1987-10-09

Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and be referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions at the staff level. I would like to inquire of the opposition Parties, for the record, whether or not it would be possible to complete all stages of this important Bill to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services today. Government Members are prepared to stay as late as necessary to complete this matter despite the fact that this is Thanksgiving weekend and Members are wanting to return to their ridings.
We have arranged for the Senate to sit at two o'clock this afternoon in order that it can deal with the matter. We might possibly get Royal Assent if we have the co-operation of all Parties.
It is the Government's wish to resolve this matter so there can be as little inconvenience as possible to the public and that any further violence on the picket lines can be restricted.
I inquire once again of the opposition Parties whether it is possible to complete all stages of this Bill today.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the enquiry of the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). In times past when there has clearly been an emergency before the country, when a very serious situation existed, we were quite prepared to co-operate and move a Bill through all stages, often in a single day. What is very clear is that this is not a national emergency. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the legislation presented, it is not only extremely flawed but it is provocative. We feel that the legislation, being so seriously flawed, must be improved. We have amendments we hope to make, and we think it is in the best interest of the country, since this is not an
emergency, that we proceed in a thoughtful, positive way to ensure that if the legislation passes at some future date it be the best legislation in terms of it being fair and equitable, as opposed to it being provocative.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government wants co-operation from the parties opposite, there is a recognized procedure to be followed that is the Government usually approaches the parties opposite before tabling a bill in the House of Commons and tries to have their co-operation. This was not done in this case, on the contrary, the Minister is rising and trying to negotiate on the floor of the House.
I admit that yesterday we were insulted when the bill was unexpectedly tabled in the House and the Minister who did it asked us from the floor of the House whether negotiations could be held among parties. This is not the usual procedure. I only want to add, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill will follow its normal course. There is no urgency. According to the Government, most of the mail is delivered throughout the country. I do not see why we would get around the normal rules of debate on that Bill.
This being so, the debate will open and will follow its normal course. Several of my colleagues intend to speak on the issue, because they are concerned about some clauses of this piece of legislation. There are several questions we want to ask the Government and if the answers are given clearly, quickly, and frankly, the Bill could be passed more expeditiously.
However for the time being, I cannot promise on behalf of my party to have that Bill go through all the stages today.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, of course I have no intention of debating the theory just expressed by my colleague because I think it is more important to debate the legislation. Still I would only point out that I was prepared to respond to those questions yesterday. I will be prepared to answer them today if necessary, or whenever they have to be answered, as I always do in similar cases.
As to the procedure, Mr. Speaker, there is no need to repeat that it is exactly the same we followed in the case of the railways.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-86, the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987. As the

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
title of the Bill suggests, its prime purpose is to order a resumption of full mail and other postal services across the country.
Hon. Members will be well aware that these services have been disrupted for the second time in less than four months as a result of a labour dispute and work stoppages. On this occasion the labour dispute involves the Canadian Union of Postal Workers representing some 23,000 inside postal workers employed by the Canada Post Corporation.
The spectre of a protracted and damaging test of economic strength between the corporation and the union is now selfevident. Unfortunately, these two combatants have the capacity to inflict more punishment on third parties than on each other. The Government is not prepared to stand idly by and permit a gradual deterioration of postal services through escalating rotating strikes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Members of the House are fully aware of the inherent dangers and the potential for violence in the type of contest in which these two parties are engaged. Our industrial relations system certainly permits a test of economic strength between disputant unions and corporations.

However, Mr. Speaker, when there is a situation, such as we have here, with a potential for disorder on a national scale, government must become the defender of the public interest and know when to say enough is enough. This is particularly true when there is no hope for a settlement through the collective bargaining process.
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any expectation for an early negotiated settlement, we are therefore acting decisively to terminate what commissioner Foisy apprehensively predicted as the "battle of the titans".
The bill before the House provides for the termination of all work stoppages and established procedures for the settlement of the labour dispute.

Before dealing in greater detail with the provisions of the Bill, I want to address certain considerations. In this context, I am conscious of the fact that I rose in this House just over a month ago in late August to introduce a similar Bill dealing on that occasion with a crippling national railway strike.
As I believe I indicated to Hon. Members during the debate on that Bill, I take no pleasure in introducing back-to-work legislation. Such legislation represents an abdication by the parties of their responsibility to resolve their own differences.
The Government's general policy is not to intervene in labour negotiations between the parties other than by the well tried and usually effective mechanisms of conciliation and mediation. We are proud of the record in federal jurisdiction where consistently in excess of 90 per cent of collective
agreements are renewed without resort to work stoppages. However, the federal labour relations jurisdiction covered by Part V of the Code includes some vital and sensitive industries. Work stoppages in some of these industries are capable of inflicting greater damage more rapidly on innocent third parties than they inflict on either of the parties directly involved.
In these sensitive and vital industries, it is particularly incumbent on the parties that they meet their responsibilities to negotiate their own settlements. It may require considerable skill and flexibility to do so but they owe nothing less to the Canadians they serve.
It is this Government's preference by far not to intervene through special legislation in labour disputes. However, neither employers nor trade unions in the federal labour jurisdiction should be under an illusion as to our determination to act when private disputes are inflicting public damage.
One further word of caution is perhaps necessary. Federal jurisdiction employers and trade unions should not take this express willingness by the Government to act when circumstances so dictate as an invitation to shirk their respective responsibilities and to propel their labour disputes into Parliament. The parties should not seek to monopolize the valuable time of the House or try the patience of Parliament by confronting us with the need to settle one labour dispute after another. If there is any tendency or sign of a trend in this direction, the parties should be warned that they may provoke more far-reaching and unpalatable remedies than they had anticipated.

A second general consideration I would like to touch on, Mr. Speaker, concerns the evolution of the Canada Post Corporation. It is, I am sure, a subject that other Hon. Members will want to address and will no doubt do so at greater length. When the Canada Post Corporation Act was proclaimed in October, 1981, there was a general expectation that the transformation from a government department would give the new corporation the capacity to function in the marketplace in a way that was not previously possible.
Indeed, I believe that these sentiments echo or at least paraphrase the words expressed at the time by those reponsible for introducing the enabling legislation. When this government came into office, it was far from clear that any positive transformation had occurred. Service levels remained poor and deficits continued to bedevil the corporation.

What the Government did was to insist that the corporation improve its service standards and its financial performance. The message was clear. The umbilical cord was to be cut and the flow of general Government subsidies was to be halted. The corporation had to become viable and to act in very large measure as a commercial enterprise.
October 9, 1987

Naturally, the approach implied change and change implied, among other things, labour relation issues. It became the responsibility of corporation management and the unions representing its employees to address these issues. It seems in the present case that they have been unable to do so without confrontation and disruption of mail services. That situation is, to say the least, disappointing.
It may be a truism, but organizations that fail to change with the times are left behind the times. The transformation of the Canada Post Corporation into an efficient and viable enterprise calls for flexibility and a willingness to adapt on the the part of both management and labour. With such flexibility and readiness to attack-to adapt, the future of the corporation and its employees-


Mr. Cassidy:: The attack syndrome.


Pierre H. Cadieux: I apologize for my English. At least I try.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: With such flexibility and readiness to adapt, the future of the corporation and its employees is best assured. Without these qualities, the future for both is bleak.

This brings me, Mr. Speaker, close to the cause of these present proceedings before the House, namely labour relations at the Canada Post Corporation. I could dig back over the past twenty years or more and recite the litany of labour disputes and major confrontations involving the former Post Office Department and now the Corporation. Instead, Mr. Speaker, I will limit myself to two or three more recent assessments of the state of the labour-management relationship.
The review committee on the mandate and productivity of the Canada Post Corporation, known as the Marchment Committee. Indicated that it had never seen labour relations as acrimonious as those that exist between the corporation and its unions.
Mr. Speaker, the committee further characterized the relationship as poisonous to the point of the potential destruction of the enterprise. More recently, Kenneth Swan, the conciliation commissioner in the dispute between the Corporation and the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, found that the relationships of the representatives of the parties have deteriorated to the point where they are intensely personal and bitter. In the present dispute, conciliation commissioner Claude Foisy observed, at the outset of his report, that the relations between the parties were marked by a profound mutual distrust.
Mr. Speaker, this sorry story would be bad enough, if it only involved the parties themselves. Unfortunately, it does not. It also involves the effectiveness of a service on which Canadians sould be able to rely with greater assurance. That, Mr. Speaker is among the reasons that we find ourselves dealing with Bill C-86 in the House today.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Let me now turn to the specifics of the current dispute between the corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers representing some 23,000 inside workers. The collective agreement between the parties expired just over a year ago, on September 30, 1986. A notice of dispute was received from the union on October 26, 1986, and I responded with the appointment of a staff conciliation officer on October 30. The conciliation officer, Mr. Andre Drouin, met with the parties on several occasions over the next three months or so. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement despite his assistance.
When the officer reported out of the case it was clear that virtually all key issues remained in dispute. In the circumstances I exercised the discretion granted to me under the Canada Labour Code to provide for a further and more formal level of conciliation. In this regard I appointed Claude H. Foisy, Q.C., of Mount-Royal, Quebec, as conciliation commissioner on February 23, 1987. Mr. Foisy is an experienced labour relations practitioner, a former vice-chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board, and now a respected labour arbitrator and conciliator in private practice.
Mr. Foisy held a series of meetings with the parties over a period of some Five months from early March to mid-August. I gather he was inundated with briefs and position papers. However, as indicated in his report, he found it difficult to engage the parties in a genuine dialogue on the major items in dispute. Eventually he concluded that settlement was not possible in negotiations under his auspices and he withdrew to write his report and recommendations.
I released Mr. Foisy's report to the parties on the morning of September 22, 1987, and released it publicly later the same day. The report is comprehensive if not exhaustive. Covering in excess of 80 pages it deals with the background to the dispute and focuses, at the parties' request, on the key issues in contention. The commissioner endeavoured to assess the competing demands and interests of the parties. He recognized, on the one hand, the legitimate requirements of the corporation to perform as a viable business, but never neglected the need to provide appropriate protection for the corporation's existing employees.
The objective of the report's contents was perhaps best illustrated by the initial reactions expressed by the parties. I understand the corporation's spokesman referred in radio news clips to "this balanced report". The union in its initial press statement indicated that:
Commissioner Foisy made some recommendations that reflect our demands,
some recommendations that reflect the employer's, some other that go half
way for both and others which are not addressed.
Turning to Commissioner Foisy's recommendations, he classified them under four headings: job security, demands affecting operations, grievance and arbitration procedures, and health and safety. Under the job security heading the report

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
addresses the high profile franchising issue. The union demand in this area called for a modification of the existing contracting-out provision of the collective agreement so as to prevent the loss of bargaining unit work through the awarding of franchises and the opening of new sub post offices.
Over all, the commissioner's report recognizes the legitimate interests of the union in wanting to negotiate the maintenance of desirable counter jobs but also recognizes the corporation's legitimate interest in wanting to deal with the private sector. In the circumstances, there is no recommendation in favour of modifying the present contracting-out provision. What the report recommends instead is special and comprehensive employment protection and financial compensation for the life of the agreement for members of the bargaining unit who currently work at post office counters.

I have raised this matter, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the commissioner's examination of the job security issue, as it relates to franchising and private sector sub-post offices, illustrates two important points.
First, I believe that it shows the efforts which have been made to reconcile the competing demands of the parties. Secondly, the recommendation shows that the need to adapt to change does not have to be accomplished at the expense of existing employees.
The same elements are found elsewhere in the report. For example, in the area of part-time work, the corporation would be accorded greater flexibility to use part-timers in meeting its service targets. However, the current ceiling on the part-time employment complement would be maintained.

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, I 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.
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 have complete confidence in Mr. Kelly's judgment in such matters and I am sure Hon. Members share my opinion of his abilities. He has demonstrated the capacity to get to the root of issues and find avenues for settlement which others thought did not exist. While I found
no consolation in the assessment Mr. Kelly gave me, I had no doubt as to its accuracy.

Mr. Speaker, I publicly urged the parties to return to the bargaining table. However, in the light of the assessment I had received, I also gave them notice that the government would not tolerate a protracted and disruptive work stoppage at Canada Post. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that the warning would stimulate serious efforts at settlement.
Instead, what appears to have been a somewhat desultory meeting, on lesser issues, took place last Sunday. Then, on Monday, when it was fully expected that more intensive negotiations would commence, the parties could only manage a brief two hour session. They emerged from this meeting indicating how far they were apart and emphasizing how entrenched they were on key issues.
At that point, Mr. Speaker, I gave the parties formal notice that the break off of negotiations last monday, after a mere two hours, was unacceptable to the Canadian public. In a telegram to both sides, I warned them that, if they were incapable of resolving the dispute, through collective bargaining, the government would lift the responsibility from their shoulders.
In my telegram, Mr. Speaker, I also indicated my intention to give notice in the House of Commons which would enable the government to introduce legislation to resolve the dispute.
I effectively challenged the parties to remove the need for legislation by showing the will and the capacity to achieve a resolution through collective bargaining. Mr. Speaker, they did not rise to the challenge.
With no settlement in sight and with Canadians faced with the disruption of mail services for the second time within four months, the Government decided to act. We have tabled legislation which, as I shall explain shortly, offers the parties the opportunity to settle their differences in mediation, but not while they hold up the Canadian public for ransom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre H. Cadieux: In tabling this legislation our message is very clear. The Government will not allow the mail to be disrupted again this year. It will not stand by while the adverse impact builds just because the Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers cannot settle their dispute without inflicting damage on the Canadian public.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill before the House. In the first instance, and as a first priority, the Bill provides for the immediate termination of the work stoppages and the resumption of postal services. The Bill also provides for the extension of the collective agreement for a period to be determined through arbitration, if necessary, of not less than
October 9, 1987

two and not more than three years. Additionally, the Bill provides for the settlement of the issues in dispute through the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator.

I have already dealt with the rationale for terminating the work stoppage and ordering a resumption of full postal operations. The Canadian economy cannot be subjected to a second postal work stoppage within four months from the previous strike. What I want to emphasize most at this point, Mr. Speaker, is the importance I attach to the provision which the bill makes for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator.
The parties in this dispute are no strangers to protracted negotiations and work stoppages. In 1981, Mr. Speaker, Canadians were subjected to a lengthy strike of inside postal workers and were without mail for six weeks. Canadians were kept waiting for a total of forty-two days before labour and management could settle their differences through economic sanctions.

In the present dispute the corporation and the union have been bargaining for more than a year and are well aware of the issues. They have had the benefit of conciliation officer assistance followed by a second stage of conciliation with a conciliation commissioner. This second stage was unsuccessful and led to the report and recommendations of Commissioner Foisy. The report and recommendations should have set the scene for negotiations toward settlement.

After I released Mr. Foisy's report, Mr. Speaker, the onus for settlement rested squarely on the parties' shoulders. I had no intention of transferring this responsibility to a mediator. To have done so would have provided the parties with a sanctuary from public opinion during a protracted mediation process while they continued on the path of mutually assured destruction.

Against this background the Bill before the House provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator rather than strict arbitration. This is done with the express purpose of affording the parties one last chance to do it for themselves. However, while they are attempting to settle their differences they will not be in a position to pursue their diversionary tactics against each other.
On this occasion the Government does not intend to let matters drag on. The parties are guaranteed the opportunity of mediation, but not at the expense of the economy and public interest. I sincerely hope that they will arrive at their own agreement with the assistance of the mediator-arbitrator. If they have their own best interests at heart they should seize this opportunity to do so. At the same time they just may lay the foundation for a much needed improved future relationship. However, should the parties fail yet again, the mediator-arbitrator will be empowered to make binding decisions.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987 [Translation]
I will conclude at this point, Mr. Speaker, because as I indicated before I know that several other members will want to speak to this Bill. But before I conclude, allow me to add that there had been some reason to hope that labour relations at the Canada Post Corporation would improve. However, it proved to be a false hope, Mr. Speaker. Confrontation was never far away even when agreements were reached. Each round of bargaining brought its threats to the provision of these important postal services. This past summer an overt and violent conflict occurred. This government will not tolerate yet another disruption of the mail.

We decided to act firmly and decisively. Let there be no doubt in this House that when a private clash of wills takes precedence over the public interest the Government will not hesitate to intervene.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Murphy:: This message brought to you by Canada Post.


Michael Morris Cassidy: There is no Minister of Labour left in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: There is no Minister of Labour left in this country!


Mr. Hicks:: It looks like you rattled their cage.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise very reluctantly in the House today, to address, on behalf of my Party, the Bill tabled for our consideration, Bill C-86, whose purpose is to provide for the normal resumption of postal services but whose hidden objective is to break a strike.

What puzzles me is, first, the disturbing way in which the Government has asked the opposition Parties for co-operation. When the Minister rose in the House to ask for all-Party agreement to pass this Bill through all stages today I made a few remarks explaining that when the Bill was tabled in the House yesterday we had not been consulted. The Government had decided to push aside the normal tradition of a gentlemen's agreement between House Leaders to try to reach agreement on pieces of legislation. This has worked many times recently and over the years. For the Government to table a piece of legislation in the House of Commons and for the Minister to ask us to start negotiating in public is baloney. It means, in my opinion-


Mr. Vincent:: In your opinion?

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, in my humble opinion it means that the Minister is not seriously trying to reach an agreement to pass this Bill rapidly.
I am not sure that this Bill has to be passed rapidly anyway, because in my opinion it is an ill-advised piece of legislation. It flies in the face of our Canadian tradition of trying to settle labour disputes through bargaining.
The Minister spent most of the time during his speech explaining to us that bargaining was not working in this case. That is surprising because we saw a similar situation in June when the letter carriers were on strike with the Post Office. The strike was settled by negotiation. The parties came to an agreement after the Government appointed a mediator. While the Government first refused to appoint a mediator and only saw the light a week later, I must give credit to the Government for finally appointing a mediator which resulted in the parties coming to an agreement peacefully and ending the strike.
Why must the Government use the ballistic approach this time to try to bring the parties together? I am simply saying that it will be much more difficult and this action shows the image of the Government.
Not only is this piece of legislation ill advised, it is premature. There is no national emergency. We all remember the rail strike. In that case, grain was not moving, coal was not moving, and other commodities were not moving across the country. A rail strike presented the possibility of severely crippling the Canadian economy. Such is not the case with this strike. There were rotating strikes and the mail, by and large, was moving. There is no national emergency and this Bill is premature.
[ Translation]
In fact, what we have seen and what we are still seeing is a series of rotating strikes across this country. We do not have a national strike from sea to sea, bringing mail delivery to a complete standstill. That is not the case. However, since the Minister tabled his Bill and, in doing so, provoked the urath of postal workers, there is a very real threat that the rotating strikes will gradually turn into a full-blown national strike, and if that is what the Government wants, that is probably what it is going to get. However, if this happens, I can inform the Government we will hold it responsible for escalating a strike that was relatively peaceful.
Even according to the Minister responsible for Canada Post, who brags about it daily, mail delivery is proceeding almost normally. I was reading some reports not long ago in which postal officials said that the volume of mail being processed today is 1.8 percent greater than the volume processed by the Canada Post Corporation a year ago. So our postal services are operating, despite the rotating strikes, and the Government had no business bringing in a Bill prematurely, which will only lead to provocation, especially since negotiations were
proceeding and representatives for Canada Post employees had decided recently to make a major concession with respect to privatization, which, as we all know, has been the main stumbling block in the negotiations.
The president of the union mentioned recently that he was opening the door to the Corporation's plan to set up postal franchises. Obviously, he was doing so on certain conditions. He wanted to ensure that this would be done mostly in new developments. He didn't want existing post offices to be shut down and replaced by wickets in drugstores and supermarkets, with people being paid the minimum wage, while postal employees earned decent wages.
Certain terms could certainly have been negotiated, and the union representative had seriously opened the door to a resumption of the negotiations by giving ground on the main demands of Canada Post. The Government therefore chose the worst possible moment to introduce such repressive legislation. A negotiated settlement achieved at the bargaining table is always better than an imposed one, just as an out of court settlement is always preferable in civil proceedings. I do not know why the Government cannot understand this principle, even though some of its own members do. Recently, the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) paid more than lip service to this concept by joining the picket line. Let me tell you why, and I would like to quote what he said. According to an article in Le Journal de Montreal, the purpose of his gesture was to denounce the anti-social attitude of his Government. This is what the Conservative Member for Richelieu did.
He stated that he was against the hiring of strikebreakers. He saw this provocation. He also expressed serious reservations about back-to-work legislation, and this was before the Bill was introduced. He had already understood-


An Hon. Member:: What he is reading is nonsense.


Jacques Guilbault: The Hon. Members opposite do not like to hear this. They are always interrupting. I am anxious to see them rise to defend their views as their colleague for Richelieu has had the courage to do.
If we look at the basic arguments of the Hon. Member, who is a Conservative, we find that he said that the workers have the right to strike and that the conflict should be allowed to resolve itself normally as the national interest is not being threatened. I am therefore not the only one to say so. The national interest is not being threatened and the rotating strikes have not caused any real acts of violence, at least until now.
Mr. Speaker, all this goes to show that, as surprising as it may seem, some of the Conservative Members understand reason. Some of them have the courage to rise publicly to express their views. What is at issue here is what is happening to the collective bargaining system in Canada now that we have a Bill which plainly interferes with a strike which is quite legal and which complies with all the rules. Such special
October 9, 1987

legislation seems totally at variance with the principles supposedly supported by the Government, and especially by the Prime Minister who, at other times, and he would not do so in the House now, likes to say that he is on the side of the workers and of collective bargaining.
As recently as July 29, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Mrs. Shirley Carr, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, in which he said the following. As the letter was in English, I shall change over to the language of Shakespeare:

"The existing framework for collective bargaining has again proven its capacity to bring employers and bargaining agents to resolve even the most difficult disputes without government interference". I would like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to return to the House today and repeat that sentence. However, I know he is busy and that is why I have offered to speak on his behalf and remind Canadians of what he is saying while already campaigning for the next election. I am not saying either that he is wrong in beginning the campaign early.
Let me continue to quote the Prime Minister about bargaining settlements. He said, "Such settlements are better by far than any that would be imposed through legislation". That is what I said earlier, yet 1 was heckled by my colleagues opposite. 1 do not know if they will heckle their own leader, but 1 was repeating exactly what the Prime Minister was thinking when he was speaking. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have the bad habit of saying something to please some people but doing the exact opposite the next day, probably to please another group of people.

Mr. Speaker, the Government is responsible for this strike and, although it might surprise some Canadians who hear me say that, I will explain why. It is the Government, with the last Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), which has put Canada Post in a straight jacket. In all fairness, we certainly cannot blame the Canada Post Corporation and its negotiators who are doing their best, within of course the limited means available to them.
Under the plan imposed by the Minister of Finance for a balanced budget by next spring Canada Post Corporation finds it very difficult to operate and, under the circumstances, it has no other alternative but to make cuts and more cuts. The Canada Post Corporation is forced to franchise and privatize its operations, to apply the axe to the job security of postal workers, men and women, to meet the financial demands of the Government. That is why I say that the Government is responsible for this strike.
The Government has caused the strike with its postal service privatization plan which these working men and women are opposed to because they see it as a threat to their job security. Nobody likes to lose his or her job or to approve in advance plans which will likely result in job losses. That is why postal
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
working men and women are fighting back, for their livelihood is at stake.
I was looking for instance at our friend Bill Kelly, the Deputy Minister. Earlier, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) referred to a certain report he received from Mr. Bill Kelly, who had been asked to call on the parties and see what was going on rather than mediate, because despite our suggestion, the Minister has refused to appoint a mediator.
Recently, we asked the question in this House: What is Mr. Kelly doing? Is he a messenger? Is he an observer? Is he a note-taker?
The Minister answered the Hon. Member had not read his press release, issued that morning, and everything was in there.
I had read the press release, but the problem is that in that release it was impossible to determine what Mr. Bill Kelly, the Deputy Minister of Labour, was doing there.
One thing we did understand about the press release, and it was that Mr. Kelly was not there as a mediator. And that was the Government's big mistake.
I would like to add that the Government is sending the wrong signal with this back-to-work legislation. Canada Post was already strapped for funds because of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and because of decisions made in Cabinet. Canada Post now has a clear signal that it does not have to negotiate. The back-to-work legislation is there. The employees will have to return to work and do their jobs. Why would the officers of Canada Post bend over backward and start conceding on various fronts around the table? They do not have to do that. The message is loud and clear. It is there; the writing is on the wall.

Why Bill C-86, Mr. Speaker? The Minister claims it is in order to end the strike because it jeopardizes mail delivery, but that is not even true-mail is being distributed. There must be an underlying reason, there is something fishy going on. And I will suggest two possible reasons for this shotgun approach taken by the government.
The first reason in my view is that here is a government whose popularity is on a constant downslide, as indicated by opinion polls, and it must try behind closed doors, in its strategy meetings, to find new methods to beef up its image. A good right-using attitude for a Conservative government is to say: We will look tough with workers. That will work. Then people will say we are in charge.
I, for one, say that holding Canadian workers to ransom is not the right way for a government to enhance its image when it is already very damaged.
Besides, there are other reasons as well. It may not only be a tactic designed to enhance its image, but the government

October 9, 1987
which has taken unusual steps in this strike by hiring scabs, an unprecedented process, is probably innovating, obviously not in the right direction but nevertheless innovating. But the government had probably not properly assessed the cost of those initiatives. I suggest that the government has to introduce legislation in order to stop that strike because of cost pressures. It costs a lot to hire strike-breakers who are not only paid $13.25 per hour but who get paid even if they are on stand-by in front of the postal station or in buses. Those are the facts. It costs a lot to hire scabs who are paid $13.25 per hour, especially when they have been guaranteed a minimum of 12 hours of work a day. What it means is that when a strike-breaker is replacing someone for two or three hours, he is sure to be paid for a twelve hour period. That is why costs are very high. It costs a lot to hire scabs at $13.25 per hour when you know that after forty hours of work, they are paid time and a half, that is close to $20 per hour.
Meanwhile, unemployed people who desperately want to work and are attracted by a chance to earn a few dollars, risk a beating because the Government brings them in past postal workers who are furious to see someone else coming to do their work-


Mrs. Mailly:: The union is wasting taxpayers' money.


Jacques Guilbault: I thank the Hon. Member from Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) for her suggestions, but I think she should wait until she makes her own speech later on.


Claudy Mailly: There is room for improvement here.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, it costs money to have helicopters flying around to watch what is going on below, to watch the picket lines and the strike breakers crossing them. It costs money to have armoured buses bring strike breakers to work at post offices and sortation centres. It costs money to rent empty depots just in case, as we have seen in Toronto and other locations in this country.
But all of a sudden, the Government noticed that using scabs to break the strike was expensive, and it said: We have to find a way to cut costs, and the best way is to table back-to-work legislation.
I would now like to take a look at the Bill and some of the measures it contains, and tell you how foolish I think they are.
First, the Bill provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator whose first responsibility, if we look at the text of the Bill, will be to mediate for a certain time. And that after we have been pressuring the Government for more than a week to appoint a mediator, and the only answer we got was no. It wasn't the right time yesterday or the day before or last week. And now all of a sudden, today is the right time.
This is going to be a strange mediation process, because mediation is supposed to be non-confrontational. A mediator tries to bring both parties closer together. It isn't easy to be
non-confrontational with the threat of back-to-work legislation hanging over the union.
The Bill enjoins the mediator to give due cognizance to the report of the conciliation commissioner, which is very convenient for the Government, since the conciliation commissioner's report approved the privatization policy. This means that the mediator-arbitrator is being instructed to take sides with Canada Post, which is going to implement the Government's plan.
I think my time is about up. Is that what you are trying to tell me, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Gauthier:: It isn't eleven o'clock yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Not necessarily, but it is time for Question Period.

It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to comment on the Government decision to move the microbiology laboratory to the home province of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). In my opinion, this is a decision based on partisan political considerations which is not in the national interest and is not in the interest of the 85 affected employees and of their families. Mr. Speaker, the transfer of existing facilities from Ottawa to another city is not good planning but just plain partisanship, and that is why I oppose this decision.
The construction of a new laboratory for desease control at a cost of 93 million dollars had been planned in Ottawa, and it should be built here. By moving the microbiology laboratory to Winnipeg, this Government gives up the potential of this region and the well-being of the 85 affected employees just to get a few votes. Will the Government be as partisan when it decides where the Canadian space agency will be? You can bet it will, for the Conservative Government would rather fill its own petty political needs rather than make sensible decisions in the national interest. I urge the Hon. Members from the Ottawa area, including the Hon. Merber for Ottawa- Carleton (Mr. Turner), to look after this problem and try and do something about it.
October 9, 1987



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues on an important decision they will have to make in the next few days. That decision will change for decades the economic environment of one of the poorest regions in our huge country. The Regroupement pour la papeterie regionale, in Matane, is putting all its trust in our Government, but it has great fear of the pulp and paper lobby.
On behalf of my constituents, I am asking my ministerial colleagues to analyze further the needs of that region, rather than listen to the unjustified outcry of the pulp and paper industry. They will still be pocketing millions, even with competition from the Papeterie regionale in Matane. The population has been holding peaceful demontrations recently and it will be holding more of them to show that there is a real solidarity.
My dear colleagues, I ask you to allow the owners of that major project access to the regular regional development programs. It will be one more proof that the Conservative Government is willing to work at eliminating regional disparities. I repeat, the demands from the population must take precedence over the demands from the industry.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on June 23 of this year when speaking about the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States not to allow Canadian producers of natural gas to pass along pipeline carrying charges in Canada to the purchasers of the natural gas in the United States, which the purchasers in the United States had agreed in writing to assume, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) said:
How can we hammer out solid free trade principles between our two
countries when a regulatory agency can make a mockery of mutuallyacceptable and freely-negotiated trade arrangements?
Surely, people will say, now that we have a free trade agreement all that has been corrected. No way! What we got was the following: "Parties will consult on energy regulatory actions which could directly result in discrimination inconsistent with the principles of the Agreement". Big deal!
What did we give up? We completely gutted the National Energy Board. We gave up all the regulatory protection we had, and the United States did not give up anything.
5. O. 21 LITERACY



DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE ILLITERATE

Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study revealed that an alarming percentage of Canadians are considered to be functionally illiterate-they cannot read or write, or do mental arithmetic either to, or much beyond, a very basic academic level. Their lot in life is not an easy one, and in many ways on a day-to-day basis we not only make it more difficult but we in fact discriminate subtly and not so subtly.
An example, if I may. Every day we are invited to participate in a game of chance-"no purchase necessary-fill out the form, and if you win there is a free trip, free groceries, free gasoline, if you can answer this skill-testing, time-limited question". What is that great test of skill? An arithmetic problem-add, subtract, multiply, divide. For too many of our citizens this is not a test of skill, it is an outright embarrassment.
In this day of lottos, super-lottos and mini-lottos why do we limit the ability of many of our citizens to win a prize by testing their academic level? If it is the law, then let us change the law.



CHILD CARE


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Family Week must not pass without noting the Government's refusal to act on its child care promises. In 1984, in the Leaders' debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that child care would be a priority of this Government. He repeated his promise to First Ministers in Vancouver stating that substantial resources would be allocated for a national child care program. Three years have passed with no action.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) still has not tabled a government response to the report of the Special Committee on Child Care and has delayed meetings with provincial Ministers. Why has the Government refused to act? Was this just another empty political promise of the Prime Minister because he realizes the public support for child care? Has the cost of this Government's trade deal and nuclear powered submarines been given preference? Why has the Minister refused even to establish objectives for a national child care program although this is required by the constitutional Accord?
The child care crisis has escalated. We need positive government action to develop a national program of quality, affordable, accessible child care services in every region, and we needed it yesterday.

October 9, 1987



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, for months we have been working hard to restore the country's economy. For months, we have seen the economy improve. For months, we have been creating hundreds of thousands jobs. For months, interest rates have been going down. For months, the value of the dollar has been going up. For years, Canadians, and especially Quebecers, have been fed up with the Liberals. And now, for months they have been enjoying an improving economy.
Mr. Speaker, no one has challenged this Government's performance, not even the people of Quebec, who say they are willing to give the Conservatives at least forty seats in the next election, for your information.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives were not afraid to introduce unpopular measures, because they were badly needed.
Today, Quebecers have confirmed that they agree and that they don't want the Liberals back to put the country into bankruptcy.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, one does not have to wander too far from Parliament Hill to encounter the signs of hunger, even in affluent Ottawa. Along Bank and Sparks Streets, the sight of some poor soul eating out of a garbage can is not uncommon. And, less than a mile from Parliament Hill, St. Brigid's Soup Kitchen feeds the hungry 24 hours a day.
The problem of hunger stretches right across this huge country, from east to west and from north to south. It has many manifestations-children going to school without having breakfast, young mothers feeding their infants sugar water because they have no food in the house, and people who have not eaten for days, walking miles to food depots.
Thankfully, someone is doing something about the problem of hunger. The National Network to End Hunger grew out of the National Conference on Hunger in November, 1986. It is sponsored by a number of associations including churches, social workers, and other social development agencies. Their aim is to eliminate the need for food banks by 1992 by advocating policy improvements in areas such as housing, employment, and income security.
I hope I am speaking for all Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, when I salute the efforts of the National Network to End Hunger in Canada. Their efforts do not go unnoticed.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may have some new faces, but it is the same tired old song and certainly the same tired old song sheet. One of the most divisive acts any Parliament anywhere ever perpetrated was the national energy policy. It forced one area to sell its commodity at half price and, if this was not enough, it forced the West to pay exorbitant taxes.
This Government realized it was wrong, and this Government stopped this abuse. On Monday the Leader of the Liberal Party again said that the Government gave away the national energy policy as a sop to the Americans. This was no sop to the Americans. This was stopping an abuse, righting a past wrong, correcting an injustice. The Liberals have learned nothing of history. When the next election is called, the Liberal candidates in western Canada will be assigned to the dustbin of history, as were their predecessors in 1984, 1979, 1974, and in 1972.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on April 14, 1986, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) stated: "Dealing specifically with pharmaceuticals . . . They are not in any way tied to the present discussions as to whether or not there should or should not be trade discussions between Canada and the United States".
On the following days, October 6, 27, November 6, 19, December 1, 8, 1986, and February 2, March 26, April 2, August 11, 13, 14, 19, 1987, questions were put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), or to one of his Ministers, asking whether the demand by President Reagan to give a pricing monopoly to United States drug companies operating in Canada was tied to the free trade deal. Although the Government caved in to President Reagan's demand for drug pricing, it denied the linkage to the free trade deal. Today we know that the two were inextricably linked. We know that the Government intentionally misled the House and the people of Canada. No wonder the Government is increasingly being held in contempt by the people of this country.
October 9, 1987



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Statistics Canada released the September unemployment rates. I am afraid that it is more bad news for the Opposition, but good news for Canadians. The seasonally adjusted rate for the country is 8.6 per cent, down from 9.5 per cent one year ago. Albertans will be pleased to know that the provincial seasonally adjusted rate has dipped another two-tenths of a per cent to 9.7 per cent.
The unemployment rate in my home city of Edmonton is 11.2 per cent. That is not the best, but we are getting there. Help is on the way in the form of free trade with the United States. I only hope that Edmontonians remember what Party is speaking for free trade and which Parties oppose it.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you said that this is no tea-party, and you are right as usual. But I wish that the Mad Hatters of the Opposition would give up their wonderland theories and admit once and for all that, "We're late, we're late, for a very important date"-with destiny-a free trade destiny!



MUSIC COMPETITIONS


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, the federal Minister of Communications (Ms. MacDonald) decided to cut $100,000 from the grant given by her Department and the Government of Canada to Canadian Music Competitions Inc., a grant the Government has been giving for years.
I have before me copies of petitions addressed to the Minister in which nearly 1,000 people ask her to reverse her decision. I would like to join these people in their petition to the Minister.
For more than 30 years, Canadian Music Competitions have been held for the benefit of young Canadians who are musically inclined. There is ample evidence of the importance of this work. I would like to quote the Minister's own words when she said:

"These competitions constitute one of the happiest facets in Canadian musical activity, and contribute to the economic and cultural development of our country".

I therefore would ask the Minister to be mindful of her own statement in this respect and to guarantee the continued existence of this national institution by restoring the original grant for Canadian Music Competitions.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF LIBERAL AND NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY LEADERS
Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government introduced its economic renewal programs, the Opposition predicted the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. When the opposite happened, the Opposition resorted to vicious personal attacks on our Leader.
Now that the Government has another winner on its hands, a trading arrangement which will protect our markets, save our jobs, and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, the reactionaries feel that they must stop the deal at all costs in order to put a stop to our continuing economic success.
Kind souls will sympathize with the Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner), who must be against everything the Government does if he wishes to appease his own Party critics, but the socialist Leader cannot be forgiven. What right does the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) have to deny prosperity to the rest of Canada? What right does the NDP vice-president, Bob White, have to deny other Canadians the same success which resulted from the 20-year old free trade Auto Pact?
Realizing that the deal is a good one, the reactionaries have wrapped the Canadian flag around themselves and are screaming sanctimonious drivel. I call on them to allow other Canadians the prosperity enjoyed by the constituents of the Hon. Member for Oshawa. Remove the flag from your eyes and join us in securing a prosperous future for all Canadians.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-CALL FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is an occasion to remark upon how ironic it is that at the same time that the Government is defending a constitutional Accord which would require unanimity for changes to federal institutions, the same Progressive Conservative Government proposes to change the economic constitution of this country, not with unanimous consent but without even a consensus in this country on free trade, and without doing what would be the proper and historically rooted thing, which is calling an election to give the people of Canada an opportunity to express themselves on whether or not, as a people, they wish to be locked into this relationship with the United States that the Government proposes to lock us into through the agreement that it has recently arrived at.

October 9, 1987
Oral Questions
There will be a consensus in the country. It might even be unanimous in a very short time. If the Progressive Conservatives have the courage of their Yankee convictions, they should call an election and let the people of Canada make a judgment on the future of Canada. Let the people of Canada give them the mandate, or refuse them the mandate that they refused to seek in 1984 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ran on the basis that he would not enter into a free trade agreement with the United States.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 1984 the Progressive Conservative Party campaigned on the theme of "jobs, jobs, jobs". Under the previous Government, in four and a half years only
420.000	new jobs had been created, 80 per cent of which were part-time. The national unemployment rate was 11.7 per cent. Among youth it was 18.3 per cent.
Under this Government, in only three years 959,000 new jobs have been created, 87 per cent of which are full-time. They are not six-week, Liberal-type, make-work, paint-the-fence, clean-the-basement type of jobs. These are full-time jobs.
The national unemployment rate is down to 8.6 per cent. Among youth it is down to 12.8 per cent.
In my Province of Saskatchewan, despite disastrous commodity prices, the unemployment rate is down to 6.8 per cent. Across the Prairies over 90,000 new jobs have been created. The help wanted index, the ads placed by employers seeking employees, is at an all-time high.
We did not promise to create jobs. It is not the function of government to hire and employ everyone. What we did do was promise to create the type of environment in which the private initiative and free enterprise of Canadians could flourish. The results of these policies are evident to all Canadians. There are
959.000	proofs out there of the correctness of the policy of the Government to create "jobs, jobs, jobs" for Canadians.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is now obvious that the Tory MPs for the National Capital area have become politically impotent. Nowhere is this lack of virility better demonstrated than in the failure of those
Tories to convince the Government that the new $93 million Microbiology Centre should be located here in the nation's capital.
At one time the employment rate in Ottawa was lower than that of most other communities in Canada, but after three years of Tory Government such is no longer the case.
Why are these Tories not sticking up for their constituents? Where are the Tory Members of Parliament for Ottawa Carleton, Ottawa West, Nepean Carleton, Lanark, Renfrew Carleton and Gatineau? They should be picketing the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the Langevin Building saying that they will not take it any more. Chances are they will not do a thing. That is what impotence is all about, Mr. Speaker.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On December 8, 1986, in this House, speaking of Bill C-22, the drug patent legislation, he said:
The fact is that this matter has nothing to do with the free trade talks.
Then on CTV's Question Period on August 30, 1987, he said:
that it is not tied with the free trade discussions.
On July 7, 1987, in a Senate committee he said:
-let me say that Bill C-22 is not part of the free trade discussions.
And,
Senator, it has nothing to do with free trade.
Why after these repeated statements, statements of the same kind by the Minister for International Trade and even by the Prime Minister, do we find that the Government signed a free trade agreement on October 3rd, hours before the announcement that the deal was made, and that agreement contained a clause in which the Government pledged the passage of Bill C-22 as part of the deal? Why was that in the deal despite the denials over and over by Ministers? Let the Government be straight with Canadians as to why it did what it did.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the Hon. Member for Papi-neau, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, introduced a White Paper-


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question, Pinocchio.
October 9, 1987


Mr. Andre:: 1 am. It said in part "To generate further growth in this industry, the Government of Canada has decided to change the Patent Act to rebalance the 1969 policy."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: That was the previous Government. This Government took up that challenge. The House of Commons dealt with it in May of this year. The Senate sent the Bill back and we dealt with it.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Harvie Andre: In August, the member of the New Democratic Party for Vancouver-Kingsway said: "We believe the Senate should let the Bill pass after the House of Commons has, in fact, reviewed the matter."
On the same day the Leader of the Opposition said: "At the end of the day the elected House of Commons must prevail. That is the clear position of the Liberal Party".
At the end of August the Government was committed to Bill C-22. The New Democratic Party acknowledged that the Bill should be passed and the Leader of the Liberal Party acknowledged that it should be passed. But the Member over there finds it shocking that on October 3, in discussions, there is an admission that we are committed to the Bill.
According to this testimony, everybody in the House is committed to the Bill.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what I find shocking is that the Government was not telling the Parliament and Canadians the truth.


BILL C-22-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister to acknowledge that although he said many times that Bill C-22 was not and is not included in free trade negotiations, that nevertheless, this Government has signed an Agreement in which it undertakes to adopt this Bill.
Why was the Government afraid to tell Canadians the truth?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 was not part of the negotiations at the table. The agreement which was initialled by both parties, a copy of which all Members of the House and the public have, does not mention Bill C-22.
Perhaps the mistake we made was in believing the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the Liberal Party recognizes that the will of this House should prevail and that Bill C-22 should pass. On October 3 we had that commitment from the Leader of the Opposition. We had an indication from the New Democratic Party that, in fact, Bill C-22 was going to pass.
Oral Questions
Is the Hon. Member saying that we made a mistake in taking the word of his Leader in accepting his statement in the House?


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister whether he was denying the statements he made. If he made those statements, isn't he saying that he and his Government were not straight with Canadians? Isn't it a fact that this Government has been caught red handed in not telling the truth to the Canadian people? Isn't the Government admitting that higher drug prices for Canadians are only one part of the much greater price that Canadians will have to pay for this harmful, damaging, wrong free trade agreement with the United States? Tell the truth.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether the Leader of the Opposition was telling the truth when he said that the will of the House of Commons will prevail on Bill C-22. The House of Commons has twice said that it is committed to Bill C-22. The Hon. Member is suggesting it is shocking to say publicly that the Government is committed to Bill C-22 when we could not have been more obvious about our commitment over the last 16 months.
We thought that the Leader of the Opposition was telling the truth when he said that the Liberal Party acknowledges the right of the House of Commons to have its will prevail. The House of Commons said that Bill C-22 should be passed. When will the Liberal Party live up to its part of the bargain?


GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same Minister. What the people of Canada want to know is why the Government lied in Parliament, why it lied to the people of Canada when it claimed not once-


An Hon. Member:: Here she goes again.


Mr. Speaker:: It probably could be argued that the Hon. Member has stayed very closely on the fine line of trespassing because her accusation is toward the Government in general. However, I would ask her to be careful and not go too far.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada want to know why on repeated occasions in this House the Government said, in the other place, on television, through the media to the people of Canada, that the drug bill was not part of the free trade arrangement when, quite clearly, on October 3 it signed a secret hidden agenda which showed that, indeed, it was part and parcel of the sell-out to the Americans.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly that Bill C-22 was not part of the trade negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 9, 1987
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Say it again.


Harvie Andre: I wonder whether the Opposition will allow me to answer the question. I did not heckle or barrack while the question was being asked.
Repeatedly, every spokesman of the Government talking about Bill C-22 has said that it was not part of the trade agreement, because that is the truth.
October 3, I remind the Hon. Member, is after the House of Commons had passed this Bill several times and after her own Leader said that the "will of the House of Commons will prevail. That is the position of the Liberal Party." It was after the New Democratic Party said that it recognized the Senate must pass the Bill. After all of that happened, we thought we could believe what her Leader was saying. Therefore, it is hardly shocking or surprising that one would say, yes, the Government is committed to passing Bill C-22, in writing or orally. That has been our obvious position for 16 months. It is not part of the trade agreement.
I ask the Member to read again the agreement that was initialled by both sides. She will not see in there Bill C-22 because it is not part of the agreement.


UNITED STATES TRADE OFFICE DOCUMENT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I will take the word, frankly, of the office of the U.S. trade representative-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -who states quite clearly as part of the agreement-Frankly, how can we believe the Government? I would rather believe this document which states:
The two sides agreed-to make progress towards establishing adequate and
defective protection of pharmaceuticals in Canada by liberalizing compulsory
licensing provisions.
Quite clearly, the Americans see it as part of the agreement.
I want to ask the Minister again, how can he stand here in the House and not be red-faced when the people of Canada cannot believe a word that comes from his mouth, from the mouth of the Minister for International Trade, or even from the mouth of the Prime Minister? You are an embarrassment to Canada.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I will avoid the temptation of getting into a discussion about who is an embarrassment to whom about what.
The Government of Canada is committed to Bill C-22. We have been on record on that. The previous Liberal Government, the one she supports, was committed to changing the Patent Act as shown in this White Paper. More than that, we
are committed to getting this Bill passed to increase research and development and have Canadian scientists work. We made that commitment to the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Canadian Medical Association, the National Biological Association and in fact to some 60 odd health organizations that are looking for this legislation.
I do not understand the mental processes someone would have to go through to say how shocking it is that on October 3, 1987, 16 months after this Bill was introduced, the Government admits it is committed to Bill C-22. Of course we are committed to Bill C-22, and so is every other thinking Canadian.


SIGNATURE ON DOCUMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As he will agree, while Canadians may understand that there are important differences between political Parties, they ought to be able to have faith in the integrity of all the Parties and particularly, given time, in the integrity of the Government.
The Minister has just said in an answer that the document of October 3 was a document of October 3 but the Bill was passed in this House well before that. I do not know if he admitted the signature. The question about integrity goes back to the fact that I have, not once but 10 times, received denials from Ministers that there was any connection between the free trade talks and this Bill, including denials made well before the Bill was passed.
Since it is claimed that there is a Canadian signature on the document, initialled by Canadians on October 3, saying as part of the agreement then as signed, that there was a linkage between the adoption of Bill C-22 and free trade, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether there was or was not a Canadian signature on that document?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has pointed out on several occasions, as have other members of the Government, we have proceeded with Bill C-22 because we believe it to be in the national interest. It is good for job creation, it is good for research and development and for the creation of new jobs, and it is good for Canada and the regions. The Hon. Leader of the NDP asks what sort of documents have been signed. On Monday we tabled the documentation that was initialled, and what you see is what you get.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is the precise problem with this Government. What you see is what you get and what you see is dishonesty day after day in this Government. That is what you see. I want to say to the Minister that integrity is in the national interest of Canada too, and it is time he learned that.
October 9, 1987


SIGNING OF DOCUMENT ON OCTOBER 3
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister has refused to answer the question and the other Minister has refused to answer it, will he now be front and centre and honest with the people of Canada? Did they or did they not sign that document on October 3?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I do not need a lecture from the Hon. Leader of the NDP.


John Edward Broadbent: You need it from the people of Canada, that is what you need.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You arrogant sleaze bag.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Sometimes it is wise that the Chair does not hear something and sometimes the Chair does not quite hear something, but I want to say to Hon. Members that I think something was said that offended others. I did not hear it, but I would ask Hon. Members to restrain themselves.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party insists on giving the House of Commons a lecture on honesty. I must say in all sincerity and in all deference to him that 1 am not sure that he has a monopoly on honesty. I think he is really implying that everyone else in the House is dishonest except him.
Of course I have confidence in the Canadian people and I believe in the principles of democracy. I have been here in the House as long as the Hon. Member has, and 1 do not have to take any pointers from him about integrity or honesty.
I answered the question. What was agreed to in terms of the Canada-U.S. bilateral trade arrangement was tabled in this House. The documents were tabled in their raw form and they were initialled and that is what was signed.


QUERY IF CANADIAN SIGNATURE IS ON DOCUMENT
John Edward Broadbent: My last question is addressed to the Minister. I have not one but ten examples of ministers who in the past have denied that there was any connection between the Bill and the Free Trade Agreement. Once again, my question is quite simple. Is there a Canadian signature on this document, yes or no? That is the question.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how we can be any clearer. We have said repeatedly-


John Edward Broadbent: Did you sign it? Is there a signature or not?
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: I do not know how we can be any clearer. He is right, I have said repeatedly every time I was asked that there was no connection between Bill C-22 and the trade talks. The Minister for International Trade has said that. Almost every spokesman for our Party has said that because that is the truth. Now the Hon. Member-


John Edward Broadbent: Did you sign it?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member talks about a signature. The Deputy Prime Minister has just said twice very clearly that the only thing signed by way of an agreement between the United States was the document tabled. Go read it. There is nothing there on Bill C-22.
We have said repeatedly that Bill C-22 was introduced because it is in Canada's interests, something the previous Government agreed with, something that all the health professionals in the country agree with, something that the research community agrees with. Why is the Hon. Member taking this position which he knows is not parliamentary to continue to refuse an absolute statement on our side that we made repeatedly? If he wants to charge us with misleading the House, let him do that and take the consequences.


EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENT-INCLUSION OF REFERENCE TO BILL C-22
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that what is particularly frustrating to Members of the House of Commons, indeed to the people of Canada, is not just that the Government has misled the country over the last six months on Bill C-22, but that when confronted with the facts it continues to deny the truth.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs admitted in questions earlier today that what was contained in the document signed on the night of October 3 was changed and that there was no reference to Bill C-22 by the time the public document was issued on October 4. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister a very straightforward question. Is he denying the existence of a document on October 3 with both the signatures of Canada and the United States in which can be found a commitment by Canada as part of the free trade pact to pass Bill C-22? Is he denying that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know of such a document to which the Hon. Member refers.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are you denying it? You do not know?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course, I have told the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that what has been signed in terms of the arrangement between the two countries is that which was tabled in the House of Commons and initialled. Just because the Hon. Member does not like the honest answers

October 9, 1987
Oral Questions
that are given, it should not give him a licence to suggest that everything that comes from this side of the House is dishonest. It reflects the frustration of members of the Liberal Party in trying to deal with C-22 because they are caught in a bind. They know certain members of their Party want the Bill and others do not.
Why do they not get on with the job of convincing their friends in the Senate to pass this Bill? It is good for Canada. It is good for research and development. It is good for job creation and for the medical welfare of Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Even the youngest child, when caught with his hand in the cookie jar, has the good sense to admit that his fist is full of cookies. The Government has not learned that lesson.


REQUEST FOR PROVISION OF DOCUMENT SIGNED ON OCTOBER 3
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, on October 7, four days after the infamous October 3 meeting and document, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, appearing on CTV's Question Period, said with respect to C-22 and the free trade pact:
They have nothing to do with the trade negotiations and 1 can state categorically that any action we might be taking is a separate matter.
Nothing to do with the free trade negotiations.


Miss MacDonald:: Exactly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You finally got it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Will the Minister undertake to provide before the end of Question Period, and there are 20 minutes left, this House with a copy of the initial document signed on October 3 so Members of this House and other Canadians can see with their own eyes that indeed the Government of Canada introduced C-22 as part of the free trade pact and Canadians are expected to pay higher drug costs as part of the price of a free trade agreement? Will he do that, or is he going to hide the document because he is afraid of the truth?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member was in the House on Monday when the documents were tabled, i invite him-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The October 3 document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would invite-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The secret agenda.


Mr. Ellis:: You can't talk to wooden heads.


Mr. Speaker:: The Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not have to wait until the end of Question Period to answer that question. I invite the Hon. Member-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The document.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member does not want to listen to my answer then I will just sit down.


REFERENCE TO BILL C-22
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I will try again with the mendacious Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Finlay MacDonald: Enough of this, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member and others know that in this place that perhaps the most fundamental of any accusation considered unparliamentary is the suggestion or accusation that an Hon. Member is a liar. However erudite the words may be, they still carry the same unfortunate message. I think Hon. Members are prepared to concede that the Hon. Member is erudite and he will know that he has strayed, no matter how elegantly, beyond the line. I know he will want to correct that and put his question.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in view of what you said I would not have thought the Minister would have noticed.


Some Hon. Members:: Come on!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I will put the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Speak to your seat-mate about doing the honourable thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I can say to the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville that the Chair was remarking on his own erudition, not the lack of erudition of any other Member. The Hon. Member will put his question-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: -and perhaps make it clear for the record that the word "mendacious" has been dropped from the preamble.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. "Mendacious" has been withdrawn.
My question is simply this. Earlier he was bragging-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: -about the inclusion, certainly not denying it, of an undertaking in the October 3 document with respect to Bill C-22. Is it not true that it was at one stage included in the agreement? Is it also not true that it was removed because
October 9, 1987

of the embarrassment it would have caused the Government in view of its repeated statements to the contrary?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what I know is that what Canada is committed to has been tabled in this House and is there for the Hon. Member to read. With his erudition I am sure he can handle all the words in there. I do not think he will be able to find the words for which he and others search desperately.
As to the statements made by myself and others regarding C-22 over the last 16 months this Bill has been debated while Canadian scientists wait for us to pass it so they can get to work, those statements were true then and they are true now. This Bill was introduced because it is in Canada's interest. It is supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society, Canadians for Health Research, and virtually everyone in the health field. It is not introduced as part of any trade deal. It is not conditional on any trade deal. I was assured constantly of this by the Minister for International Trade and the chief negotiator. The last time I asked him was in August when specious accusations came up again. "Simon, has it ever been raised at the table?" He said no.
The fact of the matter is the statements made then and now are the truth and I strenuously object to the NDP accusing me of lying, no matter how erudite the language might be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has to observe that the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville has made it quite clear that he has withdrawn a word which the Chair felt was not appropriate.


Mr. Holtmann:: It took him long enough.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his supplementary perhaps on the principle that when a word is withdrawn that closes the incident and we can proceed.


AMERICAN PRESSURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, American spokesmen clearly articulated the pressure they were exerting on Canada over the Patent Act. In view of the repeated denials of that, and that C-22 was included in the October 3 document, is it not true that the inevitable conclusion to be reached by this House and the Canadian people is that there was a clear effort on the part of the Government to mislead?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member makes a false statement. He says that we denied there was any pressure from
Oral Questions
the U.S. There has never been any denial. We have been under pressure from the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland since 1969 to get our patent laws in step with the rest of the world. There has been no denial of that fact whatsoever.
The Hon. Member then makes the illogical jump and says since they have been pressuring us since 1969, and since the Government brought in the Bill, therefore it has been part of the trade negotiations for the last 14 or 15 months. I make the declarative statement that it has not. My colleagues have done the same.
There is also a tradition in the House that when a statement made it is accepted as truth and those who challenge it ought to provide evidence that it was false.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds and pertains to the western grain stabilization plan. He will know that some 10 per cent to 15 per cent of western producers remain outside the plan. There may be some apprehension on their part about joining in view of the size of the plan's deficit.
Can the Minister tell this House about any plans for an increase in levies for this crop year under the plan, and whether he plans to make any changes in the conditions of entry into the plan in order to accommodate those producers who remain outside?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the Western Grain Stabilization Act has been a very helpful plan to grain and oilseed producers in this time of very low prices. We are considering amending the Act to make it easier for people who are not now part of the plan to participate. We are also considering increasing the levy to make the fund closer to being actuarily sound. We are also doing some other things which will make it more beneficial to producers.
I should also say that we are doing our calculations on the final payment for the previous crop year. It looks as though we will have a record amount of money available to producers for a final payment. That is good news which will be welcomed by producers when they see the size of the final payment.

October 9, 1987
Oral Questions


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The whole point of his answers to my questions at the beginning of Question Period was to construct a case for why it was perfectly acceptable and logical that Bill C-22 be included in a clause in the document which was signed October 3. He said, in effect, "Why shouldn't it be in the document? After all, the Bill was passed. We expect everybody to stick with it". That was the whole point of his reply to me.
Why, 20 minutes later, were both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs turning 180 degrees trying to say that there was no document signed October 3 which contained a clause in which the Government committed to pass Bill C-22 when, in his original answers to me, his whole case was based on trying to demonstrate that it was perfectly acceptable for that Bill to be included? Why the contradiction? Why the lack of a consistent story over the course of 15 or 20 minutes?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, with regard to any trade deal between Canada and the United States-


Brian Vincent Tobin: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!"


Harvie Andre: There is the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe again. Apparently his ears do not work unless his mouth is moving.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Is that original?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps if the Hon. Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe would restrain himself the Hon. Minister could refrain from bringing the Hon. Member into the discussion. The Hon. Minister will answer the question.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, have been saying that the commitments which Canada has made with regard to the trade pact with the U.S. are in the document which was signed by both parties and tabled. There are no other commitments with respect to Bill C-22 of which I am aware. I have told this House repeatedly over the last 16 months that it was not part of the negotiations.
If in fact sometime on October 3 someone somewhere said that Canada is committed to passing Bill C-22, why the outrage? We could not have been more clear about that for the last 16 months if we had tried. Of course we are committed to passing Bill C-22. The question is whether it is part of the pact. The answer is no. Look at the document. It is not part of the pact. As to whether we are committed, of course we are, and I thought his Leader was as well.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister again whether he was not replying to a question I asked about an October 3 document and making the case-not very persuasively, but making it all the same-that it was perfectly acceptable and understandable to have a clause on Bill C-22 in that document because the Government expected that the Bill would pass.
Why is the Minister making this contradiction? Will he not check Hansard and then stand up and admit to what he was saying at the beginning? It would not help the Government all that much, but it would help it just a little to appear straightforward in the eyes of Canadians.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much more straightforward we could be. I repeat that after August 26 the Government was certainly committed to passing Bill C-22. We had the commitment of the Hon. Member's Leader that it be passed. The members of the NDP had said that they thought the Senate should pass the Bill. I thought that was sufficient for us to be able to say to the world, if necessary, that the Government is committed and that Bill C-22 will become law.
I know of no trade document that has been signed other than that which has been tabled in the House. That is what we are committed to.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Give us the document of October 3.


Harvie Andre: We are also committed to Bill C-22. I do not understand why the Opposition can say that it has now discovered the scandal that the Government is committed to Bill C-22. We certainly have not been trying to hide that fact.


REPORTED INITIALLING OF OCTOBER 3 DOCUMENT
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. There is one question which has not been answered in the House yet. The Americans have said that the October 3 document which links Bill C-22 to the free trade talks was initialled by both countries, Will the Deputy Prime Minister say yes or no as to whether our trade representative initialled or signed the October 3 document? Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that which has been initialled has been tabled with the House of Commons and constitutes the agreement which we are trying to pursue.
It is quite obvious what the tactics of the Opposition are. They are trying to obfuscate the good news which has occurred today, that is, a further decline in the unemployment rate in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 9, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a testimony to the economic policies of the Government. For example, in the Province of Newfoundland since the Government was elected unemployment has dropped by 6.3 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In Ontario it has dropped by 3.6 per cent, in New Brunswick by 3.3 per cent, and in British Columbia by 3.7 per cent. These fellows across the way do not like good news.


EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to answer my question as to whether we initialled or signed that document. The people of Canada want to know now-


Some Hon. Members:: What document?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The October 3 document. Either the Americans are misleading the people of this country or the Government is deliberately misleading the people of the country.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister now get up in the House and deny the existence of the October 3 document which the Americans say was initialled by Canada? Can he get up and deny that in this House?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the New Democratic Party does not like the truth and does not like the answers. The Member's contention is absolutely false. I have answered the question with clarity-


John Edward Broadbent: You have not. You haven't answered it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party says I have not answered the question. I have stood here and answered every question and my answers have been supplemented by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


John Edward Broadbent: Does it exist?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just because the Leader of the New Democratic Party does not like the answer he falls into that shameful-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Answer it.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes or no?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -sump hole of calling it dishonest.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER BILL C-22 WAS INCLUDED IN DOCUMENT SIGNED ON OCTOBER 3
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the eight years I have been sitting in this House, I never saw a Minister change his version of the facts within 20 minutes. This is the first time I see a Minister get mixed up in his own lies. I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question. The observations about what he has seen or not seen over a number of years are interesting, I suppose, but the Chair has been here for many years and has seen many things. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Jean-C. Lapierre: If you prefer, Mr. Speaker, I can say that the Minister has gotten mixed up in the two versions of the truth he has given, one early in the question period and the other later. What I want to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is this: Was approval of Bill C-22 mentioned in the document signed on October 3? Was what he defended early on in the question period included in that initialed document? Is the legislative program of this Parliament being managed by the Americans or not?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is running the legislative agenda of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Nor do we.


Harvie Andre: At least of this Parliament, Mr. Speaker. We have the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition that the will of the House of Commons will prevail, yet we have threats from his caucus colleagues in the other place that they will defeat the Bill.
I do not know how I could be any clearer than the statements I have given before. The pact that was initialled between Canada and the United States is on the table. It does not mention Bill C-22. Bill C-22 was not part of the trade negotiations.
The opening questions by the Member's House Leader referred to the fact that on October 3 apparently people were discussing Bill C-22 and somebody on behalf of the Government might have indicated that in fact this Government is committed to passing Bill C-22.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Initialled it.


Harvie Andre: And initialled it. You mean someone actually initialled a piece of paper saying that this Government is

October 9, 1987
Points of Order
committed to Bill C-22? Horrors, they have put on paper that which we have been saying publicly as loud as we can for 16 months. What a scandal!


INQUIRY IF UNMENTIONED DOCUMENTS EXIST THAT WOULD COMMIT CANADIANS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has now admitted that there might exist a document with a hidden agenda. What I want to ask the Minister, or rather the Deputy Prime Minister, who was aware of nothing at all at the beginning of the question period, is that he find out the truth of the matter. Apart from the initialed document, could there also be letters containing commitments, for instance, to abolish management agencies such as the Canadian Dairy Commission? Could there be other cosy deals which have not been put on the table, but which commit Canadians to certain things? Have you kept other matters hidden from Canadians? Tell us!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, surely in a negotiation and transaction of a bilateral arrangement of this magnitude there were a series of exchanges of information, telephone calls, exchanges of memos and perhaps even letters. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Surely that is part and parcel of the negotiating process.
What we are debating here is very clear. It is a bilateral trading arrangement that has been agreed to in principle by the two countries, has been initialled and has been tabled and deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons for everyone to see.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize two more Members; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, followed by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


FISHERIES
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, apparently France has walked out of the talks which have been going on between Canada and France with respect to fish. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the Government proposes to do about the continuous overfishing in Canadian waters by France?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was informed of that decision just prior to Question Period. We regret very much that France has seen fit to take this action.
Canada stands ready and willing to re-enter negotiations at any time. We stand by our stated principles and objectives with respect to conservation and preserving those fish stocks. We particularly stand by the principle of ensuring that any negotiated settlement is in the best interests of the Atlantic fishermen.


OBSERVANCE OF FISHING QUOTAS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now that the talks have broken off, does the Prime Minister have any reason to believe that the French will abide by the quotas that have been stipulated by the Government? Will this be a licence for France to overfish in the meantime? What will the Government do to assure fishermen in Atlantic Canada that the French will not overfish and the Government will stand behind the fishermen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would appreciate the fact that we have not received a full report from our negotiator. I was just apprised of this prior to Question Period. I can assure him that our position remains clear. It is certainly our desire to see a significant decline in the fishing in that zone known as 3PS. Clearly the statements and objectives of the Government remain the same with regard to the principles of conservation of adequate fish stocks. While we still prefer the negotiated settlement route by far, the ultimate and main interest is to ensure that the welfare of Atlantic fishermen will be first and foremost on our minds.


POINTS OF ORDER
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I referred to a comment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) as having been made on October 7, 1987, on CTV's program Question Period. In fact, the date of the Question Period program in question was August 27. I want to correct the record.



MEMBER'S STATEMENT UNDER S. O. 21

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order with respect to correcting the record. In a statement that I made before Question Period today, I referred to the election in which the Prime Minister did not let on to the Canadian people that he would seek a free trade agreement. That was in 1984, not 1974. However, the same thing applies.

October 9, 1987


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, now that a member of the Official Opposition and a member of the New Democratic Party have paved the way, perhaps government Ministers could rise en masse to correct the record after Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always mindful of the helpful suggestions of Members. Elowever, I think we will proceed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-3013.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association.


PETITIONS
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Canadians across the country who indicate that whereas the federal Government proposal to seek financial self-sufficiency by 1988 for the Canada Post Corporation will result in cut-backs, deterioration in service of the Post Office and consequently will be at the expense of service to Canadian consumers; and whereas the proposed measures have already resulted in the closure of many rural Post Offices and the cancellation of rural routes which means drastic reduction in service for many Canadians; and whereas postal rate increases affect all Canadians while basic services are not improved, the federal Government has not enabled Canada Post Corporation to pursue revenue-generating services.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to instruct the Government to make improved service the highest priority of Canada Post Corporation and
Point of Order-Mr. Nunziata
instruct the Government to abandon this policy of closing rural Post Offices and cancelling rural routes.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from residents of the Yukon Territory who wish to take the opportunity to express their concern that they were not consulted and were not a signatory to the Meech Lake Accord. Therefore, they request the Government to withdraw the unanimous consent for the admission of new provinces and to ensure specific guarantees that future aboriginal rights conferences will take place.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 186 will be answered today.


Mr. Friesen: In the General Exchanges Agreement between Canada and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic signed on October 20, 1971, which of the Articles numbered 1 to 20 inclusive, are presently in force?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: All articles of the General Exchanges Agreement between Canada and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic have been in force since its signature.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period today several Members on this side of the House distinctly heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) calling the Leader of the New Democratic Party a sleazebag. I would like Your Honour to review the "blues"

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
when they are available and to determine whether or not the word is unparliamentary.
If so, I would ask Your Honour to have the Minister of Justice withdraw unequivocally that term.


Mr. Speaker:: In responding to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), I indicated part way through Question Period that while I had not heard what was said I knew something had been said which offended some Hon. Members.
I will check the "blues" and I will report back to the Chamber.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cadieux that Bill C-86, an Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Jacques Guilbault: When I had to interrupt my remarks because the Oral Question Period was to begin at 11 a.m., Mr. Speaker, I was emphasizing some points in Bill C-86 and I was far from congratulating the Government for the substance of this piece of legislation.
One of the points I was about to make was that some provisions of this Bill are exceptionally harsh. Under these provisions, no individual who is convicted of an offence under the Act,-someone for instance who would oppose the continuation of the postal services-an offence that was committed while the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer or the union shall be reinstated for a period of five years. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is an excessive penalty.
There are already in this Bill very high fines for which the postal union, the Canada Post Corporation or even individuals could be liable, but this clause which would prevent an officer of the union or of Canada Post from getting his job back for a period of five years is excessive. I do not think that this clause is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And I direct this question to the Government: Has the Government really done its work and obtained appropriate legal opinion to know for sure that this excessive penalty is consistent with the Charter of Rights?

I am afraid that the 5-year off-the-job penalty which would apply to either a senior officer of Canada Post or a senior officer of the union may contravene the Charter of Rights. I want an answer from the Government on whether this has
been checked, because I do not see a person not being able to do his or her job for a period of five years.
If an officer of Canada Post is not able to come back and work in his position for five years, where else will that person be able to work? It is a monopoly. There are no other post offices run in the country by the private sector. It is an extravagant penalty, and I want answers on whether or not it violates the Charter of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this Government, by introducing this back to work legislation, destroys our collective bargaining tradition. It simply wants to break the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in order to look tough with unions. It sees this as a means to score political points and halt its constant slipping in opinion polls.
Mr. Speaker, we shall not be party to a scheme whereby postal workers are held to ransom.

No legislation was needed to appoint the mediator who will be appointed under the provisions of this legislation. We have been calling for a mediator for over a week and the Government refused. What the Government should do now is what it should have done over a week ago, that is, appoint a mediator without the need for this legislation. The legislation should be put aside. It should be shelved. A mediator should be appointed in a climate without a sword of Damocles over both Canada Post and the union, so that the mediator can mediate in a reasonable way and with reasonable chances of success.
In conclusion, I have asked myself the following questions, and I should ask them of the Government. What has happened to democracy in the workplace? What is wrong with democracy in the workplace? What is wrong with the regular, bona fide negotiations which produced good results in the last letter carriers' strike in the month of June? How come the Government suddenly decided that what did work in the postal strike a few weeks ago will not work now?
These are the questions we are asking ourselves, and these are the questions we are asking the Government. These are the questions to which we want answers before we will support this piece of legislation.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) start the debate today, he implied that the legislation was similar to, if not the same as, the legislation introduced in August to order back the people who work on the railways. In fact, this legislation is significantly different. I believe that the Minister is deliberately trying to downplay or deny the aspects of this legislation. The legislation is so completely different that we must wonder why that is so and why the Minister is implying that it is not different.
Also, as I listened to his speech, I was asked by one of my colleagues whether he was still the Minister of Labour or the
October 9, 1987

Minister responsible for Canada Post. That is a significant question, because the speech was a management speech and the legislation is management legislation. There was absolutely no concern, no sympathy, no understanding of the employees affected by the piece of legislation.
Throughout the last number of months we listened to the Minister of Labour and he sounded more and more like the Minister responsible for Canada Post.
A decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board indicated that Canada Post was intimidating its workers and forcing them to do work which was normally done by employees on strike, and that it went against the Canada Labour Code. We asked the Minister to make a statement that that situation would no longer be tolerated, and he refused to do so. He said that the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board with regard to two unionized workers in Halifax was enough.
I pointed out to him that I had talked with non-unionized employees who wanted some assurance from the Minister of Labour that Canada Post would follow the dictates of the Canada Labour Code. I asked the Minister whether he would rise and say that the Canada Labour Code indicates that workers cannot be intimidated into doing work which is being done by people who are on strike. He did not do that.
It is an impossible situation when we have a Minister of Labour who will not defend the labour legislation that is on the books and that has been on the books for many years. Employees do not expect the Minister of Labour to take their position on each and every occasion. But when it is clear that the employer is not obeying the law of the land, the Minister of Labour has the responsibilities of the Minister of Labour. He has failed in those responsibilities.
He has failed throughout the postal dispute to differentiate between his role as the Minister of Labour and his role as a member of Cabinet. This Cabinet has been Canada Post, one step removed. The answers we have had from the Minister responsible for Canada Post have been the answers of the management of Canada Post. It has been this Government which has refused to let the item that has caused the strike, the issue of franchising out those jobs, be negotiated.
Time after time when we have asked questions of the Minister responsible for Canada Post he has taken the position that this is a management issue. It is not a management issue. It is the issue which caused the strike. It is the issue of those people who are working in the wickets right across the country who want to maintain those jobs saying, "Look, we want to negotiate that point. We want to be in a position to try to secure the jobs that we have at the present time". That is a very legitimate reason for negotiating. To have the Minister responsible for Canada Post get up time after time and say that that is management's right, that that should not be negotiated, that it cannot be negotiated, meant that this strike was going to happen.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
It is fine for the Government to say, "Well, the Foisy report basically supported management and therefore the union is wrong". That is not true. Unfortunately, again, one of the very aspects of this legislation that upsets us is that if the mediation does not work then the arbitrator, who is the same person, is instructed to look at the Foisy report. This is a report that is pro-management, a report that states that workers do not have the right to negotiate with management their present jobs. It is a report which obviously denies the whole idea of collective bargaining.
Someone else said that this is a conciliation officer who made the report and it is logical that the Government should say that the mediator or arbitrator should look at that report. If that is the case, why did the Government refuse to do that same thing in the case of the back-to-work legislation with regard to the railways? If one takes a look at Bill C-85, the legislation ordering the railway workers back to work, he will see that it does not tell the arbitrator to look at the conciliation report. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because the Government in that case did not like the conciliation report.
The unions said that it was the basis for negotiation. They said that there were items, not all of them, but a number of them in the conciliation report which made sense and which would help to resolve the items in dispute. We suggested to the same Minister of Labour that it may not be a bad idea to have a provision in the legislation that the conciliation report be referred directly to the arbitrator. But he would not do that. Now that there is a report that the Government likes, it is right in this legislation that the arbitrator must look at the Foisy report.
The Minister in his speech said that there has been a history of distrust between the employees at Canada Post, the unions involved, and the management. That is quite true. It has been a very difficult labour situation, historically. But what he is doing with this legislation is building up that distrust more and more. He is escalating the level of distrust.
For the first time ever the employees at Canada Post, the members of CUPW, have not had a general strike; they have not preached violence; they have had a rotating strike. They have encouraged their members not to be violent. They have done a very good job for the most part in making sure that that has been the case. They have allowed the mail to go through.
We even read in The Globe and Mail yesterday that this is not the time to order the postal workers back to work. I do not remember The Globe and Mail ever, historically, being a prolabour, pro-union newspaper. It recognized in its editorial yesterday that this was not 1978. It recognized that this was not some old fight between Canada Post and the postal workers, that there was a different regime and that this was a regime in which CUPW was trying to negotiate items. Its members were having a rotating strike. They were not asking for more. They were not trying to get a rich contract but trying to preserve the jobs that those men, and mainly those women, have at the present time.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
As I indicated earlier, these jobs are decent-paying jobs, jobs which are held mainly by women. These are jobs which will, as a result of the Government's plan and Canada Post's proposals, be going out to drug stores, Bible book stores and to other stores across the nation where we know that the people hired will receive minimum wages. Basically, they will be women in part-time jobs with almost no extra benefits, no pension plan. There will be nothing other than the basics required by the law.
I have to ask why the Government believes that in 1987 when we have been talking about affirmative action for so long, when we have been talking about the fact that women are so often ghettoized in their jobs and why we have been so concerned with the fact that part-time workers do not have benefits, security and any sort of pension plan that is worth talking about, that its plan for franchising-out is forcing the creation of another job ghetto in this country. It has been argued that we need more service to the public. Post offices can stay open longer. It is being said that we are better off if we can go to our local store rather than to a post office building.
But take a look at where the franchising-out will be. In my constituency in the City of Thompson there is one post office. They have decided to franchise-out to three other stores. The City of Thompson is only two miles square. One of the post offices that has been set up is across the street from the main post office.
I have had a constituent talk to me already about this new improved service. He received one of those call-back cards telling him he had to go to this new subpost office, the one where minimum wages are paid. He went down to pick up his registered mail, but it was closed for inventory. Fine, so he went back to his car, saw that the post office was across the street, got out of his car, because he did not have to drive anywhere. He was told, "I am sorry, your letter is over at the subpost office, that is where you have to pick it up". It is closed for inventory, he could not do that. He came back the next day, it was open, they had finished their inventory but the woman who looks after the post office wicket was out. She was not there. So, again, the man who has parked his car right in front of the post office, has to leave because he cannot get his registered mail. Twice he has had to leave work, go and get his mail but could not do so because of the privatization plan. That is not an increase in service. It might be an increase in profits for that little book store but it is not an increase in service to the public of Canada.
It is being done deliberately by the Government, knowing full well that it is ruining any chance of labour peace within the Post Office. It knows at the same time that it is forcing women to give up jobs that they have had, which they have had to work many years to get, those so-called preferable jobs at the wickets. Those jobs will now disappear.
The Government says they can take other jobs. It is quite willing to make sure no one is fired as a result of this situation. Yet as you take away those two wicket jobs in one town, three in another, four in the next, because they have all been sent out to sub post offices, those women will have to take evening jobs or jobs in other communities because there is no guarantee we will need more mail sorters in those small towns and cities. Yes, this will not cost anyone their jobs, but it will make it damn difficult for them to keep working. The Government knows that is true but is too blind to admit it.
This strike was provoked by the two Ministers sitting across from me. They are the cause and that is why we cannot expedite passage of this legislation. In other cases of such legislation, even though we have not liked it, even though we thought it was basically unfair, we have worked to see it passed in all stages in two or three days, sometimes even less. We did that because we believe the Government has the right to intervene at some point to re-establish essential services, if that be the case. Even though we have not liked the legislation, and quite often we have been morally offended by what was in it, we have co-operated. Yet today both opposition Parties got up and said that we are not co-operating because the Government is causing an unnecessary dispute. It is causing grief for families right across this country. It is taking jobs away from women, and it is all completely unnecessary.
I believe this is part of a political agenda by a Government which has to prove it can beat someone, somewhere, sometime. It needs this for its psychological make-up, and to keep its right-wing back-benchers happy. No one else really believes we have to take away those wicket jobs. No one else accepts the Government, through Canada Post, saying day after day that this cannot be negotiated. It does not matter that the union has conceded that in such situations these sub post offices can be set up. It does not matter that there has been a willingness to negotiate and recognize that this is going to happen to some degree. The unions recognize the role of management but they want the right to sit down with management and negotiate major items of contention. They are concerned with the security of the jobs of the people they represent. They are concerned with the right of people not to be forced to move to other centres because that is the only way they can work for Canada Post.
I anticipate that some government Members will eventually want to get up and say, well, things change with time. You cannot always live in the 18th century. That is not the issue here. We are not talking about new technology taking away jobs. We are talking about these jobs being done by private enterprise, not by public enterprise. We are talking about the jobs being done at less than decent wages. They cannot be done by women who want regular employment.
I cannot for the life of me understand, apart from its political paranoia, why the Government will not allow this item to be negotiated. Is it so important to the Minister
October 9, 1987

responsible for Canada Post, the Minister of Labour, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour that these positions be posted out and the jobs become part-time? Is it so important that they cannot negotiate? I cannot understand why they take that attitude.
1 would like to get back to some of the other items in this legislation, which is not the same as the back-to-work legislation in the case of the railway workers. That is important because, as I said earlier, the Minister of Labour tried to impress the media with the fact that the legislation is basically the same. I have already pointed out the different way the conciliation report is being handled. Because the Government likes it, the arbitrator has to look at it. In the railway legislation the Government did not like the conciliation report so it was not referred to the arbitrator.
Then the Government says it sent in a mediator. People should not worry about that. Yes, the union called for a mediator. Yes, the two opposition Parties called for a mediator. Yet you look at the legislation and we have a mediator-arbitrator, the same person for both functions. That person will have to act as a mediator for two months and, if things do not work out, will have to switch hats and become an arbitrator. Talk about built-in failure.
The whole concept of a mediator, as anyone involved in collective bargaining knows, is that it is someone both sides can trust as an honest broker. It is someone sitting down in confidence and saying we are willing to move this way if the other side will move here. We will give if they do not take as much. This is a real problem and this is what has to be resolved. A mediator cannot fulfil that function if at the same time he acts as the arbitrator.
The role of an arbitrator is the opposite to that of a mediator. The arbitrator is to listen to formal presentations and then make a decision. Canada Post, the Government in disguise, and the workers through their union are not going to be able to work with that mediator the way they should be able to because, for political gimmickry, we have a mediator who becomes an arbitrator so the Government can go to the public and the media and say we were asked to provide a mediator, we were asked to let negotiations take place, and we have done that. It has not. It has sabotaged them. Not only that, it has increased the amount of distrust the workers have for the Government.
I ask the Minister, why not have a mediator who works for two months and then have someone else go in if the negotiations have not succeeded? Why not allow mediation to work? Why kill it in advance? I have heard so many speeches by the Minister saying it is always best to try and negotiate and that he is giving the two parties one more opportunity to solve the issue at the table before arbitration comes in.
Mir. Cassidy: That is when he was Minister of Labour.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He even said it today when he was the Minister acting for Canada Post. This legislation does exactly
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
the opposite. I negotiated for teachers in Thompson for years and I used mediators. I have gone before arbitrators, and I know the roles are distinctly different. I know that where we used mediators it was because we trusted them as honest brokers and were able to say certain things to them. I suspect management said things to them which made it possible to come to some sort of collective agreement. This legislation will not allow that. Again, this was not proposed in the case of the railway workers. They were given the opportunity to have a true mediator.
The Government said that because it had a fact finder, someone with a lot of experience, Mr. Kelly, it decided that there could not be a settlement. Unfortunately, because this back to work legislation was here and because neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister responsible for Canada Post have shown any willingness to have the important issue of franchising-out and job security negotiated, the workers felt that they never had fair bargaining.
Canada Post always knew it had the government on its side, giving it direction not to negotiate the very items in contention. How can one say that mediation will work? How can one say that negotiations will work in that scenario? That is why we have called for an independent mediator, someone who is outside the Government service, not tied to the Minister of Labour or to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. If there is a truly independent mediator the issue of franchising and job security will be negotiated. Yet both parties, if the Government will allows, will be able to negotiate that very contentious item. That does not mean there will be an agreement for sure, but it means at least there is an opportunity to sit down and negotiate with the support and facilities a mediator provides.
Another area where this legislation does not reflect the back-to-work legislation used in the railway case, is the penalty clause area. Contained in the Bill are the usual clauses about financial penalties. We know that if someone does not pay the financial penalty he ends up going to jail. That requirement has been included in a lot of back-to-work legislation. However, the clause which says that employees, officials or elected people of the union who disobey the law are automatically barred from their job or elected position for the next five years is unjust. It was not put in the back-to-work legislation for the railway workers. At that time the Minister of Labour said that he did not believe it was a just clause. But now it is a just clause. That clause was used in the longshoreman's strike legislation but it was not used in the case of the railway workers, even though some railway workers were talking about not obeying the back-to-work legislation.
I agree with my Liberal colleague that this clause is against our Constitution. It will do away with the rights of workers to affiliate and to seek elected office. In a Cabinet that has had such legal problems, even if one or two former Ministers were convicted and went to jail or had to pay financial penalties, they still in spite of that retain the right to run for election.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
The right that former Cabinet Ministers have to be re-elected is being denied to shop stewards. It is a very unusual, severe and unjust penalty, a penalty which the Minister did not think was necessary in the case of the railway workers.
There is always the question of credibility with the Government. I believe that that is the essence of the problem here. People believe that the Minister of Labour should be acting impartially. He should not be the management representative and he should not, after a certain level, be the representative of the workers. Decisions are supposed to be impartial, but I do not think that that has ever happened here when there have been disputes in the past at the Post Office. In a letter written on July 29, 1987 the P.M. said:
We all recognize that labour relations at Canada Post have had a turbulent history. A long-term solution to these problems can only be worked out by the corporation and its unions through compromise and a willingness to work toward establishing a mature labour-management relationship. Government intervention has not been the solution to labour disputes in the past and is unlikely to be the panacea of the future.
When you get a letter like that from the Prime Minister you have to believe that he is advocating negotiations, advocating, to use his own word, compromise, and he is saying that the best solution is obviously not back-to-work legislation. The Government will not allow negotiations on the primary item, the issue of franchising out. That has been said time after time by Ministers of the Crown. The Government will not allow compromise and is forcing the situation where we have to have back-to-work legislation, something which the Prime Minister said is not a benefit and will not be a benefit in labour relations of Canada Post.
The situation involves a strike caused by Government, for unjust reasons, affecting families right across the country. Yet the Government expects us in the House to be a rubber stamp for its political agenda.
I was actually quite proud of the way in which the postal workers handled the strike. I was happy and very pleased to see how limited was the violence. I know it is not easy. I come from a town where they have actually built log cabins right on a provincial highway to discourage people from crossing a picket line. Unfortunately the people have taken shots at the helicopters and the union has had to stop them. I know how high emotions can run strong when strike breakers or scabs are brought in. I know how strong those emotions are and how difficult it is to try to keep a tight rein on that type of situation. For the most part we have seen success, but if there is any increase in violence now it will not be as a result of a change in strategy by the union, but as a result of unjust, unfair and unnecessary legislation being forced upon the employees by Government, which is management in this case. How can people feel that they are being treated fairly when their jobs are disappearing, when the Government will not negotiate the item about which they are concerned and when the Government uses its power to order people back to work by legislation
that is much more harsh, restrictive and balanced in favour of management than has been other legislation introduced in this House to order people back to work?
If the union and its members know that the Government will use its legislative clout to deny them basic rights, of course violence will increase, even though we all deplore it. It also means that in the future it will be very hard to convince working men and women, not only at Canada Post but in other Crown corporations, that they will be treated fairly. It is a bad sign and a bad signal. It is an indication that when people are negotiating with Air Canada, the Canadian National Railways, or with the federal Government itself, they will not be treated fairly, that their concerns are not concerns that can be dealt with in negotiations because the Government will not allow it. If negotiations are not settled, even though they are not allowed to negotiate items important to them, the Government will in the end introduce legislation, wording it in such a way that it benefits the management side. That has obviously happened here. The penalty clauses are aimed not at management but at the employees.
The reference of the Foisy report is again one which management wanted and the Government wanted. Yet it was not done in the railway legislation when the union wanted the same thing. The request for an independent mediator, something that is allowed under Canadian law, something that the Minister of Labour is allowed to do, was not agreed to despite the fact that union asked for it, despite the fact that the two Opposition Parties asked for it, and despite the fact that a lot of groups in our society believed it was a good idea Because Canada Post did not believe it was a good idea, it was not done, and that is the truth.
This was and remains a strike caused by the Government. It is unjust for the House of Commons to pass this legislation, and it is certainly unjust for the House of Commons to pass it quickly. We will oppose this legislation. Later on, we will seek to amend the legislation.
As long as the Government refuses to change the legislation, and as long as the Government refuses to allow working men and women to negotiate for some semblance of job security, then we will have to oppose the legislation.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a few observations relating to Bill C-86, the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987, and the developments which gave rise to the necessity for a legislated end to the current postal dispute. I want to say most emphatically to all Hon. Members present that I believe that this Bill should be supported for two very important reasons.
October 9, 1987

The first reason is that, in view of current developments in the dispute and the fact that the parties have failed to resolve their differences since their last agreement expired more than a year ago, the Goverment has little alternative but to restore full postal operations through legislative means. The second reason as to why I feel that the legislation should be supported lies in the merits of the method of dispute settlement provided for in the Bill now before us. The selection of mediation-arbitration as the dispute settlement mechanism is well suited to this particular dispute and I believe that it deserves the endorsement of all Hon. Members.
I think that it would be appropriate to review the background to the current dispute if only to provide some insight into the extensive third-party efforts which have been made over a lengthy period of time in an attempt to bring about a peaceful conclusion. The collective agreement between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers expired September 30, 1986, and conciliation efforts began one month later with the appointment of conciliation officer Andre Drouin of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada. Mr. Drouin held meetings with union and management negotiators over a three-month period but there was little progress made in resolving any of the issues in dispute.
Mr. Claude Foisy was subsequently appointed as conciliation commissioner in the dispute on February 23, 1987, and numerous meetings were held between the commissioner and the parties over the period from March 2nd through August 12th. As we heard the Minister of Labour say earlier in this debate, Mr. Foisy is an experienced labour relations practitioner and a former Vice-Chairman of the Canada Labour Relations Board. Unfortunaly, the parties saw fit not to draw on the knowledge and abilities of the commissioner in achieving a settlement but rather to bury him in position papers and briefing notes. Discussions for the most part were limited to exchanges on principles and rarely came to grips with the specifics relating to the operative sections of the contract. Mr. Foisy went so far as to suggest that if the parties are not happy with the proposed wording of certain recommandations, then "they have only themselves to blame, having had over Five months to give me their comments".
One can appreciate the frustration which the conciliation commissioner must have felt in attempting to elicit meaningful dialogue from the parties and instead being faced with two sides more intent on avoiding their responsibilities to make use of the collective bargaining process. The commissioner's report, a comprehensive document comprising some 82 pages, was released to the parties on September 22. Post-conciliation meetings were held between the parties, but again they involved more public posturing than actual bargaining. On
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
September 29th, the Minister of Labour asked his Associate Deputy Minister, Bill Kelly, to meet with the parties to assess the chances of a negotiated settlement, either in direct negotiations or with the assistance of a mediator. By all accounts, this assessment was quite negative as to the prospects for a negotiated settlement short of a protracted work stoppage. In a telegram dated October 6, 1987, the Minister gave the parties one further opportunity to settle their differences. He warned them that whether a Bill would be introduced or not depended on their will and capacity to achieve resolution through the collective bargaining process. However, despite all of these opportunities, the differences between the positions of the parties on several major issues have made any hope of a near term settlement next to impossible.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members are only too well aware of the serious consequences which a work stoppage of this nature can have on Canadian businesses which are dependent upon the postal service for their economic survival. The citizens of Canada do not deserve to be subjected to a second disruption of their mail sevice. With no hope of a negotiated settlement in sight, this Government has taken its responsibility to the Canadian people to restore full postal service, with provision for the settlement of the issues in dispute through mediation or arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987, provides for the immediate termination of the current work stoppage and a resumption of full postal operations. The legislation also extends the collective agreement for a period to be determined through arbitration of not less than two and not more than three years. Perhaps, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this legislation provides for the settlement of the parties' differences through the process of mediation-arbitration or "med-arb" as it is more commonly referred to in labour relations terminology.
1 think that it is important that Hon. Members appreciate the rationale which the Minister of Labour has used in providing for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator to deal with the resolution of the issues in dispute between Canada Post Corporation and CUPW. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what this piece of legislation provides is a last opportunity for the two sides to roll up their sleeves and get down to serious bargaining or face the prospect of having a third party make binding decisions which will dictate the details of any new collective agreement. I am sure that Hon. Members would agree that legislative solutions cannot possibly address all of the problems and frustrations which need to be worked out at the bargaining table. This is why it is imperative that the parties seize this opportunity to work with the mediator to arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Under the med-arb procedure provided for in the legislation before us today, the two sides to the dispute, while party to an arbitration proceeding, still have the opportunity to carry out the negotiation process. The mediator-arbitrator combines the skills and functions of the mediator with an ultimate mandate to make a final and binding decision on all issues which cannot be mediated to resolution. The influence of the mediator-arbitrator on the outcome of negotiations is more than that of a conventional mediator because the parties are aware that, if they fail to reach agreement, the same person will be switching roles to that of arbitrator and rendering a binding decision.
The process of mediation-arbitration has been used on a limited basis in the federal jurisdiction before, and has proven its worth as one of the more promising alternatives which exist for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes. In this particular instance, we can only hope that it will prove effective in prompting Canada Post and CUPW into coming to grips with those issues which are preventing the achievement of a new collective agreement. In addition to having the opportunity to meet with the parties and gain a full appreciation for the issues and the distance separating them on specific items, the mediator-arbitrator appointed under this legislation will have the benefit of the extensive evaluation of he dispute already undertaken by conciliation commissioner Claude Foisy and fully documented in his report.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate my concern that this Bill, the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987, receive prompt passage by Hon. Members so that the confrontation between Canada Post and CUPW can be terminated as soon as possible. Critics of back to work legislation often suggest that one of the more dangerous consequences of legislative intervention in the collective bargaining process is the potential which is created for disrespect of the rule of law. For any legislation to be respected, it must be perceived as just and fair. While a personally find the requirement to introduce this particular legislation to be unfortunate, I applaud the enlightened approach which the minister of labour has adopted in the Bill with regard to the dispute resolution mechanism. Not only does the proposed legislation provide the parties to the dispute with one last opportunity to resolve their differences themselves, but the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator requires the parties to approach the process in a constructive and responsible manner, to ensure full consideration of their respective contract proposals.
I urge all Hon. Members to support the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier who has just concluded her comments. At the end, she mentioned that the Bill provides harsh penalties for those who are guilty of offences under this Act. I would like to ask her a question about clause 11 (2) which provides for additional punishment in the case of certain offences. This clause states that no
individual who is convicted of an offence under the Act that was committed while the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer shall be employed in any capacity by, or perform any work for, the employer at any time in the five years immediately after the date of the conviction.
Would the Hon. Member tell the House whether or not she finds such a penalty reasonable? Does she think it is reasonable to impose a further sentence to a Canada Post or a union officer already fined for having violated that legislation- because those five years are a further punishment, are they not? Is she not concerned that might go against the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Would she not have some concerns about that clause of the proposed legislation? Would she not be concerned about the future of a senior employee in Canada Post who could not be permitted to resume his job for a five years period? What will he do then to earn a living? He could not seek any equivalent job within any comparable organisation since Canada Posts holds a monopoly in Canada. What does she have to say about that? Is she in favor of that clause or would she rather have it amended or withdrawn?


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague, I say that Clause 11 is not contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, if a person is guilty of an offence under the act, I find it reasonable and just to deny that person the right to go back to work, to do the same work, for five years. And I am not worried because, I do not think union leaders and representatives would have any difficulty finding another job in another sector, even if the Corporation is a monopoly as you said earlier. I think that to ensure compliance with this act and with the legislative arrangements a government will make, we must provide for this kind of penalty. If we do not, people will consider that act as frivolous and will not abide by it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) for a question or comment.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I wish, first of all, to congratulate my colleague who stated very well why she supports that Bill. I would like to ask her a question related to a comment made by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) in his speech. Considering that he just asked her a question, I think it would be only fair if I could get some clarifications from her. He talked about the remarks made by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon), concerning the use of replacement workers during a strike. I would like her to answer my question about the Quebec legislation. There is a provincial statute which prohibits the use of replacement workers. This is why, in Quebec, people tend to think it is illegal to use replacement workers during a strike. However, if
October 9, 1987

I remember correctly, this is strictly a provincial statute which does not apply to installations under federal jurisdiction. What my colleage for Richelieu is objecting to is not the fact that is is illegal-it is not-but that there is a feeling, an impression in the population that it is illegal, which makes it difficult for the people who must support a law allowing the use of replacement workers.


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question from my colleague the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly). Our collegue the Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) probably went picketing to show after all his support for the postal workers.
Of course, Canada has a legislation allowing for the use of replacement workers, the so-called scabs. However, Quebec laws do not allow the hiring of replacement workers. Considering that the present dispute is under federal jurisdiction, the federal law thus applies even in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for question or comment.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.
One of the problems in the conflict between the union and Canada Post relates to the franchising out program, the privatization of post offices. My question is the following: What does she think of her Government policy concerning the franchising of post offices which results in salary reduction, particularly for women? For example, in rural areas, some women were ready to accept one fifth of their old salary to take charge of a post office. In urban areas, now people can have a good salary but after franchising, they will earn only minimum wage.
What does she think of that policy which makes women pay for the deficit of the Canada Post Corporation?


Carole Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I would answer to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) that the bill we would like to pass today does not deal with the issue of franchising of postal operations. Franchising is an issue that parties should settle during the negociations.
Besides, I simply do not think that franchising will affect women any more than men. And our Government would never let that happen. I do not feel that... I would like to have more background on the basis for your question but, as of this moment, I do not think that franchising affects women any more than men. I do not agree with what you said a moment ago.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell my colleague that I do not doubt that she is sincere. However, does she know that with franchising in rural areas, postmasters' wages will be greatly reduced and that 80 per cent of the workers in those offices are women? The effect of that policy will be to reduce women's salaries and in a specific case of which I am aware,
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
that is the case of Wilno in Ontario, the lady who is the postmistress is being asked to work for a fifth of her former salary. Such is the implication.


Carole Jacques: In answer to the supplementary question of my colleague from Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Keeper) I should like to point out that the franchising policy, as you said, is part of the problems being negotiated.
However, this policy is not only aimed at women and will not only affect women's wages but could also affect men's wages. If according to your figures there is a higher percentage of women in rural areas-but the policy is not only aimed at women.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall allow a last question to the Hon. Member for Lac Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote).


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that earlier the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) in a question addressed to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques) referred to Section 11 of the Bill which deals with additional penalties. The clause refers to additional penalties for both the union and the employer.
If we look at the interpretation clause on page 1, we find that the terms union, employer and employee are clearly defined.
My colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques made allegations which are altogether wrong when she referred to the rights and freedoms of individual employees who would not be able to find work for five years, as though only the Canada Post Corporation existed. Clause 11(1) refers to the Union:
No individual who is convicted of an offense under this Act that was
committed while the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or
representative of the union shall be employed in any capacity by the union-
If we move down to Clause 11(2), we read the same thing:
-while the individual was acting in the capacity of an officer or representative of the employer ...
So, Mr. Speaker, Clause 11 does not mention any additional penalties for the employees.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, speaking in the debate on Bill C-86 this afternoon, my colleage the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) clearly described the situation and the dangers which may result from a government which is clearly seeking a confrontation with its employees and whose attitude is responsible for the current postal strike.
I would not want to repeat what he said, but I should like especially to address the following questions: Why is there a strike? How did we get there, Mr. Speaker? After a period of five years with no strike, how is it that we are now faced with a second strike in two months?
First, Mr. Speaker, we should go back a few years. Of course, we all remember and Canadians all remember that the

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
1960's were not easy years. We went through a period of changes, of automation, and of course at that time we experienced very extensive labour disputes that were very wearisome for everybody. And it was a Liberal Government in 1981 that established the Canada Post Corporation, with three specific mandates, Mr. Speaker-first, to improve employer-employee labour relations; second, to improve services; and third, to reduce the deficit.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, those three mandates have equal priority. There were not one, two or three that had to be met by steps. But the three mandates were an overall mandate for Canada Post Corporation to provide Canadians with better services, reduce its deficit rather than constantly digging into Government coffers, and third, of course, to enjoy labour relations that would allow the Corporation to provide good services.
But, in 1984, there was a changeover in government, Mr. Speaker. And this Government, with a legitimate mandate from the people, decided once again to conduct a study of Canada Post Corporation. Indeed, in June 1985, the former Minister in charge of Canada Post Corporation set up the Review Committee to consider the terms of reference and productivity of Canada Post Corporation, which was to be known as the Marchment Committee.
Here we are in the House today debating a Bill which does away with the right to strike and forces the union membership back to work, yet the issue is not higher wages but job security. Mr. Speaker, the whole matter revolves around the privatization of Canada Post. From the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to focus on the danger and the problem which even the Marchment Committee envisioned if the Government were to give serious consideration to the possibility of privatizing Canada Post.
In the report-page 23 in French, page 20 in English-the committee looked at two privatization avenues. The first one was to sell Canada Post lock, stock and barrel, so then the whole thing would have been in the private sector. The committee did consider whether or not this would be practical, and I should like to read a paragraph concerning this option, on page 20 of the report.
"There is, however, one difficulty which the Committee is convinced could not be overcome at this time. The Post Office's continuing history of annual losses makes it an unattractive candidate fpr sale in its entirety as a going concern. Even if it were given away, the newly established corporation with no history of prior earnings would find it virtually impossible to arrange adequate financing in the private money markets. To turn the Canada Post over to the private sector and then provide the new corporation with Government grants and guarantees would hardly satisfy the objective of reducing the real and potential drain on the Treasury and, hence, on the taxpayer."
As indicated in this paragraph the committee clearly states that selling the whole Canada Post operations to the private sector was unthinkable. And then there is the second option. Here is the following paragraph on page 20, Mr. Speaker.
"The second approach to privatization is to sell it off in parts. No doubt, if the Government decided to withdraw from the postal business on a phased basis, there would be many bids to take over heavily populated areas which generate high postal revenues. However, areas of the country which are thinly populated and lack industrial concentration would be less attractive to business.
These areas do not now generate sufficient postal revenue to cover the cost of mail processing and delivery. Some form of transfer payments would be imperative to make servicing of such areas viable. Indeed, it may well prove necessary to keep a much reduced Canada Post in existence as the mail handler of last resort. Such a Post Office would, of necessity, be an ongoing charge against public funds. The Committee is of the view that so long as universality of postal service is accepted as a tenet of public policy, privatization by parts is not the most desirable solution. Far better to turnaround the present Crown corporation and make it self-sufficient. The Committee is convinced that this can be done.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record recommendation no. 10 that the Marchment Committee has made on the privatization of Canada Post: "That privatization not be considered at this time. However, if Canada Post fails by 1990 to achieve its objectives of service and financial self-sufficiency, privatization should then be re-considered."
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may wonder why I just read that recommendation, which is found on page 20 of the Marchment report.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that a strike has been called and we have to debate back-to-work legislation for the postal workers precisely because the Government wants to privatize the Canada Post Corporation. The Government chose the second option discussed by the Marchment Committee, which was to do this progressively. The Canada Post Corporation presented its corporate plan in November 1986 following the instructions it had received from by the Minister of Finance in February 1986. The Minister had said: From now on, you will have to be self-sufficient and you will not receive one cent in subsidies after March 31, 1988, at the beginning of the new fiscal year. This is when the Canada Post Corporation developed an action plan in three specific stages. These are mentioned in the report.
First, Canada Post began with the rural regions. Everyone will remember this, and I am certain that the Conservative Members who represent a rural region will remember it because they travelled throughout the country and there were demonstrations, meetings and petitions. Since there was so much pressure, they went before the Committee which was discussing the corporate plan of Canada Post, and because of the number of Conservative Members from rural regions, the
October 9, 1987

Government had to soften its approach, but it never abandoned its plan of closing as many rural post offices as possible because they are not profitable.
The second option was to install superboxes everywhere so that Canada Post would be able to leave mail delivery to subcontractors, and this resulted in a lettercarrier strike in June. The strike lasted ten days and there were acts of violence. And at the request of all parties, a mediator was appointed and it took him two days to settle the matter.
The third option, Mr. Speaker, is privatization, that is selling postal stations of franchising to the private sector. As indicated in the Marchment Report, that option is not workable, it is not a good idea. But it is being done precisely because it is easier to transfer postal services to the private sector because in urban areas there are many people and businesses and it will therefore be possible to maintain the service. That is why two strikes occurred within the past three months and that is the reason for the present one, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, when you say that the minister provides in the legislation for the appointment of a mediator and arbitrator afterwards, it should be noted as well, Mr. Speaker, that at the same time the mediator is given the mandate to say: You must pursue bargaining according to the report of the conciliator who at that time agreed with Canada Post Corporation, which was entitled to sell those postal stations. That is not bargaining, that is not mediation designed to get both parties together and settle the matter after assessing all the facts, and to ask the non-partisan mediator to make recommendations, Mr. Speaker. He has practically no power beyond that objective which the government has set to privatize Canada Post Corporation.
If it wants to sell the Post Office to the private sector, the government can do it, but they must hold a debate on this matter in Parliament and also consult the people who have elected them.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forget either that under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government is responsible for postal services throughout Canada.
In Section 5 of the Act establishing Canada Post Corporation, it is clearly indicated that the Corporation is responsible not only for organizing but also for operating a postal service throughout Canada. Therefore the government, which wants to cut services in order to reduce the benefit, as Canadians already know, has enabled labour relations environment and the postal service to deteriorate and be at a standstill. Mr. Speaker, Canadians had regained confidence in their postal system, but they are back to square one, Mr. Speaker, and the fault lies with the Government whose indirect and hidden intention is to privatize the Canada Post Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, one can find confirmation of my assertion that Canadians had regained confidence in the Canadian postal service by referring to the financial report of the Canada Post
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Corporation which was presented not long ago, in June, I think.
The current revenue sources of Canada Post were clear in its report. Not only has the volume in dollars increased, but the volume of mail has increased. This indicates that Canadians want to use the services of Canada Post.
Since February 1986, and especially since November 1986, when we finally saw the business plan of Canada Post which was dictated and approved by the Government, we have seen a gradual destruction of the Canadian postal system that had been rebuilt in the five years from 1981 to 1986.
For example, its financial report indicates that in 1986-87 mail service generated almost 93 per cent of Canada Post's revenue, with first class mail being responsible for about 59 per cent. Second class mail is composed primarily of publications including newspapers, magazines, and books. The volume of revenue for this category remained relatively constant from previous years. Reserves from this source made up 9.5 per cent of the total in that year.
Third class mail includes both addressed and unaddressed bulk mailings of advertising material, direct marketing offers, and publishers' books. Revenue in this category showed a slight growth in 1986-87 and comprised 10.5 per cent of the total revenue.
Although often cited as a growth area of service, electronic mail has not yet realized its predicted potential. Indications are that it still provides a relatively modest contribution to the corporation's revenue. Why is this? It is because the Government decided to abandon future growth in the electronic mail sector.
Other services made up 7.3 per cent of the sales of philatelic products such as commemorative stamp and souvenir stamp collections. We must also take into consideration the sale of miscellaneous items amounting to $18 million and so on.
Canada Post can be vital and it can balance its books. If the Government would let it follow the mandate which was given to it in 1981, we could have better services and the good labour relations which existed in the five years before 1986.
Canada Post has a means of increasing revenues. For example, it has over 4,000 trucks and post offices in prime downtown locations. Why does it not sell advertising space as is done in other countries? It would bring in millions of dollars of revenue to Canada Post. It would not cost a penny because the advertising company would take care of the operation. Switzerland does it. Why cannot Canada Post do it?
We have asked Canada Post to do that, and it indicated that that would cheapen its corporate image. What kind of corporate image does Canada Post have today? It is not even able to deliver mail.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987 [Translation]
So, Mr. Speaker, neither I nor my colleagues of the Official Opposition subscribe to the statement that the only way to have a postal service in Canada is to privatize Canada Post Corporation.
I believe Canada Post could indeed be viable, deliver the mail according to its mandate and, finally, maintain better working relations than it does right now. We had evidence of that between 1981 and 1986-Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me I am running out of time, that I have only one minute left. That is too bad because I had some quotations to make from the 1985 report of the conciliator, the present Deputy Minister of Finance, who had stated what, in his view, would be the future working relations between the Government and Canada Post Corporation and how both of them together could have contributed to improve the service and, as a matter of fact, solve the deficit problems.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the contradictions in the Hon. Member's speech. He mentioned earlier that because the Government was bringing in back-to-work legislation it was a sign that the Government had no faith in the corporation. Also the Hon. Member said that its reputation had been getting better and that our gesture to protect the public interest would ruin it.
A little later he said that when it was proposed to Canada Post that it should use advertising on its trucks, the answer was that it would cheapen the image of the corporation. He went on to say, very sarcastically, that its image was poor because it could not even deliver the mail. Therefore he asked why it would be concerned about its reputation. It is an interesting contradiction.
Also there seemed to be some error in fact in his presentation. I was special assistant to the President of the Canada Post Corporation in 1982, and I recall very vividly that the mandate given to the new corporation in 1981 was to improve service, to improve labour relations, and to arrive at reducing the deficit to zero within five years. That mandate was not changed by our Government. On the contrary, we gave Canada Post an extension of one year so that it could improve its service. Service had deteriorated; it had not improved.
I am puzzled by the facts used by the Hon. Member, and I would like him to answer my question about why there seems to be contradictions in his approach. He seems so convinced of his opinions.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think the only contradiction is in the mind of the Hon. Member.
I said that the mandate of Canada Post was to improve service, to have better management-labour relations, and to reduce the deficit.
The Hon. Member talked about five years, but I also noted that recommendation No. 10 in the management report of
Canada Post indicated that it should be given another five years. It talked about privatization in 1990, not in 1986 when the Government decided to go the route of privatization. I do not see any contradiction.
Concerning the image of the Post Office, I was talking about how Canada Post could increase its revenue without going into private hands. There are many things that it could do to have extra revenues and without reducing services, but I referred to the advertising example which has no direct cost.
I do not see any contradiction, but the Hon. Member seems to see one. This is why I said at the beginning that the contradiction was in her mind.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to my colleague from Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) and I would like to intervene. I do not often do so in the House but since I am keenly interested in the matter, because there are many post offices and many mail users in my constituency, and since I have received many complaints I wish to say a few words.
Last night, the CBC carried a television report on Great Britain which has already taken a step forward. The privatization was feared by everybody. Today, 36 million letters are delivered daily in Great Britain, six days a week and 24 hours after being posted, first-class mail is received.
I should like to ask my colleague whether Canada is not ready to get an adequate service and if privatization would not be helpful. I say that I do not object to unions and I do not like scabs as I am absolutely against them and I should like that to be shown in the records of this House. I have some experience of labour-management issues, and I never liked the kind of guerilla warfare I saw there, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that every time I go to the post office in Canada, I wish I could get service with a smile. I don't know whether anyone here has ever had a smile. They don't seem to like their work, they don't seem motivated. There must be something that could motivate these people to at least give us a smile and be efficient. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who is very interested in the private sector-so he says-why he keeps saying things that often would not be tolerated on the street, let alone in these venerable surroundings, instead of giving people, in the Government and elsewhere, a chance to provide proper management so that Canadians who pay the same price as Great Britain can get service with a smile?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Duver-nay should do his homework before asking his questions. I know perfectly well that the British Post Office is not privatized. Furthermore, the British Post Office is a success, Mr. Speaker because it is allowed to be a success. I have nothing against the union and nothing against Canada Post. I want decent service for Canadians. You will get that service if we let Canada Post get its act together. We have to be realistic. We
October 9, 1987

pay 36 cents to send a letter from Ottawa to Yellowknife. If we want to give all Canadians the same service, we will have to let Canada Post raise income some other way and get organized to provide a better service, and it should also have the means to finance that service if the Government does not want to pay the cost. As for me, I agree that we have to reduce the deficit, but we should let the Canada Post Corporation manage its own affairs.
In 1984, the Canada Post Corporation took action to increase its revenue by developing a service called Consumer Post. In this case, the Conservative Party went against the private sector. It said: You are in competition with the private sector. On the other hand, in England, the Post Office has a service called Floral Post for sending flowers. Does this service compete against the private sector? You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. I have nothing against the Canada Post Corporation organizing its own activities, but we should also give it the power to manage the postal service so as to provide essential services and make a profit. In fact, Canada Post has been told that it will not receive one penny after March 31, 1988, and that it will still have to see to it that its books are balanced, whatever happens to the service. This is what is going on now, Mr. Speaker. There have been cutbacks in delivery services, rural post offices are about to be closed, and now, the whole postal service will be split up. I also have small post offices in my constituency. These are all open at different hours. The Minister gave me a list one day showing post offices which stayed open between 9 and midnight. I will not say what I think of this, but it is certainly not true. I called them one after another, and some of them stay open between 9 and 5, other between 9 and 12, and some are open while others stay closed on Saturdays. We must have a credible service of some kind, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, if we had kept to the mandate which had been given to the Canada Post Corporation in 1981, we would have succeeded. This is what the Marchment Report says in recommendation 10, that Canada Post will succeed if given another five years, and if it does not, a method to privatize the Corporation will be found. I personnally agree with this recommendation of the Marchment Report which was rejected by the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) has the floor.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) has the ability to take bits of information and to interpret them as he pleases. First of all, he started by asking how did we come this far? Then he went back to 1981. As a matter of fact, he was well advised to stop in 1981, because if he had gone further in the past, he would have had to mention the whole series of labour disputes the Canada Post Corporation was involved in. And then his was the governing party.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind my hon. friend that in 1978, his party did adopt a similar legislation, which also in 1980 landed the president of the inside postal workers in
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
jail. The Canada Post Corporation was established by the Liberals in 1981 and, as any seriously handicapped "creature" from the start, it has a lot of difficulty living a normal life. And he quoted of course the Marchment Report; by the way, I should like to remind him that this is not a report prepared by the Government or a Government agency. Marchment was the name of a committee which had been established to examine the role and productivity of the Canada Post Corporation. Personnally, I would rather deal with the very last report prepared by Kenneth Swan. According to the conciliator appointed in the dispute between the Corporation and the Union of Postal Workers the relations between the party representatives had deteriorated to the point of becoming personal and acrimonious.
Such is your creature. So were the special legislation you adopted then and which resulted in a person going to jail better than this legislation aimed at averting violence on the picket lines?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has again failed to listen to what I said and, at the beginning, I went further back than in 1981. As you can see, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) rises on a point of order.


Clément M. Côté: When the Hon. Member rose a while ago to reply to the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), he said exactly the same thing. He accuded him of not listening. He was, perhaps, the only one listening, Mr. Speaker?


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, according to those Members it would seem we are not entitled to have our own views nor to rise in this House. Fortunately, he is not the Speaker, Mr. Speaker.


Clément M. Côté: Answer the question!


Alfonso Gagliano: First, I went back before 1981 and I said indeed that in the 1960's-I went back a good many years, he should have listened, I went as far back as the 1960's-and I said we had ...
Well if you are not listening, look I am not to be blamed, but I said indeed that we had so many conflicts in that area, and for that reason in 1981, in order to put an end to those conflicts and get them out of the Government machinery, we established the Canada Post Corporation, Mr. Speaker. Had he listened, he would have known.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggested this is not a Government report. If he had taken the time to read the report, he would have seen indeed that it was the former Minister in charge of Canada Post (Mr. Beatty), the now Minister of National Defence, who issued that madate, and then the Marchment Committee submitted its report to the former minister responsible for Canada Post, because it must be emphasized that during those three years we have already

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
had three Ministers responsible for Canada Post in this Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker.
So there was a mandate issued by one Minister. The second Minister received the mandate. And now we have a third Minister who implements part of those reports. Because this Conservative Government picked selectively in that March-ment Report, but then how often do we not have the Minister in charge of Canada Post Corporation falling back in this House on the Marchment Report.
I have learned that there is one cause, privatization, Mr. Speaker. If there is now a dispute, it is because of privatization, because definitely they are not on strike over a salary increase. Of course, Mr. Speaker, employees want job security, but Canada Post Corporation wants to abandon post offices in order to hand them over to the private sector. So they are fighting for their jobs. What grudge are you holding against workers having a job, or is it your philosophy to constantly fight against workers?
Who tried to reduce the pensions of Canadians? The Conservative Government. Who cut Unemployment Insurance benefits to pensioners? The Conservative Government. Would you like a full list of such actions? You are an anti-worker Government, that is what you are.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is never with much pleasure or enthusiasm that one takes part in a debate on a Bill which is meant to tell some people: "Listen, the party is over, now you go back to work". In this particular case, the Bill says to employees of the Canada Post Corporation: "Look, why don't you try to manage this company in the best interest of Canadians". This is never pleasant to do. However, if you are a responsible Government, you have to do it and do it fast, because the situation deteriorates and the risk of violence increases. I have to say to Hon. Members from the opposition that we would like this debate to end quickly, because there really might be useless violence and a protracted debate would only let such actions happen, whereas the Bill is precisely designed to tell everybody: "Now, go back to work, go back to managing" and, as the Minister said, it includes all the mechanisms necessary to try and come to an understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Canadian men and women what this postal dispute is all about. What is it all about, really? If you read the Foisy report, you realize that we have here 23,000 people, of which 19,000 full-time workers, who have decided to go on strike, albeit a legal strike, and to paralyze the Canadian postal service and give priority to their own rights and concerns over those of 25 million Canadians. We have 25 million Canadians on one side and 23,000 people on the other. Those workers simply do not care about other people's rights and think that their own rights are the most important thing in the world. But we should not forget people on welfare, pensioners, senior citizens waiting for their pension
cheque, unemployed workers who wait for their cheque or for a form they have to fill and return. They have rights too, but people on strike do not give a damn.
A few years ago, the New Democratic Party and its former leader used to call big companies, in a different context, corporate welfare bums because they were not good corporate citizens and did not pay any taxes, for example. In my opinion, some unionized workers are also corporate welfare bums. They think that their rights, which I do not deny, are above all legislation, above public interest, above everything. That is the case at Canada Post. There is a tradition of labour disputes with strikes and violence and what not.


An Hon. Member:: Remember Lapalme.


Charles-André Hamelin: And almost every time successive governments had to come up with special legislation. On the other hand, the Canadian postal system is essential to the country as a whole, to small businesses whose receivables are lost in the system, to the hundreds of men and women of Quebec and Canada who do not work and who depend on their pension cheques. And who are we dealing with? Who are we talking about? Whipped, beaten, brutalized people? No, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with people whose basic and starting salary is $16.43 an hour, with very decent working conditions. Do you know how much a unionized worker costs Canada Post? It costs $24.89 or $25 an hour to keep him working. That is how much it costs.
That is where the demagogic tactics begin. The world is supposed to come crumbling down if we fail to meet the bottom-line demands of that small group pitted against 25 million Canadians. I find that startling. What about us poor taxpayer devils? You remember the price of a stamp was upped from 17 to 24, 30, 32 and recently 34, then 37 cents, and we are told that it will rise to 38 cents in 1988. When disputes followed one another before 1980, the problem was said to come from the government nature of the service. It was nonsense, too many politicians were mixed up in it. The situation was absurd. The solution was to create a Crown corporation independent from politicians, those idiots who did not know anything about the business. They were no good. They interfered here and there. It did not make sense. Those statements drew the applause of everyone in opposition parties and the private sector. Canada Post Corporation was created on October 16, or thereabouts, 1981. It was bliss, everything would be coming up roses!
We came to power in 1984, following terrible conflicts in 1980: the union leader was sent to jail and it was a real mess, Mr. Speaker. Thus, when elected in 1984, we footed the bill because that independent corporation has only one shareholder: the government, that is, all Canadians. And the bill was a deficit of $384 million. Since we had been mandated to manage public funds in a much more rational way, we said to the management of Canada Post Corporation: Listen, this makes no sense, the price of stamps is going up, the deficit is increasing and the service is rotten anyway. Therefore, we told
October 9, 1987

them: We are going to set specific objectives for you. You should try to improve the quality of service. We have heard it every year. We do not believe in it, but anyway, considering the quality of the service provided, we should not spend too much, therefore, some objectives were set. And after two years, the deficit was reduced from $384 million to about $129 million. The deficit for this year might still reach some $30 million.
Now, we are faced with the second conflict in four months and the government is again forced to intervene. We are obliged to do it. We are repeating our directive to Canada Post Corporation management. Being a para-public Crown Corporation does not mean that you should always charge more than elsewhere, that the service should always be rotten and that in fact, we, as stupid taxpayers, should always foot the bill anyway. This does not make any sense. It is not good enough and that is why the Corporation gave itself some means. In so doing, of course, it resorted to franchising and selling to the private sector. What are we getting in return? Every time that there are unionized employees in those units, 70 per cent of the revenues are raised there in order to ensure. . .
But where the private sector has taken over only 12 or 13 per cent of the same income is spent on that.
As you can see, this approach seems to make sense, and although we agree that the union members and workers of these firms are entitled to decent wages and good working conditions, there comes a time when enough is enough!
Why should their rights take precedence over those of Parliament? Why should their rights be to the detriment of the other needs of the Canadian people? That is what is unacceptable. As a Government, we simply cannot afford to let postal services come to a standstill.
As I see it, the rights of individuals are in conflict, and such rights cannot be exercised when they jeopardize the freedom and rights of others.
Although the situation has improved, I learned this week that men and women did not get their unemployment insurance cheques on time, for a variety of good reasons. Clearly a strike-general and total, or rotating-is a threat against the lives as well as the psychological, social and physical existence of these people. Other than their small pension cheque, their small unemployment insurance cheque, or other government welfare benefits, some people have no other source of income to buy food for the weekend.
I would suggest that a responsible government cannot stand still for long when faced with this kind of situation.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has twenty-seven bargaining units. I said: twenty-seven. So if every time one of those units demands-what could be more logical-changes in working conditions that are a threat to the whole system, we have a situation that gets so out of hand there is nothing for it but for the Goverment to react.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
It doesn't take a genius to see what has to be done. When people put their personal rights and wellbeing above everybody else's, society can no longer function, especially when it depends on a service as essential as the one we are talking about.
Like my colleagues, I respect the right to strike, and the freedom to negotiate. However, there is a limit. We must consider the common good and the ability of Canadians to pay.
There has to be a place for management rights. Why should the unions dictate to the rest of Canada how Canada Post is supposed to operate? It doesn't make sense.
As for job security, I think that is guaranteed through attrition or some other method under the present system. These are just ploys to scare people. It is an attempt to give union members a taste for power.
Mr. Speaker, this situation cannot be allowed to last.
I want to ask my Opposition colleagues what their position and their philosophy is on the issue whether or not we should privatize the system as much as possible. I believe in this formula. We should adopt this Bill as soon as possible to avoid verbal and physical violence on the picket lines. The sooner we adopt this Bill, the better our chances will be to get back to a more normal situation where, all other things being equal, the normal rights of unionized employees in these bargaining units are not threatened.
We as a Government, and I think we have proved this with determination and perseverance, have a duty to manage the public funds with which we have been entrusted in the best interests of the people of this country. If you are willing for us to sign just about anything, tell us so. It will be the same as before. It will cost us the earth and will change nothing to the existing service.
It seems to me that this is not what we were asked to do when we were elected. People on both sides should be a bit more responsible and help to build this country instead of thinking only about their personal security at the expense of the rest of our society.
I believe that this is the main issue. I often wonder where our society is going. The decision we are making today reflects a choice between responsibility and irresponsibility. It is quite simple.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that Canada can long afford a shaky and deficient postal service. I believe that the objectives we have set for both parties are reasoned and reasonable, and they are already extremely costly. It is the most we have done as a Government. What is the alternative? Probably immediate privatization of the whole service. We shall not have any choice if this goes on, unless you decide to foot the bill yourselves by paying increasingly higher postal rates or taxes.
Mr. Speaker, I respect and congragulate the Minister of Labour for having made this decision so quickly. We are faced with an emergency. The Government had to act very quickly.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
and history shows that the sanctions provided are necessary because past experience of labour relations in this area proves that there is no other way. Without such sanctions, this legislation would be ridiculous and lack any credibility, as pointed out by my colleague.
I hope that the conflict will be settled responsibly, through conciliation and in harmony, in the interests of all Canadians. This is what we want.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment, if I might, with respect to the comments to which we have just listened. It seems rather strange that in Canada the Post Office has been a constant source of irritation one way or the other, whether it is the fault of management, the inside workers or the carriers whereas countries like the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, which have gone through similar problems, have been able to address them in what I consider to be a very mature and reasonable way.
In the United Kingdom in the 1960s, the postal system went through a series of labour-management crises, inefficiency, communications breakdowns, you name it, even though the system had a very distinguished history. But instead of privatizing the system, a system which was losing money, and cutting back services which our Government is proposing, the British Government, both Conservative and Labour Governments, expanded the postal service that it sold to the public. As the system became more efficient and brought in more revenue, employees realized that it was to their continuing benefit to make certain that labour relations continued to improve. Today the British postal system is almost free of industrial strife. If I am not mistaken, the postal system in Britain is making money.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Good for Maggie
Thatcher.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Second, in the United States the postal services are unionized. The mail is carried and the workers are making $14 an hour on average. I read in the Globe and Mail just the other day that the American postal workers are among the most popular workers in the United States. The Americans are not privatizing or cutting back on services as this Government wants to do. I would hope that they would look at that as example two.
Example three, Australia, a big country with a lot of remote areas, a lot of uneconomic postal delivery routes, we might call them. Up until 1980, there was chaos. There was one strike after another, management was accused of being rotten, labour was accused of being rotten and it was reaching a point where the mail was really not even moving in some of the remote areas. People were literally not receiving letters or parcels.
The Australian Government, not under Labour but under its so-called combination of rural Liberal and city-oriented
Conservative Parties, brought in an expert from the United Kingdom, not a strike breaker, to try to bring the two sides together. He succeeded. The postal workers there are still unionized, they are still making a decent income, but they have improved the postal delivery system. There has not been one strike by any component of the postal service since 1980, and today the system has regained its responsibility and its respectability.
Those are the three examples I wanted to cite. Three different countries, three different Governments of three different political stripes, both right of centre and left of centre, were able to solve the problems of their postal services without Draconian laws such as that proposed this morning by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux). They did this without doing away with the system, without privatizing it and without busting the unions. They were able to do it, but those guys across the way cannot because they do not have the political will.
Now, I want to ask one question. I want to ask my colleague from Quebec if he thinks it is fair that if a union organizer breaks a law, he can go to jail and thereby forfeit any lawful ability to assume another job as a union organizer, either elected or appointed, for five years, while a cabinet Minister in this House can be accused of a crime, can be sentenced to a year in jail, we will say, and yet can come back into the House and be reelected and reappointed to the Cabinet. Is there any fairness in that?


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer my colleague, first with respect to his opening remarks about Europe, England, and other places. If I may enlighten my colleague, most people know that in England, Europe and elsewhere the labour movement has learned one thing through the ages: a one-day strike is bad enough, it is extraordinary, it does mean something to them, and as a rule they stick to that approach. That is indeed what people of both communities learn when they talk to one another.
Perhaps ours is a land of greater freedom, I would not know, but it seems to me that in those countries people cannot afford to go on strike for weeks, let alone for months. But what I mean is that the climate, the sensitivity and customs are altogether different in certain cases. Over there, taking this kind of action which deprives people of public services for more than 24 hours is unacceptable, it is sociologically unacceptable, or nearly so. Over here, people could not care less. It is altogether different and, sadly, much too frequent.
In response to the second question, the history of labour relations in Canada is precisely what has prompted the Minister to take measures which, we readily agree, can be described as draconian, very harsh. History tells us as well that this kind of measure does not overly bother the unions, history has shown that, particularly in Quebec, sad to say.
October 9, 1987

As my colleague pointed out, if the workers respect the law and the rules of the game, they will not be penalized.
I think the Bill shows how serious the situation is and we are telling people: "We are not laughing, this is not funny, those who are on welfare, the unemployed, the unemployment insurance claimants will no longer be receiving their cheques. You can longer abuse the situation. Such is the meaning of the Bill even if it is extremely harsh, and since it is easy to make comparisons, you are right.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is Draconian then, you admit it? [Translation]


Charles-André Hamelin: It is absolutely "very" draconian. However, the situation of the poor woman in my constituency who does not get her cheque to buy food for the weekend is a lot more serious than the situation of a worker earning $16 an hour. It is serious.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How about going to jail in the five years if they cannot be a union member?


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker is telling me my time is running out. Mr. Speaker, we have to consider the matter very seriously and I readily agree with my colleague that those are draconian and tough measures. We all will agree. However once again I ask you to appeal on behalf of our families, our small businesses threatened by the action of 23,000 against 25 million. Those are peanuts, Mr. Speaker. We have to be tough, we have no choice. Such are the conditions, and the extreme positions of the parties have compelled us in this case to use the necessary force.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this particular legislation was introduced yesterday at 11 a.m. I find it somewhat surprising that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) has not yet commented publicly about this legislation.
As the Hon. Member will recall, when the outside postal workers were striking, the Leader of the New Democratic Party did not ask any questions in the House of Commons or at least my recollection is that no questions were asked by the Leader of the Party that prides itself on being the Party of labour.
Perhaps the Hon. Member can assist me. Can he indicate why in his view the Leader of the New Democratic Party has chosen to not yet comment on this Draconian piece of legislation, as it has been referred to by members of the New Democratic Party? Why is it that there is silence from the Leader of the Party that prides itself on being the Party of the working class, the Party of labour?


Cyril Keeper: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That question was obviously directed at our Party.
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Quite clearly, unless that Hon. Member is just trying a ruse, unless he is trying to mislead the House, that question was directed at us and not at our colleague, so we should have the right to respond to it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) will also talk about that in his speech in a minute.


Charles-André Hamelin: My answer is simple, Mr. Speaker: I fully agree with my honourable colleague of the Liberal Party in this respect. Everybody knows that the NDP Members brag about being the dedicated champions of the workers and the unions. We are aware that the unions contribute very large sums of money to their Party. Lor them, the notion of common good becomes rather difficult to grasp. It is a fact that they are placed in a situation-and once again it will likely be a matter of choosing a system at the time of the forthcoming election. And your question is to the point. These people will probably keep silent or almost silent during this debate, for they have been told that public interests override individual interests. Unfortunately, these interests are their own friends and associates, theoretically speaking, at least at the level of the establishment, such as some local lobbies. They are placed, therefore, in an unbelievable situation. But you are right, my friend: I am indeed anxious to hear what my colleague the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) in particular has to say about his position on these negotiations. 1 want to know-and I conclude on this, Mr. Speaker-about the needs of the Canadian citizens and families compared with those of this little group of 23,000 people which are keeping the whole Canadian population hostages. I am anxious to hear about that, and so is my honourable friend, I am sure.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I want to deal with the accusations coming from my right.


Some Hon. Members:: Par right!


Mr. Della  Noce@: That is the name of the game here.


Cyril Keeper: Let me make it clear that when our critic speaks on these issues, he does so after we have made a caucus decision and he speaks for all of the Party, from the Leader to the back-benchers.


Mr. Daubney:: Lor Bob White.


Cyril Keeper: I want to ask the Hon. Member from the mushy middle, otherwise known as the Liberal Party, how come they stand up here as the defenders of labour when yesterday, when taping a television program, another Liberal

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
Member spoke in favour of the back-to-work legislation? What kind of hypocrisy is that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Who was that?


Cyril Keeper: George Baker. When the Liberal Party wants to be the defender of labour it puts up one Member to speak, and when they want to attack labour they put up another Member to speak. How can you trust that Party?


John V. Nunziata: Where oh where is Ed Broadbent when you need him?


John Napier Turner: Get to the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we please extend some courtesy to the Hon. Member.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the legislation, but I do not want to forget the Liberal Party entirely.


Claudy Mailly: Why not?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Everyone else has.


Cyril Keeper: Because one of the weaknesses in this legislation is that it appoints someone called a mediator/arbitrator. Has that ever been done before?


Mr. Dick:: Why not try something new?


Cyril Keeper: It is not new. The Conservatives are not the first ones to create this confusion. Who did it before? It was done once before and it was the Liberal Party who did it.


John V. Nunziata: Shame on the Liberal Party.


Cyril Keeper: It is the Liberal Party attacking this legislation yet they set the precedent.


Claudy Mailly: Beautiful!


Cyril Keeper: What kind of hypocrisy is that? The Liberal Party acts one way when it is in opposition and another way when it is in Government!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claudy Mailly: Give the man a cigar.


Cyril Keeper: I must say that when I hear the Liberals speaking out of both sides of their mouths then I get angry. We are much more used to the vision of the Liberal Party as the mushy middle. That is the Party we can forget. That is the Party Canadians are forgetting. That is the Party that will not be a significant force in this country after the next election.


Mr. Caccia:: We brought in collective bargaining long before you were born. Calm down.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, you voted in favour of the back-to-work legislation for the railway workers.


Cyril Keeper: One of my Liberal friends in defence of his Party says it is that Party that brought in labour legislation. Let us face it, in the past the Liberal Party has done some good things.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Name one.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Name one.


Cyril Keeper: Let my friend tell me why his labour critic can get up in this House and defend labour at the same time another Member of his Party is saying they are going to vote for back-to-work legislation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They have always operated that way.


Cyril Keeper: How can they do that on the same day?


Charles L. Caccia: It is not true.


Cyril Keeper: It is absolutely true and you will hear it on the program which was recorded today. It is on tape!


Jacques Guilbault: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask for your help to try and keep this debate on the rails. I thought what we had before us was legislation which I have my own personal difficulties with but I do not think the Hon. Member who has the floor now is sticking to the subject or is relevant.


An Hon. Member:: It is very relevant.


Mr. Heap:: Tell the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


Jacques Guilbault: The subject of the debate is not divisions between the Liberal Party and the NDP.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We are prepared to listen to them on that, too.


Jacques Guilbault: It is Bill C-86. I would like to see the Hon. Member stick to the Bill and I am requesting your help.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair finds that what the Hon. Member is saying is relevant to the Bill.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Liberal labour critic was not here when I pointed out that one of the weaknesses in this legislation is the confusion of the roles of mediator and arbitrator. He was not here when I pointed out that it was the Liberal Party that introduced that concept to labour legislation.
However, to set aside my concerns about the Liberal Party, because we have more important things to deal with, I will come to the legislation, Bill C-86.
The Government has introduced this back-to-work legislation and I want to know whether there was another way of handling the postal dispute. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he sought to give the impression that the Government's
October 9, 1987

hands were tied and it had no choice but to bring in this legislation if the mails were to be delivered. Did the Government have a choice?
The first aspect of that question deals with the legislation itself. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), dealt thoroughly with this legislation but I want to make a few key points. Is it good legislation or is it bad?


Claudy Mailly: It is good.


Cyril Keeper: I want to make the case that this legislation is inadequate and destructive. The first problem is that it imposes the Government's plan for the Post Office. This legislation is supposed to regulate a labour dispute. In fact it imposes the Government's plan on the Post Office. Is that something I just pulled out of my hat or dreamed up? No. The Government makes specific reference in the legislation to the fact that the arbitrator will have to pay attention to the conciliator's report. Clearly one of the distinguishing factors of that report was that it accepts the Government's plan for franchising Post Offices. That is a key element in the dispute we are discussing. That is the legislation's first inadequacy.
The second point I would like to make is that it confuses the role of the mediator and the arbitrator. Clearly this is a conflict in which a mediator would have been welcomed. The mediator could offer some hope of a negotiated settlement so the mails would continue to move and labour relations at the Post Office would be improved. Did the Government take that route? No, it created this mediator/arbitrator. The Government has said that if the person who sits down with management and labour to try to get them to come to a negotiated settlement fails in his task, he will later be required to arbitrate the situation, in other words, to decide who is right and who is wrong and to impose a settlement. That is the second weakness of this legislation.
The third weakness of this legislation is equally fundamental. This legislation undercuts freedom of association which is a fundamental right in a democratic society. We have enjoyed that right throughout Canada's history, having inherited it from the British democratic system.
This legislation undercuts freedom of association by specifically barring any person who is a member of a union who may, for whatever reason, choose to defy this legislation from holding any leadership position in the union. This legislation seeks to determine who will be eligible to hold office in a union, a free collective association. It seeks to determine who a group of people will choose to be their leader. That is a fundamental breach of the principle of freedom of association.
I have asked whether the Government had any alternative in the way it has acted in order to ensure that the mails would be delivered and there would be good labour relations at the Post Office. It is clear that there are many ways in which the Government could approach this dispute without bringing
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
forward legislation which is destructive. The legislation fails because it seeks to impose public policy on a collective bargaining situation. It confuses the role of the mediator and the arbitrator and undercuts the right to freedom of association.
The legislation is wanting. This is not a good piece of legislation which demands the attention of the House and demands to be passed. It is, instead, bad legislation which is fundamentally flawed. It is clear that the Government had other options to pursue.
Let us look at the Government's approach to this labour dispute. The Government adopted a policy of confrontation rather than co-operation. It adopted the clenched fist rather than the open hand. The results were predictable.
The Government has chosen to move back-to-work legislation. If a government is to pursue that option it should at least be able to make the argument that it has exhausted all other available alternatives, that it has used all the tools imaginable to regulate a conflict. One of the most fundamental tools in regulating labour-management conflict is mediation.
The Government set that option aside and chose, instead, to bring forward back-to-work legislation. The Government has not, therefore, exhausted all of the possibilities for regulating this dispute in a peaceful fashion. Since it has not exhausted all options, it has no justification for introducing back-to-work legislation.
We must question the Government's approach with regard to the issues that were on the table. When the conciliator examined the negotiations, he pointed out that the most serious obstacle to a resolution of the dispute was the policy of franchising. He said that management of the Post Office had one idea of what the Post Office was and labour had another idea. Labour saw it as a public service and management saw it as a private business.
Recognizing that the policy of franchising has become a serious obstacle to the resolution of the labour-management conflict, why could the Government not have set that policy aside? If the Government insisted on being obstinate and rigid about it and wanted to continue with the policy of franchising, could it not at least be flexible and willing to negotiate?
We know that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers has a reputation of being very militant and uncompromising. However, in these negotiations it specifically brought forward the issue of franchising and indicated its willingness to negotiate on it. The union said that it would be willing to talk about franchising in areas where there are no post offices now. Therefore, the union started the negotiations on that key issue but management failed to respond.
The Government could avoid confrontation at the Post Office by being more flexible in its policy which is an obstacle to a negotiated settlement If the Government had developed its plan for the Post Office in a public way rather than behind closed doors, it would have avoided confrontation.

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
In the short time that I have left I would like to speak about the Government's over-all plan for the Post Office. The Government has chosen to treat the Post Office as a private profit-making business rather than the public utility it is. Because of that it has married itself to the policy of privatization and franchising. It has thereby put itself on a collision course with the union because Foisy recognized that that policy is a threat to job security. The Government could have had a different plan for the Post Office. It could have taken a co-operative approach to labor-management negotiations. It could have put aside the faulty legislation it has brought forward to the House. It had an alternative. It has chosen confrontation rather than co-operation, and the public will see through its bluster.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an opening remark before asking my question to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). First I must say it is comforting to see him when he gets his senses back, because I was somewhat concerned a moment ago when he began to speak. I think that the only thing which prevented him from jumping on his colleague from York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was the distance between them. I simply cannot see him on a picket line, violence would flare up. While I am at it, here is a piece of advice for newspapermen: that was a very good example why they should never dare attack the leader (Mr. Broadbent).
Well, Mr. Speaker, postal workers from my riding came to see me yesterday but I was not there. I was expecting them on Wednesday. As a matter of fact I had asked my secretary to make an extra pot of coffee. However, since negotiations had started again, when the mailman came he told me it had been postponed. I was here yesterday, and since they could not come to my office, they sent me a telegram advising me they were against the tabling of special back-to-work legislation and asking me to put pressure on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to oblige Canada Post to bargain seriously with the unions to conclude a negotiated agreement. Mr. Speaker, I immediately informed the Minister of Labour of their demands.
First of all, I would like to say, as was mentioned earlier by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) that governments and ministers are always reluctant to table special legislation. They do it because they have to. However, if we consider the rising tension on the picket lines and the incidents that have already occurred, I think it is preferable, in the circumstances, to adopt this Bill which, like all special legislation, is necessary, instead of waiting until something serious happens, when the Opposition will sorely regret the unwillingness to act of some Members and the unconditional support shown by others.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the postal workers in my riding and across Canada that the legislation tabled in the House allows for negotiations, and I am convinced and I
express the hope in this House that both parties will find the calm and serenity they need to negotiate an agreement as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief and to the point: Canadians already known the NDP is in favour of violence, as confirmed by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) and demonstrated in flamboyant style just now by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) in his speech. Is he trying to tell Canadians we should wait for some regrettable incidents to occur before taking action and that if the NDP were the governing party, that is what he would do?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to respond to the Hon. Member's comments on my Leader (Mr. Broadbent).
The Hon. Member asks what the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is doing and where he is. He is attending a conference to fight against free trade. I believe that this is essential for the job security of Canadian workers.
The second point raised by the Hon. Member opposite to which I feel I must reply is the charge that the NDP is in favour of violence.
Mr. Speaker, this is not our policy. I know that there are sometimes exagerations in politics, but we seriously have to ask ourselves this question: Who is in favour of violence? Who hired the strike-breakers? Does the Hon. Member not know that, when you hire scabs, there is a good chance that there will be violence? The use of strike-breakers promotes violence, and a Member of Parliament from Quebec should be particularly aware of this fact. Quebec is the only province in Canada with anti-scab laws. Why is this? Because there were violent strikes in Quebec in the past, and Quebecers found this unacceptable and uncivilized. They asked their Government to pass laws to ban the use of strike-breakers.
What I want to ask the Hon. Member is this: Who is in favour of violence? Is it, or is it not, his own Government that hired strike-breakers and that is promoting violence?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, before I put my question to my hon. friend, I want to put it into context. Part of the Government's program which is expected to be carried out by the postal corporation is to phase out the postal system as we know it in our country. It wants to phase out thousands of employees and replace them with some central depots across the country. It wants to franchise the wickets and install supermailboxes which will essentially do away with the employees.
I would like the Minister to consider this observation. If he was to walk into his office at the end of the day and announce to his staff that he plans to phase out all of their jobs in the next while, what do you think would be the result of that announcement? Of course, the employees in the Minister's office would become very concerned and, I suspect, less than
October 9, 1987

co-operative and perhaps aggravated. It is no wonder, when someone is told their livelihood will be taken away and their ability to provide for their families destroyed, that people are provoked.
The letter carrier who comes to my door is one of the most positive, friendly working people I ever meet. When I mail a letter or parcel, I see fantastic employees who are always courteous and pleasant.
Does the Hon. Member believe that this legislation is provocative? Does he believe that it is provoking employees of the postal system and putting them into an impossible situation? Does he believe that they are being pushed up against the wall so that they will react and the Government can take action for political points and be seen to have done something good, at the expense of thousands of people who are dedicated to delivering our mail?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has hit the nail on the head. This piece of legislation will have the result of pushing post office workers against the wall, and obviously they will react.
Until now the strike at the Post Office has been a rotating one. It has been very well managed. There has not been the expected violence.
There have been those who have said that the Government had hoped there would be violence because it would have an excuse to bring in back-to-work legislation. There has not been violence until now. Part of the reason for that is that the union was taking a very responsible approach to the negotiations. Also, the union was very much aware that the Government was looking for an excuse to bring in back-to-work legislation.
With this back-to-work legislation and with the fact that the Government has been threatening it since the strike started, the management of the Post Office has been taken off the hook and been left without the necessity of negotiating. Of course workers at the Post Office will feel enormous frustrations, now that the strike has become general. Peoples' frustrations are starting to show as a result of the provocation of this back-to-work legislation. It means that these people have not had a chance to negotiate the conditions of their employment.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate on the right to strike, this is a debate on when we should take it away, and this is a debate on something which is incorporated in the Bill as it applies to the circumstances of this strike. Basically it is a debate on some fundamental principles which have governed up until now our behaviour in Canada on the question of the relationship between workers and their employer.
What is making the debate more complicated is the fact that it takes place against the background of some serious disruptions caused by the practice of the employer using scab workers and against the political background of a statement
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
made only a few months ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). When he wrote to the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, he made the following statement:
Government intervention has not been the solution to labour disputes in the
past and is unlikely to be the panacea of the future.
I suppose almost every Member in the House would endorse that statement. However, it is a contradictory statement and it virtually flies in the face of the measure introduced for debate by the Government yesterday and today.
Let us examine for a moment what we have carefully developed over past decades. At the beginning of the century Mackenzie King introduced the concept of bargaining on a collective basis, namely, a situation whereby the employer and the workers would work out an agreement to regulate their relationship over a period of time. I submit that collective bargaining in Canada is a success story over the decades. If we look at the statistics, we see that the vast majority of collective bargaining sessions were solved in an harmonious manner. However, what has been brought to Parliament for resolution has been the most difficult situations.
This raises the question: Is this the right time for Parliament to be asked to settle this strike? Obviously we must look at the situation and examine it carefully to decide whether we have a situation which warrants the intervention of Parliament.
First, we would want the intervention of Parliament when it is absolutely necessary. What does that mean? It means that the convenience of the Canadian public has been damaged, endangered, or put in an unacceptable situation. In the vast majority of cases the Parliament of Canada has historically intervened when it was felt that the Canadian public was inconvenienced in a serious manner. Therefore I must ask, Mr. Speaker, whether in your judgment the movement and delivery of mail is such that it has seriously inconvenienced the public.
Until now I do not know of anyone who has written a letter to our offices, both in our constituencies as well as here, to bring to our attention that the postal service is in a very bad situation. I should like to hear the views of other Hon. Members on whether they have received such correspondence. So far no one in the House, including those on the government side, have indicated in their speeches today that they have received complaints from their constituents about the effect of the strike. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that as it stands today the mail service to Canadians at large is functioning in a manner which is not causing discomfort to the public.
If that conclusion is a correct one, then the onus is upon the Government to demonstrate that this legislation is urgent and that this legislation is indispensable. I submit that in the speeches we have heard so far that case has not been made. What is the role of the Government? The role of the Government is one of making this difficult political decision. I admit that the role of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is a particularly difficult one, because he is the object of various pressures from various sectors of society. I do not deny that. In

October 9, 1987
Postal Services Continuation Act, 1987
a sense I am sympathetic to his role. However, I should like to draw to his attention that the legislation which has been introduced, because of its strong punitive nature, has caused a lot of unhappiness in the ranks of the union itself. It has not helped to convey a sense of balance or a sense of controlled behaviour in the rotating type of strike which the union had intended to have until now and had intended to have in the future. In other words, it has worked as a destabilizer and, in destabilizing the situation, it has also caused certain difficulties.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling me to conclude. I will do so in a moment. These difficulties have been put to further stress and
damage by the fact that the unions and its members have seen the constant use of scabs in the environment in which they work. Of course this calls for a decision on the part of the Government of Canada. It should face once and for all the necessity of legislating on the question of the use of scabs.
It is now three o'clock, so I will leave it for the next session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being three o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday next at eleven o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 3 p.m. the House adjourned.

Tuesday, October 13, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers