, if he is in charge of the negotiations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not denying that that document exists and that that document may have been distributed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I mean, clearly it was distributed. I am not saying that it was not. What I am saying is that that document was not a part of the agreement which we signed in Washington.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I want to explain the basis of my interest in the question which I am about to ask. First, the only tetraethyl lead production facility in Canada is in Sarnia-Lambton. Second, I have an interest in farming and part of my riding is farm oriented. Third, I admire the preservation and presentation of antique cars.
The Government, spearheaded by the Minister of the Environment, has taken an active position in eliminating leaded gasoline and its use. As the Minister and my hon. colleagues are aware, some concern has been expressed by members of our farming communities over the phasing out of leaded gasoline. Additionally, it has recently come to my attention that concern is also-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has an important matter. I think he is certainly putting the basis of his question to the House, and I think the point has probably been received by Hon. Members and the Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Kenneth Albert James: There is also concern being expressed by antique car and classic car owners about the use of unleaded gasoline in these very important vehicles.
Given that farmers and antique car owners may require special provisions, will the Minister of the Environment explain how he will answer their needs?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that the Government of Canada has outlawed lead in gasoline, which policy is to take effect at the end of 1992 on a phased out basis.
However, we appreciate that there are narrow categories of vehicles, among them antique cars and certain types of farm vehicles, which might require a certain amount of lead in gasoline to achieve high octane levels or proper valve lubrication.
October 15, 1987

We will take that factor fully into account when we implement the policy which, nevertheless, will be exactly as it was Gazetted in June, 1986.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question of Question Period.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-FILM DISTRIBUTION INDUSTRY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance also arises from the confidential briefing note to Mr. Baker and Mr. Yeutter, following the question raised by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party on the so-called promise to solve Jack Valenti's problem.
There is a question in this document-"How will the agreement affect the proposed Canadian law on film distribution?" The answer states that "we expect any future cultural measures taken will be consistent with what has been agreed," that is, to solve Mr. Valenti's problem.
Will the Minister tell us how the Americans can have the idea that they have gained a great deal on culture, particularly in film distribution? If this is not true, what can this possibly mean?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I stated yesterday-and my colleague, the Minister of Communications, stated it on other occasions last week-that culture is exempt from this agreement. It is stated absolutely and precisely on two separate occasions in the agreement.
I do not know what Mr. Valenti's problem is. I do not know what Mr. Valenti wants. What we are saying is that we are committed to the film distribution policy which has been announced and to which the Minister of Communications has stated that we are committed.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF FILM DISTRIBUTION LEGISLATION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. If the Government had done what it said it would do on culture, there would have been no section in the agreement at all. However, there is one, and there are different interpretations of it.
I think the only way to clear the air on this and to give the Government some credibility is to bring in the film distribution Bill now. Will the Government do that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for bringing that legislation forward does not
Business of the House
lie with me. What I can say on behalf of the Government, which I said in my previous answer, as well as in answer to one of the Hon. Member's colleagues, is that the Government is still committed to the film distribution policy to create a separate market in Canada for film distribution. That policy stands.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to give the Chair a moment to say something. When I spoke some minutes ago, I interrupted the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. I do not want anyone to think that there was anything incorrect about the question the Hon. Member was asking. He, as other Hon. Members sometimes do, repeated it in his supplemental, and it was of course allowed.
What I said, and what I hope all Hon. Members will accept, was said to apply evenly to every part of the Chamber.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the House passed an order allowing for the continuation of debate on Bill C-86 at committee of the whole stage.
There have been discussions among the Parties, and we wish to amend that motion with consent. I think Your Honour would find unanimous consent to the putting of the following motion and to the motion itself. I move:
That the Order of the House made earlier this day be amended in the third paragraph by deleting all the words after the words "shall continue" and substituting the following therefor:
"and complete consideration of the committee of the whole and third reading stages of the said Bill."


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that indeed there have been plenty of negotiations among the Parties. Considering that the Government has indicated its willingness not only to evaluate opposition amendments that have been proposed but to consider the adoption of at least two of them, we feel that in the best interest of facilitating these amendments getting into the legislation this would be an appropriate step. We concur.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, we acknowledge there has been some intense negotiating, that the Minister's attitude was one of understanding and willingness to accept certain amendments we proposed, so that in the circumstances, we are prepared to co-operate with the other Parties in this House.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that there is agreement in the House to adopt the recommendation and the proposal of the Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Deputy Government House Leader what business the Government intends to call for the coming week.
He has already given us part of the answer for today in the order which he has presented, but I am sure he has other information for us.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, presuming that we complete third reading stage by ten o'clock tomorrow morning, we will continue debate at third reading on Bill C-55 to amend the Immigration Act. On Monday we would continue debate on the Meech Lake Accord.



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, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am rather saddened to be moved to speak to Bill C-86 today. I recall a number of occasions when the Government took action to end strikes, but this is the first instance in my recollection that the Government has taken action to initiate a national strike in our postal services.
Until Bill C-86 was introduced in the House, the postal service of Canada had not come to a stop. Mail was being delivered. As a matter of fact, most organizations that reported to the House made it very dear that mail disruption was minimal, if at all. I have done surveys in my own constituency as well as around the City of Ottawa and found that there was no perceptible difference in the service people were receiving, but there certainly was immediately with the introduction of Bill C-86.
The Government in a sense provoked CUPW into a strike situation. The workers realized that negotiations were out and
there were no other options open to them, that the Government in a sense had sided with one side of the bargaining team, namely, the management team. They decided that the Government would impose a settlement which can only be described, as have many described it in this House and beyond, as Draconian, and, more importantly, as being provocative; in other words, legislation designed to provoke a reaction on the picket lines.
I want to take a few moments to outline what the Government has been doing to our postal system and explain why this particular step has been extremely unfortunate. I think we all agree that if you want to provoke disruption in a community, in a suburb of a city, a rural area or a small town, all you have to do is indicate your intention to remove the post office, relocate it or reduce postal service. You are then guaranteed to have a significant reaction by the population of the area. People see the post office as central to their communities, central in many respects to their lives.
1 know in my own community there was a discussion some months ago about moving the post office a number of blocks in a small community called Chase, British Columbia. The local residents of that area rose up and said that to expect their seniors particularly-because Chase has a major retirement segment of its population-to walk many extra blocks to get their mail was something which the community was not prepared to accept.
There were alternative sites for the new post office but people said they wanted to keep it in the central part of their community because it provided a vital function, not only in terms of collecting mail and carrying out the usual postal services but also as a community communications centre where people come and go regularly throughout the day. If someone wants to get information around a community by posting a particular notice you do that at the post office and within a matter of hours everyone in the community is aware of the upcoming event, problem or issue.
It is important that we realize today what we are doing. If there ever was a title of a Bill that was hypocritical, it is the title of Bill C-86, which is, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. Before the Bill was introduced there was post service. There was no need to continue postal service because it existed. There was no need to resume postal service because it existed. The rotating disruptions were procedures used by CUPW to bring some attention to bear on the negotiators.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, CUPW asked for a mediator to be brought in. You and I know that there are disputes. We have them among ourselves in the House of Commons over issues. Often a third party comes in to mediate to see if there cannot be some resolution. Normally there is a resolution and a successful answer is found by bringing in a mediator. CUPW asked for a mediator. The postal corporation said no, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) said no and the Minister responsible for the Post Office said no.
October 15, 1987

CUPW then said it would have to do something and decided to have rotating strikes in various community centres to focus concern on the fact that negotiations were not proceeding because the request for a mediator was denied. Here we have Bill C-86 with its hypocritical title of, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, when in fact there were postal services. Canadians had not noticed any disruption, let alone any discontinuation. That took place only after the legislation was introduced. We are witnessing for the first time in Canadian history legislation that created a postal strike in Canada-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: What about the media?


Nelson Andrew Riis: -as opposed to resolving a disruption in postal service.
The legislation before us takes sides. This concerns us. It very clearly takes a side in the issue, coming down on the side of the postal corporation. Rather than appointing a mediator it appoints an individual who is to play two roles. How you do this without having two heads, 1 do not know. A person will be a mediator on the one hand but on the other hand an arbitrator as well. A person works with the two parties, hopefully with their confidence to try to mediate, but if that does not work, then he or she becomes an arbitrator. That is an impossible task. Any labour management consultant would say that it is impossible to expect that of anyone. They are two different roles and ought to be filled by two different individuals with different types of expertise. But no, this obviously then is a provocative element.
I can also discuss a whole number of other very provocative phrases in the Bill. For example, it says that if a person decides not to follow the exact suggestions in the legislation when it is passed, that a person cannot hold a position in the union for five years. I think that is rather hypocritical. There are people in this House who are charged with criminal offences and people from other houses, and 1 will not name them, who have not only been charged with offences but have been found guilty. They sit today as Members of provincial Legislatures, the Legislature of British Columbia is one, in my own home province. 1 could mention a whole list of others. Even a person found guilty of an offence in the courts of Canada is allowed to maintain his or her position. This legislation will say to the union leadership that that will be an impossibility for them. This is a double standard and a hypocritical positioning on the issue.
There is another aspect which is particularly repugnant in the way this issue has been pursued by the Government. This is one of the very first times in Canadian history where scabs or, as the euphemism now is, replacement workers have been brought in to break the union. This is government endorsed and sponsored. The Government says it wants to bring in scabs to continue work in the postal system. Does General Motors do that? What about Stelco, Weyerhaeuser, MacMillan Bloedel, Imperial Oil? Do cities and municipalities across this country, when entering into labour disruptions, do that?
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
The only instance that I can recall where that was done was in the Pocklington situation in Edmonton. We know the condemnation which that particular confrontation brought from around the world. Every progressive management labour person condemned that kind of action.
Now we have seen the Government of Canada endorse the use of scab labour as part of its postal system. What we are seeing here is something incredibly serious. Obviously it is designed not only to provoke but to break the unions involved with the postal system; CUPW to be specific in this instance.
I wonder if Members of the House and the public understand the context in which Bill C-86 has been introduced. What is the plan of the Government? I want to tell you very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the plan is to eliminate, in a sense, the postal system as we know it. The wickets, the interaction, will be privatized and our post offices will be depots for sorting. Is that what Canadians want?
Are Canadians calling out that they want the postal system to be operated as a business? We do not require that of the RCMP, the Armed Forces, our ambulance services, our health care services, our educational services, our universities, colleges and technical schools. We have decided as a Government to target the postal system to be a business, not a public service-not even a public utility but a business, ideally a profit making business.
We need to examine the fundamental principle on which this legislation is based. I have discussed this, as I am sure all Members have at public meetings, where postal services have come up for discussion. People are interested in what we are doing to improve the Post Office. I told them that we are moving to improve the postal system but that there are all kinds of problems. I wish I had time to elaborate on the management problems associated with the postal system.
When I see a company with labour problems, inevitably I see a company that has poor management and lacks management skills. The converse is also true. When a sophisticated, thoughtful, professional management is in place, there is the same kind of union. I think we want to keep that point very clear in our minds.
When I ask Canadians if they want to see the postal system as a part of the Government, as is in other countries, they say yes, we ought to have that here in Canada. In Australia and the United Kingdom the postal systems are doing relatively well. They provide not only a good postal service but other services as well to generate revenue.
If we were to run the postal service simply as a business, the inevitable result would be that there might be good service in the sophisticated urban areas of Canada, but in the small communities and rural parts of Canada there would obviously be a reduced level of service. Our existing postal system enables us to cross-subsidize. The profits that are made in the

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
highly populated areas enable the Post Office to provide service to the smaller communities and rural parts of Canada.
We happen to live in the second largest country in the world, and we require a postal system that reflects that. If we are in this business to make money, we will certainly not make it in the small communities and rural areas. Those services will be seriously eroded.
As a Parliament we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to enhance and maintain the rights for which the Rural Dignity organization are calling. It is saying, "Enable us to maintain the level of services in rural Canada, whether it be rural schools or postal services. Let us maintain our dignity and raise our families as we ought to".
Bill C-86 signals the erosion of a commitment to rural Canada and small town Canada. It is an abandonment of the commitment to maintain the rural fabric of our country. It is a sop to the move toward urbanization.
What does this Bill mean for women workers? Any Hon. Member who has toured the postal services in his own community realizes that the majority of employees of the Post Office are women. These women make a reasonable wage. I chose that word "reasonable" purposely. I have heard some outlandish figures bandied about in the last number of hours. I think we all recognize that the average wage for a postal worker is $12 or $13 per hour-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Plus benefits.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Plus their benefits. That is how we measure all contracts, on hourly rates plus benefits. The benefits for postal employees are equivalent to those we find in the workforce. We are not talking about elaborate benefits.
A pay rate of $12 or $13 per hour comes out to about $25,000 per year. Yet I have heard countless Members on government benches calling this figure outlandish and saying that the pay these people are getting is ridiculous. What do Conservative Members think maintains and drives our economy? It is the ability of people to purchase goods and services.
Surely even the small business sector which is concerned about what is going on in the Post Office realizes that if everyone in Canada were paid at the minimum wage it would be tough to run a successful business. Is there anyone here in the House who would call $12 or $13 per hour or $25,000 extravagant or unreasonable? I do not think so. I do not think that we would consider $25,000 per year to be an unreasonable income.
The majority of the workers in the postal services are women and the majority of those women head single-parent families and raise children on their $12 per hour. That is an average income, one that we should not for even a moment condemn as being excessive. Those Hon. Members who have done that ought to consider their own incomes and balance them with
the $12 per hour income the postal employees presently average.
I would like to discuss what I see as probably being an inadvertent initiative that has been considered by this legislation. As we phase out postal services as we know them and franchise or privatize them, those hourly workers receiving $12 per hour who tend to be women will lose their jobs and end up being hired by someone else at about minimum wage or perhaps slightly higher. That is a tremendous drop in earning power and in take-home pay. It is very difficult to raise a family on the minimum wage or a wage that is slightly above minimum wage. To be very frank about it, it is impossible.
I think it is important that Hon. Members recognize that Bill C-86 is not just a piece of back-to-work legislation, but is part of an incredibly devious, Machiavellian plan the Government has imposed upon Canada Post to change the face of the postal system Canadians have grown to love over the years.
I go to the Post Office regularly, as we all. Letter carriers deliver my mail to me. I do not think anyone would deny that one cannot meet a more interesting and positive group of people. When I travel throughout my constituency I always stop in at the post offices because those are good places to meet people. Inevitably, the people there are positive, friendly, hard-working and committed to the Post Office. They do not have casual attitudes toward their work. They are committed to doing an excellent job.
Those workers who go door to door in areas where there is still door-to-door delivery go out of their way to deliver mail in a positive way.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: What's this got to do with CUPW?


Nelson Andrew Riis: "What's this got to do with CUPW," a Conservative Member yells out. It is all part of the same team.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Letter carriers are different.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He says that letter carriers are different. I happen to know many letter carriers from Kamloops personally. I know letter carriers and inside workers from Kamloops, Salmon Arm and a whole variety of communities.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Try mine.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member says that I should go to his community because they are not good. Is that the point he is making? Is he indicating that the employees in the Post Office are bad, negative people?


Jacques Guilbault: They voted for him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I do not know if they will vote for him again. I am simply saying that these are average, ordinary Canadians who are trying to make a living.
If the Hon. Member went to his office this afternoon and said to his office staff, "I have news for you, I will phase out your jobs in the next little while," how does he think they
October 15, 1987

would react, particularly if he went on to say, "I have better news, 1 am bringing in scabs to do your job while I try to figure out how to phase out your jobs"? Imagine how productive his office would be. How would those devoted employees who have worked with the Hon. Member for many, many years feel? They would feel betrayed. They would be pushed to the wall when those scabs came into his office.
That is what we are saying today. We are telling people who have worked for the Post Office, in many cases for their entire lives, that we will phase out their work, and while we determine how we will do it we will bring in replacement workers or scabs. We will do this until we can force them back to work with a Bill that caters to the employer only and not to the union. That is why we as thoughtful parliamentarians are deeply hurt by this legislation.
Back-to-work legislation with which we have been involved in the past often included provisions for a settlement which was fair to both sides. It certainly did not make such direction as the direction which this legislation makes to follow the guidelines of the Foisy report. In other words, the Government is saying that the plan of the postal corporation must be implemented. This legislation is flawed.
On a positive note, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) has indicated his intention to consider reasoned amendments put forward by the Opposition. He will be doing that as the debate continues today. I am pleased that the Minister has at least seen fit to recognize that the Bill can be improved. I doubt if it will be improved significantly enough that we can support it, but we do appreciate the Minister's willingness to consider amendments put forward by opposition Members.
In conclusion, we are concerned about many points in this legislation. However, more important, we are concerned that this legislation is part of a Draconian, evil, machiavellian plan to eliminate our postal system as we know it and replace it with a business. It is wrong to run such a fundamental service in the second largest country of the world as a business and expect it to make a profit year after year when we do that with no other area of government service. I think that is wrongheaded.
I look forward to the time, hopefully not too many months from now, when there will be a new Government which will have a more sophisticated and up-to-date mandate based on the success of post offices in other parts of the world.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the Hon. Member's comments on Bill C-86. I was a bit disturbed when the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) called out that in addition to the $12 or $13 which most of these workers earn they receive benefits. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out that that is usually part of the standard union contract.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
What will happen to those benefits under a franchising system when employees will be working for a much lower wage? Will they receive those benefits along with their lower wage?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that question in itself deserves a long debate. There are other jurisdictions in which this extreme form of franchising has taken place. Inevitably the payment package which employees receive is nearly always, if not always, minimum wage with virtually no benefits at all-no pension plans and no health plans.
The preoccupation is not with delivering service but with undercutting the competition in order to get the franchise contract. That may be laudable in some quarters. Privatization has been going on for some time in my constituency. People are so desperate to get a contract that they undercut their colleagues and friends to such an extent that it is almost impossible to maintain service, let alone make a profit. They can only do that by eliminating all benefits for employees.
My hon. friend has reminded us once again that this is only one small step. The postal corporation, with the support of the Government, would like to have as many people as possible in Canada paid as little as possible. 1 remind you that the driving engine of an economy is made up of people who are able to purchase the goods and services which the economy provides. People working for the minimum wage and receiving no benefits will be able to purchase only a minimal amount of goods and services. That is bad news, not only for the people involved but for the business community and Canada as a whole.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what has brought us to this state. Over the years CUPW, supported by the NDP, has decided that it will raise the wages and benefits of postal workers. That is a worth-while cause and the union has done that over the years.
Over the years since 1981 when the Canada Post Corporation was created, the Liberal Government gave benefits until Canada Post had a deficit of almost $1 billion. The members of the NDP bandy about figures like $12 an hour plus benefits. I will be more specific. In fact, the average salary is $13.75 an hour plus benefits, which brings it to $24.89 per hour. I can tell you that that works out to more than $25,000 a year.
With a deficit of about $1 billion the Canada Post Corporation decided to appoint a new manager and a new president to try to get it back under control. The manager has stated that with the help of the Minister he can get the corporation to a break-even point within a year without putting postage up to 60 cents.
There are senior citizens in this country who taught school for $25 a month. They cannot understand why the postal workers need $25 an hour. The Hon. Member said that the next Government, which I suppose he presumes will be an NDP government, will make things roll. Who will pay the 60 cents for a stamp? The senior citizen living on a fixed income

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
who taught school for $25 a month will not be able to pay 60 cents for a stamp.


James Douglas Manly: Your Government tried to cut their pensions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Leave time for me to respond to this, please.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: There is no possible way that Canada Post can continue to give, give, give. At the Gateway Post Office in my riding CUPW supports 19 per cent absenteeism. The people of Canada do not like that very much. The employers take Fridays off so that they can work for time-and-a-half on Saturdays. That will not make this country great. Socialism and CUPW will not make this country great. The postal employees should get back to their jobs delivering mail and let us get on with the business of the country. I would like to hear the Member's comments on that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 do not know where to begin, Mr. Speaker, because I have never heard such a peculiar diatribe in my life. I urge the Member to read a management book. If he knew anything about management he would know that you cannot force people to do anything. That is the Conservative mentality, the same mentality that wanted to cut back on senior citizens' cheques because they were getting too much.
We stood with senior citizens across the country and said that although the Conservatives might think they get too much the New Democratic Party realizes who built this country. The New Democratic Party realizes that the senior citizens of today struggled during the Depression and through three wars. They built this country. If anything, we should be increasing their pensions rather than cutting them as the Conservatives wanted to do at the beginning of their mandate.
In conclusion, we have been blessed with the revelation that the Conservatives believe that $24,000 a year is an excessive income. Not only is it too much, it is excessive. He said that they should not make so much money. I am tempted to comment on how he voted on the last salary increase and so on, but I will not do so.
We in the NDP believe that an employee who delivers the kind of service, with which I am familiar in terms of our postal delivery, letter carriers and those who man the post offices and sort our mail, deserve a decent wage. The Member believes that $24,000 is excessive and should be reduced. That is simply where we depart company. I respect his view although they are extremely different from mine.
I do not know what he would pay people, and I certainly would not want to work for someone like him, with all due respect, because he probably has a sign on his office wall saying: "The minimum wage is too high". We have no hesitation in saying that those who do a good job and a good day's work should get a reasonable pay. That is what makes our economy grow. That is where the New Democratic Party stands.
The best friend of a small business person is a well paid employee. I think that is the position on which any government should base its programs. We look forward to that day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) on debate. I wish to advise Hon. Members that after her speech, the speeches will be of 10 minutes' duration.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to speak in favour of Bill C-86. I particularly want to address certain aspects of the dispute resolution mechanisms contained in this Bill.
In view of the all too clear indications given by both parties that they have been unable to settle their differences to date, 1 believe the Bill offers a very reasonable and fair path to settlement.
In the present case, I earnestly hope that the parties will take full advantage of the mediation phase and of the assistance of a third party to reach accommodations on the differences which have separated them. The Bill provides for 90 days in total for the mediator-arbitrator to complete the necessary work. There will be ample time, therefore, for the parties to work towards a mediated settlement of most or even all the issues that are in dispute.
In the event that the arbitration phase is required, I note that the Bill provides a full opportunity for both the employer and the union to be heard.
Clause 7 of the Bill provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator. In my view, mediation-arbitration is a creative and positive dispute resolution technique. First, it enables a third party to work with the employer and the union in order to assist them to settle their own differences. However, if there should be issues on which agreement cannot be reached, then the mediator-arbitrator has powers of binding decision. In reaching any binding decisions, the mediator-arbitrator can, of course, usefully draw upon the knowledge of the issues and dynamics of a dispute which have been gained during the mediation phase.
In the event that the arbitration phase is required, I note that the Bill provides full opportunity for the employer and the union to be heard. Clause 7(2)(b) of the Bill specifically calls for a mediator-arbitrator to hear the parties on matters relating to the revision of the collective agreement which remain in dispute. The same subsection of the Bill also requires that due cognizance be given to the report of the conciliation commissioner that was released to the parties on September 22. I fully support this reference to conciliation commissioner Foisy's report in the Bill.
As has already been pointed out, it is a comprehensive document which deals at some length with the background to the dispute and with the respective arguments and positions of the parties on matters in contention. Furthermore, it offers
October 15, 1987

well thought out and objective proposals and recommendations on the key issues.
Again, comments have already been made concerning the balanced nature of the commissioner's findings. The report endeavours to reconcile the parties' competing demands and interests. Due consideration is given to the corporation's need to conduct business in a viable, efficient manner and to meet reasonable service targets on which the Canadian public should be able to rely.
At the same time the report recognizes the need to protect the interests of the corporation's existing employees and it does include several recommendations in this regard.
In speaking to the Bill on second reading, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) referred to certain key aspects of the commissioner's report dealing with the job security question, particularly with reference to the impact of franchising and the opening of new sub post offices. In this respect the commissioner recommends comprehensive employment protection measures for any employees currently engaged in postal wicket work who might be affected by the corporation's legitimate recourse to private sector postal outlets.
There is another aspect of the job security issue which the commissioner examines in some depth. This aspect is in relation to the corporation's demands for greater flexibility in the deployment of its workforce. The commissioner concludes that the corporation is justified in seeking this additional flexibility. Indeed, he states that an employer cannot be expected to run its business in a cost effective manner if it must continue to employ employees for whom it has no work. Such a situation existed under the expired collective agreement which obliged the employer to maintain surplus employees in a given location even though productive employment was available for them elsewhere in the corporation's system.
While he recommended greater flexibility for the corporation to deploy its workforce, the commissioner also endorsed job and income security measures for affected employees. In this respect, the commissioner observed that his recommendations would provide members of the bargaining unit with rights in the job security area which would still be superior to those found among Canadian unionized workers as a whole.
The conciliation commissioner's report contains reasonable recommendations which would, if adopted, result in a very fair collective agreement offering the employer more flexibility than exists at present but maintaining sound conditions and terms of employment for the employees concerned.
In several areas, the commissioner rejected the employer's demand which he found was not justifiable. For example, with respect to technological change, the commissioner did not accept the corporation's plan to modify the current provision. This provision, by the way, offers employees considerable protection and is among the best found in collective agreements in Canada. Similarly, the commissioner rejected the
Postal Services Continuation
corporation's demands concerning the capacity to undertake work measurement for individual employees.
On health and safety issues, the commissioner generally finds in favour of the union's demands. In the important area of noise reduction, the employer is enjoined to work with the health and safety committee to reduce noise to more comfortable levels. Similarly, the commissioner accepts in great measure the union's concerns with respect to additional break periods for postal coders and he accelerates the night workers' access to the special recovery leave provided for by the collective agreement.
The conciliation commissioner's report covered much ground and represented considerable time and effort. It is important that this time and effort not be wasted. Hopefully, the parties will address themselves to the issues it deals with in the period now provided for them to seek a mediated settlement. If not, I am sure the person appointed to the important task of mediator-arbitrator will find the report to be very useful.
I would like to express the hope that the parties will take their responsibilities seriously both now and in the future. An efficient and viable postal service should not be beyond grasp. It has been accomplished in other industrialized countries and it is possible here in Canada. I would not for one moment suggest that efficiency should be achieved at the expense of postal employees. However, neither postal unions nor the corporation can afford not to change if the goals of efficiency and viability are to be reached. Employees should be adequately protected in the face of change and the Foisy recommendations would continue to assure them such protection. But the best protection at the Canada Post Corporation, or in any other business, is the success of the enterprise.
I want to speak about the Marchment review committee report that was tabled in November, 1985. The Marchment review committee examined Canada Post's mandate. The board of directors at the inception of the corporation adopted a three-pronged definition of its objectives; first, to improve service, second, to create a better climate for human relations within the corporation and, third, to achieve financial self sufficiency. All Canadians want consistently reliable, dependable service at a fair cost. They want to know that it will take two days for a letter to be delivered in a city, perhaps three days within a province and four days across Canada, and they want to know that it will be reliable, dependable service.
The mail is an essential service to senior citizens. They receive letters from loved ones, their Old Age Security pension cheques and some receive Guaranteed Income Supplements. These things are extremely essential. How about people living on interest and dividend income? Mail is an essential service to them. They have to receive this income in order to live. What about Governments, be they federal or provincial? They need postal services for payments, revenues, communication. There

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
are hundreds of small business people in Calgary South and literally millions across our country. They are totally dependent on the mail service. They need their receivables to exist. They must have a consistently reliable service.
What about foreign business? People overseas doing business with companies in Canada and, indeed, Canadian companies doing business with foreign companies, must be guaranteed a good, dependable service. If they cannot be guaranteed that, they will go elsewhere, causing a loss of jobs and a loss of foreign investment which is needed in this huge geographical country of ours with such a small population.
How about my business? How about the business of each Hon. Member of the House? We are very dependent upon the mail not only to receive letters from our constituents but also to communicate our replies to them.
There were three major recommendations in the Marchment report: first, service that is consistently reliable and dependable; second, management-labour methods for consultation and co-operation; and, third, financial self-sufficiency. All of these have been addressed in the Foisy report. When the Foisy report was released, Canada Post and CUPW indicated that the report could serve as a basis of an agreement in principle between the two parties.
I just want to review some of the observations made by the conciliation commissioner Claude Foisy. With respect to franchising, he said that Canada Post operates some 8,000 postal outlets of which about 1,950 are operated by the private sector. About 5,225 are operated by its employees who are members of CPA A and only 417 employ members of the CUPW union.
Canada Post maintains that in relation to sub-post offices and franchises, its costs are equivalent to approximately 13 per cent to 20 per cent of receipts. In the case of a large post office operated by employees belonging to CUPW, its average cost is 70 per cent of receipts. He also says that a distinction must be made between the opening of sub post offices and franchises that co-exist with offices operated by CUPW members, and the closure of existing post offices on purely economic grounds.
With respect to management's rights, he stated that responsibility for determining the range and level of service offered to the public rests entirely with the corporation, not the union. The role of Canada Post is not to provide jobs for Canadians or to increase the income of union members as a form of social assistance. It must operate in an efficient and cost-effective manner, otherwise its spending power would be unlimited.
On its operations, the commissioner states that these strict service standards, that is, first-class mail to be delivered within two or three days of mailing, depending on the locale, which the corporation wants to attain at all costs in a proportion of 99.9 per cent, are the central factors in the development of all of its mail processing operations. Given the nature of the operation, he is of the opinion that the employer must be
permitted access to the appropriate manpower at lower cost. The employer can guarantee full-time jobs only to the extent that its business permits. The average hourly cost of a full-time employee covered by the current collective agreement, including pay and benefits, is now $24.89.
In conclusion, I want to say that the union does have the right to strike. Canada Post has the right and responsibility to move the mail for all Canadians. Jobs are of the utmost importance. However, also of the utmost importance is an economically viable Canada Post Corporation with management that provides reliable, dependable service as well as selfsufficiency.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to support the Bill of the Minister of Labour, Bill C-86. I wish that we moved along quickly with the debate so we can move into third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments?
We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I note that we are now down to 10-minute speeches. I believe that back-to-work legislation for Canada Post, which is being imposed on the House today with closure, goes beyond the Government's inability to honour its commitment. It goes beyond its total disregard for fairness and honesty. At stake here, what is actually being decided, is really a question of freedom. It is the breaking of a social contract.
What kind of a free country gives people the right to free collective bargaining and then takes it away if it does not like the consequences? Dictatorships do not allow the right to strike. Dictatorships throw union leaders and striking workers in jail, which is one of the provisions of this Bill. Are we now a dictatorship? Labour legislation is part of our social contract. The rules of the game are enshrined in our law. The workers at Canada Post followed all the rules and have ended up in a legal strike. They have the right to strike, as my colleague who spoke before me indicated.
But now the Government wants to step in arbitrarily and change the rules. I think we have seen from the speeches of the Minister and others that they want to impose management's demands on the workers. This is a blatant interference in the free collective bargaining process. We must ask ourselves why the Government is setting such a bad example in this Bill, an example that is imposed on a Crown corporation but certainly has very significant ramifications for other employers across the country.
Is this the kind of leadership the Government wants to provide for other large employers? Are contracts now to be settled by the use of scabs? I think it is just deplorable that this Government has condoned the practice of using scab labour by the Crown corporation that is under its jurisdiction.
October 15, 1987

Are contracts to be settled by back-to-work legislation, as has happened in this case and in others under the jurisdiction of this Government? If this Government is set in changing the rules of the game, then it is dangerously undermining the social contract. We know from history that social unrest may very well be the consequence right across the country. If this happens, social disintegration will be directly attributable to this Government.
The Government should be re-examining Canada Post policies and Canada Post management. It should be looking once again at the basic causes of this present dispute, basic causes which have been substantiated in speeches in this House, which are really based on the Government's policy of privatization.
The root of the problem lies with this Government's insistence on franchising postal services. This Government wants to run a public service like a private enterprise. We know full well, and I am sure that the unions who are concerned about their jobs and their workers as well as being concerned about the postal service know full well, that there are going to be very many negative impacts of franchising out. There will be impacts on jobs. Many jobs will be reduced from full-time jobs, with a living union wage, to part-time jobs at half the amount. Many of those jobs, I am sorry to say, will also be taken by women, many of whom are the sole support of their families.
Job loss will fall most heavily on women, children and families. There will be a particular impact on rural communities. Franchising out is not only bad for workers and has not only been the main cause of the dispute and the legislation that we are debating today, it is also very bad for consumers. I hope that the public out there who may be listening to our debate will consider it from their point of view as well. I would like to give a couple of examples.
Recently I had a letter from a constituent of mine who was expecting a parcel, a very important parcel, that he was to pick up. It was under a customs bond. He received the card, which we now receive, stating that he could not pick this up at the post office, he had to go to another place, in this case a small drugstore in the neighbourhood. So he started out to try to locate his parcel. He found, when he went to the small business, that a very valuable parcel, which had been clearly marked with a customs bond, could not be located. The clerk in the corner store was busy with other things and did not know what procedure was to be followed. Eventually, he himself looked around and found his very valuable parcel located on the floor in a very public area. This is a result of franchising out.
He told me that later on he tried to pick up another parcel. To add to his frustration he found that it was still en route. Between the Post Office and the notice coming to his house and going back to the Post Office and going from there to this small business that was now dealing with parcels, the procedure took several days. Apparently, the package had been
Postal Services Continuation
delivered to his home by the Post Office, then taken back when no one was at home. A notice card was sent out and then the parcel was delivered several blocks away to the pharmacy while the Post Office shelves remained empty and postal workers who are public employees were not given the right to handle such merchandise.
What kind of a foolish, impractical, inefficient and costly system is this? I would like to say to my friend from Calgary that if this is the kind of real improvement in postal services that she is advocating by supporting privatization, I do not know how she can talk about economic feasibility.
Postal services must be improved, we all agree with that. We are all completely frustrated with the time it takes the mail to be delivered. This is a problem of everyone. We do not want to victimize any particular part of the whole service. But I fail to see how franchising out will improve the service.
I would just like to quote an article by June Callwood in The Globe and Mail of a couple of days ago. She states:
Canada Post and the Canadian Government are co-operating to confound a strike over the issue of the Post Office's decision to reduce costs, by getting rid of unionized post offices and replacing them with outlets staffed by non-union people who will work for debased wages-
A village is a small place ... Some villages are home to fewer than 200 people, but home they are ... A child growing up in a village is known and tended to some degree by everyone who lives there-
All over the country-people describe the post office as the heart of the village-
It is doubtful, however, that the villages can survive the latest catastrophe, Canada Post's decision to abolish rural route deliveries.
Last November Canada Post announced it would cut back on both as part of its strategy to end the huge post office deficit by 1988. Of the 5,221 rural post offices across Canada, some 1,700 are slated for extinction and 3,500 others will be "transferred to the private sector''.
Mr. Speaker, 82 per cent of rural postmasters and their assistants are women. I talked not too long ago to members of Dignite Rurale, women from the Gaspe, who have started a movement to oppose this. They told me that closure of rural post offices means a drastic loss of jobs for women. Some 37 were lost last year alone in Saskatchewan by sub-contracting out at not even a wage but at 22 per cent of the sales intake. This means they figure that women and other workers will be earning only about $2,000 a year. In many cases this means that they are working in the store for six days a week. This is in a rural situation. Those particular workers have been under CPPA not under CUPW, but the same principle applies.
It is basic to the current strike that the government policy of privatization is what is the most prevalent cause of unrest. Of course CUPW workers do not wish to lose their jobs. Of course they want and should have the right to decently paid jobs. They have come to my office, and I expect to others, with suggestions for improvements to the postal service. They have presented a number of very positive recommendations, but they have not been given a chance. They oppose franchising

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
out, and so do we. It is bad for workers and consumers. It destroys one of our most important community institutions, particularly in rural communities.
In closing, I must say that I regret the action taken by the Government in imposing back-to-work legislation. I very much regret the policies of the Government which have been imposed upon Canada Post, which in turn has imposed them on its workers and which have contributed to such unrest in Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is my obligation and duty as a Member of Parliament who believes in the right of working people to organize and bargain collectively, to speak out against Bill C-86. It is important for the Canadian people to understand what the Government has done first to the Post Office, then to postal workers, and finally to the entire bargaining process.
We have seen what the Government has done to the Post Office ever since it came to power, and we had the Nielsen Commission report. For 120 years the Post Office has been serving Canadians and providing a vital service. The Government has this fixation that instead of providing a service, the Post Office should be a money-making corporation. This has been driving the Government in its ideological fixation to attempt to make the Post Office a money-making corporation, never mind the impact upon Canadians who look to the Post Office for service, never mind the impact upon those Canadians who work at the Post Office.
We have seen the Government refuse to initiate new postal walks, so in effect we have two classes of service in Canada today. People who live in established communities continue to get door-to-door delivery. People who live in new suburbs or in smaller communities that have grown to a sufficient size for door-to-door delivery, do not receive door-to-door delivery. Instead there is the fiasco of the Government's supermailboxes. There is a threat to close down rural post offices that my colleague from Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) mentioned.
Now there is an attempt at franchising which means that the Government is going to be doing away with good union jobs and replacing them with a franchising-out situation that will depend upon low paid labour with no job security and no benefits.
The Government moved very quickly in the direction of provocation of the union when it advertised for strike-breakers. This is unheard of. I come from a community where there is a long tradition of honouring people who have fought and struggled for the rights of working men and women to have a decent wage and decent working conditions. I use the word "strike-breakers" instead of the word "scab", because to me the word "scab" has some pretty heavy connotations. In the community where I live people remember members of a family three and four generations down the line because that member scabbed. It is a very serious allegation.
I would like to share with Members part of the definition of a scab written by Jack London. It summarizes the manner in which many working people feel about someone who undercuts their attempts to better their working conditions. Jack London stated that a scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water-logged brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts he carries a tumour of rotten principles. When a scab walks down the street, men turn their backs and angels weep in heaven, and the devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out. Esau sold his birthright for a meal of pottage. Judas Iscariot sold his Saviour for 30 pieces of silver, Benedict Arnold sold his country for a promise of a commission in the British army. The modern strike-breaker sells his birthright, his country, his wife, his children and his fellow man for an unfulfilled promise from his employer. Esau was a traitor to himself. Judas Iscariot was a traitor to his God. Benedict Arnold was a traitor to his country. A strikebreaker is a traitor to his God, his country, his wife, his family and himself.
That indicates the depth of feeling that union people have toward someone who undercuts their struggle. Yet, on the other hand, we know that in some situations people are desperate. They are desperate for a job and to put something on the table. They might not feel very good about strikebreaking, but they feel that they are driven to it.
The question that I wish to place before the House, and the question that the Canadian people should be asking, is, what type of employer pushes people to strike-break? What type of employer sets one group of workers against another? What type of employer uses one group of workers to undercut deliberately the standards of another group that has been bargaining collectively to better their situation? I must ask, what type of government will act as that type of employer? The answer for the Canadian people is that only a Tory Government would be prepared to do that. This is a scab Government.
Unfortunately, the men and women who are driven by desperation to act as strike-breakers get the name "scab" attached to them, a name they will carry to their graves, and a name that their children and grandchildren will sometimes have hurled at them. They receive the name of scab, while the members of the Government continue to call themselves honourable. There is something not quite fair about this.
When we look at the current strike, we must realize that it was deliberately provoked by the Government as part of its over-all strategy to destroy the Post Office as a service to the people of Canada. It did not care who paid the price. The major price is being loaded upon the workers. We saw the manner the Government did that with the letter carriers. Now the Government is doing it to the inside workers who are members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
CUPW took a very moderate approach as it began this strike. Instead of having an all-out strike, it had rotating strikes in order that it would not have too serious an impact
October 15, 1987

1001 1
upon the Canadian public. The Government chose to escalate that. Here is a situation where the Government has deliberately provoked an all-out strike by introducing Bill C-86.
Some of the members of my Party have referred to this legislation as Draconian. Yesterday some members of the Conservative Party felt that perhaps we should not use the word "Draconian". I checked, and the word "Draconian" comes from Draco who was a 7th century B.C. Athenian lawmaker. The types of laws that he made were written in blood rather than ink. For even the most trivial offence^ people received the death penalty.	^
Draco is also the name of a lizard. I would like to suggest to Hon. Members that this legislation is Draconian in both meanings of the word; it is lizard-like, it crawls on its belly, it is cold-blooded, and is a relic from another age that should not be around in the 1980s. Certainly, it does not extract the death penalty for any of the workers, but it sounds the death-knell for collective bargaining. It sounds the death-knell for the rights of working people to elect their own leaders freely.
Clause 11 of Bill C-86 means that the Government can prevent any leader who advises his workers, his members, not to follow this legislation, from holding any office in the union or having any job with Canada Post. That is what we mean when we say that the legislation is Draconian. It puts an end to free collective bargaining on the part of the Post Office. It strikes at the very root of our right as Canadians to association. Freedom of association is guaranteed under Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, yet Bill C-86 strikes at that right.

Last Friday, just after the legislation had been tabled in the House, I had an opportunity to visit the picket line at the main sorting station near Victoria. I talked with some of the workers. They are very concerned. Their struggle is a just one. They are not asking for increased wages, but they are concerned about job security and about protecting the quality of their jobs. Many of them have worked for years at night shift jobs and have finally got the opportunity to work a day shift job at the wicket. This business of franchising will take that away from them. While the Government says that they will continue to have job security, they will be relegated to some kind of job on the night shift.
I do not know how many Hon. Members opposite have worked night shift. Well, I have, and it is not something which most workers in Canada appreciate, particularly if they have put in their years on night shift and have obtained a day job, only to see it taken away and hived off to some franchise outfit which will pay substandard wages.
They are also concerned that in the long run it will destroy union jobs. Apart from their own job security, as union men and women they are concerned about the impact it will have upon society in total, because it will destroy decent paying jobs and replace them with jobs at substandard wages without any
Postal Services Continuation
benefits. I emphasize that if we pay substandard wages, we will be building a substandard economy and we will have a substandard society.
Why is the Government insisting upon destroying the Post Office? Why is it insisting upon destroying the living standards of Canadian men and women? Why is it insisting upon building a substandard society? I urge the Government to withdraw Bill C-86 and let collective bargaining take its proper route.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I was not scheduled to speak in the debate, but I want to put a few comments on record. I will be supporting Bill C-86, but with some reluctance.
I find the same difficulty today as I had a number of weeks ago when we looked at legislation to end the rail strike. What we are seeing is an impasse, both in the case of railway workers and in the case of Canada Post employees, which has developed as a result of a long period of time when management and workers were not talking, were not discussing the problems, and were not taking into consideration the job that had to be done and the best way to do it.
As a result, today we as parliamentarians are being used as pawns in that we now have to step in and settle a dispute which really should have been resolved at the negotiating table.
I find a little fault with the system whereby we indicated that if they did not reach a settlement we would bring in back-to-work legislation. That certainly puts the gun to the heads of the negotiators on behalf of Canada Post and on behalf of the unions. Unfortunately, the management of Canada Post looks at that as being a situation where it can sit back and perhaps not negotiate any further in good faith because it knows that Parliament will run to its assistance and provide legislation that will cause the dispute to end. I find that a very difficult situation to be put in.
I also find a couple of issues in the dispute somewhat discomforting. I am personally not in favour of replacement workers. Canada Post has used them twice and it has caused a great deal of disruption on the picket lines. Canada Post has the right to lock out its employees and, conversely, those employees have the right to withdraw their services. That is part of the process, yet every time they use replacement workers to do the jobs of those who have removed their services in order to cause discomfort to the corporation, so that they can hopefully get a collective bargaining settlement.
I find a difficulty in that regard. If it is so essential that the 23,000 CUPW people work at Canada Post, or the workers involved in the last dispute, perhaps we should not be considering Bill C-86 to end the dispute. Perhaps we should be considering legislation to take away or remove that right to strike. If every time there is a dispute we call in Parliament to settle it, perhaps we should look at some sort of legislation to remove that right to strike and provide a dispute settling mechanism through arbitration.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
The other problem with which I have difficulty is franchising. 1 have no problem with franchising new services as Canada Post tries to extend its network into new population areas. However, I have difficulty with the thought that some existing postal operations may be franchised. I know that Canada Post is guaranteeing employment, but there is a certain quality of employment to which these people are entitled.
For example, 1 have a community of 17,000 people in my constituency with virtually no postal service. It has a few over-the-counter wickets in stores and so on. I can support franchising in the future for new facilities in order to provide service to the people, but I do not support the concept of taking existing post offices and putting them in the Kentucky Fried Chicken store next door. Nonetheless, I agree that in order to provide expanded services we may have to look at franchising.
However, those issues are not being settled by Bill C-86, the legislation which is before us today. Bill C-86 is merely calling an end to the dispute and is providing for 90 days of negotiation, with the benefit of a mediator, and eventually, if that is not successful, an arbitrator will be appointed who will have the binding powers to settle the dispute.
That is the only reason that I am supporting Bill C-86. I do not believe that Parliament should settle the issues, and we are not settling the issues. The issues are better solved between the parties sitting down in a responsible manner and negotiating. Given the nature of the management of Canada Post and the nature of the leadership of the union, I do not know whether we could really expect to have serious bargaining at the table without a lot of posturing and confrontation. I think that is why we are here today.
I also support the legislation because I know that Canadians are telling me "get them back to work". Canadians are paying good money in taxes for the subsidies and in stamps for the services, and they expect service. Earlier we talked about $24.89 being the average hourly cost of an employee including salary and benefits. It is a lot of money. I do not dispute that most Canadians are not making that amount but would like to make it. Nonetheless, it is a fact. It has been achieved through years of negotiating, and I do not think we can turn around and take it away in one step. However, the Canadian public has every right to expect service for that amount of pay.
When Canadians walk into a post office and see six wickets, one open, a 50-foot line-up, and four people standing back talking because it might be their coffee break, they do not react very well. That is a problem which both management and union have. They must solve the problems facing Canada Post.
I can tell the House that the staff in my office do not take a break if there is a constituent who wants service. They may get their break at some other time, but their priority is to provide service. That is what the Canadian public expects for $24.89. They do not expect us to take that away from the workers today. They may be a little jealous of that amount of money,
but they expect productivity, courtesy, and service. They certainly expect their letter, when it is posted, to get to its destination in a reasonable length of time.
I am supporting Bill C-86 because we must get on with that objective. We obviously have a problem between management and union. I would say that as a Government we have a problem with the management.
I am not happy with the response I get from Canada Post. If my constituents get the same kind of nonchalant attitude when they call Canada Post, they have every right to be upset.
I understand why the relationship between the union and management has deteriorated. My relationship with Canada Post has certainly deteriorated over the years because it does not return my phone calls. They gave me the same gob-bledegook as they gave my constituents when they called.
When a new house is built beside an old house, and one gets postal service and the other does not, and Canada Post says that it will take six months to review the route, in the meantime people are made to go downtown to a post office box. They are not even given a green box or a supermailbox. I do not blame the public for being frustrated with Canada Post, and they are taking that frustration out in this dispute.
Let us get it settled. Let us get a handle on the problem. It is not only a problem of management. It is a problem of the Government, the opposition Parties, the Canadian public, and the unions. We must make that organization work because Canadian taxpayers expect us to make it work. If we cannot do the job of making it work, they are prepared to accept other alternatives which will make it work.
The job must be done. They want us to do it. They want efficiency. They want service. They want fairness. They are not prepared to put up with what they are getting now and paying the kinds of bills they are paying. I will vote to put them back to work because the dispute will, hopefully, be resolved in the 90 days with the benefit of a mediator.
I find this kind of legislation very difficult. We are being brought into this to settle a problem which did not start six weeks or six months ago, it probably started six years ago with the unions and management getting further and further apart.
I will be supporting Bill C-86 with some reluctance because I have reservations about the dispute. Nonetheless this is not ending or settling particular issues, it is putting them back into the process. I can certainly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in 90 days if the matter is not settled then an arbitrator will be needed. We will have a job to do to rebuild and provide the service which Canada Post is expected to provide Canadians.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what the Hon. Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) had to say. I thought I heard between the lines that he was more uncomfortable with this legislation than he feels
October 15, 1987

he is able to admit on the record in the House. I was interested in his comment about line-ups at wickets. 1 wonder whether he has had the opportunity to be in a bank lately or in a number of other private enterprise institutions where line-ups are not infrequent. I sometimes find it irritating that we hear so very often about this kind of thing when it happens in the public sector but we never hear about identical things happening in the private sector.
I want to begin what I have to say this afternoon by taking issue with a statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) when he introduced this legislation. He said that the Government was determined-I am paraphrasing-that no private dispute would be allowed to tie up the country the way the postal strike was allegedly tying up the country. Actually it was not tying up the country until the Minister intervened, but that is beside the point.
I want to take issue with the notion that this is a private dispute, that this somehow belongs totally in the realm of the private sector, namely, that it is not related in some way or another to public policy, because this dispute is related to public policy. It is not a private dispute. It is related to the policy of the Government set down by the Government for Canada Post. It is in reaction to those policies that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has found itself in the situation in which it now is, being unwilling, quite rightly, not to accept the policies which Canada Post is trying to force upon it, policies which have their origin in the policies of the Government. It is quite false, inaccurate, hypocritical and misleading for the Minister of Labour to refer to this as a private dispute which he and his Government really have not had anything to do with but which the Minister now out of a great sense of responsibility to the nation, is intervening to settle.
This is a dispute which has been precipitated by the policy of the Progressive Conservative Government. It is quite deceptive for the Minister of Labour to refer to this as a private dispute. It is government policy that Canada Post has with its plan for the franchising of postal offices. It is government policy that Canada Post not hire any more letter carriers and set up these rinky-dink supermailboxes all over the country. It is government policy that there be this constriction placed upon postal service.
I have had many constituents complain to me, not about inside postal workers or line-ups at wickets, but about things related to Canada Post policy. They are service-related, but in a way that is related to policy and not to the quality of the work being provided by postal workers. It is not postal workers who are to blame for supermailboxes. It is not postal workers who are to blame for the policies which the Post Office has adopted with respect to a great many issues which makes service more difficult for Canadians. Very close to where I live, I am aware of a supermailbox now having been set up. It has been there for a week or two. People are still having to go to the main post office in Transcona to get their mail. If they have to live with a supermailbox, they wonder why they cannot
Postal Services Continuation
get their mail delivered to it now. We contacted Canada Post for them and we were told that that mailbox is not scheduled to be used until the beginning of November.
Not only does Canada Post irritate the devil out of people by forcing them to have these supermailboxes, but having set them up, will not even use them, making people go elsewhere for their mail. These things make absolutely no sense, Mr. Speaker. That is why there has not been the public outcry against the postal workers that some people might have expected or might have wanted, particularly on the government side.
Canadians have come to realize that the Post Office is run by a bunch of dummies. The public has a lot of sympathy for the postal workers who have to work under these dummies and under the people who devise these policies. 1 say to every Canadian who might be listening and tempted to accept the Government's invitation to perceive the Canadian postal workers as scapegoats in this dispute that it is their post offices which are on the Government's hit list. It is their post offices that will someday be franchised out, and it is their post offices which will disappear, particularly those in rural Canada. It is their relatives, friends and perhaps themselves, if they move into a newer area, who will never again receive door-to-door mail delivery.
This situation affects everyone. I think everyone has had just enough of a taste-some have had more than just a taste-at the way the Post Office is run not to be willing to accept the Government's view that it is the postal workers who are to blame.
The Government has clearly taken sides in this dispute. The Government has not acted neutrally. It has taken sides by referring in the way it has to the Foisy report, contradicting the position the Government took at the time of the back-to-work rail legislation when the Government refused to make reference to the conciliator's report. It has become absolutely clear that this is not a neutral act by the Government. This is a partisan act in which the Government has taken the side of management, not surprisingly, because management is implementing the Government's policies.
Going back to what I said originally, this is not a private dispute between Canada Post and its employees; it is a dispute centered around the appropriate resistance of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers on behalf of all Canadians to the policies which the Government has asked Canada Post to put in place. All Canadians owe CUPW a certain debt of gratitude, if you ask me, for not being willing to roll over and play dead with respect to these issues, for fighting back and for calling the attention of Canadians to just what is involved in the Government's policies with respect to Canada Post.
I had an opportunity to comment on the larger issue the other day. So far, I have been talking mostly about the policies of Canada Post with respect to franchising and things like

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
that. 1 would like to turn now to the economic well-being of the workers.
What is happening here is part of a larger attack on the standard of living of working Canadians. The right-wing solution to the crisis in the western economy is that if there is to be a reallocation of power, capital and income, the people who will have to make the sacrifices are not those who have loads of money to begin with like the owners and the wealthy, but the well-paid working people. They will have to make that sacrifice in order, to use the euphemism of the right, that Canada and other countries which in the post-war era had enjoyed a good standard of living can become competitive.
With whom will these countries become competitive? "Competitive" is one of the words that is bandied about here, in the free trade agreement and in multilateral trade arrangements as if everyone knew what it meant. The fact is that "competitive" means that instead of having a Government that wants to work for a new, just and sustainable international economic order, as many have suggested it ought to do, we have a Government which wants to accommodate itself, rather than resist, through the sacrifices of working Canadians, to trends in the global economy which will pit working Canadians against working Koreans, Brazilians and Americans.
In order to have this kind of competition, we will all become the poor. When I say "we", I mean people who come from working class communities in which people have been able to have a decent standard of living for the last 30 or 40 years. The Government has said: "In order for us to be competitive, you people out there in Transcona and elsewhere have to give up that standard of living. It was nice for a while, four decades, not bad, particularly if it was from when you were 20 to 60 years old, but for the rest of you young people out there who thought you would have the kind of economic security your parents had, forget it. We are in the brand new world of a global-free enterprise, a brand new world of competitiveness, a brand new world of free trade with the United States".
Workers in Canada will be able to compete with workers in the sun belt of the southern United States where there is an anti-labour environment, very few environmental laws, very little regulation and a political context that is antithetical to social justice. These are the people with whom we are supposed to compete, and we are supposed to be excited about it. We are supposed to be excited about the fact that we can be given the opportunity by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to give up everything for which the people have worked over the last 50 years in building a more socially just Canada in order to be competitive.
That is not something with which working people will put up. Wherever working people take a stand against that kind of economic and political agenda, whether it be with CUPW, the rail unions or the workers at Super Value in Winnipeg, the NDP will be standing with those people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Wednesday, October 14, 1987, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Cadieux, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moves that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and, by order made earlier this day, referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.12 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   CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the Constitution Act, 1982, should be amended in order to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
and this House urges that the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces and the Senate pass similar resolutions.
Property Rights
The intent and rationale of this motion is very straightforward. I am asking the House of Commons to pass this motion, allow this question to go to the Senate and then to the provincial Governments through the amending process for our Constitution, seeking its consent to add the words "enjoyment of property" to Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights.
This action would thereby provide the necessary and natural corollary to the words "life, liberty and security of person", rights already secured in Section 7 of the Charter.
It is true that the right to enjoy property is now included in the Canadian Bill of Rights. However, the Canadian Bill of Rights is but a statement of general principle and does not of itself confer or create real rights. When property rights were proposed for inclusion in our Charter in 1981, the matter was discussed, then explicitly rejected, a regrettable omission about which I will say more later.
Suffice it to say that once a decision was made in 1981 to list all the rights of Canadians in the Charter, then surely all such rights should have been included. However, the omission of property rights from the present text of the Charter is an obvious and very serious omission. It remains a constitutional imperative to ensure it is included.
In my earlier speech I spoke in some detail on the philosophical rationale for this motion and do not feel the need to repeat myself at length here today. Simply put, however, I would argue that to omit and deny the right to private property is to diminish, indeed to render meaningless, the existing rights to life, liberty and security of person. Surely, our existing freedom to purchase a car, home, farm or business is severely restricted if our basic right to make, buy, keep or sell is not also protected. Likewise, surely the principle of freedom "to pursue the gaining of a livelihood", in Section 6, Part 2(b) of the Charter, as a labourer, housewife, farmer or businessman, is severely diminished if one's freedom to simply keep, sell or buy is not secure. All this is simple common sense.
Permit me to give two concrete examples. Under the ill-conceived and ruinous National Energy Program, the previous Liberal administration confiscated from the oil companies 25 per cent of all land assets north of the 60th parallel, called the "frontier lands", and gave them to PetroCan without any compensation whatsoever, not a single penny.
Another obvious area of concern are the nationalization policies of the New Democratic Party which would allow the seizure of assets without necessarily providing full compensation. So the socialist New Democratic Party could nationalize a bank or a business and refuse to pay fair market value. By adding the words "enjoyment of property" to the Charter, such actions would be severely restricted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to introduce and defend before this House a motion calling for the constitutional protection of property rights. The first time was on May 28, 1985, during the last session of Parliament.
Therefore, lest there be any doubt, let me reiterate the fundamental rationale of this motion. Logical consistency demands that those fundamental rights now guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, words such as, "life, liberty and security of the person", be given their

October 15, 1987
Property Rights
natural, undeniable and essential correlate, namely, "enjoyment of property". I would suggest it is incumbent upon those who would disagree with the motion to state their position with respect to this rationale.
In addition to the self-evident inherent logic of this motion, there are several other compelling factors in its favour. First, the historical precedent is overwhelming. The basic human right to own what we make was included in such documents as the Magna Carta in 1215 and the English Bill of Rights in 1627. In 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 17 of that declaration reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to own property as well as in association with others.
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Additionally, property rights is also recognized in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. Clearly, then, it is now time to bring our Constitution in line with these historic documents.
Second, the entrenchment of property rights is currently recognized by a wide range of modern democratic counties including Australia, the United States, West Germany, Italy, Finland and, for my socialist colleagues, even socialist Sweden. Third, various Canadian national organizations, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Real Estate Association, have been constant in their efforts to have Parliament act on this issue.
Fourth, this is a matter which applies to all Canadians and it is a right which each of them wants and deserves. This fact has received undeniable support in a recent Gallup poll which shows that 81 per cent of Canadians say that it is either "very" or "fairly" important to them that the Constitution be amended to include property rights.
The ordinary person's vested interest in the protection of property rights is recognized by all responsible public leaders. Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has said: "We need a property owning democracy". Why? Because, to quote Barbara Amiel, a well-known Canadian journalist, Mrs. Thatcher understands:
That for ordinary working people, who might not be blessed with the intellectual property of the intelligentsia or the abstract property of the bureaucracy, the most important thing is the house they own or the few shares they can get. That bit of real property means that they can arrange their lives independently of the state.
Permit me now, Mr. Speaker, briefly to anticipate and respond to some of the concerns which have often been voiced with respect to this issue. These concerns are invariably related to two basic questions; first, what exactly is meant by "property", and, second, what would be the impact of the inclusion and subsequent interpretation of "enjoyment of property" upon various bodies such as the provinces, natives, environmentalists, womens' groups, business and labour, and so on. While these are important questions and, as such, cannot be exhausted here, it is crucial that they be held in proper perspective.
First, it is true that the concept of property has evolved from a rather basic interest in land and personal property to a more complex concern with intellectual property, that is, patents, trade marks and copyrights. There is also passive property such as stocks and shares, and now there is even the so-called "new property", such as social security systems and public employment. Admittedly, therefore, defining "property" is now a necessary and sometimes complicated exercise.
Second, the legitimate reservations of certain groups must be taken very seriously whether it be Prince Edward Island which is concerned about foreign land ownership, womens' groups wanting to safeguard gains in family law legislation, or environmentalists justifiably interested in protection from pollution. But these concerns should not be overstated. For example, some have argued that large corporations stand to benefit most from property rights and, therefore, protection of property rights is in itself not a good thing. Such an argument is logically absurd.
Are we, therefore, to deny and revoke our constitutional right to free speech simply because certain people or parties, for example, the Toronto Star, are large enough to exercise that right with the potential for greater influence than smaller newspapers or individual citizens? Of course not. Yet some persist in arguing that the constitutional protection of property rights will only benefit big business. Does that mean freedom of speech or freedom of the press is only of value to the Toronto Starl That is absurd.
Furthermore, it must be recognized that all aspects of the Charter are subject to Section 1 of the Charter which reads as follows:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and
freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law
as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I maintain that this qualifier safeguards against the kinds of extreme scenarios envisioned by oppenents of property rights.
Consequently, while the "enjoyment of property" may require both careful definition and legal interpretation, this is in no way sufficient to negate the rationale and the value of this motion. Just because it may be difficult to define and interpret what is meant by words such as "life", "liberty" or "security of person", that does not mean that we therefore refrain from enshrining these fundamental rights. Likewise, just because it may be difficult to define and interpret the words "enjoyment of property", it does not necessarily follow that it must be excluded from the Charter. To so argue is, at best, to allow necessary caution to negate a valid and fundamental principle; or, at worst, it is absurd logic used to distort completely the issue at hand.
If this rationale is sound, and I believe it is, and if there are compelling reasons in its favour, and I believe that there are, and if the major objections can be met, and I believe that they can be, then the way is clear for this Government and this
October 15, 1987

House to take the necessary and decisive action. Not to do so would be intellectually and morally dishonest. It would be an abdication of our responsibility as Members of Parliament.
So I must emphasize the need for decisive action. We cannot perpetuate the negligence of the previous administration whose performance during the 1981 constitutional debates on this topic was nothing short of scandalous.
On Tuesday, January 20, 1981, the Conservative Party in opposition introduced an amendment seeking the inclusion of property rights in the Charter. On Friday, January 23, the then Solicitor General, in his capacity as acting Minister of Justice for the Government, accepted this amendment on behalf of the Liberal Government. However, that Sunday evening, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), having conferred with his provincial socialist counterparts in Saskatchewan, informed Canadians on national television that the NDP would be withdrawing its support for the Constitution if property rights were to be included.
The following Tuesday, Prime Minister Trudeau told Parliament that the property rights amendment had to be dropped. True to form, the Liberal Government had sacrificed a fundamental principle on the altar of political expediency. Its philosophy should have told it that it should have been in favour of it, but it gave up for political expediency.
Since this motion will be coming to a vote, it will be interesting to see whether the Liberal Party will again try to sit on both sides of this issue. It will also be interesting to see whether the NDP will continue to tell the constituents in my riding, and people right across Canada, that they cannot have the constitutionally protected right to make, sell, keep, buy, or own. They have that right; they must.
To cite the compelling logic of the 1972 decision, as just one example, of the Supreme Court of the United States:
Property does not have rights. People have rights.. . [However] A fundamental inter-dependence exists between the personal right to liberty and the personal right to property. Neither could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights has long been recognized.
The Conservative Party is in favour of the constitutional recognition of property rights. Consistent with this, the present Government has taken very specific initiatives toward this end.
When I introduced and defended this motion during the last session of Parliament, a number of impediments stood in its way. First, there was the fact that the Province of Quebec was not yet a signatory to the Constitution. However, the recent historic Meech Lake Accord has gone a long way to resolving this deficiency. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaking on Law Day, April 15, 1987, noted:
The successful resolution of the Quebec issue will unlock the constitutional reform process and allow us to turn our attention to other issues-such as... property rights-in a second round of constitutional discussions.
This next round is already under way. A second impediment to my former motion was the need to address various concerns
Property Rights
at the provincial level. Since then, following federal Government impetus, the provincial Attorneys General have established a working group to examine the property rights question.
As an example of recent action at the provincial level, at the initiative of my provincial colleague from Waterloo, Mr. Herb Epp, the Ontario Government on November 27, 1986, passed a resolution that Section 7 of the Charter be amended to include the "enjoyment of property".
A third impediment is related to the format of Private Members' Business. It was felt that one hour on a non-votable debate in the House was not an adequate format in which to debate such a significant subject as this. However, following the recent parliamentary reforms introduced by the Prime Minister, this new motion has been selected for extended debate with a mandatory vote to follow. This provides ample opportunity for all Members of the House to express their positions and to vote accordingly.
Permit me to summarize, Mr. Speaker. The premise of this motion is philosophically sound. The right of ownership flows naturally and logically from the uniqueness of every free individual to make, to invent, to keep, to buy, or to sell. The reasons in favour of the constitutional protection of property rights are compelling, both historically and constitutionally. The reservations with respect to definition and legal interpretation can all be met. The impediments to legislative action are now being removed.
We all know that the overwhelming majority of Canadians want the federal Government to act on this issue. Therefore, in conclusion, I call upon the House to accept and approve this motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this Private Member's motion put forward this evening. It is a question which will evidently come up quite often in the House. I think it is one that really needs a great deal of debate. I feel it is unfortunate that this evening we are limited to one hour, even though, of course, the Hon. Member proposing the motion has stated that there are other ways of having extended debate.
However, I think that this question goes much deeper than a great many Members are prepared to admit. This issue goes back to the time when we were repatriating the Constitution in the early 1980s. It was not only a question, as the Hon. Member stated, of political expediency; it was a question of provincial disagreement on the question of including the clause on property rights in the Constitution. He is correct in stating that Prince Edward Island was opposed, largely because of its restriction on foreign ownership of land in the province. But other provinces such as Saskatchewan were opposed as well.

October 15, 1987
Property Rights
I think that they had reasons. Whether it can be said that the reasons were reasons with which one would agree or not, 1 think one would have to say that their reasons were sound reasons as far as they were concerned. Although we may not agree with them, it will not be simple to bring this dialogue to a point where we can talk about putting this clause in the Constitution. If the Government is serious about doing this, then the dialogue with the provinces will have to be brought along much further than it has been to the present time.
The Hon. Member stated that we do not have a definition of property. That is true. That is a concern to me. The Hon. Member mentioned that this may not be necessary. He mentioned that there is support for this from the Canadian Bar Association. If we do not have a definition of property, I can understand why the Canadian Bar Association would be in favour of it, because it will make millionaires out of many of them.
The Hon. Member is correct in stating that the term "property" has evolved. One can look at history, back in the 1780s, the time of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence in the United States, and read about the disagreement between two such prominent men as Thomas Edison and James Madison and their definition of property and whether it should be included in the Constitution. At that particular time, they could not agree. It was a very dicey point even at that time, although subsequently through amendment it has been included in the Bill of Rights in the United States. We have had this evolvement of what is property. Initially it was narrowly termed as real property, the ownership of land. Now it means other things such as personal property and intellectual property. There are also rights in personal property and intellectual property.
For instance, people who are entitled to an Old Age Security pension, Canada Pension, or unemployment insurance have the receipt of those cheques and that is their personal property. That is not only personal property but it is a right that they have to receive that personal property. So there are rights not only in real property but in personal property.
The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) also correctly stated that we are now talking about property in relation to intellectual property such as patents and copyrights. That is very true. Of course, if a person has a patent or a copyright, they have every reason and every right to be able to depend on the fact that that will stand up and that the law will enforce that right. So there has been an evolvement, and the definition continues to evolve. It is very important that we define property, and know from the outset exactly what property we wish to include.
There also are other aspects of property. As government becomes more involved in the lives of people, with incorporations, licences, and the list goes on, the definition of property continues to expand.
As the Hon. Member states, there is a very strong segment of people in Canada who believe that property should be included. There is also a strong segment of people who believe that property should not be included. A lot of people go by the old axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We do have property rights in this country, and those property rights to be rights do not have to be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The courts have passed judgment on this. I wish to refer to a case in 1975, Harrison v. Carswell, where it states:
Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence has traditionally recognized, as a
fundamental freedom, the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property
and the right not to be deprived thereof, of any interest therein, save by due
process of law.
That is a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court has come out firmly on the side of property rights. While property rights are not enshrined in the Constitution, they are definitely rights in this country.
We must also look to Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, "The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights and freedoms that exist in Canada".
In the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically set out is the statement that because the rights of property are not included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that does not mean that they do not exist. Nor is there anything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that would say that these rights do not exist. That is very important.
We must also look at the history in Canada. The Hon. Member may talk about other countries, but in Canada we have had a unique situation in that we patriated our Constitution when we were fairly well advanced in our history, after we had been a country for over 100 years. We had this Charter of Rights and Freedoms well after we had been a country for over 100 years. So there is a good body of civil law and common law which looks after the rights of Canadians with respect to their property. This has evolved, and is evolving.
Canadians should not be concerned in any way about the fact that property rights are not enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their rights to property remain sound and inviolate. We must keep that in mind. I can appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member. I do not agree with him that this is a necessity, and I think that there are many who do not. However, if he feels it is something he wishes to pursue, 1 would encourage him to take it to his colleagues in caucus, the Government, and the provinces. If there is to be any meaningful change, it has to be aired with the provinces, and the provinces have to come along as equal partners in trying to make this change.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). The motion is for the
October 15, 1987

enjoyment of property. It states that it is to amend the Constitution of Canada in order that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms read:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment
of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with
the principles of fundamental justice.
I very strongly oppose this. I wish to confirm what the Hon. Member for Kitchener said that it was the NDP that scuttled this in 1981. I was proud at that time to be the NDP constitutional spokesman when this happened. If the Member for Kitchener wishes a reference on exactly when it happened, it was at the committee stage of the hearings back in 1981, and I believe it was on November 1, which was a Friday. I remember that day very well when the Acting Minister of Justice accepted an amendment from the Conservative Party. The Hon. Member from Burnaby and myself talked out the clock. We consulted over the weekend and persuaded the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to drop this. 1 wish to explain some reasons why we did that.
I went over my remarks to the committee at that time, and one of the things I said was that one of the most persuasive arguments against property rights in the Constitution was put forward by a Conservative Justice Minister named Horst Carver, the Minister of Justice for Prince Edward Island. He came to our committee and was extremely persuasive when he said that, if property rights were enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, he was afraid that the provincial rights in this country would be jeopardized and tampered with. Foreign ownership regulations and laws in Prince Edward Island over the restriction of farmland and the restriction of the purchasing of tourism land by foreigners would be put in jeopardy. He was afraid that if property rights were in the Constitution, as stated in the motion where it talks about the enjoyment of property and persons enjoying their property, this would be a wide open invitation to Americans to buy farmland in Prince Edward Island, buy recreation land, corporations could do so, and it would be a great invasion of provincial rights.
I also recall some Albertans in the Conservative Government of Peter Lougheed making a similar argument without as much passion about why wle should not be doing this. Of course the NDP Government of Allan Blakeney did the same thing. I am very proud to have been the NDP spokesman in those days when we scuttled that extremely reactionary and retrograde move by the Conservative Party, a move which would have been a great invasion of provincial rights.
I am happy that it is a constitutional amendment and that it must be approved not only by the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada but by seven of the ten provinces representing 50 per cent of the people.
I make it very clear that Albertans under Lougheed, P.E.I. Conservatives, and many other Conservatives in Canada at the provincial level do not support it. I am very pleased that this kind of amendment will not go through.
Property Rights
I want to explain why it should not go through. As I said, it was proposed back in 1981. Mr. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, reproposed it in 1983. It failed to get through the Premiers despite the fact that there were many Conservative Premiers in the country. I am very proud that it went down to defeat.
I come from the Province of Saskatchewan. There has been tremendous intervention in its economy by Governments of Saskatchewan, such as the take-over of potash mines and things of that nature over the years. This kind of constitutional amendment may have prohibited that kind of intervention in the economy, in that that kind of prohibition would have been opposed by an overwhelming number of Saskatchewan people.
I am not only talking about New Democrats. Saskatchewan has a Conservative Government now which maintains the Saskatchewan Potash Corporation. The very right-wing Government of Liberal Ross Thatcher, who was more conservative than most Conservatives, maintained Crown corporations in Saskatchewan. They are a very important part of our heritage. I do not want to see that heritage jeopardized by a Supreme Court decision which says that a person may enjoy property rights when that person might be an American company which would prohibit us from expanding the Saskatchewan Potash Corporation or indeed Saskoil.
Another example is the Province of Quebec. Quebec intervened in the asbestos market. The federal Government has intervened in the oil market with Petro-Canada. In 1984, the Government expanded the role of Petro-Canada through the takeover and purchase of other oil companies. That might be put in jeopardy by property rights being enshrined in the Constitution of Canada.
I have already mentioned Prince Edward Island and the very passionate stand taken by Horst Carver, the Conservative Minister of Justice of that province. I assume Joe Ghiz, the present Premier, would take the same stand on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders.
I think this kind of amendment is very dangerous for ordinary people or ordinary citizens, small businesses, and farmers. I say that as a person who said back in 1981 that I wanted to see economic rights put in the Constitution. At that time I said that we should have economic rights in the Constitution-the right to a job, the right to an income, the right to medicare, the right to decent wages, the right to own a farm, the right to own a small business, and the right to own a home. I am very much in favour of those rights for ordinary people, but I am not in favour of the amendment before the House today.
I have already mentioned some of the reasons I am not in favour of the amendment. However, let me point out that there would be no guarantee if we had the amendment in the Constitution. "Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person" is already there, and the Hon. Member would like to add the following:

October 15, 1987
Property Rights
-and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except
in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
I know how the Supreme Court of Canada can interpret that.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member does not wish to suggest something that is not so. The only words that are being added to Section 7 are the words "enjoyment of property". The rest is already in there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it was totally inadvertent on my part. I know Section 7 of the Charter. I was a member of the committee this past summer, and I am very familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 reads:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person, and the right
not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice.
What the Hon. Member would add is "enjoyment of property". However, I am concerned about interpretation by the courts.
You are a very distinguished lawyer and member of the Bar of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. In that you are sitting in the chair, of course you cannot comment, but I am sure you could probably give us some very interesting opinions on this point. There is no guarantee at all that the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts would not interpret the protection of property in such a way as to rule out a wide variety of government initiatives aimed at, for instance, improving the workplace, regulating technological change, regulating labour relations, restricting the right to pollute, safeguarding the environment, protecting tenants and all kinds of other rights which workers, tenants, and other ordinary Canadians might have.
It seems clear that these and other government actions could be construed as affecting the right to the enjoyment of property. Not only is there the fact that one has property, but one has the right to enjoy that property. What does that mean in the courts of Canada? "Enjoyment of property" are very elastic words, and this is what Horst Carver, the Conservative Justice Minister of Prince Edward Island, was concerned about.
I should also like to note the so-called due process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the United States Constitution. Between 1905 and 1937 in respect of these clauses "to strike down laws providing for minimum wages, maximum hours of work and maximum prices, and prohibiting anti-union activity", the court reasoned that such laws were unjust denials of the employer's liberty to bargain with his employees and control the use of his property. 1 think these are points which we should note.
What does the word "everyone" mean? I ask that question of the Hon. Member for Kitchener. I know he has very good intentions in his motion. I do not question his motives whatsoever. However, what does the word "everyone" mean? What does the word "property" mean? These words can have broad
definitions by Supreme Court justices over whom neither he nor I have control once it is out of the domain of Parliament. It is not so much that we are taking control out of the hands of Parliament. We are taking control out of the hands of the provincial legislatures of Canada and giving it to the Supreme Court of Canada. That is what I do not like about the particular amendment. The word "everyone" could be a Japanese investor, an American investor, a Canadian company, CPR, the Hon. Member for Kitchener, or anybody. Again I say that it is one of the things I do not like about the amendment before the House today. It almost certainly includes corporations.
What about the word "property"? Property includes the rights to control and dispose of a very broad range of assets and so on. That also concerns me. As I said before, it falls under provincial jurisdiction. I do not think that we in the Parliament of Canada should initiate a constitutional change which affects the provinces almost exclusively. Of course we have that right. The Hon. Member has that right. However, I do not think that we should be the ones to initiate it. It is in their domain. If they want changes, they should be initiating the particular move.
Once again I appeal to my friend who comes from a Party which has always stressed that provincial rights are important in rethinking this position. I could go on and on, but I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. As I said, I think the resolution would do more harm to the rights of ordinary Canadians and do more to protect the rights of big companies and big investors, including many foreign investors. It would also take away many of the rights of provincial legislatures to do what they want with their resources and their farmland. I have already mentioned the case of Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, but I see that my time is up.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to rise to participate in debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). I commend him for his initiative in bringing an extremely important matter to the attention of the House.
I know that with the Hon. Member's heritage the matter is important to him. He appreciates even more how precious property rights are to many, if not all, Canadians. Many of his constituents have come from persecuted countries, and I know how important the motion is to them.
Since being elected in 1984, I have made no fewer than five interventions in the House of Commons on the inclusion of property rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Many individuals have chosen Canada as their new home because of the freedoms which we enjoy to work hard and to acquire wealth and property. It is difficult for me to understand why in 1981-82 the NDP would not allow the inclusion of property rights in the Charter.
A recent poll commissioned by the Canadian Real Estate Board showed that eight out of ten Canadians said that it is
October 15, 1987

either fairly or very important to put property rights into the Charter. This support is consistently high across Canada.
Again I commend the Hon. Member for Kitchener, and I am honoured to have seconded his motion to have property rights enshrined in the Charter.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) who has, not only on this occasion but on a number of occasions, brought forward a number of important subjects for debate in the House. I congratulate him for that. I think it is a good reflection on the people of Kitchener that they had the foresight and wisdom to send this individual back to Parliament a second time.
Constitutional change as proposed by the Hon. Member for Kitchener is very timely inasmuch as we have also been discussing the Meech Lake Accord. I will say in passing that I believe the Meech Lake Accord sets a new tone for cooperative and constructive federal-provincial relations. The Accord has shown that constitutional change is possible in Canada when it is done collectively and in co-operation with the provinces, and I am sure that this is what the Hon. Member for Kitchener has in mind.
At the outset I would like to emphasize that in my view property rights have played a central role in the evolution of our society. Indeed, property rights are an essential part of British parliamentary democracy. These rights can be traced back to the year 1215 with the signing of the Magna Charta. Today the right to own, use and enjoy property is fundamental to the economic life of our country and of other western democracies. For that reason I believe it should be enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The role of property in the economy of our country, the right to own, use and enjoy property, is fundamental to the basic feature of democracy, which is individual freedom. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party has had a long and honourable association with this idea. It was the Conservative Government under the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker who in 1960 introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights which included protection for the enjoyment of property. In the recent process leading to the patriation of the Constitution, it was the Progressive Party again that wanted the inclusion of property rights. Unfortunately that process was not included at the end, and I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Kitchener has come forward in an attempt to correct the situation.
There have already been a number of discussions and debates about this question. I am the first to admit that questions concerning the Constitution are never simple. They are usually difficult, but I do not think that as a result of that we should shrink from the task.
Property Rights
The Member from the New Democratic Party says that the definitions of property are very complicated. I agree with that. We have real property which concerns land. We have personal property which deals with everything from cars to negotiable instruments. Just because the definition of property is very broad and it will, of necessity, have to be interpreted by the courts there is no reason not to embark on the course, a very important one, to have it included within the Charter of Rights.
I say the motion before us would add the enjoyment of property to Section 7 of the Charter thereby guaranteeing the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. In conjuction with that, it is reasonable, I believe, to say that what we are talking about is the unreasonable deprivation of an individual when it comes to property rights. I would suggest that some of the fears I have heard enumerated here that people's rights will be trampled on by the rights of the Government to conduct the business of either the province or the federal Government are misplaced. I do not think that is what we are talking about at all. It is not the intention of the Member from Kitchener. He wants to strike a reasonable balance between the property rights of the individual and the legitimate concerns of the state. I would not feel so strongly about this if I had not seen examples in Canadian history where property rights of the individual had been trampled upon.
You would be aware, Mr. Speaker, coming as you do from the Province of Quebec, of all the problems that surrounded the expropriation of land for Mirabel Airport. The facts are this: much more land than necessary was expropriated for the airport. Everybody knew it and acknowledged it. The people whose farms and homes were expropriated fought the issue for years, indeed decades, to do something about it. I became a believer in this resolution just on that issue alone because I always thought that if property rights had been enshrined in the Constitution, people would have had a legal access and would have been able to take a legal route to show and demonstrate to a court of law that their rights had been unnecessarily deprived. It was a very moving moment for all of us when the then Minister of Public Works-I was not there to see it, I saw it on television-spoke to all the farmers who had been deprived of their property and acknowledged-something that should have been acknowledged years ago-that a terrible mistake had been made. All the suffering all those years by those individuals was unnecessary.
Whether this motion goes through or not, I hope other Crown corporations take a long hard look at their property management system. We can start with the St. Lawrence Seaway which owns land in my area. I would suggest the St. Lawrence Seaway should perhaps take a look at how much land it has expropriated over the years. That company should look at the question in the light of what is reasonable for its requirements. I do not limit the issue to the St. Lawrence Seaway. Other companies should do the same thing.

October 15, 1987
Property Rights
If this motion had been passed and had been part of the Constitution, individuals would have had a remedy in law, and 1 think that is what we all want. I feel very strongly about this motion which has been supported by a number of organizations. On December 18, 1986 I was very pleased to present a petition spearheaded by the St. Catharines and District Real Estate Board. I know 1 was joined by the Members from Welland, St. Catharines, Erie and Lincoln, all the Members of Parliament from the Niagara Peninsula, in support of this very worth-while endeavour. This motion has the complete support of the Niagara Falls Fort Erie Real Estate Association. They have made representations to me as one of their two Members of Parliament who represent the area and have asked that we act.
1 ask Hon. Members to begin the process of enshrining property rights in the Constitution. It is a long and difficult process but I know it will need the support of the provinces. It is long overdue and we should begin the process now.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, not that I have much choice with the time that is left to us in this hour. I just wanted to make a quick remark to the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson).
The largest single expropriation in the history of this country was made by the Conservative provincial Government of Ontario in 1982 when it expropriated 10,991 housing units in the sale of Cadillac Fairview to Greymac Trust.


Mrs. Mailly:: How can you compare that to Mirabel? This is a serious subject.


Don Boudria: The Member across who knows so little should listen a little more and perhaps if she is here many years, which is very doubtful, she could learn something. I want to tell the Member from Niagara Falls that I for one cannot support such an initiative for a number of reasons. The Conservative Party has no monopoly on virtue on this issue because of the expropriation to which I have referred. There are still preferred shareholders of Crown Trust, Seaway Trust and Greymac Trust in Canada who have never been properly compensated for the loss of their property confiscated by the Province of Ontario in that year.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the motion is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
October 15, 1987




Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services-Mr. Cadieux-Mr. Danis in the chair.


Marcel Danis: Since Hon. Members have been so kind as to provide amendments to the Chair prior to entering into Committee of the Whole, would it be agreeable that we stand Clause 2 as the amendments the Chair has received on Clause 2 are consequential on amendments to Clauses 7 and 8? If that is agreeable to Hon. Members, we will proceed with Clause 3.
Clause 2 stood.


Jacques Guilbault: I would like to ask the Chair, although I have no real objections, why it is asking us to proceed in this fashion and what effect this would have.


Marcel Danis: According to the Chair, it would be difficult to adopt the proposed amendment to Clause 2 before considering Clauses 7 and 8.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On Clause 5-extension of collective agreement


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and
substituting the following therefor:
"date to be fixed by the arbitrator,"


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to speak for very long on the amendment to Clause 5. Again, it is a part of the package about which we spoke earlier and we will make our major arguments when we deal with Clauses 7 and 8.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
It is difficult going clause by clause when the major clause to which we object and believe should be changed comes part way through the Bill, but through necessity, we must deal with things stage by stage. However, I do want to take this opportunity as we begin clause by clause consideration of the Bill to say that one of the major problems we had with this Act when it was introduced a week ago was that it provided for a mediator-arbitrator. We objected to that.
At that time, we asked the Minister to appoint a mediator. At that time, there was not a national postal strike and the situation was such that we believed that a mediator would have been the best person to deal with the dispute that was boiling in the country. We still believe that that would have been the best route to take a week ago.
A mediator working with the union and with Canada Post could have used his or her good offices to try to resolve the dispute last week. That was not done at the time and since then, there has been a nation-wide postal strike for a week, a strike which we believe was caused by the Government's introduction of this legislation, augmented by the fact that Canada Post has refused to negotiate the issue of franchising even though that will affect the jobs of people who work at the wickets right across Canada.
Because the Government refused to negotiate and because it introduced legislation, we believed that we were going in the wrong direction and that it was very important that a mediator be appointed. However, we do recognize that there has been a national strike for a week as a result of this legislation and we do recognize that a mediator would be of very limited value now that both sides have been driven apart and there are very bitter feelings as a result of the Government's introduction of this legislation.
We will still move amendments on this particular clause. However, we will save our substantive argument until we get to the major clause. Since this clause was called, we will obviously be voting on it at this time. I know that some of my colleagues would like to speak a bit further on it.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak against this very unjust and destructive back-to-work legislation of the Conservative Government. The

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
amendment which we are now debating is part of the package which we are seeking. It talks of an agreement for certain action to be taken at a date to be fixed by the arbitrator. More generally, we are getting at the difference between mediation and arbitration.
In the half century during which labour law has grown up as a body of practice and law in North America, most contracts have been settled without a strike and without any compulsory back-to-work legislation. Many contracts are settled without the aid of a mediator and the large majority are settled without any such intervention at all.
The country has been moving toward a policy of resolving conflicts by negotiation. Sometimes negotiations break down and the owner may lock out or the workers may go on strike. However, that is not the normal way of proceeding.
As my colleague, the Member for Churchill, said, we urged the Government to appoint a mediator before this strike happened and the Government refused to do it. Now it seems that the Government wants to destroy the very concept of mediation, the very concept of negotiation, in order to bring about a willing compromise with each side giving a little bit and neither side getting all it asked for, a willing compromise for the sake of peace and good order. The Government does not want a willing compromise. It is clear that the Government has decided that it will either destroy unions or enslave them.
There have been continual attacks on the postal unions by the Government. They are continually being blamed for the inefficiency of the Post Office. Even the public, which is relatively impartial, understands that it is very often a rude and inconsiderate management that is to blame. The public strongly supported the letter carriers and is now beginning to support the inside postal workers notwithstanding the heavy propaganda which has been spread against the inside postal workers who are now on strike.
I have read letters to the editor and have received telephone calls and letters in my constituency office from people saying that they disagree with the franchising out of the wicket work of the Post Office to drug stores or small variety stores in my riding of Spadina. They have complained bitterly about having to travel some distance to a little store to pick up a registered letter or parcel. The postage has been paid but the management of the Post Office will not do the work. Instead, in many cases the recipient of the mail is required to do the work which until a few weeks ago was being done by the Post Office. A management decision has now been made that that paid-for service will no longer be fully provided.
People who in principle do not sympathize with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers do sympathize on the issue of franchising. That is a central issue in this strike. If the Government had been willing to negotiate on the matter of franchising, there would be no strike. That has been made plain in many ways, including by the union's offer to negotiate franchising in certain defined situations such as new residential areas.
If the Post Office had been willing to negotiate it, could have arrived at an agreement with the postal workers and not only would there be no strike, there would be better service than is now being received by my constituents who have complained to my office. People are being required to go a mile or two to pick up mail for which postage was paid. They often have to go to a location which is not served by good public transportation or has no proper parking.
The Post Office is forcing the customers to do the work which management has declined to do. This will result in people making less use of the Post Office. Perhaps that is another purpose of the Minister in forcing this strike and imposing this settlement. Perhaps there is a campaign to drive away the ordinary users of the Post Office so that friends of the Government who operate private postal services will inherit the business when the public service has been destroyed.
I have said that there has been great progress in the last half century in Canada and the United States in developing labour law to the point where contracts and disputes are normally settled without a strike. Nevertheless, we have not arrived at anywhere near full democracy for the people who earn their living through wages as compared to those who earn their living from the property they own.
Trade unionists in particular are second-class citizens in Canada. The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not say that. Those words are not found in any law passed by Parliament or any other jurisdiction in Canada, but the fact is that only trade union members get fined or sent to jail for not working.
Doctors can go on strike and no one talks about putting them in jail, although their patients may suffer when they are refused service. Bankers go on strike. They refuse to give loans at 9 per cent. They will not give loans unless they are paid 12 per cent, or whatever the rate of interest is. There is no negotiation, mediation, arbitration or back-to-work law telling the bankers that since they made $200 million profit last year they must lend money at 9 per cent. No such thing is even considered.
Bankers, professional people, owners of any business or any property can go on strike with impunity. They can refuse to make their service or property available to tenants or customers on the terms that have been customary or which the customers might consider reasonable. They can ask any unreasonable price or impose any unreasonable condition they like. If they do not get their way they can shut the place down and hope to force, by deprivation, their customers to meet their price. Only members of trade unions can be prohibited by law from doing what every other person in this country is free to do.
I have been a trade unionist for many years. I worked in a factory for 18 years and am proud to have been a member of the Canadian Paperworkers Union. I respect the work of rank and file trade union men and women and their local, regional, and national officers and representatives who have built up the
October 15, 1987

self-respect of people who work for wages and are otherwise deprived of their right to give or withhold their labour freely.
In our factory, the only way we could bargain to get a decent wage, to have normal courteous treatment from a supervisor rather than contemptuous insults or orders; the only way we could bargain to avoid racial discrimination and the sowing of racial conflict by certain foremen and to have safety in order to protect ourselves from the risk of life and limb due to unsafe working conditions, was by agreeing as a union that if we could not get a reasonable settlement we would not do the work of the factory. In 30 years there was only one strike in our factory for some two or three weeks. Normally, disputes were settled by negotiation.
My point is that the union has been the means of raising the self respect of Canada's working people such as the ones who make it possible for this Parliament to run. Many of them are still deprived by this Parliament of the right to have a union. They include the people who clean the buildings, who build and repair them, who provide the services in the cafeteria, who drive the buses, the constables and others. There is only the beginnings of recognition of union organization.
This Parliament is one of the worst employers in Canada and one of the most out of date, anti-union and anti-human employers in Canada. Now, Parliament wants to extend that anti-union, anti-worker attitude into the Post Office.
The principle we are trying to put forward in this amendment and the following amendments is that there should be at least a move by this Parliament toward restoring the principle that we mediate in an attempt to get an agreement before we go to arbitration, especially considering the bias terms in which the Government is giving direction to the arbitrator, that he shall give due cognizance to the Foisy report, which means enforcing enfranchising. Not only is franchising being forced on the postal workers, it is being forced on millions of Canadian customers who are objecting to it. However, they have no voice.
The Minister spoke very scornfully of the 23,000 members of the union and how they can hold Canada to ransom, as he put it. However, he has turned the situation upside down. It is not 23,000 union members who are holding Canada to ransom, it is the Minister and his appointed manager of the Post Office who are holding Canada to ransom by destroying a good delivery service and forcing my constituents, most of them non union, to go to much extra trouble to get their mail.
To their surprise, my constituents are beginning to see the Canadian Union of Postal Workers as their only defender. Since Parliament, dominated by a Tory Government that has grown contemptuous because of its three-quarters majority, will not protect the interests of the users of the Post Office, they find that the only defender they have left is this despised Canadian Union of Postal Workers. The union is attacked by
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
the Minister and misrepresented by the postal management and the Minister.
We are saying that all of Canada suffers because postal workers in the union, like other trade unionists in Canada are still not given the full right of citizens in Canada. They are not allowed, like other people, to give or withhold their labour by their decision. Because postal workers are treated as less than free citizens of Canada, the users of the postal service are suffering through loss of proper delivery of their mail. They will continue to suffer as long as this insane and greedy costcutting service-cutting system is imposed by the Government.
I urge Parliament to adopt this amendment concerning the date being fixed by the arbitrator, to adopt the other amendments that my caucus will be moving, and to restore at least a little of the health that has been developed over the past half century in labour negotiations on this continent.
I urge the Government to reconsider its suicide course and not try to use the Post Office as a means of destroying a union and damaging the whole principle of labour relations and labour negotiations in Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak to the Bill earlier in the day but the Minister was unable to be here. I want to take this opportunity to say to the Minister now that his remarks the other day that this was a private dispute were quite out of order and inaccurate. This is certainly not a private dispute.
We are dealing with a publicly owned Crown corporation that is in the midst of a national strike that was provoked by the Government of Canada through the mandate and instructions given to that Crown corporation by the elected Conservative Government.
I do not believe that qualifies as a private dispute. I suggest that it is a situation created by public policy and one which could have been avoided if the Government had adopted the appropriate policy to instruct Canada Post to be willing to negotiate that which it is now not willing to negotiate, such as franchising. It is quite misleading for the Minister to pretend that this is some private dispute in which he and his Government are beneficently intervening through the peace, order and good government clause.
This dispute has its origins in public policy and the instructions of the Government to Canada Post. I hope the Minister will at least have the decency to admit that at some point. We could then move on to debating what policy changes the Government might be willing to change and whether it is willing to give Canada Post the appropriate instructions with respect to what is and what is not negotiable.
If Canada Post was willing to negotiate the matter of franchising, we would not even have the strike. One must ask why the Government wants Canada Post to be so unreasonable about negotiating franchising. If it did not instruct Canada Post to be unreasonable, why is it tolerating such a policy that

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
would inevitably lead to a strike if it did not negotiate the matter?
The Minister is fooling no one when he tries to characterize what is happening as a private dispute. This Bill does not resolve a private dispute, it creates another layer of public involvement in the ongoing situation at the Post Office. It makes matters worse by virtue of the one-sidedness of the legislation, the interference in the internal affairs of the trade union that is involved, the one-sidedness that is displayed by including the Foisy report in the way it has when it was not willing to do the same at the time of the back-to-work legislation for the rail workers and by the one-sidedness which has been consistently displayed in both the tone and rhetoric of the Minister of Labour with respect to the strike. I just find it regrettable that the Government did not have the good sense to take the kind of steps that could have been taken to have prevented the strike in the first place. Now, instead of giving Canada Post the appropriate instruction, it is proposing to make matters worse.


Marcel Danis: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Danis: I declare the amendment negatived. Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Danis: I declare Clause 5 carried.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[ Translation]
On Clause 7-Appointment of mediator-arbitrator
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments on Clause 7 of the Bill. In fact, I also intend to move an amendment.

Before going into the amendment, I would like to speak about the Foisy report because that is what we are talking about, especially Clause 7(2)(b).
First, Members from the government benches have been claiming that this Bill was brought about because it was not possible for the two parties to reach any kind of an agreement. Anyone who has read the Foisy report has to come to the conclusion that long before the Government decided to bring forward Bill C-86, the two parties had gone a long way toward reaching an agreement on a number of items. In fact, if I am
allowed to quote page 3 of the Foisy report, we find that the parties have been successful in agreeing to a number of items. I will quote the French version of the Foisy report:
[ Translation]
On page 3 of his report, Mr. Foisy says: "After many meetings, the parties finally agreed to strike a compromise, which was mainly limited to withdrawing their respective demands and the signing of other provisions". The status quo. However, Mr. Foisy goes on to say, and this is important: "When I met the parties for the last time-". That was sometime ago, as he says: "-on August 12, 1987, about 75 percent of the clauses in the collective agreement had been renewed." In fact, that is one of the reasons why Bill C-86 got such a poor reception on this side of the House. The Government claimed there was a national emergency and that negotiations were not working out, while if we go back to the middle of August, by then already three-quarters of the clauses of the collective agreement had received the approval of Canada Post and the Union of Postal Workers. This means negotiations were going at a brisk pace. That happens to be one of the positive aspects of the Foisy Report but unfortunately, there is more. The report contains a number of pages I find alarming, and that is why I intend to move an amendment. In some areas the Foisy Report clearly supports the employer, the Canada Post Corporation, especially on job security, franchising and technological change. I intend to concentrate more particularly on franchising, since that is one of the controversial issues separating the Union and Canada Post.
If we look at page 25 of the Foisy Report, Mr. Speaker, we see that Mr. Foisy says the following: "In a context where the employer can legally ask the private sector to offer its services, we consider Canada Post's option to deal with the private sector a legitimate one. The administrative policies and philosophy of a company should not be engraved in stone, and any company has the right to restructure and rethink its future in terms of new criteria and new directions. Provided the employer's policy abides by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, nothing really prevents the employer from using the services of the private sector".
That is what makes me say the Foisy Report is biased with respect to franchising, and that is why I have trouble with Clause 7, which says, in its present form, and I will quote what it says at the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4: "The mediator-arbitrator shall give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner that was released to them on September 22, 1987", referring to the Foisy Report. That I find difficult to accept. I would not want the mediator-arbitrator to be forced by legislation to seriously consider a report that in some areas is biased towards the employer. I would of course expect the mediator-arbitrator to take the time to read the Foisy Report. But I would not want him to feel he has an obligation to implement the report. I think the person who is eventually appointed to this position should have
October 15, 1987

an independent mind and be able to make up his own mind about most of the issues at stake in these negotiations.
The amendment 1 intend to move is aimed at giving the mediator-arbitrator the freedom he should have had initially. My amendment is quite simple, and reads as follows:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 7(2)(b) by striking out the word
"due" from the first line on page 4 of the Bill.
The English version of the amendment would read as follows: [English]
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 7(2)b by striking out the word "due"
from the first line on page 4 of the Bill.
The effect of this is to ensure that the mediator-arbitrator has a free mind and starts from scratch. If he wants to read the Foisy report, he can. I do not recommend it for bedtime reading. I read it myself. I should not have read it before going to sleep.


Mr. Keeper:: Did you fall asleep?


Jacques Guilbault: No, I did not fall asleep. There were some parts in it that I found offensive. I did not find them fair, equal and in balance. I hope the mediator-arbitrator will read them in the morning rather than at night. Once he has read them, as he should, I think he should make up his mind. He will have, first, a period of 90 days to be able to speak to both management and the employees. He will be able to get their separate points of view. He may be able to meet them together. He has a wide range of opportunities to apprise himself as to what the parties want respectively. He can also glance at this imperfect report.

This is the reason why 1 propose those amendments. I discussed them with the others parties in the House and 1 believe that the Government is favourably disposed. I spoke about them on several occasions with representatives of the New Democratic Party and together we have tried, along with the Minister, to find a formula which would meet the requirements of the Government and those of my NDP colleagues.
The reason why I say that they would meet those requirements is that if I were really free, I would merely vote against that part of the Bill because I find after having read the Foisy Report that the mediator-arbitrator would be more inspired if he sought his own information and made up his mind.
However, as a Member who has been sitting here for a few years, rather than proposing that section 7.2(b) be withdrawn altogether and my amendment rejected by the Government majority, I prefer at least to reach a compromise where the importance that the mediator-arbitrator must give to the Foisy Report is lessened and I think that if the mediator-arbitrator reads Hansard, he will realize what our purpose is and if the amendment is accepted I think that it will be an improvement compared with the present wording.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
So if I had it my way, as I said earlier, I would vote against Clause 7(2)(b). But as a practical man, I think that we are able to water it down to reasonable proportions whereby the mediator-arbitrator would be able to give cognizance to the Foisy report. In my opinion, this report does not deserve more than one taking cognizance of it.
This is the reason that I am enjoining my colleagues in the House of Commons to support this amendment which I believe would be in the best interests of both sides, both management and the union. It would probably bring about a better settlement which, in turn, would be a good thing for the ratepayers of Canada who I am sure expect better service from Canada Post.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McDermid):: The amendment is in order and is presently before the committee. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to indicate that our caucus, the New Democratic Party caucus, will be supporting this amendment. It is one of two amendments of the Opposition Parties to which the Government has agreed. We still do not like the legislation. We still do not believe that the legislation is fair. We will be voting against it. However, we believe it is necessary to improve the legislation and to remove as much of the bias in it as is possible.
At second reading we listed this as one of the three areas with which we have concern in terms of the legislation. We found it remarkable that when the Government, which also wears the hat of management in this particular dispute, likes a conciliation report it directs the mediator-arbitrator to look at that conciliation report. We believe that the wording that the Government originally had was much stronger than, "Look at the conciliation officer's report", but was instead giving a direction to the mediator-arbitrator, a direction as to what he or she should be doing in the next few months.
We pointed out that this happened in this particular legislation but, a month ago, when the House passed back-to-work legislation on the railway workers which was a situation, to put it politely, in which the Government was not in love with the conciliation commissioner's report, it did not include a clause in that legislation saying that the conciliation commissioner's report must be looked at by any arbitrator. Any sense of fairness would say that the Government using its legislative hat cannot pick and choose when arbitrators are going to look at reports of conciliation commissioners. It destroys the whole sense of fairness in collective bargaining. It destroys the whole sense of having conciliation commissioners, conciliation officers, and conciliation boards if one knows that the Government is going to use its legislative power to pick those conciliation reports it likes and include those in legislation in one form

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
or another, and when it does not like a conciliation commissioner's report, to reject it and make sure that it is not looked at by whoever is appointed to be a mediator or an arbitrator.
We suggested at second reading, as well as in numerous meetings with the Minister over the last few days, that he take out that whole subsection referring to the conciliation commissioner's report. We suggested that the Government has for its own reasons expressed an unwillingness to do so. I regret that because I think that in a bitter dispute, and with the history of friction that has existed between the Post Office and its employees, the last thing that is needed is for the House to be perceived as passing legislation which not only orders people back to work but which, because the Government likes a conciliation commissioner's report, includes that as part of the legislation.
The sense of fairness is being violated. People look upon the House of Commons as a final court. They assume that when the Government is using its legislative hat it is not also taking advantage of that hat to cover up the management hat that is underneath. That is what is happening with the legislation and with this particular clause, if it goes unamended.
While we do not believe that the amendment solves all the problems, we do believe that it reduces the degree of reference involved. I hope that when the Minister gets up, as he promised to do earlier, to explain what he believes the interpretation of this clause to be, that he will indicate especially after the amendment will be accepted by the House, that this is an indication to the mediator-arbitrator to look at the conciliation report in the same way he or she can look at the Act setting up Canada Post, or the Canada Labour Code, or all sorts of other precedents, but that the conciliation commissioner's report will not have any primacy. If that is the intent of this amendment, and that is what we understand its intent to be, then we will support it. It does help to remove a very strong sense of bias that is in this legislation. It is very important that this amendment be accepted.
I want to say that the fact that a conciliation commissioner's report is referred to in the legislation when the Government likes it and is not referred to in Government legislation when the Government does not like it does not speak well of the fairness of the Government in general terms. How can one feel safe if one is bargaining in a Crown corporation, whether it be Air Canada, Canadian National, or whether it is any of the other Crown corporations, or even government departments for that matter, if the Government is going to use its legislative power in this way?
In the past the Government has indicated that this reference of the conciliation commissioner's report is not binding on the mediator-arbitrator. If that is so, then why is the Government putting it in the legislation? Why is it necessary? Why has it rejected each and every attempt to take out that whole subclause? If it believes it has no importance, then why refer to it? Why not in a letter appointing this mediator-arbitrator say, "You should also consider and look at the conciliation
report because it has been done. It has been paid for and is an available document, just as many other pieces of information are available to you". The very fact that the Government felt it was necessary to include this clause in the legislation makes us nervous that it does have some importance. In checking with some legal people, if it remains unamended, it does have some legal meaning. A mediator-arbitrator may choose to take that as an instruction from the Government and Parliament. It is important that we reduce the meaning of this clause.
I hope in the next few minutes the Minister will rise and indicate that the amendment is acceptable to the Government, and that the meaning of the clause after it is amended will have a very limited scope.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) tabled a constructive amendment, supported by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). However, before the amendment is put to a vote, I just want to say that I object to the premise on which the amendment is based, namely, that the proposed legislation was not necessary at this time. I would like to quote an editorial by Jean Francoeur, published in Le Devoir on October 15:
Specious Argument
IF IT WERE NOT for the strategy of systematic obstruction used by both Opposition Parties in the House of Commons, postal services would have been back to normal since Monday.
So the Liberals and New Democrats must be held "jointly and severally" responsible for the losses suffered by Canadians as a result of this unduly prolonged labour dispute.
The arguments of the respective spokespersons would appear to be specious, to say the least. There was no rush, they said last Thursday, after tabling back-to-work legislation. The strike was only partial and had not led to any violent incidents.
Today, they say it was Parliament's intervention that lit the fuse.
Their analysis of the situation does not hold water. With all their rhetoric, the Opposition Parties tend to forget that:
-the postal workers agreement expired a year ago and negotiations have since then been deadlocked on major items;
-the Minister of Labour, Mr. Pierre Cadieux, appointed a conciliator this fall, Mr. Andre Drouin, who after three months had failed to bring the parties any closer together;
-at the request of the Minister, a conciliation commissioner, Mr. Claude H. Foisy, tried to re-establish a dialogue, with as much success; five months later he withdrew to draft his report and submit his recommendations;
-once the strike had been called, Mr. Cadieux asked his Associate Deputy-Minister, Mr. Bill Kelly to meet with management and union negotiators to see whether the dispute could be settled without going through an endless war of nerves the answer was negative;
-following this alarming report, the Minister sent a serious warning to the parties, urging them to resume negotiations. They did so-for two hours!
Facts had to be faced. The new breakdown of negotiations, reflecting irreconcilable differences, could not be tolerated.
As soon as the Government was convinced the dispute would continue without any hope for a negotiated settlement, and that as a result, the Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers would cause
October 15, 1987

more harm to others then they were doing to each other, the Government could no longer be content to wait until the damage reached alarming proportions.
By refusing to co-operate, the opposition parties have demonstrated they have a very narrow view of their duty to Canadians. Their opportunistic obstinacy will merely postpone the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator who will receive a mandate from Parliament to force the warring parties to control their self-destructive instincts.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to correct a number of inaccuracies for which, first of all, we can thank the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that she can hear from behind the curtains and that she will listen carefully to what I have to say.
First of all, the Hon. Member quoted an editorial as saying that Parliament should have put an end to the postal strike sooner. Mr. Chairman, if she were totally honest with herself, not to mention with the House, she should have added that last week, most of the editorials were also saying the Goverment should have appointed a mediator. I am sure she would want to make that correction.
1 don't want to speak any longer than necessary, but 1 would like to add that 1 am glad this particular Member is not Minister of Labour. I must say I prefer the present Minister, because at least he realizes that when the Parties in the House have been able to reach an agreement, it is not exactly advisable to start fanning the flames as the Hon. Member just did. Needless to say, if she were on the negotiating team, the process might go on even longer. I say this in the presence of one of the most famous or the most famous negotiator in the country who is with us this evening to listen to this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I see the Minister is pointing to the mediator, Mr. Kelly, to whom I was of course referring. I imagine that he, the Minister and everyone else will agree that the strategy of the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) who just tried to fan the flames when a consensus seemed to be developing in the House, that strategy reflects a political naivete that is rare in most Hon. Members, though abundant in the case of this particular Member.


John Horton McDermid: Before 1 recognize the Hon. Member, 1 wish to remind the committee that we are discussing in Clause 7 an amendment to Clause 7(2)(b).


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in support of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) and his amendment, and remind the House of the reasons for this strike and why we are here.
The main reason for this strike is, in fact, mentioned in the Foisy Report. Agreement had been reached on most clauses, but job security, which is directly related to the privatization of the Canada Post Corporation, is the reason why today, the Corporation is proceeding bit by bit.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
The conciliation commissioner's report looks favourably on privatization, and we find it surprising that the Government included in the Bill a clause asking the mediator-arbitrator to give due cognizance to this report. It is clear that both the report and, as we know, the Government look favourably on privatization.
If we want to be objective, and if the only purpose of this Parliament is to see to it that postal workers go back to work to provide a service to the Canadian people and that the mediator-arbitrator is given a wide ranging and specific mandate to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both parties, one that brings justice and peace, we will not include this kind of clause in the Bill.
Mr. Chairman, I may also remind the House that in 1981, when the Canada Post Corporation was established, the purpose was to have an independent Crown corporation that would be able to operate properly and especially to settle disputes with employees. One of its three mandates was to establish better labour relations. Mr. Chairman, we have had good labour relations, a healthy drop in the deficit and improved services until 1986, from 1981 to 1986. And ever since the Government decided to privatize and started interfering in the affairs of the Canada Post Corporation, that is when we started having problems with labour relations, and we have now had two strikes in three months, after five years without any strikes at all.
I think, therefore, that my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques was right to ask for the removal of the whole clause in order for the mediator-arbitrator to understand our objections. At least, we should remove the word "due". The mediator should not start as a basis from the conciliation commissioner's report which finds in favor of privatization, which suits both the Canada Post Corporation and the Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments regarding this important amendment. I should like to preface my remarks, having listened to the Hon. Member for Gatineau, by saying that probably she should be reminded that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, is actually the initiative which caused the postal strike in a technical way.
There was no strike until the legislation was introduced. There were revolving interruptions, but the mail was getting through. As a matter of fact, most organizations said that they were not being inconvenienced at all. I know that in telephone calls to my constituents asking them about their mail flow they indicated that they had not noticed any particular disruption. However, the minute the legislation was introduced, a strike occurred. I think it was the first time in Canadian history that the Government's initiative caused a strike rather than ended one.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
1 speak in support of the amendment to remove the word "due". 1 have a great deal of faith in the Minister of Labour. Having heard the arguments and having thought about the word, I think he would find that it would be in everyone's interest to unshackle or free the arbitrator, to give the arbitrator an opportunity to recognize the contents of the Foisy report and the ability to determine what might be the most appropriate solution in the end. I suspect that it is just one example of some rather hasty drafting of legislation. It is often found that "due cognizance" is appropriate wording. I think we all recognize that we would not want to ask Ben Johnson to carry out a race with shackles on, and we would not want an arbitrator to come down with a decision having been equally shackled in terms of his ability to move.
I join with many other Members, and I trust the Minister of Labour, in supporting the proposal. I think it is a reasoned and thoughtful one. I think it will actually improve the legislation. For that reason I hope it receives the full support of the House of Commons.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I rise, as did my colleague, in support of the amendment to Clause 7 which would delete the word "due" from the following sentence: "give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner".
In an attempt to understand the import of these words, I turned to a dictionary. For once the dictionary-and in this case it was Oxford-was not of much help, except when it came to defining the word "due". It indicated that the word could mean a debt or an obligation. It is clear that those of us on this side of the House have taken the word "due" in this case to mean an obligation on behalf of the mediator to take cognizance of the Foisy report.
Earlier in the debate we heard that there was an imbalance in the words as between the English version and the French version. This is important because by having the word "due" in this piece of legislation, the Government is seeking to put more weight on the Foisy report or on a particular set of policy recommendations. The French version simply says the following.

-prendre serieusement connaissance du rapport du commissaire-conciliateur-

I am not an expert in French or an expert translator, so I cannot weigh the differences between the two languages. However, lawyers have looked at the word and have concluded that the English version gives a lot more weight to the instructions to the mediator-arbitrator to look at the conciliation report.
We really question the value of doing that. We also question the fairness of placing a great deal of weight upon the Foisy report. I suppose the real question would concern why we do that.
It is because the Foisy report, at least as it has been read by most commentators, starts from the assumption of accepting the Government's plan for the Post Office, the Government's plan for franchising local neighbourhood post offices. Since that is one of the key issues on the table, the Foisy report starts with a bias on one side of the table, on the management side of the table. This bias really says that if there is to be a negotiated settlement, it must start by accepting the Government's plans for the Post Office.
What would be wrong with that? The difficulty is that even the conciliator recognized that the Government's plans for franchising put at risk job security, the employment security of the people who work at the Post Office. Therefore, job security is a key issue in the dispute. If the Government's plan for franchising really raises serious questions about job security, then to be giving instructions to the mediator-arbitrator to accept the Government's plans for the Post Office is to be giving an unfair balance to the situation. It ties the hands of the mediator-arbitrator so that the person cannot consider all possibilities with an open mind.
The legislation should not give undue weight to the Government's plan for privatization. These plans have been one of the major obstacles to getting a negotiated settlement at the Post Office. Also, the plans did not come about as a result of negotiations with the union or the people who work at the Post Office. They were not consulted in terms of the drafting of the plans. In the final analysis, the public was not consulted in the drafting of those plans.
In the adoption of the objective of franchising neighbourhood post offices, turning over neighbourhood post offices to local Shoppers Drug Marts, those plans were devised behind closed doors. There was no opportunity for the public to become involved in any debate about the Post Office-why we have a Post Office, what kind of service objectives we have for the Post Office, how we want to pay for the service we receive from the Post Office, how the Post Office shall be structured, whether the Post Office is a public service or some sort of neoConservative, private, profit-making enterprise, or whether it is a way to have one more business in the community.
The opposition Parties feel that the actions of the Government in terms of the postal dispute have been biased. They have not been even-handed in terms of standing between management and labour. The Government has really taken sides. The Government is sending messages to the management at the Post Office that it does not have to negotiate with the workers, it just has to sit tight. Legislation will be passed putting in place the kind of contract wanted, so there is no need to bother about negotiating with the workers.
Clause 7 bears this out by giving undue weight to the Foisy report. This is not the only way the Government has found out how to give a message to the management at the Post Office that it really does not have to negotiate with the employees.
October 15, 1987

Ever since the postal disruption started, the Government has threatened back-to-work legislation. The problem with making that threat once the strike started, and making it on a constant basis, was that management at the Post Office knew that as long as the Government was prepared to bring in back-to-work legislation, it would put in place the kind of contract which management at the Post Office wanted. There has always been this one-sided approach to the dispute.
While we would have preferred that the Government had gone the route of mediation rather than that of back-to-work legislation, we think that it would be an improvement to the legislation if the Government would withdraw the word "due" from "give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner". This would free up the hands of the mediator arbitrator to be a little more objective in approaching the issues on the table between management and the union. It will perhaps put less weight on the conciliator's report.
While this report seems to start out from the premise of accepting the Government's plans for the Post Office, accepting in principle the fact that the Government and the management at the Post Office should proceed with privatizing post offices-one of the matters of dispute-it also pointed out that Foisy, the conciliator, had to do a lot of speculating on his own. When he met with the union and the management at the Post Office they were at loggerheads over principle questions, such as whether there should be franchising out or not. Because it is the Government's policy to bring in franchising and because the union quite legitimately feels that this is a threat to job security, the conciliator was not able to get beyond broad questions of principle into the details of what a collective agreement would look like. He did not have the opportunity to sit down with both sides and ask what this kind of a clause would mean to them if it were in a collective agreement or if wording was this way or that. He did not have a chance to look at the wording or to study things closely because the impasse was at the question of principle.
We feel it is a mistake for this legislation to give too much weight to the conciliator's report because it really gives direction to the arbitrator to put in place a kind of collective agreement which the management at the Post Office wants and which the Government appears to want. What is in the legislation is in line with the Government's plans for the Post Office and it is the Government's plans for the Post Office which are a matter of dispute.
Another thing about the Foisy report was the statement that the conflict at the Post Office would be a conflict between the Titans, that the battle would go on for a long period of time and that it would be a win-lose situation in which one of the Titans would win and the other would lose. That was the only way the conflict at the Post Office could be resolved. But ironically that is not what happened. The postal workers then went on a rotating strike. People continued to receive their mail so the public was not greatly inconvenienced. It was only when the Government moved to introduce this back-to-work legislation that they went to a full scale national postal strike.
Postal Services Continuation
This legislation caused the violent scenes that we see on television every night. This legislation caused the out and out conflict on the streets between the Titans predicted in the Foisy Report.
To sum up, I want to say that this is a good amendment. It reduces the amount of weight placed on the conciliator's report. It should give the mediator-arbitrator more of a free hand in evaluating what kind of a solution can be arrived at in place of a negotiated settlement. It will give him more room in mediating the situation.
By removing the word "due" from this clause, we hope that less weight will be placed on the conciliator's report, that there will not be a clear message for the mediator-arbitrator to follow government policy and be flexible. We hope the person who takes on this job will be given more elbow room and that he or she can take into consideration the concerns of job security which the workers will bring to the table even when those concerns come in conflict with the Government's policy of franchising. That is why we support this recommendation to remove the word "due". We consider it to be a positive step.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister or his officials. When I read the clause I was rather concerned because we seem to be giving some clear direction to the mediator rather than allowing the mediator to look into these matters freely. I am quite sure that any mediator worth his or her salt would take a look at anything that surrounded the previous negotiations and take any documentation or any of the proceedings that have gone on in these negotiations into account when trying to bring about a settlement.
I see the Minister nodding in agreement with what I have just said. Given that, what is the reason for including it in this piece of legislation? If we take it as a given, the mediator in all likelihood would do that anyway, so why is it necessary to instruct the mediator?


Mr. Cadieux:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take too much of the House's time trying to answer all the points that have been made. I believe most of them have been addressed and answered by the various speeches that were made at second reading stage. Nevertheless, there are a few points on which I wish to touch. Obviously I will deal with the amendment and the question raised by the Hon. Member who just spoke. Before I do that, although I hate to quote myself, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote a short part of the speech I made at second reading:
Following release of the conciliation commissioner's report, the parties had before them a reasoned and reasonable document which should have served as a basis for negotiations towards settlement.
Instead, the negotiations deteriorated. Consequently, on September 29, 1 asked my Associate Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly, to meet with the parties to assess what progress had been made since the release of Commissioner Foisy's report, how far the parties were apart, their willingness to compromise, and whether in his view this dispute could be resolved through the collective bargaining process short of a protracted strike with all its inherent dangers.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
Mr. Kelly advised me that the parties had made no progress on the major issues in this dispute since the release of the conciliation commissioner's report on September 22, 1987. He also provided me with his judgment, resulting from private discussions with both sides, that this dispute could not be resolved through the collective bargaining process short of a lengthy test of economic strength.
I do not want to deal with the interpretation of words except perhaps for the interpretation of the phrase "due cognizance", but contrary to what some Hon. Members have indicated, it was dear that there was a strike at that time. Because of the steps that had been taken since the beginning of negotiations 15 months ago and the help received through conciliation and commissioner's reports, and following the assessment of my Associate Deputy Minister, it was clear that the Government had to intervene. We did and the legislation was tabled.
Whether or not they agree with this, of course, is their privilege, but 1 would like to remind my hon. colleagues that if we had passed this legislation through all stages last week perhaps what they call the strike would not have occurred. This being said, I would now like to address the specific amendment.
Clause 7(2)(b) reads as follows:
(b) If the mediator-arbitrator is unable to bring about agreement in respect of any such matter, hear the employer and the union on the matter, give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner that was released to them on September 22, 1987, arbitrate the matter and render a decision in respect thereof;
The French version reads:-

"if the mediator-arbitrator is unable to bring about agreement in respect of any such matter, hear the employer and the union on the matter, give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner that was released to them on September 22, 1987, arbitrate the matter and render a decision in respect thereof."
There are two points I should like to address, Mr. Speaker. First is the reference to the conciliation commissioner's report. One could argue for a long time over that, but I should like to emphasize that when the report was made public, it was commented upon by both parties and Mr. Parrot was reported to have said:

-"Commissioner Foisy made some recommendations that reflect our demands, some recommendations that reflect the employer's, others that go half-way for both and others which are not addressed. This report therefore sets the stage for serious negotiations but does not necessarily provide the basis for an agreement". It sets the basis for serious negotiations, pronounces on certain demands that are pro-management and pro-union, others that go half-way and others upon which he did not pronounce. We thought it important in the particular circumstances of this dispute to make the reference.
The reference being made, they are to give due cognizance, as the clause reads in English. In French-

"-prendre serieusement connaissance-
In French.

I know that some of my colleagues here in the House have been and may still be lawyers, and I am sure they would agree with me that one can draw different interpretations from a given text of law. I must admit that I have often pleaded on various interpretations in the past. I indicated to the Hon. Member for Churchill that I would tell him my interpretation of what I believe the text will mean once the amendment is voted upon, such amendment with which I am in agreement, just to take away a little bit of the stress.
There are various ways of determining what something means. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre referred to a dictionary. I do not know to which dictionary he referred. Usually when I want to interpret legal words, and this is just a suggestion for the future, I go to Black's Legal Dictionary. I believe that that is a well-known reference book.
Notwithstanding what can be found in various dictionaries, my interpretation of "give due cognizance" or-

-prendre serieusement en consideration-

-in the context of Clause 7(2)(b), is that it says exactly what it means. That is that he will take it into consideration since the report cannot make representations as the parties themselves can.
My hon. friends have suggested that the words may be ambiguous. I am prepared to accept that argument, notwithstanding the fact that my interpretation does not necessarily change. The mediator-arbitrator is not bound by the report. He takes cognizance or, in French-

entendre Pemployeur, le syndicat et prendre serieusement en consideration-

He takes cognizance of the report and draws his own conclusions. As the clause indicates, he can arbitrate the matter after he has looked into the report and heard the parties. Consequently, I do not object to the amendment, but I welcome it. We did have discussions on the amendment in question and we will support that particular amendment.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that there is some agreement among the three political Parties, but I would like to comment very briefly on this particular clause. First, we are dealing with a mediator-arbitrator. In effect, this individual who is appointed by the Government of Canada will be wearing two hats. As I understand it, his first responsibility will be to try to mediate, to try to bring the parties together. If
October 15, 1987

he is not able to do that, as I understand it, he has to get rid of his mediator hat and put on his arbitrator hat.
Mediators are kind of on both sides. They mediate and do not take sides. They do not have that much power. Once they put on the other hat that says arbitrator, all of a sudden they acquire some jurisdiction. Under this piece of legislation entitled "An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services" this mediator-arbitrator will have the legal authority to impose an agreement.
It seems to me that the Government is going to choose someone who is experienced in mediating and arbitrating. I cannot understand why we need Clause 7(2)(b) at all. It seems to me that that portion of the legislation is trying to tell the experienced mediator-arbitrator what to do. Presumably you will appoint someone who has some experience in the field and you are telling him in Clause 7(2)(a) to "endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to" et cetera. You are directing him to try to come to some type of an agreement.
The legislation goes on in Clause 7(2)(b) to say: "if the mediator-arbitrator is unable to bring about agreement in respect of any such matter" he is supposed to listen to the employer. It seems to me that it is obvious that if he takes off his mediator hat and puts on his arbitrator hat he will have to hear the employer. You do not have to tell him what to do. He is an experienced fellow and will know what to do.
It goes on to say that he must hear the union. That is obvious. He will listen to both sides. The principles of natural justice require that he listen to both sides. Then the legislation tells him to "give due cognizance to the report". One does not need a legal dictionary to know what it means to "give due cognizance to the report". You are telling the mediator-arbitrator, who has some experience in collective bargaining, to look at a report. Why does he have to be told to look at the report?


Don Boudria: Because it is favourable to them.


John V. Nunziata: My colleague, the Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, tells me that there is a hidden motive, that there is a method to the madness of the Government.
The mediator-arbitrator will wonder what the Government means. He will know that the Government does not think he is so naive and incompetent as to not look at the report before making a decision and will therefore know that it is telling him to do something and wants him to decide in a certain way.
Although there is agreement on all three sides of the House, it seems to me that there is no need at all for this clause because it assumes that the mediator-arbitrator does not know what he or she is doing. If the Government is not in fact trying to tell the mediator-arbitrator what to do, why is this clause needed to tell him or her to listen to the union on management and to look at the report? Surely the mediator-arbitrator knows enough to do that.
Postal Services Continuation
Why does the Minister not stand up and admit that he is basically telling the mediator-arbitrator to do things which would favour management? In effect, through this particular clause the Government is trying to influence the decision of someone who is supposed to be objective, who is not supposed to be influenced in any way, who is supposed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion based on those facts.
It seems to me that the Government has a hidden agenda. Why does it not stand up and own up to the fact that this clause and others are meant to dictate to the mediator-arbitrator what the Government wants in the collective bargaining agreement?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I have already made my point and support the amendment, notwithstanding the temptation that the Hon. Member is giving me not to support it.


Marcel Danis: Then, we have the amendment moved by Mr. Guilbault:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 7(2)(b) by striking out the word
"due" from the first line on page 4 of the Bill.


Marcel Danis: Is it the pleasure of the Committee to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)) agreed to.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 24 to 46 at page
3 and lines 1 to 28 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;MEDIATOR
[Stage Direction]
7.(1) The Minister shall, after the coming into force of this Act, appoint a mediator and refer to the mediator all matters relating to the amendment or revision of the collective agreement that, at the time of the appointment, remain in dispute between the union and the employer, including the issue of franchising.
(2)	The mediator shall, within sixty days after the mediator's appointment or such longer period as the Minister may allow,
(a)	endeavour to mediate all the matters referred to in subsection (1) and to bring about agreement between the union and the employer on those matters; and
(b)	report to the Minister on the resolution of all such matters.
(3)	The mediator has, with such modifications as the circumstances require, for the purposes of the mediation referred to in paragraph 2(a), all the powers of a conciliation commissioner under Section 175 of the Canada Labour Code."
Mr. Chairman, as a preface I would like to say that I was a little taken aback by the Minister's threat to withdraw his support for the amendment that we have just passed. I did not dare get up on my feet at that moment to react. If I had said anything at that moment, if I had pointed out that the Minister was being a little touchy, a little thin-skinned, we might have lost that amendment.
John V. Nunziata: You showed restraint.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation


Cyril Keeper: 1 restrained myself. I resisted the temptation to get up and speak the truth to the Minister to his face because I was afraid that he might carry out his threat and withdraw his support for the amendment.
I point that out because that has characterized these negotiations. The Government is thin-skinned. If you rock its boat it will get even with you. That has been bothering people with regard to the Government and the way it has been handling the negotiations at the Post Office. That is why we moved this amendment which is a comprehensive amendment dealing with the issue of the mediator.
Through this amendment we are seeking to amend Clause 7 entitled: "Mediator-Arbitrator". We want to make the distinction between a mediator and an arbitrator. Once you move to the concept of a mediator-arbitrator, a two-headed monster with two purposes, mediation and arbitration, you have in effect done away with the role of mediator.
A mediator is supposed to be impartial. Ele is supposed to be able to sit down with both sides at the table to hear the concerns, assist with the communication, and help the parties come to a negotiated agreement. The mediator has no big club. He does not have a guillotine to hang over the heads of the parties at the table. He does not have the power of law to force an agreement. The mediator's role is to bring about an agreed upon resolution between the parties, not to bang heads together and force a settlement or tell the parties what they must do.
We want to preserve the integrity of the concept of a mediator rather than reducing it to the concept of mediator-arbitrator because the arbitrator's role is different. The arbitrator's role is to be like a judge, to hear both sides of the story and then make a decision or a judgment. The arbitrator has decision-making powers.
it is important to make a distinction between the role of the mediator and the arbitrator, i hesitate to rise and speak on this matter tonight because we have in our presence one of the most distinguished mediators in our country, Mr. Bill Kelly. He made a distinguished contribution to the last dispute at the Post Office and helped to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement. He demonstrated the value of the function of a mediator.
I hesitate to even rise and speak on a matter involving labour management relations with such a distinguished gentleman with us tonight.
In any event, it is essential that we make the point that the integrity of the concept of a mediator be respected, particularly in this case. The Government failed to make use of its option of having a mediator in this dispute. While we see the word mediator in this legislation, it is linked to the arbitrator role. Therefore, the person who is supposed to be an objective
conciliator is tied to the person who makes the decision and thereby destroys the role of the mediator.
The Government created a very difficult situation by setting up a pattern of confrontation with the union at the Post Office. First, it dismissed the previous Minister responsible for the Post Office who was a rather gentlemanly person and at least gave an appearance of reasonableness. It replaced that reasonable Minister with the pit bull terrier of the front benches of the Conservative Party, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If that is not a signal of confrontation, I do not know what is.
The Government is sending these signals with everything it does. Its first message was: "We want to fight. We want confrontation. We want to pound you into the ground". That was its message: "We will not listen to what you have to say."
We must remind the Government of the integrity of the concept of the mediator. It must explain why it bypassed its opportunity to use a mediator. We hope the Minister takes the opportunity to explain in a comprehensive way why in this legislation he is abusing the notion of a mediator and why the Government failed to use its option of appointing a mediator.
Did the Minister of Labour decide himself that he did not want to use a mediator, or were his hands tied by his Cabinet colleagues, or was it the right-wing Conservative backbenchers who handcuffed him so that he could not use all the options available to him?
It is important to respect the concept of mediation. That is why we have moved our amendment with regard to substituting the present wording of mediator-arbitrator with the concept of the mediator.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are against anything that is a change.


Cyril Keeper: I hear a faint echo.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not used to a sounding vessel.


Cyril Keeper: Now I hear a tinkling cymbal.
The Government is following a policy of confrontation because it wants to garner some public support and show that it is strong. The Government followed that policy of confrontation and provoked a strike at the Post Office. However, now that it can see that there is not much prospect for a settlement, rather than taking the opportunity to send in a mediator as was called for by the opposition Parties, the Government took other steps which gave a bad taste to the whole situation. It prolonged the policy of confrontation and added to the public impression that the Government was interested in confrontation rather than a settlement.
First, the Government sent in the gentleman who is here with us this evening as a fact-finder and evaluator of the situation, to determine whether a settlement was possible, rather than giving him the authority to act as a mediator. Furthermore, they sent him in on the eve of the strike, which
October 15, 1987

immediately raised many suspicions. In light of a situation in which the parties were already polarized, it was not surprising that he would say a settlement was not likely under the circumstances. The Government was then free to use that as an excuse to introduce back-to-work legislation, rather than use all the options available to it.
The Government has been pursuing a policy of confrontation. That is why a mediator was never used. That is why we are dealing with this legislation.
The Government has a firm policy for the Post Office. It wants to franchise all the neighbourhood post offices and turn them over to the local Shoppers Drug Marts. Naturally, post office workers are saying that if it turns these jobs over to the private sector they will not only lose them, the pay will be cut in half. People will have to work at the minimum wage.
This policy was obviously designed for confrontation and has been a key factor in having a strike. That is why our amendment attempts to reinstate the concept of the mediator. That is why we include the phrase:	"including the issue of
franchising". We want the mediator to look at all the matters relating to the revision of the collective agreement that remain in dispute between the union and the employer, including the issue of franchising, at the time of the appointment. We do not want the mediator's hands to be tied as they are under the Government's legislation.
This legislation refers to the Foisy report which, of course, accepts the Government's policy of franchising. Therefore, it instructs the mediator-arbitrator to begin with the assumption of accepting the Government's policy of franchising. We want some flexibility so that an agreement can be drafted that will protect job security in spite of the Government having its policy of franchising.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the two items contained within the amendment moved by my colleague. I want to thank the Minister of Labour for referring me to Black's Law Dictionary, with pronunciations, Fifth Edition, because there are interesting descriptions under "franchise". I would like to read some of these descriptions into the record because I think they will help all of us to understand what Canada Post intends with regard to its operations and perhaps what it may mean to the workers, as well as to the public.
Franchise.
A special privilege conferred by government on individual or corporation, and which does not belong to citizens of country generally of common right. In England it is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject.
A privilege granted or sold, such as to use a name or to sell products or services. The right given by a manufacturer or supplier to a retailer to use his products and name on terms and conditions mutually agreed upon.
In its simplest terms, a franchise is a license from owner of a trademark or trade name permitting another to sell a product or service under that name or mark.
Postal Services Continuation
More broadly stated, a "franchise" has evolved into an elaborate agreement under which the franchisee undertakes to conduct a business or sell a product or service in accordance with methods and procedures prescribed by the franchisor, and the franchisor undertakes to assist the franchisee through advertising, promotion and other advisory services.
Under the subheading of "General and Special":
The charter of a corporation is its "general" franchise, while a "special" franchise consists in any rights granted by the public to use property for a public use but with private profit.
I think there we have the nub. Any rights granted by the public, therefore by the Parliament of Canada through a Crown corporation, to use property for a public use but with private profit property. This Government's solution to Canada Post is to turn over as much of its operation as it feels it can get away with to the private sector, so that its private sector friends can make some money, some profit, so they can pay wages one would find paid in a fast-food outlet or in a corner store. These wages would only provide for part-time employment, not for full-time jobs which are necessary to sustain one's family. These would be jobs held by students, part-time jobs held by women, instead of full-time jobs which are now held by women in Canada Post. That is why we want to provide some additional direction to the mediator to ensure that Canada Post will finally negotiate with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers the issue of franchising.
The Foisy report makes specific reference to it. Canada Post rejected union attempts to negotiate. In fact, I was quite amazed by the offer CUPW made during the course of the negotiations going from a position I perceived as one where it was saying no franchise operations at all, to where it was saying perhaps, yes, there are areas of the country where a franchise operation would make sense in order to provide a service where one does not exist today. Canada Post said no, and the reason is because that is not how it wants to work it. Canada Post is not looking to provide additional service. It is looking at replacing existing services which are provided through full-time permanent employees of the Canada Post Corporation. Canada Post wants to shut down postal outlets and post offices in favour of a little nook or cranny in the back of a drug store somewhere.
As I indicated earlier in the House, Canada Post wants to store parcels and registered mail in the livingrooms behind the confectionery stores. That is the kind of system Canada Post is looking for. Because the corporate plan, the business plan, had to be approved by Cabinet, it is therefore the decision of the Government of the day to take this approach. It has taken this approach instead of finding methods that would ensure an increase in the volume of mail being handled by the Post Office, methods to increase the levels of service to ensure that one did not have to wait for 10, 15 or 30 minutes in a line-up at a post office, so that one could get in and out, get the stamps, get the services, get one's parcels at the post office, get the service the Post Office is required to provide.
The Post Office could have looked at increasing the areas of revenue. It is well behind in terms of electronic mail service. It

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
can do as other countries and move into banking services. We have been opening up the financial institutions to non-banking groups. Why not open them up to Canada Post? Why cave in to the demands of the business community. Canada Post started a mail-order catalogue business with Consumers Distributing to provide yet another source of income and another service, but the Government has its own blind idea as to what the Post Office should be like. It has a blind idea of a world without unions, a world where people are paid pennies. But we will continue to fight against that, whether it is in legislation like this, in our ridings or elsewhere.
It will not take much convincing to convince the people of Canada that the Government is going in the wrong direction when it comes to Canada Post. I would ask that the Government accept this amendment because it does two things. It separates the mediator from the arbitrator, and my colleague has very aptly explained the rationale behind that. Second, it forces the issue of franchising into the mediation process very clearly up front as an item that the mediator must address with the two parties.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a short comment about this amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) from the New Democratic Party. To put it briefly, this amendment would have the effect to replace the mediator-arbitrator by a mediator, who would act in this capacity only. So, I have no difficulty with this proposal as I asked the Minister to appoint a mediator, before the beginning of the strike, about 12 days ago. However, for reasons of his own that he has been trying to explain a few times, the Minister chose not to appoint a mediator. The Minister decided to propose this Draconian bill instead.

So in a way this amendment, which says let us do away with the two-hat personality that my friend, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston was referring to earlier, would take us back to a mediator only, which is what I called for days ago. I am still of the opinion that, if a mediator had been appointed, we might have avoided a strike. Or, at least, we might have avoided the tabling of this repressive legislation.
I realize that if this amendment were passed one would either have to agree to scratch the whole Bill or one would have to agree to make a number of very important consequential amendments to other clauses. Symbolically, I have to say that I cannot disagree with the proposition that says, "Let us throw the billy club out of the window, let us do it through bargaining with a mediator". It may be too late to do that at this stage but, symbolically, I think it would be difficult for me to support the idea that I could disapprove of this amendment.
Therefore I would like to commend my colleague for having brought it forward to the floor of the House of Commons
which has allowed us to speak to this particular point, which I believe is very important.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his comments. I only want to clarify a few points. Our amendment to Section 7 is very important because its purpose is to make the point that the government forgot to use a mediator in that dispute. A mediator succeeded in solving the last postal dispute with letter carriers. Then, why not use one in this strike? We want to point out that the government forgot this important step, that he had other options and alternatives to that back-to-work legislation. We also wish to point out that the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator is not a valid proposal as it combines two different roles which should be filled by two different people. The role of the mediator is to facilitate communication between the parties in dispute while the task of the arbitrator is to listen to the parties and make a decision afterwards. Our intent is to underline that the combination of those two roles is objectionable because the role of the mediator is undermined. We prefer to put the emphasis on the mediator because his role is to solve the dispute on a voluntary basis. We want the government to realize that it is better to help the parties to come to a settlement on a voluntary basis rather than forcing them to reach a new agreement.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the amendment to Clause 7. I think it is very important that the role of mediator in this dispute be separated from that of arbitrator. We know that during the early part of the rotating strike, which only became full-fledged after the Government brought in this legislation, there was a call for a mediator by CUPW. The Government refused to appoint a mediator. Now, it has finally agreed to the request to appoint a mediator. But it will not appoint a mediator to play the role of mediation in this dispute but, rather, forces the mediator to try to reach an agreement, always with the hammer in the other hand to say, "If you do not reach an agreement, then it will be me who will enforce a decision on the parties".
For people who are involved in mediation, the role of mediator is to go to each side, to know things about each side that he does not disclose to the other, to attempt to reach some kind of compromise. He knows where the weaknesses are in the position and goes from one side to the other, finds out if there is a basis for compromise, looks back and forth. There has to be a trust there that this mediator will play that role and not use what is told to him in a way that is contrary to the mediation process. It is a well-defined and well-recognized labour relations technique. It is a very special technique.
The role of the arbitrator, on the other hand, is quite different. The arbitrator has to be a judge. He has to make a decision based on the facts before him without trying to second-guess one party or second-guess the other. To combine
October 15, 1987

those roles into one is avoiding the proper method of dealing with labour relations disputes.
If the Government had appointed a mediator in this dispute before, even if the Government saw fit to go to legislation, we may have had a very different type of legislation. That kind of legislation would be very much like the amendments that are proposed, particularly to this clause. It would have been made clear to a mediator that what was holding up the dispute was the fact that the management of the Post Office was refusing to negotiate on the issue of franchising. That is the very issue which is causing concern about job security. The approach that the management of the Post Office has taken is very much like technological change. Technological change is an aspect of management. In an operation such as the Post Office, it is something that affects the working conditions, the career paths, the working lives of the individuals. It is therefore a very valid subject of negotiation.
When the management of the Post Office refused to deal with the issue of franchising, what it did was to refuse to bargain on the very issue which was at the nub of the dispute. To put a mediator-arbitrator into this situation without any directions as to what issues ought to be the subject of bargaining is to turn a blind eye to the real issue of the dispute. If the Government is not prepared to accept an amendment to this clause it seems that it is very clear that the Government is doing what we have been suggesting, that is, playing the role of an aid to management to force an agreement down the throats of the workers by bringing forward this legislation.
This motion to amend Clause 7 includes the issue of franchising. It appears that there must be direction given to the management of the Post Office to sit down to discuss this issue, not just have the mediator-arbitrator look at the Foisy report, which report gives a certain type of direction but which ignores the fact that the franchising arrangement can be the subject of negotiations. In fact, it has been offered by CUPW. The negotiators have suggested that they are prepared to discuss franchising, and prepared to reach compromises on it. That is the very essence of labour relations and collective bargaining, even in a strike situation, that there is give and take which is required, and that give and take must be on all issues in dispute.
In this situation, there must be a direction to the parties, and particularly to the management of the Post Office to discuss the issue of franchising. Once that step has been taken, a mediator and a direction for Canada Post management to discuss franchising, then we will see if the parties can actually reach an agreement once the Government has stated as a matter of policy that Canada Post's management must discuss franchising with the union as an appropriate collective bargaining item.
If that does not happen, I think that the role of the mediator-arbitrator as proposed by the Government is one which is
Postal Services Continuation
faulty and will not lead to harmony in the Post Office. In fact, it will lead to a further exacerbation of the unhappy relations between management and the union.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr Speaker, again I do not intend to indulge in rhetoric as some of my friends seem to be doing tonight. However, Mr. Speaker-

I would like to refer to one particular remark which was made by my friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre when he referred to my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is also responsible for the Post Office, as being the "pit bull" Minister.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, in the case of that particular appointment where the Prime Minister gave my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the responsibility for the Post Office, obviously the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had the benefit of knowing who the critic for the NDP was.
To be a little more serious, with respect to the amendment and the various comments that have been made around it, I would like to point out that my hon. colleague from Saint-Jacques has referred to his request in the House to appoint a mediator which was refused at the time by myself.
I would like to draw the attention of all Hon. Members to the fact that part of the reasoning and the advice that I received when I was making the decision to appoint or not to appoint a mediator, came from my Associate Deputy Minister. As everybody knows, he is one of the most experienced, if not the most experienced, as was suggested by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre.
At the time when the possibility existed, we decided and concluded that appointing a mediator would perhaps not be a good decision. But to make sure, I sent my Associate Deputy Minister to meet with the parties and to assess the situation, as I indicated in the quote in my speech on an earlier amendment. The decision and conclusion at the time was that it would not be a good solution to appoint a mediator. Obviously those are judgment calls. I believe that my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, will agree with that. He may not agree with my decision, but he will agree that it was a judgment call. In my mind, it was very well-founded at the time.
I do agree with my friend, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, that it would not be appropriate at this point to accept the amendments suggested by my hon. colleagues from the NDP, because we have passed that stage. A solution in this particular dispute at this particular time is the mediation-arbitration concept. Perhaps this is not used as often as the appointment of a mediator on the one hand, or an arbitrator on the other hand, but it is a concept that has been used successfully in the past, particularly in the 1978 legislation with respect to the Post Office, if my memory serves me correctly.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
It has also been used in other circumstances where the parties came to an agreement.
I believe in the circumstances, the decision of the Government to refer the matter to a mediator-arbitrator is the correct one, and consequently we will not support that amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: As 1 indicated earlier in the evening, in preparing this amendment we wished to point out the fact that the Government did have other options. At the time that it introduced this legislation, it could have appointed a mediator. This was asked for by the union involved, by myself, and also by others.
I point out again that at the time the legislation was introduced, and at the time people were calling for a mediator, there was no national strike. There were rotational strikes. The Government and the Minister responsible for the Post Office did claim that the mail was getting through. We believed that appointing a mediator could have worked. We believed that a mediator should have been appointed. We still believe that that is the case.
Also, in this amendment there is an instruction to include the issue of franchising at the table. We have to remind the Members of the House sitting in Committee of the Whole, and others, that the Government, through the Minister responsible for Canada Post, time after time has stated that the issue of franchising out is a management right, it is not something to be negotiated. It is a government decision. That is the decision that has caused this strike. We believe that is the problem facing the country at the present time with regard to this dispute.
If the Government believes that it can refer to a conciliation commissioner's report that it considers favourable to the Government, one that is liked by the Minister responsible for Canada Post, certainly in the same legislation we in the Opposition should be able to make the point that the House should also be giving an instruction. The instruction is to discuss with the employees affected the whole issue of franchising out. That should be discussed at the negotiating table. It certainly affects the job security of those people. It is something that affects where they will work in the future; if they will be working for Canada Post, the type of work that they will be doing, and it is something that normally would be discussed at the table.
That does not mean that the employees through their union will get everything that they want, because that probably will not happen. But it does mean that the matter of where franchising will take place, how it will take place, and when it will take place will be discussed. Those are logical things to negotiate at the table.
The people who work at the wickets in Thompson, The Pas, Flin Flon, Winnipeg, Montreal, and right cross the country know that the job they are doing at the present time, which many have done for years, will disappear under the Government's plan. They know that, even if they have worked at that
wicket for eight, ten, or a dozen years, although people are still coming to those wickets of their own free choice, because of the government plan that job will disappear. The people know that will happen. Because of that they expect their union, as their representative, to go to management and discuss that item, see how it will be implemented, and where it will be implemented.
It has been management, on the direct orders of the Government, that is refusing to discuss that item. It is important to say in tonight's debate that this is not a strike based upon the union asking for more. Obviously there are other clauses involved in the negotiations, but this is a dispute about where those people will be working in the future. It is ironic that the Government is willing to order these people back to work and, if they do not return to work, they will face heavy fines. However, some two months to four months down the road they could lose their jobs. The Government can order them back to work, but it refuses to order Canada Post to keep those people working. What a contradiction! It thinks it is important for those people to go back to work, but at the same time it is taking that work and giving it to someone else. That is what is happening with this piece of legislation.
As I said at second reading, we are not dealing with technological change for the most part. We are dealing with the Government taking away jobs, quite often from women, jobs which pay decent salaries, the better jobs within the postal system. The Government is saying that they cannot have those jobs any more, that they will be given to sub post offices. The person who takes the new job will probably receive minimum wage, have no pension plan, have no benefits, have no job security.
What kind of affirmative action program is that for a Government? It is not something new. It is something the Government has already done. For example, at one time the people who cleaned major post offices across the country were government employees. Their jobs disappeared. They were laid off. They lost their positions. Then the jobs were contracted out to individuals or companies in the private sector that sometimes hired the same cleaners at minimum wage. It is shameful. It is disgusting.
The Government is saying that it is a management decision, that it is the business plan, and that it must happen. However, it refuses to let Canada Post discuss that with its employees through their representatives in CUPW.
It is not only a matter of having a mediator. It is time for the Government to recognize, through its Crown corporation, that the major issues in dispute must be negotiated and discussed with the people they affect.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I have a brief question for the Minister of Labour. The Minister made some comments about the clause dealing with a mediator-arbitrator, but he did not
October 15, 1987

comment upon the distinction between the role of a mediator and the role of an arbitrator.
I want to ask him about this distinction. The mediator is there as a third party who can gain the trust of the parties to the dispute in order to facilitate communications and to bring about a voluntary settlement. An arbitrator is someone who has decision-making powers. When these roles are put into one, the integrity of the role of the mediator is undermined. I would like the Minister to comment on that. From what he has said so far, I did not get any understanding that he appreciates the difference between the two roles and the points we have been making in that area.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I agree in part with what the Hon. Member for York South-Weston said a little while ago on another amendment, particularly when he mentioned that the people we appoint are very skilled and responsible.
The person who will be appointed as mediator-arbitrator will obviously understand the two hats that he or she will be wearing. I am convinced that the person will do his or her utmost to get the parties back at the table to try to mediate and arrive at a settlement.
If there is one thing upon which we all agree, regardless of politics, it is that the best settlement is a negotiated one. Consequently, the person appointed will do his or her utmost to arrive at that particular settlement without the population of Canada being subjected to a protracted strike or work stoppage during that period of time.
If mediation fails, as, unfortunately, perhaps signs tend to indicate, the person, whoever he or she may be, according to the legislation and the particular articles to which we have been referring, will arbitrate the dispute that exists between the parties at that time.


Jack Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with the issue of franchising. My comrade from Winnipeg-North Centre who spoke on this matter concerned himself with franchising and said that the management of the Post Office was taking the position that it was a management right.
Would the Minister tell us whether he sees a difference between franchising out, contracting out, and other management rights? Does he see franchising out or franchising as a management right that is not a proper subject for collective bargaining? If so, he would be agreeing with the management of the Post Office in that regard and he would be taking a very archaic view of management rights.
In many collective agreements across the country there are clauses defining the work of the bargaining unit and clauses on management rights. At one time management had the right to do everything, until these rights had been negotiated through collective bargaining. Now they must promote on the basis of merit, not on the basis of favouritism or of promoting one's relatives, and they must give people the opportunity to apply
Postal Services Continuation
for jobs. Perhaps all these things at one time were management rights, but now they are not.
There is no magic in the word "franchising". Contracting out is the subject of many collective agreements. It must be negotiated or agreed upon, as is the case with technological change and many other factors in collective bargaining.
Would the Minister tell us whether he sees the franchising issue as a sole right of management, the union having no right to discuss it, or is it a proper item for collective bargaining?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already quoted a clause that was criticized earlier, namely: That the mediator-arbitrator was to hear the employer and the union and give cognizance to the Foisy report.
I think that the mediator-arbitrator will indeed hear both parties. I suppose that the parties, particularly the one that is represented by my hon. colleague, will give their views to the mediator-arbitrator who will take them into consideration, together with the position of the employer and the recommendations of commissioner Foisy who renders a decision in part on the issue referred to by my hon. colleague. And I believe that the mediator-arbitrator, the employer and the union will properly settle the matter.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I am still having some difficulty with the concept known as mediator-arbitrator. I am certain Canadians who are watching tonight are wondering what in fact we are talking about. The labour experts will understand the difference between a conciliator, an arbitrator and a mediator. They all have certain functions, powers and responsibilities. I suppose at some point in time we learned in school about the differences. Now a new monster has been created. The Minister indicated in a different dispute that a mediator-arbitrator entity had been created.


Cyril Keeper: Under a Liberal Government was it?


John V. Nunziata: When you get to the point where you have to resort to back-to-work legislation, you are beyond the point of mediating, you are at the point where the two parties, management and labour, are so far apart that you need an arbitrator, a judge, to say, "This is the decision. This is the collective bargaining agreement". Obviously if during the arbitration process the parties decide to agree on their own without risking what an arbitrator might decide, that is all in the best interests of everyone involved because the parties, in effect, have negotiated a settlement.
I have some difficulty in entrenching this mediation-arbitration concept in this legislation. Let us not try to kid anyone. This Bill is called an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. That is all fine and dandy. We know what this legislation is all about. It is back-to-work

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
legislation. It is forcing people to go back to work. It is forcing the postal workers to work, and if they do not, they are subject, as Clause 10 says, to some pretty heavy financial penalties. Then there are some additional penalties with regard to suspension from union activity if they contravene a certain section of the Act. We will have more to say when we get to Clause 11.
We do not understand why this concept of mediator arbitrator is necessary. The Minister himself admitted that at one point it was not possible, feasible-he called it a judgment call-or appropriate to appoint a mediator. That was after the strike. The Minister is shaking his head. Sometime, somewhere a decision was made by him and his officials that a mediator was not appropriate, even though we in the Liberal Party suggested that a mediator ought to have been appointed because a mediator might have been able to succeed in bringing the parties together at some point prior to the escalation of the violence in the conflict. Now we are at a point where there is basically a gun to the collective heads of the union. The Minister is a party to this threat of pointing a gun at the heads of the union saying "You are going back to work. If you don't go back to work, you have double trouble. Not only will we fine you $10,000 or $50,000 a day but we will make sure that you do not participate in union activity for up to five years."
The mediator-arbitrator, this experienced, skilled person who will be appointed under this legislation, will be aware of exactly what has transpired to date. He will be fully aware of what is in the legislation. Does the Minister really believe that simply by calling this person a mediator-arbitrator somehow he or she will be able to do something other than what an arbitrator might do on his or her own? I fail to understand why at one point it was his judgment call that mediation was not possible and that somehow now that the parties are so far apart back-to-work legislation is needed and all of a sudden mediation is needed by someone who would pat both sides on their backs and say, "Come on guys. Let's get together and call it a day, get back to work and start delivering the mail". I do not understand why a mediator-arbitrator is needed.
1 think the Minister should admit that this piece of legislation has a sledgehammer approach in it. It says to the union, "Go back to work. We have an arbitrator. We are telling the arbitrator to look at the conciliator's report. We are giving direction to the arbitrator to find in favour, or lean toward, the position of management". That seems to me to be patently unfair and inappropriate in the circumstances.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, there are various things 1 could say, but some have already been said and some will not serve any purpose anyway.
With respect to this legislation, that it is back-to-work legislation, I think that is self-evident. One of the clauses in the Bill says specifically that, that the employees must go back to work. It is very clear that that is one of the purposes of the legislation.
At the time I made a judgment call that the appointment of a mediator would not have been appropriate because the parties were so far apart. I still believe that the parties are far apart. 1 believed that the day we introduced the legislation, particularly after having the assessment of my Associate Deputy Minister to that effect. Therefore, I concluded that back-to-work legislation was required. Notwithstanding the decision that back-to-work legislation was required, I also decided that, because of certain requests, including one from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint Jacques, and one from the union with respect to mediation, perhaps it was worth-while, as some would say, to give it a shot. That is provided for in this legislation. I hope, I sincerely hope, that the parties will prove that I was wrong, that there is a possibility of coming to a settlement. I will be the first one to praise the parties the day they come to an agreement. Our Government will not tolerate, as was done before the introduction of the legislation, the playing of musical chairs nor Canadians being submitted to protracted disruptions because of work stoppages, violence, and accrued violence.


Neil Young: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the opening remarks of the Minister when he said that he did not believe in any event that anything he said would be listened to. I want to assure him that if he says the right thing we will listen to it very carefully.


Pierre H. Cadieux: That is not what I said.


Neil Young: The Minister said that this is not what he said. I will accept that. Reflecting the dilemma that we have found in negotiations between Crown corporations and unions is an assumption on the part of Governments that somehow or other all the problems that are facing collective bargaining lie at the feet of unions. There are two parties to negotiations. In my experience and observation of the manner in which Crown corporations conduct negotiations, they clearly go into those negotiations knowing full well that if an agreement is not concluded the Government will step in and legislate workers back to work. It has happened continuously. I think it is high time, quite frankly, that Members on all sides of the House should perhaps strike some kind of a committee to investigate the process of collective bargaining with Crown corporations and their employees through their organizations. Certainly the mechanism in place now does not work. It does not work to anyone's advantage, whether it be the public's, the Crown corporations', the unions or its members. It is something worth-while taking a look at.
One of the key problems in these negotiations has been the post offices and, I assume from everything I have heard, the Government's insistence that the Post Office should be reorganized. A very sore point centers on the franchising of operations. It is not only the union that is concerned about reorganization in the Post Office, it is also the customers, the clientele which the Post Office is attempting to serve. I want to read one letter which is typical of the number of letters I have
October 15, 1987

received from constituents on this whole question of reorganization in the Post Office and the effect it is having on the mail service. My constituent, Sandra Hanmer, writes:
Here is an example of how it is serving me-1 received a card saying 1 had a registered mail letter awaiting pick-up. The address on the card wasn't the usual one of Station 'H' on the Danforth, a few dozen yards from where 1 work. It was that of a Shopper's Drug Mart. So I took the half hour's walk down to Shopper's World at Danforth and Victoria Park where there is a large Shopper's Drug Mart. There's also a huge Shopper's Drug Mart much nearer at Main and Danforth but this doesn't have a post office counter. Too convenient for all the thousands of tenants in the Main Square complex, 1 guess.
The postmistress at Shopper's Drug Mart at Shopper's World couldn't find my envelope. She finally took a look at my card and said, "No wonder I couldn't find your letter, you have to go down to Queen St. Shopper's Drug Mart, not this one." Fortunately, I'm a strong person and a good walker and own a bicycle also, so 1 was able to make the trek down to Queen Street. Fortunately, 1 don't work Wednesday mornings so I can reserve it for these little jaunts.
I live, work and shop in different places and none of them is down on Queen St., a place I rarely visit unless I'm going for an early morning cycle on the boardwalk. If you'd really done "a thorough analysis of where we need Post Offices" you would realize that we need one at Main & Danforth or continue to keep parcels and registered letters, etc. at Station 'H'.
I live at Gerrard & Woodbine, where there's a little post office and drycleaners but I can't get my letters there. 1 work very near Station 'H' on the Danforth, I can no longer get letters or parcels there. I shop at Main & Danforth where there's no post office at all. I have to take time to go miles out of my way-I don't call this an improvement in service. Not to mention the abolition of all the mailboxes which used to be around.
Representatives of the Post Office went through my constituency and unilaterally, without any kind of reason or rationale, picked mailboxes up from corners and chucked them into the back of trucks. One fellow who runs a corner store next to one of these mailboxes asked them why they were removing it, and they said it was because it was not used any longer. He said to the two fellows who were picking up this mailbox: "Well, open it up" and the guys opened it up. The thing was stacked with mail. It was well used.
Removing these boxes presents real difficulties for many elderly people, particularly during the winter months when they have to walk several additional blocks on sometimes icy or snow-bound sidewalks. I could go on and on.
It seems to me that the point the Hon. Member for St. John's East made earlier in his argument as to why franchising or contracting out should be a part of the collective bargaining process is something which I would think would be in the Government's interest to encourage. We all want to see that kind of maturity in collective bargaining. We should tell Canada Post that it has an obligation to the public, to its employees and to Parliament and it should put that item on the table for collective bargaining. I would like to hear what the Minister would say on that.
Amendment (Mr. Keeper) negatived.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 7, as amended, carry?
Postal Services Continuation


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
On Clause 10-Offence by individuals.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few moments to address Clause 7. I must say that I was disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to respond to the comment my colleague made on the earlier clause. He pointed out the difficulties that exist for senior citizens when mailboxes are picked up off the street and senior citizens have to walk long distances under severe winter conditions. The Minister chose not to respond to that. One of the problems is that the Government does not hear when we bring to its attention what is happening to seniors and ordinary Canadians. It fails to respond or answer to these concerns.
I would like to deal specifically with Clause 10, the enforcement clause. It reads:
An individual who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part of
a day during which the offence continues, to a fine
(a) of not less than $10,000 or more than $50,000, where the individual was acting in the capacity-


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on a point of order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I want some clarification, Mr. Chairman. I thought, and I may be wrong, that clause 10 had been agreed to and that we were considering clause 11. But if I am wrong . . . Are we still on clause 10? Very well! I apologize.


Cyril Keeper: I can understand the impatience of the Minister. I am sure he wants this clause to be adopted. However, we want to deal with it.
The implications of this clause should be brought to the attention of the Canadian public. The clause provides that there will be fines of from $10,000 to $50,000 imposed on any individual who is acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer or the union and of not less than $500 or more than $1,000 in any other case. The clause also provides for fines of $20,000 to $100,000 to be imposed upon the employer or the union.
These are very heavy fines. Why does the Government find it necessary to threaten individuals with fines of upwards of $50,000 and to threaten the union with fines of up to $100,000 a day? Why does the Government feel it is necessary to put this gun to the heads of those who are leading the workers at the Post Office?
Why is the Government using such Draconian legislation to force these workers back to work? The key issue on the table in the dispute is the question of franchising. Why is the Government willing to use such heavy penalties to put in place

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
its policy of franchising? Is this franchising policy such a good policy that it merits the use of such heavy fines?
I would like to raise one question about the whole matter of franchising. Today, I might have a neighbourhood post office, but tomorrow morning it might be in a Shoppers Drug Mart.
A fundamental policy of the federal Government for the last few years has been to provide service in the official language of your choice. If your mother tongue is French, you can get service in French. If your mother tongue is English, you can get service in English. The Post Office has been slow to live up to the policy of bilingualism, which is so crucial to keeping the country together. Franchising will make that even more difficult.
If the Government cannot assure service in the language of your choice when the employees of the Post Office are direct employees of the Government, how can it do so when the service is provided in a drug store? I wonder whether the Government has thought about what will happen to the language rights of Canadians. If the language rights of Canadians are further undermined, what will happen to the unity of the country?
The Government is so set on the policy of franchising that it is willing to impose fines of $10,000, $50,000 and $100,000 per day. I would like to know whether the Minister, the Cabinet and the Government have considered the implications of franchising on the policy of bilingualism. How will they ensure that people can get service in the language of their choice?
Would the Minister do us the courtesy of responding to that? I have yet to hear an explanation from the Government on this. It is obviously something that the Government is pushing for very strongly since it is prepared to impose such large fines in support of it. Would the Minister comment on how the Government will assure the provision of service in the official language of your choice under the franchise system when it has had such a dismal record of providing it until now when it has been more within its control?
I see that the Minister refuses to stand up. I gave him an opportunity to do so. Is the Minister willing to stand up?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Sure.


Cyril Keeper: Would he then comment on that question? This is fundamental to Canadian unity.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared, of course, to give explanations on this Bill without hesitation. I would prefer to listen to the other Members who have comments on this clause and will answer all questions at the end.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the Minister has not answered my question. He will perhaps do it later on, but I am nevertheless disappointed that he did not
take right away the opportunity to answer it, because the Government has clearly indicated its willingness to go to any lengths to ram through this back-to-work legislation related to postal workers. As we know, franchising out is one of the key issues regarding the problems of post offices. How does the Government think it will be able to maintain its policy of bilingualism in this country once post offices are privatized, when the level of service the public is entitled to has not even been reached?


Jack Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on Clause 10 of the Bill. It is hard to say which clause of this Bill is the worst. However, I find it astounding that a minimum fine of $10,000 will be imposed for each day or part of a day that someone violates this legislation. We have many laws in this country. We have the Criminal Code with hundreds of sections which provides for minimum fines and minimum sentences. Lives are endangered and lost every day because of impaired driving and there is a minimum fine for that offence, but is is not $10,000. Until recently it was $50.
Under this legislation a shop steward or minor official in the postal union, perhaps a picket captain or officer of a local, who contravenes this legislation is liable to a minimum fine of $10,000. For example, Clause 4 provides that "each officer and representative of the union shall . . . take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply with paragraph 3(b)" which provides that "every employee shall, when so required, forthwith continue or resume, as the case may be, the duties of that employee's employment".
If a judge decides that a shop steward did not take all reasonable steps to ensure that other employees go back to work he will be fined $10,000 for that horrid crime for each day or part thereof.
We must have some very serious situations to deal with if an officer must take all reasonable steps to ensure that employees comply with that paragraph. Maybe a judge would decide that it would be reasonable for the union to expel its members if they did not comply exactly with every section of this Bill. Then the union would be fined a minimum of $20,000 a day even if it complied with this legislation and told its members to go back to work as we have every reason to believe it will. Under this Bill a minimum fine of $10,000 may be imposed for what may be a very minor violation of this legislation. If we were talking about concerted defiance of the legislation in its entirety by the entire union, perhaps there would be a need for such stringent measures.
One wonders where the Government is coming from in proposing such legislation. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could tell us what other legislation provides for such fines for such potentially minor offences.
Minimum fines have always been criticized by defence council in cases where a technical violation of the law may
October 15, 1987

have occurred, which calls for the sympathy of the court. Any members who are lawyers will have often heard judges say that while there has been a technical violation of the law, the case he has heard is a sympathetic one in which there are extenuating circumstances and therefore the punishment of being before the court is enough.
However, while the judge may want to give an absolute discharge or conditional discharge, in this case he would indicate that he cannot do so because he is bound by the law. While there may be a minor technical violation, a judge in this case might say that while he has listened to the circumstances surrounding the case, the breach of the legislation was not very serious, the fine he must impose is $10,000. If the breach of the legislation takes places over two days, the fine will be $20,000.
1 submit that a minimum fine of $10,000 is outrageous. This legislation only involves a summary conviction, and even serious crimes under the Criminal Code which are indictable offences do not have fines of $10,000.
Until two years ago the minimum fine for the indictable offence of impaired driving was $50. It is now $350, yet the minimum fine for a breach of this legislation at any time during the continuance of the collective agreement which is referred to is $10,000. We all know how the courts define a strike. It can range from one or two individuals having a strike to a general strike.
While there are illegal strikes from time to time in this country, they occur more often when legislation is passed making collective bargaining inoperative. The usual remedy for anyone engaging in a wildcat strike is to get an injunction through the court. In this case, however, any time during the course of this collective agreement anyone who is a representative of the union, whether or not it is authorized by the union, will be subject to a minimum fine of $10,000. The minimum of $10,000 provided for in Clause 10 is absolutely outrageous. It does not provide for the judicial discretion, which is very important in the administration of justice in this country.
I understand that this is not a justice Bill. Perhaps the Minister of Labour did not consult with the officials of the Department of Justice when he was establishing minimum fines of such astounding proportions in this legislation.
Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether he believes there are cases where judicial discretion is required and a minimum fine of $10,000 is not appropriate. While our judicial system exists to enforce the laws, there must be some tolerance of the fact that there may be extenuating circumstances in individual cases that call for discretion on the part of the judge. Judges are given very wide discretion to deal with all sorts of crimes.
The Government is telling judges that they cannot use their discretion in this case and take special circumstances into account. The Government is not prepared to allow a judge to exercise discretion and give less than a $10,000 fine to an
Postal Services Continuation
ordinary working person. He does not have the power to say that such a fine is inappropriate and can be reserved for a more serious case.
Did the Minister's officials review the Criminal Code to determine the seriousness of this crime compared to other crimes which had minimum fines? Why did he set a minimum fine of $10,000 and not provide for discretion by a federally appointed judge so he might hear a case like this and deal with the facts before him without the Government telling him that he must fine someone $10,000 a day?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, before I comment on Clause 10, I want to ask the Minister when the enforcement provision, Clause 10, ends. In other words, we know that the penalties will begin if there is a breach as soon as the law is passed, presumably sometime tomorrow. Does the enforcement provision lapse upon the expiry of the 90 days or upon the entering into of the collective agreement as provided for by Clause 8?
While he is on his feet, will he indicate how many people in the last 20 years have been prosecuted under enforcement provisions of federal back-to-work legislation and, of those prosecuted, how many were employees and how many were representatives of employers, and what were the penalties imposed by the courts?
Once the Minister has answered those questions, I would like to make some very brief comments on Clause 10.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the information with respect to the number of convictions during the last 20 years. I do recall one instance of back-to-work legislation which was breached. It is the one concerning CUPW, following the 1978 back-to-work legislation when there was at least one prosecution in which I believe the person ended up in jail for some time. Presumably there may be some others, but I am willing to look into that and report back to my hon. colleague at the earliest opportunity.
With respect to the severity of the fines, I will not try to convince the House that they are not severe. They are. They are severe in this particular legislation for the same reasons that they were severe in Bill C-24, which we adopted in November, 1986, and for the same reasons they were severe in Bill C-85, adopted a month ago with respect to the railway industry. They are the same fines, exactly the same sections, and we will stand by them again.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister could answer my question with regard to when the enforcement provisions expire, then I will make my comments. The Bill provides for very heavy fines here and I would like to know when they expire.


Pierre H. Cadieux: They are in force as long as the collective agreement is in force.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with Clause 10, but Clause 10 cannot be considered in isolation. One has to, it seems to me, look at Clause 11 as well. The sidenote beside Clause 11(1) reads "Additional Punishment-Union", and the sidenote on Clause 11(2) is "Additional Punishment-Employer". First, with regard to Clause 10, 1 think the Minister will agree that this particular enforcement provision, although it applies to both employee and employer, in this case postal workers and Canada Post, is directed at employees. I am sure that if the Minister were to review the last 20 or 50 years he would be hard pressed to find a situation where a representative of management has been prosecuted under back-to-work legislation. So let us not kid anyone. Even though it says a representative of the employer is subject to these rather heavy fines, we are really talking about employees and CUPW. Let me read Clause 10(1), Mr. Chairman. It reads:
An individual who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an
offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable, for each day or part of
a day during which the offence continues, to a fine
(a) of not less than SI0,000 or more than $50,000, where the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer or the union when the offence was committed;-
So that first part deals with union officers and representatives of the employer, but in effect we are talking about union officers. The Minister laughs, but he knows that he is not going to prosecute anyone in Canada Post management under this clause. It is directed at CUPW members.
A court would have no discretion whatsoever. If there is a contravention, regardless of how minor the contravention, the fine is SI0,000 a day or any part of a day. So if a technical breach lasts for 10 minutes or 15 minutes and there is a prosecution, the court would have no discretion whatsoever but to fine that union official a minimum of $10,000 and, depending on who is sitting on the bench and the circumstances, the fine could go as high as $50,000.
That in and of itself is patently unfair and inequitable. It raises considerable concern. This section says: "An individual who contravenes any provision of this Act". What is a "provision of this Act"? This Act, if one reads from Clause 1 through to Clause 13, requires management and union to do a number of things. It is not specific. It is not clear and unambiguous. There are clauses in here that might lead one to question exactly what was meant by the legislation. We all know the workers have to go back to work, that is clear. As the law says, they have to resume their duties. Clause 4 states:
The union and each officer and representative of the union (a) shall, forthwith on the coming into force of this Act,-
And that is within 12 or 24 hours.
-give notice to the employees-
What does that mean? If the employees have to be back at work within 12 hours or 24 hours, how does one give notice to the employees? How many employees are involved at Canada Post?


Jacques Guilbault: Of those under the collective agreement, there are 23,000.


John V. Nunziata: Twenty three thousand employees. We know the Post Office is shut down so we cannot mail them a letter and say: "Here is your notice. Go back to work". We could send them a telegram, I suppose, but who will pay for 23,000 telegrams? This legislation requires them to be back at work within a 12 or 24 hour period. Is the Minister assuming that these 23,000 postal workers involved in this particular situation are each watching these proceedings with bated breath and this is their notice? The court could say that when the Minister was standing in the House, that was sufficient notice. The Minister can see the ridiculousness of the offence here. It is meant, I suppose, to deter the union but it is a sledge-hammer approach.
The Minister talks about a mediator-arbitrator. There is still some hope. The Minister is a reasonable guy. He still hopes that somehow there will be a negotiated settlement. But how does he really expect, in all sincerity, the union to come to the table with the arbitrator sitting at the head and management sitting across and be in a very good mood when we have Clause
10	saying, "If you dare breach one section of this particular legislation, we are going to fine you $10,000, and if that is not enough, we are going to leave it up to the court under Clause
11	to prohibit that particular union officer from participating in union activities for five years"?
If the Minister really wants some co-operation from the union officers in CUPW, he would not bring into effect Clause 10 and Clause 11. It is a threat. If this is not provocation to breach this particular Act, I do not know what is. It certainly does not serve to create an atmosphere of co-operation.
If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, there is a minimum penalty of $10,000 if one does not give notice to the employees that, and I quote from Clause 4(l)(a):
-by reason of the coming into force of this Act, postal operations are forthwith to be continued or resumed, as the case may be, and the employees, when so required, are forthwith to continue or resume, as the case may be, the duties of their employment;
What does all this mean? The employees are asking what it all means. It is not that specific. Mr. Kelly is an expert in labour law and the Minister, by virtue of the office he holds, has presumably acquired considerable degree of knowledge on this particular subject, but we are talking about 23,000 ordinary Canadians who do not have the expertise of Mr. Kelly or the Minister of Labour and they are being told that if they breach any provision of this Act they are subjecting themselves to a minimum $10,000 fine per day, if they or an officer of the corporation, and if they are just a run of the mill regular worker, they will be fined $500 per day. These guys are not earning $500 a day, yet they are going to be fined a minimum of $500 a day if they breach any provision of this Act.
It is obvious that there are problems because the Act is not specific enough. Therefore, we will have the technical breaches of the legislation. The Minister might stand up and say: "Let
October 15, 1987

us be reasonable, we are not going to prosecute every minor breach", but that is not the case. When we pass laws here one has to assume that any breach is a breach and it ought to be prosecuted.
I hope the Minister is not going to suggest that we will leave it up to the police to decide whether they are going to prosecute under this back-to-work Bill C-86. 1 hope he is not suggesting that, because that is not the role of the police. We are passing a piece of legislation and it must stand on its own.
This particular Clause 10(1) provides for Draconian measures. As the Hon. Member for St. John's East pointed out, there are not that many pieces of federal legislation that have penalties as severe as these. That leads me to ask the following question. Why are they as severe as they are? What is the purpose of having this particular clause in this Bill? Why a $10,000 minimum fine per day as opposed to $50, $100, or no minimum fine at all?
I note that there is no provision in this Bill for incarceration, in other words, jail. Why is the Minister not providing for a minimum jail term in this legislation? He referred to a situation not so long ago in which a prominent member of CUPW spent time in prison. Did that legislation at the time provide for imprisonment, or was it a similar type of legislation to what we have here today? He has not provided for any period of incarceration. Perhaps that would have been a different approach. I would like to hear from the Minister as to why he decided to impose such heavy fines for breaches under this Bill and why he did not consider other possible penalties.
Not only is the Minister creating an atmosphere of provocation with Clause 10, the union is down on the ground and he decides to feed the union the boots by imposing Clause 11. What the Minister is saying is, "$10,000 a day is not enough. We want to leave it up to the court to prohibit a union member from participating in union activity for up to five years". I ask the Minister-


Jack Harris: Not up to the court.


John V. Nunziata: Let me read the clause so that we are clear. Clause 11(1) states:
No individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act that was committed while the individual was acting in the capacity as an officer or representative of the union shall be employed in any capacity by, or act as an officer or representative of, the union at any time in the five years immediately after the date of the conviction.


Don Boudria: It is worse.


John V. Nunziata: As the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, who is not learned in law-


Marcel Danis: I would like to remind the Hon. Member that when we get to Clause 11 there will probably be amendments made concerning the point that he is now talking about.
Postal Services Continuation


John V. Nunziata: Obviously, you are privy to information that I am not privy to, Mr. Chairman. However, we are dealing with Clause 10.
As the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, if one is convicted-and this is why it is important-of an offence under Clause 10, not only is one fined but one is suspended from union activity. There is no discretion. Right, Mr. Harris?


Jack Harris: None in there.


John V. Nunziata: And it is automatic that one is prohibited from participating in union activities for five years. Well, it goes on to state in Clause 11(2) that if an employer or a representative of the employer breaches any part of this Bill, or is found guilty of a breach of a provision of it, then he cannot be employed by Canada Post for five years. That is nonsense. In effect it is a sentence. One is not going to prosecute any employer. One is not going to prosecute Mr. Lander or any of his cohorts. That is not what this legislation is all about. That is not what this clause is all about.
It is obvious that this particular enforcement provision is in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I do not think one has to go too far to conclude that-


Mr. Reid:: Take it to court.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member opposite says, "Take it to court". That is the typical Tory way. If a member of that Party does not like legislation, then they say that we should take it to court. That is shirking one's responsibilities as a parliamentarian here. Our responsibility is to pass laws that will withstand court challenges, not to pass laws hoping for a court challenge.
But one does not have to go too far, Mr. Minister, to realize that it is in fact a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is cruel and unusual punishment when there is a punishment of a minimum fine of $10,000, and on top of that mandatory or automatic suspension from union activity for five years.
I hope the Minister in the next few hours will reconsider this Draconian clause and delete completely Clause 11 and modify Clause 10 in order to create an atmosphere in which the two parties will try to the greatest extent and to the greatest degree possible to co-operate to create a work environment over the next several years that will be in the best interests of management, labour and the public.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on this particular clause because in my discussions with postal workers in Essex-Windsor it has been suggested to me very strongly that it is these kinds of provisions within the proposed Bill which present the red flag in front of the bull, the goad which will make for labour relations in the Post Office, which are already extremely difficult, difficult to put right and more difficult to turn around.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
I think that everybody in this House, everybody in this country, recognizes that there is a very difficult situation in respect of labour-management relations in the Post Office. If the marble worker himself, Mr. Kelly, cannot succeed in bringing about some kind of meeting of minds, as he was able to do with letter carriers, then I think that is one demonstration. It is very important that whatever piece of legislation is brought to bear on the backs of these workers is seen to be in some sense balanced, in some sense fair. There are two aspects of this particular clause which in that respect worry me considerably. They certainly very considerably worry the workers to whom I have talked.
The first is that, as a number of people have suggested, the extreme severity of the fines which are levied, not just as potential maximums but as necessary minimums on condition of conviction. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, the House and the country that this provision is being presented in a piece of legislation which was brought in at a time when there was no full strike. There was just a rotating strike across the country. Service had not been completely interrupted. It was brought in at a time when I think, again, everybody in the country would agree that the service which has been provided by the Post Office in this past period has deteriorated significantly. It was brought in at a time when the union itself had requested a mediator. The Minister refused to accept that request, Canada Post refused to accept that request which would have permitted that possibility to at least be explored. As I noted this morning, it was brought in at a time when provisions had been in place whereby casual workers had found it very difficult, despite their peripheral relationship with the strike, to receive the wages which were rightfully due to them for the work that they had done in the past.
Despite all those circumstances, despite that context, there was still this tremendously heavy burden put on workers of fines of $10,000 up to $50,000 with respect to officers of the union, and fines of $20,000 up to $100,000 with respect to the union. That is not an absolute fine, that is a fine per day. That seems to me, as one of my colleagues described it the other day, to represent the War Measures Act of labour relations. It is not something that the people of this country will see as fair, just, balanced, and equitable.
I ask the Minister if he can provide some type of justification for these extremely strong fines, given the circumstances which existed at the time that this legislation was brought in, that is, no strike, deteriorating service in the Post Office for the past few years, no response to the request for a mediator, and circumstances which made it difficult for casual workers to be paid what was due to them.
The second point I wish to raise is that the country itself has been told that this is back-to-work legislation; it is legislation to get the Post Office going again. In fact, as it is written this clause states that any provision of this Act which includes the imposition of the collective agreement over a significant period
of years ahead, any provision of this Act if it is broken can lead to conviction and these very heavy fines.
I also ask the Minister why, if he felt it was necessary to put heavy fines into effect to get the workers back to work, he also felt that he had to back up every single clause of this potential Act, every single clause of what we do not even know may yet come from the arbitrator who looks at this dispute, why every single bit of that activity shall be backed up by this extremely heavy enforcement mechanism? Even if it is justified to consider heavy fines to send workers back to work, which I do not agree it is, I think most people in this country will look at this as far too heavy for what it sets out to accomplish. But even if that is the case, why apply it to every aspect of labour relations in the Post Office for the next three years so that every provision of this Act, including what the arbitrator might ultimately put into place, is subject to those types of heavy fines?
That is certainly how it reads to me, and I welcome the Minister stating that this will not be the case, if indeed it is not. As the clause is set out, it clearly states that any provision of this Act which, for instance, is broken by a wildcat strike two years from now, or by a union protest against a go-slow activity in protest of some part of the provisions of the arbitration which is settled, that any part of that, any activity of that type, can lead to these massive fines.
I remember sitting in the Press Gallery years ago when the War Measures Act was brought into Parliament. I listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in what was a very unpopular statement at that stage, say that this was using a hammer to crush a peanut.
In this case, I think the provisions are harsh, unreasonable, unfair, and quite out of league and context. This shows up not only in the size of the fines but also by the fact that they will be applied to any activity in the future where the union might in some minor way break the provisions of the collective agreement, not because the union thought that it did, but because it was judged by some judge to have done so.


Jack Harris: I wish to pick on one of the comments of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). It is important that we understand that this legislation would have the effect of imposing minimum fines of $10,000 on union officials. People talk about "union officials" and mean the national president of the union. This means anybody who is a representative of the union which can include a shop steward or someone who is acting in any capacity within the union. It could affect someone during the whole course of the collective agreement that is referred to here, and it could have nothing whatever to do with the Post Office. It could be a national political protest, which we have had from time to time in this country. Political protests which involve work stoppages and national days of protest are political acts and have nothing whatever to do with labour relations in the Post Office. This would expose the individual to a minimum $10,000 fine up to a $50,000 fine.
October 15, 1987

We should not be satisfied with the answer of the Minister of Labour, or the justification that the reason it is a $10,000 fine is tough, it is a minimum fine, but we did it before so we will do it again, and that is the justification.
That is not a very good justification. There is a precedent in dealing with legislation in this country. The reason that we have minimum fines is that when there are no minimum fines sometimes a judge will not give serious consideration to the offence. The legislature will then step in and say, "We have had this crime on the books for many years, the judges will let the people go and they should be treating them more severely,. so we will up the fines".
Would the Minister tell us whether or not there has been any experience where there has been back-to-work legislation, where the judges have been complacent, have not taken the matter seriously, and have not given appropriate fines? Could the Minister tell us whether there have been situations which have shown that without minimum fines of $10,000 the judges do not do their jobs and do not take the matter seriously enough?
We are not talking about maximum fines of $50,000. There may be cases where defiance of legislation of this nature might require a serious fine of $50,000, but we are talking here about a minimum fine of $10,000 with no judicial discretion.
Could the Minister tell us why he has taken that discretion away from the judges? Has there been an experience about which he can tell us where a judge should have given a fine of $10,000 and only gave one of $50, $100, $2,000, or $5,000? Has that been the experience with back-to-work legislation, that judges have not taken it seriously enough and have not treated it properly? If the Minister thinks that that is the case,
I ask him to tell us about those experiences, to tell us what has happened.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the remarks of my colleagues, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, and others. It is becoming obvious that no one in the House has come to the conclusion that the minimum fines are acceptable. They have been found to be too high, too harsh, and unrealistic. They have been called all sorts of names. I do not want to repeat the remarks of my colleagues, but I would like to indicate that I agree with them 100 per cent.
As a practical man, I would like to try to give the Minister an opportunity to correct what I consider to be abusive penalties. As the Hon. Member for St. John's East suggested, the Minister should give to the judge the power that he should have in the first place, that is, to exert his judgment and to decide what a minimum penalty should be. The Minister could do that by removing the minimum penalty and giving the responsibility to the judge, or the Minister could return to the drawing-board and establish new, realistic, minimum fines.
Postal Services Continuation
I would like to move the following amendment which would give the Minister the opening of which he seems to be in need to try to do a better job:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 10 by deleting the words "less than
$10,000 or" from line 8 on page 5 of the Bill, and by deleting the words "less
than $500 or" from line 13 on page 5 of the Bill, and by deleting the words
"less than $20,000 or" from line 20 on page 5 of the Bill.
Either the Minister decides that he wants to leave the discretion entirely with the court or the judge to decide what will be the penalty-there is a maximum, but with this there would be no minimum-or perhaps the Minister, who appears to be ferocious if we look at the amounts in the Bill, wants to set his own more realistic minimum. I will not say more than that. I think I have done my duty by providing the Minister with an opportunity tonight, as we are dealing with the Bill clause by clause, to do a better job.

And if the Minister wants to take this opportunity, we could have a legislation that, while being tough, could at least be more humane, which all our fellow citizens would consider more reasonable, although its goal is to enforce the law.
And I will conclude on these words, waiting for the response of the Minister to see what he wants to do. Will he insist on going too far, with unreasonable penalties, or does he want a realistic legislation that still has teeth without being offensive? That is my question to him.


Marcel Danis: We have the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques on the floor. The Chair finds the amendment in order.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment of our colleague.


Some Hon. Members:: Comrade Keeper.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I note that some of my Liberal colleagues have picked up an idea from a good source, a colleague of mine on the New Democratic Party benches. I do not mean to get under the skins of my colleagues. I enjoy cooperation, and co-operation in a good cause would be to give some flexibility to judges so that fines do not have to be severe where they are not required.
I hope the Minister will be open to this amendment. I do not know whether or not he is or whether he is prepared to give some sort of indication. I do not see any nod of his head or any smile, so I will not expect any openness to the amendment on the part of the Minister. Perhaps we can still hope.
I would like to make a point about these fines for lack of compliance with the legislation. The Minister indicated that the fines were severe, that $10,000 or $100,000 per day were severe fines. I do not dispute that at all; they are severe.
Why has the Government found it necessary to go to such severe legislation? It is simply because it has failed to set the

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
stage for negotiations. It has set in place a policy for the Post Office which was confrontational and made negotiations impossible. Therefore, it must have extreme and severe fines in order to enforce a settlement. That is why the fines are severe.
The amendment of my colleague would be useful. I hope the Minister will listen to some reason and give some flexibility to the courts. I would also point out that while the severe fines are there because the Government has refused to set the stage for negotiations, the Minister has also said, in response to questions from this side of the House, that the fines will apply throughout the life of the collective agreement. It could be that for two years or three years these fines will apply.
Clause 6 indicates that if someone participates in a strike against the employer, he or she would be subject to the enforcement clauses. If, sometime during the life of the agreement arising from this legislation, a worker were to go on a wildcat strike for some reason of a local nature, or some hardship in a particular plant, or for something which ordinary Canadians would understand, he or she would be subject to these enormous fines, these very severe fines.
Surely there is another regime under which such situations could be regulated. Surely these fines are not applied in all cases in which there is a collective agreement and somebody refuses to work and goes on a wildcat strike.


Jack Harris: In response to a manager going crazy or something.


Cyril Keeper: Perhaps the manager would have lost his sanity and would have become unreasonable, authoritarian and apply this kind of management style in the local post office. What if you cannot take that kind of harassment from your manager and you walk out and refuse to come to work? You are subject to these kinds of fines. Surely there is another regime under which such a situation could be handled.
I recall reading the book on the Post Office entitled Post Mortem in which there is an account of a manager in the Post Office walked out in order to resolve a local conflict. He managed to get the attention of the political authorities and the situation was resolved. How could anybody who works at the Post Office bring attention to the slightest irritant for which there is no resolution? They would in this case be subject to severe fines. 1 would like the Minister to deal with why he has the severe fines in the legislation, because the Government has not set in place a regime that would lead to a negotiated settlement. Why do these fines have to be in place throughout the whole life of the collective agreement? Surely there could be a limit to how long they are in place. I would like to hear the Minister respond to those two items.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly on the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague. It is obvious that the clause with which we are dealing now is at the very heart of the Bill proposed by the Minister. He is adamant that there
should be fines of such a size to achieve what he thinks they should achieve. Even though some of us disagree with some of those fines, I suppose that we could live with some aspects of them a little easier if they were amended in a way that would still fulfil the objectives of the Minister while being more reasonable for everyone. Nevertheless I do not like the Bill, but at least it will be more palatable for all individuals concerned. Ideally the maximum fine should be lowered as well.
As a compromise, my distinguished colleague from Saint-Jacques has offered this amendment to us which would still retain the main feature of the Bill, namely, to have the availability of levying large fines while not putting our judges in strait-jackets causing a situation whereby they would have to impose fines which could very well be unreasonable for some offences.
My colleague from Winnipeg has given us examples of an individual wildcat walk-out in a community six months or a year from now which could result in very harsh side effects from a minimum fine which may not be warranted at the time. It is very possible that maximum fines would not be warranted at any time. Nevertheless they would be even less warranted in a year from now in a small community where a local situation has caused some sort of disagreement between management and labour. I think what my colleague has offered is a compromise type of a motion, certainly not making everyone totally happy, but in the good spirit of co-operation, I think that he has proposed something that the Minister, if 1 may suggest, should consider favourably.
I think the Minister himself will recognize that the present Bill as worded now has features, particularly this minimum fine feature, which could be extremely injurious. I said it in my second reading speech and I will repeat it again tonight that extreme law is extreme injury. It is not justice but the denial of it. That is a very old axiom, as the Minister who is a lawyer will well know, but it is very definitely apropos in this kind of a Bill. The Minister being the Minister of Labour not the Minister of management will want to have legislation which could still be as strict as required in his view, but not having that strait-jacket effect or that extreme injury potential effect that I have just described.
I want to support the amendment offered by my colleague and I invite the Minister to give it very serious consideration. In my view it will not substantially damage the fundamental characteristics of his Bill but it will make the legislation somewhat fairer than it is at the present time.


Jack Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of the amendment. It is a very reasonable one. In times like these, the Government ought to be prepared to listen to reason when there is so much emotionalism about an issue and, to be fair, coming from all quarters. We have in this case a very reasonable proposal put by the Hon. Member from Saint-Jacques. When dealing with offences, the courts and judges are very experienced in how to determine what kind of punishment to give.
October 15, 1987

Two factors are taken into consideration. This is part of the law of the country, as the Minister will know. In determining the fine or punishment one of the factors is the severity of the offence as determined by the maximum punishment provided for in the legislation. Note, it is maximum punishment. Minimum punishment is not even looked at to determine the severity. It is the maximum punishment as determined by the legislation. A crime with a maximum punishment of 14 years in jail is considered more serious than a crime with a maximum punishment of two years. Maximum is what is used to determine how seriously the Parliament of Canada wants to view an offence. This amendment has left the maximums there. The judge has a very clear idea from Parliament how seriously the offence is to be regarded and will govern himself accordingly.
As the Member from Burin-St. George's knows, judges in Newfoundland in dealing with offences by offshore fishing captains, Spanish and Portuguese sea captains who break the fishing laws and other federal statutes have no hesitation in imposing fines of $25,000, $30,000 or more based on the seriousness of the offence and based on the maximum punishment provided by the law.
The other principle which judges will consider is one which I am sure the Minister considers important because of this legislation, namely, deterrence. One or the other objective of sentencing is deterrence. If deterrence is needed in a particular offence, then the punishment is harsher. This is a very reasonable amendment and proposal. Two messages are being sent to the judges. One, Parliament considers the breaking of the law very serious because of the maximum fine. Two, if deterrence is important in a particular case, then the punishment can suit the crime if the crime is serious enough to warrant a heavy punishment. These two factors will guide a judge in dealing with any offence under this Bill, but will also provide, by taking out these absolutely outrageous minimums, for discretion for a technical breach for a violation having nothing to do whatever with the purpose of this legislation. The purpose is to stop the current dispute and attempt to resolve the current outstanding differences between the Post Office Corporation and its employees.
Let us have the enforcement provisions deal with the problem, not deal with something else and not set traps and minefields for workers down the road because some manager steps out of line. If a manager steps out of line by doing something wrong and the employee says, "Well, we have to put up with this. We have to tolerate this abuse", the shop steward will be levied a fine of $10,000 minimum if he tells an employee that he doesn't have to put up with such abusive action on the part of the employer. It might have nothing whatsoever to do with the current dispute but might have to do with something else entirely.
Unless this amendment is accepted, we will still have this very severe, arbitrary, automatic and essentially unfair and
Postal Services Continuation
unjust provision which does not allow for no discretion on the part of the court. If this amendment is accepted, the court will be able to respond appropriately to the cases that come before it. I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment as it sufficiently provides for his objectives without tying the hands of a judge who deals with real cases and real facts.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take any more time but I would like to indicate that all sides of the House seem to accept this amendment. I want to ask the Minister whether he will take this opportunity to revise the penalties provided for in the bill; as a matter of fact, he has the choice either to revise them himself or to leave to a judge's discretion the enforcement of the law and the setting of discretionary fines before a court. Could the Minister tell us whether he intends to take this opportunity that is given to him?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to thank my hon. colleagues for their very sincere representations and say that I appreciate their concerns; they are similar of course to the points that have been made during consideration of Bill C-85 and Bill C-24, so that-

I have had the occasion to discuss amendments on previous occasions. When we discussed Bills C-84 and C-24 we considered the severity, and they are severe, of these particular clauses and we considered the proposed amendments which were not accepted at that time. The amendments proposed this evening to this particular clause will not be accepted either.
Amendment (Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)) negatived on division.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 11 carry?
On Clause 11-Additional punishment-union


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, as if we did not have enough to say on the preceding clause with regard to the harshness of penalties, I must rise again to say that this five-year off-the-job penalty goes way beyond Clause 10 in its harshness and Clause 10 is harsh enough. This penalty comes on top of the penalties that are already provided for in Clause 10, penalties which we have already described as being too heavy.
We are certainly entering a new era of severity, of unusual and inhumane penalties. I do not think that I as a Member of this House can accept that. In some countries of the world they still cut off the hand of someone who has been caught stealing. Because they are still doing that in some countries does not

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
mean that we have to revert back to the Dark Ages in this country.
I do not know how to describe a five-year off-the-job penalty. Some have called it a sledge-hammer. Some have called it a whip with seven strands. Others have called it a shotgun. I think I will call it vengeance with passion.
I do not know what the union leadership or the officers of Canada Post have done to the Minister to make him react in such a vengeful way. I take it as my duty to move an amendment to this clause. I move:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out the words "five
years" from line 28 on page 5 of the Bill and substituting therefor the words
"three days" and by striking out the words "five years" from line 36 on page 5
and substituting therefor the words "three days".
This amendment is symbolic. In fact, my purpose is to move an amendment to strike out entirely Clause 11. Our rules do not provide for that, our rules say that if I do not like a certain clause, I simply vote against it. I wanted to move an amendment that would allow my colleagues and I to say what we think of this measure.

What is the purpose of this additional punishment? To enforce compliance? Obviously, that cannot be the case, since under Clause 10, an individual acting in the capacity of an officer of the Canada Post Corporation or the union who contravenes the Act is already liable to a fine of not less than $10,000 or more than $50,000 per day. It is clear that providing for an additional punishment of five years is not meant as a way to enforce compliance. There must be some other reason, but I can't find it, since the preceding clause is already so extreme.
So what is the point? As I see it, the fines alone are more than sufficient and even too severe. Is this supposed to hit the unions hard or intimidate Canada Post officials? Is it because, as I said previously in the House, the Government, desperate to improve its image, seems to think that a good way to do that is to act tough with postal employees? Maybe the Government thinks it would help improve public opinion polls. I don't know.
I just don't understand. I would ask the Minister to answer the following question: What is the additional advantage? I ask this question because I cannot think of any other possibility.
A reasonable suspension period. Suspensions are included in certain kinds of legislation at the provincial, federal and municipal level in Canada. Policemen have been suspended for fifteen days or even a month. That is a fact. But suspending someone for a period of five years simply boggles the mind, since, as I said before, the purpose is not to enforce compliance, because that has already been amply taken care of by the preceding clause.
Do we want to put a person in a position where he might lose his home because for five years he would not be able to pay his mortgage? Do we want him to lose his car and have trouble
feeding his family? I hardly think that is what the Government has in mind.
Mr. Speaker, even a person convicted of a criminal offense under the Criminal Code is pardoned if he files an application after two years. In other words, anyone who is convicted of assault or damaging somebody else's property can come after two years and apply for a pardon to the Office of the Solicitor General of Canada, and if his behaviour has been good, he will be granted a pardon every time.
According to our laws a person convicted of a criminal offence can be pardoned after two years. Yet, a person who has already paid a $10,000 fine would be suspended from doing his job as an officer of the union or of Canada Post for a period of five years. That is beyond me.
1 have looked at the Charter of Rights and found at least three points in the Charter which this measure may violate.

I may remind Hon. Members that the Charter provides Canadians with legal guarantees. One of these guarantees is set forth in Section 12 of the Charter, which says that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Of course, it is debatable whether a five-year suspension is cruel or unusual, but no one can convince me it is normal, common or customary.
I would be concerned that people who are affected or threatened by Clause 11 might go before the courts to ask for a ruling on whether this particular clause contravenes the Charter of Rights and the legal guarantees I just read to you. I would not be surprised if those people won their case.
There is more. The Charter of Rights provides Canadian citizens with other guarantees as well. If I could find the other sections-here they are. Under fundamental freedoms, every one has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion etc., and finally, the one I am interested in here, 2(d)-freedom of association. Sure, just because certain officers of the Union are suspended for a five-year period does not prevent union members from continuing to be part of an association. Of course that can go on. However, I maintain that an association whose officers have been suspended for a period of five years will be hard pressed to administer itself and to have a sense of direction. It merely opens the door to other union Members who would be only too happy to replace the former officers who were suspended and to take advantage of this opportunity to do so. This could lead to anarchy within a union, and I wonder whether that is the purpose of this clause. Because, as I said before, I do not see why the fines provided in the preceding clause should not be more than adequate.
October 15, 1987

There are other freedoms that are also guaranteed by the Charter. Under mobility and residence rights: Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain and leave Canada, and so forth, and finally Article 6(b); every citizen has the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Anyone whose right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood is guaranteed by the Charter and who is prohibited from working in his particular field, either as an officer or representative of the Canada Post Corporation or as an officer or representative of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, that person is definitely deprived of a freedom and a right guaranteed under the Charter, namely, to pursue the gaining of livelihood. I agree, that person can work somewhere else, but as far as I know, the Canada Post Corporation is a monopoly.

There are not three, four, or five Canada Post organizations in the country, there is only one. If one is prevented from acting as an officer of Canada Post, as he used to, for a period of five years, where will he seek employment in his specialty? This is in violation of Section 6(b) of the Charter of Rights. The same thing applies to an officer of the union. There are not three or four CUPW organizations in Canada, there is only one.
The purpose of this amendment is to point out that this heavy-handed five-year off-the-job penalty is absolutely unacceptable. I do not know how the Minister will react to this amendment. He did not react very favourably to my amendment to Clause 10.


John V. Nunziata: He is not being reasonable.


Jacques Guilbault: I do not foresee my Party voting for legislation which contains such horrendous penalties as those contained in this Bill. I do not want to be associated with this legislation. 1 do not want to carry the blame if someone loses his house because the mortgagor forecloses. I want to be able to say for the rest of my life that I opposed such measures as this. I do not oppose it only because it is contained in back-to-work legislation. I would oppose it in any piece of legislation. What is unreasonable in this Bill would be unreasonable in any other Bill. That which goes beyond reason goes beyond my support.


Marcel Danis: The Member for Saint-Jacques has moved the following amendment:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 11 by striking out the words "five
years" from line 28 on page 5 of the Bill and substituting therefor the words
"three days" and by striking out the words "five years" from line 36 on page 5
and substituting therefor the words "three days".
The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, I want to take a few minutes to make quite clear how we feel about this clause. This clause says that if workers do not comply with the law they will lose their position with the union or with the Post Office. These are very severe enforcement provisions.
Postal Services Continuation
Having introduced enforcement provisions of this nature one would think that the Government had done everything possible on the face of the earth to come to a negotiated settlement. It is clear that the Government has done just the opposite. It has followed a policy of confrontation. It developed its plan for the Post Office behind closed doors. It failed to involve the public or the union in the development of its plans for the Post Office. It kicked the union representatives off the board of the Post Office.
The Government's policy has made a negotiated settlement virtually impossible. In order to justify the penalties in this legislation the Government should have gone in the opposite direction. If it had done everything possible to arrive at a negotiated settlement it may have a case for such severe enforcement provisions.
If workers do not do as they are told they will lose their positions with the union and their jobs at the Post Office. This reminds me of the solidarity union experience in Poland, and the case of Louis Riel in Canada.
In Poland, people were living under a totalitarian regime that did not allow its people to have a voice in the quality of their life. They organized and developed a union to give them strength. Of course, they were crushed because the government of that country did not believe in hearing from the people and did not believe in the fundamental freedoms that lead to representation in a democratic society.
This legislation echoes that because it is telling ordinary workers, people who work at the Post Office, that they do not have the right to choose their own leadership. That is a very important aspect of democracy.


John Napier Turner: Do not break the law!


Cyril Keeper: An Hon. Member says, break the law. One of the fundamental aspects of law is the concept of natural justice. Also laws in society are based on the concept of democracy. The removal of the right of people to choose representation removes one of the pillars that supports a democratic society. This legislation echoes the situation in Poland and brings to mind the struggle of the solidarity union.
It also reminds me of the case of Louis Riel in Canada. He was not allowed to sit in this Chamber because the government of the day did not want him here. He was elected by his people to serve them and give voice to their grievances. The government said no. Not only did it choose to see that he was hung, it did not allow him to claim his seat in the House.
This legislation reminds me of that situation because the Government is telling people that they do not have the right to choose their own representatives. That is anti-democratic and fundamentally wrong. The Government may want its legislation to be effective and obeyed, but it ought to have a good reason to justify this provision that will not allow someone to represent others if they do not do what the Government wants.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
In fact, the Government has chosen confrontation every step of the way. It did not use the option of a mediator so that it could use this back-to-work legislation.
This provision is unacceptable. Before implementing this provision the Government should prove that it has gone as far as it can to seek an agreement. Instead, it has promoted confrontation and made it impossible to come to a negotiated settlement.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious to everyone concerned that Clause 11 is, in effect, the Jean-Claude Parrot clause of this legislation. I could not help but think as I read Clause 11 that when the Minister was drafting this legislation he had one person in mind, Jean-Claude Parrot.
The Government wants to crush Jean-Claude Parrot and CUPW. It ought to admit its hidden agenda.
The purpose of the legislation is to get the mail moving again. Traditionally, Canadians have been fair and equitable. They have been understanding when it comes to legislation and punishment.
A minister of the Government of Canada could be convicted of corruption, could be convicted of conflict of interest, could be convicted of fraud, could be convicted of every offence in the Criminal Code of Canada and the very next day have the right to again run for public office. The Minister knows that. Why is that the case? If any Hon. Member of this House is convicted of corruption, some Canadians would ask why that person should be allowed to again run for public office. Not long ago there was a case in Nova Scotia where an individual was convicted of an offence and subsequently had the opportunity to run again. It was left up to the people, through a democratic process, to determine whether or not that person should sit again as an elected representative. That was a very basic and fundamental principle of natural justice of democracy.
If there is one law for politicians, one law for Ministers of the Crown, why should there be another law for union leaders? What is the hidden agenda of the Government?
If the purpose of this legislation is to get the 23,000 postal workers back to work, and the Minister, who purports to be a reasonable man, says that he wants a negotiated settlement because everyone believes that is the best possible solution, why is he provoking the union? Why is he provoking Jean-Claude Parrot to defy this legislation?
Not only has he decided in Clause 10 to provide for a minimum penalty of $10,000 a day, with no discretion whatsoever in the court, Jean-Claude Parrot will not be able to be a union representative for five years.
I want the Minister to stand up and deny that that is who he had in mind when he drafted this Draconian, cruel clause, Clause 11. Why does he not admit that it is the hidden agenda of the Conservative Government to crush CUPW.
It seems to me that the Prime Minister wants to be another Ronald Reagan. Just as Ronald Reagan did with the air traffic controllers, the Prime Minister of Canada wants to provoke the postal workers into a situation where 23,000 Canadians defy this law and are fined these excessive fines so that he can then fire them all.
Why does the Minister not admit to the hidden agenda of the Conservative Government? Why else would he have this clause in the legislation?
I challenge the Minister to show us one precedent that is similar to this law. I challenge him to show us some legislation in the Criminal Code of Canada dealing with politicians. He knows that politicians of his own Party stand charged with criminal offences. I would like him to stand up and tell us whether he believes the Criminal Code of Canada should be amended to provide that any politician convicted of a criminal offence should not be able to stand for public office for five years. That is absolutely undemocratic. It is unjust, unfair and inequitable.
If the Minister is honest and sincere in what he is saying in regard to trying to get the two parties back to together again, I would hope he would withdraw Clause 11. He knows we cannot move an amendment to strike Clause 11. We must simply vote against it or move other amendments that would serve to reduce the period of automatic prohibition for a person convicted under this Act to act as a union officer. Why does he not do the reasonable thing and completely withdraw Clause 11? In that way he will be in a better position to say to the union and to management that he wants a settlement? If he allows Clause 11 to stand, it is an open challenge to Jean-Claude Parrot and to CUPW to defy this legislation.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Chairman, I am very disturbed about Clause 11. What it proves is that if one wants to have good labour legislation one does not expect it to come from a Conservative Government. What you get from a Conservative Government is bad labour legislation and this is a good example of that. Clause 11 is completely unnecessary. It is vindictive. It has no place in labour legislation which is passed by the Parliament of Canada. It sets a terrible example for labour legislation in other jurisdictions. I sincerely hope that the Minister will in fact reconsider the inclusion of this clause in the Bill and will in fact withdraw it.
The reason one gets bad labour legislation from Conservatives is precisely because there is always a strong element within a Conservative caucus, and within the Progressive Conservative Party, that wants to bash unions, that wants to kick workers around because they think it is okay. The union is trying to have the opportunity to bargain collectively, to speak up for their rights and to exercise some dignity in the workplace. Here we have an example of the Government going even further and withdrawing rights which ought to pertain to any person, that is the reasonable right to be considered on a
October 15, 1987

Postal Services Continuation
reasonable basis and not to lose one's livelihood because of some set of circumstances which are laid out in Clause 11.
I would like to talk about the specifics of the clause. What it says is that if any worker is convicted of doing certain acts that are outlawed by the Bill he can be prevented from being an officer or a representative of the union for five years thereafter, and he can also be prevented from working for Canada Post for the next five years. A five-year loss of one's work is a penalty which in dollar terms is $150,000 or $125,000 in lost income, depending on the individual's wage rate. Of course, it works out to be far more than that because it may force the individual to move. He may not have other opportunities. It is, as other speakers have said, a Draconian penalty.
One has to ask what are the circumstances under which this might actually arise? I was thinking, for example, of what happens in a situation in Winnipeg, or in the Alta Vista terminal in Ottawa when an individual postal worker, who is a shop steward or an officer of the local CUPW executive, and who works in a situation which has been heating up because of unreasonable actions taken by a supervisor who has been harassing employees and giving orders that are unreasonable, or in other ways creating difficult situations, and the situation explodes and a bunch of workers walk off the job in a wildcat strike? The individual who was an officer of the local had no part in that but he is then in the situation that if he goes to the outside of the plant, even for five minutes, in order to persuade the workers that perhaps they had better come back in and cool off, he can be guilty of participating in the strike and convicted for that act of trying to maintain labour harmony in his particular workplace. He can not only be denied from working with the union for five years but can also lose his job for a minimum of five years. Of course, he will never get it back because he will be simply written off after that by Canada Post.
What kind of need is there for this? There are fines already in the Bill for violations of the Act. They have been used before in back-to-work legislation. They are objectionable but, nonetheless, at least there is an established precedent for them.
We are talking not of a matter of applying this to a short period of time when there might be some high tempers. In fact, the Government has already agreed to delay the back-to-work features so that there is a certain period of time, although not long, for people to get back to work rather than being forced back to work the minute the Bill is proclaimed tomorrow, or whenever that may happen to occur. Therefore, why add this clause? Why go with this needless provocation? Is it really because the Government wants to set RCMP undercover agents to work in postal terminals to harass the leaders of the postal workers union in different places, provoking them into calling a strike or taking some other action and then forcing them out of their job? Is that what the Government has in mind? We have seen this used in the Province of Quebec.

We have just seen in the Province of Quebec how the Government has used agents provocateurs who worked for a union and actually recommended or directed activities which proved to be illegal. Does the Government intend to recruit such agents who will work as agents provocateurs and find ways to oust from his position Mr. Jean-Claude Parrot and have him found guilty under the legislation for having violated the legislation.

Is that what the Government has in mind? I do not know. I cannot justify this particular part of the legislation being in force at all. The representative of the Liberal Party suggested we should take the five-year provision and cut it down to three days. If someone was convicted, they should be denied the opportunity to work for Canada Post for three days. There are provisions in the collective bargaining agreement for grievances, for suspension, for acts of discipline, to be exercised by Canada Post. There is a whole structure under which those disciplinary acts can in fact be grieved if the employee finds them to be unreasonable. Those disciplinary acts can include suspensions for certain periods of time. There is an established manner of procedure.
I do not mind that being in the practice of labour-management relations, but whether it is five years or three days, I do mind, and my Party objects as well to the idea that we enshrine this principle in the law through passing Clause 11. That is why, with regret, I say to the representatives of the Liberal Party that we cannot support that particular amendment. It is not a good amendment because it is not a good clause. It is not a good part of the Bill and it should be taken away completely.
I wonder what has led the Government to this desire to try and bash the postal workers by every device possible? We now know that even a free trade agreement cannot bring the Conservatives up in the polls. They are now trying to bash postal workers because they are old whipping boys for the Liberals and now for the Conservatives and perhaps that is what they will use in order to try to bring themselves up in the polls. But it is just not going to wash.
I know from the calls I am receiving that there are people who are concerned about postal services. That is a very natural concern. They are asking themselves what are the options? Why is it that Canada Post is so intent on eliminating 4,200 jobs over the course of the next few years? Why is it that Canada Post is trying to turn these jobs into jobs that pay only $4 or $5 an hour? Why has Canada Post refused to look at ways in which it can broaden and expand its services rather than limiting them?
Someone called me the other day and asked me what ideas I had in mind. I said, for example, that I would like to be able to go down to my neighbourhood post office or to the central post office in Ottawa and use a facsimile machine to send material to another post office anywhere in the country. I could phone

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
someone in an office there and say, "Look. I am sending you the material you want by facsimile. It will be there in 10 minutes. Go and get it". Within a half an hour I could take something from my desk and have it on the desk of someone with whom I am doing business anywhere in the country. That is a very valuable service. It does not now exist, but it could be offered through every main Canada Post terminal. But the Government says, "Let's close those terminals. We will put those services into neighborhood stores and close those terminals".
Over the course of the last century and a half we have had the postal service as one of the elements that has linked this country together.
The Government is now saying, "We want to run trucks, carry mail bags on airplanes, but we do not want to have Canada Post personnel actually relating to the customers and giving them service. That is something the Government should avoid. We are going to make this into an invisible service where people go to a supermailbox to get their mail, where they put there mail into a box, where the service is all carried out by machines or else by people who are franchisees or acting as agents for Canada Post".
I looked at the document about the commitment to all Canadians which was issued by Canada Post in the last few weeks as it was preparing for this confrontation with the postal unions. It is interesting that there is only one reference to employees. There is nothing in this document at all which is directed, as it should have been, to building up a sense of pride and commitment on the part of those Canada Post employees. They have had that sense of pride and commitment for a long time, but it is undermined when labour legislation such as this is brought in.
It states here that we have established a rigid delivery standard to which every employee is working. It says that we have new and tighter management controls. It says that Canada Post is going to continue to run the Post Office like it was the army rather than like a modern corporation here in the late 1980s.


John Napier Turner: We are on Clause 11.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton says that we are on Clause 11. That is the Hon. Member who has the Alta Vista terminal in his riding.


John Napier Turner: You are wrong again.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He clearly supports offensive labour legislation, as do all of his colleagues. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton wants to stand up with the postal workers, why was he not there on the picket lines the other day when I was there supporting the postal workers?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Why does the Hon. Member not participate in the debate?


Michael Morris Cassidy: One Member of the Hon. Member's Party was there with the postal workers, the Hon. Member for Plamon-don. He had no problems being there. Why was this Member of Parliament not there supporting the rights of workers to be protected against offensive labour legislation? It is the duty of any Member of Parliament to stand up and speak out against legislation that contravenes the Charter of Rights. Why does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton not do that? Maybe that Hon. Member could get up on debate and say why he supports offensive labour legislation like this.


John Napier Turner: Because my constituents have said, "Get them back to work".


Michael Morris Cassidy: Under any conditions? The Hon. Member says, "To hell with the Charter of Rights. To hell with labour-management relations. To hell with the labour law. Let us throw that all out the window." That is what the Hon. Member is saying. That is the kind of approach that I find offensive. It is the kind of approach that my Party finds offensive.
The Minister of management should have been acting as the Minister of Labour when he got up the other day. Instead, he stood up as the apologist for Canada Post, defending the fact that Canada Post had failed to bargain in good faith on the question of franchising. Day after day, week after week, month after month, Canada Post refused to talk about that particular issue with its employees who have said, "Let's talk about it. Let's look at it. Let's look at a number of different alternatives". The employees have indicated that they were prepared to look at that and now for their pains the union leaders in that particular case are threatened with being deprived of their jobs for five years under Clause 11, which is the clause we happen to be considering.
The Hon. Member for Gatineau also supports offensive labour legislation, unless she is able to get up right now and say that she wishes to stand aside from this particular thing and ask her Minister to withdraw that particular clause.


Claudy Mailly: I support the unemployed who deserve to get their cheques. I support them in their wish to get their cards. That is what I support.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Does that mean the Hon. Member supports workers serving as strike-breakers? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying? I cannot support that, and a lot of Canadians cannot support that. I am opposed to Clause 11. I want to say to those workers who are watching, who are not directly involved and who may be saying, "Well, we would like to see the mails back", of course, we would like to see them back. But remember that we are talking about the principles of labour legislation that apply to every working man and woman across Canada right now. If it is okay for the Government to use this Clause 11, which would allow somebody to be driven out of his
October 15, 1987

or her job for five years because of an offence that could in fact be trivial, if it is okay for it to use that against postal workers, then it is okay for it to use it, as it did, against longshoremen, against workers in the communications area, and against railroad workers.
It is okay to have a precedent which can be used in provincial areas of jurisdiction. But, what diminishes one worker's rights diminishes the rights of all workers. What diminishes the rights of any worker diminishes the rights of any Canadian. When offensive legislation such as this is put into force, the rights of every worker and every man and woman in Canada. are diminished. That is why this clause should be refused.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I listened with considerable attention to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. He said in his closing remarks that he opposes Clause 11 of the Bill. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, has proposed an amendment which would effectively delete Clause 11. Yet he said he was against that amendment. I have some difficulty in understanding the position of the New Democratic Party as it pertains to our amendment to Clause 11.
I will explain to the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre how it works. You see, Mr. Chairman, you cannot move to delete Clause 11 because it is against the rules of this House. So what we do is move an amendment which effectively removes the power from the clause, which is what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, did. I hope that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has understood the purpose of the Liberal amendment, which is to effectively delete Clause 11 under the rules permitted by the House. How can one be against an amendment which negates Clause 11 and be against Clause 11 simultaneously? 1 am waiting for some further explanation in that regard.
If we can get back to the substantive issue here, in Clause 11 what we have in fact is a very harsh clause. The Hon. Member for Gatineau will have plenty of opportunity to speak later, Mr. Chairman.


Claudy Mailly: I am supporting you, Don.


Don Boudria: We will certainly be here for sometime to come yet, and with the Hon. Member's assistance possibly even longer.
What I want to bring to the attention of the Committee of the Whole House is that my colleague from York South- Weston has pointed out quite well that what we effectively have of course is a clause which, if left unamended, would have serious consequences. What happens, I ask the Minister, if there was a technical breach of the collective agreement? Would that clause still apply?
If the Minister is to tell us that it does not apply, then I ask him which clause of the Bill permits a judge or anyone else from not applying that part of the Bill? I see no discretionary authority any where in the Bill which would allow us to remove that clause if it is not applicable. Again, I ask the
Postal Services Continuation
Minister, would it not have been more fair and more reasonable to have left that to the discretion of a judge, even accepting, albeit reluctantly on my part, that the Minister would have said for a time of up to five years? At least let the judge do the job of judging.
I have some difficulty at any time that this House places us in the position where in fact we are imposing a minimum sentence. I recognize that it has been done before. There are certain cases in which perhaps it is warranted. But, in fact, when there is a minimum sentence and a maximum sentence which is the same number, and that is effectively what Clause 11 provides- the five-year feature being a minimum and a maximum of five years-then we are leaving no discretion at all to the judges. At least Clause 10, however repugnant it was, left some discretion for the judge, the difference between $10,000 and $50,000. That is still too high in any respect but, nevertheless, there is some discretion. In Clause 11 there seems to be no discretion at all. The minimum sentence and the maximum sentence is stipulated in the clause.
The Minister may say it is all right because the same type of punishment is put on the employer. My distinguished colleague for York South-Weston very eloquently pointed out earlier tonight that to expect that one would place that same type of fine on the management of Canada Post is somewhat of a remote possibility, to put it at best. We all know it will never happen. Instead, what will likely happen is that some day, six months or a year down the road, there will be a technical breach somewhere in the country and someone will be convicted of this offence. They will be punished in a manner which is most unreasonable, and it will not at all achieve what the Minister is attempting to achieve, that is to get the workers back to work.
There is a compromise available. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques has demonstrated such a compromise-just remove the clause altogether. We will still have the main provisions of the Bill. Alternatively, the Minister could change the Bill to state, no less than six months and no more than five years, and leave some discretion to the judge. It still would not be a perfect Bill, but it would be better, or should I say not as bad as it is in its present state. I invite the Minister to address that section. Perhaps at the same time we could get some clarification from the folks to my left as to which side they are on in relation to Clause 11.


Raymond John Skelly: I would like to express my absolute astonishment and concern over the situation expressed by my colleagues. We have to go back a number of years to when the Liberals were in power and remember their spirited defence of the postal workers union and its leader. It is amazing how those hypocrites can be converted on the road to Damascus. It was in fact the legislation of the Liberal Party that put Jean-Claude Parrot in jail. That was done by the Liberals when they were the Government.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
The next thing to remember is that it was Liberal legislation that shut down the postal workers before the full extent of the collective bargaining process could work in 1978. The Liberals put them away before they managed to get out on strike, and before the full nature of the collective bargaining process had taken place. It is absolutely astounding that the Liberal caucus today can stand up in such a hypocritical manner and attempt to suggest that they are the salvation of labour rights in Canada. That is absolute nonsense. The President of CUPW was jailed by that Party, and in 1978 the rights of postal workers were trampled in the House by labour legislation that was as unjust and as repugnant as the legislation that we see before us today.
It is ironic that my colleague made reference to the Metis situation with Louis Riel. It is ironic that Sir John A. Macdonald and the group who hanged Louis Riel happened to be called the Liberal Conservative Party in former times. That was the name of that Party. We see in essence the same today with the false debate between the Conservatives and the Liberals on labour relations, with the Liberals on their feet in sanctimonious protestation protecting workers rights. They were the ones who actually wound up putting the leader of that union in jail, passing legislation in the House that was totally disgusting.
The problem before the House is that there is a clause in this legislation that is absolutely unacceptable. It breaks the principle of democratic trade unionism. It also breaks a principle of fair play in this country. When an individual has broken the law, the common practice is that a penalty upon conviction is served. Once the penalty established by law is served then the person is free to accept his place in society and continue on as a citizen. Once the debt is paid it is paid. A further penalty is not imposed that goes against basic principles of fairness, and the principle of democratic trade unionism.
Out of this misguided clause, a situation is created from which further conflict and dissension will evolve. If the Government attempts to pass this provision that bars an individual the workers feel represents their interests effectively and competently with management, who is involved vigorously in the collective bargaining process in attempting to extract benefits for workers, there is no doubt that they will elect that individual no matter what it states in the legislation. The basic unfairness of that particular clause will make workers re-elect those individuals.
The next thing that will happen is that the Government is forced to respond to that issue, not the nature of labour relations within the Post Office but to that single issue. What will it do? It will simply put up a trustee, or attempt to put a the union into trusteeship. What other option is there? The union is then put under trusteeship. In the final analysis, this particular clause is one of the stones on the road to breaking this union. That is what has to be read here.
This is another mistake made by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell when he stands up and criticizes the NDP for being unable to support any further imposition of penalty where a democratically elected individual cannot represent the group that he or she has been elected to represent. Three minutes, three days, five years, what is the difference? The thing is that it violates the principle and operation of a democratic trade union. Once the penalty has been paid, the offence is finished, and the individual should be prepared to make his way as a citizen. The Conservative Government is sowing the seeds of further conflict within the union.
It is our hope that the Liberals will fight with us to have the Conservatives withdraw this repugnant provision in this legislation. It is not needed. This legislation has the force of a hammer, far too large already. It is not needed, unless the wish is to break the union and bring more conflict within the postal union and management. If some day the Government wishes to place that union under trusteeship and break it altogether, then the correct thing is being done. Then the Government is totally exposing itself and violating the basic principles of democratic trade unionism in Canada. This is absolutely repugnant. It would be our hope that the Liberals would not attempt to mitigate it, and may perhaps even put an arrow in a future quiver for themselves. They have shown such negative approaches to the postal union before when they were in government. I am not talking about my colleagues who are new to the House. It is the Liberal Party that we all know and hold in such total contempt that I am referring to.
The basic issue is that this clause is absolutely unacceptable and it must be removed. The seed of future dissension is in that clause. The possibility of creating enormous conflict where people will go to jail to defend their democratic rights is sown by that clause. What we see here is the present Government's wish to break that union. In good faith, that clause ought to be removed.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken on that clause and I did not intend to speak again, but I do not think that I can let the Hon. Member for Comox- Powell River get away that easy.
He based some of his accusations about my Party on facts that were wrong. Perhaps it is nice for him to attack the Liberal Party and to blame it for the fact that Jean-Claude Parrot was jailed a few years ago because of Liberal legislation. After listening to him, I am not sure whether he has read the legislation in question. I have a copy of it here.


Raymond John Skelly: Bring it over. If it is different from mine, I would be glad to look at it.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to tell him what is in it. I have done my homework. He will not find a jail sentence in that piece of legislation. If he
October 15, 1987

goes back in history, he may be able to find that the union leader in question was jailed because he refused to pay a fine. That is standard in Canada. If a person does not pay his fine, he winds up behind bars. The Hon. Member may want to make sure that he pays his traffic tickets. Perhaps he should get his facts right.
Since the Hon. Member seems to want to shoot arrows, I am going to ask him questions. I have been present in the House of Commons throughout this debate. In fact, I miss very few sitting days in a year. I have not heard his Leader raise his voice once in the House of Commons or ask one question of the. Government about the strike. I have not heard him request mediation or try in any way to protect those involved. However, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River came into the House at the eleventh hour. Perhaps he had been relaxing in his office or somewhere else all evening.


Raymond John Skelly: I watched you on television.


Jacques Guilbault: If the Hon. Member has seen me on television, he has seen me moving amendments in an attempt to make this piece of legislation reasonable. I was unable to achieve that. If he sticks with me, he will see me vote against it because I think it is an unpalatable piece of legislation. However, I cannot take that trash from an Hon. Member who does not have the nerve nor the courage nor the competence to write his own amendments, to come to the House of Commons, to try to fight for them, and to convince his fellow Members to accept them.
There is another reason I am on my feet. While the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River attacked us and I rebutted his points, I saw Tory Members laughing on the other side. I saw a grin on their faces. Frankly, I cannot stand seeing the Minister and other Tory Members rejoicing at the same time as they are forcing such a piece of trash through the House of Commons.
I say to NDP Members-and we have been working together on this to try to agree on amendments; we even got the Minister to agree on amendments-that now is not the time for war among ourselves. Now is the time to fight against an unacceptable piece of legislation.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I rise to join with my colleagues on this side of the House and to say that I am particularly appalled by Clause 11. I am appalled by this Bill which is so punitive and unfair that it imposes heavy penalties, particularly on the postal union. In particular, Clause 11 imposes a heavy penalty on top of the heavy fines about which we heard when we were dealing with previous clauses. It deprives either a union leader or a manager of Canada Post of his or her livelihood for five years.
I cannot help but recall the legislation which we were studying and opposing about 10 months ago when the same Minister was imposing back-to-work legislation on longshoremen. At that time the legislation contained a similar clause, except that it was more punitive toward union leaders if I am
Postal Services Continuation
not mistaken. I cannot say that the Minister is being more fair by saying that the same penalty will be imposed on management and on union leaders. That is not being more fair; it is only being doubly punitive. It is deplorable.
The Minister has brought in back-to-work legislation three times or so, if I recall correctly, in the period of his jurisdiction. Each time it gets tougher, tougher, and tougher.
It is not that this is a token plan. This measure takes away a person's livelihood for up to five years. It ruins careers, and one can see what that would do to families. It also takes away the right of unions to choose their own officials. We must not forget about that.
I should like to return to a point which was made in French a little earlier by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques. I think it was the point which Mr. Borovoy had also made, that the legislation is contrary to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I would like the Minister to comment on it and to explain it to us.
If my notes are correct, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques also said that Article 12 of the Charter provided legal guarantees that everyone has the right not to be treated to any cruel or unusual punishment, which this is. People have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which this certainly undermines. They have the right to pursue a livelihood in any province.
I would like the Minister to explain how he can bring in legislation with a clause such as this one which certainly appears to be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the piece of legislation passes, I certainly hope that it will be challenged in the courts.
I would also like to say to my friends in the Liberal Party that we had prepared an amendment which I understand is out of order. It would do away with this clause altogether. We think that Clause 11 should be removed by striking out lines 22 to 37. We do not agree that there should be such a punitive clause in the Bill.
I urge the Minister to reconsider and to explain how he can bring it in when it contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add my own comments on Clause 11 which truly shows this Conservative Government's provocative spirit. They started with the hiring of strike breakers. All along, they refused to appoint a mediator in order to force the introduction of this shotgun bill that goes so far as denying an individual his democratic rights to be elected to a union or office job.

I would like to read into the record a quotation from page 3 of the conciliator's report of 1985. It reads: "If you believe in the collective bargaining system as I do, periods of economic retrenchment are not an occasion for management to beat

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
labour up but rather a time which requires the setting of realistic goals".
The conciliator at that time was the Deputy Minister of Finance. It was not a union member or union leader who said that; it was the Deputy Minister of Finance who was speaking about realistic goals.
Definitely the Conservative Government is not talking about realistic goals. It proposed in 1986 a business plan which the workers who are on strike are against because they are losing their jobs. Canadians in general are against it. Rural Canadians are against it because they are losing their post offices. Urban Canadians are against it because their mail is not being delivered to their doors. Many people are contesting it because periodicals and magazines will not be delivered to their homes at the same postal rate.
Canadians are against the new postal system which the Government of Canada wants. Clause 11 proves that the Government wants to break the union so that it can dismantle and privatize Canada Post.
The Government is bragging about Canada Post, saying that it has improved services. However, there are many places to which people must go to receive registered mail or parcels. One week it is one address, and the next week it is another. If they say that they are improving service by adding more outlets, why should they then reduce services at the Post Office? The intention is very clear. The Government wants to destroy the postal system the way we know it now. In order to accomplish that the Government has to destroy the union and Clause 11 does exactly that with a five year penalty.
Mir. de Jong: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a few remarks in the debate. It seems that one of my colleagues wanted to speak on this amendment at the same time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   de Jong@: It has become quite obvious to most Canadians what the Government's agenda is. What we are dealing with in the postal dispute is more politics than wisdom. It is a not a real desire to settle genuine disputes and genuine concerns. There are concerns of the working people throughout Canada not just in the Post Office but in many industries as well, concerns about job security. People see their jobs going down the drain, causing them to have lower and increasingly lower standards of living. Statistics point this out. You can see that actual wages have declined in terms of the cost of living over the last number of years. You can begin to understand the concern and desperation of working people.
What is the Government's solution to this dispute? If it were really up to some of the Hon. Members across the way, I am sure they would prefer to call out the army. They see in this dispute an opportunity to win electoral support, at least they hope, by forcing confrontation. I learned early in politics that
the Conservatives, the forces of the right, are not only concerned about who their friends are but who they can succeed in making their enemies. They feel that if they can get working people, particularly organized people and unions, to be their enemies, that will help their electoral causes. I have seen this type of thing in Saskatchewan where the Conservative Party very often goes out of its way to kick out at native people and the poor people on welfare in order to provoke them.
I remember working in a youth agency in Vancouver in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The mayor at that time was Tom Campbell. Tom Campbell as mayor used to provoke a riot around election time because he felt that that would create concern in the local citizenry and help him get re-elected. It is the politics whereby hate can provoke people considered unpopular, then you can help yourself politically. It is a disgusting type of politics. It is the politics of the right that we have seen Maggie Thatcher practice in Great Britain, that we see Ronnie Reagan practice in the United States and now we see the Conservative Government attempting to do the same thing. I suggest that it is not going to work. Canadians have seen though this Government. They have seen through its insincerity, its double dealing, lying and cheating and it is not going to work, Mr. Chairman.
Clause 11 is an attempt to provoke the labour movement and those who are involved in the trade unions even further. It is so obvious what the Government is attempting to do. Fair-minded Canadians will reject this Government, its policies and its legislation. It is phony and divisive and against the nature of the country. Surely the nature of the country is one of conciliation, co-operation and of working through, not the confrontation being practised by this Government. It is not a country where people condone the type of provocation practised by this Government. That is why we will see this Government in power for only a short period of time. It was elected with a very large majority. People wanted an honest change. But what they got was even worse than what they had before. This Government is a passing phenomenon. The Conservatives will be here today and gone tomorrow. This legislation with Clause 11 is another nail in the coffin of the Government.
The Tories are through for this generation, perhaps even for several more generations to come. I urge them as they approach the end of their mandate to begin to realize that the politics of Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher is not going to work in this country. I hope the Conservatives begin to realize that there are some real problems people face concerning job security. I hope that they come up with some genuine and honest solutions that are needed as we move into the 21st century instead of the type of legislation that we see here which is short-sighted and mean. It will just not work.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to say anything more about Clause 11 but I have been provoked by the Member for Comox-Powell River.
October 15, 1987


Don Boudria: He is there in his rightful place with the Tories.


John V. Nunziata: The Member who sits across the way with the Tories has the unmitigated audacity, nerve and gall to call Liberals hypocrite and to call the Liberal Party sanctimonious. The New Democrats are applauding.
There is a new song being sung by union people across the country. It goes as follows: "Oh where, oh where can Eddy be? Angus Reid has taken him away from me." Where, oh where, has Ed Broadbent been over the last number of weeks? The Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Party that prides itself as the Party of labour, has not said a thing over the last week. One would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that the NDP Leader who claims to be the leader of the Party of the working people-


Raymond John Skelly: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am very reluctant to interrupt a speech by the Hon. Member. Could we give him a couple of minutes to regain his train of thought? We would be prepared to have a coffee while he gets himself together.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Chairman, if my colleague had read The Globe and Mail this morning he would know that the Member for Oshawa is on the record with regard to this legislation. This kind of gratuitous attack which simply reveals the Liberal political agenda is not appropriate to this debate which deals with serious legislation.


Marcel Danis: I would ask all Members to speak on Clause 11, particularly the amendment.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, my, oh my, how sensitive the socialists are when we dare criticize their dear leader who has remained silent over the last several weeks. It is amazing what public opinion polls do to socialists. They have a little whiff of power and all of a sudden they lose their principles and morals. One would have thought that the Member for Oshawa would have stood up for the workers, the unions of Canada, including CUPW. Solidarity forever. But no, the Member for Oshawa has wimped out.
The Hon. Member for Oshawa has wimped out because he whiffs power. Enough about the NDP and their hypocrisy and how sanctimonious they are. The people and the unions of Canada know what the NDP and the Hon. Member for Oshawa are all about. The Hon. Member is not there when they need him. He ought to be in the House today speaking on this Bill.
In any event, I have one or two more comments to make about Clause 11. Clause 11 provides for a mandatory, automatic five-year suspension from union activity. It is extreme and Draconian. It is hideous.
Postal Services Continuation
When the Minister has an opportunity to rise, and I am sure he will have that opportunity in the very near future, I would like him to tell us whether or not he sought the advice of the Justice Department with regard to Clause 11, and if so, tell us if he is prepared to table in the House the opinion of the Justice Department on whether or not Clause 11 is in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in particular whether or not Clause 11 is in breach of Section 2(d), Section 6(b), and Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
As the Minister knows, Section 12 of the Charter provides that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Cruel is defined in The Canadian Law Dictionary-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Is that Black'sl


John V. Nunziata: No, it is not Black's but it is from the Library of Parliament.


Don Boudria: So it has to be right.


John V. Nunziata: It is reputable. It defines "cruel" on page 102 as follows:
In R v. Buckler, the following definition from the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary of the word 'cruel' was cited with approval; 1. disposed to inflict
suffering; indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain; merciless; pitiless,
hard hearted. 2. Fierce, savage. 3. Severe, rigorous. 4. Painful, distressing.
That is what Clause 11 is all about. I know that many Members of the Conservative caucus do not support the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Notwithstanding, it is the law of Canada.
Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. I submit that to automatically suspend a union officer for five years after being convicted of an offence under this clause and after having been forced to pay a minimum fine of $10,000 per day is cruel and unusual.
Did the Minister ask the Justice Department for an opinion on whether or not Clause 11 of this legislation breaches in any way or offends in any fashion Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Did he ask for an opinion on whether or not it offends Section 6(b) which provides that every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain and leave Canada to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province? Clause 11 which would prohibit someone from working for a union seems to me to breach Section 6(1 )(b) of the Charter which gives Canadians the right to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Not only does Clause 11 prohibit an individual from being employed by a union, it also prohibits someone from working for a union without being paid. If a union decided to appoint an individual who had been convicted of an offence under this legislation to represent the union in any fashion whatsoever, it would not be able to do so. Let us assume for a moment that a

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
lawyer or another individual who has expertise in labour law is asked by a union to represent it in some fashion but that person has been convicted of an offence under this legislation. He or she would not be able to represent that union for five years.
Surely the Minister has considered the hardship that that will cause for the individual and his family. It will be a real hardship for a person not to work for a union for five years if in his entire life he has known no other occupation.
Finally, has the Minister asked the Department of Justice to render an opinion on whether or not Clause 11 is in breach of Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in particular Section 2(d) which provides that everyone has certain fundamental freedoms including freedom of association?
In my respectful submission, Clause 11 which automatically prohibits an individual from associating with the union would be in direct contravention of Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as breaching other Sections of the Charter.
If the Minister did not seek the opinion of the Department of Justice, can he explain to the House why? If he did, will he table the opinion in the House of Commons?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Chairman, we find Clause 11 to be the most offensive part of this very offensive Bill. We seem to forget at times that we are talking about a fundamental right of Canadian men and women to work for their wages and to fight for working conditions and against a punitive plan that will be imposed upon them by Canada Post, a plan which will see people who have spent long years working the night shift relegated to working the night shift again after they had established enough seniority to be able to have a day-shift job at a wicket.
The Government has established a plan that it hopes will eliminate the deficit. It will not do that, but it will destroy the Post Office by destroying the working conditions of the men and women who work for the Post Office. That is why we are opposed to this Bill and that is why we are basically opposed to Clause 11 which is absolutely punitive.
Clause 11 states that any union officer who is convicted under this Act will not be eligible to hold office in his or her union for a period of five years. This is a clear attack on the rights of working men and women to direct the affairs of their own unions and it is an attack upon rights of working men and women to bargain collectively. It attacks the basic freedom of Canadians as guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom of association.
This Bill is right in line with what many Tories think about unions. I recall that when the Hon. Minister of State for Science and Technology was a back-bencher, year after year he introduced a private Member's Bill calling for right-to-work legislation that would destroy unions. It goes back to the kind of attitude we saw under the leadership of R.B. Bennett. After Canadians had experienced the kind of Government that R.B. Bennett offered, the Conservatives were out for a good many
years. That will happen again when the next election comes around.
R.B. Bennett, speaking 55 years ago in November of 1932, called for the iron heel of ruthlessness against any people who were speaking up for progressive social change in Canada. That was "Iron-Heel Bennett" and we have the same thing from this Government except some people might suggest that it is a different kind of heel, a "Gucci-shoe heel".
Clause 11 has no place in legislation dealing with labour. I am surprised that a Minister of Labour would bring in legislation which contains such a clause. It is repressive and provocative and will not lead to better relationships between the union and the Post Office. If the Government has any desire for better relations it will withdraw this clause immediately. I urge it to do so in the interests of the welfare of the men and women who work for Canada Post.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I take this debate far more seriously than I think many Members of the House do. When I first saw Clause 11 I, like many Canadians, thought for a brief moment that perhaps the Government was just looking for some headlines by seeking to impose $10,000 to $50,000 fines and threatening workers with the loss of their positions for five years.
However, when we take the mask off this issue and look inside to see what the Conservative Government's agenda has been on the Post Office, we realize that something quite different is in fact going on here. The Government is attempting to paint CUPW and its leadership as the creators and perpetrators of all the problems in the Post Office. That is hardly the case. The Minister responsible for Canada Post privatized many of the potentially money-making and more financially secure operations of Canada Post.
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Government wants to look tough on these issues. It wants to give voters the impression that it is tough and is in control. Anyone who mucks around will get a fine of $10,000 per day and union leaders will be stripped of their right to represent working people. I do not think there are many trade unionists in this country who bought this. Fair-minded Canadians who have any dealings with a CUPW member, whether it be a neighbour, friend, daughter, sister or mother, know what the workers are like.
When one takes a close look at Clause 11 one sees other things trickling out. It just happens that the agreement which will be substantiated by this legislation will run out in the latest month in which there can possibly be a federal election. The Government has carefully calculated so that there is no opportunity for a strike or other such activity in the time leading up to the next election.
Clause 12 deems the entire union to be a person. I have seen this in legislation before, usually in far-right legislation. I think the Minister would like to withdraw this. I hope he does withdraw Clause 11. Situations will arise in the next couple of years in which the management will do things which are unacceptable and cannot be fed back into the mediation process properly. The problem will go to the officers of the union who will have to'decide what to do.
October 15, 1987

Mr. Borovoy, a well known and nationally respected legal mind on the matter of civil liberties has pointed out in very clear terms that this is contrary to the Charter. It is unconstitutional. Many Members of this House were here five years ago when the Constitution Act of 1982 was enacted. The words included in that Act are there to protect collective rights, to protect the rights of trade unionists and their leadership. If such legislation were introduced in Chile or some other such place, the Minister of Labour would probably be the first to say that it was Draconian, that it was uncivilized to bring forward such concoctions.
When you strip away the mask you have some understanding of the strategy with which the Government has come forward. It has cut back on funds, refused to allow a real collective bargaining process to proceed, demanded franchising out, and gradually withdrawn services. In my own constituency we have seen the effects of reducing the numbers of workers. The lines of people coming in to pick up parcels have been lengthened. People are told that they have to buy their stamps and money orders elsewhere.


John Horton McDermid: Don't exaggerate. That's nonsense.


James Ross Fulton: Government Members are obviously out of touch with the postal service in their own constituencies. I know what has happened in my constituency.
The Government is trying to convince the public that an unruly union is the problem with postal service in Canada, that it is all the fault of CUPW and J. C. Parrot. In fact the incompetence lies on that side of the House and an awful lot of Canadians know that that is the case and will not lay the fault at the door of trade unionists or CUPW members.
The Minister of Labour must know the meaning of Clause 11. It is a call to arms to a union like CUPW. If they are going to take an action it will have to be a collective action which will really shut the operation down. They know that the moment they do something their leadership will be gone so any action would have to be much more vigorous, protracted, and prolonged than would otherwise be the case. The Government is setting up all kinds of straw situations. I would describe this as a gasoline clause. It is meant to incite ill feelings by the public toward CUPW workers and create situations in which very dramatic action will be required.
While listening to other speakers, I was troubled by the lack of serious thought which many Members of this House have given to the seriousness of what is being done in the House tonight. The Government may well want to consider why it would bring forward such an unworkable plan. It has put forward a firing squad situation for collective bargaining. CUPW had no possible opportunity to deal in a realistic manner with the proposals which Canada Post was putting forward.
The Government is still tonight attempting to blame its incompetence in providing proper postal service on CUPW which, of course, is preposterous. Through Clause 11 the Minister responsible for Canada Post is trying to isolate Jean Claude Parrot and the other leaders of CUPW and make it almost impossible for them to stand up for their collective and
Postal Services Continuation
democratic rights. Clause 11 can be described as nothing other than dog vomit and it should be removed from the floor of the House of Commons.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, there have been some very strong opinions on this clause expressed here on the floor of the House of Commons in Committee of the Whole. Members used their time to speak as well on issues which had been discussed on other clauses. I would like to address two points with respect to Clause 11.
First, the same clause was in Bill C-24 that was adopted here in November, 1986. To my knowledge, Mr. Parrot was not a member of that particular union at the time so that the argument of the Hon. Member for York-South Weston that this clause was designed for Mr. Parrot is quite inaccurate.
With respect to the fact that this clause was used before, it is a favourite clause because 1 am using it again. I remind Hon. Members that there was an inaccuracy in Bill C-24 because, as first drafted, it dealt only with the union officers.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You refused to change it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: After debate in the House, it was amended to include the equivalent clause with respect to the employers. The exact clause is here. As a matter of fact, the Member for Skeena said that it would at least be a saw-off at the time to have the equivalent penalty for the employer. That is exactly what is here and he agreed with that amendment at that time.
I do not intend to either accept the amendment or to withdraw the clause. It will stay in this legislation.
I want to correct something that was stated by the Member for Ottawa Centre. I believe the Hon. Member for Winnipeg would agree with me that the clause in question does not prevent a union person from working for the corporation. It prevents the union representative or officer from acting in that capacity but not from working for the corporation since subparagraph 2 applies to the employer representatives or officers. I wanted to correct that. I believe Hon. Members will agree with it.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)) negatived.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to Clause 11 because the Minister of Labour has called it his favourite clause.


Pierre H. Cadieux: No, you have.


Jack Harris: It is a shameful admission by the Government that its favourite clause is the most heinous clause in the Bill. It proves the Government's attitude toward unions, its attitude toward freedom of association, its attitude toward freedom of assembly and the freedom of people in this country to elect representatives of their choice and hire people of their choice to work for their organizations.


An Hon. Member:: Even temporary workers?

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation


Jack Harris: People do not defy legislation en masse unles it is so terrible that it cannot be obeyed. I am not talking about this particular legislation but about general principles.
The Member for Burin-St. George's, who is from Newfoundland, knows that recently in Newfoundland the members of a union defied legislation because that legislation was considered by the vast majority of people to be unjust and wrong.
Without any suggestion of a massive violation of legislation and before there was even a full scale strike, the Government is imposing back-to-work legislation which itself provoked a strike. But the legislation contains in it a terrible-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Draconian.


Jack Harris: The Minister considers it Draconian.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I do not want you to forget the word.


Jack Harris: I must agree with the Minister who considers it Draconian. Perhaps he will speak and tell us how bad it is. The Member for Burin-St. George's will also remember the IWA strike in Newfoundland in 1959, when the Government of Newfoundland outlawed a union and made it a crime to be a member of a union.


John Horton McDermid: It does not say that here.


Jack Harris: I know it does not say that here. That legislation was decried from one end of the country to the other.


An Hon. Member:: Speak to the Bill.


Jack Harris: It is the same kind of legislation. We are talking about principles but they do not want to talk about principles. They want to talk about ordering postal workers back to work and trying to resolve a crisis that they created.
The Minister of Labour is very proud that it is the second time the Government has included his favourite clause. Perhaps the Government will now introduce amendments to the Canada Labour Code suggesting that members of a union who do anything contrary to the Canada Labour Code will be banned from being officers or representatives.
Now the Government has proposed an equality clause which prevents the employers from violating the legislation. It reminds me of a quote, by Anatole France who said the law in its majestic equality forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges on rainy nights, from begging in the streets, and from stealing bread. That is the kind of equality we see in this legislation.
The rich do not need to steal bread. This legislation is designed to support the managers of Canada Post. Why will they violate the legislation when it is their legislation? The Government is simply introducing that provision to show how fair-minded it is. It is rank hypocrisy.
The Government is putting down the workers and saying that being an officer of a union is an illegitimate activity in this country. Unions were built by people who were trying to improve their lot. They were built to protect workers from employers like the people at Canada Post. Unions exist to fight against management that is inept and arbitrary and does not give them a say. The management says it will not let the
workers negotiate important matters that concern their working conditions.
Matters of collective bargaining and contracting out are negotiated in hundreds of collective agreements throughout the country. Yet the Government says that Canada Post does not have to negotiate this because it will order them back to work. Not only will it order them back to work, it will use its favourite clause by which it will ban people from being members of unions if they do not obey the legislation.
The Government says it will ban people from being members of the union if they do not obey this legislation in every dot and tittle automatically. There will be no discretion or question. It will be totally arbitrary, following the dictates of the people who run Canada Post. That is what we have from this Government. That is what this clause represents. I said earlier that I was not sure what the worst clause in this legislation was. I am convinced now that this clause is absolutely the worst clause. It is the most horrendous clause because it takes away the rights of freedom of association and freedom of assembly. It takes away those rights from workers across this country. It sets a terrible precedent. We have the Government condoning, first of all, strike-breakers in a Crown corporation. That will set an example for private employers. We will follow Peter Pocklington who set the example for this Government. He did not make it as Leader of the Conservative Party but he is its ideological leader. He sets the example and the Government follows with this legislation. We have Peter Pocklington calling the tune and this Government following.
We have a very good example of the kind of attitude this Government wants to promote in the Crown corporation called Devco. The Cape Breton Development Corporation had a manager who recently resigned under pressure not only from this House but from the Nova Scotia Government, the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia and the workers in Cape Breton. He is the man who is said to have said to the workers who complained about going to work underground under the conditions that existed in the coal mines: "You fellows should consider yourselves lucky. In South Africa we send-''and I think he used the word "niggers"- "those guys below ground in bare feet". That is the kind of Crown corporation attitude this Government has allowed to exist. Now we have the Government condoning the use of strike-breakers in the Post Office. We are passing legislation very much equivalent to the South African legislation which is imposed on journalists they do not like. A journalist is not allowed to work in South Africa if he says things the government does not like. We now have our Government saying: "If you break this law, we will not allow you to be a member of the executive of the union or a representative of the union or work for the union in any capacity. You cannot even sweep floors for the union". That is the legislation we have before us. That is the example this Government is setting as to how it thinks labour legislation should operate.
It is totally unnecessary. If this Government had any sense it would take this clause out of the legislation altogether. I am
October 15, 1987

afraid the Government does not have any sense. I am afraid the only response, unfortunately for the Government, the people of Canada will be able to make is to vote the Conservatives out of office. That is the only response the workers of Canada can have.
1 plead with the Conservatives for their own sake, if not for the sake of the workers of Canada, to take this measure out because it is very bad legislation. It is a very bad measure. It ought not to be any part of a civilized country's legislation in the face of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom to elect the leaders of your choice.
This Government as a matter of course, says: "We used it once before. We will use it again and we will use it in every piece of legislation we have". It is the favourite clause of the Minister.
If that is his favourite clause, I would suggest to him that perhaps he ought not to be Minister of Labour. He ought to learn something about human rights and something about justice. He should not condone this kind of nonsense in his legislation, if he wants to have harmony in the Post Office, if that is one of his aims. Perhaps he does not want to have harmony in the Post Office, but let us assume he does. If he is a proper Minister of Labour and doing his job, what he will want is what all the people of Canada want and everyone in Canada wants to have a decent postal service, harmony in the Post Office and a postal service that is efficient and operates properly. If that is what the Minister wants, then he ought to pass legislation that is going to lead to that and not pass this sort of legislation which provokes workers and right-thinking people into believing this Government does not want to have harmony in the Post Office.
Many Canadians believe there is trouble in the Post Office and a lot of them do not know why. This is an opportunity for the people of Canada to understand why there is not harmony in the Post Office. We have two examples. First, we have rotating strikes and normal collective bargaining being carried on. The only major irritant up to then was the Government condoning the use of strike-breakers and scabs in the Post Office. Postal service was operating more or less as it had been before.


An Hon. Member:: According to the managers.


Jack Harris: Yes, according to the managers. The next escalation of this strike was not caused by CUPW. Who caused the escalation? The Minister of Labour caused the escalation by introducing this legislation. Now we have a full strike. Now we have the Government saying that because of this full strike we must pass this legislation. That is the kind of information the people of Canada need to know and understand. It is this Government and the management of the Post Office-which the Government has told what to do-who have caused the disruption of the Post Office.
It is they who do not want to have harmony in the Post Office because if they did, they would not have this clause in the Bill. They would not have the Bill at all. They would have a different Bill that would provide for proper negotiations and
Postal Services Continuation
mediation, as we have suggested, and they would insist that the Post Office management discuss and negotiate on the major issue in the dispute, and that is the issue of franchising.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, just briefly, the Minister of Labour was speaking a moment ago and I assume he did not want to leave the impression on the record that I had either voted for or supported the clause in the last go-round of the legislation because I voted both against the clause and against the legislation, against his favourite clause.
During debate I do recall pointing out the unfairness of the clause, but it only applied to the longshoremen. It did not apply to anyone else. I said there was an obvious unfairness in the legislation. 1 do not think that the Minister would want to leave the impression that I either supported or voted for it.


An Hon. Member:: Even though he tried.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I suppose that answer would demonstrate what has happened, but my recollection, and I stand to be corrected, of course, is that the Hon. Member supported the amendment that I proposed to make it applicable to the employer as well as to the union. I would doubt very much that the Hon. Member voted against that amendment. However, I stand to be corrected once we check the record.
Because Hon. Members are repeating arguments they had put before the House earlier this evening, that does not necessarily make the arguments more convincing. They become repetitious. We have heard them before and perhaps they will induce someone like myself to use one of their suggestions. For instance, using the words "favourite clause", I was repeating something that was said on the other side. If it is not a favourite clause, it is certainly a clause that has been used before. Unfortuntely, it would not be a clause that would have to be used if the parties came to a settled agreement, which are the best agreements, and which they should have achieved after 15 months of negotiations in this case.


Jack Harris: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Labour is not convinced of the rightness of the cause, then perhaps he will consider that this particular clause, Clause 11, can also be applied in cases which have nothing to do with this dispute. We could have some event down the road a year or two from now in a small postal station or a small postal plant where one of the managers of the Post Office gets out of whack-and I am sure there are thousands and thousands of people in middle management in the Post Office, I do not know what they are doing and they probably do not know what they are doing themselves-but someone runs amok-


John Horton McDermid: Most of the management came up from the ranks of the union. So you are knocking yourself.


Jack Harris: So we have all sorts of people who could run amok in the Post Office and there is a response, and a reasonable response, by the members of the union to refuse to work, to refuse to obey orders, to refuse to do things that are unreasonably requested of them, or to be provoked into doing something that has nothing whatsoever to do with this strike.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
We do not want to give the managers of the Post Office a licence to run roughshod over the workers for the life of this agreement under pain of their being exposed to this type of clause and this type of legislation.
Clause 11 provides that a shop steward, or an official or representative of the union, in that situation does not even have to do anything at all. All he has to be found to have done by a court is not take what the court considers to be reasonable steps to prevent people from walking off the job. We have a brand new code here now for the behaviour of shop stewards who have to take reasonable steps to prevent people from going on a wildcat strike. A judge has to determine that after the fact. If the judge determines that, no, there were reasonable things that one could have done that one did not do, then that person is banned from holding office in the union for a period of five years and cannot work for the union for five years. All of those measures are brought in by this legislation.
If what the Minister wants to do is to get workers back to work, he should have legislation that is aimed at that, not legislation that sets a terrible precedent for labour legislation all across the country. If he has done it before, then shame on him for having done it before. He should realize his mistake and should not do it again. The fact that this clause or something similar to it was contained in a previous Bill is no excuse for continuing it on. I would ask him to do the proper thing and remove the clause.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, it is with some trepidation that I make-


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: He's crossed the floor. Call The Toronto Star.


John V. Nunziata: -what a motley bunch across the way. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am referring to the New Democratic Party.


Iain Francis Angus: That is because there are no Liberals to point to.


Raymond John Skelly: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Could the renegade from the Liberal Party indicate that he was in fact speaking about his own people on this side of the House.


John Horton McDermid: Well, look at the ragtag bunch.


Mr. McKenzie:: Go and speak on your own side. Just go and speak on your own side. I will sit here and you sit here, Bob, and take that seat so he can't sit down. The day I will tolerate that stuff over here-


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston on a question of privilege.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. We are debating a piece of legislation here in the House of Commons dealing with back-to-work legislation. We are in Committee of the Whole. We are entitled to sit in whatever seat we wish to sit that happens to be vacant. I am not sitting in my regular seat, nor is the Hon. Member who assaulted me a few moments ago. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Hon. Member to stand and to apologize. If he is not prepared to stand and to apologize, then I would ask that you take the appropriate action, Mr. Chairman.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would suggest you never come over to this side again. Just stay on your side and you speak there and I will speak here, as will the rest of us.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman, we are in Committee of the Whole and I believe that this matter would best be dealt with when we return to the House in proper forum. I do believe it is a proper matter of privilege and that it should be dealt with by the full House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: The Chair will report on this matter to the full House.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Marcel Danis: On debate. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Could 1 have some explanation as to what you mean by reporting to the full House, Mr. Chairman? I would ask that the matter be dealt with by the House. The Hon. Member assaulted me while I was speaking. It is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada to assault another individual. It shows contempt, Mr. Chairman, for this Parliament for one Hon. Member to assault another Hon. Member while that Member is speaking. Obviously, the Hon. Member does not show any remorse for his actions and I would ask that he be properly dealt with by the House of Commons.


A. Daniel McKenzie: With the greatest of pleasure!


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Chairman, I believe also that you would be well advised to report to the full House about what happened, which was clearly a breach of privilege, mentioning clearly that when the Hon. Member for York South-Weston spoke from a seat other than his own, namely, from the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister, the seat was vacant. In that respect he was entitled to speak from that seat. By the way, while I am on my feet, I have come to realize that the seat is still vacant, as far as 1 am concerned, since the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine does not really appear to be with us tonight.


John Horton McDermid: That really helps the situation.


Jacques Guilbault: You ought to take that into account, too.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, you have suggested that you will report to the full House tomorrow. ! can assure you that we will co-operate in those proceedings. I would suggest, that in the interests of all, that we proceed with the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, I must say that the Minister of Labour in his response to our Member, who outlined in considerable detail some of the inadequacies with respect to this clause, presented no sign of backing off, no sign of attempting to compromise. I cannot understand why it is that the Minister is not prepared to listen to what is obviously a
October 15, 1987

cogent argument, an argument which has been well put, an argument which clearly carries a great deal of weight. I ask the Minister to tell us why it is that he is not prepared to make those sorts of changes.
I also ask the Minister to tell us why he was not prepared to take the suggestion by the trade union involved to appoint a mediator separate from arbitration? Before we move to final consideration of this clause, I also ask the Minister to tell us what possible justification he personally feels that he can put forward for such a vicious action against members of legal trade unions as is suggested in this clause of the Bill? I ask the Minister to respond to those issues before we move to a vote.


Pierre H. Cadieux: With respect to the arguments that were put forward by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, I agree with the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that the arguments were well put, and I am sure well thought out. I am sure that the Hon. Member for St. John's East meant what he put forward. He is entitled to his opinion, and I respect it. I have already indicated to the House that he did not convince me, nor was I convinced during the debate on Bill C-24 when we discussed the same clauses which applied to both the employer and the union, not only to the union as there seems to be a temptation to indicate. I will not withdraw the clause.


Steven W. Langdon: There were two other points that I raised that I would like to hear from the Minister on before we move to a vote on this crucial clause. This clause has somehow come to signify to people exactly how far and how hard the Conservative Party is prepared to move against the trade union movement in this country.
I ask the Minister if he will respond to the question which a great many people have asked in this country, and certainly a great many members of CUPW have asked me on picket lines, why was the Minister not prepared to appoint a mediator at least to explore the possibility of avoiding this Draconian piece of legislation?


Pierre H. Cadieux: With all due respect, I have answered the questions on the mediator-arbitrator when we dealt with Clause 7.
Clause agreed to: Yeas, 37; nays, 17.
Clause 12 agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Shall Clause 13 carry?
On Clause 13-Coming into force


Jacques Guilbault: I wish to say that there is a problem with Clause 13. If one looks at the Bill, one will find in Clause 4 that both union officers and management have obligations. If Clause 13 is left as is, those obligations would have to be carried in a very short period of time. Clause 13 has to do with the coming into force of this Act, and it states:
Postal Services Continuation
This Act shall come into force on the twelfth hour after the time at which it
is assented to.
If one returns to Clause 4, it states:
4. (1) The union and each officer and representative of the union
(a) shall, forthwith on the coming into force of this Act, give notice to the employees that, by reason of the coming into force of this Act, postal operations are forthwith to be continued or resumed-
When one reads Clause 4, one realizes that each and every member of the union, and each and every worker has to be notified by the union leadership and informed of the passage of this Bill. They have to be told that postal operations are to resume, and told to return to work. The Minister has agreed to this, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill has devised an amendment to correct this. He has also agreed that the 12 hour period is certainly too short for the mammoth task of reaching 23,000 card-carrying members across the country to give them the message. They are scattered all over the place, and the problem is all the greater since it seems that the coming into force of this legislation will happen over the weekend. We have negotiated with the Minister and the three Parties to find a solution and make this more reasonable.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill, has done a lot of work on this. I think that he would be happy to claim paternity of the amendment. I am willing to let him have paternity if he agrees to let me have maternity, because I had something to do with the gestation of this baby. I do not know if my friend has a copy of the amendment with him, or if he wants to read it into the record. I think that I have given the rationale for the amendment, and I will leave the floor to my colleague who represents the riding of Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I thank the Hon. Member for that gracious introduction. I will move the motion:
That Bill C-86 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 41 to 43 at
page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"13. This Act shall come into force on the day immediately after the day on which this Act is assented to, but not before the twelfth hour after the time at which it is assented to.


Marcel Danis: The Chair finds the amendment in order. Shall the amendment carry?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Chairman it is not my intent to speak long on the amendment. It is obviously an amendment on which the two opposition Parties have come to agreement with the Government. It is one of the amendments which will allow the legislation to pass through the House of Commons today. We still do not believe that the legislation is good legislation. We made very evident tonight that we oppose it. There are many errors in the legislation and there is still a fundamental imbalance in it. In an attempt to get some amendments through the House to improve the legislation which the Government was willing to accept from the opposition Parties, I join my colleague in the Liberal Party in moving this amendment and in the other amendment we moved last night.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation
It is not my intention to speak on third reading. I will ask one of my other colleagues to do that. I would like to point out, however, that this House by passing legislation of this sort will leave a fundamental sense of unfairness not only among the people who work in our post offices but among a number of other people in society.
If people have heard some of the comments-I do not know whether they have been transferred by our electronic Hansard and through the media-by back-benchers who have never spoken in this House there will be a sense that this House does not treat all citizens equally. There is a basic contempt for some of our citizens by Members of this House of Commons.
I do not mean to lecture the House but I do believe that, when we are passing legislation about which so many Canadians feel strongly and which many Canadians believe offends and hurts them, this House and its Members should show more concern about how Canadians feel. I am not speaking about any individual clause in the Bill. We have done that as we went through it. I believe that the comments made by some Members of this House do offend the sensitivities of many Canadians and I do believe that was unnecessary and it will only create a further sense of unfairness.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, what is involved is the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) concerning the coming into reflect of the legislation. We had discussions on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and of course we feel it is a worthwhile amendment, so much so that it uses the terms that appeared in Bill C-85-we in agree on that amendment. I would take this opportunity, despite our differences-

Notwithstanding the differences of opinion that we may have had through this debate, in the Committee of the Whole in particular, Mr. Chairman, I still want to thank my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques, and the Hon. Member for Churchill. We had some discussions which perhaps did not please everybody involved but we had some serious discussions on the possible amendments. I thank them for their co-operation and I support this amendment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of clarification for the Minister of Labour. I have obtained Hansard for November 17 and 18, 1986, regarding the point the Minister made earlier. When the Minister moved the amendment to Clause 13, it carried on division. There was not a recorded vote on that.
However, the remarks to which the Minister might have been referring appear on page 1265 of Hansard for November 18. They were in lock-out of the longshoremen. Referring to Bill C-24, this is what I had to say about that particular clause:
Let me deal with Clause 13, particularly Clause 13(2). The Minister moved quickly on the suggestion made in the speech by my friend, the Hon. Member
for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). He agreed in principle that what is being applied to union officers must be applied to corporate officers as well. 1 am sure that everyone involved would have preferred that Clause 13(2) simply be deleted. I find no comparable precedent in the last decade of legislation before the House that was solely directed against a union. That is why the criticism directed against Bill C-24 as it now stands is correct. It is clearly anti-union.
I refer the Minister as well to the Votes and Proceedings for November 17, 1986 at page 198. The Minister is recorded as being in favour of it and I am recorded as being against it.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Chairman, I did indicate that I would stand to be corrected and I take the word of the Hon. Member. That is not the quote to which I was referring. I was referring to the one on page 1267 of Hansard for November 18 which reads:
-I think the Minister has agreed in principle that, although he will not take the clause out as it applies to unions, he is prepared to apply it evenly to corporations as well as the union. It is a saw-off. I would prefer to see Clause 13(2) dropped.
It was a saw-off and that is what I was referring to.


Marcel Danis: Shall the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Churchill carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Murphy) agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? With leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Cadieux: that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since last week we have been hearing many comments on the labour dispute and the legislation now before us. It is important in my view, at this stage, Mr. Speaker that we review the circumstances under which we introduced the Bill and that we put them into context.
October 15, 1987



We have been told that the Government acted prematurely, that we disrupted negotiations between the parties.
Let us review the record for a moment. The parties spent some four months in direct bargaining before notifying me of their dispute. I appointed a conciliation officer and the parties spent a further three months negotiating under his auspices. Because the dispute still remained unresolved I appointed a conciliation commissioner and the parties had another five months of third party assistance. When Commissioner Foisy's report and recommendations were released to them, both parties made encouraging noises that the stage was now set for meaningful negotiations. Their actions, however, did not demonstrate their intention to conduct such meaningful negotiations.
The assessment conducted by my Associate Deputy Minister informed me that the dispute could not be resolved through the collective bargaining process short of a lengthy test of economic strength. The Government was not prepared to sit by and watch the inevitable deterioration of the Canadian postal system while the parties engaged in their private battles. There were no negotiations going on and no prospect of such negotiations when the Government introduced this legislation. We had no intention of allowing a national emergency to develop while the parties implemented their respective strategic plans heedless of the effect on our postal system.
We have been accused of causing the escalation of an otherwise peaceful dispute. Every Member of this House is aware of the record of negotiations between these parties. The escalation of the dispute was inevitable as each side sought to enforce its will upon the other. It was precisely this escalation of violence that this legislation sought to avoid.

After reviewing the circumstances that obliged us to table this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the substance of the Bill. The concept of mediation-arbitration has provoked a lot of criticism, especially from those who do not fully understand the process. Mediation-arbitration combines the best elements of mediation and arbitration. When the process is used properly, we do not have a weaker form of arbitration but a fortified or stronger type of mediation.
Mr. Speaker, our Government maintains its belief that the best settlement is a negotiated settlement. Including a mediation-arbitration process in this legislation as a mechanism for resolving the conflict makes it possible for negotiations to continue. Mr. Speaker, although we cannot guarantee the parties will settle all their differences through negotiation, we do not want to deprive them of that opportunity. For the parties, mediation-arbitration maybe the only chance they will have to establish a new basis for constructive labour relations, and I urge them to take advantage of all the benefits they will be able to derive from this process.
Postal Services Continuation
We have been criticized for the penalty clauses provided in this Bill. I can only respond with surprise to this criticism because in November of last year, the Opposition passed these very same provisions with alacrity in the case of the West Coast longshore industry.
The record of the parties to this dispute is well known. While we expect that persons who hold responsible positions will act responsibly, we wish to give a very strong signal to anyone contemplating the fines in this case that they do so at their own risk. Personally, I hope that this penalty will never be used. Nevertheless, it is there if it is necessary.
I must repeat that it is never a pleasant task for a Minister of Labour to have to introduce back-to-work legislation. It is an admission that the collective bargaining system has failed. In the case of Canada Post and CUPW, the Government had no alternative but to move to this option of last resort if there is to be any hope of a future for our national postal system.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words to summarize the position we have held throughout this debate on Bill C-86. We have said from the moment this Bill was tabled that there was no national emergency warranting the use of such harsh legislation.
At the time the Bill was tabled and in the days preceding its tabling, there was little violence on the picket lines. The mail was moving and the mail is still moving, as a matter of fact. That is what the Government has claimed throughout this period.
We said that mediation would have been the right approach for the Government to have taken. We called for it, the workers called for it, but the Government refused. It chose to use a tougher approach.
The Minister has just repeated that at the time the legislation was tabled, there was no more negotiation between the parties, but the Minister fails to recognize that even before the legislation was tabled, 75 per cent of the clauses in the collective agreement had been agreed to by the parties. One cannot say that the bargaining process was not working.

I think it is clear and should be clear to everyone that the score of the strike expanded as soon as Bill C-86 was tabled. What had previously been a series of rotating strikes, never on the same day and never in the same location, moving across the country, has now become a national strike. Violence has started to surface, and there is more and more of it. I think we will have to realize that the Government is at least partly responsible for events that have occurred since the Bill was tabled. We have discussed the use of strike breakers several times since the beginning of the dispute.

October 15, 1987
Postal Services Continuation

The use of scabs had the expected results. When the unemployed are pitted against regular workers who are trying to protect their livelihoods, their daily bread, their regular jobs, it is very hard to expect that violence will not take place.
Now that the Government has acquired experience and practice in using scabs, replacement workers, on two occasions, may I suggest that the Government put this experience into practice by appointing replacement Tory Members of Parliament to replace those Members who were speechless during the entire debate. I make one exception. I must give the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) credit for rising in the House and at least reading a press release into the record. The rest of them were all watching, nodding and approving of the harsh, unusual penalties. Maybe what this country needs from now on is a herd of scab Tory MPs to represent the people of more than 200 ridings in Canada.
The Government has stuck to the hard line. Throughout this debate, the Minister has refused to amend Clause 10 which contains unusually harsh penalties and very heavy fines. He has refused to move on the five-year off-the-job penalty contained in the horrendous Clause 11. We think this is wrong. We think that this alone would be cause for us to vote against the legislation.

However, I must give the Minister credit for accepting two amendments from the Opposition, one to amend Clause 7 that will give the mediator-arbitrator a free hand and let him make his own decisions without considering the report by the conciliation-commissioner Foisy, which we think was not a fair report, and the Minister also deserves credit for accepting an amendment to Clause 13, which of course concerns the effective date of the Bill and will simplify the Union's task of reaching its 23,000 members. However, we still feel it is not enough, and I am sorry to say our Party will have to vote against the last stage of this Bill. My only hope is that when subsequent legislation is introduced in this House, the Government will have an opportunity to reflect on the inflexibility of the Bill before the House today, and 1 hope today's experience will not be repeated.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, before I address the legislation, I wish to say a few words of thanks on behalf, I am sure, of all Hon. Members, to those who help us do our jobs, the staff of the House of Commons, for aiding us this evening. I wish to thank the security staff, the Hansard reporters, all of the pages, the Clerks, the officers of the House, the console operators, the bus drivers and the television operators. On behalf of all Hon. Members, I would like to thank them for their efforts to make this session possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: I will come directly to the legislation because I do not want to speak too long. There are, however, a few key points which must be made. The Government has presented the notion that if only the parties to the dispute had negotiated in a reasonable fashion and come to an agreement it would not have had to act, that it would have sat back and allowed the natural collective bargaining process to take place. Is it accurate to say that the Government has been at arm's length from these negotiations, that it has not been at the table? Let us examine in brief what has happened in these negotiations to see whether that stands up to any objective test of reality.
When the Government introduced the legislation which we are presently debating the result was to turn a series of rotating strikes, during which the mail was being delivered, into a national strike. By introducing its back-to-work legislation the Government provoked a national strike. How can it claim to be at arm's length when the introduction of this legislation provoked the national strike and, having driven the working people to the wall, provoked the violence which we have seen on television during the last few days, violence for which the Government has sought to blame the Opposition?
Before the Government brought in this legislation it threatened, day after day, to introduce back-to-work legislation. The impact of that was to remove the incentive of the management of the Post Office to negotiate. It told management to sit quietly on its duff and do nothing, that it would bring in legislation to impose an agreement that management wants because management is trying to impose the Government's plan. How can the Government say that it is at arm's length from the negotiations when its constant threats of back-to-work legislation prevented negotiations?
There is more, Mr. Speaker. Did the Government use all of the options at its disposal in order to keep the mails moving until a negotiated settlement was arrived at in order to have good labour relations at the Post Office? Not at all. One of the Government's crucial failures in this situation was a failure to use a mediator. It failed to have an objective third party sit at the table to facilitate communications and attempt to solve the problems in order to arrive at a negotiated settlement. The Government threw that option aside and in its place put a new two-headed monster called a mediator-arbitrator, a concept which was originally introduced by the Liberal Party when it was in Government. That concept destroyed the notion of mediation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: An oxymoron.


Cyril Keeper: With regard to one of the key issues, the public policy with regard to franchising, the Government refused to be flexible. We are against the policy of franchising, not only because it threatens job security but because it also threatens service to the public. If the Government wanted to be pigheaded and continue with the policy, it did not need to be rigid. It
October 15, 1987

could have been flexible in order to arrive at a negotiated settlement.
During the negotiations the negotiator said categorically that he would not compromise on franchising. Taking that position on the cue of the Government he made a negotiated settlement impossible. How can the Government claim it was at arm's length from these negotiations?
Rather than being at arm's length it was the pupeteer pulling the strings on both sides of the table. It was ensuring that management was rigid and would not negotiate at the same time as provoking a national strike and promoting the violence which appeared on television. Rather than being at arm's length from the negotiation the Government was manipulating the situation. It was the pupeteer who led to this dispute.
The Government did that in order to impose its plan for the Post Office. Is that plan worth it? Its plan waters down the delivery dates of mail so that it will still take eight days to get mail across town. The Government's plan attacks rural service and the wages of women. It undermines the concept of bilingual service through the franchising out of postal service. It treats suburban residents in an arbitrary fashion by giving service to one street while a neighbouring street does not get home mail delivery.
The Government's claim that it was at arm's length and only intervened because the parties could not come to an agreement is hollow. We have made that case and it is evident to every Canadian who has been observing the negotiations that the Government was the pupeteer manipulating the situation. The Government created the false crisis in order to justify this legislation.
This legislation is unjustifiable. The Government should have been been preparing the climate for negotiations rather than seeking confrontation in order to justify bringing in back-to-work legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Postal Services Continuation


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.08 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later today at 10.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.08 a.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, October 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers