1991-10-29

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to several petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



THE ECONOMY


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians today are perplexed and confused.
On the one hand, they read in the papers that a recent United Nations study has ranked Canada as having the second highest quality of life in the world. They also know that we have the second highest per capita income. They also hear on the news that the World Economic Forum in Geneva has placed Canada fifth among the countries of the world in global competitiveness. This all sounds like good news and it is.
But in too many cases those same Canadians are discovering from their own personal experience that all is not so well.
The parent whose child dropped out of high school last week may be disappointed and knowing that 30 per cent of Canadian children drop out before completing high school-one of the highest rates in the world-is no consolation. Knowing that 62 per cent of new jobs to be created in the next 10 years will require at least a high school education would really upset them.
Which of these views is right? Are we doing well or are we in trouble?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that both views are right.
There is no question that over the last 124 years, Canadians together have built a strong, dynamic and prosperous country. It shows in our standard of living, our health systems, our export performance and in many other ways.
That is only one part of the story, a snapshot assessment in an evolving world.
The global environment is changing before our very eyes and our productivity, our ability to produce efficiently as a nation is just not keeping pace. It is not growing as fast as it used to and is not gaming as fast as our competitors. This is the other side of the story which shows up in its own more negative way.

This is the other side of the story, the negative side.
The young scientist just out of university is angry and frustrated that he cannot find a job. Like thousands of our young people, he is talented and has worked hard. But with only four Canadian manufacturing firms out of 100 doing any research and development, his talent and hard work may not find the outlet they deserve.

The young factory worker is worried as she sees her friends laid off and her own shifts shortened. She does not want to go on unemployment insurance but she is probably working for one of those 50 per cent-plus of Canadian manufacturers using not one of the 22 leading manufacturing technologies essential to success in the

Routine Proceedings
1990s. As their productivity falls behind, they lose orders and she and her friends lose their jobs.
The young couple about to have their first child are not quite sure why they are having trouble making ends meet on two incomes when their parents lived comfortably on one. The reason is quite simply that their companies cannot afford to pay them more because the companies' productivity will not allow them to do so.
Productivity is the heart of the issue and is essential to our prosperity. It supports our way of life, it puts food on our tables, schools and hospitals in our communities, roads across our great country and pay cheques in our pockets.

But in order to be more productive, we first have to upgrade every component of our economy. And in order to do that, we have to learn to innovate, to work smarter and faster, instead of harder and longer.

That is why we are here today. We must find a way as a nation to improve our productivity. The old ways which served us so well are no longer working. We must change the way we think, the way we work and the way we work together as a country and as a people.
To be sure, some companies are doing what needs to be done. They are ploughing back their profits into productive new investment. They are spending on research and development and introducing sophisticated new equipment. Many individuals are not only seeking but actually making new opportunities for themselves by upgrading their skills and exploring new challenges. In a word they are adapting to the changing world around them.
But too many of us are simply not changing far enough or fast enough to keep up with the global pace-setters for much longer. The underlying cause of this state of affairs is far beyond the capacity of government, any government, to turn around on its own.
The Speech from the Throne in May put on record the government's intention to invite all Canadians "to participate in fashioning a new agenda for prosperity", to tell us what we must change in order to compete and win in the world. Over the summer, the initial response of
Canadians has been clear: Take action but consult us first.
For these reasons I am pleased to inform the House that the government is today instituting a comprehensive consultation process. It will be managed by a national steering committee and designed to elicit from all sectors of Canadian society the solutions to the challenges now confronting us.

I am particularly delighted to announce that two very distinguished Canadians, Mr. David Robert McCamus and Mme Marie-Josee Drouin, have agreed to act as co-chairpersons of the Steering Committee in its tasks of managing the public consultations and developing a plan of action.
The Steering Group will be made up of representatives from the business, academic, labour and scientific communities, as well as leading economic and social organizations.

The group will consult communities across the country as well as provincial governments and other national organizations. In addition, it will benefit from specific industry discussions conducted by cabinet ministers.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a discussion paper entitled Prosperity Through Competitiveness. This, together with a companion paper that my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration will be tabling in a few minutes, will serve as a focus for these consultations.
Together, the papers identify areas in which we must improve so that we can compete effectively, efficiently and profitably. Each area-learning, science and technology, investment, domestic markets and trade-is important. None of the components of the prosperity initiative is revolutionary. But they are the nuts and bolts of the country's economy.
Because time is of the essence, we have asked the steering group to complete its consultations by mid next year and to produce its final action plan by the end of next summer.
The change that is needed must not be a quick fix. The competitive challenge can only be met by systemic changes and not piecemeal changes; by sustained, not sporadic commitment to compete with the best in the world.
October 29, 1991

Canadians may have to change the way we think-all of us, from cabinet maker to cabinet minister-if we can ever hope to change the way we act. Because how we act is the real test of how productive we are going to be. We cannot sustain our standard of living unless we strengthen our ability to compete.
Whatever plan of action results from this process we are launching today, it will be important that as a country we strike while the iron is hot. We must act on our plan quickly and collectively while we are still able to do so from a position of relative strength and prosperity, with the capacity to generate wealth to support the changes that are needed.
It is time for us to maximize our use of something we have in abundance, our ingenuity. Millions of Canadians can still remember when Canadians had the best hockey teams in the world. Year in and year out, Canadians took for granted that their teams would come home with lopsided victories. Then, in the 1960s, someone from
11,000	kilometres away figured out how to beat us. They changed the way our game was played. They outskated, outshot and outchecked us. We were still playing good hockey, but they were playing better. They beat us and kept beating us until we learned how to innovate, how to adapt, how to upgrade and how to outsmart them. Now we are winning again because we have changed. We are winning again, but not all the time because competition is tougher today than it was in the 1960s.
We have built our team back to being among the best and can remain among the best if we continue to innovate and improve.

As a country, we are like our hockey team. We spent our first one hundred years living off our resources, and we beat the competition easily. For the next twenty years, we lived off our credit and found we were slipping. Now we have to demonstrate that we can recover our position off the ice as well as on it.

Our history tells us that we can come back. Individuals and companies are showing every day that we can do it by innovating and upgrading. Now we have to do the same as a country. Whenever we put our minds to a problem, we have licked it. I said this morning that we have
Routine Proceedings
something to be concerned about, and we have. However, I am reassured by the knowledge that when Canadians roll up their sleeves, the job gets done. I know we can do it.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with attention to the minister's introduction of his long-delayed consultation paper Prosperity through Competitiveness. That paper was promised to the people of Canada last May in the Speech from the Throne. Here we are more than six months later finally getting a paper.
The problem with the paper is not merely that it has been so long delayed and has not fulfilled the promise made by the government so many months ago, but rather that the paper is lacking in substance. The problem is that this paper offers Canadians no solutions, no directions and no proposals about how we resolve our serious problems of international competitiveness in Canada.
The minister knows perfectly well that after all these months of preparation, to bring forward such a paper is really an admission on the part of the government of its own failure to devise, develop and identify solutions to the problems which have confronted Canadians throughout this government's mandate. I do not speak only of the last three years or two years. I am speaking of the time since 1984 when this government first came to office.
This government at that time inherited a burgeoning economy left by the previous government. Look at the statistics. Anyone will be able to identify for themselves quite readily that in 1984 growth was well in place and benefiting all Canadians. What have we today after its seven or eight years in office? We have a paper from this government that says: "We don't know what to do. We are now going to go out on the road for a year's consultation with Canadians about what they think should be done". The government offers a paper which under various headings such as learning, innovation, financing, and domestic market regulation asks merely vague questions. Vague is a kind word. The questions are barely formulated, and the answers are certainly not offered. There are no options provided. There is not even any indication that after seven years this government has any idea of what to do about Canada's international competitiveness.

Routine Proceedings
Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the real failure of this government in its economic policies over the past seven years is not what it has done, it is what it has failed to do.
You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do that the macroeconomic or what the economists would call a macroeconomic environment is essential if Canada is going to compete effectively abroad. But what have we got in Canada? We have not had the government providing the leadership or offering the macroeconomic circumstances which can enable Canadians to compete effectively abroad.
We have high interest rates and a continuing high debt. The debt is at least as high as it was last year and with every indication it will continue at a very high level next year. We have a high Canadian dollar resulting from this government's failure to address its spending priorities and its failure to achieve lower interest rates so as to enable Canadians to compete effectively abroad.
This government has failed on the macro level and now it turns to what we might call the micro level which deals with specific instances of where Canadians know perfectly well we must take action. We must take action on training and retraining. We must take action on how we direct our savings toward productive investment. We must take action on innovation within our economy and the vital role to be played by science, technology, research and development. What do we get instead? We get a series of questions. We know the questions. All Canadians know the questions. We have known these questions for six and seven years.
What about the creation within Canada of a true economic union within our own country? This is an essential basis for our further progress in international competition.
But only now in its constitutional proposals has the government come forward with a few vague ideas. It may be vague on the one side, and highly convoluted in some detail on the other, about what it is going to do to create true economic union within our country.
The foundations are lacking in this paper to give Canadians any indication of how we might best proceed. The leadership is lacking. Let me turn for a moment to
international trade. The paper ends with a couple of vague questions. Should we trade more? That is the sort of question posed.
I think most Canadians would probably agree, yes, we should trade more. So the government then asks the question: "How do we do it?"
Clearly the government has no clear idea itself of how to do it. The government is right when it says: "Maybe we spent a little too much time on continentalism. Maybe we spent a little too much time on the free trade agreement and now on an agreement with Mexico". This, by any stretch of the imagination, can hardly be given Canadian priority. It said "Maybe we spent too much time on these issues and maybe we should be looking at Asia and the new Europe of 1992".
It has taken seven years for the government to think that one through. It does not even offer that as a nostrum. It simply says: "What do you think, Canada? Should we do this? Should we look at this?"
The real failure of this government, as I said, is what it has not done over the past seven years. It has failed to create an economic environment of spending restraint, taxation restraint and of creating lower interest rates and a stable dollar so that Canadian exporters can progress and expand at home and abroad in a way that creates the jobs that Canadians so obviously need. We do not have any comprehensive system of adjustment programs. The government now, at this late date, is saying that maybe we should have some comprehensive adjustment programs.
The decision on the free trade agreement was taken three or four years ago.
We are only now saying to ourselves: "Maybe we should have a little more training and retraining". What has this government really done about removing the trade barriers within our own country?
Canadians have known. They are not stupid people. They have known that those barriers should come down. They were in the constitutional proposals of the previous government, and it was due to the failure of the provinces to recognize their importance that we did not make any progress at that time. Now seven and eight years later we are saying: "Oh well, maybe we should make a little progress there".

"Let us look beyond the continent of North America", it says. We have been telling the government for years that it should be looking beyond the continent of North America. Its obsession with continentalism has led it to a blindness to the opportunities outside North America for Canadian exporters and Canadian investors.
Finally, it is the failure of this government to link its social policies and economic policies in an effective manner so as to ensure that the undeniable costs of the emerging global economy are spread equitably among our people, as are the benefits, when we come to achieve the real gains from the emerging global economy of which I have spoken.
This paper fails in that it offers Canadians only a series of vague questions and one more year of discussion before we can possibly hope to see any solutions emerging. My colleague from Newfoundland has a word or two to add. I would suggest that I now turn this over to him.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, last week I met with groups of workers in Windsor who have lost their jobs in the last 18 months.
There were three different groups totalling perhaps 225 people all out of work from plant shutdowns, all taking retraining of various sorts to try to get back into the work force. I want to quote from one of those workers.
"I came to this country 28 years ago. I worked 11 years at Bendix company. It closed down in 1981. I lost those eleven years of my life. I got a job at Windsor Bumper and it closed too. I came here for a better future, but now I am in the same position I was 28 years ago, with no job".
"What kind of future can I give my kids if this government does not change and give them a better future?" That is what this debate is about. It concerns people: men and women who have lost their jobs and their children who share that cost.
The government has brought forth more paper, all sorts of paper, more fancy phrases and more plans for consultation. Of course, we are glad to see the government taking seriously some of the things that it has so
Routine Proceedings
long neglected, like better training and more research and development.
Let us not permit the pretence to pass. This government is responsible for those workers whose plants have been closed; extreme interest rates, 6 per cent above the U.S. level, a value of the dollar up 25 per cent since 1987, a trade deal with the United States that was so unfair it has cost at least 250,000 permanent jobs. It is responsible for tax breaks to the rich and the GST for the rest of Canadians. All this has devastated our economy.
Yes, Canadians are perplexed and confused.
Unemployment is increasing. More and more people have to swallow their pride and survive the best they can on meagre welfare payments, and we have the GST.
In Quebec, for instance, medicare is on the way to being privatized because the government is cutting transfer payments to the provinces, and so on.
Until now, the Tory government blamed the deficit for the additional tax burden. I am referring to the tax burden on Canadians who pay their taxes, not the corporations that get off scot-free with their expense accounts for restaurants and all kinds of tax deductions.
Now that people are increasingly perplexed, because they are beginning to understand that all their problems are due to the government's incompetence, the Tories turn around and serve up a new slogan: Competitiveness. They want to cover up their failures with nice speeches.

Remember, I ask people across this country, even the business oriented Conference Board of Canada has labelled this the made-in-Canada recession, made by the ministers and the government sitting across from us in this House of Commons.
What we have here are not the prosperity papers. These are the propaganda papers. They are meant to divert Canadians from the real issues. They are meant to say that the basic Tory thrust is just fine; here are the restricted issue areas where we all have to concentrate and work together.

October 29, 1991
Routine Proceedings
I have to ask how this minister can get up and call for Canadians to co-operate when this same minister has kicked those Canadians in the teeth for the last seven years with his policies.
New Democrats believe in business-labour co-operation but aimed at full employment which these papers never mentioned. New Democrats believe the tax system needs reviewing to make it fairer, like cutting out loopholes for the rich, cutting out benefits for the powerful and doing away with the job destroying GST.
New Democrats want better training in this country but not at the expense of a much harsher UIC system. Just throwing workers on to welfare, that is what the Conservatives have given us. New Democrats want more consultation but on the real questions of the GST; the trade deal, whether it should extend to Mexico; the value of the dollar; interest rate policies; whether inflation should be our ultimate concern when 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed.
I am pleased to announce the first five New Democrat consultations which will take place in Hamilton, Guelph, London, Kingston and Sarnia between November 21 and December 17 of this year.
We can build the economy that we want and need for our people, but first we have to get rid of this government which we do not want. That means recognizing these propaganda papers as the first shot in the Conservative re-election campaign. As the $20 million is spent on this propaganda push, this diversion from the real issues, let every taxpayer recognize that their money is paying for this Tory pre-election campaign.



PROSPERITY


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, in both official languages, a discussion paper supporting the government's Prosperity initiative and entitled "Learning Well-Living Well".
Parliament's most important function in a democratic society like ours, even before resolving conflicting views or seeking consensus, is first to inform. To inform
ourselves, yes, and also to inform Canadians. When the objective is to inform Canadians of a threat to the continued prosperity, and ultimately the unity, of the nation-even if the message is unsettling and unwelcome at first to most-then this has to be Parliament's most important calling, Mr. Speaker, and its finest hour. This, Mr. Speaker, is what we are doing today-informing the Canadian people of an intolerable situation.
The government is putting forward to this House and to all Canadians a well-reasoned and thoughtful statement on a major international challenge that cannot be ignored. This is the competitive threat to the long-term security and prosperity of all Canadians.
The only way for Canadians to meet this threat is to develop our most valuable national asset: people. It is not Canada's natural resources but our human resources-our brain power-that count. It is ideas, knowledge, and skills that will be our winning ticket.
Our major international competitors are doing a better job than we are on this score, Mr. Speaker. The gap between our performance and theirs is widening. It will widen even further, unless we are determined to stop it and to take effective action now. We have one of the highest high-school dropout rates in the world: 30 per cent to Japan's 2 per cent. We face a critical shortage of scientists and engineers: Japan graduates nearly nine times as many as we do. People will say, "Japan again!"
Even Mexico, a developing country, graduates four times as many. Of course, these countries have a much bigger poopulation than Canada, Mr. Speaker, but I am talking on a per capita basis. More statistics? We are ranked 11th in the responsiveness of our school system to meet the demands of global competition. We rank 20th out of 24 OECD member countries in the effectiveness of our training programs.
Canadian companies spend proportionately only half of what American companies spend on training, one fifth of what the Japanese spend and only one eighth of what the Germans spend. Less than 50 per cent of adult Canadians have completed high school-that is, 12 years of schooling. Yet we know that 63 per cent of all jobs in the coming decade will require at least a high school certificate and 40 per cent will require at least 16 years of schooling.
October 29, 1991

Tragically, three out of ten adult Canadians cannot read properly and four out of ten cannot do simple arithmetic. Canada has one of the worst levels of literacy and numeracy among our competitors.

The solution to this widening gap lies in the minds and actions of individual Canadians. Canadians must want to value far more learning through life, that is develop a learning and training culture. This means that Canadian firms, especially small and medium sized ones, would quadruple and more the time and resources devoted to training and create a training culture within their firms. Life-long learning can become as important to us as it is to our international competitors: a life passion for gaining new knowledge and skills to compete, yes, but also to grow.
Right now as a people we do not have this commitment. This is the unfortunate reality. This is the central challenge every Canadian should see and confront.

If we do not, Mr. Speaker, in the coming years, we will lose high-skill, high-wage jobs, the security of all our jobs, and face an inevitable decline in our living standard. The threat will not diminish, but only grow!
This is a call to Canadians first and foremost to perceive fully the nature of the challenge-to dialogue and learn anew, and then in partnership, devise a response to this crisis. Let us be crystal-clear about it: the federal government has a responsibility to stimulate a national dialogue on Canada's economic future. For those who are concerned that the federal government will use this as a pretext to intrude on provincial jurisdiction, I want to say emphatically that this is not the case, Mr. Speaker. It would not be permitted by the Constitution, and in any case, it would make no sense. No one should fear that the people of Canada, in every province and every region, become better informed and talk seriously among themselves.
That is what we propose and that is what Canadians should expect of their federal government. If the federal government, knowing the facts, failed to inform Canadians, it would be a terrible abdication of ledership.
Routine Proceedings
Surely we are not so insecure and lacking in self-assurance to be concerned with the national government informing Canadians and encouraging them to talk seriously among themselves.
The Japanese or Germans or Italians are not going to put out press releases or prepare serious discussion papers for Canadians to alert us to our lower levels of performance.


An hon. member:: Of course not!


Bernard Valcourt: They and other nations will send their message by cancelling contracts.

Canadian firms will get the pink slip when they submit their bids or lose the opportunity to bid at all. The door to the international marketplace will be slammed in our face. Then the message to Canadians will have arrived a bit too late. We are putting learning at the front of the national agenda and to fail to do so knowing what we know would be totally irresponsible.
We should all celebrate that the results of this dialogue that we are starting today will be that Canadians will become more empowered. Individuals and all institutions in Canada, in partnership with each other and government, will find the answers. We want and welcome a public debate on Canada's economic future. Only then can we pave the way for a consensus to be forged on how to compete and to win against the best in the world.
Today in Canada until the throne speech put forward the challenge on learning and made learning part of the national agenda and consciousness, few Canadians placed the priority where it belongs. Now Canadians have a basis to consider launching themselves on a new journey. The rewards for each will be great if we put ourselves and our children firmly and for all time on this new path. Prosperity and personal growth will be the outcome as we confidently take on the world.
Business as usual is not an option. To fail to respond to this challenge ensures our economic decline. We would be left behind as other nations redouble their efforts to outperform and outcompete us.
We will rob our lives and our nation of the enormous potential that is ours.

October 29, 1991
Routine Proceedings

The Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, stated forcefully at the First Ministers' Conference in 1989 that we must launch a collective study of our education system, its relationship to Canadian competitiveness and its relevance to the international challenges of the year 2000.
His expression of leadership was positively received by all provincial premiers not as an attempt by the federal government to intrude into provincial jurisdiction but as a recognition that this truly was an issue of interest and importance to all Canadians.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that we can all have the self-assurance and confidence to consider this paper and input from any other source objectively and start a national dialogue.
All hon. members and all Canadians should consider this challenge very carefully.

In doing so every member of this House has the opportunity, if not the duty, to do the right and responsible thing, to boldly assert leadership and help Canadians realize their full potential and secure their prosperity into the 21st century.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the emotion I feel right now is not different from that of other Canadians who have tuned into this speech and presentation by two ministers, one on prosperity, one on the need for training, with a sense of hope.
I got up this morning at 7 a.m. and came down to Parliament Hill for an eight o'clock briefing behind closed doors to be given some background information as the opposition employment critic with a sense of hope. I come from a riding that suffers tragically high unemployment, among the highest in the country. I come from a constituency where every family has some members, and in many cases a majority of members, who have left not only home but their province in desperate search for work. I come from a part of the country where we need more training. We need to give people the skills that are required to be competitive in the national economy and in the increasing global economy.
All I feel having heard the speech of the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Employment is that I have been the victim of a cruel hoax.
The Government of Canada has not laid before the people of Canada today propositions, proposals, dealing with plans to enhance our prosperity or plans to give Canadians the skills they need, the tools they need to contribute. No, there is nothing specific. It has given us a report that tells us there is a crisis. After seven years of government, almost eight years, these ministers stand up today and with a sense of pride and with great alarm, as if they discovered it just yesterday, they ask us, did we know after nearly eight years of government, do we Canadians know.
They want us to know. They want us to be alarmed because they just found out their alarm. At what? That we have one of the highest high school drop-out rates in the world after nearly eight years of this government, that we face a critical shortage of scientists and engineers after nearly eights years of this government, that we are ranked eleventh in responsiveness of our school system, that we are ranked twentieth out of twenty-four in the effectiveness of our training programs world-wide, that Canadians companies spend only one-half, 50 per cent as much as American companies on training, and that less than 50 per cent of current adults have completed high school, that only three out of ten adults in Canada read properly.
This is the report card of the government on itself after eight years. It is a report card of failure. It is an admission of failure after eight years.
What are the facts? It takes tremendous nerve and a small degree of backbone. It takes, as we say in Newfoundland, a lot of guff. As we say in Newfoundland, you bought the face of a robber's horse as it departs the scene of the crime to stand in the House and say, as this minister has just said, and I wrote it down: "We are going to put education at the front of the national agenda''. We, this government, this Mulroney administration that has been in power nearly eight years, is telling us today, October 29, 1991: "We are going to put education at the front of the national agenda".
October 29, 1991

What has this government done in the area of education? It has been in power now going on eight years, what has it done? It has reduced contributions to post-secondary education funding since 1986. Between 1986 and 1994, the formula calls for a $9.5 billion cut for education.
Today it wants us to believe that it is going to put education at the front of the national agenda. That takes nerve. There is a better word than that.
This is the government that has frozen Canada student loans at the same level they were at when it came into power in 1984. Most recently, it has introduced a 3 per cent tax applicable for the first time this year on student loans. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, the student who is wealthy, no tax; the student who is among the poorest in Canada who is required to get a loan now pays a tax on his loan. The bigger the loan, the bigger the tax.
This is the government that has the nerve to tell us today that it is putting education at the forefront of the national agenda, taxing education, taxing student loans. This is the government that applied the GST to books and to other student aids, brought in the GST and did not exempt education, but applied it. Yes, tuition fees are exempt, but books and other learning aids are not exempt.
The government has announced its large campaign to deal with functional illiteracy. What did it announce? It announced that roughly 5 million Canadians are functionally illiterate in this country. It has announced a $20 million program for five years to combat illiteracy. It just told us, in its statement, that 3 out of 10 people are functionally illiterate. The government is going to spend $4.40 per illiterate Canadian annually. It is slightly more than one penny per day per functionally illiterate Canadian.
The government has just moved education to the front of the national agenda and 1.3 pennies per day per functionally illiterate Canadian will be spent in the great campaign that this government has launched to deal with illiteracy.
This government says it is going to consult. It says that this is a real effort to consult. It wants business and labour and government working together in harmony. If we did not know better we would think today's announcement was the latest script for the Smurfs television program, it has such childlike delight in its simplicity and, might I add, phoniness.
Routine Proceedings
The minister who just spoke, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, announced on January 14, 1991 the creation of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board. Here is the minister's press release and I want to quote him: "The Canadian Labour Force Development Board will play a key role in developing a training culture and a commitment to training excellence. It will advise on national training and labour-market adjustment priorities." It goes on for several more paragraphs to talk about this board and its position at the key, at the nerve centre of training and development in Canada. Its role is to bring together all the players in the community and to advise government.
Yesterday, I spoke to one of the co-chairs of that board. He told me something I find absolutely incredible and astonishing. The co-chairman told me that they had not been consulted on the minister's discussion paper on training released today. That is what he told me. He told me further that the board would not be participating in the consultations once the paper was released. That is what the co-chairman, Gerard, told me yesterday. He told me that the board will not play any role in this consultation process.
What is the reality? I want Canadians to know the reality. The government has announced in an initiative today-mark it down, October 29,1991-that is at least a $20 million initiative. We got that in the briefing this morning that I came to. There is $2.5 million so far estimated to be spent on community-based town hall consultations, $7.5 million so far for a secretariat for this new prosperity training committee, $5 million estimated so far-listen members opposite-for advertising, for communications for this secretariat, and an undetermined amount of money to be used for giving contracts to consulting agencies to write papers for the secretariat.
Now we are up to $20 million and that is the day it was launched. It will be $25 million or $30 million or $35 million or $40 million to be spent on this so-called effort to put education at the front of the national agenda.
Let us be honest. There is not one single piece of data, there is not one fact spoken today by the minister of employment or by the minister for trade that we were not already aware of. You can find any one of 25 reports by Commons committees, by various departments of the government, by the Conference Board of Canada. I participated in a report in 1981 that looked at a lot of

Routine Proceedings
these problems emerging which have since been grandly exacerbated by this government. There is nothing new.
Is the government today in the business of trying to address the problems of prosperity or the need for prosperity? Is it really in the business of trying to address a government that has cut arbitrarily transfer funds, given no money for illiteracy, piled taxes on poor students? Is it really in the business of promoting education? Or is this government using $20 million and a third party to resurrect a dying government, led by a leader who no longer wants to be leader? Imagine, a government led by a Prime Minister who is actively flinging his resume around looking for a new job, trying to convince us now after eight years that it is serious about the mess of the economy and that it is serious about training in this country.
We on this side believe in calling it exactly what it is: this is a cruel hoax, this is a farce, this is a government at 10, 11, 12, 13 per cent in the polls-depending on which poll you believe-using taxpayers' money and a third party to try and sell a policy that has been consistently rejected by the people of Canada over the last year or two or three.
If this government had one ounce of shame, it would go out in the slightly frozen turf, dig a hole and bury its head.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and International Trade compare Canada's competitive situation with a hockey game. It is quite evident that in so far as government leadership is concerned, our leadership consists of a number of hockey pucks.
The trifle of the discussion paper on education submitted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration is called Learning Well and Living Well. What we have heard today demonstrates that the first part of the title should have been, in respect of this government, "Learning Slow and for Canadians a Living Hell", if one pays attention to what my colleague had to say about the terrible toll of unemployment and misery that has been
imposed upon Canadians by this government through its policies. To the extent that it has any policies having to do with the economy, these have consisted of such things as the GST, a high dollar, high interest rates, and so on, which perhaps I will say something about a little later.
Only a government that did not know its way would pay a million dollars to an American Harvard professor to tell Canadians that this country is too resource dependent, that it should have more manufacturing, that it does not have enough scientists, that it does not have enough technicians, that education needs to be enhanced and reformed so that Canadians can compete.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: What was their first clue?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That was evidently the clue that did it. However, what one has to realize is that what we are hearing today is nothing new. It took all this time for it to penetrate into the minds of this government that we have a serious problem with respect to education and training, research and development, and science and technology.
I can recall the government convening an economic conference in 1985 and subsequent to that it has had all kinds of forums, in Halifax, Toronto, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and Vancouver in respect to education, in respect to science and technology. It has had the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology. It has any number of specialist organizations speaking on behalf of the technology industry in this country. Every one has said the same thing. Yet for seven years this government has absolutely ignored the fact that we have fewer scientists and engineers than Japan, Germany, France and Great Britain and practically every one of the industrialized nations. Almost everyone who has looked at our situation has realized that Germany, Japan and even the United States-my God, in some respects even Mexico-outstrips us in producing trained workers.
I cannot understand how it is possible for a government to come before the Canadian people today and shock Canadians into understanding what has taken this government so long to understand and it is that it has been on the wrong track.


In fact, back when the free trade debate was going on, a great many of us pointed out that to enter into a free trade agreement such as this country did with the United States was going to confront our nation with a considerable challenge that the free trade agreement by its specifics did not allow us to meet.
In negotiating the deal, the government looked at the Canadian economy in the traditional sense that resources would somehow carry us through and we could give away all of the tools for improving Canada's manufacturing sector and improving Canada's performance. It had already become clear that we had to improve our performance in respect to value added. In fact, if we were going to enter into an agreement with the United States, we said as a party, then we should not open up the economy completely to competition from the United States unless we took the steps to correct the structural deficiencies in our economy.
I notice that as usual our Minister of Employment and Immigration talks about people in terms of national assets. He talks about human resources. I think this demonstrates the difference between the attitude of this government and my party. This is a government that speaks exclusively on behalf of those that would use what is in this country to make a profit. Everything out there, our resources and so on, are tools for making money without paying any attention to the human values and the human concerns that we think are most important.
We said that before we enter into such a free trade agreement with the United States, among other things, we should look at the capacity of our people to exercise their creativity and their capacity to innovate, to develop their skills so that they could reap the rewards of their efforts and not have someone else reap their rewards on their behalf using those people on whose behalf we speak as their resources for making profit.
If this country is going to grow and prosper it is perfectly clear that we are going to have to look upon this as an effort in which we are engaged together. I heard the Liberals talk about the failure of this government with respect to economic policy, its failure with respect to research and development policy, its failure with respect to educational leadership and so on. Just as this government cut back on transfer payments for post-secondary education, just as this government cut back on investment in research and development, just as this government has failed to provide the support for
Routine Proceedings
increasing our capacity to innovate, just as this government has in fact attacked post-secondary education, attacked research and development in so many ways, the previous government is just as much guilty as this government is in its failure because of Canada's position economically, in competition with other nations in this world, has deteriorated over the last seven years. It started deteriorating 20 years ago under a Liberal government that was just as much a failure as this government is.
We have the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and International Trade, a minister who as Minister of Finance completely ignored the pleas from this side of the House to do something about increasing investment in R and D. When this minister was Minister of Finance, he was the one that caused the Prime Minister's promise, that there would be a doubling of expenditures in research and development in this country, to be broken.
It is this Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and International Tirade, whose high valued dollar has caused almost a collapse in research and development and technology transfers in the automotive industry as testified to by reports from his own department which demonstrate that to be true, and there has been no compensation for that.
Mr. Speaker, our party is for consultation. Our party is for the participation of the people in doing something to improve the lives of Canadians, to ensure that Canada will prosper and that its citizens will have the benefit of a good livelihood based upon knowledge, training and skills.
We are outraged that this government should be suddenly shocked or pretend to be shocked by the fact that Canada faces an educational crisis and an economic crisis. This party was warned that this was happening for seven years, and before that.
We have made specific suggestions, some of which I find discussed in the government document on education, such as a grant levy system on industry to improve industry's performance and training, and a training and educational pool for youth. We have made suggestions for increasing the allotted money provided for universities and have asked for six years for a negotiated approach by the federal and provincial governments to university financing.

October 29, 1991
Routine Proceedings
We have talked for seven years about increasing the amount of money provided to the granting councils. We can stand here and list, one by one, the propositions we have advanced for improving training, improving education and for providing national leadership with respect to educational goals, all of which have been ignored.
Now the minister stands before us and says: "My God, it is the proudest moment in my life". He stood up and said what we have been saying for seven years.
I am glad that this slow learning government has caught up with the rest of the country. It has caught up with those of us who have tried to speak on behalf of this country, but it pretends that it is acting while the iron is hot.
The iron has already cooled. I hope the Canadian people, however, will put a fire under it so that this government will begin to act, not talk, not delay, not pretend to be an advocate and a participant in increasing our capacity as a country to prosper.



ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, an Act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: that the bill be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I missed your call for presenting reports from committees, and I am wondering if I could get unanimous consent to revert to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



BILL C-40 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

['Agreed.']
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal services, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Ottawa and Nepean concerning the gun control bill. Your petitioners declare that access to firearms is a critical factor in cases of homicide, accidents and suicide; that many types of weapons easily available in Canada are not required for legitimate purposes such as hunting and competitive shooting.
Your petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation prohibiting the possession of firearms by any person with a criminal record.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 108 will be answered today.


Mrs. Gaffney: With respect to the Canadian Ownership Account (a) have there been investments financed from this account since the March 1990 acquisition of Petro-Fina and, if so, (i) what are they and (ii) how much did they cost (b) what was the total of the fund at the end of 1991 fiscal year (c) has the government made any plans for the remaining money in the fund and, if so, what are those plans (d) what is the specific criteria for spending the money in this fund (e) how will the passage of the Act respecting the privatization of the national petroleum company of Canada affect this criteria?
October 29, 1991


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: (a) Since the acquisition of Petrofina, which was completed in 1983, there have been no other investments financed from the Canadian Ownership Account.
(i) & (ii) Not applicable.
(b)	As at March 31, 1991, the total remaining in the fund was $1,908,319,853.71.
(c)	No.
(d)	The criteria for spending the money in the fund is set out in subsection 71(3) of the Energy Administration Act, c. E-6, R.S.C. 1985.
(e)	The Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, c. 10, S.C. 1991, does not modify the criteria for spending money in the fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


Kenneth Albert James: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Orders:
June 13, 1991 -Second reading and reference to Legislative Committee G of Bill C-22, An Act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to move the following motion:
That this House now proceed to consideration of the report stage of Bill C-40.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will co-operate, as is their wont.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the minister. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consideration of the report stage of Bill C-40, an Act to provide for the continuation of postal services.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a), because of the ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 67 minutes as follows: 60 minutes between one o'clock p.m. and two o'clock p.m. and 7 minutes beginning at five o'clock p.m.
Is there unanimous consent for introducing amendments, without notice, at the report stage of Bill C-40?


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point. There were discussions in committee last night and there was an understanding that we would allow the minister and any other member of the House to make amendments to this legislation in order to see if we can find some agreement on an issue which is outstanding and on which we believe there has been some progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders Motion agreed to.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Churchill said just now, the committee met last night, and we discussed Bill C-40.1 believe that the three parties represented on the committee agreed in principle on the substance of the bill. However, it was clear after some lengthy debates in this committee that hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, had some reservations about clause 7(b). At that point, Mr. Speaker, I said that after the committee adjourned, which was around 11 p.m, I would consider the matter of clause 7 (b) and try to work out an amendment satisfactory to all parties concerned, including my colleagues from Kenora-Rainy River and Mission-Coquitlam, Canada Post and the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Mr. Parrot.
This morning I talked to Canada Post, and I had a meeting with Mr. Parrot. Without wishing to assume that both parties agree with the amendment, I do believe this amendment could be helpful and perhaps enable the House to expedite this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, as you know we are in a rather difficult position. We have received notice that there will be a general postal strike across the country as of 12.10 p.m. today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the following motion:
That Bill C-40 be amended by striking out lines 4 to 7 on page 4 and substituting the following: "employer and the union are in substantial agreement on the coming into force of this Act and the matters, including salaries, on which they subsequently agree and incorporate into the collective agreement the contractual language on which they are substantially agreed or, if there is no such"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the motion in amendement moved by the Minister of Labour under advisement, but that being said, and in order to expedite matters, the Chair would like to give the benefit of the doubt, for the time being. I will recognize the Minister of Labour if he wishes to take the floor. The Minister of Labour.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, in my conversations with the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, it was clear that one of the items on which Mr. Parrot has taken a firm stand is salaries, because the question arose
during our discussion before the committee and also during my many meetings with Mr. Parrot. This morning, after talking to Canada Post, I can inform hon. members that -

Canada Post has shown another sign of good faith. I have been saying from the beginning that both sides have been showing good faith, even though I know now of course that it is not possible for the parties to reach an agreement. I believed and I still do that they are both sincere and both bargaining in good faith. To that effect Canada Post has indicated to me that there was in fact substantial progress and agreement on wages during the Gold mediation. They agree that a decision from the arbitrator should come quickly on that matter. Canada Post, again as a sign of good faith, is prepared to give an advance on increased wages pending a settlement.
As a result of that offer of good faith by Canada Post I would now ask my colleagues to show the same amount of good faith and tiy to adopt this legislation quickly. I would hope that as a result of the statement which I have just made on behalf of Canada Post, on behalf of the minister responsible for Canada Post, Mr. Parrot would hold off on his threat of strike action and that we could get this dispute resolved in a responsible way without a work stoppage. That would certainly be in the best interest of everyone in this House and in the best interest of all Canadians, including the best interest of the workers of the Canadian Union of Postal Employees.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair can now rule that the motion in amendment moved by the Minister of Labour is in order.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a few comments on behalf of the opposition and the Liberal Party as they relate to the negotiations and discussions of all members involved in this particular back-to-work legislation, Bill C-40.
One of the areas of major concern last night in committee was clause 7. If we look at clause 7 very
October 29, 1991

carefully it suggests to the arbitrator that the conciliation report and the recommendations in it would be used as the final arbitrator's decision if they could not come to some consensus as among Canada Post, the union and the arbitrator on what was decided during the mediation with Mr. Gold.
It was our belief as the opposition and my belief personally that this particular clause would tie the hands of the arbitrator so severely that in essence he or she could not get the job done in an effective way. Yesterday we as a party presented an amendment which we thought would rectify the issue of tying one of the arbitrator's hands behind his back. It was discussed very thoroughly for quite a length of time. As a matter of fact, we did not finish until late last night around 11.30. The clause that we referred to was to allow the arbitrator, as I said, to just take cognizance of the conclusions and recommendations set out in the report of the conciliation board submitted to the parties on August 16, 1991 and not to have to accept the recommendations forthwith.
Having said that, the minister today has submitted an amendment to us in this place. Looking at it first hand, I would say that it meets the requirements that we were looking for. The employer, the union and the arbitrator are to look at the substantial agreement and the issues that were in the substantial agreement through the mediation process, even further than that, not just through the mediation process, but the last weekend that the union and the company negotiated on their own.
It is very important for people to understand that without this amendment the arbitrator would have to look specifically at the conciliation recommendations and not at discussions that took place at the mediation process because there is no information and no report was made by the mediators. It was basically all a verbal discussion. As we learned last night, after Mr. Gold's process, all the information that was dealt with during that time was shredded. It would then become what the union believes was said versus what the company believes what was said and then the arbitrator would have difficulty coming to some sort of consensus. He would therefore have to revert back to the recommendation of the conciliator's report.
Government Orders
That conciliation report was never intended to be an arbitrator's recommendation or report. It was there as a part of the process to help people work toward a final resolution to this dispute.
I commend the minister for having the wisdom to see the difficulties that he was placing the arbitrator in. Arbitrators, as you well know, have gained a large respect in the labour movement and in our collective bargaining process because of their ability to be independent and deal with issues based on the give and take at the moment of the presentations that are made by both sides.
I want to reiterate again the opposition's sense of frustration with this whole process that we are undertaking today. We will tell you very firmly that we will not try and hold up this legislation because it is the will of the government to put it in. But we would also like to state very clearly that the legislation was unnecessary at this time. Before the minister introduced the legislation and the discussions that ensued on Friday, both parties were quite willing to continue the negotiating process. The government was frustrated with how slow things were working relative to this process and wanted to speed it up by introducing legislation that would, in its belief, force the parties to come to some sort of conclusion.
Anyone who is involved in the labour movement more than two days will tell you that the exact opposite happens when you threaten them with legislation. In most cases the company and management feel more comfortable with an arbitrator. They are quite willing to sit back and let the arbitrator rule simply because nine out of ten times, if you take a look back at the arbitrators' reports and the recommendations and the agreements that have come out of arbitration, you usually get a slant to the management side. Statistics will bear that out. It is proof that this kind of situation forces the labour movement and the unions involved to try to work out a settlement without going to arbitration. They feel that the compromises made will always be a step backward for the men and women who are involved in that particular dispute.
Once the government and the minister opposite made that decision to enter into back-to-work legislation and put it in this House, the collective bargaining that we are so familiar with ceased. It was completely done at that time.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
I want to say to the government that if that situation continues, it is going to create some significant difficulties not only for this particular dispute, but for the relationship between management and labour in the long run.
It is my view and the view of this party that is not the way things should be done. When we get our opportunity to govern this great country of ours again, we will look at things much differently than this government has as it approaches the discussion of labour/management relations.
I want to verify that by reading into the record a letter I just received this morning from an individual in Scarborough, Ontario, who wrote to me and said:
Dear Mr. Nault:
Today on the noon news I heard that talks between post office and CUPW have broken off. As a postal worker this grieves me deeply. On the same news report the minister in charge of postal affairs said if we go back out on strike, he would introduce back-to-work legislation. We, the postal workers are in a legal strike situation. Going out on strike is our only means of getting our employer, the post office, to negotiate. To remove the right to strike by legislation destroys the very essence of our Canadian collective bargaining system. If the employer never has to bargain with us in good faith, what chance have ordinary Canadian workers to maintain a decent standard of living? We have been without a contract for over two years and no end is in sight. Why cannot the parties involved reach a fair and equitable settlement?
That letter was from a postal worker by the name of Stephen Miosich.
Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you that it is also my personal feeling that if we take away the right to strike, we are simply suggesting that there is another mechanism in place that is more effective. If the government firmly believes that, then why does it not bring legislation forward which will suggest the true agenda of that particular party. It continues in a roundabout way to change the rules of the game and the process that all Canadian workers are familiar with. It creates uncertainty in the land between management and labour when it comes to the art of collective bargaining.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that time is short today and I do not want to tie this up. I want you to know that when all is said and done, this is not good legislation. I suppose it is the best we can put forward when you consider the ideology of the government. I hope that the arbitrator
chosen will have a tremendous sensitivity to the difficulties in Canada Post.
I want to make this very clear to all people who are listening out there today. The arbitration that was put in place in 1987 did not rectify the problems at Canada Post. The arbitration process that we are putting into effect here today through this back-to-work legislation will not rectify the problems at Canada Post. Only good faith bargaining can do that for Canada Post and its employees. I hope that people realize that the sooner we put that mechanism to work and allow them to improve their differences, the sooner we will get good postal service in Canada.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that this caucus is pleased that the minister took us seriously last night and understood the kind of concerns we were expressing. When the minister introduced his amendment today, he talked about good faith being shown by Canada Post. Based on what the letter that we tabled in a committee meeting last night said, there was a serious question about good faith. That letter really highlighted why we, the New Democratic Party caucus, were terribly concerned about what was in clause 7.
We appreciated the minister's arguments that what we were seeking in clause 7 was indeed already there. That was an assurance that clause 7, which talks about what would be taken into account by the arbitrator, would include the Gold mediation and the matters that were agreed to while the mediation took place. It would include the Lapointe conciliation report recommendations, at least in terms of looking at where they belong and not having them superimpose anything that was subsequently negotiated between the two parties with Mr. Gold, or subsequent to Mr. Gold reporting out, and any other discussions or substantive agreements that were made between the time Mr. Gold reported out and the time that this legislation becomes law. As you know the two parties continued to negotiate over the weekend. There were matters on which there was substantive agreement throughout the whole process and although they had been agreed to in principle, they had been sent away for drafting. In collective bargaining when there is an agreement in principle, material is sent away for drafting. When it comes back to the parties they review it
October 29, 1991

and at that point if they agree that the wording is appropriate, they sign it off.
In this instance because things moved rather quickly, there were a number of items that had been agreed to in principle and had been sent for drafting or were awaiting signing off. Matters overtook those items on the agenda and bargaining broke off.
We were concerned about those items that had not been signed off-although we were absolutely sure that the minister was correct when he said Canada Post was bargaining in good faith-because of the letter Mr. Parrot received at one o'clock yesterday afternoon, after the Postal Services Continuation Act was tabled in the House. The letter said, and I would like to read it:
During the course of these negotiations, in an effort to reach a negotiated collective agreement, and later in an effort to avoid a strike, with its costs and hardships caused by continued work disruptions, the corporation made several proposals and offers and agreed to various texts and positions. It now seems apparent at this late hour that this effort, including all the most recent concessions the corporation has made, has not helped us to attain our goal of a negotiated collective agreement.
This is to advise you that any and all of the corporation's positions, offers and proposals made through the mediator or otherwise, after midnight of August 23, 1991, are withdrawn. This includes any language, propositions, offers and proposals that were accepted by the union with the exception of clauses signed by the parties during the mediation process.
The corporation's position now reverts to the recommendations of the conciliation board, chaired by Mr. Lapointe.
Mr. Courville, Chief Negotiator, Canada Post.
We were somewhat alarmed when we saw a letter from Canada Post saying "everything that has been agreed to after the date of August 23 is now no longer in agreement", unless it has been signed off. Many, many items were substantially agreed to, both with the mediator, Mr. Gold, and in bargaining that took place with the two parties after Mr. Gold signed off.
So we are very, very pleased that the minister has taken account of our concerns and introduced this amendment to clause 7.
One of the important factors is that often those who have not participated in the collective bargaining process lose sight of the fluidity of bargaining. We understand
Government Orders
and surely the minister and both parties understand that when you are bargaining, things change. Something is offered in return for something being taken off the table, or something is agreed to in return for something else being put on the table.
In a definitive way to say that unless it is signed off it is not going to be covered by this bill would have been a disaster in terms of hours and hours and days and days and weeks and weeks of very tough bargaining on everyone's part. It is very important that the minister has introduced this amendment and is in fact allowing all of that hard and good work that was done to be taken into account by the arbitrator.
I think it is also very important at this report stage to know that there was another substantive clause that we expressed considerable concern about. That clause was clause 5, paragraphs (3)(a) and (3)(b). This clause in essence covers the time period that began August 24, 1991 and ended at 3 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 5, 1991. At that period of time there was no collective agreement in effect. Rather than extending the collective agreement, the New Democratic members on the committee requested that the provisions in the collective agreement be used to deal with people who had been disciplined or discharged in that time period. The government has set those dates aside and provided a clause that does in fact provide for arbitration. However, it also provides that those people will not be returning to work or will not be at work while they are waiting for an arbitrated settlement.
We in Canada have always prided ourselves in an attitude of innocent until proven guilty. We have, the minister tells us, 71 people who will not be working at Canada Post until the arbitrated period is finalized for those people who were fired during that winter. What we have therefore is a situation whereby a number of workers who in some instances have been disciplined or discharged for very minor things will in fact be away from work for a long period of time. It has already been two months that those workers have been unable to attend work, have not received pay, are not eligible for unemployment insurance because they have been discharged or are not eligible for welfare in many provinces because they have been discharged. In fact they must now wait for an arbitrated process.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
The minister tells us he will facilitate a fairly quick review of those arbitrations. He will ask the arbitrator to facilitate a quick review and try to deal with those whose transgressions are of a more minor nature.
The fact remains that by leaving this clause as it is in section 5, we are taking the position that all those people who have been discharged had been discharged for good cause, are guilty of whatever they have been accused of and should therefore pay a further penalty.
We had asked that this section be amended by adding at clause (c) that the employee should be reinstated during implementation of the process under sections 3(a) and (b). We felt that it was a fairly simple but humane way to go. Last night the committee chose not to agree with us. I think it is very important that we remember the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we would very much like to see this matter settled. We feel very strongly. We are opposed to this legislation. We are opposed to legislating people back to work before they have even gone on strike. In essence this legislation almost says: "We are taking away your right to strike".
It is very important once this legislation is completed and the arbitration process begins that the House of Commons and the committees that are responsible take a very serious look at collective bargaining in the federal sector. Under this government we have had back-to-work legislation nine times. Every time we get back-to-work legislation it is a further indictment of the failure of the collective bargaining process under the federal laws and under the federal government.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a few minutes of debate on this matter.
As I see it this has been a very interesting process, one in which I have maintained a considerable amount of interest. For the first couple of years of this Parliament I served as the New Democrats post office critic and have been very pleased with the results of the work of my colleagues the member for Churchill, our new post office critic, and the member for Mission-Coquitlam, our party's labour spokesperson. I believe that a lot of the work they have been doing in the last few weeks has
helped to build an understanding by members in this House and people across Canada of the collective bargaining process and its value in our society.
What we were seeing on our television news screens and in the pages of Canadian newspapers over the last little while has been the process of collective bargaining.
The Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been sitting down daily for six weeks and going through word by word, clause by clause, and paragraph by paragraph parts of a very difficult matter, trying to negotiate a collective agreement, something that had failed on numerous occasions.
That collective bargaining process ended just a very few short days ago with all parties acknowledging that in fact they were very close to a settlement. The collective bargaining process had almost achieved a success in what has been a very difficult and long discussed process.
I felt very confident that in fact this matter would be settled through the collective bargaining process. Despite the fact that I have a great deal of concern about the direction that Canada Post has been taking in recent years, the move toward privatizing postal outlets and the privatizing of the whole retail network has been of great concern to me.
The use of contract and part-time employees was of great concern to me, as was the whole sense that management was expressing that in fact the workers were to blame for much of the problems at Canada Post and management direction was not the cause of any of the problem. Despite the fact that I have great concern in those areas, I was relieved to hear that among the many clauses in a potential collective agreement there was considerable agreement between parties.
I was most disturbed to see the letter-and my hon. colleague from Mission-Coquitlam raised it just a few moments ago-from Canada Post indicating that as far as it was concerned because of this legislation all agreements it had reached with members of the union after August 23 would be withdrawn. In fact, those hours of dedicated collective bargaining were virtually thrown out the window.

I cannot express strongly enough how disappointed I was that Canada Post, the management, the corporation, would say that in fact those negotiations were for nothing.
Therefore I thought the reasonableness of the process, the potential success of the process, just lost all credibility because the corporation was going to step backward and give up these matters which had been agreed to through the collective bargaining process and, had a final agreement been reached, would have been accepted happily by signing the collective agreement. With the bringing in of the stay-at-work legislation, this government has essentially allowed the corporation to maintain its position. I am quite happy to know that amendments are before us that will in fact clarify this matter further and perhaps will settle it.
I very much appreciate the work of all parties in this regard because there is nothing more difficult than reaching agreements in difficult situations, situations where emotions run high. There is no question that there are philosophical differences relating to this collective agreement as well as simply practical administrative matters. I have been listening carefully to the remarks that have been made in the House. I just want to put one thing on record that I think is most important before we go on in this process relating to this legislation. When the minister introduced this legislation he used in his justification words to the effect that seniors needed to get their cheques. I could not agree more.
The phone calls to my office indicated that a disruption in service at Canada Post would be most detrimental to the quality of life and the ability of those people on fixed incomes who rely on Canada Post to deliver that income to them to maintain their lives.
It was not necessary, I thought, to justify the stay-at-work legislation, given that Canada Post Corporation was presented with a suggestion by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers to ensure that the delivery of these cheques would be carried out. In fact my colleague, the member for Churchill and now the NDP's postal critic, was quite angered by Canada Post's refusal to ensure the cheques for senior citizens would be delivered by postal workers on their own time in the event of a disruption. Since September 19 my colleague from Churchill has been seeking Canada Post's participation in a protocol that CUPW had already agreed to. Such an agreement
Government Orders
would permit the delivery of cheques to those who rely on mail delivery for those cheques.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, because you have signalled me that my time is about to expire, I want to commend the process that has taken us to this point already, a process that seemed to indicate the successfulness of the collective bargaining process in this country and assure the seniors and others in my constituency that it is not the members of the union who are trying to prevent the delivery of their income to their doors. It is in fact a deliberate attempt by Canada Post to ensure that the blame again falls on the workers when perhaps the opposite is the case.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to say a few words here today. I am looking forward to seeing this matter settled in the interest of all Canadians and of ensuring that Canada Post Corporation and this government understand that indeed service to Canadians is the mandate of Canada Post and that Canadians deserve a strong service oriented post office to serve them.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to make a few short remarks on this very important piece of legislation.
I just want to say that when a corporation basically goes from losing almost $1 billion a year, as this corporation was prone to do in the early eighties, to generating I understand this year close to $300 million to $400 million there is a lot of excellent work obviously being done by both parties.
Management obviously is using its ingenuity in terms of technological change and making sure that there are efficiencies and productivity systems being put in place. At the same time we should not forget what productivity is. The capacity of machines is ultimately the exercise of the will, the co-operation and the support of the work force. We cannot forget that the work force within the postal system of Canada obviously has also done a fabulous job.
I speak as a small businessman who on more than one occasion has borne the brunt of having a negative experience as a result of not getting the mail delivered. I understand the frustration of small businesses in this country when postal service is disrupted. The problems that you have when you are trying to meet your payroll

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
and your payables and your mail does not come in are tough.
Often the letter carriers bear the brunt of abuse when we have a strike with the post office. I experienced a situation last summer in my riding of Broadview- Greenwood where the letter carriers were being publicly maligned because the pension cheques, welfare cheques and disability pension cheques were not being delivered. In our particular area, the stewards of postal stations J and G expressed in writing a willingness to say: "Listen, we do not want to see seniors standing out here in 110 degree heat. We want to deliver those cheques and we are willing to deliver them to those people who are in need, seniors who are having difficult times finding money to buy their groceries". It was a horrific scene on Danforth and on Carlisle last summer. There were single moms waiting for unemployment cheques.
There was a misunderstanding that crept into the community. Those people that were out there suffering tended to blame the letter carriers when in fact they were willing to try and ameliorate the situation.
I can remember communicating with the executives of the post office who said: "Well, no, we are not going to co-operate on this unless all cheques or all mail right across the country is delivered". In other words, it was an almost all or nothing approach. I remember a specific situation where I was out there chatting with some of my seniors. On one particular day a senior citizen nearly passed out almost right in front of me. I called Mr. Lander and tried to express my concern to him: "Listen, I am absolutely convinced that you and your management team are not supporting this kind of action". This is what happens. Sometimes we become remote from the real suffering that is out there. Sometimes we are too quick to blame those who seemingly are on the front lines. In this particular case, I felt that there was a lot of unnecessary abuse being handed out toward our letter carriers.
It seems that there has been a good spirit developed here in this process of negotiation, but I hope that both sides will park their tactical resources and their little jousting resources that they have and get into the spirit that seems to exist in this House today. The minister has expressed so clearly today that both sides seem to be
sincere in solving this issue. I think if we can continue that spirit then the people of Canada will ultimately be the beneficiaries.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on Bill C-40.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee met last night, late into the night, to work through this bill and to seek the consensus that we felt was necessary to produce passage of this bill today in the House.
We did have some disagreement last night, but at the end of the evening I think we were close to unanimous. We agreed that we had a willing minister who was willing to listen to both sides of the argument and who was willing to take some of our considerations to his people very early this morning in an attempt to come up with a bill that we could all support in this House today. He did that. One of the concerns expressed last night, and articulated this morning by the member for Mission- Coquitlam, was simply that we did not want to lose much of what has been accomplished up to this point through the conciliation process.
Although the members of the committee from the government side, including the minister, felt that the bill as presented yesterday would do the job, there was concern by the NDP and the Liberal committee members that Bill C-40 would not accomplish that.
In the best sense of compromise, the minister did go back to his people and his legal counsel. He told us last evening that he would attempt to bring in an amendment to Bill C-40, particularly clause 7, in the hopes of relieving some of the anxiety postal workers experienced, and felt they would experience, if we did not change that part of the legislation.
The minister did that. From the expressions from the various sides of the House this morning, we would have to agree that he kept his word and did a good job in coming up with a bill that we on both sides of this House should be able to support.
We do not want to lose sight of what Bill C-40 does. It is the legislation that will put the postal workers back to work in the event of a strike. It appears that strike is coming very, very soon. The point of the legislation is to put the postal workers back to work, to do what all Canadians want them to do, deliver the mail.
October 29, 1991

As I mentioned yesterday in the House, 80 per cent of the mail in this country is business mail. We can think of all kinds of things that can destroy a business. We can talk about inflation, high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar. But the fact is, if we do not have mail delivery, that in itself can destroy a Canadian business. It has done so in many cases.
I have had some dialogue with some business people in my constituency. They are, of course, of the same opinion that mail delivery to their business is very, very critical. We cannot afford another strike, short or lengthy.
I want to congratulate the minister. I think he has conducted himself on a very, very high level in a very, very difficult situation to ensure that the passage of this bill does take place. Again, the objective is to make sure that Canadians have good, continuous postal service. The country at this particular time, coming through a recession, cannot afford a postal strike, whether it is short term or long term.
I believe we have accomplished that in the legislation and in the amendment the minister brought before this House this morning. I am sure that the majority of members in this House can support the back-to-work legislation.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, looking at this legislation and considering the ramifications it will have for the Canadian public, we can accept the fact that service to Canadians is the paramount issue with regard to Canada Post.
Last evening all three parties had an opportunity to sit and listen to the presentations from Canada Post, CUPW and the minister, and to discuss the issues that are forthcoming today.
We also felt very concerned about some of the issues that came up yesterday afternoon.
I refer in particular to the letter from Canada Post which basically withdrew its total position through the mediation process and its position ever since August 16, where the conciliation had occurred.
I have to commend very much the minister for the position that he took in making certain that we are not going to overlook Mr. Gold's work. He did a tremendous amount of work in bringing together many of the unresolved issues. The mediation process, as the minis-
Govemment Orders
ter pointed out, was very successful. We are very pleased that that did occur.
I guess today we look at the amendment that the minister brought in to make certain that that mediation process is at least taken into account by the arbitrator. The arbitrator will not be going back to square one as CUPW was very concerned about, with very good reason I might point out.
We are very happy that when we spoke with Mr. Parrot he told us that if we could make certain that the conciliation process and the mediation process were guaranteed to come in line, and those areas that had been agreed to by both parties were in place, then arbitration could settle the few outstanding issues that remain.
I really see no other way to settle them at this point. I would support what the minister has said. We had come to a point in the mediation where maybe each party was at the very bottom line whereby no further movement, or not much further movement, would occur. As a result, in his wisdom he left the process to move to a further finalization through an arbitrator.
The minister in following that up did that quite appropriately for avoiding a strike and making sure that proper protection for each party was paramount.
At the same time, I have to congratulate the member for Kenora-Rainy River who worked so diligently at bringing forth an amendment to meet that need. It made certain we did not go back to the beginning of mediation, go back to the point they were at in the middle of the summer. He worked very diligently at drafting an amendment to make certain that the minister and everyone understood that we should be using all of the work of mediation and bringing it through. I think it was through the diligent work of my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River that that came about. So I would commend him very much.
I commend the minister for taking several hours to sit down last night and go through the bill clause by clause, explain the implications of the bill, try to listen very carefully to the arguments and come up with a resolution that all parties could accept.
I did, and I still do, have a couple of concerns with the bill. The first concern that I would voice is the fact that we have some 70 workers who basically over the strike period of time, the 10 days, have been suspended or put

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
out of work. They are not being given an opportunity to be reinstated immediately. I think there are some of these individuals who, through one means or another, were dismissed improperly. They should not be found guilty before the hearing is actually held in their favour. However, the bill does address some of that and possibly will not lead them to the point of coming to the end of all the arbitration. There are 130,000 arbitration cases or grievances that have to come forward, so that process will be speeded up somewhat.
The other area I did have some concern about, and I voice this directly to the minister as well, is the fact that you are referring the arbitrator to Canada Post's corporate plan. I personally do not see any reason to prejudice the arbitrator by suggesting the corporate plan should be part of the arbitration process. I certainly believe that in putting parties up equally, the CUPW group and Canada Post should be able to present their concerns and their arguments on an equal footing. To make it a direction of this bill that the arbitrator consider the Canada Post corporate plan seems to me to bias a neutral position this bill should take in the resolution of this problem that is there.
I do think that we have stilted the arbitrator's opinions somewhat by mentioning the Canada Post corporate plan. However, again I would suggest very strongly that all parties, all individuals, worked together very well last evening and I would give congratulations to everyone involved, particularly my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River and the minister and I would say the NDP for its efforts with that as well.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon -Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I probably will be congratulating the minister at the end of my speech as well, but I would like to congratulate him at the beginning along with my colleagues, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Churchill, and yes indeed the Liberals too for the work which they did, particularly last night in getting some changes to the bill which certainly are going to go a long way toward ameliorating the problem which we find ourselves in today as far as the labour dispute and the contractual problems with Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are concerned.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I sat in on the committee last night. It is the first time I had been in one of those
committees since the back-to-work legislation for the ships' crews and the hospital workers and the Public Service Alliance strike of a while ago. It is amazing how little things change with time.
What we see in the whole labour relations with adjuncts of the government such as the post office is a willingness on behalf of these branches of the government to try to be absolved of the major responsibility for really good faith bargaining when they come to negotiating with their employees.
I think the best way to sum that up is that they depend in all instances, it seems to me, during negotiations for the government to get them off the hook if something fails and they really do not care whether they fail or not. I think the situation we find ourselves in now is ample evidence of that.
I would suggest however that with the bill before us, particularly the amendment which we are discussing right now, in actual fact the government has put the responsibility particularly back on Canada Post. I would only have wished that this kind of philosophy, this kind of attitude, this kind of mind-set, had been part of the negotiations which started at the beginning. I do not think that what is happening here is that the government has for the most part got Canada Post off the hook on this issue.
There certainly was an indication that that might be what was happening in the original legislation. It is to the credit of the minister and his sensitivity for particularly the people involved as workers at Canada Post that we have this amendment.
Clause 7 would have for all intents and purposes negated everything which had occurred up until the implementation of this legislation. It gave a whole new meaning and a whole new weight to that expression where it says we have to go back to square one, although it would not have been quite square one because we did have the conciliator's report in between which did make a few recommendations but in no way was definitive or addressed the major problems of the postal workers. Hence, we of course had the strike. Clause 7 was the reference to where if the parties were not able to agree they would go back to the conciliator's report, ignoring the excellent amount of work which was accomplished under the leadership of Judge Gold. Those of us who watch our news reports almost on a daily basis were able
October 29, 1991

to sense that after Judge Gold became involved in the negotiations, a tremendous amount of progress was made. It certainly is to his credit as well that that occurred. I suspect also, with the respect in which he is held by both parties, he is to be tremendously credited for having accomplished that much.
The fact of the matter is that without the intervention of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Churchill and, yes, to some extent as well the member for Kenora-Rainy River, progress was made last night. The minister was able to be apprised of some of the sensitivities which were involved and I think for the most part the absolute stupidity of ignoring everything which had been accomplished up to that point, including what had occurred between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers subsequent to Judge Gold's leaving the scene in what I suspect was a certain degree of frustration. Nonetheless, as has been indicated in more than one instance, they were very close to coming to a settlement. There were not all that many outstanding issues.
I am not privy necessarily to what those instances were, but I suspect that the legislation which we have before us this morning will go a long way toward solving those issues as well.
There is at least one other part of the legislation to which I would like to refer. It is unfortunate that were was not more progress made in so far as clause 5 was concerned. Clause 5 refers to the action which will be taken regarding those who in the opinion of Canada Post have violated Canada Post's sensitivities in so far as people should conduct themselves on the picket line.
I would suggest that it is tremendously unfortunate that some other form of amelioration of that problem was not brought forward, other than just simply the assurance of the minister, which I do not doubt, where he says those cases will be followed expeditiously. Even so, these people have been without any sort of income for two months. It is difficult to say how long the process will take for the arbitrator to arrive at a decision in their instance. I would suspect that some of them are suffering tremendously and their families are suffering tremendous hardships as result of Canada Post acting as judge and jury and for all intents and purposes sentencing these people to what may very well be a very heavy fine,
Government Orders
albeit imposed by it through the withdrawal of their wages.
I would like to emphasize in relation to this whole matter of those who have been disciplined by any company in a situation such as this, for the most part when the dust settles, however far it is into the future after a settlement, often when a settlement is arrived at the union says: "All these people come back or none of us come back", and of course that is a stance which very quickly solves the matter. I think it is to Canada Post's everlasting shame that they did not agree to that.
In 1987 in a similar situation, 42 people had been similarly disciplined, summarily discharged by Canada Post, only to have 38 of those 42 people-or close to those numbers-reinstated which means for all intents and purposes the charges against them were withdrawn. That is tremendously common.
In this 1991 instance, we have 71 people. I can predict right now that probably at least 65 of those will be found to be completely innocent of the charges which Canada Post has brought against them and for which it has acted as judge, jury and hangman.
I really hope that in the case of these people the minister uses his influence to expedite these tremendously sensitive problems these people have as quickly as possible. I even hope that without his interference, Canada Post will take a second look and read the report of last night's committee, read what was said, what was pleaded in relation to those people and reinstate them.
As a matter of fact, there was the case of a part-time worker employed during the strike-we could use more impolite terms-who was charged by Canada Post but continued to work. If substitute employees can continue to work, I would suggest that full-time employees can too.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the House today to discuss the Postal Services Continuation Act. This morning, I had a chance to talk to several constituents from my riding of Saint-Maurice, who were under the impression that the government not only wanted to maintain postal services and avoid a strike at all costs, but also wanted to impose all the working conditions for Canada Post employees. That is what people are saying, and it seems this rumour is widespread. However, if we take a closer look at the legislation proposed by the Minister of Labour, it is in fact

Government Orders
quite moderate. It is a very acceptable piece of legislation that, of course, is intended to maintain postal services-I don't think there is any doubt about that among most Canadians-but this legislation will also enable the parties to agree on a certain number of items that are still in dispute and could not be dealt with in the past. So first of all, I think we should make it clear to Canadians that the government has no intention of forcing measures down anyone's throat. It just wants our Canadian postal system to function properly.
Listeners may wonder why we are again stuck in this country with a deadlock in negotiations between the Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. It is a serious problem, and unfortunately, no one in this House has a solution. We could consider the history of the founding of the Canada Post Corporation and also relations prior to that event, to try and understand. However, this is probably one of society's greatest mysteries, and I certainly do not have the answer.
There were people, especially among the opposition, who tried to argue that it was not appropriate to pass legislation at this time, and that perhaps we should wait a little longer. I beg to differ. I think that Canadians, the people we are supposed to represent, have been extremely patient. Mr. Speaker, these negotiations have been going on for nearly two years. They have been talking for 23 months. The process included 78 conciliation meetings, 60 meetings arranged by the Conciliation Board, and 40 mediation meetings with Judge Alan B. Gold. Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of talking. Furthermore, all these discussions cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money, since they have to pay the bills for negotiations which have been going on for two years.
I find it very difficult to understand why some opposition members say the government should wait a little longer. They say the government should allow another strike and let the Canadian postal system be disrupted again. I do not agree, Mr. Speaker. There are many people in my riding who think this legislation may not be drastic enough and may not be the kind of legislation we need in the circumstances. I am not saying I share this position, but Canadians are becoming exasperated. Many people would appreciate a firmer approach.
However, it is a nice surprise, I must say, to see the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party both commend the Minister of Labour for the way he acted in introducing this special legislation, and especially for his efforts since last August to reason with both parties and facilitate a settlement. This is quite a positive attitude on their part.
It must be made clear that the personal involvement of the Minister of Labour was most helpful. He managed to convince the parties to bargain on good faith a whole slew of items regarding this collective agreement. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today, Mr. Speaker, in a situation where the negotiations between the Canadian Postal Workers Union and Canada Post have stalled again.
Parliament could pass back-to-work legislation to at least maintain postal services, since, technically, there is no strike. We could even impose new work agreements for the next few years on the workers, without consulting them, as the Quebec government did a while back.
I think that this would not be a good idea, however favourably some view this solution. We are giving the CUPW and Canada Post enough leeway, Mr. Speaker, to pass special legislation quickly with the unanimous consent of this House while allowing Canada Post employees to get relatively interesting working conditions.
It is not to ridicule the postal workers or to be envious of them than to say that their working conditions are very good, with a great pension plan and fringe benefits like few Canadians get in their collective agreements.
Mentioning this is arrogant and saying that postal workers have always been well treated is the truth, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we should repeat it to Canadians today.
The other point on which I would like to speak briefly is that a few weeks ago, we had a postal strike that disrupted services nationwide, in spite of the efforts made by management to maintain those services. But there is a more fundamental problem, namely the increasing competition faced by Canada Post. Courier companies, electronic mail systems, telephone companies in general as well as oral communications have been expanding in Canada and throughout the world in the
October 29, 1991

last ten years. This makes it much more difficult for Canada Post. The Corporation must face the competition.
Mr. Speaker, every time there is a strike at Canada Post, contracts which were obtained with difficulty by the officials of the Corporation are in jeopardy. Indeed, these contracts could be lost by Canada Post which would have the effect of jeopardizing the employees part-time or full-time jobs.
Since we live in an increasingly competitive and interdependent world, the Canada Post Corporation and its employees can no longer behave, Mr. Speaker, as though they had a total monopoly and control over the handling of postal services across the country. This is an aspect to which the Government of Canada must pay the greatest attention, since the two parties were unable to reach an agreement.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the union members in my riding that I believe very firmly and clearly in the collective bargaining process and the right to strike. In my opinion, those are two essential rights in our society. However, when exercising those rights threatens the very future of Canada Post and of a number of jobs in that corporation and affects our companies' competitiveness, the government must intervene.
Small businesses in Canada account for 80 per cent of the new jobs created in 1991. Everything points to this trend continuing in years to come, Mr. Speaker. Considering the problems caused by the recession, as well as the economic problems in Canada, in the United States and all over the world, adding a new problem for small businesses, a strike by the postal workers, would make it much harder for them to compete. These difficulties must be overcome and that is why the government has brought in this Act to provide for the continuation of postal services, with all that entails, but also with advantages for postal workers who should seriously consider the open-mindedness of the Minister of Labour. The minister should be congratulated for his efforts in recent weeks. Since my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by wishing very sincerely that the Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate, unanimously and very quickly pass the 1991 Act to provide for the continuation of postal services,
Government Orders
and that we can again receive normal postal services for a very long time.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today and speak on this bill before the House.
It appears that this is a situation where we have to review exactly where we are going in the Public Service sector. We have to review where we are going in the area of labour relations. It seems to me that what we have seen lately in legislating people back to work, I believe it is four times since the last throne speech, is a labour relations situation from the dark ages.
We have to face up to the fact that we are going into the 21st century. We as legislators and particularly the government must realize and recognize that there are other ways of doing things than the old confrontational methods that we have seen used by Mr. Lander of Canada Post and by the Minister of Finance with his zero rate increase in the Public Service sector. There is a way of approaching a collective agreement and collective bargaining in good faith and looking at all aspects of the people, the job and the industry in which they are in, in the service sector, the Public Service sector and again in the postal service.
We have a situation where the postal union has been without a contract for some period of time. It has been looking and trying to bargain in good faith on the part of the employees, but there is that frustration factor present.
If we look at what has happened over the last few years, the so-called privatization of Canada Post, the closing of rural post offices, the gutting of the rural system of postal delivery, this was done without asking for any input from the members of the postal union or the employees of that union or of the corporation.
It seems to me that if we are going to go into the future in a way that does away with strikes, as so many people in this country wish for, we have to look at the situation and take input from all sectors. We must not only listen to management, or the union and employees or the government. We must look at the situation from all sides and take input from all sides to come to a conclusion.

Government Orders
It is not good enough any more, as we have done in Canada Post, to ignore the employees' side and take the management side and say: "We are going to streamline the system."
I have spoken to letter carriers, postal workers and managers of small post offices within my riding and other ridings. It is clear that these people who work every day delivering, sorting our mail and getting it to us in a timely manner, know how the system works and know how it can be improved, but are they asked for their input? Are they asked how the system can be made better so that service can improve, so that we as taxpayers can save some of the tax dollars with the improvements? No, they are not asked.
The input they could give is ignored. In today's climate, that is simply not good enough. We have to start asking those workers for their input. We have to start taking into consideration all aspects of what management, employees and those who are being served want and need. This is the way of the future. This is what we have to start looking at.
In the minister's comments yesterday he spoke, and probably rightfully so, about some of the difficulties the citizens of Canada and certainly the people in my area are concerned about. I have a very high percentage of seniors in the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and the boundary country of my riding of well over 30 per cent. They depend on regular delivery of mail to keep in touch with their neighbours, their friends and relatives and to get their old age security, Canada Pension and various other pension cheques.
The solution has been put forward more than once by the member for Churchill. The members of the postal union offered to make an agreement between the union and management to ensure that the uncertainty of the delivery of these cheques be taken into consideration ahead of time. Then everyone would know what was going to happen and that these cheques would be delivered to the people who so badly need them.
What did management do? They turned their back on it. They turned their back on the senior citizens and said:
"We will wait until we see what happens". Well, the precedent was set in the past. Management agreed in the past to a regular transitional period where service would be continued. Why will Canada Post not agree to it this time around? Why have we got this confrontational edge once again?
If we think back on confrontation we can look at the last postal strike where the postal service trained people as scabs to take over jobs of legitimate employees and union members ahead of any strike notification. It seems that the 19th century method of dealing with employees was once again at the forefront: negotiation by confrontation. For those people in my constituency, that is not satisfactory. I am sure that for most people sitting in the House of Commons that is not satisfactory. For senior citizens, the small business person and those in large industries, that is no longer satisfactory.
We have to look at what must be done. We must get away from confrontation within the labour relations area. We must negotiate in good faith from the beginning and before the collective agreement expires. It is not good enough to wait until two weeks, two months or two years after the fact to begin negotiating seriously. We must look at negotiating from the beginning and go through it.
I do wish to look briefly at some of the legislation to make it known exactly what has happened here. As I understand it, the minister is to appoint an arbitrator through interventions by the member for Churchill and the member for Mission-Coquitlam. The minister has brought in a recent amendment to clause 7(2)(b) of the bill wherein he allows any substantial agreement that has already been reached on other matters, including salaries, to be incorporated in the collective agreement under the arbitration. Then we do not have to go back to square one as it were in trying to reach an agreement under arbitration. That is a major step.
It seems to me that much has been gained over the last six weeks through Mr. Justice Gold as mediator and the union and management. It would be a pity to lose that under the present legislation. I am very pleased that the minister has recognized that and has brought in this reasoned amendment.

I hope for the sake of all Canadians that reason will prevail, that Canada Post and the union will get down to negotiating in good faith, that the employer, Canada Post, will not continue its confrontational methods and will make every attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement. Seniors and small business people across the country will then be served in the manner that they are deserving of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Marcel Danis: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Labour) moved: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on third reading of this particular legislation, Bill C-40, there has been a great deal of co-operation since this bill was first talked about by the various political parties in terms of this particular piece of legislation, particularly when it went on notice as of last week.
We had suggested all through this particular dispute that it could be resolved by having a third independent party come in to assess the various concerns with regard to postal services as well as monetary issues between the employees and management.
Government Orders
It was not until the eleventh hour that the Government of Canada came to its senses and appointed a mediator who worked very hard. I understand from the information that has come to my attention that representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Employees as well as representatives of management attempted in a very sincere way to resolve many of their outstanding differences.
I think it should be clearly understood that labour and to a similar extent management attempted in good faith to resolve their outstanding differences.
I want to say on the record on behalf of my party that we believe wholeheartedly in the collective bargaining process. We want to compliment the participants in the process for coming together with Justice Gold and agreeing on many-I want to underline-many of the outstanding matters that were previously between the two parties.
I think it is important that we recognize that, and applaud the parties and also Justice Gold who tried to consummate an agreement.
Events prior to the appointment of Justice Gold made it in our view very difficult for the parties to consummate a collective agreement. There are many reasons why.
We have the example of management saying to workers with regard to monetary issues and job security that certain things could not go their way. On the other hand, we find that the monetary increases for the president of Canada Post, for the job security of the president of Canada Post were very rich and very rich indeed.
I do not know the exact amounts. I do not have the Order in Council before me, but I am led to believe that it is in the magnitude of $100,000 in terms of salary increase.
Mr Speaker, I want to say to you as the arbitrator, as the individual who is impartial in this Chamber and has the respect of all members, that as much as I respect and admire the Chair, I could not understand or see myself voting in favour of a $100,000 raise for the Chair.
Now, we have the president of Canada Post who is going to get a sizeable increase. There is a colleague in my caucus who phrased it quite well. It is pay-off for

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
lay-off. We also have the situation with regard to the proliferation of closures of rural post offices across this country.
I know members opposite do not really care about rural Canada. They do not really care about those communities, whether they be in Ontario, Quebec or western Canada or in Atlantic Canada. This was another example of the government's economic agenda through the agency of Canada Post which made it very difficult for the parties to consummate an agreement.
The government has had direct involvement in this process because it has been pulling the strings. It has been pulling the strings all along. It was not the Canadian Union of Public Employees which moved an Order in Council to increase the salary of the president of Canada Post.
It was not the union nor its representatives who moved a motion or an Order in Council to give a substantial bonus to the president of Canada Post, was it? It was the members opposite.
The government House leader is the minister responsible. The Minister of Labour must bear part of the responsibility, and of course other things have come into play. They are indirect but in another way it could be argued they affect directly the negotiation in terms of the proliferation of taxes and inflation in the high dollar. What do working men and women do in those kinds of situations?
They have to seek monetary increases. They have to seek some degree of job security for their memberships and the families of those memberships. I know all members, notwithstanding their political partisan stripe, would have to concur that that is a very, very important aspect of the collective bargaining process. It became very difficult, if not impossible. We realized shortly thereafter that it would eventually break down.
There are serious discussions of individuals who have brought to my attention that perhaps the government while negotiations were proceeding wanted to have this particular strike. I do not know how authentic that is, but it is certainly an aspect that we must give serious consideration to.
My colleagues in debate, both in this particular debate as well as in previous debates, have mentioned on the floor of this House that perhaps a commission of inquiry ought to take place with regard to the outstanding
grievances at Canada Post that go back for some time and that are disturbing, not only to union representatives and their employees, but I would suspect to middle management of Canada Post, and certainly to the Canadian public.
We need to have an airing of those concerns. We have to breathe fresh air into a process which seems to have broken down. If that is not followed through with, I suggest that we are going to have continual difficulties with that Crown corporation. We are going to have individuals feeling unfairly aggrieved in the process.
I would hope that the minister would give due consideration to the recommendation and the plea that we have made repeatedly on the floor of the House of Commons in terms of a commission of inquiry in order to resolve, once and for all, the problems at that particular corporation.
I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without making reference to some.of the words which were echoed in this Chamber by the minister responsible for Canada Post. He said earlier this week, and I believe late last week, that Canada Post was the most efficient postal facility in the world.
What he has failed to tell the Canadian people is of the large number of Canadian businesses which have opted out of Canada Post and which are using private couriers in this country. He has failed to say on the floor of this House of Commons how certain institutions are being affected. I am going to give one example which has come to my attention within the last 24 hours. Medical schools in the province of Ontario have had to place the following words in their application form for the purposes of applicants: "Due to the slow delivery of mail, candidates are advised to submit their application several weeks in advance of this date. Registered mail or courier service is advised if a receipt is required. Collect courier deliveries will not be accepted."
So much for the minister's puffery about efficiency. We have an example here in Canada of medical schools in the province of Ontario saying to applicants: "If you are going to mail in your application, make sure you do it umpteen weeks in advance".
I find the comments of the minister opposite to be ludicrous. I also suggest a very impolite term, not one that I would subscribe to but it has been subscribed to me by others. This is very misleading for members of Parliament to be told this puffball story by the minister responsible.
October 29, 1991

My colleague, the critic, and his colleagues who have worked diligently with regard to this particular situation were co-operative throughout the piece. We made a recommendation last night in committee with regard to strengthening clause 7 to enable the arbitrator, whoever she or he may be, to enter the deliberations without having a hand tied behind their back. Unfortunately the minister did not see fit last night to accept clause by clause word by word our amendment. But I think he has gone a long way today to accept the intent, the pith and substance of our amendment last night. That is why we on this side have concurred whole-heartedly with the amendment and that it should be passed as it relates to clause 7.
There is no question about the difficulties between the two sides. That has been given in evidence by many speakers. We also have to talk about the public interest. Is the public being served? Will the public be served by a strike across this land? Will it facilitate business? I am not talking about the business cronies of the Minister of Labour who happen to live in the plush regions of the country. I am talking about the small business person who happens to be in northern Ontario. I am talking about the small business which happens to be in Regina, in Gander, Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia or Kenora- Rainy River. Will they be served if there is a strike? The answer is no. I do not think they will be served.
I would hope that this serves a lesson to the government and the political masters of Canada Post Corporation. This could all have been avoided if the government had seen the way it has provoked labour over the last number of years. It is not just through the collective bargaining process. You cannot look at that in isolation.
As I said earlier, there are a number of factors that compound the collective bargaining process whether it be the proliferation of taxes, the elimination of job security for employees which is involved in the collective bargaining process, the monetary elements or the nonmonetary elements. This government, in my view, has done a terrible job. I am sure the Minister of Labour in a quiet moment in his study would want to reflect on what
Government Orders
I am going to say and perhaps even agree that his government up to the present has been extremely incompetent in managing labour and management issues in Canada.
The Minister of Labour will stand in his place and say: "Oh, yes, but there have been in excess of 80 to 90 collective agreements signed in this country". That is true, but I make reference to the Public Service Alliance of Canada over which he has direct control. They have a great measure of control with regard to the Canada Post union employees. What has happened in those incidents is that we have seen time and time again that the collective bargaining process has broken down.
We believe that this could have been avoided. Notwithstanding that case, I have to say that we will be supporting this legislation on third reading because we believe it to be in the public interest. The minister should not think for one moment that we concur, we consent, we applaud in any way whatsoever the way in which this government has conducted the whole of labour-management relations in this country, and particularly as it relates to Canada Post. I want to make that perfectly clear.
There is clearly a public interest here, as I am sure the minister will want to attest to, and that must be met. We in this party will not be irresponsible. We believe that the parties must come together with the arbitrator and resolve these the outstanding matters expeditiously and fairly. We must keep in mind the undertakings that have been given by the Minister of Labour to the representatives of the Canadian Union of Public Employees as well as senior members of management to do that fairly.
I want to say in conclusion that we will be supporting this bill on third reading because of the public interest.
In no way do we accept, in no way do we acknowledge, in no way would we applaud the behaviour of the government in its efforts to bring labour and management to the table in an environment which is conducive to having collective bargaining in this country. It is very important across the land to bring them together in order that they may consummate their agreements without the involvement of the national government.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, on third reading of Bill C-40, I would like to start by thanking the Leader of the Official Opposition for his party's support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, as you know it is never a pleasant task when a Minister of Labour has to table special legislation to end a labour dispute. However, I believe this is an exceptional case. As you know, the collective agreement expired on July 31, 1989. At the time, the Department of Labour appointed an experienced conciliator, Mr. Courchesne of Montreal, in an attempt to bring the parties closer together. Unfortunately, after more than 60 meetings involving Mr. Courchesne and the parties in question, no agreement was reached.
Subsequently, the Department of Labour appointed a conciliation board, with Mr. Desmarais as the Postal Union's representative and Mr. Arnold Masters for Canada Post, the employer. Both parties agreed to appoint Mr. Marc Lapointe, a distinguished Canadian and former president of the Canada Labour Relations Board, as chairman of the conciliation board. The board met and sat for nearly 23 months. It held over 70 meetings and made considerable progress, but was unable to persuade the parties to reach an agreement. At this point, the government could either introduce special legislation or make further efforts to try and get the parties together, and that is what we did. I got in touch with the person I consider to be the best mediator in the country, the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, Judge Alan B. Gold. Judge Gold's experience in a number of areas, including labour relations, is extraordinary, and he has settled a number of major labour disputes in Canada in the past. Judge Gold met the parties for nearly seven weeks. When the judge finally withdrew from the mediation process, he argued that even if he decided to stay on, he did not think the parties would be able to reach an agreement.

Therefore, the government has gone the extra mile in this dispute by first appointing the conciliation commissioner, the conciliation board and the best mediator in Canada, Judge Gold.
At the beginning of this dispute I understand that there were 310 issues that separated the parties; 260 of
them at the request of CUPW and Mr. Parrot, and 50 of them at the request of Canada Post.
I am told that in the three stages the conciliation commissioner, the conciliation board and the mediator settled and agreed upon over 90 per cent of the items in dispute. This bill covers the items on which they could not reach an agreement. I have been told by both sides which ones cannot be agreed upon.
In all fairness, I have heard both sides of the issue separately from the parties. I feel that maybe with a little more effort some of these issues could be settled. I also understand that on one issue they are far apart and it appears to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to settle.
Having considered all that, I have come to the conclusion on behalf of the government that the way to settle the issue would be through Bill C-40 which would provide for the appointment of an arbitrator to impose the things they cannot agree on. They cannot agree on a number of issues, not because they do not negotiate in good faith, not because they are not sincere, I believe they are sincere. I do believe they negotiated in good faith and I was told by Judge Gold that they did negotiate in good faith.
If you consider that, I feel the bill that we have here, including the amendment that this House agreed to this morning, is a fair and reasonable bill and once it becomes law it will put an end to the dispute.
I do appeal at this time to Mr. Parrot, the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, to have his people back at work. This has been going on for 23 months. I do understand and he kept his word. We did get the 24-hour notice for a strike. I understand now that some people are on strike across the country, but it is not the case in all places. With the co-operation of this House and with the co-operation of the other place, we will have this bill as law hopefully by the end of the day. I do appeal to him on behalf of the people of Canada to have his people back to work later tonight.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus and especially our labour critic, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, I think it is very important to understand the process that has been going

on for the last couple of days outside of this House and inside of this House.
When the mediation broke down late last week, we recognized that there still was an opportunity for the parties to get together and try and resolve the dispute. Both parties to the collective agreement had press conferences indicating that they had come very close to an agreement. I, for one, think that the efforts undertaken by the minister and others to have the two sides get together on the weekend, even though they did not come to an agreement, were useful because it did give them a chance to air some of the issues that were still in dispute.
I think that process has helped with what happened yesterday and earlier today in this House. We have an indication, as a result of the amendment that the minister agreed to and introduced into this House earlier today, that there can be a quick settlement to this dispute. It is my understanding that even prior to the legislation passing the Senate that Jean-Claude Parrot is going to ask his members to return as soon as they can.
That does not mean that it will happen instantaneously. We have a number of different time zones and we have a number of different shifts for postal workers right across this country, but I think it is an indication of good faith that the union is not waiting for the legislation to pass the Senate but is taking all the possible steps to try and have its members go back to work. I applaud them for that move.
We will not support this legislation because we have some fundamental disagreements with items that are in the legislation. We also have a concern with the government's corporate agenda. Even though that is not in the legislation, that is cause for a lot of the disputes that have occurred in the Public Service this year. The agenda of privatization, the agenda of contracting out, the agenda of reducing the level of services to Canadians right across this land has meant that we have had more Public Service strikes in this last year than we have had in the last five years. It has meant that four of the last 40 pieces of legislation that have been introduced into this House of Commons have been back to work legislation, 10 per cent of the government's entire legislative package over the last few months. The two parties did come very close to an agreement. It was very important that in
Government Orders
the legislation that will pass this House in a few minutes that the amendment the minister brought forward was introduced.
There was a danger, and I do not think it was a danger purposely put there by the government, but there was a danger that we would have had a clause that would have really tied the hands of the arbitrator. We would have been in a situation under the previous wording where the arbitrator, if he could not find agreement on the items dealt with through mediation, would be forced to go to the conciliation board report and recommendation.
As proof of that, almost immediately Canada Post wrote a letter saying that it withdrew all the offers it had made since August 23, 1991. In other words, it was basically trying to force the arbitrator's hand to go back to the conciliation board report. That meant that we would have lost all the progress that had been made on major issues in the last two months; progress on child care, pensions for part-time employees, agreement on a wage package. In addition to those items, the two parties had worked and had come to an agreement in principle on a number of items dealing with issues and job security to the number of casual workers. Those were very important for the future peace in Canada Post.
It is important that that work not be lost. It was very important that in committee last night and in the House today the minister made it clear that whoever is chosen as an arbitrator must look at the work that was done in mediation and post mediation. That work is too important to be lost. It is very clear as a result of the amendment we have now and the speech by the minister that that is the primary goal of the arbitrator.
Yes, look at the conciliation board, but do not stop at the report of the conciliation board. Tike advantage of all the agreements that have occurred since the conciliation board made its report on August 16. It is not only good news in terms of the fact that we will have a very short strike, but it is good news in terms of the long term peace and security and service within Canada Post.
I applaud the minister for being flexible. I applaud both parties for the work they have done to make this possible. I regret that we did have to introduce back-to-work legislation, but that is a result as I said earlier of the government's political agenda.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
At the same time, what has happened in this House and what has happened over the last two days outside this House in committee meetings and meetings my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam had with the minister that we have achieved the best deal possible. I would hope the two parties can work to resolve the outstanding issues in very short order.
Also, it is important, as the minister indicated in his speech today, that Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers meet early to make sure that the wage settlement that had been agreed to over the weekend be put into place quickly. These employees have already waited two years, since their collective agreement expired. We know that the arbitration process could take, three, four, five or six months. I do not think it would be fair to the employees to have to wait that long to get the pay increase that had been agreed to in committee.
We look forward to the end of this debate. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, on a point of order.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put to the members of this House, I have a few comments. I agree that the government should act as quickly as possible to settle this dispute and allow the arbitration process to proceed. However, Mr. Speaker, there is an important point I would like to make. In the Outaouais region, there was an attempt recently to close three sortation centres in Hull, Gatineau and Aylmer.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out -


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Order please.
The question has been put, and if the hon. member wishes to speak during the period for questions and comments, he is free to do so, but when I put the question, I did not recognize the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer. Now if the hon. member wishes to speak during the period for questions and comments or during debate, he is free to do so.
I would therefore ask the hon. member for Hull- Aylmer to let me know now if he wishes to speak in this debate.


Gilles Rocheleau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do, but I will not take up all the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: All right. Questions and Comments? Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hull-Aylmer.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I heard government members criticizing the opposition, although the opposition parties have more or less agreed to let the legislation go through as soon as possible. I have no intention of delaying the process, Mr. Speaker.
However, we could start asking some serious questions about the way the government acts, especially last week, or should I say a few weeks ago, when we had to pass legislation to force public servants back to work. Today, it's the postal workers' turn, and we have to proceed with a bill to impose compulsory arbitration.
Mr. Speaker, one wonders about the irresponsible way this government handles government administration. In this respect, I would like to point out that only a few months ago, people in the Outaouais were being told that a number of sortation centres would be closed, including the centres in Aylmer, Hull and Gatineau. Thanks to the power of persuasion and the support we gave the union and the postal workers, those sortation centres remained open, Mr. Speaker, and we have every reason to be proud of the fact.
However, when the president of Canada Post receives bonuses totalling $130,000- I think it is outrageous, Mr. Speaker, to give someone who already gets a large salary a bonus for doing the government's dirty work.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not intend to hold up the process. I am aware that the opposition parties have agreed to shorten their speaking times so the government can get its legislation through the House. I can agree with that because after all, we cannot let a postal strike go on forever, especially when we know that Canadians and Quebecers need Canada Post.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the way the government proceeded was totally irresponsible.
October 29, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.

And the bells having stopped ringing:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the acting chief whip of the opposition asked me to defer the vote until later.
Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded vote on the question now before the House is deferred until 3 p.m. today, when the bells will be rung for at most 15 minutes.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am not sure what the real time is on the clocks. They have been playing with them all day, but I think you might find a disposition for the House to call it 1.59 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think perhaps it might be more appropriate to suspend the House until two o'clock as opposed to calling it 1.59 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The sitting of the House is suspended until two o'clock this afternoon.
Sitting suspended at 1.26 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government has struck yet another severe blow to the Atlantic provinces by slashing equalization payments.
In New Brunswick alone this Conservative policy translates into a loss of over $100 million.

Need I remind the government that equalization is a right guaranteed by the Constitution so that provincial governments can provide nearly identical public services?

The Conservative government has argued that equalization payments had not been slashed but that they were being allocated according to its funding formula. If that is the case, then I suggest that the government go back to the drawing-board and redesign this formula.
The truth is that regional disparities have risen under this government and that the economic stability of the Atlantic provinces has been undermined consistently as a result of Conservative policies.

Therefore, I urge the federal government to rethink its policies so that all Canadians can continue to have access to programs that meet national standards.


UKRAINIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this year is the 100th anniversary of Ukrainian immigration to Canada.
This is why they came: a country full of oppression, a village full of poverty, a household of despair.
This what they left with: a passport of desire, two arms full of farewells, many eyes full of tears, a trunk full of possessions, a heart full of faith.
This is what they experienced: a wagon full of courage, a trail of determination, two arms full of strength, many hands full of pain, many a fork full of toil, a barrel full of sweat, a rack full of patience, a truck full of sacrifice, a tub full of disappointments, a pail full of tears, an axe full of anger, a bushel of grief, a lifetime of dreams, a heart full of love, a soul full of faith.
Their contribution is colossal. Western Canada has developed and prospered due in large part to these great Canadians.
On behalf of the House of Commons may I say thank you.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, this week it has become known that Canadians will be denied the environmental and economic benefits of new clean running diesel engines which will be introduced in the United States in 1994 because Canadian refiners cannot guarantee an adequate supply of the cleaner fuel for these engines and because Canada cannot decide whether to go ahead with production of low sulphur fuel.
Instead, Canadian trucks and buses will continue to use outmoded engines which produce five times more harmful sulphur pollution. This means that Canada will be stuck with older engine technology which will not be transferable in the used vehicle market.
It means that Canadian truckers once again will find it even more difficult to compete with business south of
the border. Their vehicles will in fact be unusable in the United States. Canada does not manufacture its own diesel engines. Most diesel engines are imported from the U.S., and we will not be able to use the new engines because we cannot guarantee the fuel supply. This will cause tremendous problems to the Canadian trucking industry.
It is therefore vital that the government act immediately to ensure that Canadian truckers can survive.


PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I heard Pierre Pascau interview Johane Hu-rens, vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, on CKVL in Montreal. During the nine-minute interview, she repeated publicly that the union would crack down and cut services to its 5,000 members who worked during the strike. Like many people, I could not believe my ears. Johane Hurens said:
-we have fines to convince people-it is a way to get back at them.
Mr. Speaker, that is reminiscent of the Dark Ages and the methods often used by organized crime, of arm twisting and the Inquisition. Nevertheless, the union will continue to collect dues which will become, I suppose, the ransom paid by these public servants who were loyal to the state and thus become the Alliance's hostages.
I therefore call upon these public servants not to be intimidated by this shameful blackmail, for serving the Canadian people is no crime. I hope that the government will not let them down; I personally promise to defend their rights here in this House and I am at their disposal.


CHILDREN'S SYMPOSIUM
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the symposium "Canada's Children: The Priority for the '90s" began yesterday, continues today and will end tomorrow.

October 29, 1991

Over 500 of this country's child experts are in Ottawa this week pooling their knowledge to better the lives of our children.
I salute the participants and the sponsors of this important national initiative. It addresses six areas of concern: health, welfare, poverty, families and child care, education and law.
World leaders including Canada's made a great promise a year ago to address those same concerns and thereby end child deaths and promote the well-being of children.
Today children need action to realize that great promise. I urge all colleagues to visit the child symposium, speak to the people there and learn from them.
Afterward I hope we can all come back to Parliament and work together for our children. Let us muster the political will and adopt the principle that children should be the first to benefit from our nation's success and the last to suffer from our nation's failure.
Canada's humanity and future should be tested and shaped by how Canada's Parliament protects and cares for our children: les enfants du Canada.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, addressing the 46th UN General Assembly, Cypriot President George Vasiliou stressed his government's commitment to keep striving for a just and viable solution to bring peace and security to Cyprus.
Recent UN efforts to reunite the divided island of Cyprus and settle the 17-year dispute have failed because of demands unacceptable to the UN posed by Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.
The continuing presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus has served to further exacerbate the problem.
President Vasiliou also stressed that differences must be settled by peaceful means and that democracy and strict adherence to the respect of human rights could be the basis of a solution providing for a united federal Cyprus which would demonstrate that differences could be bridged and trust repaired.
I believe the time has come for Turkey to abide by UN resolutions and get out of Cyprus. I believe as well that
the world family of nations needs to create a system of making acts of aggression no longer possible and to reverse similar situations that unfortunately still exist in the world today.


CANADIAN DIABETES WEEK
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Friday, October 25, marked the kick-off of Canadian Diabetes Week.
Currently over one million Canadians have diabetes. Every year 60,000 new cases of diabetes are diagnosed in Canada and about one in twenty Canadians can expect to develop diabetes some time in their life.
Although more people suffer from diabetes than any of the other currently non-curable diseases, the amount of money given by the federal government for research into the disease is falling behind.
We can only respond effectively to the challenges of diabetes if we understand the issues, risks and options. I believe that we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to participate in this learning process and to encourage this government to put more money into research for diabetes.
Hopefully with awareness and information the risks associated with diabetes can be reduced. Continued basic research will one day lead to a cure, but it will require a commitment from all Canadians to participate in whatever way we can to assist the Canadian Diabetes Association and the people suffering from diabetes.


MEMBER FOR EDMONTON EAST
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, most people in my riding of Joliette, as well as in the rest of Quebec, still hope that we will find a constitutional agreement that will be beneficial and honourable for all regions of Canada. Lately, we have noted among Canadians a willingness to dialogue, perhaps for the last time.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, I learned yesterday that the New Democratic member for Edmonton East stirs up passions with disturbing or ill-considered decisions, such as not inviting the French Canadian Association of Alberta to participate in his activities on the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I want to denounce this hypocritical attitude of

October 29, 1991
the NDP, which claims to promote the building of a united and prosperous country, while at the same time not hesitating to reject outright the legitimate aspirations of Francophones in Canada. There is nothing constructive in this attitude when we are trying to build a country.


PEEWEE HOCKEY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, members of this House may have heard a news story that ran this past weekend well entitled Indian Players are not Welcome in Quebec City.
A peewee hockey team from Thompson in my riding was told it could not be billeted with white families during the Quebec International Peewee Hockey Tournament because there were six native players on the team. The native players were told they must stay at a native village near Quebec City, while white players could stay with white families.
The comments made by the president of the Quebec International Peewee Hockey Tournament are alarming and insulting. He has demonstrated an abysmal lack of respect for our aboriginal peoples. He has reflected a complete misunderstanding of a modem Canada that is proud of all its peoples. His remarks are totally out of place at a time when national unity is needed now more than ever.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport must step in. He should investigate whether this tournament received any indirect support from the Government of Canada and he should seek an apology to native peoples from each of the team members and their families.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I really object, Mr. Speaker, to the attitude of certain Bloc members in this House on this very serious issue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the recent $800 million federal farm aid package was welcomed by Saskatchewan farmers. Unfortunately leaks by some members of the third line of defence committee suggest that the committee will recommend distribution of these funds on the basis of seeded acres only.
Such a method of payment is grossly unfair to tens of thousands of producers in Saskatchewan for whom summer fallow is a very necessary and sound cropping practice. The land across much of southern Saskatchewan is suitable only for cereal production and does not lend itself to diversification.
These producers are hardest hit by the ravages of the international grains trade war. I therefore urge the Minister of Agriculture to recognize the plight of farmers in southern Saskatchewan by providing a partial payment on summer fallow acreage.


THE MONARCHY
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte Marie):: Mr. Speaker, these days, Prince Charles, Princess Diana and their sons are in Canada.
I find it unacceptable that Quebecers have to foot the bill for this visit, especially after the statement made by the Prince of Wales on the Quebec question. He would be better advised to look after the problems in Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The monarchy is an outdated, undemocratic system that we could easily do without. At a time when thousands are unemployed, on welfare and homeless in Quebec, our taxes are used to receive the royal family.


&quot;THE NEXT STEP&quot;
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, women and children facing domestic violence need somewhere safe to go. In 1988 the government introduced Project Haven to fund the capital costs for emergency shelters. It is important for women to have somewhere to go upon leaving these short-term shelters.
October 29, 1991

I am happy to say that this government has responded to this need with a program called "The Next Step". This program focuses on the development of interim accommodation for abused women and their children. Here they are encouraged to live independently in a secure and comfortable environment, supported by the community.
Secure housing is a critical step in protecting women and children who have left abusive relationships. Congratulations on this initiative.


SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, within the last 24 hours the people of Tiverton, Nova Scotia have seen a storm that caused one lobster boat to sink at its moorings. The storm has driven two others ashore and pushed a fourth out into the harbour dragging its mooring.
Because of the demand for spaces fishermen have been asking for an extension to the Tiverton wharf for many years. At one time the Tiverton extension had a high priority. However, this government has no policy to extend or repair existing structures.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter, as I am sure you are aware. Replacing or repairing their boats will be expensive for these fishermen. Their lobster season could be over before it even begins, all because small craft harbours has no money to provide for adequate structures along the coast of South West Nova.
I call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to look into the wharf extension at Tiverton immediately and provide small craft harbours with money.


FRASER RIVER DEBRIS CONTROL PROGRAM
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, again it is important to bring to the attention of the House that the question of funding for the Fraser River Debris Control Program has not yet been resolved and that this very valuable program is in danger of collapsing.
It is ironic that we are able to find $100 million for new projects on the Fraser but cannot find the $180,000 to
Oral Questions
maintain an existing, cost effective, valuable program that is already functioning well. Everyone using the Fraser River, such as tow boat operators, fishermen, hunters, pleasure boat operators, and all of the Fraser Valley municipalities support the continuation of this important program.
I call on the ministers of transport, fisheries, forestry and the environment to get together and resolve this problem as soon as possible.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, VIA Rail is currently advertising a 33 per cent off seat sale for its service between Vancouver, Kamloops and Toronto.
I applaud this measure by VIA to promote its service, but regretfully VIA has not decided to offer the same package on the Skeena route, a service between Prince Rupert, Prince George and Jasper. In fact the government has yet to decide on the future of this remote service.
VIA should promote the Skeena and offer the same seat sale on that run. The government should make up its mind and tell northern B.C. that the Skeena will be saved and promoted.
This government should take a look at the train today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. This morning, a presentation was made by two ministers, who told us things that Canadians have known very well for a long time, namely that Canada has trouble competing internationally and that we are going through a crisis.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if the government has other techniques to get us out of this crisis than to set up yet another study group that will spend money to find

October 29, 1991
Oral Questions
solutions for the government, solutions that should have been found in the last seven years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is very well aware of the success that we have had in getting interest rates down close to 6 percentage points since the peak of last year. That is generating support for the housing industry and for automotive industry.
We are seeing now in the broader economic numbers that the strength in those industries is encouraging growth in other industries. We are making progress.
I think what is important for us as Canadians to do here-and it is the primary objective of this initiative that my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I announced this morning-is to draw people's attention to the important challenges that we have in continuing the growth and the prosperity that we have had in the country over the last number of years.
That will be found in a greater focus and a greater understanding of the opportunities in research and development, in learning and education, in investment and in improving the performance of our domestic economy, as well as putting all that together and doing better internationally.
That is the objective of the exercise and that is what we announced this morning.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. minister would be well advised to look back to 1984 when he produced a document that was called A New Direction for Canada wherein he talked about all the same things they talked about this morning.
This morning the minister said these very enlightening phrases to the Canadian public: "We have one of the highest high school dropout rates in the world: 30 per cent compared to 2 per cent in Japan". The minister said: "We face a critical shortage of scientists and engineers". The minister said: "We rank 20 out 24 in the efficacy of our training programs". The minister said: "Canadian companies spend only one-half of what the American companies are spending on training".
This is a condemnation coming from the benches of the government.
I would like to know from the minister or the Prime Minister when we will see action after seven years of failures as admitted by the two ministers this morning.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has referred to the agenda for economic renewal and in that we talk about the same things there as we are talking about today.
Let us look at what has happened in investment. Time and time again we hear from the hon. member about the investment encouragement that we have provided through the reduction in the change of taxation for small business, the capital gains exemption for small business, the change in FIRA to Investment Canada to encourage investment by foreigners in Canada and the research and development challenge, what we have done to lighten the load of research and development expenditures for small business through the research and development tax credit.
Under our leadership Canada has the best regime for research and development taxation privileges as any other country in the world. The productivity challenge, what we have done to-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move on.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to talk to the 1,500,000 Canadians who are looking for jobs today. I would like him to talk to the scientific community in Canada today about research and development and he will hear something very different.
These people will be asking the minister why the government will spend another $20 million on consultants and on advertising when we need money to solve the economic problems of the nation.
When will we have that priority first and foremost?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what my hon. friend ignores totally is the fact that since 1984 Canada has had the best job creation rate of the industrialized countries.
October 29, 1991

Let us look at the bottom line and understand what is going on here. The primary objective of this exercise is to draw together a wide ranging number of points of view on how we can do better on research and development, how we can do better on learning, how we can do better on investment, how we can do better on reducing the barriers between the provinces and how we can do better internationally.
I have not heard the views of the hon. member opposite, but we are trying to get the steering group to draw together all of these views into a national consensus.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this minister ignores reality and the reality is that this government has slashed education transfers totalling $9.5 billion over eight years. It has frozen student loans and taxed those loans for the first time in history.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this government has taxed books and other educational materials with the GST and is spending only $4.40 per year on each illiterate person in the country.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give me and any member of this House even one reason why Canadians should now believe this government when it says it is moving education to the front of the national agenda.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to. In the documents tabled today by the two ministers there is a very clear indication that in Canada our total educational expenditures as a percentage of GDP rank the third highest in the industrialized world.
A few years ago we were spending more money per capita than any industrialized country except Sweden, yet we were not getting the results in the areas my hon. friend raises.
High school dropouts pose a serious problem. Illiteracy is a very serious problem. Productivity growth is a very serious problem in Canada, which is why the minister is seeking to bring together labour, management, the private sector, voluntary organizations and the federal
Oral Questions
and provincial governments into one national commitment to try and get rid of illiteracy, to try and improve our productivity, thereby strengthening the national wealth of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this government has launched a $20 million trick or treat on Canadians. It is a trick on Canadians and a treat for the government's advertising and consulting friends.
Why should Canadians believe the government is seriously interested in training when the same government has cut transfers over eight years by nearly $10 billion and has penalized students with a tax on student loans.
If the government wants to spend money wisely, stop this regressive tax on student loans and do it today.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to the hon. member that the numbers he is using are not correct. We have been increasing the transfers to the provinces for education.
When the hon. member uses expressions like trick or treat, let me say to him that Canadians are fed up to here with that sort of cute political phrase.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Today his government tabled two papers on competitiveness and prosperity and the need for more education, more research and development. I think most Canadians would agree that if there was a report card on this government, it would get a clear "F" on both competitiveness and prosperity.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this question. In these papers it assumes that the GST and the Canada-U.S. trade deal are the cornerstones of this government's policies. Since the introduction of the Canada-U.S. trade deal we have not had an objective assessment tabled in this House on the trade deal or the GST. Will he do that and show us objectively the results of the programs that he has put forward?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, concerning the free trade agreement with

Oral Questions
the United States, since 1988, the last year before the free trade agreement came into play, our surplus with the United States-that is the excess of our exports to the United States less our imports- has gone up by $3.5 billion. We have seen our exports to the United States go up by $8 billion, or close to 8 per cent.
We have also seen in August the level of exports to the United States at an all-time high.
Surely my hon. friend cannot deny the impact of those figures. Those figures say that the bottom line performance of the Canadian economy has been positive in the area of trade since the start of the free trade agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The million and a half unemployed and those others in society who are suffering, the over one million people on social assistance, do not see those results.
Consultation is part of the presentation by the government today. There have been many very recent reports, including those by the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, the Canadian Federation of Students Strategy for Change Royal Society of Canada on the need for more research and development, Action Canada Network centre for policy alternatives, on the kind of economic and research and development policies that are needed.
I note that in the consultation process the Prime Minister and the minister are suggesting that the head of the steering committee will represent organizations funded by mostly multinational corporations.
Will the minister replace one of those co-chairs by a representative, for example, from the National Poverty Organization to show Canadians that he is really prepared to listen to all Canadians on the future agenda for Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is well aware of the fact that we had some other proposals in mind some weeks ago as to how we would proceed with the steering group. We offered one of the co-chairs to the Canadian Labour Congress. I am sorry that it did not see fit to participate in the steering group but I hope that we will
hear the voice of labour through a number of other ways during the course of these negotiations.
My hon. friend talks about Mr. McCamus, one of the co-chairs. Mr. McCamus was bom in Ontario. He is the president and chief executive officer of Xerox Canada. She is right there. But he was there when the first ever gold award for quality was won by that company from the Canadian government. He is the founding chairman of the Information Technology Association and is currently the chairman of the Corporate Higher Education Forum. We believe that the qualifications of Mr. McCamus, a passionate Canadian, are well suited to be the co-chair of this steering committee.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
What I was asking the minister was simply to make sure that the message sent to Canadians was that this government is prepared to listen to all Canadians. It would be done by putting a co-chair of that committee representing other aspects of society.
Mr. Speaker, my question deals with another topic. The Prosperity Secretariat will cost $7.5 million. For the unemployed, the homeless and the poor, this government's answer is more bureaucracy. Why should these people have confidence in this government's prosperity agenda?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is not a bureaucratic exercise. This is an exercise that is designed to allow Canadians in 150 to 175 communities across Canada to feed directly into a process which will give them a say in how this country is run in the indefinite future. It will give Canadians an opportunity at the community base level to feed into a steering group which is not a government steering group, but a private sector-led steering group. It will involve people from social groups as well, so that the voices that she wants to have heard in this exercise will be heard.
I think this is a tremendous response to the concerns that Canadians have been expressing in recent years.
October 29, 1991


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I guess that is the difference between the minister's party and our party. He wants to feed into steering groups. We would like to feed Canadians.
Given that there have literally been thousands of Hamiltonians laid off in the last two years as a result of his government's economic policies, can the Prime Minister tell me what I should say to the worker at Newman Steel who received his lay-off notice last week when there is not a penny for retraining programs for him, and yet this government has $20 million to pay for a Tory boondoggle. What should I tell the laid-off worker in my riding?


An hon. member:: Don't vote Tory.


Bernard Valcourt: The hon. member should first confess to this gentleman to having fought a measure which this government tried to introduce to provide training money for laid-off workers in Canada. She should do that first.
Then she could point to the agreement that was reached between CIC, the union and the employers in the steel industry which put in place mechanisms to retrain those people and help them to find jobs so that they can earn a living. This is what the hon. member should do for a start.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, while thousands are unemployed in Montreal, Matane and the Ottawa Valley, it is unfortunate that the government can find $20 million to set up a screen to hide its own incompetence when they don't have a cent for the unemployed. Mr. Speaker, how can the government find $20 million for its Tory friends but can't find a penny for the unemployed people in Montreal? Why is that?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible what some people will say for partisan reasons! The hon. member should recognize that this government will spend some $3,154 billion under the Canadian Jobs Strategy precisely to help the unemployed, and workers who must adjust to the globalization of the economy.
Oral Questions
Surely the hon. member can find something in the numerous programs mentioned by Jean de Grandpre; there are 400 of them across the country. And let me tell you that the people in Matane, Montreal and Quebec know how to benefit from those programs.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of industry and trade. The government's document tabled today says that the focus of the consultations the government wants to have with Canadians will not be on economic issues, like the level of the Canadian dollar, but instead will be on other issues. It says, and I quote, "by the nuts and bolts of the real economy". Why does the government not think that the level of the Canadian dollar is part of the real economy and why does the government not want to listen to Canadians for example exporters that want to tell the minister what the level of the Canadian dollar has been doing to them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not ignoring the level of the Canadian dollar. We are not ignoring some of the other policies like deficits or levels of interest rates, or anything like that.
What we have been hearing from the experts on competitiveness is that the true competitiveness of an economy is based on the way individual industries and individual people use research and development, use training, use investment, to compete in international markets.
That is what generates the competitive position of an economy. That is the focus of the consultations we are having, but that does not exclude other matters which Canadians want to bring in. We expect they will do that and we are certainly willing to listen and respond to any suggestions that are made.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister and I invite him to read the preface to his own document which sends a different message.
I ask the minister if, in what he has just said, he is not admitting, the government is not admitting, that for the

October 29, 1991
Oral Questions
past seven years they have been ignoring what they now say only now are the nuts and bolts of the real economy. What excuse does the government have to offer Canadians for this astounding failure to recognize what is important along with the dollar and interest rates in terms of jobs and well-being for Canadians.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have not been ignoring the matters of learning. My colleague has talked about the substantial increase in the amount of spending that we have done since 1984 on retraining people who are losing jobs. We have not ignored the elements of research and development. We have introduced a number of policies to increase the amount of spending and increase the support for research and development.
The same can be said in trying to improve the performance of our domestic economy and also to expand our horizons to other markets, particularly through broadening our trading arrangements both with the United States and now with the multinational trade negotiations going on in Geneva.
All of these, if you look back-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the minister has suggested that he is prepared to take seriously the messages which come from this consultation process.
Across this country 71 per cent of Canadians have indicated that they oppose the goods and services tax. I want to ask the minister if the government will follow what people tell them to do with the goods and services tax in these consultations.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend this morning. I think we agree that we should be doing things to improve the competitive position of the Canadian economy.
I would presume that my hon. friend still agrees with that. He is not nodding because he knows that he does agree with that. The point is that the goods and services tax is designed to improve the competitive position of Canadian companies in the economy, both exporting and
competing against imports. That is precisely the reason we brought it in, because the old tax was inhibiting exports and favouring imports against Canadian production.
Surely my hon. friend must realize the impact of that and the importance of bringing the GST in to improve our competitive position.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the goods and services tax has hurt small business in every part of this country because of the competition with the United States.
If the minister does not realize that he is blind. He says that he is going to take these consultations seriously.
I ask him to answer the question and to be clear. Will this minister and this government respect what people say to this government when they speak out against the GST in these consultations?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear with my hon. friend. The objective of this exercise is to find ways that we can compete more effectively as a country.
If people say that they would like something done because it is nice to do but it does not improve the competitive position of the Canadian economy then, no, we are not going to accept that.
As to suggestions and recommendations on how we improve the performance of the economy, improve our competitive position, yes, we will listen very closely to those recommendations.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in its 1984 agenda for economic renewal the government said: "We have a clear sense of economic direction. However we do not intend to act without seeking the opinion of all
Canadians".
Today, seven lost years later, this government is still in the starting blocks. Will the government admit this prosperity document is proof of seven years of failed direction, failed commitment and failed leadership?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, during the seven years since we have been
October 29, 1991

in office this country has led the industrialized world in job creation.
We have been second only to Japan for a large part of that period in economic growth so how can my hon. friend say that these have been lost years? They have been years of great prosperity, but we want to ensure that we continue that prosperity.
I would suggest that my hon. friend, rather than look back and make these political points about the past, look forward to the future, look forward to how we can improve our performance in science and technology, in investment, and in research and development.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister wants Canadians to forget the last seven years. His own document is testimony to his failure during that period of time.
Let me go back to the process. The minister said this morning that Canadians want to be consulted. This is the minister who would not listen to Canadian exporters and manufacturers about the level of the dollar. This is the minister who would not listen to Canadians about the GST and labour. His own document says they are one the key players in our economic future. He cannot even get labour to the table.
How can Canadians have any faith in this government or in this process?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, will recognize this quote because it is from him. He said: "We believe that market forces should continue to determine the appropriate exchange value for our currency. What we are doing as we have done consistently for the past eight years is to smooth out erratic fluctuations and the value of the dollar as they occur in the marketplace".
This is precisely the policy that this government has been following. Why does he rail away about the Canadian dollar when his leader has stated what the policy is and continues to be.
I just say to my hon. friend one more time: what we are looking for here is a productive debate on how we can put a firm underpinning under our standard of living. We
Oral Questions
are starting from a position of strength. We have the second highest standard of living in the world. We are number five in competitive position, but there are those danger signs on the horizon that are clearly set out in these documents.
What we want to achieve is a consensus, drawing on the ideas of the hon. member as well as all Canadians, on how we can improve our performance.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession a stack of reports that have been issued over the last five years by people like the Science Council, the Economic Council of Canada, Senate committees, House committees, task forces and working groups.
My question to the government is this. The reports all deal with the same questions that are in the documents issued this morning.
Has the government not read any of these reports, or does it dismiss all the answers contained in all these reports already prepared at taxpayers' expense? What is going on here? Why is there $20 million for yet another investigation of the same questions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been reports, a wide range of reports. My hon. friend has referred to some; the Leader of the New Democratic Party has referred to others. But there are differences in points of view. Might I suggest that there are even differences in points of view among my hon. friend and the member for Windsor West and the member for Winnipeg South West. There are differences within his own party.
We are trying on a national basis to reconcile those differences through this broad consultation process, drawing on experts in the field, in the steering group that will be bringing forward a national action plan with recommendations for the federal government, provincial governments, territorial governments, municipal governments and the private sector in all its capacities.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for from this government maybe is a point of view. There is nothing in this document that expresses any opinions about what direction the country should be going to solve its underlying problems.

October 29, 1991
Oral Questions
Now that $20 million is on the table, what has happened to all these old reports? Is there nothing in them? Was that money wasted or is the new money wasted?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the member will see in some of those reports that they recommended the goods and services tax. They recommended the free trade agreement with the United States. The Macdonald commission on the economy-


Some hon. members:: More, more.


An hon. member:: Why didn't you agree with that?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: For the hon. member to say that we are not listening to these reports or for my friend over here from Willowdale to say "act", we have acted but we also feel it is a good time to reflect on this range of reports, draw out a national consensus for a national action plan that we can all get behind as a country and in that way move on to greater heights across the country.


ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, although the energy efficiency bill given first reading this morning allows the Governor in Council to prescribe fuel efficiency standards for internal combustion engine vehicles-the greatest source of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Canada-the government apparently intends for the time being to set standards only for household electric appliances. In other words, they will regulate toasters but not trucks, tea kettles but not Cadillacs.
My question is for the minister of energy. When will the government prescribe internal combustion engine vehicles and set efficiency standards for them?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the latter point, as the Minister of the Environment also pointed out, we have already done that. We are going to look at further CAFE standards in terms of the auto industry.
I also refer, for example, to reports even today that the government apparently has made a decision on high sulphur diesel which is also not the case.
I say to the hon. member: thank you for supporting the energy efficiency bill as it goes. I want to discuss with him even further what other action we should take together.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, given this government's record since I got here in 1988,1 would be happy to discuss any action.
Will the government at least take the simple action of proclaiming the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumptions Standards Act passed by this House in 1982 and use it to set standards at least as stringent as those slated for introduction in the United States for motor vehicles?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I accept to some degree what the hon. member said in the question he just asked, that there has to be some co-ordination, some synergy, because of an integrated auto and truck market and production in the United States and Canada. We should be very close, if not lock-step, to those regulations in Canada.
Those who heard the question should take note that what he talked today about was the U.S. standards relating, for example, to the APA studies, and I accept that, whereas before he always raised California standards or even the new California standards. I would like to ask him: Which standards is he referring to?


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who recently announced an $800 million farm aid package.
Comments by some members of the third line of defence committee indicate that a recommendation may be forthcoming from the committee for distribution of these funds based on seeded acres only. The minister will know that such a method of payment would be extremely unfair to thousands of producers across southern Saskatchewan for whom summer fallow is a very necessary practice.
Will the minister consider including some form of summer fallow acreage under the method of distribution of this farm aid package?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern the hon. member has expressed. I have not received the report from the third line of defence committee. I look forward to receiving it.
I am sure the representatives of farmers who sit on that committee will also understand the importance of summer fallow as an agricultural practice. As an aside, the environmental practice of summer fallowing has been debated but there is no doubt that paying for fallow takes land out of production on a voluntary basis, which is also beneficial to the whole of the agricultural industry.


QUEBEC'S JURISDICTION OVER EDUCATION
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. One thing Quebecers are most united on is, that the government of that province must have exclusive jurisdiction over training. Business people and unions agree on that in Quebec. Today, the government released a discussion paper which clearly states its intention to defy the unanimous opinion of Quebecers on that issue.
My question is: How can the government reject so blatantly a fundamental consensus in Quebec at a time when it claims to create national consensus?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the hon. member is absolutely wrong because under this document, the federal government has no intention of intervening directly or indirectly in any way in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction. We said it many times and I will say it again, in spite of the distortions that the hon. member will make: The Canadian government fully respects provincial jurisdiction in that field.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if there is one field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction from the beginning, it is education; in fact, this was even a condition for Quebec joining Confederation. Yet this document clearly indicates that the government now intends to invade a field of jurisdiction that Quebec has always fiercely protected. When will the government
Oral Questions
finally respect the Constitution? When will it mind its own business?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will simply invite my hon. friend to read the document carefully. He will realize what all Canadians realize: that the document fully respects the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction in that field. The Canadian government has said it time and again and there can be no misunderstanding on this issue.
As for my hon. friend's concern, he was on this side of the House when we promoted a program for school dropouts, which involved education, and he was in favour; he was not opposed to that program.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This week the bank rate at Canada's chartered banks dropped to 8.5 per cent, which is a good deal.
While the bank's best corporate customers can borrow money at 8.5 per cent, Canadian consumers are being gouged as credit card interest rates remain at 19.75 per cent.
Given that, will the minister reconsider a recommendation made by the Commons consumer and corporate affairs committee to impose a floating cap on credit card interest rates?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question because consumers should know that everybody could go to their bankers today to renegotiate the loans they have now. Most of the time the consumers are not really aware of the power they have in their hands. I do not think we should put a cap on it. I think this proposal has been rejected over the years. It would be very interesting to tell the people, perhaps in the gallery, the power they have and the capacity they have to renegotiate their loans.


An hon. member:: Are you working for the banks now?


An hon. member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, in a field where the competition is fierce, The signal that we should give to the banks

October 29, 1991
Oral Questions
is precisely to be competitive and urge consumers to renegotiate their loans. That is the best signal that we could send.


RESEARCH
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
More than two years ago, the Prime Minister's advisory board on science and technology recommended that the government double its funding for university research in Canada. Why did the government reject this recommendation? Will the minister promise today to follow up that recommendation?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this House would like to see a doubling of the amount of science and technology in this country. The fundamental question is on that side of the House. They believe government should provide all the money. On this side of the House we believe that is also an industrial responsibility.
[Translation\


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the last eight years, the value of contributions from the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council has dropped 45 per cent. Now, the government is wondering how to improve the performance of businesses in research and development.
Will the minister commit himself today to increase the funding of industrial research through IRAP?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that IRAP is a very important program for industry in Canada. Yes, we will make a commitment to look very seriously at that program.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
On a recent trip to Japan the minister is quoted as saying: "Japan and all other parties to the GATT talks must be willing to make hard political decisions. Canada will be doing that in several areas where Canadian farmers are protected because an open global market is more important to global economic health than protection of individuals in any one country". Yet he continues to stand in this House and tell Canadians he supports supply management. The minister either supports it or he does not. Which is it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member started out, and I know he did not mean to mislead this House deliberately, saying I was quoted. If the hon. member is fair and straightforward he would say to the members of this House that that is not a quote from the Minister of Agriculture.
In all cases the Government of Canada has developed its support and its policy on supply management with the stake holders, with the producers and we will continue to do that. We have continued to express that position in GATT. I have expressed it in Japan, I have expressed it in the United States and I have expressed it in Brussels. We will continue to express it because it is important to the producers.
If the producers are changing their minds, then he as a member should inform the government. Neither the government nor the producers have changed their position concerning supply management.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker,
I will send a copy of the article over for the minister to read. The minister is also reported as saying that he did not think that there were very many countries that are able to have security of supply within their own domestic borders.
Does the minister believe that Canada is one of these countries that is able to have security of supply for our food production and will he guarantee to this House today that he will not sign any GATT agreement that

Government Orders
undermines Article XI of GATT, that is supply management?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member if he forgot my first response to his question where he said that I was quoted. I ask the hon. member if he would like to table that quote, Mr. Speaker.
In reply to his second question, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an opportunity for expansion of agriculture and the ability of the world to feed itself. I replied to a question regarding rice in Japan. I said there are two ways of having security of supply for food, either domestically or seeking it from a world that is able to supply it. I believe Canada is able to supply its own food needs and will continue to do that. Canada is a blessed country in this world.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Ken McKinnon, Commissioner of the Yukon Territory.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Danis that Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal services be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-40.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
aucun/nil
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My apologies for not being in my seat at the time of the vote. I was inadvertently detained.
Elad I been in my seat at the time and able to vote I would have voted against this legislation and would like the record to read so.
* Sic *


WAGE CLAIM PAYMENT ACT
Pierre Blais: that Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the minister proceeds on second reading of Bill C-22,1 just want the House to be advised that our critic, the hon. member for Dartmouth, was here to proceed with the bill as originally agreed to on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
We were subsequently informed late last week, on Thursday, that we would not be proceeding with this particular bill and that there had to be some meetings on the other side with regard to the contents of Bill C-22. We were subsequently informed that we would be dealing with another piece of legislation today and not
Bill C-22. It is my understanding that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader was to have apprised us of this particular phenomenon yesterday, which was now a second change, and we would go to C-22 today.
Notwithstanding that I want members of this House to know that we on this side are prepared to move today with regard to Bill C-22. Our critic, the hon. member for Dartmouth, has rearranged his schedule in order to participate in this debate, which we believe to be veiy important. I want the Chair to understand that there was co-operation between all parties with regard to the legislation of the House, however it was changed at the very last moment, thereby adding some confusion in terms of what would be coming forward.
We are prepared to proceed with Bill C-22 today. [Translation]


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition House Leader for his cooperation.

Forty years of drought are about to end. Since 1949 Canada's Bankruptcy Act has remained virtually unchanged as this country's increasingly obsolete foundation insolvency law. That is about to change. It is my distinct pleasure to rise in this House today to speak in support of Bill C-22, the reform of the Bankruptcy Act.
The reform package that constitutes Bill C-22 is a tribute to years of intensive consultations with stakeholders in business and labour, the legal community and the insolvency community.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister, but I call on members on both sides of the House to cooperate so that conversations or other exchanges take place in private or outside the Chamber and so the public listening to us and all hon. members can understand what the hon. minister is saying.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the reform package of Bill C-22 is also a tribute to the unprecedented co-operation among members of all three major parties in this House
October 29, 1991

and to the clear and constructive contribution that they have made.


Mr. Lapierre:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Shefford on a point of order.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for calling us back to order, but I would like some clarification from you as to whether the Standing Orders do not require members to speak extemporaneously instead of reading notes, especially those written by others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member, who has long experience in this House, knows very well that is not a point of order. The hon. minister has the floor.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, on this note I would like to take a moment to extend my thanks to the two House leaders opposite and to the chairman of the standing committee, the hon. member for Portage-Interlake, for agreeing to refer this bill for pre-study. I would also like to thank the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations for its excellent work.
I would like especially to express my personal thanks, as I said, to the hon. member for Dartmouth and the hon. member for Nickel Belt. From the day that Bill C-22 was first introduced it was clear that their participation would be well informed and constructive. The contributions they have made demonstrate that they recognize the urgency of the passage of this bill so as to better protect the interests of Canadians within a competitive marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the wonderful unanimity of members on both sides of the House concerning the need to proceed with the reform will sound even sweeter. We not only can but must amend this archaic law to better protect our workers, to help those who unfortunately go bankrupt recover as soon as possible and to ensure that our businesses have the modern tools
Government Orders
they need to meet the challenge of international competition.
Mr. Speaker, the real reason for our reform is to preserve jobs and promote economic growth. In the latest Speech from the Throne, our government promised to devote much of its energy during this session of Parliament to preparing the necessary ingredients for our future prosperity. We said that we would proceed in several areas: establishing clear, realistic deficit-reduction objectives; implementing the GST; exercising strict spending control; making continuing education the rule rather than the exception; and consulting our fellow citizens on ways to reduce obstacles to sustained growth and international competitiveness.
A crucial step in reaching this ambitious objective is to review our main pieces of framework legislation to ensure that their provisions help rather than hinder natural market forces, for the greater good of our fellow Canadians, Mr. Speaker.
That is the context within which our reform project is to be seen-as an essential part of the economic support structure and a major step to sustained economic growth.

I will not focus on the specifics of the legislation as I know members from all sides of the House are already familiar with them. I would like to speak about the principles that underlie them and I would like to begin by quoting the member for Dartmouth who earlier this year referred to the reform package provisions regarding stay of proceedings as especially timely. He said:
It is absolutely essential that this type of protection, which they have had in the United States for a number of years, is introduced to a modem bankruptcy act in Canada.
As we all know, because we have constituents who are in business, all too often secured creditors walk in quickly, seize assets, cut off credit lines, and put receivers in place. Many times healthy companies that, for whatever reason-they may be having some temporary difficulty-find themselves in a position where they cannot go on with their business and bankruptcy ensues.
This from June 19 Hansard at page 2108. This is precisely the reason we are proposing that the current rules be changed to provide potentially viable businesses in financial trouble with the option of filing a notice of stay with the official receiver for protection from all creditors. It is also why we are adding a new Part XI to the act, to impose duties of disclosure and good faith on secured creditors and receivers and to require that a

Government Orders
secured creditor give a debtor notice before enforcing its security.
In short we are seeking to put in dealing with the Bankruptcy Act emphasis on rehabilitation, not on liquidation. The reasons for this I think are obvious.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcies always involve heavy costs-social and human costs that can be highly destructive. Workers lose their livelihood and too often hard-won skills. Creditors and suppliers lose money; our communities lose businesses; our entrepreneurs lose their investments and often their dreams. Mr. Speaker, these costs undermine our country's efforts to remain competitive internationally.
It is therefore absolutely crucial to have this proposed reform adopted as soon as possible. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect our viable businesses and especially the jobs they provide, Mr. Speaker. We can no longer afford to waste our precious resources through bankruptcies that could have been avoided.
This desire to end the shameful waste of precious resources is also behind our decision to improve protection for unpaid suppliers. For many small businesses, the loss of a single delivery might be enough to put their viability at risk, causing a chain reaction or a domino effect, if you like. Since the primary objective of the proposed reform is to reduce business bankruptcies and safeguard jobs, clearly we must provide better protection for unpaid suppliers.
Mr. Speaker, the kind of protection we propose exists, and it is effective. In fact, similar protection has been provided in Quebec for several years, to the apparent satisfaction of businesses in that province. This probably explains why associations representing small businesses in this country strongly support this proposal.

Our desire to make the Bankruptcy Act fairer also led us to amend the provisions pertaining to Crown priority, the system whereby governments are automatically assigned preferred creditor status for all moneys owed to them.
With the exception of income tax deducted at source, contributions to the Canada Pension Plan and unemployment insurance premiums, Crown priority is being reduced under the new legislation. This is because we believe rules that are perceived to be unfair or arbitrary damage the entrepreneurial spirit. It was unfair to have one set of rules in place for one category of creditors, the Crown, and not others. We have acted to remove this inequity.
In much the same way as we aimed to make the existing regime fairer and more accessible to business, we aimed to make it fairer and more accessible to consumers. The consumer provisions we are proposing, that provide individuals in financial difficulty with more breathing space in which to reorganize their affairs, are long awaited ones. So too are the provisions that will allow a debtor to negotiate with creditors to pay less than the total amount of the debt owing and to reschedule their debt payment plans over a longer period of time.
Faced with the alternative of forcing the debtor into personal bankruptcy and likely not seeing any compensation at all, most creditors will prefer to receive some amount on the dollar. Should personal bankruptcy become the only option for the unfortunate debtor, our proposals will provide for easier access to affordable and expedient administrative procedures. Both measures will make it easier for bankrupt individuals to get back on their feet and start participating fully in the economy once more.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on at length about the merits of each of the more technical amendments we are proposing, but I would like to take a few minutes to explain why we are proposing a wage claim benefits program and why I am particularly proud of being the initiator of this proposal.
Mr. Speaker, all members of this House who are more or less aware of that aspect of our reform know there were at least six attempts during the past fifteen years to update our Bankruptcy Act, and that all these attempts experienced the same fate. They died on the Order Paper. This poor record is partly due to a failure to strike the necessary balance between the legitimate rights of creditors and debtors, but also and especially to an inability to deal with the question of employee protection. That is why, when I took over, I promised myself I
October 29, 1991

Government Orders
would put an end to this string of failures. Reforms in this crucial area were too long to come about for lack of consensus on the type of protection and the means of financing that protection.
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pity and, quite frankly, I find unacceptable the fact that while we have been discussing principles and possible solutions for years, our workers are left out in the cold with little or no protection.
Great hardship was suffered by innocent bystanders to wait any longer for an illusive consensus to emerge. In fact, it is absolutely unthinkable that, in developing our proposals for change, we would take the easy way out and turn our backs on our poor wage-earners.
Not only was I firmly determined to put in place a protection plan for employees, but also to make it work efficiently.
One of the reasons why I personally carried such extensive consultations over the past few months was to see for myself how far we could and should go with our program. The program we are putting forward fully meets the real concerns of the people and the organizations we approached.
What we are proposing is accessible and easy to use. It is intended to provide a safety net to ensure that workers get the wages owed to them should their employer goes bankrupt and that they get it as quickly as possible.
By collecting the employers' contribution at the same time as their unemployment insurance premiums, we minimize administrative costs as well as their amount of paperwork.
Mr. Speaker, concerns were expressed recently about our wage claim payment plan. I wish to respond to a number of these concerns, because I think it is important that our fellow citizens have a clear picture of what our program is and what it is not.
First, judging by the nature and tone of some speeches, it is obvious that there is confusion, misunderstanding, about the raison d'etre of our program. This program is, first and foremost, one in a series of steps aimed at updating our antiquated Bankruptcy Act and the basic idea is to keep viable businesses afloat, protect jobs and realign the rights of both creditors and debtors.

The program is not intended as a mechanism for income substitution or as a means of providing general compensation to workers for job losses resulting from a bankruptcy. Rather, it is a safety net that has been designed to ensure that individuals owed moneys by their bankrupt employers for wages or expenses receive an acceptable level of protection.
Second, some groups have argued that a simpler way of dealing with the issue of moneys owed to employees of a bankrupt firm would be to give them super priority over other creditors.
This approach to wage earner protection was proposed in earlier attempts to amend the Bankruptcy Act and was rejected every time by all even here in the House and by other stakeholders outside in the Landry committee and the Colter committee.
Why? For one thing it is neither sure nor prompt. It takes time to liquidate the assets of a bankrupt firm when and if there are any assets to liquidate. Super priority wage earners would be forced to wait several months before finding out whether they would be receiving wages owed to them.
Third, it is important to note that the wage claim protection program will be funded through an employer contribution of roughly 10 cents per week per employee. Money thus collected will be earmarked specifically for this program. For this reason the program cannot be used as a so-called cash cow to raise revenues for other purposes. I believe the following examples help to put this tax in its proper perspective.
For the average sized Canadian business employing 15 people it would mean $1.50 per week, the equivalent of the price of a large bag of potato chips. For the average small and medium sized business employing an average of seven people, 10 cents per employee per week means 70 cents a week, which is less than the price of a cup of coffee.

Mr. Speaker, some have suggested that such an additional burden could jeopardize the competitiveness of our companies on world markets.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. Moreover, whereas the level of the tax or contribution is minimal, the benefits of the program for workers and for businesses as well will be very significant.
Some say that the maximum authorized payment is too low. Mr. Speaker, it would have been easy to be generous with other people's money. However, the objective of this program is to provide workers with an acceptable level of protection for the money owed them. The $2,000 maximum payment provided by the program is equivalent to about twice the amount owed to employees caught in bankruptcies and should be more than enough to cover the vast majority of salary claims, according to studies that we have on hand.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, nothing will prevent an individual owed more than $2,000 from claiming the excess as an ordinary debt. Some have suggested that we should finance the program through the general revenues of the government. This suggestion simply cannot be implemented, given our huge deficit at the present time.
I would now like to take a few moments to discuss the report of the Standing Committee on the preliminary study of Bill C-22. This report is indeed eloquent testimony to the usefulness of a pre-study. In my opinion, it demonstrates clearly that the process is valid and constructive.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I must thank all the members of the Committee. The spirit of cooperation that prevailed enabled us to make great progress. In fact, the most remarkable thing about the hearings held during the pre-study is that, while each group that appeared before the Committee endeavoured, as one would expect, to protect its own interests in the context of the reform, a strong and genuine consensus emerged from those hearings regarding the reform proposals as a whole, and a very clear message was sent to the lawmakers: What are you waiting for to support this reform?
Following this detailed study, the Committee released a report in which it recommends several amendments to the bill. After carefully examining the Committee's report, and consulting with experts from my department and outside, I am pleased to announce in this House that
we will accept most of the recommendations made by the Committee. These excellent recommendations which deal, among other things, with commercial reorganization and winding-up arrangements, will significantly improve the reform of the Bankruptcy Act.
Unfortunately, some recommendations are unacceptable to us. The government and the opposition critics have agreed-and I want to thank my two colleagues, whom I met last week-that it was impossible to reach an agreement on two issues, namely the absolute priority of salary claims and the rights of unpaid suppliers. However, our accepting most of the Committee's recommendations demonstrates the good faith shown by both sides of the House.
In any case, the three parties agreed that Bill C-22 is reasonable and balanced, and a most adequate answer to the pressing needs of a modem and dynamic economy.
Over the past months I have made a point of consulting closely with my provincial counterparts to ensure our regime meshes smoothly with existing or planned provincial ones.
I am pleased to report that we are proceeding satisfactorily. The new proposed bankruptcy and insolvency act offers flexible, modem rales that recognize natural market forces. It is an important element of the framework that will allow this government to foster a competitive productive national economy.
This bill provides clear and vital benefits for Canadian businesses, workers and consumers. The passage of Bill C-22 will create a smoother operating and fairer bankruptcy and insolvency system in this country.
On the other hand, I do not even want to think about the consequences of delaying or halting the progress of this legislation. We in this House have the power to pass laws that make our legal system better, laws that encourage prosperity and growth, laws that help Canadians.
We have such an opportunity before us. It is my fervent hope that this important piece of legislation will be passed without delay by Parliament so that we may replace the existing law and end the 40 years of drought.
October 29, 1991



Mr. Speaker, I was heckled earlier, at the beginning of my speech, by members who criticized me. I am sorry to see that they are gone now as for the most part of my speech. It is easy for the Bloc Quebecois to criticize, but when the time comes to listen and find out how a bill can serve the interests of all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, they disappear from the surface of the earth. That is what happens, Mr. Speaker. They only want to impress the media.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following:
That Bill C-22, An Act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to
amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence
thereof, not be referred to Legislative Committee G but rather to the
Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and
Government Operations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion is deemed adopted, pursuant to Standing Order 73(b).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate on the main motion.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, the minister, in debate on this very important piece of infrastructural legislation concerning the marketplace of our country: Bill C-22, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act and other particular technical amendments.
We have just gone through a fairly new procedure from all sides of this House. After this bill was initially put to the House for first reading back about June 12 all sides of the House agreed, in the interests of trying to provide for better legislative process, to have it referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The reason that we did that is that there was a recognition on all sides of this House that the area of bankruptcy and bankruptcy reform had to be a priority
Government Orders
with the government and with members of all sides of this House.
Rather than wait until second reading debate when we all get up and have our say about the principles that are enshrined in this particular piece of legislation, in order not to unduly hold up the process, all sides agreed to do basically a pre-study after first reading.
Before I get into the substantive part of my remarks on the various aspects of this legislation I want to state clearly up front that the process which we have just gone through, my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, my colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the Conservative Party, of allowing members prior to approval of the bill in principle at second reading to sit down and debate a piece of legislation as if it were draft legislation has been an extremely productive and positive experience for all of us.
What we saw was a departure from the normal cut and thrust of partisanship which normally happens after second reading when a bill goes to committee. We did not see in most cases, and I underline most because it was not in all cases, government members digging their heels in and indicating that no matter what was raised by other members of the committee, it certainly could not be correct because it was contrary to what the minister or what the department had put forward in the bill.
All of the members who were interested came back two weeks early and heard witnesses from various interest groups across the country. Interestingly enough, at the end of the process we came up with a near consensus. I think there was one member of the committee who did not agree in the report that was placed after the pre-study.
We came up with a consensus about the types of things we wanted to see reformed this bill and to bring in better legislation. I am going to refer to some of those recommendations as I go along in my presentation today.
I want to say at the outset that this is exactly the type of process that should be looked at by all sides of this House because it truly is a way to involve members on the government backbenches and members of the opposition, be they Liberals, New Democrats, or independents, in a very positive way in the legislative process.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
I understand the government is not going to accept all of the 22 or so amendments that were put forward. The government has indicated that it is prepared to accept a majority of the recommendations before this bill receives final approval in the House of Commons.
That has to be something that is very positive and must be underlined for all Canadians who all too often, but for good reason, see most of what we do here as pretty much irrelevant and see the role of the private member as less than irrelevant at the best of times.
I want to commend the minister and the two House leaders for embarking us on this trek into the unknown when we did pre-study after first reading. It truly is one of the ways that this place can reform the way it does its business and to put some respect back into the parliamentary process and put respect back into the job of being a parliamentarian.
It has been a long time since bankruptcy legislation has come before this House. The current bill was enacted in 1949. It was slightly amended in 1966, but not substantially amended. Since then the minister has indicated in his speech that there were were six attempts before the Parliament of Canada to tiy and reform that particular piece of legislation.
In actual fact there have been at least nine attempts, or perhaps 10, six of which were through legislation, either legislation introduced in the Senate or legislation that eventually died on the Order Paper in this place.
In each and every case there were certain objectives put forward when we were looking at reform of bankruptcy legislation. I want to paraphrase Coulter because it seems to be one of the recent authorities on what we should be looking for in bankruptcy reform legislation.
Coulter said that first, bankruptcy legislation reform should be fair and equitable. Second, it should establish a proper equilibrium in the balance of power between the debtor, the secured creditor, and the unsecured creditor. Third, bankruptcy legislation should allow for effective reorganization and support the maintenance of viable business enterprise. Fifth, it should be flexible. Sixth, the legislation should recognize the special circumstances of different categories of debtors.
He used as an example farmers and fishermen.
We have had a long time between drinks at the well. It has been a long time since this bankruptcy legislation has been put forward for much-needed reform.
I should say at this particular juncture that the bill before us, Bill C-22, sets out in a fairly categorized way to address eight concerns that have been raised through countless consultations and countless studies and countless bills that have been put before us. There are some which we are not approaching today which Coulter had mentioned and they are farmers, fishermen and international insolvencies and perhaps one or two other things. This bill is broken down basically into eight sections: wage earner protection, and I am going to spend most of my time on that today, commercial reorganizations, consumer proposals, consumer bankruptcy, secured creditors and receivers, Crown claims and priorities, protection of unpaid suppliers, and a whole host of technical amendments.
This is not an appropriate time for us to be dealing with bankruptcy reform legislation. I would like to have seen it a little earlier. I am sure the minister would like to have as well. I cannot help but wonder why the bankruptcy legislation that is before us comes after a very deep and veiy severe recession.
One of the key points in the bill is the wage earner protection fund which seeks to try to re-establish some balance, as Coulter said, between the rights of various creditors. It is interesting to note that as we talk about bankruptcies we find our economy continuing in a state of decline.
Since 1984 there have been in excess of 273,000 bankruptcies. The assets of those 273,000 bankruptcies are in excess of $20 billion. During that period nearly
3,000	farmers have gone bankrupt. That is a lot of farms out of production. That is a lot of farm families getting a lot of farm stress and it is a heck of a lot of pain for those individuals.
Anyone who knows anything about farming will tell you for every farmer who goes bankrupt there is probably another 10 who are insolvent but there is no sense in the bank foreclosing because it cannot do anything with the assets. Truly it is the tip of the iceberg.
October 29, 1991

Regarding fishermen, 3,102 fishermen have had to declare bankruptcy between 1984 and the September statistics that were put out just Friday by Statistics Canada. People ask: "You're dealing with bankruptcy reform, Ron, what do you think is the cause of this accelerated rate of bankruptcies?"
It is clear, the accelerated rate of bankruptcies is caused by the three pillars of this government's economic policies, one of which is the high dollar policy. I looked in the paper today and I think the dollar is at 88 cents. Anyone who knows anything about our export based industries knows that for every cent that the dollar goes up, there is about $1.4 billion lost in Canadian exports. Over the last year when we have seen the Canadian dollar go to those almost all-time highs, at least in the last dozen years, some analyses said that we have lost as much as $143 billion in Canadian exports.
We have had a high tax policy. Thirty-two times since 1984 taxes have been raised. The GST has taken a tremendous bite out of the wallets of consumers. It has caused the collapse of consumer confidence which in turn has caused consumers to stop buying. When consumers stop buying, businesses file for bankruptcy, people lose their jobs and the economy goes into a nosedive. Thirty-two times taxes have gone up.
There was a report out just last week which said that if you took out the effect on inflation of government policies, and that is its tax policy and its high interest rate policy, when you put your equation together regarding the inflation rate you would find out that over the last 12 months Canadian businesses have done their part. There have been no increases in consumer prices other than those increases that have been the direct result of the high dollar, high interest rate policy by this government.
We see that the inflation which has caused high interest rates, the third pillar of the government's economic policy, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada will tell you, have to be imposed because we have to get inflation down.
If the Conference Board of Canada's figures which I just quoted about price increases are correct then the government's own policies have caused the dollar to rise. The government's own policies of high tax have caused inflation to rise. As a result of those first two things, the
Government Orders
government's first two policies have caused an incredibly high interest rate policy. This has led tens of thousands of Canadians and Canadian businesses over the brink into bankruptcy. Those are the facts. I raise them because in the last 12 months this economy has been beaten to death by this government's policies. There have been tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers who have lost their jobs in this recession.
Since we have had so many years between drinks at the well, why is it that it is only after 100,000 Canadians have lost their jobs and after 56,000 Canadian individuals and businesses have gone bankrupt that we actually get bankruptcy reform legislation before us?
One of the pillars of the bankruptcy reform legislation is the wage earner protection fund. It has been used as the carrot on the stick. Everyone in this House I would suspect who is a caring and thinking individual recognizes that there is a great imbalance in the bankruptcy legislation. The imbalance is this. In 1949, the bill provided for up to $500 for payment of outstanding wage claims on bankrupt firms. It was not as a super priority, it was as an ordinary creditor. Status was applied to those wages. In actual fact what it meant, all through that period of time, was that by the time the assets had been disposed of, there was really nothing left for the poor worker.
Surely if we seek to fundamentally rebalance an unbalanced bill then we should sit down and look at whose interest we are serving. The government proposes in this legislation to create a new fund called the wage earner protection fund because it recognizes that there is an interest in the assets of a bankrupt or insolvent firm. There is an interest there by the employees who have not had their wages paid. It recognizes that and I applaud it for it and I recognize and support that as well.
Rather than go in and put that balance that I referred to earlier that Coulter had spoken about, in the bill, it has chosen the easier route. The easier route is: No, do not go in and try to rebalance the bill because there are a lot of very special interests out there who squeak like crazy every time you even talk about offering their position under current bankruptcy legislation. I refer to a lot of the financial institutions.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
Rather than go in and bear the wrath of the heavy lobby from the financial institutions because we are going in to try to put fairness and equity back into our bankruptcy legislation, the thing to do perhaps is to go forward and say we recognize it, but we are going to pay it out in a different way. That is what the government has proposed.
The government has come in and said: "We are going to have a wage earner protection fund". What does that mean? The proposal in Bill C-22 is that employees who are owed wages in bankrupt or insolvent firms will be able to claim for 90 per cent of the wages owed, up to a maximum of $2,000. The government is doing that because it believes in order to put a fund together it has to make sure that it is not so costly that it cannot be financed easily. So how will it finance it? Well, in the minister's own words, and he recognizes what it is, it will implement a new tax. I just said that there were 32 tax increases since 1984. Strike for 33 plus the paper burden.
Now what we have is a new tax proposed to fund an inequity that everybody believes is there in the wage earner protection fund and it truly is there. Rather than go against the banks, rather than go against the other big special interests who have been protected year after year after year by no offering of the current bankruptcy legislation, let us create a fund, a social program in effect. It will do what we really cannot find the wherewithal to do and that is truly rebalance the bill. There will be another tax and the tax is going to go in. I know it is not a lot of money. I asked the witnesses who came and they all said: "We hate this tax", and we know that it is only a few pennies. The minister mentioned it is not very much money, but Canadian businesses have been smothered with new taxes. They have been absolutely smothered by the paperwork burden imposed upon them by federal, provincial and municipal governments, all trying to take a share of that diminished profit that they have worked so hard in their businesses to create. They have had enough.
Every single witness who came forward said: "We agree that there has to be a rebalancing. We agree somebody has to pay for it. We know that. But please do not put in a new tax. We do not trust the current
provincial governments and we certainly do not trust our federal government. A tax that is $5 or $10 per employee this year will be $15, $50 or $75 in future years".
No matter how much the government protests that will not happen, we constantly get examples, such as unemployment insurance premiums.


An hon. member:: Up 24 per cent.


Ronald MacDonald: They went up 24 per cent last year. It is not good. They are taking money out of small business. They are crippling small business with additional taxes.
We in the Liberal party agree there has to be something done. The wage earner protection fund, by the government's own admission, is going to tax every employer in the country. It is going to tax hospitals which find that the money made available to them from the EPF is diminishing every year because of a freeze on EPF. Hospitals do not go bankrupt in Canada, but they are going to be taxed. Their diminishing health care dollar is going to be siphoned back up from a new tax that their employees will never get to benefit from as long as they are employees of a hospital because hospitals do not go bankrupt.
It is the same with school boards and municipalities. In a very difficult economic time the government proposes to fix what we all agree is something that has to be fixed but it is doing it the wrong way, in the opinion of the Liberal Party.
We have proposed through a pre-study of this bill that we do it a different way. We dare to go in and challenge some of what has been told to us by some of those very special interest groups in the country, primarily the banks.
We said to the banks: "We have to fix this. It is not right". There are three inputs into a business. There is the entrepreneurial spirit and whatever moneys the entrepreneur has, plus all of the hard work and ingenuity needed to get a business going. That is an input.
Then there is the investor, usually a bank. It is usually a bank that comes in and makes its assessment on all of the various factors, the market, the product and the skills that are brought forward by the owner and the operator. It makes an investment of money because it thinks it will make money on the entrepreneurial spirit of the owner.
October 29, 1991

Then there is a third input as well. That third input is the labour of the employees who put their time and effort for pay into producing a product or a service.
If we really want to rebalance the bankruptcy legislation, let us do more than recognize that they have an interest. Let us put the interest in the bill.
The Liberal Party said there was no need to create a $60 million fund. That is what the government said this was going to cost. There is no need to create another tax. There is no need to create more paperwork burden.
What we can do is go in and fix the act. When we said that to the bankers, they said: "I will tell you what. If you go in and touch our interest or our secured interest", because Canadian banks are not risk takers. They tell you that up front. The most protected banking institutions in the world are Canadian banks. They told us right to our face that they are not risk takers.


An hon. member:: Including FBDB.


Ronald MacDonald: Including FBDB. They are not risk takers.
What the bank said is: "If you touch our secured interest, if you put a super priority to fund those wages, it takes away from our interest and we promise you there will be a credit crunch like you never saw in this country. And in some businesses that are labour intensive, we will not be able to lend them money any more. If you touch our interest, we can go elsewhere and make our money". And I say: "Sure, we certainly believe that, Mr. Banker".
I asked the minister's staff and the departmental staff about the new Crown priority that was established about a dozen years ago, a deemed trust situation with source deductions.
know it is a much smaller amount of money. The banks argued the same case at that point. If a super priority was given to the government's claims for source deductions, it would give them a credit crunch and they would not be able to lend money. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The day after that particular provision was enacted in law, and there was a super priority on Crown claims, life went on. The banks continued to lend their money and businesses continued to expand and flourish, and there was no credit crunch.
So I don't believe it for a minute. You look at the system in the United States where the banks do not have
Government Orders
such a security interest in business and that is a flourishing free market economy. So don't come and tell me, protected conservative Canadian banks, that it we alter anything as far as your security interests in the assets of a company that you are not going to give them money. I say to the banks that you will adjust to whatever the regulations and the legislation is, and you will adjust like you have done in every other circumstance. You will continue to lend and you will continue to make record profits in Canada because of the other regulations and the other laws that protect Canadian banks and financial institutions.
You know, it is interesting, we are dealing with about $62 million, that is all, $62 million. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in investments made by Canadian banks. We are talking about wage claims of about $62 million. How in the name of goodness can $62 million put that very solid Canadian banking institution on its ears? It is not going to happen.
We in the Liberal party are absolutely opposed to a wage earner protection fund which is financed by a new tax on businesses and on average Canadians. We are opposed to it 100 per cent.
Through the committee process we were able to convince, between my NDP colleague from Nickel Belt and myself, all but one committee member. We were able to convince Conservative members on the other side that a new tax was the wrong way to go. We said to listen to the CFIB. There are other ways to do this. We can dare to be bold and to be innovative and we can achieve those goals that the minister set out, which is to give wage protection to employees, but we can do it in a different way. We all agreed on the goals, we just disagree on how we get there.
The Liberal party has been clear. The committee pre-studying it has been extremely clear. We don't buy the arguments from the big banks and the vested interests in this country that if we touch their security interest the entire economy is going to collapse in this country. We simply do not buy it and we will not support another tax on small business. We will not support amending a bankruptcy act, leaving almost undisturbed the unfair interest and the unbalanced interest of most of Canada's financial institutions in the assets of a bankrupt's estate.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
I have to tell you this, Mr. Speaker. This is a little interesting. It is not just Liberals and New Democrats who seek fairness. I think there are a lot of Conservatives who do as well. I have a list here of some Conservative members who filled out a questionnaire concerning whether or not they were in favour of an employer-financed wage earner protection fund, as proposed in Bill C-22. There were about 50 members of Parliament who responded, and out of that there were a number of Conservative members. The member for Athabasca said he was opposed; the member for Calgary Southeast said he was opposed; the member for Brama-lea-Gore-Malton said he was opposed; the member for Red Deer said he was opposed; the member for Lethbridge said he was opposed; the member for Bruce-Grey said he was opposed; the member for Halton-Peel said he was opposed; and the member for Edmonton Southwest, who happens to be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is sponsoring this bill which will impose a new tax, said at that time in the summer, that he as well was opposed to the bill.


An hon. member:: Shame on Edmonton Southwest.


Ronald MacDonald: The Conservative members on the pre-study committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs as well said that they were opposed to the establishment of a new tax in order to achieve these goals. The committee report went into some length about a system that we thought would work, that would still give immediacy of payment and certainty of payment to those wage earners. We also thought that the dollar value should go from $2,000 to $3,000. We thought that the Superintendent of Bankruptcies should guarantee any loans made by a trustee to fulfill that wage earner super priority. We even said, so that it doesn't cost taxpayers a lot more money, let the trustee at the superintendent's office adjust the fees to create a fund. If a trustee has to borrow against the assets of the firm to pay out the claims of those wage earners so there is immediacy of payment, if there is any shortfall, the superintendent's office could guarantee it.
We gave them a way to do it and we hear that the government has said no.


An hon. member:: More taxes.


Ronald MacDonald: More taxes, more taxes, more taxes.
There are other aspects of the bill such as commercial reorganization. This bill has a very good provision in it for commercial reorganization. We all agree that it is absolutely necessary to put some order in a very cannibalistic process at this point in dealing with commercial reorganization.
Currently under the Bankruptcy Act there really is no provision for a debtor or a company that is in debt to stop a creditor from basically jumping the queue and immediately appointing a receiver with 10 or 15 days' notice, in effect putting the company out of business. This bill seeks to rebalance that and we support this particular section of the bill wholeheartedly.
There were a number of amendments we were seeking through committee and I have discussed the matter with the minister. Some of them are technical and some are not that technical. We want to make sure, if we are going to go in and try to rescue businesses by allowing provisions for commercial reorganization, that at the same time we are not passing a piece of legislation which may be technically flawed or perhaps has not gone far enough so that the goals as outlined by the government in the proposals on reorganization can truly be obtained.
In brief, the commercial reorganization allows for a debtor to file a notice of intent. Once a notice of intent is signed, secured and unsecured creditors are stayed. They cannot do anything. They cannot jump in if they have a lien on a particular aspect of the business. They cannot jump in and stop the company from doing business. That means the business or the individual has a period of time to sit down without a gun at his or her head to try and work out a proposal with all of the creditors.
If the business has loans of a million dollars and it is only worth $700,000 and it can carry that debt, then the owner/operator along with the trustee or the receiver can sit down and work out with the creditors a more equitable arrangement so that instead of just going in and cannibalizing the assets of a firm in some financial difficulty and putting people out of work and destroying the lives of those owner/operators who would otherwise be forced into bankruptcy, it gives them some hope that there is another and better way to do it. Maybe through restructuring, through a 30-day, a 45-day or up to a six-month provision, we are giving them time to make businesses work instead of allowing the old legislation to
October 29, 1991

go on which simply put businesses out of business, many of which were very viable.
The current bill says that you can go as long as six months. This is one of the things we were looking for, but we do not think it is long enough. We have heard from a lot of our colleagues about cases like Algoma Steel in which it is going to take a long time if you are going to restructure its debt in order to save the company and thousands of jobs. We have put some recommendations forward through the committee. It is my hope that the government will be looking at those recommendations.
There is also some very good news dealing with revindication. We finally recognize that there is an interest in the assets of a bankrupt firm that has to take a super priority and that is the interest of those suppliers that have supplied goods to a company that suddenly goes bankrupt. We live on credit. Nobody pays cash these days. All too often we have heard, and the government has heard in the past, that suppliers of goods supply goods to a company and if the company knows it is in financial difficulty oftentimes it will stock up on stock, get rid of the stock at ridiculously low prices to try to stave off secured creditors like banks, or if they know the company is going to be going under they will stock up on the stock. The company is petitioned into bankruptcy and those individuals have no preferred claim on their own goods in the store or retail outlet that are unaltered, that are still identifiable, because the receiver will come in and liquidate the assets of the company.
This bill seeks to remedy that situation by giving revindication rights for those goods and services that are unaltered, are identifiable and in the same form. That is a very positive step. There are some problems with it and the problems have been addressed in the committee report. I met with the minister last week to look at trying to fix it a little bit.
I mentioned earlier that we can get stays of proceedings of 10 days, 21 days and extended each time after that by 45 days, in which case nobody can take any actions against a firm that is under protection. There is a problem here because as I have indicated you have just given a 30-day provision to a supplier of goods to revindicate. We have indicated in a report what should be done. I might sell goods to a company and then 10
Government Orders
days after I sell the goods to the company it might apply for protection under the proposed act. My clock continues to tick. Maybe 21 days later when I am one day over my 30 days that I could revindicate, the company is unable to come to an agreement with its creditors, goes bankrupt and as for my interest in the stock it has on hand, which is unpaid for, I have lost my ability to revindicate.
We have made provisions and we have made recommendations to the minister that in cases such as that the 30-day clock should cease. It should be held so that when a company goes in and applies for 10 days' protection or it goes up to 31 days' protection, the revindication clock for the supplier also has a stay during that period of time so that at the end of the period, if there is no reorganization and its goods are still there in an unaltered form, it can still go in and revindicate.
We have also found some technical problems with the particular piece of legislation dealing with timeframes. We have made recommendations to the minister in that regard.
One of the problems that I have with this bill is what I quoted back from Coulter earlier. Coulter indicated that there were special circumstances that had to be looked at, and those special circumstances were for farmers and fishermen.
Under the revindication requirement as outlined in the legislation before us in Bill C-22, one of the problems that we have is that it says the goods, in order to revindicate, must be in the same form that they were sold.
Everybody knows that when you catch a fish and you sell it to a processing plant, it has to do something with it because it will start to rot. As soon as you get it in the processing plant, you have to do something to enhance its quality or to stabilize its quality.
The bill is very clear. In order to revindicate, under the proposals, it has to have no value-add. In the case of farmers and fishermen, in perishable goods, as soon as the product arrives at the processing plant something has to be done to preserve the quality, and that is value-add.
A farmer or fishermen might sell their goods at three o'clock today. The company goes into bankruptcy or receivership at four o'clock and they will never be able to avail themselves in almost every single case, particularly

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
fish products and fungible and perishable agricultural goods.
They will never be able to use these very good revindication provisions because there would have been value-add or there would have been some altering.
One of the things that I would suggest to the minister who is listening attentively over there is that the department go ahead with the consultative process as quickly as possible to find ways to ensure that in those two special circumstances for our farmers and our fishermen we give them similar protection that we seem to be giving to producers and sellers of other products and that we recognize the unique hardship caused if the farmer sells all his grain to a grain elevator and it is dumped in with the grain of two other farmers.
If they go bankrupt he cannot get his grain back because he does not know which 20 tonnes of grain are his and which 20 tonnes are his neighbours.
I talked to the minister about this, and I hope that we can work with him to try to come up with a workable solution so that farmers and fishermen as suppliers of goods receive similar and at least as much protection as this bill would give to the producers of other types of goods.
I have got some recommendations for him and I think he has already got them on his desk.
Some of the other things that we have looked at in the bill deal with consumer bankruptcies. The bill goes a long way to addressing a very outdated process for dealing with consumer bankrupts.
It has provisions in it for reorganization. The consumers who finds themselves in a debt situation are not left for their bones to be picked by their creditors. They have an opportunity to sit down and work with their creditors in a protected environment where nobody can really take any action while they are filing a proposal or putting it together, and so they may be able to discharge the debt in a reasonable period of time.
If those individuals who have $5,000 or less in assets, the consumers, have to go bankrupt, the act provides for a less onerous process whereby they can file an application for bankruptcy. If it is their first bankruptcy, nine months later, unless there is a major objection agreed to by the courts or by the superintendent, automatically they get discharged. They are very positive and important amendments to the bill.
There are just two other things I want to talk about.
I think the minister would have to agree with me that it is simply not the case that a lot of the rhetoric is coming out from the department and from promoters of this particular bill about all of the Crown priorities that have been given up. The Crown priorities as they relate to source deductions are still firmly in place. For most medium and small sized businesses it is a fairly large chunk and it is a very heavy top priority to be given.
We have recommended in our committee report, and the Liberal party recommends it, a re-examination of that. We also recommend that the Crown be treated as any other creditor in so far as the putting together of a proposal.
The last thing that I want to say is there are a lot of regulations. We cannot keep passing laws-this is one of those pieces of legislation-and leaving the actual mechanism to enact the legislation to regulators. There are over 130 pieces of regulation that have to be written.
The Liberal Party wants to look at those in committee before we agree to anything further with the bill because we believe that passing bills has to be put back on the shoulders of parliamentarians. We should not pass shells of bills and then at that point leave it to regulators actually to put the mechanisms together that will make or break the legislation.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Liberal Party has been supportive of any effort to reform the legislation. I have tried in the short period I have had to outline what we think is good about the legislation and what we support. I have given our support for the process under which we have embarked. I also have major difficulties and cannot reconcile my difficulties, no matter how often I have talked to the minister and his officials, with the wage earner protection fund as put forward.
October 29, 1991

The Liberal Party simply cannot accept another tax on Canadian businesses. As much as we want to support this legislation and as much as we know that there have been major reforms made, at this point I would have to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
"That this House declines to proceed with Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, the principle of which is to impose yet another tax on Canadian business".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take under advisement the motion in amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dartmouth.

Before recognizing the next speaker, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Surrey North-Health; the hon. member for Restigouche- Chaleur-Canada Post; the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville-Pornography; the hon. member for Mount Royal-The Economy; the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Paper Industry.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act and to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
When we had the little 10-minute debates before we sent Bill C-22 to a pre-study committee I remember saying it was appropriate that we should amend the Bankruptcy Act. This is the first time since 1949 when the act was passed that there has been a bill to amend the act.
Colleagues of my caucus and I over several Parliaments have called for amendments to the 1949 Bankruptcy Act because it has become outdated. It does not reflect the realities of today.
In fact from 1975 to 1984 there were six bills introduced by my colleagues to the right, the Liberals. Some of them included super priority. The last Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister in the Liberal government,
Government Orders
the Trudeau government, brought in an amendment to the act and what happened? She included super priority.
Well, something happened on the way to the House of Commons after the act was introduced. Some group or somebody got to the minister and that act just died.
We have had a new government since 1984. Seven years later and four ministers later, we have C-22. Every minister who occupied the position of Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister since 1984 always said: "Oh, this is a priority for me. We have got to do something about it".
When this minister introduced his bill for first reading, I stood up here and said: "This bill that the minister introduced reminds me of a fireman going to the blazing inferno with a step ladder and a garden hose" because there were criticisms I had made of things in the bill.
' Well, we introduced a brand new process. The minister got very wise. He decided to try out a new strategy so he said: "Maybe I could suck these guys in". He came up with what is called pre-study. A nice concept. I had no problem with it. Anybody who wants to talk, why not get together. He sent the bill to pre-study and what we did in the pre-study, I am proud to say, is we gave him a fire hose and an extension ladder. I think that is what our recommendations did.
I want to point out that it is very seldom in this House that we get the kind of unanimity of thinking on major important issues as we did. There is only one recommendation in the 22 that I could not agree with. It is a minor one and not very crucial to the bill. I want to say to the minister that in fact we had Conservatives on the committee, colleagues from the Liberal Party and myself, and we came out of that process with 22 recommendations. We were unanimous in agreeing on the vast majority of them including the important ones, the wage payment protection provisions.
We were concerned about the walk-aways. We agreed on the revindication of goods. We were agreed on the breathing space for re-organization. We were in agreement on the provisions for consumer bankruptcies. We had no problem. It was marvellous. It was a real love-in because we were cheek to cheek, eyeball to eyeball, jowl to jowl on the important issues.

October 29, 1991
Government Orders
I support the process and I have no problem with it. The whole concept of the pre-study, the whole raison d'etre behind the pre-study is so that members can aerate and explore the provisions of a bill that had second reading. They can come to an agreement on very important issues, not the minor dotting of the i's and crossing of the t's and putting in the commas, but on the crucial issues, the real principle issues in the bill. If we can reach agreement on that, what is the point if the minister simply says: "Well, I don't think you have any relevancy" or "I do not agree with you on that" or "my way or the highway"?
What is the point of that? What is the point of that exercise? I want to come to the major disagreements that we had. I want the minister to know that in this examination of pre-study of this bill, we did not exactly go to the highways and by-ways and say: "You come to the committee. We want to hear your views on bankruptcy". We did not advertise in newspapers all across the country. We did not invite every Tom, Dick, Harry, Jane, Elizabeth to come and say what they want. We did not have these sorts of town hall meetings that we see now with different committees that go around the country. We did not do that.
I want to put this in context. We did not do that. I want to deal with what the minister said, that of all these witnesses who came, only one supported super priority. We decided we would call only these people who have an interest in the bill: the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and I want to ask you who they represent; the Canadian Bar Association; the Canadian Insolvency Association; the Canadian Institute of Public Real Estate Companies; Insolvency Institute of Canada; the Canadian Bankers' Association; the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto; Pfeiffer & Pfeiffer, trustees and liquidators; C. Roy Henning, Barrister and Solicitor; Weir Bowen, Edmonton, Alberta and so on and so on.
The overwhelming number of the witnesses who came were agents for bankers back then and bandits. That is how it is. These are the ones we heard from. They are the ones who would come and say: "Oh, you can't give workers a super priority. You can't interfere with the secured creditors. You can't do that. You are going to have credit crunch".
You cannot deal with walk-aways they said. You cannot touch them. We listened to all of that. We listened to the concern of the Canadian Labour Congress which had always in the past supported super priority, but which were concerned that if you give workers a super priority and the operation goes bankrupt there may not be any assets. There may not be any assets from which the workers may get some money. That was the concern they had.
We listened to all of that. Then we said to them: "Be gone". We closed the doors. We had our discussions. We had long discussions and fruitful discussions, and on the major questions we chose to make recommendations to the minister. I want to pick the most important recommendation in my view. Others are important, but this I think was the most important one. It is the one that has occupied my attention since I came into the House of Commons. That was to make sure that when a company goes bankrupt the workers' wages are paid. That was my commitment.
My friend from Broadview-Greenwood knows that. I used to make these speeches. I have private members' bills. The way I see it there is a moral responsibility that goes beyond bankers and financial institutions. If there are assets then the moral responsibility is that their wages get paid first before anything else. That is imperative. From evidence that we received, in 90 per cent of the cases there are assets. When a bank makes a loan to a business you can be darned sure that it protects its bunnies by making sure that there is greater value in the assets than the amount it is lending. And so there are.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we had all the people who had a vested interest in making sure that their clients did not lose their super priority in the Senate when an occupation or an operation goes bankrupt.
We are going to get to that, brother. Just cool your buns.
When you think about it, the evidence was that this amounts to about $61 million in the government's proposed wage protection plan. Think of all of the loan portfolios out there. Think of what the money is in all of that. Surely $61 million has got to be, in my quick calculation, about less than half of one per cent of the total amount out there in loan portfolios. That for me was the most important question.

October 29, 1991

The minister had proposed in his bill a wage protection plan which would be contributed to by employers only. Can you imagine a Conservative government in this climate? It has brought on the recession we are in, it has created most of the economic problems this country faces today, and in this climate it is saying to the employers after bringing in the GST: "We are going to put another tax on you".
Here we are faced with the potential of an increase in unemployment insurance premiums come January because the government opted out of that in C-21. It put all of that on to the employers and employees. To make this fund solvent, because it is $5 billion in the hole, you would have to raise premiums 14 per cent in January. Here is a government that is now coming to small and medium-sized businesses and saying to them: "You are going to pay 10 cents an employee a week". The minister says that 10 cents is buying one little peanut, it is not a lot of money. I think he made a comparison to peanuts, or something like that. He said it is not a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, that is where it all starts. It all starts very small.
Think back to what UI premiums were and look where they are today. Look at where income tax started and look at where it is today.
The small and medium-sized business community represented by the Federation of Independent Business clearly came out against that. Look at this prospect. Think about this: There are approximately 500,000 employees in the finance sector of the country. That means the financial institutions will pay approximately $3 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, look at it. Isn't that a wonderful thing? It's like paying for protection to keep your secured creditor position. They have a deal. In fact I would suggest we put in super priority and somebody with a bright idea could invite Lloyds to come in with a suitcase and a computer and offer bankruptcy insurance and make money at it.
I see my friend from Broadview-Greenwood nodding. There is an idea.
This is what we are doing. I have been getting letters from school boards and hospital associations, concerned because they are going to be covered by this. School boards in Saskatchewan have written to me and I am
Government Orders
sure other members of Parliament will start getting letters.
In the long run where do school boards and hospitals get the money to pay their employees? They get it from the homeowner.
What this government is doing is putting another tax right on top of a heavily taxed small and medium-sized sector at the moment. I cannot imagine anything more cruel.
There is another question the committee looked at when we discussed the wage protection plan. That is the walk-aways, companies that are not technically bankrupt. They have closed the door. The owners have gone fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. The workers turn up and there is nobody there and no work. We said under the government's plan: "That is not fair". It is not fair at all. Those employers would have paid on behalf of the employees into a wage protection fund, but they are not protected. It seems to me that is not ethical. The money they were led to believe was in the fund on their behalf and the plant is closed but they cannot collect their wages from the fund. We call those the walk-aways.
I want to tell the minister, we are not prepared on this side of the House to give any final approval to this bill unless the question of the walk-aways is dealt with. We in the committee looked at the question of the walkaways and made some suggestions. We felt they could be handled out of general revenues. After all, the minister has brought in the GST. It is doing very well in the very tough time of recession. He says it is holding its own.
If it is holding its own in tough recessionary times, can you imagine when things get better how much they will be rolling in the dough?
The responsibility is to look after the victims of walk-aways. We felt that was important.
We also heard: "Oh, you are going to have a credit crunch. If you put workers ahead of the secured creditors, you are going to have a credit crunch". When we dealt with the revindication, when we discussed revindication as proposed in the bill, we heard the same argument from the banks. They said: "If you let the

Government Orders
suppliers come and take their goods, 30 days from date of delivery you are going to have a credit crunch".
Quebec has had revindication of goods. The evidence we got from the province of Quebec was that it did not lead to any credit crunch. Credit in Quebec is not higher to businesses than it is in Ontario or any other part of Canada as a result of the fact that it had a revindication of goods.
For heavens sake, do not tell me that the $61 million based on a loan portfolio of billions of dollars is going to create a credit crunch. I do not believe it for one moment.
The other thing we said was that we wanted to speed up the payment to the workers. We suggested that we could move from the proposed six weeks the minister talked about in his wage protection plan to four weeks or less. We dealt with it by providing and dealing with the Canadian Labour Congress concern, the establishment of a fund by the Superintendent of Bankruptcies.
He could increase his administrative charges for bankruptcies and from that fund he could pay whatever the shortfall is in the moneys owed to workers. We increased the workers to $3,000 from $2,000 and we allowed walk-aways $1,500.
I am torn because of the fact that on the one hand I do want to see amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. I do want to see it upgraded, but I am not prepared to sacrifice the concerns of workers in a bankruptcy or in a walk-away just because I want to see some updating of the act.
I want to move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
This House declines to give second reading to Bill C-22, an act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, as the economic climate makes this an inopportune time to impose a new tax, notably on small and medium size businesses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am ready to make a decision about the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Dartmouth.
After deliberation the Chair finds out of order the amendment tabled by the hon. member. I refer the
member to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Sixth Edition, no. 671(4)
(4) An amendment which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill is open to objection.

The Chair will take under advisement the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not take this out of the 10-minute question and comment time but there have been discussions and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, at the completion of the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business today, the House shall suspend for the sole purpose of receiving a message respecting the giving of Royal Assent to Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal services, later today, and that following such Royal Assent, upon return to this Chamber the Speaker shall adjourn the House until two o'clock p.m. Wednesday, October 30, 1991.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, this is two minutes on
questions and commentaries.
I will do this as efficiently as I can. I would like to comment on the two speeches we have just heard, more particularly the allegation that we have had an increase in bankruptcies. The figures which were released last Friday show the contrary. In terms of business bankruptcies, we have a drop from August to September of 9 per cent and a year to year comparison shows a drop of 1 per cent. While the picture is not rosy, it is a distinct improvement over last year.
The question was raised by the hon. member for Dartmouth as to why we should have this bill after a deep and severe recession. I would draw to his attention
October 29, 1991

the names of a few of our ministers who have had a go at it. The hon. member for Quadra had a go at it, the hon. Ron Basford had a go at it, the Hon. Robert Andras had a go at it, the hon. member for Windsor West and the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel also had a go at it. The question may well be posed. The hon. member for Nickel Belt may have a go at it.
There was another question raised by my hon. friend from Dartmouth about a questionnaire for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in which my name apparently appeared.
I would point out to him, and he can get this substantiated by two members on his side who have been parliamentary secretaries, that when you become a parliamentary secretary you go on a very tight learning curve and you can learn a lot more in a hurry about an issue. I certainly have learned a good deal about the whole issue of super priority. I can tell the hon. member, as will be brought out in debate I am sure in the hours to come, that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize for having stopped the hon. member but it being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of ending all NATO-NORAD low-level flight training in Canada, rejecting the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed tactical fighter and weapons training centre at Goose Bay, Labrador, and redirecting Canada's NATO-NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad of the chance to speak on this motion that I have introduced. Although
Private Members' Business
the matter of the low-level flights over the aboriginal people of what we call Labrador and eastern Quebec is much in the news, the low-level flights are continuing. Even though for the time being NATO has said it does not want to establish a base there, it is clear that the Canadian government by its statements earlier this year regrets that decision and would be happy if NATO would reverse that decision.
Therefore, both in the present and as a future possible threat, this matter of the low-level flights over Nitassi-nan, which is the name given to it by the people who have lived there for 9,000 years, is a serious threat to the people over whom the flights are tested.
I want to touch on the historical background first of all. While it only concerns a few thousand people in one comer of Canada, it is an example of something that has been going on for several centuries, that is to say the wilful destruction of indigenous people by the people who have been moving out from Europe and settling places like North America. These people were not causing anyone else any harm. They have not made war on anyone. They have simply lived there for about 9,000 years, according to what we are told and they want to continue living in the land that they have occupied.
They have lived there by sharing the land. They do not put fences around a plot and say: "You can't walk on here unless you pay me rent". They share the land they believe was created by the Creator to be used by all people with reasonable sharing and that includes the people who are yet unborn, the future generations. The land should not be damaged so that they cannot use it.
In their way of life, they live by co-operation. The children, parents and the elders live together in their settlements and moved as was necessary because of the limitations of the food in any one area. They maintained for dozens of generations a society of mutual respect.
I do not mean that nothing ever went wrong in there, but society was based on an assumption of mutual respect so that problems that did arise could be dealt with, with co-operation. This shows even in the present time, because it is a little less than half a century since most of these people were brought into the style of life that was imported into that land and other parts of North America by the immigrants from Europe, the ancestors of so many of us.

Private Members' Business
When these people are able to live on the land in their own way, their family life, their social life is much healthier. It is when they accept being drawn into makeshift housing settlements around places like Goose Bay that many of them fall into difficulties and addictions and bad habits which they have a difficult time to control.
They are not the only ones in our settlements who have these bad habits, but they show particular vulnerability to them except when they are able to go back for half the year at a time and live on the land which is where their social organization, their moral tradition is founded.
For the last four decades we have increasingly prevented them from doing this. We took a chunk of their land because we found there was a rich iron mine. They were simply pushed out of that. They were not allowed to hunt there to the extent that the hunting interfered with the iron mine operations and the transportation to and from the iron mine and the city that grew up there.
Then we found the opportunity to create a great hydro dam on the Churchill River. We flooded a section of the Churchill River. We covered not only their hunting grounds but the grounds where their ancestors were buried, a number of them. Without any notice the waters began to rise and they had to get out, taking what belongings they could take with them in a huny.
They were given no compensation for it. We simply took their land by an act of violence, even though it may not have involved any physical fighting between any of us and any of them.
Then in the more recent decades we have again taken their land and large chunks of their land for low-level flight training, training of NATO flight pilots for wars somewhere else but having an immediate destructive effect on the people who lived there for 9,000 years and in fact, according to all reports, having the effect over a number of years of endangering the very existence of that society and even within that, then, the physical, social and moral well-being of the individual people.
This present low-level flight training means that pilots are trained to fly about 30 metres above the ground over the hills, up and down, and especially along the river valleys.
The argument is that by doing this, when they are attacking places like eastern Europe they can fly underneath the radar undetected in order to bomb or strafe
enemy targets in the rear of the enemy's supposedly advancing armies.
Great Britain, Germany and Netherlands at present continue this low-level flight training. Italy may be joining them. The United States, for reasons of expense, has temporarily pulled out, but earlier this year the government predicted that there would be 7,000 or 8,000 flights per year over these zones of the inner land in order to train these people for attack.
The Department of National Defence announced that it would hope it would actually rise to more than 18,000.1 do not know yet actually how many there have been this year or will be although the season is nearly ended.
The inner people are being harassed, terrified and damaged by these low-level flights. When you are out in a canoe with your family fishing or whatever else is to be done in a canoe and the plane comes over you at 30 metres, it is terrifying. There is the startle effect. There is the general stress effect of extremely loud noise and there is the uneasiness afterwards wondering when those planes will come back.
Children have been known to jump out of the canoe into the water in their terror and some of the children now do not wish to go with their parents any more to the land because of the terrifying effect of the fighter airplanes. It is not only low-level flying. It is also bombing practice. They do not, as far as I understand, actually use live bombs but they set up targets and identify them photographically by the simulating attacks of the airplanes. There are 57 of these bombing targets unidentified on Innu land and they are planning to build another such area northwest of Goose Bay for bombing targets.
This Innu land that is being used for targets also extends into eastern Quebec, in fact about 50 per cent of the low-level flight area is in Quebec around the towns of Natashquan and La Romaine. The Innu people there have suffered very heavily as have the Innu people living in Labrador.
There have been environmental studies. The environmental assessment panel is still studying it. I do not know how long it will take to study it. They want to revise their study because of the present removal of the plans for a NATO base, but according to the Innu people most of the faults of the plan identified within the study are still there, that is 36 out of the 38 deficiencies in which they

are deficient from standards set by the environmental assessment panel.
The Innu people in Labrador have agreed to enter preliminary discussions about land claims which were long delayed by the government. They were put way down the list for land claims while the destruction of their land continues. They are willing to enter preliminary discussions with the governments of Canada and Newfoundland. They hope that maybe in a year and a half they will be able to define the scope of the negotiations for land claims and find out whether there will be some interim protection measures rather than chasing the people out of the land while we have a long-winded debate about whose land it is and what claims those people have there.
It is like the principle of being innocent until you are proved guilty. You should not be driven out of your land while it is being decided whether that is your land when you have been living there for 9,000 years.
The government claims it is uninhabited. What it means is that these people do not have a piece of paper saying: "This is a title deed and I own this land", but they have occupied that land for 9,000 years.
In Quebec the land claim discussions are going ahead under Le Conseil attikamek-montagnais that represents the Innu people there under that name.
As I said these noise levels from the flights have been identified as being very harmful primarily to the people but also to the caribou which is a major source of food in the half-year when they live on that land, to migratory waterfowl and birds of prey, also sources of food, and partly because the exhaust of the airplanes and the fuel that they sometimes dump into the rivers or lakes contaminate the waterways and contaminate the moss that the caribou eat.
The Department of National Defence has claimed that they have an avoidance strategy of staying five kilometres away from any concentration of caribou or waterfowl. What the Innu claim is that in too many of the sensitive areas it is not possible because the Innu and the caribou or the waterfowl that they hunt tend to use the waterways, the rivers and lakes, and that is what the low-level flights use. They follow the valleys. That is the whole point: flying low in the valley to keep underneath and out of detection of the radar.
Private Members' Business
They both want the same areas and it has not been possible in fact for the low-level flights to avoid them. In spite of the stated policy the low-level flights, for example, continue at Shipiskan Lake and at Wuchusk Lake. The DND finds out where they are because when they fly in there in the spring the bush pilots know where they deposited them. The DND have them registered there in their published memos known as Goose Bay Operation Directives. These two lakes, Shipiskan and Wuchusk, were both listed on the operations directive for May 31, 1991, but they still receive frequent overflights. It has been going on all summer. DND is not serious in claiming that it tries to avoid these people. It just does not avoid them. It knows they are there and still overflies them.
The Innu have done everything they can to make their point. They have spoken to the government for years. They pointed out that they were never conquered, never ceded their land. All they want is to be allowed to live in peace, which they did before we came.
They have complained to Ottawa. They have been put off with discussions of land claims some time in the future, while the flights go on. They have won support from a good deal of the public and the churches in Canada, but also in the United States, in Britain, in The Netherlands and in Germany because these people know what the low-level flights are like. They demanded that the low-level flights be eliminated or at least greatly reduced in those countries, and so they understand what the people in Labrador and eastern Quebec are suffering.
What is at stake here is not only the appeal of the present generation, but a deeper principle. These people are have respected the ancient tradition of maintenance of the land for themselves, their neighbours and future generations. Right now they have been willing to defend the land.
When I visited there two years ago one lady told me that on her grandfather's deathbed he said: "If the white people come, don't bother them; but if they hurt the land, defend it". She did, with others, defend it non-violently. She and others walked on to the airstrip and dared the planes to land while about a hundred or so of them were sitting there. Families went, mothers, fathers,

October 29, 1991
Private Members' Business
children and the elders walking with canes, and sat down on the airstrip.
They knew they faced courts, they knew they faced prisons, but they had to make their point to defend their land in the only way they could. The system of land sharing, which is many thousands of years old in all parts of the world, has now come face to face with the very recent invention of private property of the land and all the wars that go with private property in the land, and with the most mighty war machine in the world, the NATO air force along with its army.
There is no justification for continuing this. Nobody thinks Russia is going to invade Canada or western Europe. The whole rationale that was put forward for this has totally collapsed over the past couple of years. But the low-level flights continue.
In fact, low-level training has never been used in eastern Europe but it has been used in the Middle East, in the gulf war against the people of Iraq, where there was little or no danger of their being detected by radar. In other words, this technique is continuing to be used, people are trained to use it, not so as to defend Canada or western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union but to be used when we, as extensions of the west European nations, intend to invade other lands, whether it is to take the oil of the Middle East or something else, whether it be in South America, in Africa or in parts of Asia.
In order to be prepared to destroy other indigenous people, we are now year by year destroying the indigenous people of parts of northeastern Quebec and of Labrador. It is a shame that the Canadian government continues to do this, either for profit or for the sake of imperial conquest in the southern parts of this globe.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina.
There has been an air base at Goose Bay since 1942. There was no community there before that so the air base is the community.
Of course the mission since the 1960s has been low-level flying. This practice is carried on over the Ungava Peninsula because the terrain is similar to that to be overflown in eastern Europe and because of the
density of the population in western Europe, particularly West Germany. What is practised is flying at low altitude so as to avoid enemy radar.
There are those who say the mission should not be carried on because, first, it is offensive not defensive.
The Follow on Forces strategy is designed to penetrate deep into enemy territory, but only following an enemy first strike. The policy of NATO is still no first strike. However, once attacked the policy of NATO for Follow on Forces is to penetrate enemy territory so as to attack installations behind the front line and to disrupt supply lines. In that context it is a defence measure.
Second, it sends the wrong signal and we should discontinue low-level flying as a Canadian contribution to NATO.
We are a partner in NATO. The low-level flying is part of our contribution to NATO. It should only be discontinued as part of a NATO strategy and after consultation among NATO partners.
Peace is breaking out rapidly. But because we were strong not because we were weak. A time of rapid change is not time to make change in defence posture unilaterally, rather reduction of forces should be balanced. It may be that in the course of disarmament discussions the Follow on Forces attack policy of NATO will be discontinued and low-level flying deemed unnecessary. That is a decision for NATO.
Third, the Innu consider Labrador their homeland and the low-level flying a threat to their culture and environment.
The Innu are the original people of Labrador. There is no question that the Innu society today is fragile or that the Innu, a minority in Ungava, feel threatened by the society of the majority all around them, or that there are other serious problems in their communities, such as alcohol, abuse, social decay.
But others consider it their homeland too-the Inuit, the Metis, the Newfoundlanders, those from other parts of Canada, including Quebec. People from all these latter groups work at Goose Bay. Some are second and third generation residents. If the base were to close, the jobs, homes, schools, businesses that these people have built and are building would disappear, all in a province which has the highest unemployment rate in Canada, and the lowest per capita income, where the main
October 29, 1991

industry, the fishery industry, is in crisis, and where there are no obvious alternatives.
The Innu have rights. The others who live in Labrador have rights too. How are the rights of all the people of Labrador to be addressed? Or what must be done to ensure that all the people of Labrador live in harmony and that some do not threaten or displace others.
A process is in motion that will shed light on the problem. FEARO, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, has received the environmental impact statement regarding low-level flying and the NATO base and will be holding public hearings this winter.
My position is that we should wait for the report of the FEARO panel before deciding for or against low-level flying, for or against the NATO Tactical Training Centre, which NATO cancelled its plans announced May 22,
1990.	Beyond that, the situation remains basically the same particularly with respect to the importance of the military to the well-being of the community.
I hope an accommodation can be found that will allow all of the people of Labrador to live in harmony. The first step in the right direction is an immediate start and a speedy conclusion to the settlement of Innu land claims. Within this land claims process provision must be made for the tailoring of military activities to fit the livelihoods of local people.
I hope and I believe this is possible.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, today the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has put forward three proposals. The first that the government should consider the advisability of ending NATO and NORAD low-level training in Canada. Second, we should reject the establishment of NATO operations in Canada including the training centre that was at one time proposed for Goose Bay. Third, we should direct the funds now spent on NATO and NORAD toward enabling Canada's aboriginal people to regain control of their lands and their livelihood in promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.
The wording of the motion suggests that the hon. member does not fully understand the reason for low-level flying in Canada and does not understand all the social and economic impacts of what he really is propos-
Private Members' Business
ing. The lack of understanding is not surprising since there is a lot of misinformation out there concerning low-level flying in general and about Goose Bay in particular.
I am afraid that many well meaning Canadians share the hon. member's confusion. I welcome this opportunity to try to clarify some of the issues.
Let me begin by explaining just how much low-level training is really being conducted here in Canada. On the NORAD side no routine low-level flying is conducted by NORAD assigned aircraft except in designated areas associated with our flying training schools, such as the one at Cold Lake in Alberta.
However, the United States Strategic Air Command does from time to time conduct low-level navigation training along authorized routes within Canada. On occasion Canadian NORAD assigned fighter aircraft conduct practice interceptions of these aircraft and may for brief periods operate at low altitudes.
I do not believe however that these are the flights that are causing concern for the hon. member. Strictly speaking, no NATO low-level flying is conducted in Canada either. However, three NATO nations are entitled to conduct low-level training out of Goose Bay, Labrador, under the terms of bilateral agreements with Canada. This training is frequently referred to as NATO training.
I have no objection to that terminology except to note that it is strictly not accurate. At one time Goose Bay was being considered by NATO as a site for a new tactical fighter centre. In early 1990 NATO abandoned the proposal to establish that centre. The tactical fighter and weapons training centre referred to in the motion is therefore essentially a dead issue.
Any comments that I shall make about Goose Bay today will apply to our existing bilateral agreements, not to the NATO centre mentioned in the motion.
To understand the significance of what the hon. member is proposing, one has to understand why low-level flying is necessary. Many people I regret to say have been led to believe that allied pilots operate at low-level altitudes solely as means of flying undetected over eastern European countries en route to launch a surprise attack. That idea of course is ludicrous, but it is actively promoted by various groups, groups who are opposed to

October 29, 1991
Private Members' Business
Canada's involvement in NATO and who do not let the truth interfere with their anti-military agendas.
In fact, low-level flying is a vital part of virtually all tactical fighter operations. Modem air defence weapons are so accurate and so fast in reacting that the life expectancy of a pilot operating in altitude of much more than 30 metres in hostile airspace would be measured in minutes, if not in seconds.
Fighter aircraft must operate over hostile territory if they are to be of any use. If allied nations should ever become involved in a war, fighter aircraft would be a key factor in protecting friendly troops and preventing enemy forces from sustaining an advance.
Many of their missions would be flown at low altitudes over enemy held territory, relatively close to the front lines. Therefore, it is essential that fighter pilots feel as much at home at 30 metres as they do at 300 metres and that takes a great deal of training and a great deal of practice.
I am told that high speed low-level flying is perhaps the most challenging role that any pilot will ever face and that those who lack proficiency become a menace to themselves and to others.
Canadian and other allied pilots should not be expected to risk their lives on our behalf unless they have been given the best training available and that includes low-level flying.
To suggest that low-level flying is a needless frill or worse, that it is an aggressive tactic associated solely with a first strike strategy, is both inaccurate and irresponsible. The question is not whether low-level flying training is necessary, but rather where it should be done.
The hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has suggested that it should not be allowed in Canada. Presumably he wonders why our allies do not train in their own countries. They do train in their own countries to the best extent possible.
Each year about 80,000 low-level training flights are conducted in the United Kingdom alone. That is about 10 times as many flights as are conducted out of Goose Bay by all the allied participants combined.
However, there are problems with low-level flying in Europe. This kind of training is difficult. It is difficult because the countries are small and densely populated and the landscape is dotted with towns, power lines, hospitals, airports and other obstacles to low flying aircraft. Many restrictions are, therefore, necessary on both the routing and the altitude within Europe.
In Canada, on the other hand, we can designate low level training in areas that have none of these obstacles. We can offer a resource to our allies that is unobtainable elsewhere, and that resource is space.
To deny our allies the use of that resource for a relatively modest low flying program that lasts only eight months of each year would call into question Canada's commitment to the allegiance.
There is no free ride. If Canada is going to derive the benefits of collective security and if we are going to use European air space for our own training programs as we have done for years, then we must be prepared to make a contribution in return. The provision of low level training areas is only one way in which we can make an immensely important contribution to the alliance at very little cost.
It is no secret that the New Democratic Party has long opposed our membership in NATO and has long objected to our contributions to the alliance. Few members of this House will therefore be surprised that the motion now before us calls for an end to both our financial contributions and our provisions of air space for low-level flying.
I would like to go on record today as saying categorically that this Government of Canada does not subscribe to those isolationist views. We regard NATO as one of the cornerstones of our foreign and defence policy and will continue to support it politically, militarily and financially as long as the need exists.
That is not to say that we believe in business as usual. Far from it. With the changes that are now taking place in eastern Europe, the role of NATO will certainly change. We will see, for example, a grater emphasis on the political component of the alliance and less on the military component.
We will see a diminishing reliance on nuclear weapons, but the value of NATO as a force for stability and international co-operation will most definitely continue.
October 29, 1991

In the months and in the years to come we can expect to see NATO play a larger role in the disarmament efforts in establishing contacts with the countries of eastern Europe. As a matter of fact, Canadians can hold their heads high in Europe because they have always done their share.
I believe Canadians want to continue to do their share to reaffirm and reconfirm their commitment to collective defence. I believe that Canadians would want us to defeat the motion now before us and I propose that we do just that.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Trinity-Spadi-na for presenting this motion.
I am not sure it is going to be voted on, but in any case I am sure if there were a vote we would find the Liberals and Conservatives again voting on the same side. They almost read off the same speech notes. I would not be surprised about that either.
The Conservative member was so eloquent about low-level flying I thought for a moment she was going to recommend that it be done over southern Calgary.
I understand from the member's interjection that she is saying it should be done over northern Alberta.
It is interesting that low-level flying is okay to that member, provided it is done over land that she considers empty land. What I am suggesting is that is one of the problems in Canada. Nobody is talking here about our commitment to NATO or to NORAD or to good training for our military personnel.
We would all like to see our military personnel flying under the safest possible conditions. What we are talking about here is a concept that is of concern and is disturbing to many Canadians. That is the idea that land occupied now and for the last 9,000 years by aboriginal people is considered empty land.
That is an attitude which suggests that aboriginal people in this country are non-persons, and that is the concern that I have.
The member talked about our commitment to the alliance. I think everybody in this world recognizes that Canada has made a commitment to NATO, is a member of NATO and exercises its commitment and lives up to its commitment.
Private Members' Business
What is this alliance set up to serve? My understanding was that the alliance was established at the time of the last war to defend the democratic states of Europe and North America, and to make sure that those nations on the other side which did not defend the rights of individuals and the rights of human beings would end up not being triumphant in that war. That is why NATO was put together.
It seems to me that this low-level flying base violates the principles upon which NATO was originally established, because if what we are saying by continuing low-level flying over aboriginal territory is that they have to sacrifice their rights, their subsistence and that their lives, their futures and their land are of no consequence at all when measured against our commitment to the alliance, then that alliance no longer is based on the principles upon which it was established in the first place.
I think that is the issue that Canada should be re-examining when it looks at what it is doing to the Inuit people in northern Labrador and Quebec.
The Prime Minister in the last little while has been travelling to Commonwealth conferences and cabinet ministers have been travelling to China for example suggesting that in the future Canadian foreign aid is going to be tied to human rights performance on the part of the recipients of Canadian aid.
I think in cases such as this we should be examining exactly what Canada's human rights performance is and how we treat our aboriginal people. Canada's image is examined around the world and the image that many people have of Canada and its human rights record was formed at the time of the Oka dispute last summer when they saw the Canadian Armed Forces of 2,000 people lined up against 55 Mohawks who were attempting to defend their land and the rights to their land within the province of Quebec.
That is the image that many people around the world have of Canada and its performance with respect to human rights. The image that many other people have across the world when they hear Canada talking about human rights is the image of an aboriginal Innu woman being dragged off a runway in northern Labrador and dragged into court because she had the temerity to try to defend her land and her subsistence against the multimillion of dollars that were being spent to establish a low-level flying training base in Labrador.

Private Members' Business
The image that many people have of Canada and its human rights performance around the world is the image of Innu and aboriginal communities in northern Canada where there are no flush toilets, where there is no running water, where there is no adequate school system, where there is no adequate health care services, where families have disintegrated as a result of the way that Canada has treated those families and isolated them on the margins of Canadian society. That is the image many people have of Canada's human rights performance that the Prime Minister is trying to defend at Commonwealth conferences and in the meetings of NATO.
I suggest that the issue we are debating today is an issue of Canada's human rights performance. What the member opposite was saying was that the government considers land occupied by the Innu now and from time immemorial to be empty land. I say that is part of the problem we are experiencing in this country. This government considers northern aboriginal people as nonpeople. That is the issue we are dealing with here.
Nobody is suggesting that there should not be low-level flights. That is a red herring. Nobody is suggesting that our pilots and the personnel in the armed forces of Canada and other members of the alliance should not have the kind of training they need in order for them to be safe and effective. That is not the issue here. That is not what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is the fact that Canada has selected from among all of the areas in Canada land occupied by aboriginal people in order to do this low-level flying. It has said said that the subsistence, the hunting and fishing that these people do is secondary. It has said that these people are second-class citizens in terms of their right to hunt and fish free of the interference of foreign and Canadian military fighters doing their low-level training over the area, because it has never been questioned that this kind of flying has interfered with the subsistence activities of the Innu people and deprived them of the right to hunt and fish with some security. Nobody has ever suggested that.
The problem here is not as the member for Calgary suggests, that the NDP is opposed to Canada's participation in NATO. The problem is not that we would like to see our fighters go without low-level flying training. The
problem here is that Canada does not respect the very human rights that it commands other countries in the world to respect as a condition of receiving foreign aid from us.
I would hope that the member from Calgary would reconsider the statement she made. I would hope that the Liberals would reconsider the position they have taken on the Goose Bay, Labrador site and the low-level flying training that takes place in northern Labrador and Quebec. This training is destroying the livelihood of Innu people. It is destroying the way of life of those Innu people. It is being done without their consent. It is being done in violation of their human rights. It goes against the principles that all Canadians claim to stand for. It goes against the principles that the Prime Minister trumpets Canadians stand for around the world. We should all in this House reconsider that base in northern Labrador and we should do away with that base.
On the other hand, nobody is suggesting, as the Liberal member suggested, that if we shut down the base we should do away with schools and hospitals and community services in that area, because this party has always suggested that there be a conversion strategy. That conversion strategy would plan a peaceful transition from a base in northern Labrador that is based on flying training for the purposes of war and destruction, to an economy that is based on peaceful uses. I suggest that one way we might do that is to develop through negotiations with the Innu people and through a land claims and a resource settlement the kind of economic development which would incorporate not simply the non-Innu people who live in that area, but the Innu and the non-Innu people so that jobs could be created, resource development could be embarked upon and we would not require that military base in order to maintain jobs, community infrastructure, health, education and social services facilities. That is what we should be looking at. It is unfortunate that the member for Calgary and the Liberal member who spoke did not direct themselves to those kinds of solutions, rather than simply adopting the solutions that look to the past.


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to be part of this debate today. There has been much discussion in a pretty general way about this low-level flying program. In the next few minutes I would like to go into more detail
October 29, 1991

about the program and its economic impact on the local community.
Both those topics have a bearing on the third part of the motion now before the House, that money be diverted from NATO and NORAD to support aboriginal people and sustainable development. In a typical year our allies who participate in the Goose Bay program- Great Britain, Germany and Netherlands-arrive at Goose Bay in March or April, leave in October or November, and fly about 8,000 low-level sorties while they are there. Lest I be accused of using military jargon, I should perhaps explain that a sortie consists of a take-off and a landing.
If we were to compare the total military activity rate at Goose Bay with the rates experiences at civilian airports in the country, we would see that it is about half that of Lethbridge, Alberta, about one-seventh that of Ottawa or about one-fourteenth that of Toronto. The low-level flying itself takes place in two specially-


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and Bill C-16, an act to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act and to provide for other matters in relation thereto.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Heap (p. 4193).
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, the low-level flying itself takes place in two specially designated areas that together total about 100,000 square kilometres. That is an area 17 times the size of Prince Edward Island or almost twice the size of Nova Scotia. In comparison with Europe, it is about 40
Private Members' Business
per cent larger than Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg combined. Within that vast area of Canada there is not a single permanent resident. The day-to-day population density in other words is zero.
Compare that with a population density of about 300 persons per square kilometre in northwest Europe and we can immediately appreciate why the Goose Bay area is so well suited to low flying operations. If the entire population of Canada were to be moved into the Goose Bay low flying area, the resulting density would still be lower than that of the Netherlands.
It is true that hunting and fishing parties occasionally enter the flying areas for periods of up to a few weeks at a time. At the peak of the season these transient groups may increase the population density to about one person for every 100 square kilometres. Although that density is still extremely low, the equivalent of about two bus loads of people in the province of Prince Edward Island, we recognize that no one likes to be overflown by low flying aircraft. The military, therefore, have avoided low overflying areas where any persons are present and continues to offer to avoid low overflying any person or group whose position is made known to them. If a group already in the area should decide to change its movement plans, the military is willing to change its flight routes daily if necessary to accommodate them. Since most groups are in radio contact with the outside world the passing of revised travel plans should not be a problem. Overflights in the Goose Bay area are a problem only for those who wish to make them so.
By contrast, the Goose Bay low flying program brings major benefits to the community of Happy Valley, Goose Bay. During the flying season the base employs approximately 900 civilians, about one-third of whom are aboriginals, and generates an additional 1,000 to 1,200 indirect jobs. In total the base is responsible for about half the employment in the local area. In 1991 alone the base will contribute over $100 million to the Labrador economy through wages and local purchases.
We are looking here at what is essentially a one-industry town. The base exists solely to support the low flying program. If that program were to be terminated, as my hon. friend has suggested, all those jobs and all those

October 29, 1991
Private Members' Business
expenditures would cease almost immediately. We would see a thriving economy destroyed virtually overnight.
I wonder whether the member for Trinity-Spadina is aware of that. I wonder whether his party, which professes to have so much concern for the average Canadian, is aware that its doctrinaire, anti-military agenda for the Goose Bay region could force hundreds of people out of work and on to the welfare rolls.
Perhaps the hon. member feels that other industries could be attracted to the Goose Bay area to compensate for the loss of the base. If he has any ideas, I know that the people of Happy Valley, Goose Bay would be pleased to hear them. They have tried over the years to develop other industries in Labrador but none has produced more than a few scattered jobs and only a few have been economically viable.
The fact is that it is not easy to replace a $100 million a year industry in a relatively isolated part of the country. In case my hon. friend is thinking that we could merely the divert the money that is now spent on the flying program to some pie in the sky make work project or to increased welfare payments, let me set the record straight on that idea too. Most of the money being spent in Goose Bay comes not from Canada but from the European user nations. If the low flying stops the funding stops with it.
I am not suggesting that everything about the low flying program in Goose Bay is problem-free and heartily endorsed by all local residents. Problems do exist and some local residents, particularly those in the nearby aboriginal community, object strenuously to the program. But we believe that the problems can be overcome if all interested parties would work together to find solutions.
In the past five years DND has spent almost $7 million on various environmental studies to ensure that the low flying program is environmentally acceptable. In addition, the government has provided more than $2 million to the association that represents the local aboriginal communities so that they may prepare land claim documentation. A further $1 million is being spent each year by the user nations for monitoring and mitigation projects aimed at reducing or eliminating environmental problems.
The government is doing everything reasonably possible to make the Goose Bay project environmentally and socially acceptable to everyone.
No, the Goose Bay project is not without its opponents, but then how many $100 million a year industries are. In my view the benefits of the low flying program to the community of Happy Valley, Goose Bay, to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to the aboriginal people who wish to take advantage of it far outweigh the real or imagined disadvantages.
That notwithstanding, if it can ever be shown that the environmental problems outweigh the economic, social and military benefits, we are prepared to terminate the program at the earliest possible opportunity.
Let me move now to the final proposal embodied in the motion now before us which calls for a redirection of NATO and NORAD funding to aboriginal programs and the promotion of sustainable development.
I find this part of the motion particularly intriguing. Does the hon. member really believe that support for aboriginal peoples and for sustainable development should depend on cancellation of programs that have been a cornerstone of Canadian foreign and defence policies for decades? Is he really serious in that proposal? I suggest not.
I suggest that the motion is nothing more than a blatant attempt to curry favour with aboriginal peoples and the unemployed in the full knowledge that the underlying proposal could never be accepted. It is grandstanding.
Of course the Government of Canada will provide funding for aboriginal development. We already devote billions of dollars every year to various aboriginal programs including those associated with land claims and we are opening up new avenues every year.
Of course, sustainable development remains an objective of the Government of Canada. Why should the fate of those very worth-while programs hinge upon our withdrawal from NATO and NORAD? Where is the connection? There is none, except in the minds of the members opposite.
To conclude, let me review very briefly just what we are being asked to support. First, we are asked to deny our allies the right to use Canadian air space for training that is an essential part of military preparedness and that cannot reasonably be accomplished elsewhere. If we do

October 29, 1991
that, we will show ourselves to be an unreliable ally and will lose much of the respect we now enjoy in the alliance. At the same time, we will cause mass unemployment and hardship in an area of the country that has few, if any, employment options. The proposal is foolish in the extreme.
Second, we are asked to reject the establishment of NATO operations in Canada, including the proposed NATO tactical fighting centre. The NATO tactical fighting centre is the only NATO operation that has been considered for Canada and even that has been a dead issue for months. It is hard to understand why the hon. member is still concerned about it. If some other NATO facility were to be proposed for Canada, I suggest that the only reasonable response would be to examine it on its own merits. To ban all future NATO operations in Canada, even though none have been proposed, would needlessly call into question our commitment to the alliance. The proposal is pointless and potentially damaging.
Finally, as I have discussed, we are asked to terminate all NATO and NORAD funding so that we may divert the money to aboriginal and developmental projects. How very short-sighted that would be. Membership in NATO and NORAD provides Canada with influence in Washington and European capitals that we would otherwise lack. It enables us to advance our views about disarmament and international co-operation. It keeps us in the forefront of developments in eastern Europe and it enables us to maintain surveillance of our coast lines and to participate in other aspects of North American defence at minimum cost.
We are not so desperate that we must terminate our membership in very important international organizations so that we may further fund domestic programs, no matter how worth while they may be. The proposal, as I have already suggested, is probably nothing more than window-dressing for the NDP political agenda.
In short, the motion now before the House has nothing to recommend it. Its approval would do immeasurable harm to our international relations and our defence posture and would effectively kill a small town in one of the less advantaged parts of this country.
Private Members' Business
I invite all members of the House to join me in expressing their total rejection of an ill-conceived motion.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to today's debate on low-level flights near Goose Bay as part of Canada's commitment to NATO. I think that we must understand NATO's role in the world.
I have often heard members from the New Democratic Party say that Canada should withdraw from NATO because we have nothing to gain by remaining in that organization.
Mr. Speaker, one must remember that NATO is crucial to stability in the new Europe. This is not a new organization. It brings together politicians; it is a political group of 16 democratic countries. These are not totalitarian countries; they are not countries that do not believe in democracy; they are democratic countries.
I sincerely believe that we, as North Americans, must also give our support to these people. I was listening earlier to the member who presented the motion. He was telling us that airplanes flew at an altitude of some 30 metres. Mr. Speaker, if my calculations are accurate, 30 metres is roughly a hundred feet high. I wonder if the hon. member meant 300 metres when he said 30 metres-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being six o'clock, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, the sitting of the House is suspended to the call of the Chair for the sole purpose of receiving a message from the Senate, respecting Royal Assent of Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal services.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 6 p.m.

October 29, 1991
The Royal Assent


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6.10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-40, an Act to provide for the continuation of postal services, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
October 29, 1991
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Claire EHeureux-Dube, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 29th day of October, 1991, at 6.10 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to bills.
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-14, An Act to amend an Act to provide for the appointment of a Port Warden for the Harbour of Quebec and An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the office of Port Warden for the Harbour of Montreal, and to validate certain fees and charges established pursuant thereto-Chapter 32.
Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act-Chapter 33.
Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Agricultural Products Marketing Act and to provide for other matters in relation thereto-Chapter 34.
Bill C-40, An Act to provide for the continuation of postal services-Chapter 35.
Bill C-202, An Act respecting a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women- Chapter 36.
Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 30,1991