1988-05-12

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) (for Mr. Mulroney)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-128, an Act to establish the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to repeal the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion Act, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 253 residents of the Kitchener-Waterloo area in respect of the disorder schizophrenia. The petitioners consider schizophrenia to be a major illness in Canada, affecting about one per cent of the population, and they call upon the Parliament of Canada to put into place research efforts which are commensurate with the fact of schizophrenia being a major illness in Canada.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition organized by the Pentecostal Church of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. The prayer of the petition calls upon Parliament to pass into law legislation
that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and through all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from several residents of the southern Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. The petition asks Parliament to pass a law requiring majority ownership by Canadians of electrical utilities, dams and water licences so that Canadian citizens will be afforded sovereignty protection equal to that enjoyed by citizens of the United States in respect of electrical utilities in that country.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to the House a petition from more than 500 constituents in Westmorland, and more particularly, in the community of Robichaud.
These individuals humbly state that closing the post office in Robichaud in the constituency of Westmorland, New Brunswick, will deprive the citizens of this community of a unique federal presence and will reduce vital postal service in this rural community. For these reasons, the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to reject the Canada Post Corporation plan.
[DOT] (UlO)


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to present a petition from petitioners who live in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Vancouver, North Burnaby and Victoria, B.C. It is on a subject which I have raised many times in this House, that of the high incidence of crime associated with knives.
We have recently had more incidents in Vancouver. There have been very serious crimes of sexual assault involving knives.
The petitioners call on the federal Government to amend the Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives by citizens in public places. The only exception to this ban would be for those whose knife is integral to legitimate work or where a knife is carried for religious purposes.

May 12, 1988
Order Paper Questions CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of citizens in my constituency. They believe that, since the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade deal and because the free trade deal does affect the sovereignty of the nation of Canada, Parliament should dissolve and allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches) moved:: That this House condemn the government for its total and absolute failure
to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians by:
(a)	instructing Canada Post to cut back postal services to Canadians living in rural areas;
(b)	installing "supermailboxes" to take the place of door-to-door mail delivery in new suburban areas; and
(c)	making hundreds of thousands of Canadians second-class citizens when it comes to the provision of postal service.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I move this motion in the absence of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) who could not be here today. He is the official spokesperson for my Party on matters concerning the Post Office. As you probably know, the Hon. Member has done a tremendous job over the last several years in ensuring that the words of concern of those who have been denied postal service have been brought forward in the House of Commons. These concerns have been heard.
Post Office bashing in this country has become a national pastime primarily because of the actions of the Government. The Post Office has been involved recently in slashing services and by doing so it has made an already bad situation worse. It has come to my attention as well that sometime later today,
probably at three o'clock, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) will be tabling in the House Canada Post's corporate plan, which will be followed by a press conference at 3.30 p.m., I believe, in which the Minister will attempt to convince Canadians that the policies and the actions of the Government respecting Canada Post have been the best thing since sliced bread.
As I understand it from what I hear through the rumour mill, the Minister will try to tell Canadians that for the first time in some years Canada Post will be breaking even. Yet, several months ago, the same Minister was trying to tell Canadians that Canada Post in this year alone would be making a profit of some $20 million. He will also tell us that Canada Post will continue with its supermailbox plan. He will go on to say, of course, after all that bad news-from his point of view good news-that Canadians will be faced with another increase in postal rates. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that will do absolutely nothing to improve the image of Canada Post across Canada.
I want to talk for a brief moment about what Canada Post has been doing in my own constituency and, indeed, in constituencies right across the land. About 18 months ago trucks appeared suddenly on the main drags in my own area and started picking up the corner mailboxes. They are being picked up in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and St. John's, Newfoundland, in fact, right across the country. Canada Post claimed that corner mailboxes were not being used to their fullest extent possible. But there was absolutely no consultation with Members of Parliament representing the areas or with the communities involved.
It was a totally arbitrary action taken by Canada Post. An owner of a corner store in my community, when he saw the truck picking up the mail box, went out to those doing it and asked them why. The guy said, "This mail box is not being used as much as it was in recent years. Therefore, we are removing it". The corner store owner asked them to open up the mail box to let him see what was in it. The box was practically full, but there it went on the back of a truck and it was gone. I got in touch with the public relations people at Canada Post in Toronto and asked them why they were picking up boxes. They repeated the same story, that mailboxes were not being used. Even when they heard that the particular mail box to which I was referring was being used they said, "The facts of life these days are that people no longer use corner mailboxes. Most people in Toronto work downtown and they take their mail downtown with them to their places of work and mail the letters there".
I have one of the largest senior citizen populations of any constituency in the country. These people do not work downtown. In fact, they do not work. They are retired. Canada Post's removal of these corner mailboxes is causing all kinds of problems for seniors in my community, especially if they happen to have a mobility problem. It is bad enough in the summer months when seniors have to walk several blocks to mail a letter, but in the winter when the sidewalks are icy or
May 12, 1988

snow-covered it places a severe hardship upon them. It is bad enough in a place like Toronto, but when you go into some of the more remote areas of Canada where Canada Post is cutting service and where the winter is longer, communities lack sidewalks and that kind of thing, it is worse. Canada Post has made life extremely difficult for people with mobility problems, whether as a result of old age or disability.
In addition to that, there is a franchising or privatization of postal service which has resulted in the closing of a whole slew of sub-post stations in rural Canada. It is resulting in the closing of postal stations in areas like Toronto where people used to pick up parcels at corner stores that were fairly close to the places where they resided. Canada Post has closed those places up. In my own community, some people have to go about a mile out of their way now in order to pick up a parcel that they would have picked up within several blocks of their residences or sometimes a little further. That is what Canada Post has been doing.
In addition to that, as if Canada Post was not happy enough with that, it discontinued door-to-door delivery service in new subdivisions. They have supermailboxes now to which people have to go to pick up their mail rather than door-to-door delivery. In my own community, there is a new subdivision that faces onto a well established neighbourhood. The people on one block receive door-to-door delivery services and yet those a block away have to go to the supermailbox in order to pick up their mail.
The Government has made a whole number of Canadians feel like second-class citizens. They do feel as though they were second-class citizens. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), will be speaking at some length about the problems faced by Canadian citizens who happen to live in rural communities and about the difficulties Canada Post has created for those Canadians.
For those who live in rural Canada, the closure of rural post offices is not just an economic move by Canada Post. For those people, the post offices are very often the centres of the communities.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And they are killing communities.


Neil Young: When Canada Post arbitrarily closes down post offices, it is taking away a way of life that Canadians in this vast, diverse land have become used to. Not only have they become used to it but they have viewed the post office as the centre of life in their communities.
A resident of one of these communities has described in a very eloquent way what those post offices mean to life in those communities. This lady, who happens to live in Little Fort, British Columbia, wrote to her Member of Parliament. She said:
The post office is where we learn about births and deaths, the happy events
and sad, the everyday happenings in our village. Its postmaster is our friend
Supply
and confidante. She has her finger on the pulse of our village. Postal rates may
be high, but there is no charge for her cheerful "Good Morning". To some of
the older folk who live alone, she is their connection with reality.
That rural resident has a certain view of the role that the rural post office plays in that particular community. When Canada Post, under the instructions of this Government, arbitrarily closed that post office it was, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said a second ago, literally killing that community. It was killing a whole way of life, and it is being condemned by a growing number of Canadians.
If this Government thinks that this is an issue that will go away with the passage of time, it is wrong. The people will not forget come election day. The Government is making a bad, serious mistake. This issue will not go away. It is with us. Canadians know the value of postal services in Canada, and this Government will pay dearly in the next election for its treatment of Canadians, not only in rural Canada but in urban Canada as well.
One of the reasons given by the Government for the reduction in service was given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The only way he can see it is as an improvement in service. Only the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs could make that kind of statement and expect people to believe him.
We watched this Minister do a number of things in his capacity as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I think his job description is all wrong. He does not protect consumers. The only thing he protects is corporate interests. We saw that with the amendments to the Patent Act. He told us that that Bill was in the best interests of Canadians. I recall question after question being put to him on that particular piece of legislation, and his continued response was to say that drug prices will not rise as a result of his actions. That was about two years ago, and he has continued that argument in the months since then. In Ontario, the cost of a whole classification of drugs for elderly people, disabled people and singleincome families has doubled and tripled over the last several months as a result of the actions of this particular Minister. The title "Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs" is a misnomer, to say the least.
What is the Minister's argument in this case? He wants to improve services and cut costs, and in the process he will lay off something like 14 per cent of the workforce at Canada Post. If one says it quickly, it does not sound too bad: fourteen per cent of the workers. I want to tell Hon. Members what that means in real terms. We are talking about thousands of Canadian postal workers who will end up on the streets, at a time when many areas of Canada are facing totally unacceptable high rates of unemployment.
We are not talking only about postal workers and the impact on them and the reduction in services as a result of these layoffs but about their families, their friends and their neighbours. Many of these letter carriers have got to know the people they deliver mail to by name. What happens when we

May 12, 1988
Supply
lay these people off? The Government says that it is a costcutting move. Is it a cost-cutting move to throw someone out of a job and in the process slash services, necessary, essential services to Canadians?
There was a study done in the United States in the middle 1970s by the late Senator Humphrey. To my knowledge, there has not been a comparable study done in Canada. Senator Humphrey's study found that an increase in unemployment is associated with increases in other social problems like psychological problems, mental illnesses, wife battering and antisocial behaviour. The long-term effects of unemployment will not go away overnight when we restore full employment to the country, if that ever happens.
What about that postmaster in rural Canada who is laid off? In central Canada, and particularly in central and southern Ontario, we are not doing too badly right now. We are not doing as well as the Government would like us to believe we are doing, but we are not doing too badly. However, what happens in rural Canada? If a postmaster or postmistress is thrown out of work, he or she cannot walk across the street to find another job.
What happens to the person in Newfoundland, a letter carrier or an inside postal worker? In Newfoundland, there is an unemployment rate in the middle 20s. They simply cannot walk around and find other jobs. The same is true of those in the interior of B.C. and the Yukon. You cannot just walk across the street and find another job. There are thousands of people out of work in those communities. When the Government talks about improving the services and cutting costs, it has to consider the social implications of those actions. If it does not, it is being totally irresponsible. However, from what I have seen, that does not seem to matter.
Rather than cutting back on postal services, the Government should be expanding postal services. Why should Canada Post not only not run a deficit, why should it not make a profit? A sub-postmaster in Quebec asked why Canada Post does not do what other countries have done with their post offices. He says the new generation of postmasters might have an expanded role beyond providing traditional postal services. They could act as information agents for the federal Government on Manpower job-creation programs and serve as economic development agents as well. Rural post offices could easily generate more revenue by selling hunting and fishing licences, greeting cards and parcel wrapping materials in addition to accepting payment of utility bills. Over 2,000 small communities with post offices do not have banks, and banking is another service that could be provided following traditions in other jurisdictions.
I see my time is practically up so I just want to say that what we are seeing here in these actions taken by the Government has nothing to do with cost cutting and absolutely nothing to do with providing service to Canadians. We are
seeing an ideological approach to governing Canadians. The Government does not believe in providing service to average Canadians. As I said a minute ago, this issue will not disappear. People in rural Canada and in urban communities, people such as Residents Against Mailboxes and Rural Dignity, will not allow the Government to get away with what it is trying to do. I want to tell you that we in this Party are right behind them. We believe in fairness, equity, and that there are no second-class citizens in this country. Members opposite are going to pay for this in the next election.


Mrs. Tardif (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague how come in the past, when people wanted to settle somewhere, they would first look to see what services were available and then choose where to live, in view of the services they considered essential.
Today, people have the idea that they want to go to live somewhere and then they are surprised afterwards that all the services are not the same.
Could the Hon. Member explain to me how he sees this phenomenon in Canada?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, first, I think those Canadians who pay their fair share of taxes are entitled to exactly the same service as other Canadians who pay the same taxes. What the Hon. Member seems to be saying is something similar to what an official with Canada Post said to a spokesperson for Residents Against Mailboxes. That spokesperson said supermailboxes are creating tremendous problems for the disabled, particularly those confined to a wheelchair. You know what the Canada Post official said in response? Disabled people do not buy houses in these communities. Talk about stereotyping and discrimination against the disabled! Disabled people can buy houses just the same as other Canadians.
I do not buy that kind of argument at all. It is the same as what the Minister said to a question I asked in the House several weeks ago. I said to him that if he thinks these supermailboxes are the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not plunk one of these down on his own front lawn. "Be an example to the Canadians you are trying to convince", I said. He responded that his front lawn was a mess. He not only had a mailbox, he had a hydro pole, a fire hydrant and all kinds of things. In my mind that conjured up a visual mass of pollution in front of his house. In fact, I felt sorry for him. Then he said everybody should expect that in today's modern world, that you are not going to be able to live the way you did a 100 years ago.
I called a friend of mine who happens to live in Calgary and asked him to nip down to Harvie Andre's house and take a look at his front lawn. Maybe you can get a petition among the neighbours and force the city to clean it up for the poor guy. They went down and took a little peek at this guy's house. He
May 12, 1988

did not have a supermailbox there. Ele did not even have a mailbox. He did not even have a fire hydrant.
The Minister tends to exaggerate a little bit in trying to convince Canadians that we should accept the things the Government dictates. Canadians are not prepared to accept that, and I think every Canadian is entitled to equal service regardless of how the Government views it.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, in my constituency I have an area of old houses, very moderately priced. People who live there get door-to-door mail delivery. 1 also have areas with newer houses, much more expensive, running anywhere from $90,000 to $150,000. They pay higher income taxes than people in the older areas. They pay higher local taxes. They asked me why they cannot get the same door-to-door mail delivery as people in the older areas. They said to me that they did not accept as fact what the Government was imposing on them, that there are two classes of citizens. One class who get door-to-door delivery and another who does not.
I am wondering if the Hon. Member has heard the same complaint from people in his or other constituencies and whether he has an answer that is different from the one given by the Conservative Government and by the Liberals when they were the Government, that is, that we cannot afford it. Does he have an answer other than that which I could give to my constituents who are so angry despite the claims of the Post Office and the Minister that everyone is happy with the so-called supermailboxes?


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no idea why people cannot get equality of service, because it is something Canadians expect. I do not think any reasonable person in the country would argue that Canada Post should operate at a deficit. I certainly would not make that argument. However, I have also pointed out some programs and policies which Canada Post could enter into that could make it pay for itself. I sincerely believe that.
I heard the Minister arguing at one point that if we were to continue to provide that service it would mean an increase in postage rates equivalent to a 60-cent first-class stamp. I looked into that and found that, first, the Minister is talking about a set of circumstances that no one has been arguing. He would argue, and he is probably right in his estimate, that if door-to-door delivery were to be provided to every Canadian it would cost 60 cents for a first-class stamp. No one has ever argued for door-to-door delivery in areas where it never existed, such as in rural Canada.
When we break down his 60 cent figure according to our argument, the additional cost to extend services to those residents who are now serviced by supermailboxes and those who will be serviced by supermailboxes would be a maximum of some 2.3 cents, raising first class postage to about 41 cents or 42 cents. Therefore, I think there is a slight exaggeration.
Supply
Another concern among many elderly Canadians is that the increased implementation of supermailboxes is essentially destroying a program which has been very beneficial to senior citizens and other shut-ins. It is the letter carriers' Alert Program where letter carriers keep an eye on elderly people. If they do not see someone during a certain period they would alert the necessary authorities that this elderly person may be in some difficulty.
I asked Canada Post officials what would happen to the letter carriers' Alert Program as a result of these supermailboxes being installed in these communities. They admitted that it would probably go by the way. That is extremely unfortunate.
People often criticize our postal workers for actions that are actually a policy of Canada Post. Yet, when workers themselves have instituted this program on a voluntary basis, I think it is a crying shame that the program, which has been of benefit to many seniors, will no longer be available. That is another side effect of this policy.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to intervene, but I was intrigued by the question asked by the Member from Winnipeg and the response. It is perhaps the dialogue between the two socialist Members of Parliament that was most interesting this morning.
What particularly intrigued me was the suggestion by our colleague from Winnipeg who, in referring complaints of his constituents to the Hon. Member, said that they were affronted by the fact that people who were living in smaller and less valuable houses than theirs were getting better service, that they were paying more taxes and lived in better houses yet were receiving poorer service. This is an extraordinary thing to hear, particularly from a socialist.
Is it the position of the New Democratic Party that the quality of mail service a Canadian receives should be affected in any way by the wealth of the individual who is applying for the service? Surely the issue should not be one that is based on income or on the size or wealth of the house in which a person lives. I hope my friend from the NDP would go out of his way to make it clear that a policy where people living in better houses and receiving better incomes would have a right to insist on a better level of service than people with less income and poorer houses is unacceptable.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is sincerely concerned about such things as cost, as I believe he is, he only has to cancel that wacky idea of buying nuclear submarines-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Give the money to Jean Claude Parrot instead.


Neil Young: He has asked a question, I think he should have the decency to be quiet so I can answer him. His question was pretty snarky in the way he phrased it, but I will not respond in kind.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let's have the answer.

May 12, 1988
Supply


Neil Young: Pardon?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Let's have the answer.


Neil Young: I will give you the answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you.


Neil Young: You are very welcome, Sir.
The argument being made by the Hon. Member is exactly the same argument that I make. Canadians should be entitled to equality in postal service, regardless of income. That is the argument I make, and it is exactly the argument the Minister seems to be making in his own kind of slimy way, as only he can make it.
A Canadian should be entitled to equality of service, whether it be postal service, health care service, retirement income or anything else that Canadians hold dear.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Tardif).


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the remarks of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) and the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), and it is my firm opinion that the comments of his colleague from Winnipeg discriminate against Winnipeg customers.
Mr. Speaker, I think all Hon. Members, and especially the Hon. Member for Beaches, can rest assured that Canada Post did not shut down certain routes in this country just to deprive rural communities of postal services.
Perhaps I may recall the Corporation's objective, which is to work with communities to find other ways of increasing the number of outlets, to facilitate customer access to postal services, and to extend business hours by making use of the resources of local businesses and thus maintain and improve services.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may draw a comparison. When a bank closes down, the service it provides disappears along with it. When the Canada Post Corporation changed its postal services, it started offering a broader range of services. I would like to refer more specifically to a situation experienced by my mother, who gets her mail through the rural delivery service of Saint-Augustin. One day, Canada Post decided to ask people to drive nearly 10 kilometers to pick up their registered mail or items that were too big to fit in the little green box. Do you know what the people did, Mr. Speaker? They signed a petition and asked Canada Post to give them a service outlet at the local convenience store. Why? Because the convenience store was open from seven in the morning till midnight, provided good service and would obviate the need for driving 10 kilometers.
I think the lesson we can learn here, Mr. Speaker, is that when changes are made, the wishes of the community must be considered. In many cases, for instance in new developments, people have become used to going to the convenience store instead of doing their shopping on a larger scale. Habits have changed, and I think that is also reflected in the service offered by Canada Post.
Unlike what was said by the Hon. Member, and I was struck by this aspect as well, some municipalities in Quebec have adopted resolutions in which they ask super boxes because they feel this is an improvement. Every time I hear the Hon. Member talking about super mail boxes, it sounds like he is talking about a major disaster! You must not forget that some people, and some of them live in my riding, are very pleased and want the super mail boxes instead of the green boxes which are always falling down, aren't very clean and are not installed as a permanent fixture. Some people want the super mail boxes.
So I think that people who claim that super mail boxes represent a drop in service should remember that many people who are directly concerned see the boxes as an improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to name the municipalities whose resolutions I have here: Saint-Luc, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue and Verdun. In each case, the municipality has advised Canada Post that this is an improvement in service and that people want the super mail boxes installed as soon as possible.
To recapitulate, Mr. Speaker, in some cases the super boxes mean an improvement in services, and it is also very important that Canada Post make these decisions with the community.
The same principle applies to everyone, and Canada Post must use its resources and skills to sell postal items and postal services. If we look at the present situation in Canada, we see that home delivery represents 54 per cent of postal services; centralized delivery, 13 per cent; super mail boxes and community mail boxes, 7 per cent; rural routes, 7 per cent; post office boxes, 15 per cent; and general delivery, 4 per cent.
When the population and the number of households increase, delivery networks must be expanded. If we look at what is happening in other countries, we see that many postal administrations, including the United States, Australia, France and Sweden, have concluded that universal home delivery is neither profitable nor affordable.
Here in Canada, home delivery would mean additional operating costs totalling $1.3 billion over five years and would oblige Canada Post to increase the basic letter rate by 17 cents, over and above any regular increases. That is why Canada Post is maintaining home delivery where it already exists and provides the super box service in new developments.
In rural areas, mail delivery has traditionally been carried out by local entrepreneurs. This delivery service is efficient and as profitable for Canada Post as it was previously for the Post Office. Local entrepreneurs are given a chance to participate
May 12, 1988

in postal service operations, while they remain free to conduct other business or to be otherwise employed.
Canada Post's objective, Mr. Speaker, consists in creating an efficient, modern and fully streamlined network of retail outlets that would improve access for customers, enhance Canada Post's image, provide a broader range of better quality and more regular services, and do so while making a profit.
Canada Post is trying to make its presence felt as an advanced enterprise in this country. A full range of postal products and services will be offered in the new network of postal outlets, which means that Canada Post will substantially increase the number of locations where retail services are offered, as well as upgrade the quality of those services.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post expects to improve customer access by installing additional public mailboxes and super boxes where customers can both pick up and mail their letters. Another improvement will be to provide retail outlets in more convenient locations.
As far as mail delivery is concerned, Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has promised to maintain and improve the level of service provided to nearly 10 million addresses existing today. Elome delivery will be continued in locations where it now exists, while present routes will be expanded to include both sides of the street, up to the present cutoff point.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post wants to give Canadians the assurance that new urban developments will continue to be served-and not later than 90 days after meeting all the usual criteria-by community mailboxes or super boxes.
Postal services to customers who now receive mail in community mailboxes or through general delivery will be improved through the installation of super boxes on an ongoing basis. In all, Mr. Speaker, some 340,000 rural and urban delivery points will be added to the superbox system over the next two years, and about 500,000 in three years, which should improve the present levels of service and accessibility.
Customers in cities where the population growth exceeds the capacity of the post office boxes at the local point of sale will have service at a super mailbox or community mail box.
In the year after Canada Post Corporation breaks even, it will adopt a policy of providing post office boxes free of charge for individuals whose only alternative is general delivery.
Rural route delivery service by private contractor will also be maintained.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must mention that Canada Post Corporation, which had a $600-million deficit in 1981, expects modest profits as of the 1988-89 fiscal year. It is also the first year that the Corporation will not ask for government subsidies to cover its expenses.
And, to use a well-known expression, Mr. Speaker, for once Canada Post will no longer be "in the red" starting this year.
Supply
[DOT]	(1150)


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions I would like to pose to the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I would like to ask her to explain the discrepancy, as I understood her speech, between the 17 cents she talks about and the 60 cents the Minister has talked about in his wild and woolly way with respect to the differences in costs of basic service, first-class service, which would be required because of movement away from serving people with supermailboxes.
Second, and more important, I would like to challenge directly what the Member has suggested, that Canada Post is somehow committed to maintaining service door-to-door in every place it has existed. I can tell the Member that this is simply not the case and I can point specifically to sections of my constituency in which door-to-door delivery took place previously and which has now been cut out by Canada Post. If the Parliamentary Secretary wants the specific area, I can tell her it is along Highway 18, north of Amherstburg, an area which now has a condition in which half the area receives direct delivery and the other half, which is completely similar to the previous half, does not receive direct delivery. We had a situation prior to this Government taking office, and a situation prior to the changes which have taken place, in which everyone along that route received direct mail.
My last point is to say that there are small towns, urban areas, in effect, in my constituency which have every condition similar to that of the suburbs of the City of Windsor itself. Yet in the one set of conditions, they have door-to-door delivery, and in the other set of conditions, they do not have door-to-door delivery. There is an inequity here that is absolutely unacceptable to Canadians.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that with the Charter of Rights setting forth the basic equalities which Canadians should have, it is quite likely there will be challenges by people who are faced with these inequalities, that they will directly challenge the policy that Canada Post, under the direction of this Government, has put into effect?
[DOT]	(1200)


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, in answer to my colleague's first question about the extra 17 cents, I did say 17 cents over and above the costs and normal increases.
While the Minister mentioned 60 cents to mail a letter, I talked about 17 cents more. In both cases, we figured that with $1.3 billion more, there would be an increase that we would have to justify somehow. That is the explanation for the 17 cents. In one case, we are just talking about an increase and in the other, about the total cost of a stamp in Canada.
Regarding the maintenance of door-to-door services, with the example my colleague gave us from his own riding, I think

May 12, 1988
Supply
that I did say existing door-to-door service would continue. Service would be extended only if it were on the same street or for something that was already done, for example. For new developments, we will have to think of other ways to meet the public's demands.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that what is important for me is that in all the changes to be made by Canada Post, the public always be considered, that there be close communication and cooperation with municipal councils and that the Corporation meet the people. For me, that is a requirement.
I do not think that we can talk about an overall solution. I think that this must all be considered and discussed with the people directly concerned.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify that this area which had its direct delivery cut was an area which was previously receiving such direct delivery. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that there is a new area, then that is simply not the case.
I would ask her, and I would ask Canada Post through her, to justify, as it has not been able to justify to the residents of this area, the fact that this direct delivery was cut. It has nothing to do with extensions to new areas. It has everything to do with cut-backs of existing services which did provide direct delivery to these residents.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is referring to a particular case of which I am not aware. The problems I experienced with this kind of case had to do with the extension of services within the same development but which began, for example, behind already serviced developments. I suggest he may have to do as I did and get in touch with Canada Post to find out how they can explain that change-he is talking about a change with which I am not familiar-and how that can fly in the face of what Canada Post has been promising all along, which is to maintain home delivery service for those who already have it.


Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Here is my question, Mr. Speaker. To some extent the remarks of my colleague would appear to justify or explain the course steered by Canada Post which had to cope with rather heavy operational deficits. Such are the facts, and they will simply have to slash the deficits or even balance their budget.
But what I think is significant in these circumstances is that there are two ways to go about it: either you cut expenses or you boost revenues. So my question to the Hon. Member is this: How can she explain that Canada Post management seem hellbent on systematically reducing services at a time when a small army of new companies is happily delivering mail?
Now I would think that if competition is that stiff or if so many companies are in the business it must be quite profitable. Instead of cutting services as it has been doing, why did
Canada Post not consider expanding mail delivery which would have generated the additional corporate income needed to maintain adequate services for all Canadians without exception?


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker I remember Canada Post's experience several years ago when it tried to get involved in the mail order business seeking new ways to increase its revenues.
What strikes me especially in this instance is the fact that Canada Post, exactly as it did previously when trying to seek other revenues, is again forgetting that its main responsibility is to deliver the mail. The problems which Post Canada has encountered have made it possible for some private corporations to move into an almost unoccupied area and to make deliveries to the satisfaction of their customers.
I too believe that if Canada Post wanted to increase its revenues, it could for a fee provide a special service to a certain type of customers who are willing to pay anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part in this most important debate concerning the impact of Canada Post's decision to cut back on this vital and essential service to all Canadians.
We should realize nowadays that wherever we may go in this country, one of the main issues Canadians are concerned and wondering about is the postal service. I am sure that this is an issue which is certain to be raised during the forthcoming election.
This is so clear, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as Canada Post with its so-called responsible Minister learned this morning, or rather late last night, that we would deal today with an Opposition motion about postal services, it called a press conference to announce its action plan or annual report-we do not know which yet, but we will find out, I suppose, this afternoon-in an attempt to lead away from the real situation which we, as elected Members, will describe to Canadians during this allotted day.
First of all, I should like to start by saying that although on the one hand 1 was surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Tardif) (Charlesbourg) compare postal services to banking services, on the other hand it was not because, by comparing postal services to banking services, she provided us with the vary basic philosophy of the Tory party.
This is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, in a country so large, so vast, and with such remote areas, as Canada! In a multicultural country! How vital must that postal service be! Some might say: hear now, when a bank decides to move a branch, nobody says anything, but when Canada Post Corporation decides to shut a post office down or move it, it becomes a problem.
May 12, 1988

This is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. I believe this Conservative Government did not realize the importance of that service to Canadian communities, whether urban or rural. That service is a prime communications link, a highly important one, that we as a Government should be providing to Canadians.
When our Confederation was launched, Mr. Speaker, there were two major mandates: protecting and defending the country, and delivering the mail. But today we are wondering whether this Tory Government intends to continue. What we find is that with free trade, it intends to sell Canada out to the United States, and the experience with the postal service is clear evidence of that in my view.
Mr. Speaker, I should emphasize at this point that such is indeed Tory philosophy, and this is the reason why, in Canada Post's corporate plan tabled two years ago, it was clear that the Corporation was to shut rural post offices down, franchise urban offices and deliver mail to superboxes so that it could have it moved by contractors. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Government's major goal was to privatize the postal service, and this is what it is trying to do by bits and pieces. But Canadians have caught on to that and it is my feeling that come the next election, we will hear about it, because it will be a highly debated issue and this Tory Government will get its answer.
Mr. Speaker, the other matter delved upon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Tardif) is that some municipalities passed resolutions requesting that Canada Post Corporation install superboxes because installing them would improve service.
Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary did not say is that indeed there were cases where citizens said: We would rather have a mailbox than have to pick up our mail after work in a main post office, because closing hours often are a problem.
Clearly, when people have nothing, no mail at all, no mail delivery whatsoever, they will say: After all, if we have a box, it will be close to home. But that is not necessarily the kind of service they want, Mr. Speaker. If all Hon. Members would take the trouble to listen to their constituents, they would realize that whether they happen to be in urban or rural areas, people want the same postal services. Every day, town councils are adopting resolutions. You know what is happening? Spring is usually the time to start work on construction projects, and so Canada Post is getting into high gear with its supermailboxes. However, town councils have passed resolutions saying they don't want Canada Post to instal the boxes. Today, the Corporation is starting to play hardball: If you don't want supermailboxes in your municipality, we won't deliver the mail!
There will be no deliveries at all, and the people in your community will have to pick up the mail at a post office pretty far from where they live. That is the kind of pressure they are starting to put on local authorities who realize there are
Supply
Canadians who pay 37 cents to mail a letter, who pay the same municipal, provincial and federal taxes and that these people are entitled to the same services as everybody else. And that is the crux of the matter: the Government refuses to understand that delivering the mail to superboxes on a permanent basis, as announced, is discriminatory. Canadians will not accept it, and groups are getting organized across this country.
Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in a Toronto suburb on a Sunday, at a meeting of some of these groups, including Residents Against Mailboxes, also known as RAM. Do you know what their slogan was?
"RAM the Mulroney box". That was their slogan. That is the kind of sentiment that is being generated these days. People are fed up with these supermailboxes. What they want is an efficient and fair mail service.
In rural areas, the Government intends to use collective mailboxes at major intersections. To my mind, this shows a lack of vision, a lack of understanding of the community fabric of Canada on the part of this Government. Everyone knows that the post office continues to be a gathering place in our villages and our small towns. It becomes an information centre for all citizens. It is where people go in search of information on the availability of social services; where they go to get taxation forms, scholarship forms, and job application forms. Often, the postmaster becomes a resource person.
Through the post office, the federal Government maintains a presence in our small towns and villages. Through the post office, the federal Government takes on human dimensions. It creates a link within the community, and it is a unifying force, a force which results in a feeling of belonging for members of the community.
To better express what I have been saying, let me quote from a letter which the Mayor of Trinity Bay, a small town, wrote to the President of the Canada Post Corporation. I quote:
If the few businesses which we have and on which we rely for our survival stay here, it is because we have services such as the post office. Centralization for economy's sake must not be pushed to such an extent that it jeopardizes the existence of small communities ... We urge you to find means to keep our post office, even if doing so would mean sharing with others certain of the most costly aspects of the postal service. For us here, sharing is a matter of survival, and we know something about it. For God's sake, do not help to destroy us!
Mr. Speaker, complaints are coming in from all over the country. Rural Dignity appeared before the Parliamentary Committee to describe the problem and explain how important it was to keep small post offices open in rural communities. We had citizens' groups like RAM appearing before the Committee to testify that supermailboxes are discriminatory. We even had test cases prove that homeowners living directly opposite

May 12, 1988
Supply
newly installed super boxes saw the value of their homes go down, and as a result, municipalities gave them a tax rebate.
Of course, we also had the whole issue of closing down some post offices and privatizing others. In my riding, for instance, I still get calls from people who live across from the post office and who received a card saying that from now on they would have to pick up their registered mail at the pharmacy on the other side of town. They now have to travel two miles by bus or on foot, depending on their budget, to pick up a parcel or a registered letter. That is what Canada Post and the Minister mean when they say they have improved services! In Saint-Leonard-Anjou, we now have five more locations where we can pick up the mail. Mr. Speaker, although this does mean that some people can pick up their mail at the pharmacy or the convenience store, what about the person who happened to buy a home near the post office and who could depend on that service, and now the service no longer exists?
Why do the Government and Canada Post not allow these people who are right near the post office to continue to pick up their mail and registered letters there? The reason is simple, Mr. Speaker: It is because Canada Post has decided, in its secret plan to privatize the Corporation, to gradually eliminate employees because there would be less volume and then to say four or five years later that there was not enough volume in those post offices and to shut them down. That is what is behind all that, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat, it is the plan to privatize Canada Post, to gradually shut down rural and urban post offices and to deliver the mail in supermailboxes in urban areas.
Of course, the Hon. Member for Vaileyfield, I think, would like me to shut my mouth! But I have the feeling that as soon as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has the courage to call an election, the citizens will really shut down the boxes and super mailboxes that the Conservative Government has set up, and as the RAM slogan goes, they will "ram the Mulroney mailboxes."
I think that this debate may be amusing for some Conservative Members, but it is important because some citizens across the country are concerned; they are disgusted and feel like second-class citizens. The Government is doing all this on the pretext of reducing the deficit. Well, Mr. Speaker, when Canada Post Corporation was created in 1981, with all three parties unanimously supporting the Bill, the new corporation had three objectives: namely, to improve service, reduce the deficit and improve labour relations. Today, the Conservative Government, after taking power, undid any improvement in labour relations that might have occurred from the time that Canada Post was created in 1981 until the Conservatives took power in 1984.
As for service, we know what that means: There are two classes of citizens, those who have home delivery and those who must get their mail from supermailboxes. The problem with this is that often you can see the mailman pass behind your house, through the yard, deliver mail to the neighbour,
and on the other side of the street, or one street over, you must get your mail from a supermailbox. If that is not discriminatory, I would like to know from the Conservative Government what is, and I hope that this afternoon, the Minister can tell us exactly in the House if it is not discriminatory, just what it is.
Definitely, Mr. Speaker, we must reduce the deficit. We agree on that. But we cannot reduce the deficit as fast as they want. In the United States, a country with 10 times our population and larger than ours, they took 14 years to balance the books. Here in Canada, they want to do it in seven years. And this has completely unbalanced the plans accepted in 1981, instead of letting things continue to reach our objective. In 1986, the Minister of Finance really burned his bridges and let us say that this is what has created the whole postal mess we find ourselves in today.
Of course there are ways to reduce the deficit, but not only by cutting expenses. We can also look for revenue. And how many times in this House and also in meetings outside have I suggested to the Minister and the Corporation how they could increase revenue!
On a parliamentary trip in Switzerland, I learned that they sell advertising space in their post offices, they sell public services such as public transit, for example, but they have advertising. Why would it not be possible for Canada Post Corporation, which owns some 4,000 trucks, to sell advertising space on its trucks, as buslines do? This would bring in revenues without entailing expenditures. Why could it not sell advertising space in post offices especially, of which there are a number downtown where people are ready to pay very good rates for advertising. The Corporation's answer to that is that such advertising would be detrimental to its image. Good gosh! What kind of an image is there when Canadians are mad and blowing their tops at the Corporation? I therefore feel that if we had a policy of using its buildings, trucks, and equipment to increase revenues instead of cutting down on service to people, this would be a boon.
There is also the whole matter of direct mail. There are very clear studies to show that we are eight years behind, that we could move forward in this area and get.. . Indeed, according to one study, if we did a per capita update on direct mail as they have done in the United States, we could get $300 million in extra income each year. This would be enough to wipe out the deficit, have home delivery in urban areas and keep our post offices in rural areas.
This is a matter let us say of good will, but as suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, this Government has decided to compare Canada Post Corporation, the postal service, to a banking service.
This means that a bank, as any other business, plans its operations and must gererate a profit at years's end. If the operation is not profitable, they either shut the branch down or move it elsewhere.
May 12, 1988

But such is not the case. The postal service is a basic communication service for Canadians. And in a country as large, as vast and diversified as Canada we must have the same postal service for all. We are going to fight to make the postal issue a priority during the next elections, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians will judge this Tory Government accordingly.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to my hon. friend's last statement to the effect that I compared Canada Post services to banking services. That is not quite what I said, Mr. Speaker. I said that after a bank closes, banking services are no longer provided. On the other hand, when Canada Post decides for instance to close a post office somewhere, it makes sure that somebody else will provide the service. This is altogether different, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to return also to another statement made by my hon. friend. He referred earlier to the objectives the former Liberal government was attempting to reach when postal services became the responsibility of Canada Post Corporation and no longer of a government department.
As far as I can remember, the previous Government decided to make the Post Office department into a so-called "independent" Crown Corporation so that postal services provided to Canadians would be free of political interference.
If that was the purpose then as well as to make sure that Canada Post was free to provide Canadians with services which could be financed by raising funds through the sales of stamps and services, I wonder what my hon. friend would say for instance in the case of collective bargaining when one must appear before a mediator to express his or her views or those of a group of unionized workers. When a Member of Parliament speaks out in favour of unionized workers before a mediator should this be considered as political interference? Does this mean that, depending on the situation, the Liberals with their global view of things could argue: "Our objective is to avoid political interference; just the same, when dealing with day by day issues, interference is sometimes necessary".
Is it more important to make sure that Canadians as a whole get postal services? As I said earlier, we are not trying to reduce postal services, only seeking different ways to provide them.
When you mentioned reduced services, is it because you felt that Canada Post employees are not good employees, that they are not providing Canadians with the services they should? This seems to be the gist of your remarks.
I can tell you, for sure, and I know a number of Canada Post employees, that most of them are good employees anxious to provide their customers with the services they have the right to expect.


Alfonso Gagliano: Precisely, Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us that nobody should interfere with the mandate of Canada Post which was created in this House in
Supply
1981 by a Liberal Government with the unanimous support of all Members.
As it happened, when the Conservative Government took over it did intervene and did interfere with this clear-cut threepronged mandate: Better services, improved labour relations, and deficit reduction. Those were the three objectives of Canada Post. It was this Conservative Government-her Government, Mr. Speaker-which chose to interfere and completely alter the course we had plotted for Canada Post. With their new plan to shut down 5,000 rural post offices, install superboxes in urban centres and city outskirts, not to mention franchising and closing post offices in urban areas, that is when the whole debate on Canada Post was re-opened, precisely because the Conservative Government had interfered and got mixed in Canada Post operations to say: No, from here on in this is how you are going to operate.
It was the Government which interfered, not the Opposition.
As to the mediator... I was laughing earlier because I see that the Parliamentary Secretary is remotely controlled by Canada Post, and this spirit, the attitude which now prevails in the upper reaches of Canada Post, Mr. Speaker, and indeed any action that might be taken ... I want my colleague to have a copy of the presentation I made before the mediator. She will see that it is a complete presentation on the way we could have broken the deadlock.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the conclusion of my presentation. I said to the mediator: Of course, both parties are to blame. So I was not siding with the employees. I even explained how to increase revenues, what labour relations approach to take to settle the whole dispute. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that in the space of six months... There were no strikes between 1981 and 1987. In a six month period in 1987, we had two strikes for which this Tory Government was responsible. The Corporation could erupt like a volcano any 2 minute. This is precisely the attitude which I note in the comment made by the Parliamentary Secretary under the guidance of Canada Post Corporation when she stated that I appeared before the mediator to plead on behalf the union. I did not defend the union, Mr. Speaker. I said to the mediator that definitely all the blame was not to be laid on the same side. There has been abuse everywhere in that organization precisely because labour relations are in such a sorry state.
Therefore I said to the mediator: Sir, I feel that your work is extremely valuable. Your recommendations will have a direct and permanent effect on our postal service. I cannot overly insist on the necessity of maintaining for Canadians a fair and efficient postal service which will take into account the nature of this country as well as budgetary constraints. We should return to our three great principles, which are to harmonize labour relations, to improve service and reduce the deficit. Such were the basic principles when Canada Post Corporation was set up. If there is interference with the business of Canada Post, it is precisely that of the Conservative Government and

May 12, 1988
Supply
its action plan. And we will see if the plan they put forward this afternoon is better or worse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Richmond- Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) for a question or comment.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and ask a question. As for the comment, somebody mentioned the banks and I think indeed there is an interesting parallel to draw here. As far as I know, in rural areas as in my constituency, there are relatively few banks.
However, there are Caisses populaires everywhere, even in the smallest communities. And, to my knowledge, in spite of the small number of people they serve, the Caisses populaires are very profitable because they were able to adjust, to tailor their services to people's needs.
As for my question, I would like first to congratulate my colleague. The Government seems to consider Canada Post merely as a private enterprise having to act and to face the same obligations as a private company. But, to me, there is a big difference between Canada Post and a private company, given its purpose and its unifying role.
My question to my colleague is this: How does he see Canada Post in relation to private enterprise?


Alfonso Gagliano: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if Canada Post is to be considered as a private enterprise, I admit it would be easy to privatize it if the Government were to decide overnight to sell postal services in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver and in every large city, then of course it could make good use of the money.
But what happens when you have to provide postal services to rural areas, to the North, to our remote areas? As I was saying in my speech it is important that the Government take a good look at Canada Post as everybody was unanimously prepared to do in 1981, and give it specific objectives. It should have been allowed to continue, and perhaps today we would not have a deficit but instead an improved and equitable service for all Canadians.
So, Canada Post cannot be considered as a private enterprise. Even in the Marchment Report, in the section on privatization, they make this comparison. They say that for large cities it would be easy to privatize, but who would pay for services elsewhere? Would the private enterprise be ready to pay the costs of shipping a letter to remote areas? That is what the universality of the system is all about. We pay 37 cents to send a letter to Ottawa or Toronto but also to Yellowknife. So you can be sure that if Canada Post were a private enterprise, with the deregulation system that is being pushed too far, Canadians living in remote areas, in the North for example, could not get any service.
So that is why we want to balance the books and take the time needed, but also we want to give Canadians the service they are entitled to get.
Mrs.Tardif (Charlesbourg): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why when comparing Canada Post and the private sector, he distinguishes between their customer service? When we talk about 37 cents postage it means whether the letter is sent to the same town or to the Far North, I think everyone agrees with this. This is one of the aims of Canada Post Corporation. It is precisely the reason why it is not a private company. On the other hand, one of its mandates was to operate on a balanced budget. There has never been any question that service to the people should not cost the same everywhere. We know full well that when we talk about new service expansion, Canada Post is of the opinion that in the years to come, the type of new project development will have to change.
Is it not the same for many other services? I am thinking of people who, in the old days, did their shopping at one main grocery store. Today, they stop every evening at the convenience store. Is it not also true that our way of life has changed in such a way that our habits have changed and one of the way Canada Post Corporation can meet the expectations of its customers is also to adapt to the new ways of a new generation.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, of course we all agree on paying 37 cents, no matter where we live in Canada. However, if you pay the same amount, you expect to get the same level of service as other Canadians.
But things work differently. For instance, in my riding, on a street not far from mine, people living on one side of the street get their mail delivered, others do not. Thus the postman delivers mail to citizens like myself living on one side of the street, whereas people who live just accross the street, in the new developments built in the Spring of 1985, must get theirs from a mailbox. Canadians find this unacceptable. Why this double standard on the same street?
As for the comparison between supermarkets and corner stores, I have to say that when we, Liberals, were in power, we opened postal branches and counters in drugstores. We did that to accomodate people, the same way corner stores do, so that people requiring immediately different postal services could get them right away without having to go to the main post office. But the main post office did, however, exist.
What is happening now is that with its new scheme, Canada Post is taking a postal branch that provides complete services in a drugstore or a convenience store, and franchising it. Those are the reasons why the plan does not work. Canadians are not willing to accept it. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, practically everybody living in a rural area is against it today. People are protesting because their small post office is closing down. For their part, city dwellers are critical because they must go to supermailboxes to get their mail. Furthermore, customers who need postal services are not satisfied to go to these franchised post offices. Therefore, a monster has been created which upsets everybody.
May 12, 1988


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition are not the only ones to condemn the Government for its total and absolute failure to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians. We are joined by a majority of Canadians who feel they were victims of the cutbacks by Canada Post, or had seen their neighbours or friends or parts of their communities affected by these government-ordered cut-backs. Even organizations such as the Catholic Bishops have stressed the need to provide services in communities where those services are an integral part of the survival of those communities. The United Church of Canada agreed and gave its support to the people trying to maintain the postal service at the level we are used to.
The Minister responsible for Canada Post keeps trying to convince us that there is no reduction in service. The statements he makes are a patent attempt to create a false image. This has made many people angry in the sense they feel that the Minister is being condescending towards them. It has affected the credibility of all the Minister's statements. In fact, it affects the credibility of the Government to a great extent because it knows services have been cut back. The Government knows fewer services are being provided now than in the past. It knows the service being provided in one part of the country or a community is not the same as that provided in a different part or community, even if conditions are exactly the same.
Everyone who lives anywhere near a post office which has been closed during the last three or four years knows that service has been taken away. Everyone who no longer has a rural route delivery knows there has been a reduction in service. When we say, as we do in this resolution, that we condemn the Government for its total and absolute failure to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians, we are just representing people who have felt the reduction in service.
When the Minister says he has not reduced service, he is obviously talking through his hat because 200 rural post offices have been closed. Dozens of rural routes have been eliminated wherever possible. The Minister states that service is not being reduced, so that means he is giving a wrong impression and stretching credibility.
My special concern here today is that of reduction in rural service. We need to think about what rural life really is. What is the reality? Perhaps the Minister who defends Canada Post's actions to such a great extent should be given a course on rural reality. It might be more valuable to him than his Ph.D. In his attempts to defend the postal service he seems not to recognize that there is a special quality to rural life which must be recognized and nurtured to some extent. There is a rural infrastructure which we should build on. It provides the kind of lifestyle which many of our people are considering more and more important to the well-being of the country. A
Supply
vibrant and viable rural community has built into it a range of services which are necessary to its survival and growth.
Rural communities are not just people who live on the farm. Rural communities include small towns, villages and hamlets. It is a combination of producers and consumers. To survive, a rural community must be self-sufficient within certain parameters. One of those parameters is the requirement for postal services. Certain communities cannot survive without certain services being available, and one of those services is postal service.
A removal of the postal service is almost a death sentence for a particular community. What are the realities of a rural post office? First, it is vital to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. It is the only federal presence in the community. Quite often a general store, a gas station or a post office are the centre of village life. If you remove the post office, you have removed one-third of the commercial presence of many small villages. You then move towards the elimination of that village entirely. If the people of a particular community are forced to go eight, 10 or 15 miles to another community down the road to get their mail, they very quickly start to do other business in that community and consequently their own village may well disappear.
Seniors in particular are seriously affected by changes in postal service. Many do not have cars to drive to the next nearest post office. They have to choose between increasing dependency on other people or isolation. They also find themselves in a very difficult situation if they are forced to go to supermailboxes which are quite often beside or along busy streets or highways. They do not have the kind of protection they are used to in their small local post office.
Women constitute about 82 per cent of Canada's rural postmasters and their assistants, so that elimination of those post offices eliminates many jobs for women. Closing a post office in many cases removes the only jobs available to rural women in a given area. Yet quite often that reduces the amount of service to the area. Furthermore, a store owner will give priority to someone buying groceries over someone coming to buy a 37 cent stamp.
Privatization of the post office also results in the postmaster and their assistants receiving one-fifth the salary they received previously, which also reduces the economic effect of the post office on that community.
The Minister has tried to convince us that there has been no change in service. Recently I gave him an opportunity to make an honest man of himself by opening up the 200 post offices that have been closed in the last two years, including a number of rural post offices.
My own rural delivery has been closed and I now drive 20 miles, twice a week, to get my mail, when I used to get it across the road from the farm. There are 35 other farm

May 12, 1988
families in the same situation. That has to be considered a reduction in service.
In the last two years, 37 post offices have been closed in Saskatchewan. That number has probably increased significantly in the last few weeks because there is a meeting today in the small town of Pilger in an attempt to save the post office. Yesterday there was a meeting in the small town of St. Gregor, not far from Humboldt, where the postmaster is retiring and Canada Post is attempting to close the post office. 1 believe they have reached a compromise in that case.
The town of Clavet, situated close to Saskatoon, is also affected by this change in the post office. These changes are supposed to be improvements, according to the Minister, but in the minds of the people in the communities they represent a withdrawal of service.
The committee which dealt with this issue faced some difficulties. The committee, which was dominated by Conservative Members, refused to hear several witnesses who wanted to indicate their displeasure with the corporate plan that had been established by the post office. In its final report, even Conservative Members said that there should be no closure without meaningful consultation and the consent of the community affected, and that the retirement of a postmaster should not in itself constitute a criterion for closing rural post offices.
Unfortunately, these two recommendations, while accepted by the Post Office, have not been fulfilled.
Recently, there was a much publicized case in Saskatchewan where the sudden death of the postmaster was used as an opportunity by Canada Post to close the post office. It is rather difficult to give 90 days' notice in these circumstances. The post office has been moved to the local grain elevator. One can imagine where the priority will lie if someone comes to buy grain and another person comes to buy a 37 cent stamp.
Since 1986, post offices have been closed in almost every part of the country. The post office in Purple Springs, Alberta, closed on July 31, 1986. Those residents must drive 34 kilometres return to pick up their mail at Taber. The mail truck continues to pass through the small town of Purple Springs on its way to deliver the mail at Taber.
The post office in Ninga, Manitoba, was closed on August 1, 1986, forcing residents to make a 35 kilometre round trip to pick up their mail. Residents in Ravenscrag, Saskatchewan, must travel 80 kilometres return to Eastend to pick up their mail and conduct postal business.
The corporate plan that was presented by the Government in 1986 stated: "We have 5,221 rural post offices in Canada. Over the next 10 years, 1,700 smaller post offices are to be closed and replaced by supermailboxes". It goes on to say that 3,500 post offices are to be privatized. The post office would be closed, and retail services would be provided in a local grocery store, drug store and so on.
In response to this plan it was stated that employees would not be properly trained by experienced, sworn-in postmasters but by poorly paid store clerks with a high turnover rate.
This action by the Government constitutes a major change for people in these communities. We must recognize the need for the continuity of rural Canada which the removal of postal services does not provide. In many cases, the survival of the community is dependent upon the existence of the service.
When the Government moved against rural post offices in Canada, it moved against residents of rural Canada. The vision of Rural Dignity, an organization that was established to protect as many of these rural post offices as possible, represents a vision of a proud people who believe they are contributing to Canada. Recognition of that contribution can be made by allowing these people the best possible service, including postal service.
The downgrading of rural Canada is a contribution to the depopulation of rural Canada. In Saskatchewan, post offices have been closed in the communities of Aylesbury, Esk, Krydor, Elstow, Readlyn, Forgan, Tweedsmuir, and Crutwell. All of these communities feel they have been attacked by the Government. They want to fight back by requesting the continuity of their rural post offices.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments will commence after Question Period.
It being one o'clock, I do leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, during the 1980 election campaign the Rhinoceros Party promised Canadians that if elected they would make us drive on the left hand side of the road instead of the right hand side, and that this new system would be phased in starting with buses in the first year, followed by trucks in the second year, and cars later.
Well, the NCC has now updated this plan on the Western Parkway in Ottawa which has been used by cyclists and runners on Sunday mornings for the past 10 years. Motorists will now be driving in two different directions on one side of
May 12, 1988

the road on the Ottawa River Parkway, while cyclists and runners will be using the other side.
An RCMP spokesman said about this new policy: "We're kind of crossing our fingers", obviously meaning that hopefully the regular users of the Parkway on Sunday morning will not be featured in Monday morning's obituaries. I have supported many initiatives of the NCC, but this clearly is not one of them.
I ask the Minister responsible for the NCC to put an immediate stop to this ridiculous new policy before it is too late, and to remind him that the National Capital Region also belongs to the people who live within the National Capital area.



WINONA HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS-TELETHON CHARITY DRIVES

Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the youth of Canada are our hope and inspiration for the future. They often demonstrate their beliefs and concerns for our nation by becoming involved in a project that will benefit their community. The students of Winona High School in Lincoln riding are an excellent example of Canadian youth working together for the benefit of their community.
May 14 will be Winona High's thirteenth telethon since 1974. In previous years the school has raised over $150,000 for charitable organizations such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Participation House, the Winona Senior Citizens Centre, and the Spinal Cord Society.
This concern for and commitment to the community demonstrated by hundreds of Winona students have earned for them the affectionate title of "The Small School with the Big Heart". Although this is Winona High School's farewell telethon, the spirit of Winona High will live on in the hearts of the students, the teachers, and the hundreds of citizens whom the youth of Winona High have helped through their telethons.



INTERNATIONAL NURSES DAY


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, today being International Nurses Day and the birthday of
Florence Nightingale who pioneered nursing, I ask Members to join with me in paying tribute to Canada's dedicated and caring nurses.
Nurses play a vital role within the health care system. Not only do they care for those of us who are sick but they provide pre-natal and post-natal clinics for new mothers, preventive health care in schools and in communities, and important support services which allow elderly and disabled people to remain independent in their communities.
I would also like to give special recognition to Jeanne Mance who was Canada's first nurse and hospital administrator. She established the first hospital in New France. Her belief in preventive health care showed remarkable foresight. She recognized that the maintenance of health and prevention of illness should be the most important goal of our health care system.
In Ottawa this evening the Canadian Nurses Association will hold a media awards dinner to recognize journalists from across Canada for their excellence in health reporting. The National Federation of Nurses' Unions has organized fund raisers. We are indeed fortunate that nurses care.



ABITIBI-TEMISCAMINGUE BUSINESS WOMEN'S GALA TRIBUTE TO 1988 PRIZEWINNERS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue) Mr. Speaker, on Thursday May 5, the 4th Abitibi-Temiscamingue Business Women's Gala was held at La Sarre, in my riding.
The objective of this prestigious event was to emphasize the entrepreneurship and brilliant performance of business women. I wish in particular to congratulate Pierrette Ouellet-Dumont of Rouyn-Noranda, Pauline Gagne of La Sarre, Carmelle Nantel of Belleterre, Adrienne Larouche-Goyette of Amos, and Susanne Bernard-Turgeon and Diane Pelletier-Turgeon, both of Val d'Or, who were selected as the prizewinners for 1988 in Abitibi-Temiscamingue.
Through these women, I wish to pay tribute to all our local business women who, in increasing numbers, contribute with determination and aggressivity to the economic prosperity of our region.
I also want to congratulate the La Sarre Chamber of Commerce and its president Gilbert Rivard for holding a very successful, truly unforgettable evening.
[Stage Direction]
May 12, 1988

Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: There are many organizations in Canada which give assistance to the 434,000 young unemployed across the country. YES Canada is one of them.
This dynamic organization helps young dropouts complete their basic training and provides them with the tools they need in order to meet the numerous challenges they face.
YES Canada will complete its pilot project in December 1988. The results to date speak for themselves: 78 per cent of young people who took part in the program have found a steady job or have gone back to school.
The Government should not only support this humanitarian project, but also allocate the necessary funding so that the program can be offered in French and gain national status. A bilingual program would be accessible to all young Canadians who urgently need support.
Will the Conservative Government take action to show that it is concerned with the situation of all young people in Canada by allocating funds so that young French Canadians can take advantage of a commendable project like YES Canada?
The Conservative Government tends to forget that all begins with youth and that young people are our most reliable resource.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, Focus on Inputs is an association representing about 3,500 prairie farmers. This group is dedicated to providing practical economic benefits to farmers through research into generic herbicides.
The present process for registration of farm chemicals is an expensive and complex one. This process effectively produces a barrier to entry into the chemical manufacturing market. Prairie farmers faced with rising input costs and depressed grain prices are seeking ways to help themselves out of the present situation.
By seeking to have pesticide requirements modified to suit the interests of farmers better, Focus on Inputs is attempting to put farmers in a position to create a better future.
Including farm chemicals under Section 41 of the Patent Act would also be beneficial to our farmers. Farm chemicals
could be treated in much the same manner as pharmaceutical drugs by the Patent Act through the introduction of compulsory licensing. This would allow the production of generic herbicides 10 years after a product was first registered. In return, the generic manufacturer would pay a 14 per cent royalty on sales until the original company's 17-year patent expires.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, improvements in this area are necessary in order to reduce input costs for Canadian farmers.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, several years ago an agreement was arrived at between the federal Department of Indian Affairs, the Manitoba Department of Community Services, and the Indian Child Welfare Agencies, under which the agencies took over the delivery of child welfare services for native children. It was agreed by Indian Affairs that the level of services provided for native children would be equal to the standard provided by the non-Indian agencies in Manitoba to other children.
However, the Department of Indian Affairs has refused to increase the funding required to provide those services, the cost of which has gone up substantially since the agreement was arrived at. I call on the Department of Indian Affairs to honour its agreement so that Indian children in need can get the same consideration as all other children in need in Manitoba.
* * %



REVENUE CANADA


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, today is Manitoba Day. Northern Manitobans were delighted to hear that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had decided to provide interim relief for areas north of the 55th parallel. Indeed, northerners across Canada are happy that our Government has seen fit to compromise on what was clearly an unfair taxation policy.
It is now time for Revenue Canada to make a similar concession to farmers across Canada. Investigations by Revenue Canada into the taxation records of hundreds of farmers making claims under the business investment tax credit program must stop. Farmers feel that they are being unfairly investigated and believe that they are the victims of arbitrary assessments by a callous taxman.
May 12, 1988

I agree with the farmers. The Minister of Finance has seen fit to apply taxation rules more fairly for northern Canadians. In the interests of fairness to farmers across Canada I ask that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. MacKay) consider applying taxation rules under the business investment tax credit program more fairly for our farmers as well.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we heard another broken promise yesterday. I remember full well before the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he was going to come in with a pension for housewives to recognize the very hard work that they do inside the home. When he was questioned on that issue yesterday he did not even have the guts to stand up. He passed the question off to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) because he realizes that another broken promise is not going to sit very well with the people of Canada.
Why did the Prime Minister promise the women of Canada a housewife's pension if he was not intending to deliver?
And why is it that, at this point in time, the Minister of National Health and Welfare blames the situation on the provinces, when he knows full well that he has not shown the leadership to make this issue a priority?
It is another broken Tory promise.

[ Translation]



TOURISM


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, National Tourism Week will be held May 16 to 22, this year. This is an opportunity to publicize the industry of the future in Canada: Tourism.
In 1987, the Abitibi-Temiscamingue area received 140,000 visitors, that is 10,000 Americans, 15,000 Ontarians and 115,000 Quebecers, who came to enjoy fishing, hunting or sightseeing, or to visit family and friends.
Mr. Speaker, we have the largest tourist area in Quebec, and we are ready to greet tourists with the following attractions: The James Bay hydro-electric project; the Desmarais Centre and its inhabitants; the cathedral and Pikogan village in Amos; the concession 2 school in Authier-Nord; the Normick Perron plant in La Sarre; Aiguebelle Park in
Cadillac; Dumulon House in Rouyn-Noranda; the Bour-lamaque mining village in Val d'Or; the regional mining museum in Malarctic; the Maison du colon, the Fort Temis-camingue Park and the regattas in Ville-Marie. The most popular places for fishing and hunting are around Matagami, Senneterre and Temiscamingue.
Welcome to Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Nouveau-Quebec!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 10, the Council of Metropolitan Toronto took strong action for clean air and conservation by voting to close the Commissioners Street municipal incinerator on July 1 next.
Reports of the Environmental Protection Office of the Toronto Board of Health show that unacceptable quantities of dioxins and heavy metals from the incinerator are fouling the air Torontonians breathe.
After a campaign by groups such as Citizens for a Safe Environment, CUPE Local 43, including the garbage collectors, and the New Democratic City Hall Caucus, Toronto Council voted unanimously to close the incinerator, and Metro Council agreed by a majority.
The Citizens for a Safe Environment group now proposes that the 70 incinerator staff be re-employed at reducing waste destined for landfill by, (1) organizing reduction of industrial waste at source; (2) resale of usable waste-for example, wood-to appropriate users; and (3) recycling glass, for example, into new products.
Toronto has given a good lead, and I hope other cities will follow that lead.



AGRICULTURE


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the assumption in our tax laws and public policy is that one is either a farmer or one is not. However, testimony given by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to the Senate Committee on Agriculture suggests that, in future, two different types of agriculture will emerge.
On the one hand there will be the sophisticated, large, capital-intensive agri-business operations; on the other, there will be smaller operations, owned and managed by people with

May 12, 1988
off-farm employment. In the future, most of the rural population will have a job, either full or part-time, as well as being farmers.
We should recognize this trend and, in our future policies, make due allowance for the fact that, in the coming years, most smaller farmers will be engaged in farming on a parttime basis, deriving much of their income from non-farm activities.



PENSIONS


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, this Tory Government made all sorts of promises to Canadian senior citizens. Everybody remembers their promise to fully indexed old age pensions. They broke their word and tried to cut old age security pension payments.
They undertook to expand the New Horizons Program to meet the needs of senior citizens in golden age clubs. But once again, they reneged on their promise and reduced funding.
We were told yesterday that, during the last election campaign, this Government made a commitment to allow the 3 million Canadian homemakers to join the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. We were told yesterday for the third time that they went back on their word.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that none of the Canadian senior citizens listening to us will want to vote for a Tory candidate because that party doesn't keep its promises.



IMPORTANCE OF NURSES

Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, for over 300 years, competent and dedicated nurses have looked after Canadian men and women in Canada. The fact that Canada has over 200 000 active nurses, representing more than 50 per cent of the total number of health care professionals, is a good indication of the importance of that profession within our national health care system.
Mr. Speaker, we are all indebted to the nursing profession. Nurses are present in our homes, in the workplace, in our clinics, in our hospitals, in our shelters and in all our other health care institutions.
On behalf of all Canadian men and women and in recognition of their contribution to the public health and welfare, I remind Members of Parliament and the Canadian people that May 9th is the National Nurses Week in Canada.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the state of housing for Indian people is a disgrace. Forty per cent of Indian housing units do not have access to running water or bathing facilities, as opposed to 1 per cent of housing units across Canada. The Government's innovative solution seems to be to provide housing that no one can afford.
As of April 1, 1988, a number of band members in my riding received notices that their rents would be increased by anywhere from 50 per cent to 100 per cent. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if this happened in Toronto there would be a riot.
In my riding people have moved out of this housing and are planning to live in tents for the summer because they cannot afford the increases. Bands are left with having to make payments on units for which they receive no revenue. The Department of Indian Affairs and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation have implemented a program which is not helping those the program was intended to help.
I call on the Government to place an immediate freeze on these totally unacceptable rent increases and to review completely the entire scheme with the bands involved.



CHALLENGE '88 MOUNT ROYAL RIDING-APPLICATION APPROVAL RATE

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Tory summer Challenge '88 program is a big disappointment for the youth of this country. It is unfortunate that only 42 per cent of applications for Challenge '88 could be approved in Mount Royal riding, and the same is true throughout the country. One hundred and thirty-two applications were submitted; less than half, only 56 students received grants in this riding.
The total amount allotted to Challenge '88 this year in Mount Royal was $193,340, considerably lower than the $272,635 of last year. This is a 38 per cent decrease, yet unemployment among the students is on the increase.
May 12, 1988

One has only to look around my riding to see students looking for work who should have been better served by the Government if this Government had had a strong commitment to youth and summer jobs, jobs which give students money and the valuable career experience they need.
The Government promised jobs, jobs, jobs. Well, all we have seen are cuts, cuts, cuts. Another broken Tory promise.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister who answers for the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard, the Minister or messiah who was going to rescue the Conservative Party from electoral failure was also supposed to make recommendations to the Prime Minister concerning ethical standards, conflicts of interest, and cleaning up election expenses.
But Mr. Clean, as he was already called, has lost most of his credibility in that field, and his shiny white suit now has a dirty spot.
Yesterday, in an attempt to justify the opening of a new Secretary of State office in Alma, the Minister of Transport said that it was to provide services for citizens. As recorded in Hansard, he even said it was to maintain Secretary of State services for citizens.
My question is simple: If the purpose is to maintain services for local citizens, how is it that this new office of the Secretary of State will close its doors the day after the election?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to distinguish between public business and campaign business in this particular case.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It certainly is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because the Minister does have ongoing departmental responsibilities I doubt very much whether it would be acceptable for people to do departmental business in a political campaign office.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In order to ensure there is ongoing departmental business conducted in an orderly manner, the Department has taken the decision to open up this office on a temporary basis to ensure that service is maintained.
Oral Questions


JONQUIERE OFFICE-JUSTIFICATION
Jacques Guilbault: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has not been told that in the next few days the Secretary of State will open a regional office in the neighbouring town of Jonquiere just a few miles from Alma. It is rather strange that an additional office should be opening in Alma, in the very riding where the election is to take place! And if the purpose is to maintain services for citizens, why was the office manned by a political assistant instead of a civil servant familiar with departmental programs? Would it not be because the election campaign is on in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean and they want to make sure that communications remain clear between this new so-called Secretary of State office and the political committee of Mr. Clean, the Conservative candidate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware, I am sure, that all departmental ministerial offices are staffed by what we refer to as exempt staff, and this is the case in this particular circumstance. I should point out that the person involved is totally disconnected from the campaign, and I think that is a very important differentiation.
I can say further that it is my understanding that this matter has been cleared with the Chief Electoral Officer. He has been made aware of it.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that, in order for the Minister to carry on departmental business, people who are interested in doing so would have to come to a political campaign office, I am sure he and his colleagues would be the first ones to complain about that, and it is for that reason that this particular office has been set up.


SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALMA OFFICE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the explanation does not hold water. There is another office that will be open on June 6 in Jonquiere, the neighbouring city, and the work could be done out of there.
With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister saying that this Alma office will be completely disconnected from the campaign, we will return to that in a moment. Meanwhile, let me concentrate on the so-called services that are supposed to be dispensed to the local people.
If this is for the people to be served, why appoint a political hack, Mr. Jocelyn Francoeur, a former political caucus liaison officer with the former Secretary of State, the Hon. Member for Rosedale? Why not admit the truth, that there is an election going on in this riding and that this new Secretary of State office is nothing else but a branch of the Tory campaign headquarters in the riding?

May 12, 1988
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no one is denying that there is a by-election going on. That is pretty common knowledge. Certainly I am not denying it.
What is important is to distinguish between that which is public business and that which is campaign business. I am sure that the Hon. Member would be the first to chastise the Government and the Minister for wanting people who wanted legitimate access to the Minister on government business to be forced to go to a political campaign office to conduct that business.


RESPONSES TO TELEPHONE CALLS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister as well, and it also concerns Mr. Clean. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that he said only moments ago in the House that the campaign office and the new office of the Secretary of State in Alma were completely disconnected, to use his words. Can he then explain to the House why, at 1.10 this afternoon, in response to a call from my office, Mr. Francoeur volunteered information on the campaign headquarters, suggesting how we could volunteer services if we wanted to work for the campaign? Five minutes later, during another phone call we made asking how to make a campaign contribution, we were given another number and directed how to make campaign contributions as well. Is that completely disconnected?
Is it not obvious that this is nothing more than a coordinating office for the so-called candidate in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the allegations to which the Hon. Member has referred, and before I would want to comment on them I would certainly want to check out the facts, because as has been the case in previous times he has been somewhat inaccurate in the presentation of facts.


REQUEST FOR CLOSURE OF OFFICE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to put it to him again that in a telephone conversation with Mr. Francoeur, the latter gave us the phone number 668-0704. When asked how one could make a donation, he supplied that phone number. When asked how one could volunteer for work, he also came up with a phone number. Is it not clear that that office is merely an extension of an election campaign office?


An Hon. Member:: A patronage centre!


Don Boudria: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister not asking now that that office be closed down?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is usually extremely reluctant to interfere even if a question seems to be very much the same as the one asked before. I would just point out that the phone number may have been different but the question seems very similar. I just draw to the attention of Hon. Members that putting a question in one language and repeating it in another is using up a lot of time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question or the allegations, I certainly will undertake to look into the matter to which the Hon. Member refers, and report to the House.


JUSTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN BENEFITS
The Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The same day a by-election is announced in that constituency, the Office of the Secretary of State announces the opening of an office in that constituency, for the duration of the election campaign only, for the purposes of a by-election. In the Deputy Prime Minister's view, is it honest and fair to hand out some $1,000 of Government money to a Conservative candidate? Is that fair?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is common knowledge that the Minister is going to be in that particular area throughout the course of the campaign. As the head of a Department he has responsibilities to carry out. It only seems natural that one would have to have some facility for ensuring continuity and the ongoing discharge of those responsibilities. I think that is exactly what is being done in this particular case.


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister knows a decision has been made to open another office in the same region just a few miles away that would serve the regional purpose, if that was the purpose.


OPENING OF MINISTERIAL OFFICES IN CONSTITUENCIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be very clear on his logic. We think this is a very clever way of getting around the Election Expenses Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hawkes:: Like the municipal rebate, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: People will see that. Since he says it is necessary for this office to be there so the Minister can do his job during the election campaign, is he telling us that when the next election is called every Minister of the Crown will have an
May 12, 1988

office opened in his constituency so he can do his job during the election? If the logic holds, then he has to apply it to every member of the Cabinet in the coming election campaign, but he knows the people of Canada would totally reject that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the Hon. Member's observation because he knows very well from previous election campaigns where Ministers have ongoing responsibilities, their staff remains intact. If they have a ministerial office, whether it be in Edmonton, Vegre-ville, or Calgary, during the course of the election campaign that work goes on. He is really confirming and answering the question for me, and I thank him very much.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and say he simply did not answer the question. I am asking about new offices-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, yes!


John Edward Broadbent: -not offices that are in existence. Oh, yes! That man was not even elected when you-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Come on, Ed. Let Nystrom get in the gutter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: From his own seat!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an office that was opened only for a campaign, and it has been announced that it will be shut down after the campaign is over. Therefore, is he prepared to say the Government will follow the same logic when the election is called, and each Minister of the Crown who does not now have an office for his ministerial functions in his riding will have one opened only during the course of the campaign? Is that what the Minister is saying, and if so, will he be honest about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to establish a double standard. It was all right when the Liberals were in power to have departmental offices in their constituencies, but he is now saying because the Conservatives are in power it would not be appropriate. There have been departmental offices as long as there have been Governments.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Bouchard did not have one.


Mr. Cassidy:: This is a sleazy electoral trick.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister will complete his answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think one point must be made very clear. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is suggesting that taxpayers' money is being used to fight an election.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Taxpayers' money is being used to provide for a government departmental responsibility. That is very clear. A differentiation should be made, and is made.


PENSIONS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, while the Conservative Government is muddying the reputation of all Members in this House, there are people in need, and my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister admitted yesterday that during the course of this session the Conservative Government could not honour its commitment to introduce the homemakers' pension under the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan because it could not get provincial agreement. Can the Minister indicate the reasons expressed by dissenting provinces for opposing the homemakers' pension?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stated in the preamble to his question that we were not going to fulfil our obligations. That is not correct. In fact yesterday in the House I quoted directly from our policy handbook. I do so again: "We encourage the provinces to agree to the introduction of a homemakers pension in the Canada Pension Plan, along the lines proposed by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform".
Furthermore, in discussions with the provinces on changes to the Canada Pension Plan, in 1985 a proposal to include the homemakers in the Canada Pension Plan along the lines proposed by the Parliamentary Task Force on Pension Reform was put to the provinces.
I also remind the Hon. Member that, following that, a report on the viability of a homemaker's pension in the Canada Pension Plan was commissioned. He should be aware of that report. I understand that it has been completed but I do not yet have it in my hands. Obviously I look forward to seeing its recommendations and how we can go beyond the proposals that we made in the campaign of 1984.

May 12, 1988
Oral Questions


QUERY CONCERNING PROVINCES OPPOSED TO PROJECT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has not shown a very strong and clear will to move forward in the debate on that issue at the provincial level. Since the Minister will not state the underlying reasons for which some provinces would not agree to that project, I would like to know ...

Could the Minister name the dissident provinces that refused to participate in the pension plan for homemakers?

May we know which provincial governments are delaying such an important plan to introduce a homemakers' pension?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the characterization should be different from what the Hon. Member put in his question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What's wrong?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East likes to return at certain points-


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie has put the question. The Minister is trying to respond. I am certain Members would want the Hon. Minister to complete his answer.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will be aware, unlike some of his colleagues, it requires seven provinces with two-thirds of the population for agreement to any changes in the Canada Pension Plan. That was a condition introduced in 1966 by the former Liberal Government.
I state very clearly that, once the report is completed, I hope we will get that kind of agreement and the same kind of cooperation on changes we brought in with Bill C-116. That is co-operation which the former Government never received and perhaps never thought important to seek. That is why it did not bring in the changes we have brought in on CPP.


DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the opening of this ministerial office/campaign office in Alma
in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean where a by-election is being held on June 20.
Recently Canadians responded to many polls across the country that they consider integrity and ethics as the key elements on which they judge politicians and political leaders. The Prime Minister has promised a new approach to fairness and honesty. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if this is another example of fairness and honesty which Canadians expect of the Prime Minister and the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the objective of the New Democratic Party is to make as much political hay out of this as they possibly can. I respect the hon. gentleman. He has been a long-standing Member and I certainly never doubt his integrity.
Let me say to him, however, that the Minister does have ongoing departmental responsibilities which he must conduct. Surely an office in an area where he will be occupied for the next two months is clearly realistic, reasonable, and feasible. Certainly in the discharge of that responsibility Canadians would want to separate political campaign activity from legitimate government departmental business activity. I think that is what is happening in this particular case.


REQUEST THAT OFFICE BE CLOSED IMMEDIATELY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Since perception in politics is probably most important to Canadians, would the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that in this instance, when this office is being opened for exactly the same time as the election period, the coincidence is far too evident? Canadians know that telephones have existed for some time now. Will the Deputy Prime Minister not accept the fact that the perception is not healthy for the political process and that this office should be closed immediately?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the perception which the Hon. Member describes may very well be an accurate one in the eyes of the New Democratic Party.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Canadians as a whole.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the eyes of the New Democratic Party. I think Canadians would also recognize and want to be assured that when a Minister is given departmental responsibilities he has a duty and obligation to carry out those responsibilities wherever it may be. That is why Ministers have departmental offices or ministerial offices in their region or their constituency. That is why Members of Parliament have constituency offices, in order to serve Canadians better.
May 12, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The West Coast Environmental Law Association reports that 21 of 22 pulp mills in British Columbia consistently violated federal pollution laws last year without being charged. Why did the Government of Canada allow such poor application of the law? What is the Government going to do to enforce existing federal pollution laws to protect the environment?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice. I can only indicate to the Hon. Member that there is an outstanding issue relating to access to information which is due shortly and which I believe will cover that issue even more fully.


Mr. Caccia:: We don't need access to information data to find out what is happening every day. The record for 1987 is matched by an even more miserable record in 1985 and 1986. We don't need any reference to the Information Act.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: My question is fundamental. When will the Government start to practise what it preaches in protecting the environment when it comes to the crunch? Will the Minister tell us when?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think Members know very fully that the Minister of the Environment has been very active dealing with effluents from pulp mills, whether one is dealing with dioxins or fluorines. I think as well the Member, who was a former Minister of the Environment, would want to congratulate the present Minister who was awarded a very prestigious award in the United States by the Sierra Club for his work on the environment. I am sure the Hon. Member would want to congratulate his successor for receiving an award which he himself never received.
I am sure as well that the Hon. Member would want to take cognizance of the fact that the Environmental Protection Act has passed third reading. It is an Act which he was never able to get through the House, but the present Minister has. I hope the Liberal Senate will approve it as well. Those are the kinds of positive actions the Minister of the Environment has taken. Regrettably, some of those actions were not taken earlier by the questioner.
Oral Questions NATURAL RESOURCES


PRAIRIE DROUGHT CONDITIONS-STUDY OF POSSIBLE WATER DIVERSION TO NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and of the Prime Minister, I would like to address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the severe drought conditions which have existed and continue to exist in the southern Prairies, and given the fact that the federal water policy of the Department of the Environment is to:
... take all possible measures within the limits of its constitutional
authority to prohibit the export of Canadian water by interbasin diversions;
Why is the federal Government involved in a $1.6 million study with the Province of Saskatchewan to divert water from the Saskatchewan River basin and the Qu'Appelle River basin into the Souris River in order to supply North Dakota with a secure source of water? Why are you involved in such a study?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, acting on behalf of the Minister of the Environment, I thought when the Hon. Member started off, the main thrust of his question would be the potential drought in western Canada. However, the latter half of the Hon. Member's question indeed dealt with another matter.
The only thing I can do at the moment is take notice of his question on behalf of the Minister of the Environment and request that the Minister seek the information requested by the Hon. Member and make it available to him.


SUSPENSION OF STUDY HEAD
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kendall, who heads the study, has stated that there is not enough water in the Souris River to supply the needs for the Rafferty-Alameda projects, therefore, Lake Diefenbaker will have to be drained. He has been suspended for two weeks on the insistence of the Saskatchewan Minister in charge of the Water Corporation. Since this is a joint federal-provincial study, why did the federal Government go along with this suspension?


John Wise: Again, Mr. Speaker, I regret that with no prior indication the question was going to be asked, I am not in a position to provide-


Simon Leendert de Jong: How about hearing from the Saskatoon Minister?


John Wise: -the details in response to the Hon. Member's question. It is a legitimate question and I am certain that the answer to it is available and will be forthcoming from my colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

May 12, 1988
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He is aware of the concerns of residents of northeastern Ontario with respect to the proposed Temagami wilderness area. He is also aware of a Toronto newspaper report yesterday indicating that the Minister of the Environment is prepared to become involved in this matter. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell my many concerned constituents in the riding of Timiskaming what the federal Government involvement will be with this proposed wilderness park?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed and the concern of the Hon. Member. My understanding is that the comments by the Minister of the Environment have been misinterpreted somewhat and, in order to ensure that clarification takes place, my understanding is that he is prepared to meet with all the parties concerned and, hopefully, with the Hon. Member, to ensure this matter is clearly understood and that the concerns of those individuals which have been expressed will indeed be allayed.


TOBACCO ADVERTISING-BILL C-51-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It deals with the Government's failure to introduce legislation restricting advertising of tobacco products. I would like to ask him if the real reason behind the Government's delay of Bill C-51 is not reflected in a speech he gave in Tillsonburg when he said that under free trade American tobacco products will compete on an equal footing with Canadian tobacco products, yet Canada will be unable to tell American publishers what kind of advertisements they can carry, and I quote: "It doesn't make sense to put restrictions on Canadian publications and not have the same powers with respect to American publications"
Is it not really the free trade deal that is causing the stall on Bill C-51?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, the free trade deal has nothing to do with Bill C-51 as the Deputy Prime Minister and other House officers have indicated. The Bill will come back for report stage and third reading and I look forward to continued support of the Bill. I think what is important for us as Canadians to keep in mind is that according to a report of the World
Health Organization on tobacco consumption, of approximately 166 countries Canada was either eighth or ninth highest in the world.
The other point I think we have to make is that, as tobacco consumption is reduced in Canada, we do not simply replace our production or usage with diversion to the Third World. I think those are some of the difficult issues with relation to tobacco which should be addressed. The Minister of Agriculture has been very co-operative with me on this issue.


ATTENDANCE OF TOBACCO COMPANY PRESIDENT AT STATE DINNER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, if there is no relationship between the trade deal and the Government's stall on the tobacco industry, I accept that the Minister of Agriculture is then recanting the statement he made in Tillsonburg. I would also like to ask the Government why the president of the company that produces Export A, Select, and Vantage cigarettes, was invited to the dinner celebrated between the President and the Prime Minister in Washington, the meeting that was supposedly to discuss trade?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. Perhaps the Hon. Member is jealous over the fact that she was not invited and I will see that she gets included next time as well.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It arises out of the Public Service Commission's decision to broaden the guidelines for political activity by federal government employees which was made public this week. Now that the federal Government's adamantine resistance to granting political rights to its employees has started to crack, will the Government assure the House that it will expedite legislation to provide federal employees with the right to political activity which they should enjoy under the Charter of Rights?
Will the Government do everything in its power, specifically, to expedite Bill C-273 on political rights when it returns to the House in the next few days?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Liberal Party that this is a matter which is presently before a parliamentary committee which has heard witnesses. Members of the House sent it to the committee, and surely we should wait and allow the committee to do its work.
May 12, 1988


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT EXPEDITE PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we were told in the legislative committee this morning by three constitutional experts that the law under which the guidelines were made public today will likely fall down because it will be in violation of the Charter of Rights. In other words, there was a need for new legislation and the Government in 1984 promised new legislation as part of its election platform.
Since the Government has not proposed legislation itself, but has left this to a Private Member's Bill, will it undertake that when Bill C-273 comes back to the House it will be expedited? And once the Bill has passed the Commons and the Senate, will the Government assure the House that it will be proclaimed and made law at the earliest opportunity?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to review this for the Hon. Member. A Private Member's Bill was brought forward. It had full and forthright debate. Members of this House sent it to committee for the purposes of hearing witnesses and reviewing the wording of the Bill. In fact the Hon. Member is on that committee.
Surely we should allow the committee to do its work. I am not going to prejudge what this House does at report stage and at third reading.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about the Tory promise?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The promise is being fulfilled by the very fact that the legislation is going forward. When it gets back to this House for report stage and third reading, surely that is the time when every Member will make a judgment on the Bill.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who is aware that Wilhelm Mohnke has been located in Hamburg, West Germany. This individual was on Canada's most wanted war criminal list following World War II, alleged to have killed 52 Canadian soldiers who were prisoners of war after the Normandy invasion. The West German Government has indicated it is not planning to conduct any more investigations, or to prosecute this individual.
In light of the fact that the Canadian Government has collected its own evidence on the subject I want to ask the
Oral Questions
Minister whether he is prepared to get in touch with West German authorities to urge them to accept our evidence to complete this investigation, and to lay charges.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will understand as a former Solicitor General that it would be improper for me to comment on investigations that I am making with respect to criminal charges. He can rest assured, in any case, that the Government of Canada stands ready to co-operate with respect to prosecutions or investigations that may be undertaken. I can give the Hon. Member that assurance.
We are prepared to co-operate. Indeed, the Hon. Member has written to me, and I have responded to him, to give him that assurance. If he has any information that would be useful, I wish that he would turn that information over to my Department.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER URGE WEST GERMAN GOVERNMENT TO LAY CHARGES
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has the information. I am not asking him to co-operate. I am asking him to take an initiative. Canada is the aggrieved country. We are talking about Canadian soldiers who were allegedly murdered during World War II.
I want to ask the Minister again at least to undertake to review the material that is there, and to make representations to the West German Government urging it to change its decision, and to lay charges.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate and give the Hon. Member the commitment with respect to any information that is turned over, or any investigation, that clearly we will co-operate in order that the interests of justice are in fact achieved. I do not think the Hon. Member wants me to comment with respect to information that we might have in our investigation.
The Hon. Member wrote to me. I have, as a result of his letter, communicated with the British Labour Member of Parliament to whom he referred with respect to information. I have asked my Department to be in communication with him to see if there is any additional information that he can bring forward.
I simply say to the Hon. Member that in our system of justice we do not make public details of the extent of our investigations that are taking place, except to say this, that as Attorney General I can assure the Hon. Member that where there is a legitimate case, a serious and credible situation, and there is evidence, we will be co-operating with other countries, or dealing with the matter in our own jurisdiction.

May 12, 1988
Oral Questions MUNITIONS


EXPORTS OF GUNPOWDER
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has yet to fulfil his commitment to the House of April 22, and I quote: "I will report to the House once I have some result to those investigations" with respect to the EXPRO matter.
Since the Minister of Supply and Services has stated in a letter to me that the last three shipments went to Holland, whereas we have a packing slip that shows that one of them was destined for Portugal, when will the Government admit to the Canadian people that, because of systemic failure or negligence at the administrative level, in fact a Canadian company was a principal supplier to the Iranian artillery?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. I cannot tell the Hon. Member why the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not gotten back to him. I will certainly draw it to his attention. I apologize for not having that information at the present time.


WITHDRAWAL OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO EXPRO-MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
He acknowledged in his letter to me that EXPRO had received a loan of some $8 million from the account for military production loans. What will he do now that EXPRO has locked out its employees to withdraw that financial assistance, the effect of which would be to finance a lockout?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: There is only one way to settle this. The Hon. Minister.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, this goes to show you how anxious all Ministers are to answer questions from members of the Opposition.
In answer to the Hon. Member may I let him know that the situation with EXPRO is well under control. Both the RCMP and European police forces have looked into the situation. The loan went ahead in order to protect some 600 jobs. The negotiations are ongoing in terms of the lock-out. We believe that the negotiations are going on in a positive manner so that
the situation can be resolved to everybody's benefit in the very near future.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Another national organization has joined many others to denounce Canada Post's discriminatory supermailbox. The Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped stated that supermailboxes must go and home delivery should be restored to improve independent living of disabled people.
Will the Government order Canada Post to restore home delivery in order to assure the handicapped that they too are first-class citizens?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the corporate plan of the Post Office will be tabled at a later time today. The results of the actions that were taken by the Minister in charge of the Post Office are very revealing. If I recall correctly, when we assumed office the Post Office was losing some $400 million. It is my understanding that in this fiscal year it will show a profit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That will mean a reduced burden to the taxpayer, lower rates to the people who are using the Post Office and, finally, a greater degree of reliability and better service for all concerned. The Hon. Member should be applauding that.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Post Office might show a profit at the expense of the handicapped and the seniors. I do not have anything to compliment the Government on for that.


SUPERMAILBOXES-OPPOSITION OF CERTAIN MUNICIPALITIES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Why is Canada Post trying to blackmail municipalities which refuse to have superboxes in their area by telling them: "No superboxes, no mail delivery!" Why such blackmail?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is footloose and fancy-free with taxpayers' dollars. When his Party was in power it left the Government with a $38 billion deficit which had to be toned down. I realize that
May 12, 1988

his answer to governing is spend more and spend more, and drive the deficit up higher and higher. We take a different view of these things.
In many areas throughout Canada the supermailbox concept is working very well. Throughout the Post Office system services are being improved, reliability is being improved, and costs are being contained. What more would the Hon. Member ask for?
* *
*


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF NEW ZEALAND MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Speaker:: I regret that I was not able to make this announcement earlier.
I would like to draw to the attention of all Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Roger Douglas, Minister of Finance for New Zealand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Finance.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance was asked to explain how it is that, despite his tax reform program, more than 5,000 high income Canadians paid no income tax at all last year, and he defended the situation by saying that the numbers had been reduced substantially since the Government took office.
I would ask the Minister of State for Finance to explain how it is that, despite tax reform, a number of the largest corporations in Canada, corporations which made substantial profits, in fact paid no income tax at all in 1986.
Alcan Aluminum, with profits of $306 million, paid no corporation tax; Brascan, with profits of $186 million, paid no corporation taxes; Power Financial, with profits of $131 million, paid no corporation taxes; Hees International, with profits of $117 million, paid no corporation tax.
Indeed, most were able to accumulate tax credits for future use.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is that tax
Business of the House
reform came into effect in 1987 and not in the year to which the figures that the Hon. Member has quoted apply.


DEFERRED TAXES
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not realize that the reason these corporations paid no taxes and that nothing has changed is that they were able to defer the taxes that they should have paid, and that in fact those deferred taxes will never be paid?
Given that these corporations will continue to build new buildings and acquire new equipment, those deferred taxes will never be paid, with the result that these corporations will pay no corporation tax at all.
When is the Government going to plug those loopholes?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Hon. Member that I find questions respecting tax reform coming from the NDP to be hypocritical.
Last year the New Democratic Party took the position that flow-through shares represented an illegitimate deduction for the rich, and it has now totally changed that position. The views of the New Democratic Party on tax deductions-which can lead, on occasion, to a lack of tax revenue-seem to change with the political wind; they are not based on principle.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Deputy House Leader for the Government give us the usual statement of government business for the coming week.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that tomorrow will be an allotted day, as will Monday, May 16. On Tuesday, May 17, we intend to call certain Bills on which there has been some agreement as to their progression through the House.
In respect of Bill C-60, we will be dealing with the response of the House to the message received from the other place. As well, we shall deal with Bill C-127, which is known as the Cape Breton Bill, and Bill C-92, respecting amendments to the Wheat Board Act.
We are still discussing what business might be conducted by the House on Wednesday, May 18. I shall be having further discussions on that with the Opposition House Leaders.

May 12, 1988
15394_______________________________________
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That this House condemn the Government for its total and absolute failure
to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians by:
(a)	instructing Canada Post to cut back postal services to Canadians living in rural areas;
(b)	installing 'supermailboxes' to take the place of door-to-door mail delivery in new suburban areas; and
(c)	making hundreds of thousands of Canadians second-class citizens when it comes to the provision of postal service.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) had concluded his remarks on debate. Still remaining is the 10-minute period for questions and comments.
The Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), on questions and comments.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member in respect of rural postal services.
In his speech, the Hon. Member spoke of the fact that the parliamentary committee heard from a number of rural Canadians, and he went on to point out that the committee had brought down a unanimous recommendation that there be no closure of rural post offices or changes in postal service generally without meaningful consultation with the community to be affected.
The Hon. Member then went on to speak of some rural post offices being closed in his area of the country.
I am wondering whether he is aware of any instance where the Canada Post Corporation in fact respected the unanimous recommendation of the parliamentary committee, a committee on which all three political Parties in the House were represented, not to proceed with such closures without full community consultation.
Perhaps the Hon. Member can give us his experience in respect of rural post office closures since the tabling of the report of the parliamentary committee.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I can give a couple of examples where the recommendation of the committee was ignored, one of which is the attempted closure of the post office in Aylesbury.
In that instance, Canada Post took advantage of the untimely death of the postmaster to try to close down that post office, and it tried to do so without providing 90 days' notice.
In several other instances, the notice has been minimal. There are a number of cases in Saskatchewan where, while
notice has been given, the recommendations and concerns of the communities involved are not being considered in any way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), on a question or comment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).
During the course of his remarks, he indicated some of the effects that the cut-backs in service have had on rural communities. I am wondering whether he can cite other areas in which the reduction in services that has been put into effect by Canada Post Corporation is having any effect.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I am aware of a number of very good examples where the changes in procedures are proving to be detrimental to postal services.
One example that comes immediately to mind concerns a voluntary organization in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, which sent out 50-odd letters which, because they were of an irregular size, were rejected by Canada Post Corporation, with a request for 10 cents additional postage per letter. I hold in my hand one of those letters. The reason given for their being rejected was that they were "not machinable".
There were some 56 pieces of mail altogether, each containing a notice of meeting, and they were not returned to the sender until three days after the meeting had in fact been held. In other words, this organization wasted $20.72 in postage.
That is the type of action Canada Post Corporation is taking to save money. As a result, the public is being put to great inconvenience.
Another problem is that the hours of business in the new postal outlets are often quite different from what people had become accustomed to, thus inconveniencing the public even further.
While these changes are supposedly aimed at improving the efficiency of the Post Office, they are in fact resulting in a reduction in service to the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), on a supplementary question.


David Orlikow: By way of a supplementary question, I would ask the Hon. Member whether he has had expressed to him any complaints from publishers of weekly newspapers and publishers of non-profit magazines, such as churches, respecting rate increases, or anticipated rate increases, and how any increase could affect such publications.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I think most Members of Parliament have heard from such organizations. By way of example, the United Church was required to pay additional postage on a paper which it was distributing on the ground that the paper did not contain a sufficient number of articles on religion to warrant
May 12, 1988

the lower rate. Those things are being done supposedly to save money but it does represent a reduction in service.
I feel strongly that the Post Office is there for the service of the people and that service should be available the best possible way regardless of whether or not it balances the budget.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the Member's last answer. Is the Member saying that the Post Office has delayed the mailing of the United Church Observer because it prints criticisms of our foreign policy or criticizes apartheid in South Africa et cetera? Will we have that kind of monitoring and control of publications using the postal charge as an excuse for that kind of monitoring?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer that question specifically. I do know that people at the Observer are questioned for content-I do not know exactly what the content was-but the Observer did not fulfil the basis under which it was being given postal service. That, I suppose, is a responsibility. If the organization using the mail is using it for a particular purpose, the organization has to fulfil the purpose. The over all approach is what I am objecting to. The Government of Canada by putting restrictions on the postal service, is in effect reducing the service available to the people of Canada. I object to it particularly because the Minister responsible keeps getting up in the House trying to project the image that the Post Office is giving better service now than it ever did before. Everybody out there knows that it is not. The service has been reduced considerably, particularly in rural areas.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participte in this debate this afternoon. Oddly enough the motion was introduced by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). I would have thought such a motion today would have been introduced by my Manitoba colleague from Winnipeg Centre who is so knowledgeable on all postal matters, especially as he has been sitting on a committee which we have chaired from time to time over the last three years. I was amazed that the New Democrats had found among themselves a new expert on postal matters.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We are all experienced, so are the people of Canada.


Felix Holtmann: Even if we checked Hansard, we would be surprised to find the Member from Beaches having ever commented on the postal system. Yet here he has taken the place of my colleague from Winnipeg.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize a point of order, but there will be an opportunity for questions and comments after the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) finishes his speech. I would appreciate hearing his
Supply
speech and then we can carry on with questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake. In the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) rising on a point of order?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my comment has nothing to do with the speech, but the allegations which the Member is making about any Member who has had to deal with the Post Office is not an expert-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. It is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: You notice, Mr. Speaker, I made no reference as to whether or not the Member for Winnipeg Centre was here. I was concerned that someone might stand up on a point of order on that.
Let us take a brief look at what the motion says. It reads:
That this House condemn the government for-
(a)	instructing Canada Post to cut back postal services-
What utter nonsense. There is no other word for such a ridiculous statement. The Hon. Member for Beaches ought to be ashamed of himself for suggesting that this Government instructed Canada Post to reduce services. How could he make such an allegation? Where has he ever seen that written? Whoever said that on behalf of the Government? Who said that we instructed Canada Post to do such a silly thing? Members of the New Democratic Party sitting in this House ought to be very concerned about statements made by some of their Members. The Member for Beaches went on to say:
That this House condemn the Government for-
(b)	installing "supermailboxes"-
Did our Government install supermailboxes?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Felix Holtmann: Do any Members sitting in this House think that the Government of Canada installed supermailboxes?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Felix Holtmann: Do Members not recall that the New Democrats were part of the decision to make Canada Post a Crown corporation? The New Democrats agreed to have Canada Post Corporation handle the affairs of the Post Office which was run so terribly when it was a Department of Government. The New Democrats were part of that decision, and now they are condemning their own decision to allow a Crown corporation to handle the Post Office. The Member's motion went on to say:
That this House condemn the government for-
(c)	making hundreds of thousands of Canadians second-class citizens-
The Hon. Member for Beaches suggested that the Government of Canada instructed Canada Post to make this person or that person second-class citizens. The New Democrats were part of the decision to make Canada Post a Crown corporation

May 12, 1988
Supply
and to allow it to function with a mandate. Look how the New Democrats have turned things around. These are the very people who made Canada Post Corporation possible. Let us look at some of the New Democrats' ideas.
The New Democrats have instructed their union friends, whoever they may be, and not all union members support the New Democratic Party about a program. Let there be no mistake about that, that not all union members support the New Democrats or they would be in power today. The New Democrats do not have that kind of support. Not all union members support what they are doing, especially when they instruct their union friends to take out a program to oppose the Government. We have all seen the billboards. One reads, "Do you think that Brian Mulroney would provoke a postal strike to make him forget about scandals?" What an unbelievable suggestion.
The New Democrats condemned the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The New Democrats said that 100,000 jobs would be lost. Do any of them remember that? Does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) remember saying that 100,000 or 150,000 jobs would be lost? Where is the credibility of the New Democrats when more than 1 million jobs were created because of the Budget of the Finance Minister? Where is the credibility of the New Democratic Party? I think Canadians ought to know that in this House New Democratic Party members have made those ridiculous statements. Once again we have a ridiculous statement, and I want to expand on it a little. I admit that I have chaired government operations. I have had members of all Parties in meetings. We have concerns, and through the Government Operations Committee we have reviewed some of the concerns about the way Canada Post has conducted itself, just as we review our concerns with different Crown corporations. That is the way Government handles things.
I will admit that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had brought forth some interesting viewpoints, suggestions and recommendations which were carried out.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) is correctly complimenting our Party spokesman on some of the excellent suggestions he has made with regard to postal service, but he should be instancing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). His riding is not Winnipeg Centre.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, obviously the New Democrats are very rattled by what they have done today. I heard a rattle just now. The NDP thinks we have made second-class citizens because all Canadians do not receive door-to-door delivery When have they ever all received door-to-door delivery? In what country can they show me that every person receives door-to-door delivery? How much will it cost?
In the Province of Manitoba, the New Democrats were finally defeated because they could not handle the finances of the province. They ran Crown corporations so poorly that it cost Manitobans hundreds of millions of dollars. They sit there smugly saying that we should give everyone door-to-door delivery, regardless of what it will cost.
Such an idea is wonderful. It would be a Utopia, I suppose. If Canada ever becomes affluent enough, we could in fact deliver parcels to everyone door-to-door. We could even deliver everyone a free bottle of milk, but where is the limit?
What would this cost? There are estimates. They may have theirs. I think the Minister said that it would cost about $1.2 billion. Is the Member from Winnipeg North, sitting across from me, suggesting that we should spend an additional $1.2 billion, just pull it out of the air or pull it out of some taxpayers' pockets, to deliver everyone's mail tomorrow? Does he realize instead that we should recover some costs and charge more for stamps? For whatever reduction in the use of the postal service there would be, we would have to go back to the Government to find the money.
What are members of the NDP really suggesting? That is the problem with today's motion. They condemn the Government. They make such ridiculous statements condemning the Government, and then they talk about these silly supermailboxes. I will admit that they are probably not the best mailboxes that ever were made. I will admit that, but members of the NDP have not built a better one, designed a better one or decided what other way we have to go. They have never thought of that, they only said-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Why do we have to have one?


Felix Holtmann: The Hon. Member asks why we have to have one. There are people in some places in my riding who would love a supermailbox. These people have asked me for supermailboxes. That is better than driving 50 miles to get their mail. I am talking about an Indian reserve. What do Members opposite have against Indian reserves? Why should they not get postal service? The Jackhead band in fact wrote me to ask if I could get them a supermailbox. That would be a marked improvement over what they have.
We talk about privatization. One of my colleagues from the Liberal Party was with me in Washington looking at the U.S. postal system. I must say that with the heads of the U.S. postal delivery unions and the inside-worker unions, I found a tremendous desire to work together with the U.S. postal services. In fact, there has only been one strike since 1970, I believe. It only lasted for three days. Somehow they have been able to accomplish as much for their workers as we have here in Canada where every two or three years there is violence on the picket lines. Here is a Party that advocates more of that kind of nonsense.
May 12, 1988

In fact, the head of the U.S. postal union told me that he would love to come to Canada to assist labour and management in working together. I thought that was a great idea. There was a proud individual who said: "We want to work together to make a better U.S. postal system".
I am not saying that the United States of America is perfect, but I never see this kind of nonsense there, this kind of propaganda suggesting that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) created a postal strike to cover up a scandal in his Government. That is the kind of nonsense Canadians are looking at with the New Democratic Party. That just does not wash, and I do not think that Canadians will look at that. They will look at what has happened in Manitoba.
I will admit that I wish my Party in Manitoba had gotten in stronger, but they literally wiped out the NDP because the NDP do not know how to manage a dollar and never will. They may some day come back to power in Manitoba, but they are out now because the people have listened to the kind of nonsense that I and others have to listen to.
This afternoon we have to deal with the proposition that it was the Government that made thousands of Canadians second-class citizens. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the NDP deciding that you, Sir, and I are now second-class citizens? This is a Government that created a million-plus jobs, even though the NDP thought the opposite would happen. There are more people able to build houses in suburbs than ever before, and they are now being called second-class citizens. They have higher income expectations, and in fact, even more people are paying taxes than ever before.
I heard someone mention that there are still, what was it, 40 Canadians who got away without paying taxes. In fact, the Minister decided that we should try to improve on that, and I think that is a worth-while cause. I do not think that 40 Canadians making that kind of money should not pay taxes, but they are certainly not second-class citizens.
Let me talk about some of the privatization that is going on. The Government of Canada and Canada Post Corporation has in most cases defended the small rural post office. However, there has been some privatization, and that is not bad. Let me tell Hon. Members what I mean by that.
I monitored a post office in my riding very closely because I was concerned about what the impact would be. In fact, every person who used the postal system in that small town not far from where I live was very appreciative of the privatization. They are not sure how the postmaster in that store is earning her living, because she is clearly not receiving the same money the previous postmaster received, but the people are happy with the service. In fact, they are getting service for longer hours, six days a week, 12 hours a day. They quite clearly think that that is not a bad idea. I have never received one single complaint from some 300 users. That is telling me that it can be worked out, a system can be put into place. Perhaps privatization is not such a terrible thing. I recognize that union people are involved, and in that particular union, they have
Supply
been most co-operative with the Government and with Canada Post.
The Member from Saskatchewan talked about Hilbre as an example, and it was a very good example. I recall that particular case well. When the postmaster died, the post office was closed like that. It seemed to be an extremely sneaky way of doing business, and I objected to it. I hope that Canada Post Corporation has rectified some of that meanness that I think it had when making change-overs and using different systems for postal services.
We have not solved every problem, but should the Canada Post Corporation not be instructed by the committee on which members of all Parties sit? We have, I think, had a tremendous influence on what was going on in the post office, and I hope that will continue. However, we cannot be there for every single little problem that comes up. I found, when looking at the U.S. system, that every time a letter does not get through in five days, there are no Congressmen screaming at the President of the United States.
I am sure that we want the whole system to function very well. For the first time we are seeing that the Canada Post Corporation is using different coloured ink. For the first time the taxpayers of Canada are not having to dig into their pockets to keep the postal system going. I think there has been a marked improvement in efficiency in the Post Office, and the workers ought to be congratulated as well as the management. What is wrong with a little efficiency in Government? We see too little of it. What is wrong with the corporation being a little more effective in its delivery?
I understand that the time it takes for a first-class letter to be delivered has improved remarkably over the last four years. Maybe it is still not perfect. Maybe there are still some problems. My hon. colleague mentioned something about the types of letters that were not able to enter the postal system because the equipment jammed, but those are technical problems that I realize we must address. I am happy that the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has agreed to continue to assist those publications that we all would like to see continue. I am glad to see there is a fair amount of money going into that, albeit not what it was years ago under the Liberal Government where money meant nothing. They felt that throwing money at a problem was the answer. We were not elected to deal with problems that way and we will not do it that way.
We would very much like to find solutions to problems, not just look for confrontation, which is what we see on the other side. Perhaps that is because an election is coming up. Perhaps it is because some of the NDP's friends in the unions think that is the only way they will get the support and votes of union members. However, I suggest it would be very foolish for the NDP to think that kind of strategy is going to work. I think it is clear that it will not.

May 12, 1988
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks if there is any evidence that the Government ordered the installation of supermailboxes or cut-backs in rural mail deliveries or the closing of rural post offices. He says that was done by the Crown corporation. After all, he says, Liberals and New Democrats supported the concept of a Crown corporation for the post office. Of course we did. Of course the post office is making these changes which are so resented. However, they are doing so because the Conservative Government ordered them to cut the deficit very quickly.
Does the Hon. Member really believe that the people in the suburbs of my constituency or that of Winnipeg-Assiniboine who have to pick up their mail at supermailboxes do not really resent it? Does he think they like it? He must be living on cloud nine. I invite him to come with me to the suburbs in my constituency. We will go door-to-door and people will tell him what they think of it. They object to it. They hate it.
Is he telling me that his rural constituents are not resentful of the fact that the mail service they were getting until a year or so ago has been drastically reduced? Is he telling me that they do not object to the closing of rural post offices? That is not the message that we get from all parts of Canada.
Of course, the Hon. Member is happy about the defeat of the NDP Government and the election of a minority Conservative Government in Manitoba, just as I am unhappy about it. However, given the fact that his Government is now sitting at the 28 per cent support level in the Gallup poll, he ought not to be so gleeful about an election. Elections are won and lost, and his Government is going to lose the next election, no question about that.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to respond to the Hon. Member about what the people in rural Manitoba are resentful of. The town of Argyle is a wonderful community just north of where I am. The residents of that town were told by someone, I think it was Rural Dignity, that the post office there was going to be closed. Consequently a petition was taken up. Who would not sign a petition and send it to whoever asked for it to protect their post office? In fact, there never was an intention to close that post office. That is what they resent. They resent having to experience the fear of having their post office closed. That fear was probably started by the Party the Hon. Member represents. This is the kind of nonsense that every Member of Parliament had to put up with for a while because someone was out there spreading fear about post offices being closed.
I called the Canada Post Corporation and said I was quite concerned. I have a petition on my desk signed by 220 users of the Argyle Post Office. They are afraid that it is going to close. I was told that there was no such indication that they did not know what I was talking about. It is there as long as it is working the way it is. There is no problem. It was nothing but
fear. That is the Party of the Hon. Member, Sir, using that kind of fear tactic to try and make this Government look mean-minded when it instructs Canada Post to operate efficiently. That is what the Hon. Member's Party has been doing and that is what people object to.
Certainly not everyone loves supermailboxes. Yet we have had green mailboxes in the country for 50 years or more. The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has probably had them at least that long. There have been different systems for delivering the mail ever since the beginning of the Post Office. The Hon. Member knows that. Not everyone is pleased with the way they are getting the mail, but are they ready to spend another 30 cents a stamp or another $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money? I suggest that if he did that the roof would fly right off the House of Commons because of a mean-spirited Government charging such a ridiculous amount to mail a letter.
Canada has a fairly low postal rate compared to many countries. I remember when the rate was increased a cent and a half or two cents, I forget which. His Party vehemently objected to the increase. Which way do they want it? Do they want a 90-cent postage per letter, and everyone has their mail delivered? Will people still use the Post Office at the rate they are now in that case or, will we find a one-third reduction in its use?
I ask the Hon. Member to consider some of those things and stop going around the country suggesting that everyone is going to get a supermailbox or all rural mail delivery will be cut off or your rural post office and mine are going to be closed tomorrow. That is nonsense. It is spreading fear.
I have corresponded with many postmasters across Canada, and we have not always solved their problems. I had one close in my riding which contained nine boxes. It just could not support itself. It was costing in excess of $4,000 a year to operate nine boxes in a store. The change was made and the people were genuinely pleased with the change.
I caution the Hon. Member and his Party not to go out and make ridiculous statements and spread fear. They are the ones who said that our policies would cost 100,000 jobs when in fact we ended up creating a million jobs.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to nail the Hon. Member on this blatant distortion whereby he proclaims that the Tory Government is innocent of forcing the shut-down of services and instructing Canada Post to implement these cuts. How does he believe his Government can evade responsibility for the Canada Post Corporation acting in accordance with the financial instructions the Government gives it? How does he believe the Canada Post Corporation, when ordered to reduce the deficit of some $240 million, I think it was, to zero in two years could possibly do that without some cuts in service? Has he ever run a business himself?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, that is the beautiful thing about the Conservative Party, most people in it have run
May 12, 1988

businesses. It is when you go across the way that you really run into problems concerning who is capable of running a business.
Certainly there has been some change in service, there is no doubt about that. You cannot instruct a corporation to try and reduce its deficit without changing the service. The Hon. Member suggested that it was a total reduction of service. That is utter nonsense. A change to service may mean a reduction to some, but to others it may mean an improvement.
For example, if I could pick up my mail 24 hours a day as opposed to three or four hours a day, it would be a very good improvement in service for me, even though it is a change in service. However, I am going to stick with my local postmaster. I told her that as long as there is no change in the postmaster there will be no decision to change the policy on how the mail is delivered. From time to time there are changes in service, and it is to the benefit of all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now over.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNEMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)-Railways-Canadian National-Switching yard control centre-Government position / Request for Minister to intervene; the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine)-The Economy-Government's performance; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mrs. Mcdonald)-Environmental Affairs-Nitrogen oxide emissions - Discussions in Geneva /Position of United States.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Young:
That this House condemn the government for its total and absolute failure to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians by:
(a)	instructing Canada Post to cut back postal services to Canadians living in rural areas;
Supply
(b)	installing "supermailboxes " to take the place of door-to-door mail delivery in new suburban areas; and
(c)	making hundreds of thousands of Canadians second-class citizens when it comes to the provision of postal service.
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I am also delighted to deal with the important issue of the Canada Post Corporation's action plan.
First, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate and pay tribute to my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) for his tremendous job in following this issue through.
Because he is an accountant by trade, Mr. Speaker, my colleague has adopted a positive and constructive approach.
My hon. friend is aware that Canada Post is faced with an enormous deficit. He was and still is aware of the need, under these circumstances, to make decisions aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating this deficit. He has come up with a constructive approach in every respect by proposing all sorts of solutions to help the corporation secure additional revenues and compensate for its lack of revenues, so that individual Canadians may continue to enjoy services which are reasonable, equitable and especially the same for all. I pay tribute to him for the job he is doing and has done over the past few months.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this Tory Government has adopted toward this issue an offhand attitude which is altogether unacceptable.
The Progressive Conservative Party which seems anxious to follow constantly in the footsteps of the Americans, would like for all practical purposes to apply or copy systematically in Canada every move made in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, our Conservative friends seem to overlook the fact that Canada is a very large country with a population of hardly 26 or 27 million people. Needless to say, for the operation of a Corporation such as Canada Post, this may create disparities and conditions which make it absolutely impossible for Canada to behave like the United States.
In Canada, there are many remote areas, communities are often quite isolated, and all Canadians have a right to decent and equitable services.
Our hon. friends across the floor would like to turn Canada Post into some kind of private company which would not only cover its costs, but would eventually make a profit that, as we know, would be reinvested to the benefit of the wealthiest Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I think that trying to set Canada Post on such a course is an insult to Canadian society, particularly to residents of remote areas and developing communities that are going through booming residential development.
I believe Mr. Speaker, that whether one lives in Montreal, Sherbrooke, Richmond, Asbestos, Saint-Denis-de-Brompton,

May 12, 1988
Supply
Saint-Fran$ois, or anywhere else in the province, or in Canada, one has the right to equal services.
A second report was recently tabled which contains some very interesting elements. The committee was happy to say that its report was unanimous. It says that decisions taken by the Canada Post Corporation in the last few months will only account for insignificant savings. It is saving a few thousand dollars thinking that that will be enough to cover a deficit of hundreds of millions of dollars.
So, I think that it was absolutely realistic and reasonnable that the committee came to such a unanimous conclusion.
This report also states "that the Committee regrets the heavy-handed way Canada Post has gone about shutting down certain post offices and wishes that in the future a minimum 90 days' notice be given before closing a post office to allow for consultation with the people concerned." And the Committee's findings and recommendations are as follows: That no rural post office be closed and that no postal service be altered without prior consultation with an approval by the community involved; that the period of consultation be at least 90 days; that Canada Post corporation immediately inform a Member of Parliament when shut-downs or changes are proposed in their ridings; that local officials be also consulted; that, during consultations, not only the changes proposed by the Corporation but also the alternative be closely examined; finally, that a postmaster's departure or retirement not be the sole criterion for shutting down a rural post office or for altering postal services.
Mr. Speaker, this report which, may I remind you, is unanimous, seems, under the circumstances, to depict a completely abnormal and unreasonable situation. In my riding, for instance, there is a large community called Saint-Framjois, where the people learned one morning, out of the blue, that Canada Post Corporation was not going to renew the postmaster's mandate and that, to get the services provided up to now by the post office, they would have to go to a grocery store.
Of course, there was a flood of protest. My feeling was that 1 should go and consult the people who were particularly affected by this policy change. I sent a personal letter to every member of the community in this village, asking for their comments. I must say- and the results of my survey were positive-that a little more than half of the people saw a number of positive elements in this policy. They said for instance: from now on, the post office will be open longer for us to pick up the mail.
When Canada Post realized I was doing this survey, a month later it decided to do its own consultation. This proves that the whole exercise was rather haphazard. Obviously, Canada Post could have used a survey to involve the community in this decision and thus avoid the spate of criticism, disagreement and confusion. In any case, a number of people protested vehemently against the post office closings and I will
tell you what their comments were. I must say I found them extremely significant. Mr. Speaker, I think we should realize that in a village, things do not work exactly the way they do in our big cities. It often happens that the grocer or the owner of the general store gives customers credit.
There may be only one grocer in the whole village. So imagine the following scenario: Mr. or Mrs. so-and-so is expecting a very important letter and, before these changes, would have gone to the post office, and since confidentiality is the rule, there are no problems. But because of Canada Post's decision, Mrs. so-and-so now has to go to the grocer where she has run up a bill of $200 or $300 or $400, and it has now been two, three, four or five months since she was able to meet her financial obligations. Mrs. so-and-so is more or less being told she has no choice and that she has to go to this particular location to pick up her mail.
I heard another comment which I also thought was very apt. People feel, and rightly so, that mail should be a confidential and private matter. You must understand that at a convenience store or grocery, for any Tom, Dick or Harry, it is the clerk who is there when the customer arrives who must deliver or receive material that for many people is extremely confidential.
There is also something else. You must understand that in these villages, for the past few years, in most cases this coincides with the coming to power of this Government. These small post offices have been tied to schedules that are, for all practical purposes, unreasonable and poorly thought out. It is not at all unusual, for example, to go to a country post office at
12.30	or 1 p.m. to find it closed. It is not at all unusual to go at
8.30	or 8.45 a.m. and still find it closed. Indeed, hundreds, even thousands, of people who would be entitled to get their mail find the door closed. What do they do? They leave, they go to the next town, to a larger centre, to buy their stamps, to do in a way what could and should be done in the village. So at the end of the year, the financial results of rural post offices are not as good as urban post offices'. This is used as a pretext to say that it just does not pay. Let us get rid of it, it does not pay! Now, I think it is just the opposite of what we should do: keep the post offices in these regions and in the countryside, provide more services, give more opportunity to those who are used to the services to have them and thus make these operations much more profitable.
Mr. Speaker, my constituency is quite rural and I have many times seen how important the mail is.
To observe this basic importance of the mail service, several times in the morning I have followed the rural mailman who uses his vehicle to distribute mail from house to house on country roads and in the countryside. To my great surprise, I noticed that not only is he waited for, but in very many cases people are at their box waiting for their mail. In cases where people are not there before the mail arrives, in the next few seconds or minutes, they come to claim it. I think that for many people, it is the only means of communication, a very
May 12, 1988

important one in every respect. You must also understand that for most of the people who live in these regions, this is how they get their pay cheques, information and printed matter. And the services which all these Canadians receive are basic and essential services, so much so that the mere suggestion that they might be reduced or cut has a tragic impact.
Mr. Speaker, again last week I got a letter from the municipal corporation of the parish of Saint-Remi-de-Tingwick, as follows: "Following the March 7 regular sitting, the municipality of Saint-Remi-de-Tingwick urges the residents to sign a petition against closing the post office and reducing our normal postal services. " Sir, with this letter I enclose the petition signed by the residents of Saint-Remi to voice their strong opposition to closing the post office and reducing normal postal services.
Mr. Speaker, I know that community and practically everybody in the village signed the petition. In light of the famous report which was unanimously endorsed, it seems to me the human, decent and normally acceptable approach would have been to consult the people, give them an explanation, and ask them what they think their post office should be like. I can tell you that out in the country the post office is very often a meeting place, and more often than not the only federal Government presence. As I see it, it would not be unrealistic or unreasonable to suggest that these post offices can be maintained and, as far as I am concerned, turned into profitable operations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I take a hint from my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) who not only criticizes agressively the Government's attitude on that matter but also comes up with explanations or proposals for the Corporation to get extra revenues in order to provide a decent service that would be acceptable to all. At one point the Hon. Member suggested selling space on the trucks. Mr. Speaker, we have seen a multitude of new companies go into business in the last few years. Whether it is Purolator, Selco, or this or that, to my knowledge those companies are not losing any money. So the Corporation is depriving itself of substantial revenues that could be used to provide decent, acceptable service in rural areas. We have the example of telephone service. The cost is the same for both urban and rural areas, and this brings in enough income for everyone in Canada to enjoy reasonable, fair and equitable telephone rates. Through intensified use of those new services, the Corporation could therefore get the income needed to balance its books.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by suggesting that there is tremendous discontent, and this week's latest survey explains part of the story at Canada Post.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity today to participate on this opposition day motion put forward by my Party concerning
Supply
what the Government has done to Canada's postal service. I know from my records that I have participated twice before in opposition day debates on this subject, which is an indication of the importance of postal service to residents of the approximately 120 communities in my riding of Kenora-Rainy River.
I am very glad to say that our spokesman on postal issues, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper), although not able to speak to this particular motion, has consistently and in a very committed and dedicated fashion addressed the concerns of both rural and urban dwellers in regard to Canada Post service. I must say that this is a question in which vigilance has indeed been the price of continued service for many across the country.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) in his speech seemed very taken with the first part of the motion, that is, that the Government had instructed Canada Post to cut back on postal services to Canadians living in rural areas. He seemed to feel that the Government was innocent of that particular charge. However, that innocence is something that I believe on examination of the facts is quite impossible to maintain. In fact, the Government has ordered those cuts just as effectively, if not as specifically, as if it had gone to regional managers and individual postmasters and said: "Cut this service. Cut that rural route. Cut out that particular box".
What we are seeing in the case of Canada Post is management by financial control. For some years Canada Post had been running a deficit, and the Government simply said: "Well, you are not going to be able to run a deficit any more. We are cutting you off. You can deliver what postal service you can. You can raise revenues or cut the costs, but you are not going to get the money from the federal exchequer". That, of course, is management by financial control.
Anyone who has studied business in any depth whatsoever knows that when there is a deficit there are three ways that the deficit can be covered. The first is by borrowing, something which the Government ruled out. It ruled it out in a fashion which very adversely affected the potential that Canada Post had a few years ago to decrease its deficit, and perhaps even to make a profit, and also to deliver service to Canadians. But the Government ruled out the possibility of the corporation borrowing for the purchases of new equipment for the purpose of parcel handling which would have enabled it to compete with the couriers in the inter-city markets in particular where courier companies are doing so well because of the Government's obstruction of Canada Post's potential entry into the market. It also ruled out the purchase of other sorting equipment and mail processing equipment.
The other two ways of eliminating a deficit are to raise revenues and to cut costs. I must say that I feel that Canada Post has not been effective enough in terms of raising revenues, in terms of collecting more for some of its under-priced services and in terms of extending some of those services which

May 12, 1988
Supply
have good revenue potential. Instead it seems to have concentrated on cutting back on its costs, particularly as regards the rural and suburban service networks, but which also affects urban offices as well in some of our major centres.
Because the Government has framed its instructions in dollar terms rather than in specific orders cannot absolve the Government of responsibility for the effects. Simply translating instructions into dollars cannot take away the fact that it is the Government that is behind these costs. Canada Post is being treated essentially as order takers and told to get on with the job, which is to balance the budget. Thus we have the consequences that my constituents have felt and which constituents in rural ridings across the country have felt and seen. In many cases they have very drastically affected the whole way in which they see their community.
We have had cases where the only building in a community that flew the Canadian flag no longer flies it because the Post Office has been closed, or it has been privatized to a hard-pressed local retail outlet which has been under all sorts of financial and psychological pressure to take on the service, a service which is very poorly paid for by Canada Post. The Crown corporation seems to expect, essentially, that grocery store to provide a service on a grace and favour sort of basis at rates which in fact if they were salary rates would not be allowable under any provincial labour law in the country. However, it expects these people to do it because it knows that it has them over a barrel once the post office is gone.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege to represent my Party in February 1988 at the founding conference of the Vision of Rural Dignity organization.
Mr. Speaker, I travelled to a village with a population of 600 on the South Shore in Quebec of the St. Lawrence river, to attend that conference along with more than 800 people who came from all across rural Quebec, in addition to people from the area itself, and also from other provinces, including Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Ontario. They gathered to establish an organization that will speak for rural communities faced with postal service shutdowns.
Mr. Speaker, Visions of Rural Dignity has experienced significant growth, even since that founding conference was held.
This organization now speaks for all communities in this country who are threatened by postal service cancellation and post office shut downs.
But despite these efforts, and I must congratulate those who have set up this rural organization for their dedication and commitment, rural Canada has lost 194 post offices in the last couple of years through closing-down or privatization and, at the end of the month, this figure will have reached the 200 mark.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Canada Post will not stop after closing-down these 200 post offices because their internal
budget forecasts a profit, a surplus of some 38 million dollars in the next fiscal year for Dignite rurale du Canada and its work.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that, in such a situation, Canada Post should be studying ways of improving postal services to rural Canadians rather than reducing them further, as we see in this budget.
Mr. Speaker, Dignite rurale du Canada has become the main spokesman against cuts in rural postal services . . .

There have also been organizations which have been formed to fight against the use of these pernicious supermailboxes.
I am afraid to say that there has been a great deal of blatant propaganda put out by Canada Post about these so-called supermailboxes. The very name should have alerted us to the wool being pulled over our eyes. Of course there have been public opinion surveys very cleverly phrased and presented about the supermailboxes. The message through these surveys has always been: "How do you see a supermailbox compared to door-to-door delivery?'' They have not been: "How do you see a supermailbox compared to a green mailbox or compared to no delivery at all?"
Supermailboxes for all their presentation and the attractive PR that was put out when they were introduced have encountered some problems. We recall the almost commando descent by Canada Post technicians on, I believe it was, St. John's, Newfoundland, in order to fix up some of the problems with supermailboxes that were giving out mail to the wrong people. There were mechanical failures. They have become an eyesore. Recently, the Ontario Municipal Board even reduced the taxes of some people who had supermailboxes put in front of their homes.
The installation of these supermailboxes was not properly planned, either in terms of their siting or in terms of the maintenance of the site. In many cases, they presented an obstruction for snowplows. Another complaint was that they were often placed in areas which proved unsafe for those making use of them. With the advent of the supermailbox, we had a gratuitous and unnecessary mixing of pedestrian and vehicle traffic-something that obviously ought to have been foreseen as a hazard. Generally, they were looked upon as an eyesore and an inconvenience, something that people would only put up with if offered no alternative. It is the fact that no alternative has been offered that has led to some of the anomalous situations which we now face. Not only are the supermailboxes seen as inefficient and ineffective, but fundamentally unfair for those forced to use them.
We have a situation in the community of Fort Frances where of the four homes at one intersection, three receive door-to-door delivery, with one being forced to use a supermailbox,
May 12, 1988

that house having been built after the extension of door-to-door delivery had been abolished by Canada Post. That is a very strange situation. It gives one the feeling that one's neighbours are being somehow regarded as superior, and certainly they are inasmuch as they are being offered a superior service.
Paragraph (c) of the motion makes the point that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have been made second-class citizens when it comes to the provision of postal service. That is a telling accusation, and I believe it to be one that is eminently sustainable. It is one that applies not just to the consumers of the postal service, but to those involved in providing the postal service itself.
In my own community, I am aware of a tourist operator who now faces a 65-kilometre round trip to pick up his mail, whereas previously service was provided via a rural route. In order to save costs for Canada Post, individual members of the public are being put to additional cost and inconvenience in order to get their mail.
If this type of measure were to be properly evaluated, I think it would be seen as a false economy. While Canada Post Corporation is saving money, it is doing so on the backs of those it is supposed to be serving.
There are reserve communities of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in my constituency which can only be reached by air, and for such communities there are numerous inequities in respect of the postal service provided. Mr. Eno Anderson, the chairman of the Shibogama Tribal Council has been following the matter up with me on a regular basis. He has raised with me the fact that the clerks who carry out the postal duty are underpaid for the time that they put in; that often they turn up at the airport only to find out that there is no mail on board.
In those instances, they receive no compensation. Nor are they compensated for taking the mail from the airport to the post office, which might be up to 15 kilometres. As well, they are forced to work on a sporadic and intermittent basis, going from periods of very high activity, very high pressure, to having to take care of the details of the job, when really they should be having free time.
There is also the matter of the irregularity of mail delivery, and the fact that many communities only receive mail once a week. There have been also been problems for contractors. I am aware of one contractor who held a route for many years, providing excellent service year-in and year-out, who was replaced by an individual who put in a lower bid, only to find, within one week, that he could not deliver the service for the amount of the bid.
Canada Post eventually went back to the same contractor. But, at what cost? It went back to the person who knew how to do the job, the person who had done it for years. But, at what cost in terms of disruption, in terms of stress and strain, both for the original contractor and the individual who had
Supply
submitted the low bid? That individual had obviously been sucked into submitting a bid that he could not live with.
I am aware of one contractor with over 35 years of service in different capacities with Canada Post who is now getting out of the business. He knows that the next time his route is up for bid, others tempted by the possibility of acquiring the contract will bid unrealistically low, only to find themselves handicapped in trying to deliver the appropriate level of service.
We have had mailbox shortages in our communities. Those losing rural route service come into town to acquire a mailbox only to find that there are none available. While there is a waiting list for mailboxes, rural routes are being cut.
There are many cases where, if provincial labour laws were to apply, Canada Post would be taken to court. For example, Mr. Speaker, I quote from Dignite Rurale du Canada:

"The statistics for this province show that under these contracts, the Postmaster gets only one-fifth of his present salary, which works out to $2,000-52,400 per year, or between 47 cents and 83 cents an hour".

I also have an article from The Toronto Star, an article which speaks of some of the problems facing family-run convenience stores, the so-called Mom and Pop convenience stores, in trying to oblige Canada Post in setting up postal outlets, in some cases under something of a subtle threat that if they do not, they will be penalized. But, in trying to oblige Canada Post, they have ended up being paid ridiculously small sums of money for the services they are providing.
In the few minutes remaining, I should like to consolidate the case that fair and equitable and equal postal service across Canada is not simply a justice issue or matter of equity, or a matter of how we view ourselves as Canadians, as equals, but a matter of economic efficiency-and this is something that should appeal to my friends opposite.
To review the history very briefly, the first penny post was introduced in England under the leadership of Roland Hill, in 1840. It cost one penny to send a piece of mail to any part of the kingdom. Before that, mail moved by the 19th century equivalent of today's couriers, the stage coach, with those using the service paying a sixpence or a shilling to have a letter taken 100 miles.
With the introduction of the penny post, mail could be sent anywhere in the kingdom for one penny. Well, I need hardly make the contrast between a public service that functions on a utility basis and a privatized service that was run simply for profit.
Perhaps that might have some of my friends opposite in fact cheering for the profit opportunities inherent in a private service; but let us not forget the very nature of our federal country, the very nature of the remoteness of some communities, the vast distances between communities-all of which, of

May 12, 1988
Supply
course, render all of the comparisons that the Government Members have been making to the U.S. postal service irrelevant. Let us not forget that we should see Canadians as Canadians, wherever they live. I am very glad to see the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), here today. I believe that he could talk very eloquently of the problems of remote communities.
Let us remember that there were two reasons for the establishment of a federal Government in the first place in Canada. One was national defence; the second was to ensure that the mail was run effectively. Let us not forget that the Canadian flag flying over post offices is a very visible reminder, and in some communities the only reminder, of the fact that we have a federal Government in Canada, a Government whose duty it is to bind all Canadians together.
When the Government fails to make provision for Canada Post to perform that essential equity function, it undercuts the whole significance of Canadian unity. The solution is not for the Government to subsidize Canada Post indefinitely, or without a bottom to the funds that are made available; the solution is for the Government to allow Canada Post to compete effectively. The solution is for the Government to give Canada Post realistic and reasonable subsidies to carry out that very important national unity function that Canada Post has served heretofore, a function which is so endangered by the imposition of purely financial goals and financial measures on this most essential of all Crown corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), on a question or comment.


Mr. Fretz:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the speech given by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. He certainly debates issues with eloquence and fairness. He did not use a lot of rhetoric as some Members across the way have done today.
Having said that, I want to read part of the opposition motion:
That this House condemn the government for its total and absolute failure
to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians by:
(b) installing "supermailboxes"-
I want to make a couple of points and then pose a question. Where I live in the Town of Fort Erie, which is a community of about 25,000 people, there is no mail delivery. There have been what we call group boxes for a number of years, as long as I can remember, which I suppose today if they were installed somewhere could be called supermailboxes. People have used those and, to the best of my knowledge, they have used them without complaint. I drive a mile to the post office to get my mail. We have never had delivery in my part of the town. The place where I live, Ridgeway, which is part of Fort Erie, may have a population of about 2,000 people. We have always gone to the post office and picked up our mail.
Let us look at two other areas in the Town of Fort Erie, the old part, where the population might consist of about 12,000 people, and Crescent Park in the Town of Fort Erie which has a population of perhaps 3,000 people. Those people have mail delivery, which leaves us with a population of about 10,000 people in the Town of Fort Erie who do not receive mail delivery. Yet the New Democrats are condemning the Government for its failure to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians.
Is the Hon. Member implying that those 10,000 Canadians, including myself, should have mail delivery service? Is he implying that everyone in the town should have it, that just because 15,000 people have mail delivery the other 10,000 should, otherwise it is unfair and inequitable?
I want to remind the Hon. Member that I pay-I am not sure because my wife usually writes the cheque-about $12 a year for a postal box. We get the biggest one we can.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just $12?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: It may be $15, I do not know. We pay for the privilege of getting in the car or walking, if we feel well enough, to go to the post office to pick up the mail, whereas other people who pay the same rate of postage, 37 cents have their mail delivered to their homes. If the Member wants to look at that and say that is inequitable, that is his privilege. Is that what the Hon. Member is saying?
I have two questions. The first is with regard to the boxes which I have indicated are group mailboxes which help those people in the part of the town in which I live, and the second concerns the inequity of those 10,000 people in my town who have never had mail delivery. I have lived there 61 years and never once have I had mail delivery.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fort Erie (Mr. Fretz), for his question and say that Fort Erie must be a marvellous place to live if he has spent 61 years there. In my opinion, he really does not show the wear and tear of those 61 years.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Because he walks to the post office instead of sitting at home.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edmund Parry: Perhaps it is his daily walk to the Post Office, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary said.
I would have to say that the Hon. Member must recognize that he places me at a disadvantage in discussion of his particular circumstance. He surely cannot believe that in my 18 years of residence in Canada, none of which has ever been within 100 miles of Fort Erie, that I could have attained as intimate a knowledge of the geography of that community as he has in his 61 years.
To address the question directly, in terms of equity of postal service, there should be measures, and my understanding is
May 12, 1988

there are measures in some context but not in others, by which growing areas qualify for door-to-door delivery. Density must play a part. I learned from my experience in planning legislation in Ontario that there are many cases where development occurs in a patchwork fashion. It occurs in strips or in isolated mini-subdivisions where I do not think people are looking for home delivery of mail by virtue of the rural nature, shall we say, of the surroundings in which they have decided to live. If Canada Post had sets of rules that covered these sorts of situations which were applied equally across the country, then that would constitute an equitable mail service. I am not suggesting that all group mailboxes, the old style green mailboxes, should not be replaced with supermailboxes. I think that supermailboxes are a useful tool for the type of situation that presumably once existed in the area in which the Hon. Member lives but which now, as a result of the growth of the communities, I am sure under progressive leadership, no longer pertains.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you crossing the floor or what?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edmund Parry: Equity does not consist in the provision of identical service. It consists of addressing the concerns of those people who feel deprived or disadvantaged by a particular type of service. Perhaps the Hon. Member is suggesting, without wanting to state it openly, that people who receive door-to-door delivery should pay an annual fee similar to the fee that the Hon. Member and I pay. I do not have a big mailbox like the Hon. Member for Erie. All my mail comes here. I would rather see the fees waived in the case of the mailboxes in the small post offices, but we know that might lead to a proliferation of requests for the boxes. The door-to-door fee might be an easy way of resolving Canada Post's deficit, but I do not think it would be universally popular. While I feel that the provision of mailboxes is a Canada Post responsibility, we have to recognize that there will always be market factors ruling in that sort of case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there any further questions or comments? Debate. The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis).


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without fuelling any further the suspicions of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I would like to apologize to the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) for previously referring to him as the Parliamentary Secretary. The Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Not to worry, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have this opportunity to enter today's debate on this motion. The Hon. Minister responsible for Canada Post is in his riding today and I am happy to participate and put forward the Government's point of view with respect to this motion. I think I should point out a few things before getting into some
Supply
personal observations which I am able to make on behalf of the Minister and on behalf of myself with respect to the improved service of Canada Post.
First, Canada Post is a very large corporate employer in Canada. It employs approximately 47,000 people. It is a corporation which was set up under the previous Government to try to bring into place some new management methods, and to improve postal service for Canadians. In doing so it has made some very fundamental corporate changes. The focus of the entire corporate plan is on service. The whole purpose of its existence is to provide Canadians with efficient, reliable and affordable postal service.
The five-year corporate plan which was presented today is also a business plan. We do not see any conflict between providing a service and the objectives of a well run business. I think it is obvious that if a business does not provide good service to its customers, it will not stay in business, whether it is providing a product like automobiles or postal service.
The key elements of Canada Post's service thrust are reliability, accessibility, delivery and value for money. First I want to deal with the question of reliability.
Canada Post has taken several steps to ensure that operations are properly monitored by control centres and that they are managed according to corporate systems seven days a week and for 24 hours each day. We have instituted a policy of auditing, through independent auditors, the performance of the delivery standards. Clarkson Gordon has been retained by Canada Post to do this job, and it recently released its findings.
I point out to the House that Canada Post is the only postal service in the world that has its performance standards publicly measured by an independent auditing firm. The second quarterly report was released last month. It has shown a continued and steady improvement in service performance and Canada Post is working to improve that performance even more by identifying any problems it has in the system and by correcting them.
Another aspect of this improvement in service is to improve access. This means making it easier for Canadians to buy the products and services and to pick up parcels and mail requiring a signature. I point out that the corporation is doing this in a big way. Canada Post already has more retail outlets than all the banks and financial institutions in Canada combined. Over the next several years, the number of locations where Canadians can go to purchase postal products and services will increase even further from 13,800 to 18,000.
On a personal note, I want to point out that two or three years ago when the present Minister was made responsible for Canada Post, I said to him one day at 10 minutes after six: "Harvie, here is a package of cigarettes and a stamp. Where do you buy the cigarettes? You can buy those anywhere. Where do you buy the stamp?"

May 12, 1988
Supply
Obviously, to buy a stamp, one has to find a post office that will sell a stamp. That is the point. Why should Canadians be restricted when buying stamps when they can buy lottery tickets and cigarettes anywhere 24 hours a day? That is the point of the improved access we are driving at.
The Opposition would have all postage stamps in Canada sold from nine 'til five, five days a week, in post offices. Our attitude is, let us make it easy to mail things. Let us not restrict it to certain places the way the Opposition wants us to do. Let us make it easy for Canadians to buy postage stamps. Why not? Why should it be such a sacred thing to sell a postage stamp? That is the whole idea behind the privatization of the post office facilities.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why the NDP and the Liberals do not want Canadians to have that kind of accessibility. Why not? Why not let Canadians buy postage stamps anywhere, just like cigarettes and candy? What is the big secret about it? I want to know that. I want to hear from opposition Members about that.
That is what we are doing about accessibility, and we are doing it through business, through that partnership which can exist with the private sector. We are expanding facilities. I want to explain this to my friends because they have blinders on. I want to tell them what is happening in my riding in the Township of Oro, a rural township, and my friend, the Elon. Member for Elumboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), will know about this.
Previously, there were three sub-post offices in the Township of Oro. What were their hours? Their hours were from 8.15 to 12.30, an hour off for lunch, and closed at 5.15. That was for only five days a week. On Saturday, it was 8 'til 12, no service Saturday afternoon, Saturday evening or Sunday. That was the situation in Shanty Bay, Oro Station and Hawkestone.
Now we are privatizing. My constituents in Oro Township will be able to get stamps in three places, the same villages, Shanty Bay, Oro Station and Hawkestone. Guess what? These are the new hours of operation: 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. in the first location at Shanty Bay. It is a little restricted in Oro Station. It is only open from eight in the morning until nine at night, and the same in Hawkestone. Guess what? All three of them are open Sundays. Isn't that terrible? Now my constituents in Oro Township can buy stamps on Sundays. My friends in the Opposition, the NDP and the Liberals, do not like buying stamps on Sundays.
That is the kind of increased access to service we are giving. Not only that, but at Fuda's Marketplace on Highway 11, they are putting in a new operation. My constituents will get three locations with expanded hours and a new fourth location. That is what Canada Post is doing. However, the Opposition is not bragging about that, it says that we are restricting service.
We are expanding the delivery network. We notice that our friends are pressing for expanded door-to-door delivery. Let me talk about door-to-door delivery.
What about the Town of Penetanguishene? Under the previous administration, my friends, the Liberals, the people in Penetanguishene had to go to the post office. Those 5,000 people got their mail from the post office in Penetanguishene. No one has ever complained to me about that. I have been in Government for three and a half years now and no one has ever asked for door-to-door delivery in Penetanguishene. They like going to the post office. No, as far as my friends are concerned, that is a restriction. We cannot have supermailboxes.
I, like my friend from Erie, also have a post office box. We are three and a half blocks away from the post office, the same as it would be from a supermailbox. It is more efficient. I pick up my mail once a week, get all the magazines and all the bills, more bills than I need, and it is all there. Why do I need a postman to make five trips for me? Members of the Opposition make it sound as though people pay bills the day they get them. Everyone pays his bills once or twice a month. What is this need for door-to-door delivery all about?
In rural townships, we get delivery at the end of the concession road. What is the difference? Why is Canada Post being condemned for that kind of delivery service? I think it is giving good service. Members of the Opposition are back in the horse and buggy days. We are living in a day when most people go out every day. They pass convenience stores and the supermailbox locations. They do not have the trouble my friends have. Canada Post has modern techniques. It is trying to do the best job it can.
My friends do not mention that in the United States, the door-to-door delivery service has not been expanded since 1979. The Americans are using community or cluster boxes to expand the service in suburban areas. We call them supermailboxes because we think it is a long-term solution, a modern solution, not a horse and buggy solution which the NDP support. It is a modern solution to delivering mail to people.
Supermailboxes appreciate the fact that people are not home all the time to take delivery of parcels or registered mail. There is a method in the supermailbox, through the parcel compartment, to allow for that. We can assist people. They do not have to go to the post office anymore to do things like pick up registered mail and parcels.
The NDP make going to the post office box sound like such a big problem. My friend should come to Edwards Point outside of Midland with me some morning, even in the winter. Come about 10 o'clock in the morning and you will see people walking up the street to the mailbox to get their mail. It is a community centre. They get out of the house and meet their neighbours and talk. What have the NDP got against people meeting people? What have they got against people getting a little exercise? What is wrong with the NDP? Why are they back in the horse and buggy age? Next they will condemn the Government for not having a Pony Express. I cannot believe it.
m
'Mi-

May 12, 1988

We are struggling to bring the NDP into the 1990s and new methods of doing things. It is just unfortunate that they cannot get up to speed.
We are looking at value for money. When we brought in the corporate plan last year, we announced that we were going to continue to adjust our basic letter rates annually to compensate for the impact of inflation and other expenditure increases. The planned rate increases in the basic letter rate during the next five years will continue to be below the rate of inflation as projected by economic indicators. Canada Post announced today that it is gazetting a proposal for a rate increase to take place January 1, 1989. The increase in the basic postal rate will be one cent. That is 2.5 per cent for a standard letter. There will be other products affected by the rate increase and that is available in the information package that was distributed.
Even with this modest rate increase, Canadians will be paying the second lowest postage rate in the world when you compare average wages. In fact, using the same measurement, they pay roughly the same today as they did 32 years ago.
The NDP say they want door-to-door delivery, and all we have to do is raise the price of a stamp to 60 cents. I cannot understand why the NDP wants to raise the price of stamps to 60 cents. Why not adopt some modern methods and put in the supermailboxes, do what we can to improve things, but not give door-to-door delivery to everyone as the NDP suggests and raise the price of stamps to 60 cents? That ignores market realities.
We are monitoring the price tolerances of our products because we realize that Canada Post is in a highly competitive market. About 80 per cent of its volume is generated by business. If we exceed that price tolerance then business will look elsewhere to have its products delivered. Therefore, when we look at rate increases, we are really reflecting the reality of the market-place. To do that we have to increase our volume so that we can be competitive. We are restructuring our products and services to better reflect the requirements of the market-place and improving our courier service in the face of very keen competition. We are doing this so that we can get Canada Post back to the place it once enjoyed in this market.
This fiscal year is very significant for Canada Post because this is the year that the ink goes from red to black. After losing under the Liberals several million dollars a year, the Post Office is now going to break even under the Conservatives. For the first time in 25 years it is forecasting a modest profit from operations.
Canada Post is trying to build a postal service for the future, not for the horse and buggy age of the NDP. To do that it has to finance new equipment and introduce needed innovations to provide a truly modern, reliable and efficient service. That profitability means it will be able to recommend that the shareholder, the Canadian people, reinvest in the corporation to continue to improve that service. We think with that profitability and some support Canada Post employees will
Supply
begin to feel a greater sense of pride in themselves and the work they do. They will know their efforts have helped and will continue to help create a vital and progressive corporation.
Several years ago the corporation set up consumer panels to obtain feedback from people and to get their impressions of the service and its plans. They wanted input for the future. We see these activities becoming more and more important as we go into the 1990s, as Canada Post gets into an even more competitive environment. That is the intention of the corporation, to develop this theme and establish a national postal users council to provide it with the input needed to understand their customers and provide the best service and best product available.
In doing that there will be some fundamental changes. We appreciate that the NDP, the Party of the status quo, does not like change. They cannot understand this new world they find themselves in. We understand that. We are trying to bring them along slowly. Change is never easy but we believe that with implementation of this change, Canada Post will continue to meet the challenges of postal service and the people who work there, those who make these changes a reality, will feel more pride in the corporation they are working for.
I guess to summarize what I have tried to say today, Canada Post has made a very real effort to improve postal services for Canadians. I say this without hesitation: There is no cut-back in postal service to Canadians living in rural areas. I represent a rural area. As I demonstrated with Oro Township, we are getting improved postal service. I say that installing supermailboxes to take the place of door-to-door delivery in new suburban areas is the way of the future, the way of efficiency, and not the way of the past which the NDP espouses.
I say without hesitation that in no way is Canada Post making second-class citizens of hundreds of thousands of Canadians when it comes to providing postal service. We have a corporation which has turned itself around and is doing a good job for Canadians. I regret very much that the NDP would bring forward such a destructive motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I found it quite interesting that the Hon. Minister would spend so much time talking about the horse and buggy days and his modern solutions. As one who is much older than he, I can speak with some credibility about the horse and buggy days because during the last war when petroleum products were in short supply, our family shifted back to the horse and buggy. We went our six miles into town and we found at the end of our travels a group of boxes inside a post office. It was always dry and it was usually warm. It was open most of the time. At that time the postmaster operated six days a week, seven or eight hours a day. Those were the old days. Those were the horse and buggy days. Now, my much younger brothers and sisters, who still live in rural areas, get into their cars and drive 10 miles to a post office.

May 12, 1988
Supply
They can always get into the boxes in the post office building 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is warm and dry and if a post office box is accidentally left open, the contents do not get wet from the rain or blow away in the wind.
Some of the rural towns in the rural area that I represent, including Zelma, Elstow and Bradwell, no longer have that kind of horse and buggy era service. They have had to modernize and now have superboxes, which is supposed to be the brave, new world into which the Conservative Government is leading us. These supermailboxes do not sit inside a nice, dry shelter. They are out in the elements. The doors freeze shut or do not stay shut. These supermailboxes have their own perverse personalities. One may have to turn the key while kicking another mailbox in order to open the door. At the same time, perhaps four others will open and the neighbours will lose their mail. This is all in the spirit of modernization which no one minds very much, according to the Hon. Member. However, the truth is that they do mind very much. My rural constituents believe they should continue to have the kind of postal service that existed in the horse and buggy days, as the Hon. Member puts it.
I want to point out to him that the supermailbox is not returning us to the kind of good service we had in those days. It is putting the service out on the street, so to speak, in the open and subject to the elements so that we have to stand in the rain or in the wind to open the box. If an elderly person or handicapped person loses their grip on a parcel or letter they are pulling from the box, they will not be able to recover it. That is not exactly modern service. I want to make certain that my hon. friend knows about this.
A number of post offices in my community are being subjected to a closure notice, in spite of studies by Clarkson Gordon which are supposed to tell us the costs involved. When Canada Post visits those communities, it seems to refuse to inform us about the revenue and cost data for the post office.
The chief criterion for shutting down a post office seems to be whether the postmaster has submitted his or her intention to retire. That triggers a move to close the post office. Canada Post tells me privately that it takes this step because it is more difficult to close the post office if a new postmaster is hired temporarily. Very often, it makes its move in advance, before the post office begins to show a deficit. It tries to convince the community to accept the supermailbox solution or convince one of the local businesses to take over the job.
My hon. friend spoke of this as a great solution. However, in three or four communities that are facing closure of their post office, small business people say they are not so sure they want this post office franchise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member will finish. A number of other Members wish to ask questions.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, faced with the sale of two or three tankfuls of gas versus the sale of a 37 cent stamp, business people are not so sure that it is a good trade-off, and most are resisting it.
The only communities in my riding which have taken it on as a small business project are some of the small co-op stores. The board of directors have determined that it is better to have the post office inside rather than on the street and are doing it as a community service. They do not believe they can make a buck or do it more efficiently, they simply want to supply a community service. The Hon. Member should be made aware of the real facts in these small rural areas. We are not going back to the horse and buggy days. He is taking us far beyond that, to a time when there is not even housing for postal services.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I like the Hon. Member's idea of going to the post office 24 hours a day for mail. How would he buy a stamp?


John R. Rodriguez: From a machine.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: So you would have a machine.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Buy them like you buy everything in the country. A month's supply at a time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I respectfully listened to the diatribe from my friend, perhaps he can give me an opportunity to speak.
I am from the snow belt area of Ontario. I know what it is like when it is cold. I cannot believe how long it takes my hon. friend to open a mailbox. It is not the longest procedure in the world. One simply puts in the key, opens the door, and removes the mail. He makes it sound like we have to shovel our way back to our cars. That is ridiculous.
It may take that long for my friend to open a mailbox, but most Canadians can easily open a mailbox with a key and take out the mail. If you want to make it a day-long process, go ahead.
I think the Hon. Member made the case for the supermailbox during his remarks. It is much easier.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Keep it inside a post office.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We don't need a post office. We have the co-op store. You know as well as I why the co-op store took them. It is a draw for customers. That is why they have them in Simcoe North and that is why they have them in my hon. friend's riding.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: 1984 and what that deficit is now? Could he relate that to fiscal responsibility by the Government and the post office?
I believe our socialist friends have indeed forgotten to even look at that question today. It does not matter to them what it costs to operate, just spend the bucks.
What was the deficit when we took over in 1984 compared to today, and could he relate that to the post office deficit?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member some quick figures. When we took office the deficit left to us by the previous Liberal administration was some $38 billion. My hon. friend will know that we brought that down to $28 billion.
When the Liberals were in office, for the first part of 1984 the post office had a deficit of $300 million. It was $300 million in the hole. This year, for the first time, it is forecasting a modest profit of $26 million. Not only have we improved the service, but we are able to say to Canadians that the post office is no longer a losing proposition, that it is making some money. Not only that, it will now be able to buy new and innovative production and processing equipment so that we will have a state of the art post office in terms of delivery and service to the public.
[DOT] (noo)


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the Hon. Minister said that for the first time since its incorporation the Post Office balanced its books, it is breaking even now and next year it might even make money. I would like to remind him that for the first time since the Canada Post Corporation was created, we had two strikes in six months. I would like to remind him that for the first time, the Canada Post Corporation, with the agreement of his Government, brought in the supermailboxes or the community green boxes as a permanent solution. Therefore, any new houses built in Canada since 1985 will not receive door-to-door mail delivery. That new corporate plan was confirmed.
The Canada Post Corporation wants to close 5,000 rural post offices. Yes, it balanced its books but it did it at the expense of Canadians by reducing their service. Sure, it is easy to turn the key of these post boxes, but what about in whether of 30 below zero when everything is ice? Will senior citizens be able to open their box to get their mail? Does the Minister have a box in front of his house? It is ridiculous.
Anyone can balance books. Anyone can reduce a deficit by cutting services. How about reducing the deficit by increasing revenues and not by cutting service? How about using the postal facility to increase revenues such as using advertising panels and improving the direct mail service, which would bring in millions of dollars, instead of reducing the service and creating two classes of citizens.
How would the Minister feel with one of these in front of his home? What if he lived on a street where citizens on one side of the street were using the mailbox and the citizens on the other side of the street were receiving their mail at their door?
Supply
Is that not discrimination? Is that not two classes of citizens who are paying the same 37 cents for a stamp, who are paying municipal tax, school board tax and federal income tax? Why are they not getting the same service?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) for a short rebuttal, please.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that door-to-door delivery extension was suspended in 1974 under the Liberal Party. I ask my hon. friend why the Town of Penetanguishene does not have door-to-door delivery service? Five thousand Canadian citizens live there who have never complained to their Member of Parliament. They go to the post office to get their mail. It is no great hardship.
Slipped into my hon. friend's remarks was a very interesting comment. He asked why the Post Office does not give the service by increasing revenues. To give the kind of service my hon. friend wants would mean a 60 cent stamp. Is it the Liberal Party's policy to have a 60 cent stamp?


John R. Rodriguez: You don't have to increase the price of stamps. There are other ways of increasing revenues.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, it would mean a 60 cent stamp. The Liberal Party's policy is a 60 cent stamp for every Canadian. I do not think that is fair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that a number of members on the government side of the House have sat silent on this issue. I am not surprised. We finally smoked out the ex-Parliamentary Secretary, now Minister without portfolio, who usually, if one looks at the history of debate in this House, tends to get put up as the "smoking gun" when no one else in the caucus has the guts to come forward and talk about an issue which they know is going to be deadly to them come the next election. They know the message coming forward from RAM is getting across not only to the people in this House of Commons but to the whole of Canada. So I am not surprised that most of the members on the government side have chosen to refrain from this debate.
I am also most pleased that the New Democratic Party has had a change of heart and is now speaking more strongly on the issue of postal service than it was even last summer.


John R. Rodriguez: Where have you been?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where have you been, Sheila?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I remember last summer during the postal strike when I was on the picket line in front of my post office, I did not hear from the NDP. I never heard from the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) because it was a touchy issue in terms of the public and since he was starting to climb in the public

May 12, 1988
Supply
opinion polls, he dared not speak out for the workers for fear of being labelled a union radical. We did not hear from the Leader of the NDP.
It is touchy, but I congratulate the NDP for finally coming on-side and committing itself with the Liberal Party, which was the first Party in this House to commit to door-to-door daily mail delivery service. We are glad the NDP are joining us in our fight. We believe this is a service that is worth fighting for.
I would like to spend some time on some fallacies perpetrated by the Minister who is really working under a misnomer, the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). He should drop the "consumer" moniker. He is really the Minister for Corporate Affairs. He does not do anything to protect the rights of consumers. He has stood in this House time and time again and said: "We will not move without full consultation". Full consultation has been the promise of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yet my own colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), revealed in secret Post Office documents what was meant by "full consultation". In fact, the Post Office actually put out a brochure or internal memo telling its people how to organize a meeting so that as few as possible could come so it could divide and conquer its opposition.
Strawberry Hills, in the far east end of Hamilton, will, as of this July, be in the riding of Hamilton East. It is currently in the Lincoln riding. A man woke up one morning in Strawberry Hills and lo and behold there were people with a backhoe at his front door waiting to install a great green monstrosity. He wanted to know what it was and discovered he had been targeted for a supermaiibox. This is from a Government that claims it wants full consultation, that nothing will be closed down, nothing will be done, without full consultation with the people. In fact, the consultation has been an absolute farce.
The Government has continued to cling to the notion that these wonderful supermailboxes, extolled by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, do nothing to property values. That particular fallacy was blown apart by the Ontario Municipal Board when it rightly determined that the loss in property value should reflect a 5 per cent drop in property taxes for people who have a supermaiibox on their property.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, all other things being equal, if you were a new homeowner or if you are looking for a new home- if you can afford it with the price of houses these days-and you look at two identical homes, one without a supermaiibox on its front lawn and the other with one, which would you choose? It does not take a Rhodes scholar to realize that every single Canadian, given that choice, will choose the home without the supermaiibox. It has a direct effect on the attractiveness of property. It has a direct effect on the amount of traffic back and forth. If you have children, you do not want them run over by cars that are constantly pulling up. Furthermore, the supermaiibox itself is an infringement on the right of Canadians to equal service in the sense that a person living on
one side of the street can have door-to-door daily mail delivery and a person on the opposite side of the same street can be faced with having to go to the supermaiibox.
We heard the Hon. Member for Simcoe North say, no problem, everyone can run over and stick the key in the lock. I asked him at the time, and he did not answer because he could not answer, what happens if one is in a wheelchair? The Speaker will know that nowadays, thank goodness, we are moving out of the dark ages in relation to integrating the handicapped into our population. In most cases new housing developments tend to be built in that way. I know that in the Province of Ontario, for example, the new building code requires in many instances that homes be made with wider door frames in order to give greater accessibility to the handicapped. It is natural to incorporate plans into the master plan of a house that will permit people in a wheelchair to live in new housing developments. If they do have a chance and if they can afford it, they want to move into a new housing development and perhaps plan a house which will have lowered counters so that they can do cooking in the kitchen. Lo and behold they might find the home of their dreams, but they are faced with supermailboxes.
We just heard that in the corporate plan that was tabled by Canada Post today, for the first time it is saying that for the next five years all new housing developments will have no door-to-door mail delivery, that there will be supermailboxes. If a person is in a wheelchair, it is no mean feat in the middle of a snow storm-or for that matter at any time of the year- on a crowded, busy street to jump out of the car, get into the wheelchair and wheel over to the supermaiibox, wheel back to the car and get back in. It is a detriment. It is also a detriment to senior citizens who perhaps depend on neighbours to be taken out to grocery shop and to get around. Perhaps some senior citizens have had to give up their cars. Perhaps they are not able to drive or cannot afford to drive and they depend on buses. All of these individuals are definitely discriminated against when it comes to the supermailboxes.
That is why the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped has sent a personal letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking him to cancel the supermailboxes and restore daily door-to-door delivery so that the independence of those people who are handicapped can be enhanced. In 1988 we are supposed to be moving forward and not backward in relation to the handicapped. That particular demand has gone by the wayside. Today, we saw that Canada Post is fully intending to go ahead with its plan to dismember door-to-door daily mail delivery with its five-year plan.
If you look at the list of postal increases, Mr. Speaker, which I just received this afternoon, not only will you see an increase in the price of stamps but you will also see an increase in the cost of purchasing a money order. I will just put this on the record. There will be a 15 per cent increase in the cost of purchasing a Canadian money order. Money orders up to $200
May 12, 1988

now cost 85 cents. According to the newly tabled rates the cost will be going up to $1. However, Mr. Speaker, if you want to buy a U.S. money order-and I think this is probably a reflection of the priorities of the Government-you can buy one for an increase that is less than 10 per cent. Why should Canadians pay 15 per cent more for a Canadian money order and pay only about 8 per cent or 9 per cent more when it comes to a U.S. money order? Is it because the Canadian Government with the trade deal and all its other policies-


An Hon. Member:: Free trade will look after that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Free trade is the cause of that. The Hon. Member's Government is intent on having us spend all our money on U.S. money orders, even to the point where Canada Post is actually bringing in increases which are more preferable to U.S. money orders than they are to Canadian money orders.


Michael Morris Cassidy: They are going to phase out Canadian money orders. That is what they will do. We will not have any Canadian money left.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is right. We will not need Canadian currency. We will be notched to the American rate. The continental integrated economy is only one step away from complete continental absorption by the United States.
It is not only a question of the supermailboxes specifically. Let us look at the tactics of the Government and the tactics of Canada Post in attempting to intimidate employees. I refer specifically to the most recent gesture which states that women are not allowed to bring their purses to work, and they cannot take care of personal hygiene on the job. I would like to read a letter from the Alberta Liberal Women's Commission which passed a resolution as follows:
Phyllis Ayers, President of JP GROWL, a Women's Liberal Club in Edmonton has been instructed by the membership to protest the obvious discrimination against women employees. Canada Post Corporation has initiated a rule to search and seize women's purses; however, men are still allowed to carry wallets. What has happened to human rights? What has happened to women's rights?
Since 55 per cent of CUPW are women, this is another example of crushing women employees. The Government of Canada is on a power trip.
That was passed by the Alberta Women's Liberal Commission and passed along to a number of Members of Parliament, and Members of the legislature.
I have a confidential memo in my hand from CUPW which basically points out how the employer, specifically Canada Post, has been intimidating arbitrators. We in the Liberal Party believe-and I am sorry that the Government may not agree-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You believe in six and five, that is what you believe in.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is incredible how members of the NDP are a little touchy because I happen to point out the fact that when the postal workers-
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Hon. Members know that there will be a time for questions and comments, if they will only let the Hon. Member finish her speech. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it really does bother me that members of the NDP hate it when I call a spade a spade. They do not mind dishing it out, but they surely cannot take it.


John R. Rodriguez: Look at who is talking.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wanted to read this memo into the record. I realize that CUPW memos do not interest members of the NDP. They are only interested in management's perspective.
In any case the CUPW memo points out the fact that Canada Post Corporation was actually moving to intimidate arbitrators. In fact, in a decision the arbitrator stated that it was clear from the conduct of the Post Office lawyer that he was frustrated not only with him but, it also appeared, with the panel of arbitrators in general. The Canada Post lawyer called names and disparaged several arbitrators and also quoted calculated percentages in respect of findings for, or against the corporation. According to the arbitrator, who is supposed to be independent in these matters, the Post Office lawyer went so far as to suggest that arbitrators rejecting the employer's position might be doing so for reasons of personal financial gain. The arbitrator sums up his response to Post office arguments by saying: "I found this whole presentation unacceptable and totally uncalled for".
What the Post Office lawyer was claiming was that arbitrators were somehow being bought off. The Post Office lawyer actually made a presentation in which he was accusing arbitrators of acting in a fashion which could at best be called illegal. I think it is outrageous that Canada Post, aided and abetted by the Government, continues on a program of harassment and denigration and, essentially, chipping away at postal services, not only by way of supermailboxes but also by way of decreasing services available to specific communities.
In talking about new communities, Westdale in Hamilton is not a very new community. It is a rather old residential area of Hamilton, close to the university. I received a letter recently from an irate professor at the university who was extremely upset over the fact that with no consultation whatsoever, with no survey of public opinion, the Westdale Post Office has now had package delivery chopped. In fact, the professor pointed out that he arrived at the post office to pick up a parcel only to be told: "We no longer do this. If you want to pick up a package you have to go to Campbell's Pharmacy". The professor made an inquiry of the clerk at Campbell's and was told that all pick-ups had been transferred out of the Westdale facility, if one lives in the L8S district, and that there were plans to shut down the Westdale branch of the post office.
The reason I received this letter was that a constituent wanted to know what happened to the Government's promise to consult. He stated in his letter: "I would like to learn whether this is in fact true and whether there is any intention

May 12, 1988
Supply
on the part of Canada Post to consult with affected members of the community on this matter ... I personally think this is wrong and is an affront to those of us who have financially supported the postal system".
On calling Canada Post, we were told that, at the moment, there is no plan to close the Westdale branch. However, we did learn that the services in respect of the parcel pick-up and registered mail have been moved to a pharmacy. If in fact there is a commitment on the part of the Post Office to keep the Westdale branch open, why is it moving some of the more important services offered by that branch to a private commercial pharmacy?
At the main post office in my community, which is located at King and John Streets, three employees have been let go, and the hours of operation have been cut back. As a result of three wickets being closed, there are long line-ups. Those wishing to pick up their mail on their way to work cannot do so because of the cut-back in business hours, and they are in an uproar about that. In addition, Saturday service has been cut. It is fine for the Government to say that it is reducing the deficits, but it is doing so at the expense of the public.
As the Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), who has been on top of this issue from the beginning, has said, the goal of decreasing the deficit is being used by the Post Office to cut back on essential services, to cut back on essential services provided through Canada Post branches, rural post offices, and so forth. And that means being used to cut back on those essential services is to use the supermailboxes.
We have heard voices from across the country decrying what is happening with Canada Post. We have heard from the Alberta Women's Liberal Committee, from a professor at McMaster University, and from residents of the Strawberry Hill community in my own constituency.
One would think that Canada Post would respond to the complaints that have been levelled. Instead, it tries to divert attention from the discussion. Even as this debate was launched in the House today, in a cynical attempt to avoid facing Parliament on the issue, Canada Post Corporation called a press conference, in an effort to divert attention from the debate that is going on in the House.
In the House itself, we are constantly called upon to witness Government Members trying to hide behind the fact that Canada Post is an arm's length corporation, a corporation in which the Government has no say and no authority in terms of the cut-back in services.
I think the organization known as RAM-which in fact means "Ram Mulroney's Mailboxes", for those of you who are unaware of what the acronym stands for-has it right when it
says that it is not enough to point the figure at Canada Post but at the Government, given the fact that Canada Post is only carrying out the wishes of a Government that takes the position that the deficit has to be eliminated within two years. Further, it is the position of this Government that the Post Office, in eliminating its deficit within two years, cannot investigate revenue generating areas which would put it into competition with the private sector, including such endeavours as direct mail, the provision of telex services, and so forth.
The postal corporation has had its hands tied. On the one hand, it has been given a mandate by the Government to-

... make up the deficit, but at the same time, it does have the necessary tools to do so, because it is not allowed for example to do direct mailing or to undertake other income generating projects.
I shoud like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not the management of Canada Post but the union which launched a project in Calgary some time ago in an attempt to find some ways or means to generate more incomes for Canada Post. Finally, it is management and the Government who refuse to approve services which could compete with the private sector.
It is rather funny, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector can compete with Canada Post but that Canada Post may not compete with the private sector.
I think that it is a matter of bad management by the Government and that it will have to pay dearly on the mail issue during the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell).
[ English ]


Mr. Brightwell:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has demonstrated, once again, her great ability for overstatement. Perhaps it is because, as she has said, she gets her information from clerks in variety stores. Maybe this is an example of how the Liberals get all of their information and how unsubstantiated it is.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Oh, shame! And what is wrong with clerks in variety stores? Shame! Are you an elitist?


A.H. Harry Brightwell: The Hon. Member did in fact say that she got her information from a clerk in a variety store. She then came out with a crushing proposition, that being that governments should intrude on private industry, that governments should compete with private industry.
I would be interested in hearing what private industry would have to say about the proposition that Government should go out and try to take away business from those earning a living from it.


An Hon. Member:: Go back under your shell.
May 12, 1988


A.H. Harry Brightwell: I take exception to the Hon. Member's assertion that it is unfair for those who do not have home delivery. I represent a riding in which more than 50 per cent of my constituents have never had home delivery of mail. On many farms, the mailbox can be a distance of well over 600 feet from the house. For other services, one has to travel to the post office in the nearest village or town. Yet, the Hon. Member wants everybody to have home delivery. That is just simply not possible.
What does the Hon. Member have to say in respect of the handicapped who live in areas that do not have door-to-door mail service? How do those people get their mail? Why are the handicapped living in our cities to be treated differently from those who live in the rural areas?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have heard are two ridiculous comments rolled into one. First of all, what is wrong with getting information from a store clerk? Perhaps the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell) got elected by talking only to lawyers and doctors, and bank presidents, but where I come from it is important that parliamentarians speak for all of the people. An individual working in a store has as much right to voice an opinion


A.H. Harry Brightwell: A clerk in a variety store can provide you with postal information?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in point of fact I was reading a letter from a professor. Perhaps the Hon. Member will accept the information since it comes from a professor. What the Hon. Member is saying is that it is fine if the information comes from a professor, but not if it comes from a store clerk. There is no question that in rural Canada the handicapped find it difficult to get to a post office, to get to their mailbox.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: And you do not feel sorry for them?


Sheila Maureen Copps: What the Hon. Member seems to be saying is that we ought to inflict the same situation on the handicapped living in new developments. If you recognize that there is something wrong with a system that does not provide adequate access for the disabled, surely you would not want to add to that.
If in fact the Hon. Member for Perth is truly interested in integrating the disabled into the mainstream of the community, surely he will recognize that we ought to do all that we can in new developments to accommodate the disabled. In addition to architecturally designing new communities in a fashion that will permit the disabled to live independently within the community, we should also provide them with accessible mail service-and supermailboxes are simply not accessible for the disabled. We are supposed to be moving, in 1988, toward more accessibility for the disabled, not less.
Granting the Hon. member's proposition that it is extremely difficult for handicapped persons in rural areas to get to a post office, surely that is something that we should not add to elsewhere.
Supply


A.H. Harry Brightwell: You do not care about the handicapped in the rural areas?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am not saying that at all. You are suggesting that because there is a difficult situation that exists in the rural areas of this country, we should exacerbate that situation in the future by eliminating door-to-door mail service. If you view the lack of accessibility to mail service to be a problem for the handicapped in rural Canada, surely you should be speaking in support of extending that service, which is the aim of this debate today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), on a question or comment, to be followed by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we have a situation in my constituency which sounds to be remarkably similar to what has gone on in the Westdale area of the Hon. Member's constituency of Hamilton East.
In the Glebe area of Ottawa, an area within a 10 or 15 minute walk of the House of Commons, we had a similar situation, where one day, without prior announcement, the Post Office decided to move the registered mail and parcel pick-up services from the Fourth Avenue Post Office branch, a branch which has been at the heart of that community for a number of years, to a commercial establishment on Main Street, and when it did not work out at that location, it was moved to a grocery store at the corner of Fifth Avenue and Bank, and then to premises in the upper level of the Fifth Avenue Court complex, and from there to a confectionery on O'Connor Street, with the result that it is now removed from the area where people shop. While it has been there for some time now, goodness knows where it will end up.
The Glebe Community Association tried to arrange for a meeting with the Minister responsible for Canada Post, but were unsuccessful.
Why should a community association be denied the right to meet with the responsible Minister?
I met with people from the Glebe community, and together we talked to officials from the Rideau Division of Canada Post. They went away saying that they would get back to us, and in fact they did, saying that they were not prepared to make any changes. We were told that because other people had accepted this deterioration of service, we, too, should be happy, and that, no, we could not talk to the Minister. They took the position that because the Post Office is a Crown corporation, they were not going to listen to us.
What kind of redress is that?
. .. Mr. Speaker in the Ottawa area, the National Capital region which should be bilingual, it is increasingly inpossible

May 12, 1988
Supply
for those who wish to be served in French to obtain such services in post offices due to privatization. Is this warranted when the Canada Post Corporation is a national service, a federal service?

I would like the Hon. Member to comment on those problems which seem to be found not only in her constituency but in Ottawa Centre and everywhere else.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I dare say that it is not only a problem in Ottawa Centre. The problem I raised with respect to Westdale was actually in the riding of Hamilton West, which is held by a Conservative colleague. He has been the recipient of a letter also, although I do not know what he has done about it. I understand as well the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-d'Anjou is facing a similar situation in his own area. This is why I made the point, and I am sorry the Hon. Member who spoke earlier did not understand, that the Post Office is still taking the position with respect to the Westdale facility that it is not closing, that it is a mere cutback in service.
Because the Government saw the big uprising, the revolt and the kind of political haemorrhaging it suffered on the issue of the rural post offices, even in the urban areas it is intending to kill by amputation-it is not a complete strangulation-first it will amputate the hand, then the arm, and then the rest of the body. Eventually the Westdale Post Office will probably close.
The Government, because it realized that it had such a political backlash when it closed the rural post offices, again has a secret agenda. The secret agenda probably will not become fully apparent for another couple of years. How can one say that the Westdale Post Office will remain fully operational when one of the essential services is being farmed off to the private sector? Obviously if the intention was to keep the service at optimum level, you would not see part of the service being taken, split off and given to a pharmacy, a confectionery or whatever.


Mr. Fraleigh:: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to direct some comments in support of the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell) with regard to those millions of Canadians who for 100 years, since the start of postal service, have walked to pick up their mail. When they got to the end of their walk, they also paid for the privilege of having a box in which the Post Office put the mail. Those people are not complaining in any particular way. It is the way they have lived for 100 years and they do not expect any change.
I want to point out that we do have inclement weather in small-town Canada. The Hon. Member may not have been out there lately. We have seniors, we have handicapped people, the same as the Hon. Member has in her riding in small-town Canada. Does the Hon. Member know how people get their mail? Their neighbours get it for them. Isn't it an awful saying that a neighbour would have to help someone who is handicapped or who is a senior? The Hon. Member can shake her
head if she likes, but it is the way we live in Canada, maybe not in the never-never world in which the Hon. Member lives.
1 can understand how people who have had the privilege of having their mail dropped through a slot in their front door would hate to give that up. But I ask the Member to think about those people who for 100 years have paid for the privilege of having to walk to a post office. The Hon. Member can sit down because I am not finished yet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is supposed to be a question.


John R. Rodriguez: Ask a question.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: The Hon. Member should be careful or he will have another heart attack.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is a chance for questions and comments. If there is a question which the Hon. Member would like to put, he still has an opportunity to do so. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: No, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand whether I was in the same room as the Hon. Member or whether it was something I said that went in one ear and out the other. I never in any way disparaged or said that people who live in rural Canada in some way are or should be treated as second-class citizens. On the contrary, what 1 said to the Hon. Member for Perth was that if there is a problem in the delivery of the service then surely it is our job as Members to make it better and not bring it to the lowest common denominator of service.
The Member's suggestion is a wonderful one that neighbours will go and get one's mail. I do not know what inner city community the Member has been to lately but in my community I have a section of apartment dwellers. If you look at the average rate at which people move, it is usually once every three years.
In Strawberry Hills they are not getting delivery. They get supermailboxes.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Is it inner city?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I live in a densely populated community. I will take the Hon. Member there and show it to him. If we could live in a society where we could count on our friends and neighbours, that would be terrific. I think it would be wonderful to have such a close-knit way of life. Unfortunately, that is not the reality in 1988 in most major urban areas. There are many people who live in communities who do not know the names of their next door neighbours. I am not saying that is right or it is a situation which should be imitated, but it is reality. The Hon. Member suggests that with supermailboxes people will be able to call on friends and neighbours, but that is not always possible. Would that it were so, I think we have something which he should cherish and defend. The Hon. Member has to recognize that in planning Canada Post must
May 12, 1988

look at reality and not the ideal world that in most urban centres does not exist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the House owes a debt to the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) in presenting this motion for consideration today. I want to put the motion once again on the record:
That this House condemn the government for its total and absolute failure
to provide fair and equitable postal service to all Canadians-
I heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) speak about the great defence of postal workers who were out on strike and that the Liberal Party was all together on the issue. It is about the only issue the Liberals have been all together on in recent years. I am sure CUPW and the posties would be delighted to know that they brought the Liberal caucus together. There is a uniting force here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Who does the Hon. Member think she is kidding, Mr. Speaker? Was I on another planet when the Liberals were in Government and Bryce Mackasey accused the postal workers of being Marxist, that they were destroying the Post Office? Did not this whole process of bad human relations within the Post Office not get exacerbated by Liberal Governments? I recall Bryce Mackasey saying: "I know the problem with the Post Office. I know what it is. It is Marxism. They are all Marxists". His brilliant deduction was that the problem with the Post Office was Marxism. We do not have Mr. Mackasey with us any more. We now have a Conservative Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We didn't talk about replacement workers.


John R. Rodriguez: No, the Hon. Member did not talk about replacement workers. But what the Liberals were looking for was a scapegoat on which to hang the problems of the Post Office instead of doing what any sensible Minister in Government ought to do. Any Minister should take a look at the Post Office and see how to improve the service and should not look for scapegoats on which to blame problems. That is where it all started. What if one were to extend this logic of the Government with respect to the postal services in this country to other essential services, for example, the fire department? Can you imagine the fire department running on a profit basis? Imagine charging people so that the fire department could generate a profit. That reminds me of the year 13 B.C. when Marcus Crassus owned the only fire department in Rome, and when there was a fire, they would call Marcus Crassus out and he would arrive at the scene of the fire and start negotiating with the home owner the cost of putting out the fire. History clearly shows that Marcus Crassus, in this way, became one of the wealthiest land owners in Rome.
Supply
Imagine if we were to extend this logic of the god of profit that the Conservative Government worships, the logic which says that the Post Office has to make a profit. How crazy it would be to extend that to the fire department. The Government would be laughed out of this place if it did that.
What about the police force? Do we expect the police departments across Canada to show profits? No, we do not. We recognize that fire protection and police protection are services to which all Canadians are entitled, and we do not provide first class and second class service. The same is true of garbage collection.
I am not aware of the fact that there are two kinds of garbage collection services. They do not go to Forest Hills in Toronto to pick up the garbage with white gloves. I understand they used to go around to the back door, but they have cut that out now. The fact is that the same service is provided, whether it is once a week or twice a week.
The same should be true of the Post Office. In fact, I would suggest that the Post Office is probably the only visible indication of the federal Government in every little community across Canada. It seems to me that in most small towns, there is a post office which flies the Canadian flag. It is the national presence in those towns. It is a unifying element.
In the small town that I lived in in northern Ontario for some 10 glorious years, the Town of Coniston, the post office was right in the centre of town. After the mail had been delivered and sorted, everyone would go to the post office. It became the social centre. The retired folk would meet there. They would see each other and chat there.
What has happened now? The Minister, speaking earlier in this debate, said that when the Conservatives came into office, there was a $300 million deficit in the post office. It seems that the Government did not bat an eyelash when it had to fork over $1 billion to bail out a bank. It did not make much fuss about that. However, to provide quality mail service across Canada, it does not want to spend that $300 million.
The Post Office had some options and the Government had some options. The Government wanted to show a profit in the Post Office, so what were the options? One was to institute a plan that would eliminate the deficit. That could be done by cutting back services and by laying off workers. That was one option.
The other option with which the previous Government had toyed at one time was to expand the services of the Post Office; in other words, to increase the revenues of the Post Office, not by increasing the cost of the service but by increasing the number of services the public could take advantage of through the Post Office.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Good idea.

May 12, 1988
Supply


John R. Rodriguez: It is an excellent idea. When I was in Switzerland two summers ago at an ILO conference, I took a couple of hours to go to the post office in Geneva to see how that post office is run. When I walked into the post office, I thought I was in a McDonald's restaurant. There were advertisements for McDonald's burgers and for Burger King burgers. The local department store was also advertising in the post office. I asked the postmaster what was going on. He told me that they raise millions of dollars in revenues from permitting those advertisements.
What is wrong with cancelling mail with a stamped advertisement? If the stamp is for Sears' 50th anniversary sale, that stamp could be put on cancelled letters and would be distributed across Canada. Who would complain about that form of revenue for the Post Office? It is a simple idea.
What about letting people pay their utility bills at the post office? Why is all that baksheesh left for the big banks? I recall a time when at the post office, people could actually deposit money in their savings accounts. However, nobody now is suggesting that the Post Office go into the banking business.
Surely clients of the Post Office ought to be able to pay their utility bills at the post office. That option was not followed, however. The Government did not tell the Post Office to find new sources of revenue.
After months and months of dithering, the Government handed the post office a business plan in which Canada Post was instructed to cut jobs by 15 per cent, 8,700 jobs. It was to close 5,200 rural post offices across Canada. It was to then embark on the favourite saw of the Conservative Government, privatization. In fact, that is the hidden agenda of this Government. It wants to privatize Canada Post. That is its ultimate aim. Every time a Conservative rises to say that that is not so, we know that it is so because every time they say no, it means yes.
Canada Post was also told to embark on a system of supermailboxes in urban communities. The Government has a fixation about the deficit rather than about what ought to have been the more positive approach which is how to increase revenues for the Post Office.
If it were up to me, I would have said something to all the top echelon people at Canada Post, people who are paid piles of money and have Ph.D.s from business schools and set up business models for the post office. None of them have ever worked on the line. They do not know what it is to work on the line. They do not know what the occupational health and safety record of Canada Post is. They never see the conditions in which those people eat lunch. They are the ones who say that the employees have to check their purses because they cannot go on the job with their purses. They do not have to check their wallets or briefcases. They go to their nice, posh offices and sit around. They get their nice big cheques every two weeks.
I would have said to those people: "You go out and come back with a plan showing how we can raise revenues. I don't want to hear about cut-backs in services and I don't want to hear about raising the cost of postage stamps and mail services. I want creative ideas for how the Post Office can earn more revenues, that is what I want to hear. That is music to my ears, not this stuff that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs loves to hear, privatize, privatize, cut back, cut back".
Let me deal with a couple more things. I have heard it said that it is only members of the NDP who are complaining about the supermailboxes. The Minister who spoke earlier said that we suggested rural folk ought to have door-to-door delivery. Small town Canada ought to have door-to-door delivery. This Party has not said that. None of our speakers in this debate said that. What we are talking about are those urban communities where one side of the street is getting door-to-door delivery and the other side has to use supermailboxes. These boxes are monstrosities. Not only are they an inconvenience, they have created a class system within urban communities. On one side we have door-to-door delivery, on the other we have supermailboxes.
Is it just the NDP who are complaining and saying we do not want supermailboxes? No one in their right mind would suggest that the Peterborough City Council is made up of raving democratic socialists. I hardly think so. Yet that council sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) saying that it does not endorse the installation of supermailboxes in urban subdivisions. Canada Post has given the council until May 13 to comply with the request. "If it refuses, Canada Post Corporation will have no alternative but to redeploy resources for implementation in other communities". That is Mr. William Lockman, to the manager of the supermailboxes. He is Mr. Superbox. He wrote that in a letter to the mayor of Peterborough.
One of the aldermen on the Peterborough City Council said: "I am shocked by Canada Post's attitude. I didn't realize to what length they'd go to ensure our participation in the supermailbox program." He is speaking for the community of Peterborough.
Again, is it just the NDP that is saying the Government is wrong in discontinuing door-to-door delivery in urban communities and putting in supermailboxes instead? I hardly think so. The Coalition of Handicapped Persons in Canada had this to say: "The supermailbox is one more case of people with disabilities taking a step backward. Once again they have to turn to others for help. Canada Post thinks that simply providing lower mailboxes makes mail more accessible to disabled people. They are defining what is accessible but we know what is accessible." That is an organization particularly concerned with the establishment of the supermailboxes.
May 12, 1988

Another interesting article comes from Mississauga, again an area not known for its raving democratic socialists. This article appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 22 and it says "Postman Never Rings in New Subdivisions". It goes on to point out that when this gentleman has to pick up his mail he has to get in his car, fight traffic for five miles and hope he will find a parking space near the busy intersection where the post office is located. He says that he pays the same taxes and the same price for a postage stamp as everyone else. Why can he not get the same service as everyone else? In British Columbia, a group organized to fight the establishment of supermailboxes says it is a step backward, not a step forward.
In my long period of time here, first as postal critic and then just observing the Post Office scene for years, I came to the conclusion that the major problem with Canada Post has to be its industrial relations, the relationship between the workers and management. Imagine if you can that there are in the order of 36,000 grievances in the Post Office. When the workers win a grievance at first or second stage, Canada Post appeals it all the way through the process. They have a backlog of 36,000 grievances. Do you understand the cost to the taxpayers of resolving those grievances? A lot of them could have been avoided in the first place if there was a more understanding, a more sensitive management in the Post Office.
Just to give one example of the stupidity of the Post Office, they have a new rule now that workers on the line cannot take their purses on the job.


A.H. Harry Brightwell: Why?


John R. Rodriguez: According to Canada Post, there is theft and this is its way of avoiding that. There is also alcoholism and drug use on the job and this is the way Canada Post will keep it off the line. Yet in the very next breath a spokesman for Canada Post said they have less than 1/2 per cent theft in the Post Office. If someone wants to smuggle drugs on to the line you do not need a purse to put them in. What do they do next? Do they have a man pull his pockets out and leave them out on the line? Do we have them sort mail naked? Do we send in some of those goons to do a body search?
Post Office management in its relationship with its workers has to be somewhere in the Middle Ages. I have seen it time and time again. The bulk of Post Office problems stem from that kind of Neanderthal thinking on the part of management. There are no modern techniques being used. Maybe we should send them all down to that new Honda plant in Alliston. Maybe they might learn a few things about how to treat people.


The Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 p.m., it is my duty to advise the House that the proceedings on the motion now before the House have expired pursuant to standing order 82(12).
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
CONTROL CENTRE-GOVERNMENT POSITION/ REQUEST FOR MINISTER TO INTERVENE
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my comments this evening are further to a question I directed to the Minister of Transport, concerning information I was given by CN employees in Montreal to the effect that the switching yard control centre might be transferred from Montreal to Toronto. Imagine the impact this would have on employees, especially those with families and children of school age who would have to move the whole family, sell their house and go to Toronto, and there is also the language aspect. To realize what the impact would be in this respect, I think we should remember the case of les Gens de I'air, our air traffic controllers. Employees at CN have more or less the same responsibilities, except that they are responsible for railway traffic.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply, if we can call it that, was that he was not aware of anything or at least gave the impression he did not know what was going on. The Minister's behaviour and his attitude were certainly not new. As far as Quebec is concerned, we got much the same reaction when discussing the safety aspects of the Jacques-Cartier Bridge and the Champlain Bridge. Today, the Minister of Transport happens to be from Quebec, but I must say that the response has not been any more satisfactory to Quebecers who are seeking assurances or formal guarantees that these jobs will remain in Montreal and will not be transferred to Toronto. There is another issue which concerns a contract for building locomotives, and this particular contract for thirty locomotives was awarded to a company in the United States, while it is common knowledge that CN headquarters are in Montreal and that Bombardier's locomotive workshops are in Montreal East.
CN, which is a Crown corporation, just happened to award contracts to the United States instead of letting Quebecers do the job, and the Minister didn't have the gumption to answer my question. If he is so reluctant to have the contract revised to give Bombardier the order for thirty locomotives, I think that, since General Electric in the United States has previously worked with Bombardier, the Canadian content of the thirty locomotives that will be built in the United States should be at least as high as 60 per cent and that Bombardier, which has expertise in engine manufacturing, should make the engines, and the assembly work could be done in Montreal East.
Unfortunately, I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply and the same applies to the possible transfer of jobs now located in

May 12, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Montreal. The reason given was the need for modernizing equipment. To do this, and in connection with the federal Government's deregulation legislation, what I call the law of the jungle, the CN now says that what counts is cutting costs, and bilingualism certainly costs money. Since the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister want to cut costs, all operations will be concentrated in Toronto. Only one language will be used. They can put in a bilingual employee who can talk to the people in rural Quebec, but it makes no sense to appoint someone to work in French in Canada. That is just for Quebec, and even in Quebec some can be bilingual and that should be enough.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, and the Parliamentary Secretary who is about to reply, that Quebecers will not stand for this. We can take care of ourselves. Recently we had Queen Beatrix who came to tell us about the Durham Report-we can see the federal Government's attitude, but we will never let ourselves be assimilated! We will never lose those jobs! We refused to separate. But if it doesn't work out, Mr. Speaker, we could tell the rest of the country that if they don't take us as we are, we will go elsewhere.
I hope that we will not come to such conclusions and that the Conservative Government will realize the linguistic importance of Quebec and guarantee French-language jobs in Quebec will stay there. We don't object to the upgrading of equipment in Toronto, Montreal or Winnipeg. Even Montreal workers agree. In order to maintain linguistic duality in Canada and preserve the French language in Quebec, the Federal Government could order CN to maintain the jobs of switching yard control workers in Montreal and provide any additional funding required to protect those jobs and the French language within CN as well as Canada.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member with regard to his question of some time ago. Let me begin by referring to a report concerning a 1986 collision between a Via Rail passenger train and a CN freight train at Bernieres, Quebec, which I understand happens to be in the riding of the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), an outstanding Member of the House of Commons.
The Canadian Transport Commission ordered CN to upgrade the technology of the dispatching control equipment for its St. Lawrence region. The upgraded, computer assisted equipment must be operative by mid-1990. The CTC order calls for a significant financial investment by the railway. A study is currently under way to determine how best to comply with the order.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that, being a Crown corporation, CN has an obligation to the federal Government and to Canadian taxpayers to operate in a safe,
efficient, and profitable manner. A consolidation of the Montreal centre with the one in Toronto is being examined, but it is only one of the many options being considered. The railway has not completed its examination and no decision has been taken.
The perception that Montreal, as the Canadian hub of transportation, may lose its pre-eminent role is indeed not correct. CN's employment level in Montreal and in the Province of Quebec, expressed as a percentage of total workforce, has remained virtually unchanged at about 25 per cent to 26 per cent. With regard to the use of French as the language of communication for train operations in Quebec, the Government has already expressed its concern to CN in this matter. I am confident that such concerns will be very carefully considered by CN before it makes its final decision.
Finally, I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie	(Mr. Malepart) that Crown
corporations have the legal and financial scope, authority, and responsibility to manage their own affairs without interference from the Government.


THE ECONOMY-GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1988,1 asked the Minister of Finance of Canada (Mr. Wilson) to comment on a report of the Conference Board concerning our economic situation in general. Since oral question period does not lend itself to developing a particular theme, I want to take these few minutes to explain further the Conference Board's position, which is also shared by the editorialists of various specialized magazines in the country on our economy, by the major banks, in other words by those who make economic decisions and ensure that Canadians have a good standard of living.
For example, it is mentioned there that interest rates have gone down by 4 per cent since 1984.
This means that someone with a $50,000 mortgage saves $2,000 a year or $166 a month because we have created a climate favorable to lower interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, take another example. If you have a car that cost you $12,000 and your interest rate is 4 per cent lower, that means you save $40 every month. Since it normally takes 36 months to pay for a car, the savings are substantial.
Low interest rates are beneficial not only for consumers but also for producers, business people, and entrepreneurs. It is important to have lower interest expenses when you want to expand or launch a new business. This too is possible, thanks to our good, sound management.
We also said in this report that we helped control inflation. Those who have thought back to 1970, 1975 and 1980 recall that in those years, the purchasing power of Canadians

May 12, 1988

declined 10, 12, 13 per cent a year. Increasingly, the same $100 bought less groceries or rented a smaller house or apartment and this especially affected older people, Mr. Speaker. We had a smaller car, shorter outings, less travel, because the Canadian dollar, due to the interventionist, spendthrift policies of the socialists and Liberals... In other words, Canadians were spending money they did not have. This weakened the Canadian dollar and reduced the savings of the elderly.
The report also indicates that we have very well managed our deficit. It is for this reason and also because the Canadian Government has borrowed less that interest rates are down. Fewer are the Canadians who want to borrow, cheaper is the money. We have succeeded in creating a climate where money is cheaper. We have done that by making very good use of the taxpayers' money.
Finally, the report mentions two other points: First our tax reform. Since 1917, nobody had ever heard of income tax coming down following a tax reform. So it is the first time since 1917 that 85 per cent of Canadian taxpayers will pay less income tax because of a tax reform; it is the first time that 90 per cent of senior citizens in Canada will no longer pay income tax. What does this mean? It means more money available for Canadian taxpayers and, what is more important, more money for contractors and businessmen who, realizing that the State has become a less demanding partner with a possibility to pay less income tax on their benefits, will expand their businesses further.
Finally, the Conference Board of Canada emphasized that the Government had signed with the United States a trade deal which would make it possible for our manufacturers to be protected through secured access to the American market. As you know, one Canadian out of five is working because of the goods we are exporting to foreign markets. One Canadian out of four is working because of the goods we are exporting to the United States. Our exports to the United States amount to $95 billion a year. That means jobs!
And this market is being jeopardized because the Americans are having problems with their balance of payments and they have decided to stop some of our exports, including lumber, hogs, salted fish, and all sorts of goods when they cross the U.S. border. We have decided to streamline Canada-United States relations and prevent any unilateral action on the part of our American neighbours through a Free Trade Agreement. It is this agreement which will increase our market in the United States by as many as 250 million customers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) is here to reply. If possible, I should like him to tell Canadians what would have happened if, instead of having a Conservative Government which is aware of the value of money, of the need for an economic recovery, we had lived again under a Liberal-Socialist coalition, meaning indiscriminate spending, money squandering, uncontroled borrowing, no new businesses, no
Adjournment Debate
new jobs, no trade with the United States and increased employment. What would have happened, Mr. Speaker? This is the question I am directing to the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Finance, my friend the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend my colleague the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) for the outstanding job he has been doing since 1984 here in the House of Commons and in his riding. We know that he is a well known and experienced administrator who, before jumping into the political arena, had a brilliant career. I am sure he will also have a brilliant career on the political scene.
As I listened to my colleague from Levis talk about economic matters, I could appreciate that indeed he has worked in that sector before, and since 1984 he has been keeping a close watch on everything the Government has done.
Mr. Speaker, he is right when he says that the Conference Board projections have been revised upwards. Like most other trend indicators who predicted a better economic performance throughout the country, they proved to be wrong: Canada's performance has been even better than expected.
When my colleague from Levis talks about the Opposition and a coalition, whether it is a coalition or either one of the other two Parties in office, we see and we know their forecasts. Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Levis, I am sure you too recall that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled the documents of his 1984 economic statement, both the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that we would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. Mr. Speaker, jobs were created in 1984.
When he tabled his Budget in May 1985, the reaction was the same: Both Opposition leaders said the Budget would make us lose jobs. Mr. Speaker, jobs were created in 1985.
When the Budgets came out in 1986, 1987 and 1988, all we could hear from the two Opposition leaders-Liberal or NDP, it does not matter-was that we would lose jobs, it was bad for Canada, and what have you. Those were negative remarks which failed to take the Canadian reality into consideration, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from Levis knows what the Canadian reality is. He is living it, he works with the Government, he makes constructive comments, he takes a positive approach. That is what has been done by the Conservative Government since 1984.
Mr. Speaker, nearly 1,300,000 jobs have been created since 1984, although every time this Government tabled bills with an impact on the economy, the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) made dire predictions that jobs would be lost. Every time we presented major projects, such as the free trade agreement...

May 12, 1988
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the agreement will create jobs in this country and protect existing jobs.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) says he will tear up the agreement. Mr. Speaker, even a child of six can see the Leader of the Opposition doesn't have the strength to tear up the agreement. He can't even lead his own caucus, much less tear up the agreement. The Leader of the NDP, who has enjoyed the benefits of free trade in his riding for twenty years, also says the agreement is no good for Canada. So what is good for Oshawa isn't good for Canada? Come on, Mr. Speaker!
I appreciate the positive comments made by the Hon. Member for Levis and, in concluding, Mr. Speaker, I again wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on the excellent work he has done in the House of Commons and in his riding.

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-NITROGEN OXIDE EMISSIONS- DISCUSSIONS IN GENEVA/POSITION OF UNITED STATES


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to pursue a question about emissions that cause acid rain, particularly nitrogen oxide emissions. This is an extremely important question. We are beginning to make some progress in Canada on the sulphur emissions that cause acid rain, but a very important question for acid rain is the so-called NO, emissions.
Negotiations have been ongoing in Geneva about this matter-and a draft protocol has been circulated-for quite a while. We are trying to find out where they are and to what extent the Americans, who are a major source of NOx emissions in Canada and a major source of acid rain and other health problems, are responsible.
We find that the Government's response is that all is well and that we are making progress. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), when asked a question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, said that we had a win in Geneva in the negotiations. What were the Americans trying to do in Geneva? They were trying to get something into the protocol stating that instead of choosing 1987 as the year against which a freeze in emissions would have to be measured, they could choose any year. They could take an earlier year. They took the year 1978. Their emissions were higher then, so they would be able to increase their emissions by 10 per cent and still not violate the protocol.
Increases in these emissions would be extremely dangerous for Canada. The increase they would be allowed would be the same amount as the total emissions for Canada itself. What good would it do for us to decrease our emissions if the Americans could increase theirs? It is very important to get this loophole out of the protocol. However, there was no win.
When I asked the question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) subsequently, he said that the Americans could have chosen 1978, their highest year, and that we
had eliminated the clause "any previous year". He referred to another proposal and said: "It is a double win for Canada".
Earlier today I had the opportunity to raise this question at the committee studying acid rain with the officials of the Department. They conceded that this question of taking out the previous year had not been agreed upon by the Americans. Further discussions are going on. The Americans are taking the matter back to their Government from Geneva. We will not know until Canada Day, July I, whether the Americans will agree. We also found out that the Americans are objecting to some very basic approaches to this question. They are not so sure they want to look at critical loadings. They are not quite sure about the accuracy of using those.
I have questions about critical loadings as well. They may be too generous in allowing emissions. We do not have very thorough information about the health consequences as opposed to the consequences for lakes and forests. We know less about the human health consequences. It is possible that we should be allowing even fewer emissions than we are.
It is also true that the American are resisting the measurement of transboundary fluxes. They are not so sure they agree with our proportions on what amount of their emissions come to Canada and create problems for human health, for lakes and forests, and so forth. We are very far from getting an agreement with the United States when the Americans are not sure about how to measure and how to deal with this question.
We have to realize that NO, emissions are still increasing even with this freeze. With more vehicles on the road, even if we have improved standards, those emissions will go up. We are not even at the stage of reducing emissions. We are hoping to get to a freeze that will come into effect by 1994. These are modest objectives indeed, and we are not sure whether we will get international agreement.
There are four ways NO, causes problems with people. Acid rain is probably the best known. There are also problems of ozone in cities. In the case of Vancouver they are locally produced. In the case of a number of our cities, Windsor along to Toronto up to Montreal, in that corridor, ozone comes from the United States. There are health consequences, respiratory problems, and children are especially vulnerable. We do not have very good data nor estimates on where the danger levels are. We are probably exceeding them very often.
Another problem coming from NO, emissions is nitrous oxide, an ozone depleting substance in the atmosphere having an effect something like that of chlorofluorocarbons on which we have just negotiated the treaty for a reduction over the long term. Nitrous oxide lasts 150 years. It is a very stable substance. It contributes to the greenhouse effect, something we are only beginning to study. We are only beginning to worry about the possibilities of major climate changes, of raising of the oceans' levels, as the swamping of cities on the coast, of making some areas uninhabitable and others drought areas. It would change enormously the climate. We are only beginning
May 12, 1988

to understand the consequences of this aspect of NO, emissions.
We cannot have any optimism that the measures we are even contemplating right now will be adequate.

Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee on Acid Rain will visit Washington in June, which is in a few weeks time, and will be there from June 6 to June 8 to present Canada's policy to the Americans, to Senators, Congressmen and officials. The purpose is to explain to the Americans our specific claims and our concerns about the disastrous effects of acid rain. This visit is particularly important because the Canadian Government is not doing enough to convey our concerns to the Americans. In my view, this is because of the free trade negotiations. The Canadian Government cannot negotiate two agreements at the same time, and I think it is no accident that we do have a free trade agreement and we do not have the agreement we need to regulate and reduce the emissions that cause acid rain.
Mr. Speaker, one of the overriding concerns of Canadians is to reduce emissions that cause acid rain, and the Government must take this concern seriously.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations in the Economic Commission for Europe, the ECE, to draft a protocol to control nitrogen oxide emissions are nearing completion. The officials testified at our acid rain committee meeting today, that special committee of the House of Commons, and those officials representing the Canadian Government are to be commended for their negotiations in Geneva. On July 1, 1988, Canada will declare its intentions concerning its signature of this protocol.
The negotiations in the 35-member ECE have shown Canadians just how justified our claims have been all along when we have called on the Americans to take action on acid rain. Before and during the April 27 and 28 meeting in Geneva, our Government was using every lever available to us to gain the support of the European nations. We asked for their support to ensure that Canada would not fall victim to
Adjournment Debate
increased NO, pollution from the United States as a result of credit language in the draft protocol.
It appeared as if the Europeans might be willing to accept a protocol that would result in increased damage to Canada's environment, just to bring the Americans into the protocol. Thankfully, this did not happen. The Europeans supported us because they too recognized the dangerous precedent this would have set for all future international environmental law. The Americans were sent a very clear message that they should join the international fight against acid rain.
The draft protocol now contains no credit clause. Canada's proposal to delete the so-called American credit clause was supported by all but the U.S. delegation. The phrase "any previous year" is now in square brackets, meaning that it is still being considered, and is qualified by another square-bracketed phrase which states that there will be no increase in transboundary fluxes from the 1987 level for the period between 1987 and 1996. Again, Canada's position was supported.
If the U.S. signs the protocol, Canada will have earned a complete freeze on transboundary fluxes until the second step of the protocol is in place in 1996. In this situation we will have succeeded in eliminating any negative effects on Canada of the use of any previous year as the baseline for freezing emissions. The second step in the protocol requires the establishment of critical loads, reductions required to meet those critical loads, and measures and a time-table commencing no later than January 1, 1996 to achieve the reduction. The review process required by the protocol will ensure that the second step goals are in fact met.
Our experience in Geneva has shown yet again that Canada is not only a valued member but a leader of the world community in the fight against air pollution. We put our case forcefully to the Europeans and we won. We will continue to press our case with the Americans on acid rain. The world community is on our side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 13, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers