1991-10-28

[Stage Direction]
40 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 28,1991
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West) moved: that Bill C-286, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (addition to the official list of electors), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in my mail on Friday and over the weekend here in Ottawa and in Toronto, the flood of municipal literature began.
One of the crucial pieces of information that every sensible municipal candidate includes in his or her literature-as those who have been through this know- is the notation that if somehow you have not made it to the enumeration lists, that is not the end of the world. You can go to the polling station on election day and you may swear that you are a proper and bona fide elector and you may vote. That is an expression of something we, at least at that level, hold dear in democratic systems. Under no circumstances should you be deprived of the essence of democracy, which is your right to cast your vote for who shall lead your community or your province or your country.
Ironically, the level at which we do not do that is this one. Political scientists tell us that our elections will always be about people and images. The last election became, in a gratifying way, an election about a major, major policy issue. No member is going to forget the experience of debating the free trade agreement in the last election.
I cannot forget the anger that was expressed by those who came to see me as a candidate who had been missed on the enumeration lists. These people felt this was a crucial vote for them, whatever side they were on, and certainly could not believe that because they had been away or had been missed by the enumerators, they could not go, swear the oath on election day and vote. They felt-whatever side they were on-that it was probably the most critical election they were going to be involved in for some time.
I suggest that since the next election will presumably involve some form of approval or disapproval of parties that are running either on constitutional or trade package agreements, it is going to be just as crucial in the minds of all Canadians, whatever side of the issues they are on.
I do not intend to take the full 20 minutes that is available today to a mover of a private members' motion. I simply wanted to put that view on the record. There is now a royal commission or a political commission examining all of our electoral procedures. I know this bill has already been received by their staffs and lawyers and they are looking at this proposal.
Perhaps the proposal that is codified in this document, Bill C-286, may not be the one that is finally deemed to be the best. What this bill says, however, is that if an elector has been missed by an enumerator he or she may go to the polling station on election day provided he or she goes with one other person in order to establish identity. That person must be willing to swear an oath that this person is indeed a resident of that electoral district. The person who is then trying to vote produces some sort of personal identification satisfactory to the returning officer, is then registered to vote and votes.
If there is a better way to do it I will be more than happy to see it. I only want to try to improve the situation in some little way on behalf of those who felt so frustrated the last time when they were left off the list. It seems long overdue to me. I have no doubt that the commission is going to make lots of recommendations about various ways to make the system more open, fair and democratic for all Canadians. They may suggest

October 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
various ways to hold elections or to keep a permanent list.
It does seem to me that the best system in the world is bound to make at least one or two mistakes. If we seriously mean that people should get involved in politics and the process because it is their country, then we ought to write rules that allow a bona fide elector to vote even if it is at the last minute, at one minute to eight, before the polls close.
It ought to be self-evident that we must respond to the sense that people all through this country have a need to be empowered and take control of their systems. One place to start is to say that if we have not managed to develop a system that is perfect, there is a way for every Canadian to get his or her vote in before the end of election day.
We look around the world and see all the other countries that are finally getting a chance after years of oppression to have a democratic system. Remembrance Day is a time to remember what people fought for which is our right to vote for who will govern us. We then ought to make sure that everybody who is entitled to a vote really is entitled to get at the power of that vote, even if it is at the last minute of the last day.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support very strongly this private member's idea. The hon. member has stated there should never be the situation where a duly qualified elector is barred from exercising his or her franchise because of some foul-up, mistake or difficulty in the process of enumeration. I can only say that I have spent many election days in provincial elections as the duty officer for my party in the returning office. In the province of Nova Scotia under our election act you may be sworn in on election day but you must do it at the returning office. Even that is a problem.
I recall very strongly in the 1988 provincial election, which was some six weeks before the federal, huge line-ups outside the returning office in my provincial riding. It was one of the best examples of non-partisan co-operation I have ever seen among the three parties as we tried to make this line go faster, get the people registered, and then send them back to their polls to vote.
That was a ridiculous waste of time. They have since changed that in the provincial act so that if you have to travel to the returning office to be sworn in you can at least then vote in the returning office.
On the federal level we have not had even that possibility. Our ridings are large. The hon. member and I both have urban ridings, although his is probably more populous than mine, and it is still a very similar problem. We have people who work shifts and are never home when enumerators come to call. I know that allegedly, and I am sure they tried to do this, cards and telephone numbers are left to get people before the revising officer or to have the revising agents come back, but time and again it does not work. People wake up on election day to discover that they are effectively disenfranchised.
Specifically I think it is a small thing. It would cause so little difficulty that there is no reason for it not to be done.
In the recent civic election in Halifax, several weeks before the election, I started to wonder if I was on the voters' list. I had seen nothing in the way of a card or anything like that in my door because like all of us in this House, I spend at least four days a week away from my own residence in Halifax.
When I went to vote on election day, it turned out I was indeed on the list. Of course in the civic election in Halifax you can be sworn in right at the poll. It is the same sort of thing. The same number of electors, the same people are enfranchised in that election as are in a federal election.
The swearing in at the individual poll did not create any kind of chaos or hold up matters to any degree that was even noticeable. It made people a lot happier about the electoral process. When people came in and were told they were not on the list at all: "Gosh, do I have to go here? Do I have to go there?" "No, just go to that table right there. You are set. You can be sworn in."
I think possibly-I do not know whether the hon. member had this in mind-it might be one small step in making the electorate slightly more sanguine toward politicians. I merely wish to say that I give this my strongest support and hope that this amendment will pass with the greatest possible speed. It is something that is to the benefit of all Canadians and it should be done.
October 28, 1991


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker,
I will not take much time but I would also like to strongly support this motion from the other side of Canada.
We have just been through a provincial election where there was no possibility for people to vote if they had not been on the voters' list and had not gone to pre-election registration places. I can tell you that in the east end of Vancouver, there were whole blocks of people-I am thinking particularly of people in native housing, for example-who were left off the list.
It was a real abrogation of what we call a democratic process. I know most of my party would strongly support this.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the proposal tabled by the hon. member for Don Valley West to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's purpose in proposing this amendment to the Canada Elections Act is to allow urban voters to have their names added to the list of electors on a polling day, as is presently the case in rural areas. I myself represent the riding of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, a riding that is both urban and suburban.

At the moment, under the Elections Act, a rural voter whose name has been left off the official list can have his name added and can vote on election day.
All of this has been expressed in this House. There has been the experience of the electors who were not on the list and could not vote in the urban ridings. The rural voter simply has to take an oath and have someone whose name appears on the official list vouch for him or her. This is not possible for urban voters under our current electoral system.
In the urban areas, an enumeration team of two people calls on each household to fill out the record of enumeration. After these visits each qualified voter should receive a notice.
Too often people are not available at the time of the call, and a notice of enumeration card is to sent in the
Private Members' Business
mail. The purpose of the notice is to confirm the that voter's name is on the official list to explain where and when to vote.
After the enumeration, the official list can be revised. It is still possible for an urban voter to have his name added to the list, but he must make a special effort to contact the Elections Canada office for his riding to find out where the revision office is and when the revisions will take place. He must then make personal or sworn application to have his name added to the list.
The urban revision offices close on the seventeenth day before the election. If at this time an urban voter's name is not on the list, he loses his right to vote.
Contrast this, Mr. Speaker, with the situation of a rural voter who may have his name added to the list even on election day.
I believe that the bill before us raises two principles which are central to the values we hold as Canadians: the principle of democracy and the principle of equality. In Canada our democratic rights are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 3 of the charter says that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. This is a constitutional right.
The Canada Elections Act then sets out the rules for the exercise of the constitutional right to vote and as with all entrenched rights, the right to vote is guaranteed, subject only to such preamble and reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstratably justified in a free and democratic society.
Canada has virtual universal suffrage. There are limitations; exceptions for federal judges, prison inmates, patients in mental institutions, and those who are disqualified for corrupt or illegal electoral practices. All citizens who are 18 years of age or older are entitled to vote. But if you are a qualified voter who wants to vote, your name must also appear on the official voters' list which is compiled for each election.
The bill which is the subject of debate today brings to our attention the distinction in the treatment of rural and urban voters who wish to exercise their right to vote and although urban and rural voters both have the

October 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
undeniable right to vote, the conditions under which that right may be exercised differ. Is this the kind of distinction which violates the charter guarantees of democratic and equality rights? If it does violate the charter, is it justifiable in a free and democratic society? These are questions raised by the hon. member's bill. I do not profess to have the answers, Mr. Speaker.
The same questions raised by the bill are now being considered by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. On November 15, 1989 the government appointed five commissioners under the Inquiries Act to inquire into and to report on the appropriate principles and process which should govern the election of members of the House of Commons and of the financing of political parties in candidates' campaigns.
Over the past two years the commission has held hearings across the country and has received hundreds of submissions, some of which dealt with the differences in treatment between urban and rural voters. The commission was given a very broad mandate by the government and was asked to do a comprehensive review of electoral legislation. The commission is expected to make its report in November this year. I fully expect that the report will address this issue and will make appropriate recommendations for this House to consider. The implications of this bill have not yet been fully explored. It is not, in my view, a good idea to start making particular amendments to certain sections of the Elections Act when we anticipate a major study and recommendations for comprehensive amendments to be released within a month.

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think we should wait for the results of the technical study being prepared by the Royal Commission, in connection with this question of adding the names of urban voters on a polling day. We should give the commission a chance to fulfil its mandate and to make the recommendations it deems appropriate after an exhaustive study of the entire dossier.
Mr. Speaker, the findings of the Royal Commission will be released very shortly, and I suggest that subsequently we decide in Parliament what measures should be taken.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly in support of this proposal and congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley West on this initiative.
Actually, it is quite straightforward, and not only that, it is entirely appropriate. The proposed amendment says, if we look at the explanatory note, that it would have the effect of allowing any person entitled to vote in a polling division to have his name added to the official list of electors even on a polling day. At the present time, you cannot have your name added to the list after the official deadline has expired.
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who spoke for the government just now pointed out, there is a Royal Commission, the Lortie Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. It is true that the commission is considering the matter and is expected to submit its report very shortly, but it is also true that we as members have had a number of experiences, as the hon. member said, in 1988, and even in 1984, 1980 and 1979, and I could even go back as far as 1972. Mr. Speaker, I say that in a democratic country it is totally unacceptable that some people cannot vote because of their lifestyle, and I am thinking of people who are constantly on the road, people who live in hostels and lodgings, loggers who work in the bush, Canadians who happen to be working outside the country when the lists are drawn up, and who may be working on contract as lawyers, engineers or teachers. These people cannot vote because they missed the period said aside for having their name added to the list of electors.
I have seen a number of situations like this, Mr. Speaker. I even took a similar initiative in 1974-75, because people working outside the country were generally at a disadvantage, due to the fact that they could not cast their votes in their place of residence, either in Ottawa or elsewhere in the country, people who for personal reasons-some of which I mentioned earlier, including professional reasons-happened to be outside the country. In Kuwait, for instance, we had groups of experts specializing in firefighting. If there had been an election during their absence, they would have been unable to vote in Canada, and they would not have been able to have their say about the kind of government they want in this country. I could give you some examples.
October 28, 1991

And I am sure many of us could rise in this House and say: Sure, I know a lot of people who couldn't vote because they could not get their names on the list.
So I think allowing someone to report to a polling station and having their names added to the list, subject to the conditions suggested by the hon. member, including a witness who can testify to the fact that you are really the person living at that address, and second, the requisite identification-I believe this would be entirely normal and fair.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is a right for all Canadians. The member said that section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says we have right to vote. Yes, we do have a right to vote and we should exercise it. We must take away those impediments that prevent Canadians from voting. Who else can do that better than the House of Commons here today by adopting the bill, getting out of the way and then letting things fall as they should.
I know there are other problems. I know there is a great discussion about a permanent list. Some people are for and others are against. I do not know what the Lortie commission will report on that. Some of us feel that that list could be used for other purposes than election purposes, for example. It could be a great lobbying tool. It could be a great list to use when sending out this third class mail that all of us do not like to get.
We have to think seriously of a permanent list. Possibly that is one of the options. However, today all we are talking about is allowing Canadians to register themselves on that list on election day if for any reason, justifiably, they could not register at the appropriate time, giving them the right to vote.
I think this is a great initiative. I want to end my comments by saying thank you very much to the member for Don Valley West.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief intervention to make on Bill C-286. I thank the member for Don Valley West for sponsoring this private member's bill.
There are a lot of things about our electoral system that I think need modernizing, upgrading and improving. I do not want to repeat what everyone has said so far this morning, but there is no question in all our minds that
Private Members' Business
the present system has to be reformed and improved upon.
There is nothing more depressing than banging wildly on doors on election day only to find out that a whole row of houses has been left off the voters' list, or a whole apartment building for that matter.
I do have one or two reservations about this bill and they concern the ID that is necessary in rural areas as proposed by the member's bill. When we talk about rural constituencies, we often think of the old kind of rural constituency, such as mine where you have concessions and where you have mainly farmers and farm families living in that rural area. We have a lot of other rural constituencies today where there is not one farmer, where you have woodsmen, where you have people working in mines, where you have people running small business operations on remote roads, not even highways, and where you have people who have chosen a very, very remote way of life in order to get away from civilization. It is very difficult in some parts of Canada for people living in those geographic locations to find someone to come and vouch for him or her in terms of identity. It is also very difficult to find people living that kind of lifestyle who have an ID with a picture on it or a combination of a picture on one ID with a second ID that actually gives a legal or a quasi legal description of where they live.
I think that kind of provision might need some fine tuning. For example, looking at the bill technically, it proposes changed by removing in section 147.(1) and (2)(a) the word "rural". Subsection (1) grants permission to someone to be vouched for if their name is not on the list providing they meet certain new criteria. Subsection (2) spells out the criterion they have to meet in order to vote. Subsection (2)(b) is new. It requires that in addition to being vouched for either: 1. a single proof of ID with a photo and address; or, 2. two pieces of ID bearing name and address must be shown.
While this amendment does take into account our party's recommendation to the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing, that urban voters be allowed to swear in on election day, we are concerned about where people could be sworn in. This is another problem that I find with this bill, good as the bill is as far as it goes.

October 28, 1991
Private Members' Business
In my party's presentation, we recommended that various locations within each electoral district be established similar to courts of revision where urban voters left off the list could vote rather than complicate the often confusing E-day at a polling station, particularly in the dying hours of the day. We all know what it is like at a polling station. In some polling stations there is absolute chaos. People are dashing in at the last minute. It has been raining for four hours and they are on their way home from work and there is a tremendous backlog of people waiting to vote. This could add to the confusion.
If this does not happen, specific and widely known advertising of this change would have to be a must.
That is one problem we see with it. It is not an insurmountable problem and it is not one that would cause me to vote against this specific piece of legislation.
Also, as the bill proposes, having just a photo and an address seems a little odd as well. I do not know how far that goes to identifying a person in a reasonable way as being a voter in that particular polling subdivision or, indeed, in that electoral district.
Bill C-286 does ameliorate a major fault in the Canada Elections Act that left thousands of eligible voters without a vote on election day. By lumping in urban voters with rural voters it creates more problems though for rural voters than exists now in some of those rural areas that I mentioned a few minutes ago.
First, before the royal commission, my party recommended that the section requiring rural voters to be vouched for be deleted. For example, in a riding as remote and as huge as the riding of Churchill in Manitoba, it is sometimes not easy to find someone whose name is on the voter's list to accompany you to the polls. It is just impossible. As I say, you may be living in that typical Canadian cabin out there in the wilderness.
Similarly, the requirement for ID creates a problem for those living in remote areas that is even more difficult to overcome than finding someone whose name is on the list to go with you to the polls. Many residents in a riding such as Churchill for example have yet to see a photo ID. Often a birth certificate or a social insurance number is the only identification they have. As neither have their address on them, this would disenfranchise many rural voters in that kind of riding.
It is my party's feeling that there ought to be a distinction in the act that takes into consideration the inherent differences between urban and rural areas as I have just described above. Rural voters should be allowed to go to the polls alone, take an oath or affirm and vote. They should not have to be vouched for. Second, urban voters because of the higher probability of fraud and misrepresentation must be covered under a different set of rules. This bill is directed strictly at allowing disenfranchised voters to vote but with enough precautions to prevent people who do not live in that poll or riding to cast an illegal ballot.
I will not take up any more time of the House. This bill, I think, is reasonable as far as it goes. I have made a couple of suggestions here where I think it may be improved upon.
I would hope that this bill, along with the commission on elections, will do away with the anomalies that presently exists, the unfairness that exists, and make it possible so that every one who really wants to vote on election day has an opportunity to vote.
As far as a permanent list is concerned, often we in a chamber such as the House of Commons or the provincial legislatures seem to think that everybody is as dedicated to the electoral system as we are, that everybody is as concerned about politics on a 24-hour a day basis as we are. Not all Canadians are political junkies as we are. Often, during an election campaign, they see the ads, they listen to the radio, they may even follow the local campaign, but often they do not really get interested or excited about it until the dying innings, like last night. It was one of the most fantastic baseball games I have ever had the pleasure of watching. I was fascinated from the first inning on.
In an electoral contest, often people do not start to get excited until the dying days of the campaign, indeed the dying hours in some instances. Any kind of electoral voting law has to be flexible enough to take that fact into consideration that often people do not get turned on or tuned in or excited in an election campaign until the very last remaining days. I would hope then, even at the last moment, if they choose at the last moment to go and vote, that is their right. They do not have to choose a week or ten days ahead. It is their right to change their mind at the last moment in a free society and go and vote. They should be able to vote at that last hour.
October 28, 1991


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a brief intervention and compliment the member for Don Valley West in bringing forth this bill.
The hon. member for Brant raised some interesting technical points. The whole motion here before us, as I read it, is to refer the bill to a legislative committee so that some of these matters could be discussed further. I was really quite surprised and veiy interested initially in the remarks of my hon. friend from Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I really thought he was going to be wholeheartedly in support of the bill. He, as I understand it, has some of the same problems I have. His riding is obviously more urban than rural. Mine is more rural than urban.
However, the reason I am most interested in the bill of the hon. member for Don Valley West is that all the problems of election that were mentioned by other members about election day are there. I am not going to repeat them. The thing that cannot really be explained to voters is that just because of a division on the street and one happens to be on the urban poll and one is in the rural poll, that under the present Elections Act that urban voter, as everyone has said, just cannot get to vote.
His neighbour across the street, depending on the boundary between the urban and the rural poll, as it is in many areas of my riding, that person under the law can go and be sworn in. I really think it is a step in the right direction.
With all respect to my hon. friend from Lachine- Lac-Saint-Louis, who used to be an eminent chairman of the Conservative caucus, I would think he would be totally behind this bill. Pierre Lortie, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, is someone for whom I have the highest respect. I appeared before that committee on several matters of concern to me. I was also pleased to be a member invited on a seminar he held and he held different seminars on different parts of the country on phases of his mandate. I know it is the intent to bring forward that commission report in late November. We all know the realities of reports and royal commissions.
As I understand it, he is not only intending to bring forward a royal commission report, he is intending to bring forward a draft bill to help expedite the discussion.
Private Members' Business
My fear is, in terms of reality and all the changes in the world and/or changes that may be in the progress of bills through this House as we move closer to an electoral date, that with the best intentions in the world, the Electoral Commission report of Mr. Lortie and his commissioners will perhaps not get through the House in time for another election.
I think it would be a really unfortunate situation if we could not first help the Lortie commission by having this sent to a committee so they could see some of the concerns of members that might help them in their report.
In any event, having it come out of committee and make that small change in terms of the total ambit of the Elections Act, but certainly a very fundamental change affecting so many voters in Canada, I do not think the Lortie commission would feel compromised at all. I think that might be one thing they might be very pleased about, along with all the other questions about permanent lists and everything else.
I think we should give it support, get it in to committee, have further discussion as hon. members have already raised, and then get this changed so that all voters in Canada are treated equally on election day.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, just after the November 21,1988 election, I quickly wrote to the Chief Electoral Officer because I had some very angry constituents who were left off the voters' lists and could not vote. One constituent had a sandwich board and was walking along the main street, protesting because of the loophole and the weakness in our law. As she pointed out, if she had lived on a farm in a rural area she would have had the right to vote but, because she happened to live in the city of Toronto, she was denied the right to vote.
In the 1984 election we had enumerators miss out a whole sixplex. If you have three or four voters in a sixplex, that is the difference between winning and losing an election.
Mr. Speaker, when you win an election by 74 votes like I did in 1979, you know the importance of each vote, especially the ones who are left off the lists through no fault of their own. Many of these people with their jobs are out of the country when the enumerators come

October 28, 1991
Point of Order
around. Many are on vacation. Many in my riding, and I am sure this applies to other urban centres, are afraid to open their door when the enumerator knocks on the door. You can hear the television going, you can hear people talking, but because there is so much crime infiltrating our streets and our apartment buildings, they are afraid to open the door.
I recommend to this House that we look seriously at a permanent voter's list. The city of Toronto has now enumerated its voters for municipal elections via mail, and it is working quite well. I think through mail and through a permanent voters' list, we will avoid this nonsense.
I am looking at this bill to determine how serious this government is about parliamentary reform. I congratulate the member for Don Valley West for bringing this bill forward, a bill with which all individual members can agree. If we all in this Chamber right here agree that it is a good bill, let us pass it. Let us get on with it and let us do it.
If the government is going to block this bill, then the government is not serious about parliamentary reform. Regardless of what the Electoral Commission is doing and what it reports, fine, this does not take away from it. Here is a piece of legislation that a private member is bringing into help the electoral process. Let us support it. Let us not talk it out or whatever.
I again ask the people on the government side: how serious are they with parliamentary reform? If they are serious, they will support this bill, the way I heard from my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the way I heard from the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, and the way I have heard from some individual Conservative members.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since no more members wish to speak, the time for consideration of private members' business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper. The House suspends its proceedings until noon.
Sitting suspended at 11.49 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 12 o'clock p.m. pursuant to order made Friday, October 25, 1991, the House will now proceed to the daily routine of business under the heading Introduction of Government Bills.

Mr. Danis, seconded by-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It would take another minister.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is no minister here to second the bill, perhaps what we could do is suspend the sitting of the House for 20 minutes to a half hour in order to get a seconder for this particular bill and give us an opportunity to peruse the contents of the bill, which we have just seen by the way, for the very first time.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I think under the circumstances, considering that this bill is very important to the Canadian people and to members of the House of Commons, you will find there is ample precedence for me to second the bill and that you should be able to proceed with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot agree if there is no other minister in the House to support a resolution which the government considers important. I find it absolutely unacceptable!

We will not accept that. We want to see this bill properly supported by the government in power, not by a parliamentary secretary. As far as I am concerned it is only fair to the opposition members if you want good,
October 28, 1991

reasonable and intelligent debate to give us the appropriate time to look at the bill before it is introduced.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that when there is no postal dispute at this time in the country, we have an act to provide for the continuation of postal services. I think it is only reasonable that the House of Commons ask that a member of the cabinet return to the House and do his or her work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I thank the various members who have spoken for giving their opinion, but the Chair would point out that nowhere do the Standing Orders say that a minister must be present to second the tabling of a bill. Therefore, I-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Yes, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Before you so rule, Mr. Speaker, I think that nothing in the Standing Orders says that a parliamentary secretary or another member of this House can second a bill either.
The customs and traditions of this House have always required two ministers, one to move and the other to second, and that is how it has always been. That is how it should be too, Mr. Speaker.
I see where you are coming from and you will probably rule that the Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader can second the minister's motion. But, Mr. Speaker, I challenge you to show me before you give your ruling exactly what Standing Order you base it on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons has the floor on the same point of order.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points.
The first is that we are operating under House order which all parties agreed to last week. The reason we agreed to that is we wanted to see the negotiations continue over the weekend in the hopes that what we would see happen is an agreement without the House having to act as we are prepared today.
Point of Order
The second point is that there is no doubt in my mind that we try by tradition to have a second minister here. I have seconded bills.
I see we have a minister now, so we can continue. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I ask the Opposition House Leader not to prolong it unduly since there seems to be a solution to our problem. The Hon. House Leader of the Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to underline, now that a second minister has entered the House, we will be able to proceed with second reading.
I cannot allow the parliamentary secretary to suggest that this matter is of such great importance that the government cannot provide in this Chamber two members of the cabinet to be in the Chamber at the appointed hour, twelve o'clock, in order to introduce this bill.
I find it totally unacceptable. I find it exceptionally sloppy on the part of the government and it underlines the sloppiness of the government in its desire to try to solicit co-operation from the opposition parties which have co-operated at every stage of this particular operation.
I wish to put the parliamentary secretary on notice through you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of conduct, this kind of behaviour certainly does not lead us well in terms of co-operating in the future on future bills, on future motions and anything that the government wishes to bring in in terms of parliamentary legislation.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let that very strong language rest on the record without some sort of comment.
I want to indicate to the opposition members and particularly to the House leader of the opposition that certainly we appreciate the co-operation he has given us. I want to look forward to it in the future, and he knows full well that we on every occasion try to do our best co-operate and to work with him.
He should understand as I am sure everybody else in the House does that we have an important cabinet meeting going on at this moment. As a result of that, a

Government Orders
couple of ministers were delayed in getting here. We have them. Let us proceed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal services.


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


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, when I rose in this place to address hon. members on the introduction of legislation bringing about and end to a damaging labour dispute, it was my hope I would not find it necessary to do so again for a long time to come.
Regrettably, this wish has not been fulfilled and I rise today to introduce legislation, the Postal Service Continuation Act, 1991.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Danis, seconded by Mr. Blais, moves that this bill be now read the first time and, pursuant to the order adopted on Friday, October 25, 1991, be deemed printed.
Bill read first time and deemed printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall this bill be read the second time? Pursuant to the order adopted on Friday, October 25, 1991, now.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Marcel Danis: that Bill C-40, an act to provide for the continuation of postal
services, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is designed to ensure the continuation of postal operations and provide a mechanism for the settlement of the current and long-standing labour dispute between Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
It is never a pleasant task for a Minister of Labour to resort to legislation to bring about an end to an industrial relations dispute. However, in this particular case the parties to this dispute have been afforded every possible opportunity to resolve their differences through the provision of extensive conciliation and mediation assistance over the past two years.
Despite the efforts of a conciliation officer, a conciliation board and one of the most highly respected labour mediators in this country, the parties have failed in their attempts to find an acceptable compromise to their differences.

Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members that these negotiations impact on all Canadians who depend on the postal service for reliable and efficient delivery of the mail. One has only to recall the sight, earlier this year, of senior citizens lining up in the sweltering heat to collect income security cheques, to realize the potential for disruption to the income flow of the elderly, the unemployed and those requiring social assistance.
Numerous businesses which rely on the mail for their economic existence are also severely impacted by any significant interruption to postal service through a work stoppage. The government, as the protector of the public interest, cannot subject the citizens of this country to further disruptions which have the ability to impact on their health and well-being.

It may be worth while for me to briefly review the current dispute before commenting on the legislation which I have introduced today. The present negotiations between Canada Post and CUPW constitute the first round of bargaining between these parties since a 1988 decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board to reorganize the structure of bargaining units at Canada Post.
Negotiations between the parties are focusing on an attempt to arrive at a new single collective agreement for
October 28, 1991

some 45,000 operational employees to replace seven previous collective agreements which expired in 1989.

The Canadian Union of Postal Workers filed a notice of dispute on September 12, 1989, and a conciliation officer was subsequently appointed to assist the parties in their efforts to reach a new agreement. The conciliation officer held a total of 78 meetings with the parties over the course of a one-year period extending through October 1990.
Needless to say, progress was slow due to the extensive number of union and employer demands placed on the bargaining table-some 250 by CUPW and more than 60 by Canada Post. In addition, the process of merging terms and conditions from seven agreements into one comprehensive contract has proven to be a formidable task.

Initial discussions during the conciliation officer stage centred on the grievance arbitration backlog and with the assistance of the officer the parties signed a memorandum of agreement in February 1990 designed to expedite this resolution. Unfortunately, this stage of the conciliation process did not result in the resolution of any other major issues and in October 1990 the conciliation officer reported to the minister that he had been unable to assist the parties in reaching an agreement.
Given the complexity of the dispute with seven collective agreements being merged into one and the large number of issues in dispute, the parties were notified on October 31, 1990 of my predecessor's decision to establish a conciliation board to deal with the dispute.

The Conciliation Board, chaired by Mr. Marc Lapointe, a former Chairperson of the Canada Labour Relations Board, began meetings in January of this year and after some 60 sessions over the course of a seven-month period, filed its report with me on August 12, 1991. It is important to note here, Mr. Speaker, that the parties to the dispute each chose their own respective nominees to the Conciliation Board-Mr. Arnold Masters for the employer and Mr. Jacques Desmarais for the union. The two nominees were then able to agree on the
Government Orders
appointment of Mr. Lapointe as a chairperson acceptable to both parties.

In its report, which was released to the parties on August 16 of this year, the conciliation board noted that while it had been unable to assist the parties in reaching a settlement it had succeeded in reducing the items in dispute.
More importantly it managed to bring in excess of 300 unresolved union and management demands into sharper focus by identifying the nine major and twenty minor issues separating the parties. The conciliation board report addressed these issues and in most instances made recommendations or suggestions for settlement.
The board also commented on the obvious lack of improvement in the labour relations environment at Canada Post and the degree to which this frustrated the members of the board in its effort to find a settlement.
The report stated: "The present conciliation board has found no improvement in these relations. On the contrary the extent of the exacerbation has further increased in some instances to the point of contempt, if not palpable hatred, and the distrust has reached new heights".
As I indicated, the report of the conciliation board signed by the chairman and the employer nominee along with the minority report of the union nominee were released to the parties on August 16, 1991. The parties began direct negotiations on the same day as the release of the report using it as a basis for further discussion. With no settlement in the dispute CUPW initiated rotating strikes at various locations across the country on August 24.
On August 30, 1991, I contacted both Canada Post president, Donald Lander, and CUPW president, Jean-Claude Parrot, to impress upon them the need for the two sides to make significant progress and direct negotiations over the course of Labour Day weekend.

Mr. Speaker, officials of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of Labour Canada met with representatives of the parties on September 2, 1991, to evaluate the progress which had been made in talks since the release of the report of the conciliation board.

Government Orders
Following the report from my officials, I concluded that an agreement was not close at hand for the parties and that the public interest warranted government intervention to end the disruption in postal service. I met with the two sides and discussed various options open to me at that point.
Given what I perceived as a sincere desire on the part of the two sides to reach a negotiated settlement, I agreed to appoint a mediator to assist the parties in resolving their differences.

On September 5, 1991,1 appointed Chief Justice Alan B. Gold of the Quebec Superior Court as mediator in the postal dispute. With his appointment the parties agreed top return to work, restore the collective bargaining agreement, resume normal operations of the post office, and participate in mediation with their best efforts to find a settlement.
I am sure that hon. members will be familiar with Judge Gold's reputation as a respected and knowledgeable practitioner in the field of labour relations. He has been instrumental in resolving major disputes in several federal industries, railways, longshoring and postal operations, to name a few. Judge Gold is viewed by both labour and management as an individual who embodies all of the personal traits required by a mediator and has earned the trust and confidence of the parties.
Through his many years of mediation experience he has demonstrated the credibility required to be fully acceptable to both employers and unions in numerous major bargaining disputes. In this particular dispute Judge Gold spent six weeks in mediation efforts with Canada Post and CUPW and gave the process his fullest possible attention. On several occasions Judge Gold made personal sacrifices and alterations to his own agenda to accommodate the mediation process, and for this display of dedication to duty on his part I extend my sincere personal appreciation.
On October 23, 1991, I met with Judge Gold who advised me that he was ending his mediation because despite their very best efforts there were difficulties they could not resolve. Judge Gold indicated that the parties had bargained honestly and in good faith.

On October 23, 1991, I met with Judge Gold who advised me that he was ending his mediation because, despite their very best efforts, there were difficulties they could not resolve. Judge Gold indicated that the parties had bargained honestly and in good faith.

As hon. members will know I had intended to introduce legislation last Friday, but after meeting with the parties I concluded that they wanted one last opportunity to pursue a negotiated settlement of the issues remaining in dispute. Despite their continuous attempt over this past weekend, the two sides have been unable to reach a final accord of their differences.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the two parties involved in this labour dispute have been provided with every opportunity to bring their differences to a satisfactory resolution. They have been afforded the full range of options available under the dispute resolution process contained in Part I of the Canada Labour Code.
Direct negotiations, 78 meetings with a conciliation officer, 60 meetings with a conciliation board and six weeks of intensive mediation with one of Canada's best mediators-the process has been stretched to the limit to afford the parties an opportunity to reach a fair and equitable settlement through the collective bargaining process.

When an individual of Judge Gold's stature announces his withdrawal from the dispute resolution process, the message becomes loud and clear. That message is that these two parties, Canada Post Corporation and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, despite their genuine efforts are simply not able to negotiate a settlement to this dispute at the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, given these circumstances and the possibility of further disruption to postal services across this country, I am introducing the legislation before you today-the Postal Services Continuation Act, 1991. In addition to ensuring the continuation of postal services, the Act provides for a mechanism to resolve the issues in dispute between the two sides.
October 28, 1991

Under the proposed legislation, the term of each of the seven collective agreements is extended to July 31, 1993. The bill provides that an arbitrator will be appointed and given the task of amalgamating these seven previous collective agreements into a single collective agreement.
The legislation then provides that the arbitrator will try to build upon the significant progress made by the parties, particularly Judge Gold's mediation, as well as items settled by the parties themselves in direct negotiations and recommendations by the Conciliation Board.

Under the proposed legislation the term of each of the seven collective agreements is extended to July 31,1993. The bill provides that an arbitrator will be appointed and given the task of amalgamating these seven previous collective agreements into a single collective agreement.
The legislation then provides that the arbitrator will try to build upon the significant progress made by the parties, particularly under Judge Gold's mediation, as well as items settled by the parties themselves in direct negotiations and by the conciliation board.
I might point out to hon. members that nothing contained in the legislation prevents the parties from agreeing to amend any provision of the collective agreement binding upon them, with the exception of the term of the agreement, and any efforts which they are so inclined to undertake have of course my full support.
While both of the parties have expressed a preference for a negotiated settlement of major issues in dispute, there remains the cold, harsh reality that they have been unable to do so for over two years.
Furthermore, this dispute has caused the parties, their employees, Canadian business and the public considerable uncertainty. It is time to bring the dispute to a fair and equitable conclusion.

While both of the parties have expressed a preference for a negotiated settlement of major issues in dispute, there remains the cold, harsh reality that they have been
Government Orders
unable to do so for over two years. Furthermore, this dispute has caused the parties, their employees, the Canadian business community and the public considerable uncertainty. It is time to bring the dispute to a fair and equitable conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I know other hon. members will wish to speak to this bill so I will be brief in my concluding remarks. Some 25 months have passed since the expiration of the previous collective agreements covering these employees. Extensive conciliation and mediation assistance has been extended to the parties throughout the bargaining process.
All efforts to find a solution to the dispute were exhausted by Judge Gold. The parties have proven incapable of resolving their differences at the bargaining table. Once again, the Canadian public is faced with the prospect of a protracted and damaging test of economic strength between the Corporation and CUPW and the resulting disruption to postal services.
While I am disappointed that the parties have failed to achieve a new collective agreement, I do not question the sincerity of their efforts at the bargaining table. Nor do I question the process itself-I remain a firm believer in the collective bargaining system despite its occasional imperfections. Having said that, the government has an overriding responsibility to the Canadian public to bring this lengthy dispute to a fair and equitable resolution without further delay.
The legislation ought to be seen as a mechanism which will not only ensure the continuation of postal services but will also allow the parties to conclude this chapter and build on the progress which they have made towards an improved relationship. I would therefore urge all hon. members to support the proposed legislation.

While I am disappointed that the parties have failed to achieve a new collective agreement, I do not question the sincerity of their efforts at the bargaining table, nor do I question the process itself. I remain a firm believer in the collective bargaining system despite its occasional imperfections.

Government Orders
Having said that, the government has an overriding responsibility to the Canadian public to bring this lengthy dispute to a fair and equitable resolution without further delay.
This legislation ought to be seen as a mechanism which would not only ensure the continuation of postal services but would also allow the parties to conclude this chapter and build on the progress they have made toward an improve relationship.
I would therefore urge all members of this House to support this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before I recognize the Official Opposition critic, I would like to recall, in response to the question about seconding motions, the following citation from Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, paragraph 465(2), and I quote:
(2) While a Government Order must be moved by a Minister, it
may be seconded by any Member of the House.
That being said, debate is resumed. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the bill and the discussion at hand, I want first of all to say to the minister and the government opposite something about this situation of giving the opposition the bill ten minutes before we are to stand up in the House to speak. If we look at this particular piece of legislation clause by clause, it is not exactly something that is standard in the sense of what we have seen in previous back-to-work legislation. We should have been given a chance to look at this piece of legislation last Friday or in fact first thing this morning.
As a matter of fact I did call the minister's office on a couple of occasions and suggested that they send this legislation over embargoed so that we could, as opposition members, take a look at it and speak to it clearly.
It is a very dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker, that this place, and indeed yourself would allow this kind of situation to take place. In essence we have not even had time to read this bill line by line and clause by clause because of the shortness of time given to us to reflect on just what the words say and mean as far as the back-to-work legislation is concerned.
I thought it would be important to mention that because again I have not had an opportunity to look at this proposed legislation in its entirety. I am assuming from what the minister has said that this is to a certain extent an ordinary kind of back-to-work legislation and that there is no clause in the bill that may hit me across the forehead somewhere down the line when I realize it is not of a standard nature.
I must admit that I have spent in this particular seat here in this place a great amount of time speaking on back-to-work legislation. I believe this is the third time in the last two months that I have had the opportunity to talk to ministers' back-to-work legislation. It kind of makes you wonder how the minister can stand in his place and suggest that the collective bargaining process is working very efficiently and effectively if I have to stand here and debate with him whether back-to-work legislation is a necessity, is a good idea, and in essence maintains the credibility of the collective bargaining process.
I for one am very worried about the precedent we are continuing to set in this place. The moment a particular labour group or management group feels the necessity to either strike or in the case of management lock someone out, we in this place have to get involved in the collective bargaining process and bring in back-to-work legislation.
The process of back-to-work legislation is obviously there when and if necessary in extreme situations. Here we have a piece of legislation called Bill C-40 which is presented today without a strike or a lock-out taking place as we speak. It is very unique in the Canadian labour movement to see a government bring in legislation before we see whether the two sides can continue to look towards a resolution, before both sides officially come out and say to the country and to the world: we cannot come to an agreement; we are going to lock out or go on strike. Therefore, the government obviously has the option of suggesting that we cannot afford to have that kind of scenario in this country and therefore we will bring in back-to-work legislation.
This is not back-to-work legislation. This is essential service legislation brought in through the back door. That is basically what this says, that we consider Canada Post an essential service and therefore we will put in place legislation of this nature to make sure that there is no strike in case the union decides to go on strike, or in case the postal corporation decides to lock them out.
October 28, 1991

I want to set the record straight in that regard, Mr. Speaker, because it is essential for people to realize that it is something that is not normally done in this government. It is not normal in this country for the government to bring in legislation before the situation has even occurred.
Mr. Speaker, just for your information, the clocks do not work at all here, so you might have to tell us how much time we have. I cannot go by looking at the clock in this place because at the moment, for example, it says 6.30 and it is closer to the noon hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You have 40 minutes to speak and you have 35 minutes left.


Robert Daniel Nault: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister across the way is very pleased that I have 35 more minutes to go.
I want to talk about a couple of issues in the time that I have left. I also want to inform the minister opposite and the government side and all members in this place that I will be presenting a motion at the end of my allocated time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read my motion so that everyone can reflect on it while I complete my comments.
My motion will be a little bit about this particular issue that we have in front of us today. I just want to read it and I will read the end:
- and that this Act shall come into force at the time the Governor in Council appoints a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of inquiring into labour relations between Canada Post Corporation and its employees.
That amendment to this particular bill has a lot of significance to myself and to many Canadians who are listening and to the members in this place. The reason is that on the one hand the government says that the collective bargaining process is working very well, but on the other hand the government is suggesting that after two years of collective bargaining and negotiation this whole process is still not resolved. As a matter of fact, in 1987 the same situation existed with the same government. It brought in back-to-work legislation. This back-to-work legislation in 1987 was also brought in because both sides could not resolve their differences.
Government Orders
Here we are again in 1991 bringing forward back-to-work legislation even though we are not sure anybody is going on strike or lock each other out because both sides cannot come to an agreement. Both sides are very up front when it comes to informing the public and doing a lot of their negotiating in the media. Both sides are suggesting that there is a lot of unfair bargaining going on, that there is no bargaining in good faith and that the other side does not want to look at the issue as it relates to its importance to the union, to the membership, to security, contracting out and to the grievance procedure. All these issues are not resolved.
On the corporation's side, the corporation is suggesting that the union is archaic and is not willing to be flexible and adjust to the realities of modem society and the needs of a modern corporation.
When you hear both sides talking like that, on the one hand the union side and on the other hand the corporation's side, it makes you wonder as a Canadian just what is going on at Canada Post. It is high time that we find out what is going on at Canada Post. It seems to me that we should have a commission of inquiry to look into the over 130,000 grievances. Anyone who has been involved in collective bargaining in this country can tell you that if there are that many grievances, regardless if some of them are fabricated as some members opposite have suggested, the fact remains that things are not well over at Canada Post. The situation between workers and management simply has to be looked at by an independent third party.
If we are going to look at legislation every time Canada Post and CUPW go to the negotiating table, in essence every two or three years, we will have back-to-work legislation. It is a fact that following back-to-work legislation, arbitrator's rulings never rectify the differences of either side. They simply delay the process, the inevitability of some sort of sense of compromise by both sides and the good labour relations necessary to make those compromises.
When I look at the hundreds and hundreds of articles, and I have them in front of me, and the communiques of the two sides in their positions, they seem to be so polarized and of such different philosophies that no one in their right mind could stand up in this place and say

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
that the collective bargaining process between CUPW and Canada Post is functioning properly. There is absolutely no one in this place who could say that in all good conscience.
I want to emphasize that this commission of inquiry would give us as Canadians a sense of security that three years down the road we will not be going through the same process that we are going through now, that there will not be disruptions of service, there will not be allegations from both sides that the whole process of collective bargaining is not working and that we as Canadians can feel comfortable that our postal service is a reliable service.
That is the issue at heart here, but not so much for the workers in a sense because they have a process to follow and they are looking for a good collective agreement, a good working environment, a good wage and good job security for the future. Those are all issues that are paramount in collective bargaining and there is no disputing that. The argument that we are faced with here today concerns what will be resolved when Bill C-40 is implemented and the arbitrator is put in his place and makes a ruling on particular issues.
It is a well known fact that most arbitrators will only go a certain distance and not all the way to support one side or the other. In essence, we have again delayed the inevitable.
I look to the government to ask itself two questions. One, does it really believe that this back-door essential service legislation will rectify the problem in the long term and if not, why not and what is it proposing to do with it? Second, if it is true that both sides cannot seem to come to an agreement, why not put in this kind of inquiry which has been done in certain cases?
When we hear the kinds of comments that come from both parties in the press and on our television screens, we must as MPs wonder just what is happening at Canada Post. We have people coming before us in the informal inquiries the opposition parties have put through saying that they are getting harassed at the work place, that they are getting spied upon, that in essence it is bugging its own employees through the telephone system. These are accusations that in some instances are unfounded but in other instances make us as members of
Parliament ask that particular question that we always ask: "What is going on at Canada Post".
I would ask the government and the Minister of Labour to strongly look at my suggestion of this particular commission of inquiry simply because without it we will be at it again. Perhaps the minister is not too worried about it because it may be another party's problem by that time and we will have to deal with it over here on this side, but he will be over on that side and so he is not overly worried about it. I think it is important for the workers of Canada Post and for all Canadians to know exactly what is going on at Canada Post.
I want to talk about some of the issues that are outstanding. I want to talk a bit about the mandate of Canada Post. This government has suggested to Canada Post that the first thing Canada Post has to do is become more efficient. Through that whole process the government is suggesting that Canada Post has to make a profit.


Marcel Danis: What is wrong with that?


Robert Daniel Nault: There is nothing wrong with that. The minister asks me that question. I can assure you there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong when the rest of the mandate, which is what Canada Post is also all about, service, seems to be lost in the whole shuffle. There is nothing wrong with being efficient. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. The question is: What do you do with the profit?
That is a good question to ask in this place. The government says: "We are going to reduce the deficit". In essence the government is saying to people out there who get service from Canada Post: "You're going to get a reduced service because we're going to reduce the service in order for us to make a profit". In a country as large as ours, in areas like mine in northern Ontario, you cannot make a profit. It is impossible.
What did it do with the service in northern Ontario? Let me tell the House what it has done. It has cut post offices out completely. It has also reduced service in the sense that we no longer have door-to-door delivery. Now we have what are called supermailboxes.
The minister has to quickly understand that is a reduction in service. In the rural areas, if I am not getting my mail at the door I have to drive 10 miles to pick it up. This is what people are doing. At the end of their road they are picking it up with their own car or in some circumstances having other people pick it up for
October 28, 1991

Government Orders
them because they do not have a car, because they are That was not the intent of giving Canada Post the poor, because they are seniors and cannot move around	mandate to become more efficient. We just thought it
and are stranded.	was a good idea to be more efficient.
They get family members to do it. It is fine for these ministers. One is from Toronto and one is from Montreal. They probably have never been in rural Canada long enough to realize that there is a difference in the way we live. We have to understand that they have now cut service. We used to have postal service four or five days a week; five days a week in most cases and six days a week when we had post offices. We are now getting postal service twice a week, that is if it shows up at all. Service has been cut and that is what the issue is all about.
Let me just use one particular suggestion made by the union during this whole negotiation. The union suggested that they should take some of the profit that Canada Post is now making by getting rid of all these post offices-and the dollars they are talking about are $42 million a year-to expand door-to-door delivery. Does it sound unreasonable to you as the Speaker and to people out there who are listening that now that Canada Post is making money it should put it back into service so that we get better service? That is really what Canada Post is supposed to be.
The reason we put Canada Post into this kind of monopoly system that we have was because we as Canadians realized that Canada Post was not just a business, that it was an essential service needed by Canadians because of the large geography we are dealing with in this country. There are only four or five locations in this country where Canada Post can make money. In the rest of the places that it deals with there is no money involved. It is all subsidized, and it is subsidized to a certain extent by the taxpayers of Canada which we accept as taxpayers and have always accepted.
We said to Canada Post; "You can be more like a business, be more efficient and look at ways of cutting down the amount of subsidy we are paying you. That is perfectly acceptable". We did not say through that whole process that it was to cut service to the point where there is a difference between a Canadian living in a riding like Kenora-Rainy River and a Canadian living in Montreal who gets better service because they live in a city than I get in rural northwestern Ontario because I happen to be a rural Canadian.
There seems to be a significant difference between what the President of Canada Post, Mr. Lander, is doing and what the President of CUPW, Mr. Parrot, is doing. Mr. Parrot is suggesting that they will be more efficient, that they will get into technological change and improvements. They also want to make sure that we understand that they still believe this is an essential service. They still believe that they can improve the services and that as a postal union they can make suggestions to the corporate board of Canada Post on how that will work simply because they believe-and I firmly believe it as a member-that the union has a role to play in making sure the service that they supply to Canadians as far as letter carrier service and delivery of packages is the best in the world. They will maintain that.
The government is quick to say that it is the best in the world, but it is quickly becoming the worst in the world the way they are going at it. If it continues to suggest that the supermailboxes are the way to go, it will not be long before most Canadians look to some other form of getting their letters delivered because of the unreliability of the postal service.
I want the minister opposite to know that in my area I have so many grievances about the post office that I write the minister and the president of Canada Post regularly. We have created our own internal system, as a member of Parliament's office, just to deal with Canada Post because of the grievances and the people complaining on a regular basis about letters that do not show up for months on end and delivery that is unreliable. It is not because the employee is not trying. It is the fact that this particular service has been cut so thin that there is no possible way these people can do their job. I think the government should reflect on the mandate it has given Canada Post and why we are into the debate we are in today.
I want to talk a bit about contracting out, the ideology and the philosophy of this government. Contracting out sounds pretty good in theory. Simply put, what contracting out means is that one does not have to pay somebody benefits. That is very simply put but that is what it means. There is a big saving to the particular company that contracts out certain work.

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
Contracting out, if continued, will erode the service further because there is not the same commitment by people who are now the contractors working for Canada Post in a particular service, simply because the cheaper that they can get it done for the more that individual can put in his pocket. What happens is that we get the scenarios like the one in Mexico where one is told: "Don't put a letter in that system. You will be lucky if you ever see it again because the people there are not exactly reliable. They are not people you can trust". Canadians have always felt very secure that they can trust their letter carriers and that they can trust the people behind the wicket at the post office in their home towns.
Now we are being asked to trust someone making minimum wage who really does not want to be there, someone wishing for a much better job with benefits included. Why should they give a dam if a letter goes missing or not? It is not big deal for them. That situation is something that is quickly going to come to fruition as far as Canada Post is concerned once it realizes this whole process of change that is going through.
Another issue in this country-and we talk about this very fondly-is that we have set up a social net to look after Canadians. We have set up a system called benefits and the paying into of programs called pension plans. However, the government seems to forget is that if people are not given benefits and they do not pay into their pension plans, eventually down the line somebody is going to have to look after these Canadians. If the benefits of 42,000 or 45,000 people at the post office are reduced, there may seem to be some sort of benefit as a corporation today by making a profit, but who is going to pay for those people down the line when they retire? They were making so little they never had an opportunity to save any money and they never paid any benefits into any plan. What do they do? Obviously they will have to be looked after by the state.
We talk in this place very often about what goes on in the United States versus what goes on in Canada. When we look at those people living on the streets in big cities in the United States who have nowhere to go, no benefits, no nothing, it makes us wonder whether that is the kind of system we are talking about when we talk
about these kinds of processes of contracting out and not having any benefits for our workers.
If we have job security and benefits for workers, it is going to save us something down the road. It is not something that we should look at as being something we cannot afford because in essence we will have to pay it anyway.
I want to talk a bit again about bargaining in good faith. I for one am appalled at the game that the government continues to play. On the one hand it says to CUPW and Canada Post that it expects them to bargain in good faith, but at the same time it continues putting out the message, as it did in the grain handlers' strike when it said to grain handlers: "We are going to bring in back-to-work legislation". The minister responsible for grains and oilseeds went to Winnipeg and said: "We are going to put them back to work through back-to-work legislation", even as they were in the process of trying to negotiate with a mediator, a person from the Minister of Labour's office who was down in Thunder Bay in the mediation office trying to get the negotiation kick-started again.
Anyone who has ever been in a negotiating room knows that once you get those kinds of mixed messages and signals the negotiation is finished, it is off, because one side or another feels very comfortable that they will do better with the arbitrator than what is being proposed at the bargaining table. My sense of what has happened is that Canada Post management has a lot more respect and they hope that the arbitrator will be more on its side than the union does in this case. I think it is feeling that it will get something beneficial, more so than what CUPW will get.
This process of bringing in legislation before there is a strike or a lockout is a complete farce. Anybody who has ever been in a collective bargaining process or a negotiating room long enough knows that it stops everything.
The minister opposite who used to be the Minister of Labour should know that they keep sending mixed signals to the labour movement: "Either do it my way or we will bring in back-to-work legislation. If you don't like it we will put in an arbitrator who will rule in the company's favour. So you have to give concessions".
October 28, 1991

Either there is no bargaining in good faith at that bargaining table or the process that Canada Post is entering into is so bad that the workers of Canada Post fear for their jobs and therefore have no choice but to fight this every step of the way. They are quite prepared to do something that may be a little radical in nature.
My sense of it is that even if this back-to-work legislation or this essential service legislation as I mentioned before is put in place, some of the locals of CUPW will not be very pleased with the process and we will still get disruptions.
It will happen the same way it happened for PSAC. The Minister of Labour and the President of Treasury Board legislated PSAC back to work. Did that help the whole process? No, simply because they are now working to rule. They are telling us as Canadians that they are not going to put that little extra into it. They are not going to go that extra mile. In essence, the government opposite has only delayed the inevitable again, that somewhere down the line some other government is going to have to deal with the issue.
If there is one message this government should have learned by now, it seems to me it is that this country and the people in it are looking for some kind of leadership. They do not want the government or politicians to continue to delay making decisions. Making a decision of this nature is a non-decision because it has not rectified the problems of Canada Post. The arbitrator is not going to go in there and clean up the collective bargaining process that started with over 360 issues. It is not going to happen. The arbitrator is going to go in there and give them a piecemeal settlement: they are going to get some wages; they are going to get some sort of process, hopefully, for the grievance procedure which is a large stumbling block, as the minister is aware. He may deal with two or three of those issues and then he will say: "That will do until you get back to the table in 1993 to deal with this issue again". They will be back at the same process they are in right now, that is that there is a complete disagreement in philosophy and ideology of what Canada Post is meant to be and do.
The question has to be put to the government: "What do you want Canada Post to be?" If it is suggesting that it should be privatized, it should come out and say that it is going to privatize Canada Post. Everyone watching this process knows darned well that the whole process is
Government Orders
looking toward privatization more and more every day. It wants to make this a money making proposition in order to sell it off to its friends. Nobody is going to buy Canada Post if it does not make any money. What it will do is get rid of the weak links. It will get rid of the northwestern Ontario problem. They do not make any money for Canada Post there. It will leave that for the government.
Therefore, if Canada Post is privatized, what will be left will be the non-profitable areas and we as taxpayers will then have to pay for them. The government's friends will take the profitable side, run with it and make all kinds of money as they did with some of the other privatization schemes this government has come up with.
I am suggesting that is the whole issue at hand here. I have said to Canada Post and CUPW and I say to CUPW now: "Hang in there as long as you can until we can get rid of this government so we can put the mandate back to where it was supposed to be". That mandate was to give the kind of service Canadians have always expected.
I simply want to say that wages are not the major issue in this whole dispute. It seems to me we always hear the media or a particular individual on television say that the issue of wages is the stumbling block. Well, it is not. The real issue is whether we are going to allow Canada Post to change the whole structure of our postal service in this country.
I am wondering really what the hidden mandate is that this government has given Mr. Lander and friends when we hear Mr. Dunstan say the kind of things he said on television in the last few months. It is shameful to have people come out and say the things they have said when we know, as Canadians, that this particular service has always been one we have been proud of.
I want to say to the mediator, Mr. Gold, that as a labour unionist and a person who has been involved in the negotiating process, I thank him very much. I would really like Mr. Gold to do us all a favour and tell us exactly what is going on at the negotiating table. I think it is high time that people realized this whole process has been nothing but a charade. Once Mr, Gold realized it, he had no choice but to step down. The gentleman we are talking about has a lot of credibility in the labour movement. For him to continue to say on the one hand he thought both sides were close and on the other hand turn around unexpectedly and resign saying he had done

Government Orders
everything he possibly could is quite shocking for someone like myself who is familiar with the process.
I would really like Mr. Gold to tell us in a report to the minister just where it is that these two sides are coming from and whether indeed it is as bad at Canada Post as we are hearing.
I have a bit of a bias in this whole process and I will tell the minister why. My brother works for Canada Post as a letter carrier in Winnipeg and I know the minister is aware of that. I have told him. My brother is a letter carrier and he tells me about the internal workings of his day to day job at Canada Post, his day to day activities with the management of Canada Post in Winnipeg. I obviously have a lot of respect for my brother.
One of the things he has said to me is that the relationship between management and the worker is so bad that on most days he wonders why he would even want to continue to work there. He cannot seem to see the end of the tunnel and the improvements that are going to take place that he would like to see between the two sides as far as labour relations are concerned.
I put that on the record because I want people to know that I have talked to people I trust who work for Canada Post to get a sense of whether it is really as bad as they say it is. My sense in discussing this issue with those who are in the know is that it is really bad. If it is that bad then we have an obligation as parliamentarians and the government has an obligation to investigate. During committee I asked the minister if he had undertaken a study to take a look at all the innuendo coming out of Canada Post about the harassment and whether he had indeed instructed his officials to take a good look at that. The answer was that nobody had asked him.
Leadership is simply that. You do not have to be asked. If something is wrong you go and take a look at it and see if you can fix it. I say to the minister again that through the process of this amendment which I am putting forward maybe he could formulate this kind of investigation that would clear the air once and for all of what is going on at Canada Post.
In wrapping up I want to say to the government opposite that this essential service legislation, this backdoor process, is not going to resolve the issue. The ability of Canada Post and its employees to function will only be improved through good labour relations. I hope that the
minister or the next government that comes into office realizes that Canada Post has to have some improvements.
I want to thank the Speaker for allowing me to go on. I hope that the minister will understand the fundamental issues that are at hand here.
I want to present the motion. I move:
That clause 15 on page 6 be amended by deleting lines 30 to 32
and substitute the following therefor:
"This Act shall come into force at the time the Governor in Council appoints a commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of inquiring into labour relations between Canada Post Corporation and its employees."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The Chair will take the motion moved by the hon. member for the Official Opposition under advisement. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-40.1 think one of the interesting things that should be pointed out is that this is the fortieth piece of legislation that this government has brought forward since the last Throne Speech. It is the fourth time that the government has brought in legislation to order workers back to work. In other words, 10 per cent of the government's legislation to date has been back-to-work legislation.
I think that gives people an idea about the status of labour relations in this country. Even though the vast majority of disputes in this country are settled without strikes there are a certain number of areas where the federal government does have to look at the problems that are faced in the Public Service. Quite often these problems are related to this government's political agenda. In other words, the agenda of privatization, contracting out and the reduction of services has created negative labour relations within this country.
I look at this legislation and have only had it for an hour but I think there are some problems with it. There is an imbalance in the legislation. It says that employees have to go back to work. At the same time it allows the employer to discipline approximately 71 people who were disciplined during the strike, and not let them come back to work. In other words when this legislation passes,
October 28, 1991

they are not guaranteed that they will be allowed back to work.
There is a presumption in the legislation that those employees are guilty of whatever management said when they made the decision to discipline them. Those employees are not given the benefit of any hearing. They are not given the benefit of any protection under a collective agreement. It is assumed that whatever management thinks is correct. Those people will not be expected to return to work as a result of this legislation.
To be fair to the minister, he does allow a clause, clause 5 (b) which states that these people can go to an arbitrator. If they win the arbitration, then they will be allowed to go back to work some time in the future. I do not think that is fair. Basically what this legislation is saying is that those people are guilty because that is what management thinks. As a result, they are not expected to go back to work. It is only later that they will be given a hearing to find out whether they were fairly or unfairly disciplined. I think that is putting the cart before the horse. It is completely unfair in this legislation.
One of the things that the government always asks us in regard to back-to-work legislation is will we pass it quickly. Will we move quickly through all stages. Will we agree to Committee of the Whole in order to pass this legislation because we do not want a postal strike. I note with interest that in the minister's speech he referred to the senior citizens who were lining up in the sweltering heat to collect income security cheques.
That is an example of where there was no need for our senior citizens to have a problem. The union had offered to deliver those seniors' cheques. Just in the last couple of weeks I wrote to Canada Post a couple of times trying to get it to agree that if there was a postal strike in the future it would allow those cheques to go through. It would allow the inside workers and the outside workers in this case to process and deliver those cheques. No senior would have to line up in the sweltering heat or the cold to get that cheque. They would not have to go and find some alternate post office and pick up their cheque there. We know that those cheques were often not there. Quite often seniors would line up, go to one of these centres and find out their cheque was not even there.
Government Orders
Here is the situation where the workers are willing to try and resolve one of the main problems of the postal dispute, and that is the delivery of cheques to pensioners, but the company for its own reasons will not agree to that.
When I hear the government saying it wants want legislation passed quickly because it affects senior citizens, we know that there was a way of resolving that dispute but Canada Post would not accept that route. For some reason, it wanted the scenes of seniors and handicapped waiting in long lines this summer. It wanted that. It knew they could have had those cheques delivered and it refused. It still refuse to accept the offer of the workers to deliver those pension cheques.
I do not always believe the government when it says in the House "you must pass this legislation quickly; you must do it-with one speaker at second reading you must immediately go into committee of the whole; you must sit up all night and pass the legislation".
I feel that process has almost become ingrained in this House of Commons.
I note with interest that in the last two pieces of back-to-work legislation, the president of the union and the employer appeared before the bar of the Senate and gave their presentations, expounding on their positions to the senators. One of the problems we have with the process of committee of the whole is that it never allows the members of Parliament who are going to vote on legislation and on clauses within that legislation to be heard from. It never allows us to hear from the people who are directly affected.
We have a process within the House of Commons which will allow people to be called before the bar of the House. That is something that the government has rejected in the past. We believe that there is a way of making sure that as we pass legislation, and indeed that is what the purpose of this bill is, to pass legislation, that we have an understanding of these clauses, that we have an understanding of what has taken place in negotiations. We should indeed know what we are dealing with as opposed to government members voting with the government and opposition members voting against the legislation.

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
I would think that the minister and the government may want to consider a different process. It is a process that we follow with other legislation. I offer as a recommendation for all parties' consideration that some time later today we give this legislation second reading, we send it to a legislative committee and invite representatives of the union, Canada Post representatives, the minister and perhaps one or two other groups like Rural Dignity to look at the legislation and make sure that as we go through this clause by clause we are aware of the effects of that legislation.
We are not saying that we would unduly stall the legislation. We are not saying that we would speed it through. What we are saying is that there are methods of making sure that we deal with this legislation in such a way that we, as people who were elected to the House of Commons, know what we are doing.
There are some new clauses in this legislation that we are not familiar with and have not been in other back-to-work legislation.
I think it is only fair that we understand those clauses before we vote on them, that we make amendments that are reasonable and will improve the legislation.
Someone later in the day, I am sure from the government side, will get up and say: "Well we must pass this legislation or there will be a postal strike". That is a possibility, we may have a strike for one, two or three days and it is true it would inconvenience many Canadians but on the other hand we have an obligation to make sure that we are not just a rubber stamp for whatever the government proposes but that we in our role as a court actually look at what is before us and make a reasonable judgment on the merits of legislation.
My understanding is that there are other ways of preventing this strike. Even as we go through the passage of this legislation there are items out there that could be dealt with that would actually prevent a strike as we go through the various steps in order to pass this legislation.
I know that the company and CUPW have basically agreed to the wage package, that there is an agreement on the salaries and on the COLA clause. Perhaps one of
the things that could be done is that we amend this legislation so that those wage increases come into effect immediately instead of waiting for 90 or 180 days when the arbitrator finally gets around to making a ruling. That is one way of showing good faith, that is one of resolving some of the issues in dispute, and it is one way of making sure there is more harmony and more peace in the post office.
Another suggestion is that we treat those people who have been disciplined in a fair manner in the same way that our court system would, in the same way that they would be treated if there were actually a collective agreement in place, and that is that they are presumed innocent and that they, too, would be expected and entitled to go to work. That is a suggestion which would help to prevent a postal strike. Another is to deal with the wage issues which have already been agreed to by both parties, make sure that those wage increases are implemented immediately and that the workers are not forced to wait because it might turn out to be three or six months prior to them receiving any pay increase. I remind people that this collection agreement is three years out of date, so those people have been waiting a long time for this pay increase.
We should make sure that those workers whom the company has decided to discipline are given a fair trial, that they are allowed to go back to work with their other employees. If the company decides at that stage that it wants to take disciplinary action then at least there is a process put into place that provides for fairness.
Those are two suggestions and we may have other suggestions as we go through the legislation. At this point, we are not willing to give immediate passage to this legislation. What we are saying is let us look at the alternatives, let us look at a referral to a legislative committee which could meet tomorrow morning, which could come back to the House later tomorrow. Let us look at those things that might prevent a postal dispute to see if we can get the company and the union to agree not to have a strike if certain clauses or certain changes are made to this legislation. Let us look at those items and let us see what can be resolved.
October 28, 1991

Later on today, if we come back to this debate, I would like to talk about some of the changes that have evolved in Canada Post. We have seen communities like Brandon, Manitoba losing its only post office and being told: "Well you can go off to these six commercial centres and pick up your mail".
When I was in Brandon, I think it was about a month and a half ago, I talked to some of the people of that community.
They did not know where these new commercial outlets were. They all knew where their federal government building was. They all knew where their post office was. They did not know where all these little commercial outlets were. Why should they?
They had a government post office. They knew where it was, and they had been using that for many, many years. They were completely happy with that situation. We had Canada Post in front of the House of Commons committee and we asked why it did not give very much warning to the people of Brandon, or to the workers in Brandon.
It said: "The protocol we signed only dealt with small, rural post offices. When we close a post office, the only government post office in a large centre, we do not have to give much notice".
It can go to a city council meeting as it did in Brandon and say: "In six weeks, your post office is closing". It can go to those employees and say: "In six weeks you are no longer working where you used to, you are now with some sorting outfit somewhere on the outskirts of town. I am sorry this means that you are no longer working the day shift. You are going to have to work night shift. We do not have to give warning. We do not have to be considerate of the years that you worked for us. We do not have to be considerate about what this means for your personal life".
There are many, many problems in Canada Post. There is an attitude problem in management. There is a situation there which does not respect the wants of the community. There is a situation there in which there is pretence by Canada Post that the public is after something when we know that the exact opposite is the case, that the public does not want what Canada Post is forcing on it.
Government Orders
There is a real attitude problem by Canada Post management. We cannot resolve that in this legislation, so I am not going to spend the time I would normally on that particular aspect, but I think that there are things that we can do as we deal with the legislation in front of us. We can make the legislation fairer.
We can talk to both parties and be sure that we do all we can to prevent a postal strike. We should not be forced into quick passage of this legislation until we have had an actual chance to hear from those people who will be affected and to make sure we put in whatever amendments are necessary to make the legislation fairer and more just, not only for the public but also for the employees who work for our Crown corporation.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, I would like to announce the Chair's decision on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River. The amendment is not in order, for three reasons: On second reading, the House is asked to vote on the principle of the legislation, and I may refer you to Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, paragraph 659, and I quote:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House.
It is not regular on this occasion, however, to discuss in detail the clauses of the bill.
Second, at this stage, the amendments cannot deal with the provisions of the bill nor anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee. I may refer you again to the same edition of Beauchesne's, paragraph 662:
Nor may such an amendment deal with the provisions of the bill upon which it is moved, nor anticipate amendments thereto which may be moved in committee, nor attach conditions to the second reading of the bill.
And for the information of hon. members, I may recall paragraph 666, in the same edition of Beauchesne's:
666. There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading of a bill. These are:
1.	the hoist (eg. three months, six months).
2.	the reasoned amendment.
3.	the referral of the subject-matter to a committee.

October 28, 1991
Government Orders

Resuming debate.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I do want to add my comments to this debate on the Postal Services Continuation Act.
That will be the act which will allow the continuation of postal services and which will set out a mechanism whereby the terms and conditions of the collective agreement in dispute will be resolved.
If there is one element of this legislation I would like to emphasize, and I think it is the most important element, it is the benefit that will accrue to all Canadians through the assurance of the return of postal services.
When we are in this House and we are debating, I think one of the things we have to remember is who we are actually serving in this House. We are serving the Canadian people, the Canadian public. The Canadian public has come to expect a level of service from Canada Post, whether it is receiving an old age pension cheque or a family allowance cheque, or the shipment of merchandise in the mail or the receipt of payments that businesses so badly need. We do need the services of Canada Post. Any disruption in that service hurts us all. It hurts this country, particularly at the stage we are at now in terms of the Canadian economy. As many of us on both sides of this House know and appreciate, we are coming through a very, veiy difficult period. Hopefully we are coming through that difficult period, that recessionary period. I do not think at this point in that recovery we can afford to have any kind of disruption in the level of postal services because, as I have mentioned, those businesses out there that do create and generate the wealth and prosperity in this country cannot survive without postal service.
I think it is incumbent upon all of us to recognize that early in this debate because surely one of the most important ingredients or elements within any business is the ability to receive mail, transmit mail and, obviously, send out those bills and have payment for the services delivered.
We want a reliable mail service. We want it at a reasonable cost. That is exactly what was promised in
1981 by the Canada Post Corporation Act when it was introduced and passed in this House of Commons in 1981. It was to operate a postal service which would provide Canadians with reliable and efficient service at a reasonable cost.
I do not think we are asking too much at all in that regard. I do not think it is an unusual demand to make on Canada Post to deliver that at a reasonable cost.
Most of us realize the size of this country, how big it is, and maybe we should emphasize the task that Canada Post has by reminding everyone how big Canada really is and how important that service is to Canada.
Canada Post has approximately 700,000 points of entry across the country. That includes post offices, letter boxes, supermailboxes, and points where mail is deposited into the system. Canada Post does provide delivery to more than 11 million addresses in all parts of Canada. It has a network of 25 major mechanized mail processing plants and a fleet of something in the order of 5,300 vehicles. In a country the size of Canada, it is not an easy task to deliver mail. We have a very widespread population and when you compare Canada to some of the European countries and to our neighbour to the south, it is a little bit harder to deliver mail in Canada and we recognize that.
About 20 per cent of all mail delivered is personal mail. It is mail between individuals and some of it is going to corporations. The business side of it accounts for about 80 per cent of all mail delivered in this country. That includes things such as the distribution of correspondence, invoices, advertisements, publications and products. The postal service is very much a part of the Canadian economy. It is a part we cannot ignore and it is a part we must have working well if the country is to work.
Coast to coast we have approximately 57,000 full time and part time employees.
Looking at it objectively, I think most of us would have to admit they do a pretty good job, although we have all experienced difficulties in our neighbourhoods, our own constituencies. Any objective measurement would indicate that they do a pretty fair job.
October 28, 1991

We are at a stalemate here. I want to emphasize what is going on and step through some of the process as we know it and what we have observed as Canadians over the last number of weeks. This becomes somewhat technical, Mr. Speaker, so bear with me as I step through some of the conciliatory process we have used up to this point.
The Minister of Labour provided first stage conciliation assistance and with no settlement at this stage, decided to establish a conciliation board. The parties to the dispute nominated their respective representatives who, in turn, were able to agree on the selection of a mutual, acceptable chairperson, being, Mr. Marc Lapointe, Q.C. Following the release of the report of the conciliation board to the parties in mid August, direct bargaining resumed.
CUPW initiated rotating strike action on August 24. Following an assessment of the dispute by senior Labour Canada officials, the Minister of Labour consulted with the parties and discussed options which were available to them.
Sensing a desire for settlement on the part of the parties, he advised them of his decision to appoint a mediator to facilitate their efforts in reaching an accord. The appointment of Chief Justice Alan B. Gold of the Quebec Superior Court as mediator in the dispute on September 5, 1991 occurred. This had immediate implications for the dispute. Judge Gold obtained agreement from the employer to restore the collective agreement provisions during the mediation process and the union agreed to terminate its rotating strikes.
While Judge Gold's mediation of the dispute did not produce a final resolution of the differences between the parties, there was significant progress in narrowing the remaining items in dispute.
Clearly, at each stage of the process, first through the appointment of a conciliation officer, second, the establishment of a conciliation board and third, the appointment of a mediator, the government underscored its commitment to the collective bargaining process and support to the parties' efforts in the negotiations of a new collective agreement.
This bill provides for the continuation of postal services and the dispute resolution mechanism to arrive at the terms and conditions of a new collective agreement. By introducing this bill, the Minister of Labour has taken
Government Orders
the action necessary to protect the economic well-being of the Canadian population.
The government has had to weigh the rights of the parties against the general economic welfare of Canadians. Nothing in the legislation precludes the right of the parties to negotiate and amend any specific conditions of the agreement binding upon them, with the exception of the term of the agreement.
Let me return to how the government treats Canada Post. It is a Crown corporation and we have had some difficulties with Canada Post and CUPW in the past number of years. I just want to emphasize a couple of points. I am going to quote from a book written by Douglas K. Adie from the Fraser Institute.
I simply want to emphasize the cost of doing business and what it costs Canada Post to keep its operation going in terms of labour and in terms of costs.
"Canada Post's labour costs are 72 per cent of total costs which is high when compared to other service industries. Cost cutting at Canada Post needs to begin with a consideration of labour enumeration. In 1986-87 average annual salary and benefits of workers at Canada Post was more than $36,000".
He goes on to say: "Although Canadian postal wages have not been studied as closely as those in the U.S., they appear to be excessive by about one-third compared to what Canada Post needs to pay to attract and hold a competent work force or what postal workers of similar experience and education would get if employed elsewhere".
He asks the question of how this happened, why this disparity between what we pay our postal employees and what other countries pay theirs. He answers it by simply stating that Canada Post has failed to control supervisory and non-supervisory wages from 1967 to 1987 when technology changed rapidly: "When technology changed rapidly labour costs still increased from 56 to 72.4 per cent of total costs. In one-sided labour negotiations Canada Post gave the unions almost everything they wanted. Since reorganization Canada Post has not redressed the inequity of excessive wages".
Part of this he concludes is simply because Canada Post does not have the competition that it needs to be competitive. There is no compelling reason for it to be competitive. He says: "Canada Post's exclusive privilege

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
encourages overstaffing and high labour costs. Lack of competition prevents managers from controlling labour costs by shielding them from the necessity of pressing for economical wage settlements".
Despite what we say and think in this House, I think the average Canadian believes the employees are paid rather well for the work that they do, although they are not the highest paid people in the country. They are paid rather well for what they do. In this morning's Globe and Mail it is mentioned that 46,000 postal carriers and inside workers represented by CUPW earn an average of $14.24 an hour, with a cost of living clause which generally adds something in the vicinity of 17 cents an hour to what they are paid.
In some parts of the country I guess people would argue and could argue maybe successfully that is not enough. Believe me, from the part of the country that I come from and the part that I represent, that is certainly way above the average. It would be close to double what the average employee would make in the maritime provinces.
That is not the whole story. Wages cannot do it all. I think there has got to be a way that Canada Post can sit down and talk through this thing and maybe create a new sense of co-operation between Canada Post and its employees. Dollars will not do the whole thing. There has got to be a need to resolve this thing and a need to try to bring an end to the sort of discontent that has been so evident in this corporation for so many years.
Again, going back to the people in this country who depend on Canada Post for service, I want to read a letter that was forwarded to me this morning. The letter was addressed to the hon. Harvie Andre, government House leader and minister responsible for Canada Post. I want to read this letter because it goes back to my opening remarks of how important it is to resolve this dispute and how important it is that Canadians have a postal service that they can depend on. The letter begins:
Dear Mr. Andre:
On behalf of the New Brunswick Lung Association and the thousands of New Brunswickers who suffer from lung disease I am writing to convey our association's grave concern about the possibility again of disruption of the postal service.
This association is a constituent of Canada's most senior health charity, making a substantial contribution to the respiratory health of Canadians since early in this century.
Because of Christmas seals, our major source of funds, our organization led the way in the near eradication of tuberculosis. We are leaders in health promotion through smoking prevention, reduction initiatives and have been since the late 1960s and have helped Canada achieve a fine reputation in this area.
In New Brunswick, Christmas seals account for 85 per cent of our funds, allowing us to support national research and carry on effective community services. Our family asthma clinics, camp, peer group, support groups, workshops, asthma smoking help line, equipment loan programs, smoking cessation programs, and school health programs are hostage to this threatened labour disruption.
In many areas we relieve government of the need to provide service.
That is a very, very important point.
Our small organization's biggest expense item is what we pay for postal service to reach our donors and clients. We comply with many regulations, sign contracts of commitment with this Crown corporation, and have no guarantees of it delivering its part of these agreements.
Already our organization has made a major financial investment in materials for this time-sensitive campaign. We cannot postpone Christmas or save our 1992 health calendars for 1993. Hundreds of hours have been spent by volunteers to prepare mail and we have no other delivery option. We are looking at not only lost donations which are devastating but also lost investment that cannot be recouped.
Donors tell us that their confidence in donations being returned is affected by the confusion in your system.
The lung association and its volunteers are making a substantial contribution to the lives of Canadians. We believe it is incumbent on your government to restore order to this system and to provide Canadians with a dependable service.
For your information the concept of the Christmas seal as a weapon against lung disease world-wide was initiated by a postman in Copenhagen in 1903.
Mr. John B. Barry concludes by saying:
He certainly did his part. Please settle with your unions and let us do ours.
That pretty well sums up the feeling of most Canadians. We feel we are being held hostage to a degree by Canada Post and its unions. It is not like we are out to destroy the unions, but clearly something has broken down and this has been a recurring theme. We have gone through these things since 1967.1 do not know how many strikes we have had.
October 28, 1991

Clearly the Canadian public has had it up to its eyebrows with Canada Post. Let us support this legislation. I believe it has to be supported. I believe we have to get the post office back to work, the union back to work, and this country back to work.
In conclusion, I therefore intend to support the legislation before this House and urge hon. members all to do the same. We must get them back to work. We must. We have had enough strikes in this country.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that the hon. member who was just speaking said that we must get them back to work, that we have had enough strikes in this country. The hon. member might be interested to know that they have not left work. This legislation is being introduced pre-emp-torily before CUPW members leave the job. So to say we must get them back to work is a little bit of an overstatement.
I would also like to comment on the hon. member's comments about the fact that these workers on average earn $14 an hour. I find it very, very fascinating that the hon. members across the floor want back-to-work legislation after back-to-work legislation and suggest that these people who work for the federal government in the service area are overpaid. There is this whole mentality of being totally offended by Canadians making decent wages. I just find that is quite systematic of the whole attitude of this government to a whole lot of things.
The hon. member made reference to the Fraser Institute and Michael Walker, the guru of right-headed thinking in this country, so right-headed that it is almost off the spectrum. But Michael Walker is not the appropriate authority to be quoted with reference to how to run Canada Post. I would suggest the hon. member look at some very simple things and out of that reference to simple things, I am going to have a question for him.
The Canadian Union of Postal Workers spends a full 25 per cent, and I will repeat that, 25 per cent of the union's budget on grievance handling. Canada Post obviously spends a pretty healthy sum as well. There is a backlog of 100,000 grievances.
Instead of going to the right wing guru, Mr. Michael Walker and the Fraser Institute, perhaps the hon. member can tell us if he does not think it is pretty evident that management and industrial relations at Canada Post are in pretty tough straits. The problem is not with what the workers are earning, the problem is not lack of competi-
Govemment Orders
tion, the problem is bad management and the inability to have decent and respectful industrial relations. That is my question to the hon. member.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to apologize for supporting the private sector on this side of the House because obviously it is the private sector that we are so concerned about. One thing that we realize on this side of the House, but I am not sure the NDP have figured out, is that the private sector creates the jobs, the opportunities and the wealth in this country. We have a high standard of living because we have a Canadian economy that works. We do not have to apologize for that.
I do not think the hon. member was listening when I mentioned the statistics: that 80 per cent of the mail that is going to be held up in this country is business mail. If that mail is not delivered it threatens some of those businesses. It threatens jobs and it threatens development. It threatens the kind of opportunity that we want to see happening in this country, particularly at a time when the Canadian economy has gone through a crisis, and there is no question about it. Just at this point, coming out of a recession, I do not think we can afford to have a disruption in mail because it is the lifeblood, the lifeline of business in this country. This thing is all about carrying on with Canada and carrying on with building a better Canada. We cannot do it with a disruption in the delivery of mail.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a quick question of the member opposite.
One of the things that he has suggested, which is not completely correct, is that this is back-to-work legislation and necessary because we cannot afford to have someone go on strike at this time. What he did not say in his speech is that there is no strike right now and this legislation is there in case something happens down the line.
I think the hon. member should take a good look at the legislation he is debating today. One of the clauses suggests that this is in case of a work stoppage or a lockout. I want to ask the member if he would answer two questions for me. One is if he as a member believes in the right to strike, and second, does he feel that this back-to-work legislation is going to improve the situation at Canada Post between labour and management.

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
The reason why I ask that of the member is that there seems to be a sense across the floor over there that every time there are some difficulties with the collective bargaining process-and the collective bargaining process, as you know, in other industries and in other sectors works fairly efficiently- we have been putting in back-to-work legislation faster than I have time to read the bills. I am quite surprised that the government is proposing to do this on a regular basis because of its ramifications in the long term, the collective bargaining.
I ask the member those two questions: Does he believe in strikes and the process of collective bargaining, or that Canada Post should be an essential service; and second, does he feel that this whole process of back-to-work legislation is going to improve the situation at Canada Post?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I guess to answer that question I can simply say no, I am not in favour of strikes in the Public Service and for very good reasons. As I mentioned before, we were attempting to put this country to work, get it working, and I do not think that anything that disrupts that process is healthy.
I think it does come down to a question of semantics in this whole scenario in regard to Canada Post and the disruption in service. Is it a disruption in service, is it a strike or is it a slowdown? Again, it comes down to a question of semantics. When does it become a strike? At what point does it paralyzed the ability of Canadians to do business?
I think we have obviously gone through many of these. I am not about to attempt to define a strike and when a disruption in service requires legislation. I guess that is up to the Canadian public to determine whether we are doing the right thing or not. But I believe we are doing the right thing because again it goes back to doing business in this country. When 80 per cent of the mail delivered in this country is for business purposes, I think it is incumbent on all members in this House to sit down and review that and at the end of the day make the right choice. On this side of the House the choice is that we prefer Canadians to have mail delivery and that businesses have mail delivery that they can depend on and trust.
I believe that we are doing the correct thing and that Canadians cannot afford a slowdown, a work stoppage or an out and out strike in the public sector, that being the post office.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today we are facing a very serious problem that does not have easy answers. As a matter of fact as we stop and consider the process that has gone on, our postal workers at this point, CUPW, have been without contract for two years. There have been many processes in that time. They have gone through discussions, mediation and negotiations to try to come up with some type of conciliation with a conciliation officer. Many tactics have been used in order to come to some type of agreement.
There is not one person in this House, nor one person in this country who wants to see a strike occur. We all know that. We know that, however, we are in a situation where if appropriate strong actions had been taken several years ago, we would not be in a situation today looking at back-to-work legislation. It is a little bit odd to stand here and talk about back-to-work legislation when, as several of my colleagues have pointed out, there is no one out on strike at this point.
However, this process is being put in place to make certain there is no disruption in mail delivery.
It is a piece of legislation that may be affecting the ability of the two parties to get together. One would question the wisdom of introducing the legislation while both parties are still sitting at the bargaining table, attempting to negotiate an issue and, from my understanding, working very hard at trying to iron out the last few issues that are there.
In many ways in this last week or two we have seen some progress occur. The progress with the mediator Alan Gold hadxome forward over the last month and had been very positive. .
Mr. Gold left because he could not aid and abet the situation further, but the two parties did sit down and attempt at that point to try to resolve what was left of the outstanding issues. Over the weekend, we heard that they were seriously trying to resolve any final differences.
October 28, 1991

That has not been finalized at this point and here in Parliament today we look at back-to-work legislation. I will reiterate again that none of my colleagues wishes to see a strike. We know that service to Canadians is the primary goal of Canada Post.
In reality, Canadians must be our first consideration, and when we realize that Canadians are our first consideration, we know that somehow labour and management must resolve this very, very vast ocean of differences that is there.
We know that Canada Post is responsible for the corporate plan it has put in place which in many, many regards has really caused much of this stress. We know that the government has supported Canada Post in its endeavours in this corporate plan. As a result, I would very strongly hold the government responsible for the strife that is now occurring with the workers and the corporation.
The government has said many, many times that it is not responsible for the ins and outs of Canada Post, but when something positive came out at Canada Post it said: "They have raised a profit. They have done extremely well in the last three years".
As a matter of fact, the government has claimed that Canada Post had profits in 1988-89 of $96 million; in 1989-90, they were $149 million and in $1990-91, they were $14 million. Yet during the same time, subsidies for various postal services such as northern air services, publication mail, government free mail and literature for the blind, totalled some $692 million during that same time period.
We all well know that during that same two year time period workers were not paid by contract because those contracts were not resolved. Therefore one must surmise on one hand that Canada Post and the government have been saying one thing and on the other hand they know what the reality is, which is something much different.
One then starts to question what is happening with the good faith between the government and the Canadian public. It is very important that credibility be maintained in government. I think we have come down the line with Canada Post and its emphasis on profits is something that is very negative toward the service we are trying to give Canadians.
Government Orders
The Canada Post corporate plan in 1986 placed a very great emphasis on profits. The plan called for the conversion or closure of 5,200 small rural community post offices. To date, over 1,000 have been closed. The plan called for a 40 per cent dividend to be paid to the government. However, at the same time the plan also called for improvements in employee-employer relationships. The improvements have not occurred. We know grievances have sky-rocketed to somewhere between
100,000	and 130,000. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers' contract which expired in July 1989 has not given any move to date.
The conciliation report of August 12, 1991 commented that the conciliation board has found no improvement in labour-management relationships. The extent of exacerbation has further increased in some instances to a point of contempt, if not palatable hatred and the distrust has reached new heights. The parties are not speaking. They are hurling abuse at each other. The comments go on to call on the conciliation process. Somehow we have to come up with a better process than we have seen occur at this point. Somehow management in Canada Post has to find a way to set up a better relationship between itself and the employees in CUPW. It is the responsibility of this government to carry on and make certain that there is some positive move in this area.
How did we come to this point? The government has basically taken a hands off approach to the negotiations between Canada Post and its workers. Every time problems have come up the government has said: "Canada Post is a Crown corporation. It has its corporate plan. We are not responsible for the actions of that corporate plan".
I and many of my colleagues tend to totally disagree with that. We believe the government is responsible and because of the Crown corporation status the government should watch and monitor very carefully what is happening. The government inevitably is responsible for the service to Canadians. It cannot allow the problems and the hatred to escalate as it has over the last seven years.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I just began a short time ago and I have approximately 10 minutes left if that is accurate.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but we will have to proceed to Question Period. I am sure that the Table will keep track of the time.

October 28, 1991
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, once again this government would like to thank the Independent Order of Foresters for proclaiming October as Child Abuse Prevention Month. The IOF's continued commitment to the prevention of child abuse and the dedication of professionals and volunteers are fine examples of the work being done in co-operation with the government to bring awareness of this crucial societal problem because child abuse is a problem that concerns all Canadians.
Child abuse, whether physical, sexual or emotional is the problem of society as a whole and of each person as an individual and only by working in collaboration with all levels of government and non-government organizations will we begin to stop these tragedies.
In this spirit the government renewed our commitment toward the prevention of child abuse by announcing a new four-year family violence initiative in February 1991. It involves seven federal departments and agencies and will encourage the development of programs which increase public awareness, effective prevention and treatment measures, enhanced training of professionals and volunteers and exchange of information.
This government is committed to working toward the elimination of child abuse.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, sport in Canada is potentially facing a very serious crisis as a result of events of the last week or so as well as events leading up to it. It is necessary for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport to act quickly to restore confidence and morale in the sport community.
Last week Abby Hoffman was removed as director general of Sport Canada. This weekend in Victoria at the
national coaching seminar organized by the Coaching Association of Canada a petition signed by 151 of Canada's leading coaches condemned the removal of Abby Hoffman particularly as it occurred four months before the winter Olympics and nine months before the summer Olympics. The petition says that the action demonstrated complete lack of respect and concern for the athletes and coaches preparing to represent Canada.
I call on the government to move quickly and decisively to restore confidence and morale in the sporting community in Canada.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, airport officials at Lester B. Pearson International Airport are full of promises.
Noise will be brought under control, they said. Imagine our frustration when recent reports showed that aircraft continue to stray from designated flight paths.
Noise complaints will decrease, they said. Imagine our disappointment when we learned that the recent report of a 12 per cent decrease in noise complaints can be attributed to a 9.5 per cent decrease in over-all aviation activity.
We will install a sophisticated noise monitoring system designed to catch violators, they said. Imagine our frustration when we learned that the same sophisticated system remains virtually unusable while it awaits a final connection to radar.
Airport officials might as well forget about making any more promises because we cannot hear them any more. Maybe it is a lack of faith and we are just not listening or maybe our hearing is becoming impaired from all that noise. We are not sure. In Bramalea-Gore-Malton the truth is a little hazy these days.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, a so-called humorous postcard depicting male hunters discussing killing women and children has outraged women both within the province where it has been sold, Manitoba, and across Canada. It shows that the sickness abroad in society has not yet been cured, and indeed, when people
October 28, 1991

who are selling this card say: "It is only a joke. I understand it is kind of a touchy subject, but it is something that is intended as a joke and should be taken as a joke," then, Mr. Speaker, we know we have a long way to go.
The card in question shows two male hunters toting shotguns. One says: "Yesterday I shot my wife, both kids, my mother-in-law and the Avon lady." And his friend replies: "That is terrific, but didn't you know that mother-in-law season does not open until next month."
Mr. Speaker, this was particularly difficult for the women of Manitoba to take, when there were three murders of women in this past month and the women's current or former spouses have been charged.
Mr. Speaker, I know that all of us in this House join in hoping that this kind of postcard will not be available any more in Canadian stores.


NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday saw the wind-up of a veiy successful second annual Science and Technology Week. Approximately 1,000 events across the country exposed Canadians to the wonders of science and technology during the 10-day extravaganza.
We had so many events planned this year that we had to extend National Science and Technology Week to 10 days, from October 17 to October 27, 1991. Science and Technology Week is a national celebration, co-ordinated by Industry, Science and Technology Canada in full partnership with all the provinces and territories, science, technology and engineering associations, educational institutions and the private sector.
At the national launch at the Museum of Science and Technology, our Minister of Science announced $1.8 million in funding by science and culture in Canada for activities that increase public awareness of science and technology.
As part of the federal government's ongoing efforts to alert young Canadians for the exciting dimension of science and technology in our everyday lives, the science minister unveiled a new public awareness campaign video that will reach millions of kids across Canada.

The growing popularity of this national event proves that Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the link between science and technology and Canada's prosperity. The Canadian government has made a longterm commitment to using education to upgrade our skills in science and technology -


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning the Princess of Wales will declare 1992 as the year of Help the Aged in Canada. The princess will address a group of people asking them to support efforts to alleviate poverty for seniors around the world. The project is sponsored by Help the Aged Canada and its fellow groups around the world.
Far too often we forget how good we have things and we need events such as this to remind ourselves that there are people who desperately need our help.
Seniors around the world face a daily struggle with poverty, including seniors here in Canada. As members of Parliament we should work together to eliminate poverty among our older generation.
Seniors built our country and bore the burden of development around the world. It is time for us to do what we can to help those who have helped us. Let us make 1992 a year of progress for our seniors.

[Translation\


CANADA POST
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations to reach a negotiated settlement for a new

collective agreement between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have entered the critical phase.
After 29 months of negotiations, several major points are still in dispute. If the bargaining process fails, the message from the members of the CUPW local in Val-d'Or on October 25 can be summed up like this: "The biggest problem facing postal employees is the employer's failure to comply with the terms of the collective agreement. That is why they call upon the Minister of Labour to include in this ad hoc legislation the obligation for Canada Post to comply to every term and condition of the collective agreement."

[English)


POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, according to Employment and Immigration Canada, the vast majority of jobs by the end of this decade will require at least 12 to 15 years of education.
This year almost 4,000 eligible native students will be denied funding for post-secondaiy education by this government despite promises to the contrary. By 1995, in Ontario alone, only one out of every two qualified native students will be able to receive funding. Our native peoples have less education, one-half the national income and twice the unemployment rate of other Canadians.
The government's response to this has been to cut funding and tell us that it has been generous in the area of native education programs.
The money for these programs comes from the royalties off native lands. They are not asking for a free ride, just what they are entitled to.
We have just gone through the most severe native crisis in the history of our federation yet this government has learned nothing from it. If it was serious in dealing with native concerns, it would begin with a very simple premise; deliver on what was promised throughout the years.
I believe that education is a right and not a privilege, particularly for our natives. If we do not spend on education now, we will be funding welfare later.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, small business is the backbone of our economy. It represents 97 per cent of Canadian businesses, almost one-third of the private sector workforce, four out of five new jobs and annual sales of $316 billion.
If we are to encourage small business to grow and prosper we must recognize the ever-increasing paper burden and financial hardships placed on this sector.
Employees have governments and unions to protect their interests but who protects the employer? Small businesses are required to deal effectively with employee and employer deductions, to collect taxes and statistical information and to submit same within a strict timeframe.
Small businesses want to continue to be successful in the marketplace, but they cannot and will not remain competitive if this drain on their resources continues to increase.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are calling on New Democrats to clean up legislative and budgetary disasters created by Liberals, Socred and Conservative governments.
The Ontario Liberal deficit of $3 billion, the B.C. Socred deficit of $2.5 billion and the Conservative deficit in Saskatchewan of over $5 billion leaves New Democratic governments in these provinces with work to do in bringing in progress of people, not friends and insiders of Conservative administrations.
Canadians in Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Yukon will benefit from a era of open and honest government, the style of government they will soon have at the federal level.


TRIBUTE TO PAINTER ANDRE ROGER
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to point out the merit of a Quebec artist who was recently in the news for holding five records in the famous Guinness Book of Records. An
October 28, 1991

artist known and renowned around the world, Andre Roger, the world's fastest painter, has become the first man to achieve such a feat. This modest, earnest and determined fellow had indeed become a first class ambassador for our area as well as for all of Canada. I wanted to call attention to this impressive performance.
The talent and skill of Andre Roger are a never-ending source of fascination for crowds around the world and we are all very proud of him. For his contribution to the Mills area and the riding of Terrebonne, Andre Roger deserves respect and recognition from the people of Canada as well as from all the members of this House. Again, well done, Mr. Roger!


UNITED NATIONS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend in Vancouver the Liberal Party of Canada sponsored a most successful symposium on the role of Canada and the United Nations system in the 21st century.
This symposium, a non-partisan event, brought together national and international experts with Canadians from all walks of life to discuss the current status and future possibilities for the United Nations. Expressing commitment to a stronger UN role in an ever-increasing interdependent world, participants also spoke to the essential need for UN institutional reform.
Despite the availability for many years of expert opinion on issues such as UN leadership and the selection of the Secretary-General, it was noted that what we lack is the political will and commitment to UN reform by member countries in pursuit of global peace and security and the promotion of the necessary reform and strengthening of the United Nations.
The director of the United Nations Association in Canada has called upon other major political parties in Canada to duplicate the important initiative of the Liberal Party of Canada in sparking public and political debate on UN issues.
Oral Questions THE ECONOMY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to attack two economic myths today. The first is the argument that corporations, especially foreign corporations, are staying away from Ontario since the election of the New Democrats last year.
Investment Canada has just issued its 1991 report showing where foreign firms put their money. Over 55 per cent went into Ontario.
This report also shoots down another economic myth. The Conservatives say that for Canada as a whole there has been more foreign investment since the free trade deal, but this year foreign investment fell by $3.6 billion from the year before and investment in new businesses where extra jobs come from was less than a quarter of what it was in the year before.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of the House that the clock we are going by is the clock which I have here and it is 2.15 p.m. The other clocks can be ignored.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Welcome back.
In January the external affairs committee of the House passed a motion with the support of every Conservative member on that committee and I quote: "We recommend that the government and its negotiators keep Parliament and this committee regularly and fully informed about the current consultations and future negotiations of the North American free trade agreement".
This weekend the government completed phase one of the negotiations and Parliament has been told absolutely nothing of substance.
When will Parliament be fully informed about the substance of the negotiations as was agreed by an all-party committee?

October 28, 1991
Oral Questions


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that Parliament has already been informed on many aspects of what is going on. Parliament knows for example that culture is not on the table. Parliament knows for example that the objectives of the Canadian government remain absolutely unchanged from what they were when we went into this.
I think Parliament knows exactly what we have to know at the moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister.
Last week, the Minister for International Trade gave Canadians the assurance that all three governments felt the talks should last as long as was necessary to achieve results that would benefit all parties. That is what the minister said before the parliamentary committee.
In Mexico, however, he told reporters that he wanted an agreement before April 1992, to avoid making it an election issue in Canada. What is the correct version: what he told reporters in Mexico or what he told Canadians before the parliamentary committee?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, what the minister said in Mexico was that we expected to be able to make some significant progress between now and March. We might even have a kind of draft arrangement by that time.
Obviously you do not want to drag negotiations on any longer than necessary. That is exactly our position and will remain so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, what the minister said in Mexico was that he wanted to avoid a political debate. Canadians have a right to know what is going on with respect to the auto pact, environment, Maquiladora zones, energy, rules of origin, national treatments, subsidies, health standards, dumping, human rights, intellectual property, textiles and dispute settlement.
What is going on and why are you keeping Canadians in the dark on this important issue?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that she should not be referring personally to a minister.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, no one wants to avoid a major political discussion of any North American free trade agreement.
What you want to ensure, however, is that you can get the discussion going properly so that when you have the upcoming American election in 1992 you can have this discussion without being clouded by an American election, not a Canadian election.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up this issue with the Prime Minister.
I attended the external affairs committee hearings last Wednesday when the minister said: "Negotiations should take as long as required". There was no deadline at that time. Now the minister is singing a different tune in
Mexico.
Why is the minister saying one thing at the negotiating table and telling another thing to Parliament?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not saying one thing in Mexico and another thing here. He has been absolutely consistent throughout this whole thing.
Clearly you would like to have negotiations completed as soon as possible, but if it takes a longer time then that is exactly what has to happen.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, again my question is for the Prime Minister.
The standing committee report said that this Parliament and the Canadian people should be consulted. Why is the minister not consulting Canadians? Where are the studies? Where are the cost benefit studies? Don't the workers in Canada have a right to know how this deal will affect their lives?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I think the member forgets that in this negotiation, as in other negotiations, the government has a wide variety of advisory committees on this issue. When there is something that we have agreed upon then that comes to Parliament. Of course it comes to Parliament.
October 28, 1991


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Minister for International Trade said a North American free trade agreement could be concluded in March. All discussions have taken place behind closed doors. Canadians do not know what is going on. We do not know whether the government intends to consult the public or how it intends to ratify the agreement.
What do the Prime Minister and his government intend to do about consulting the public on this agreement and about ratifying the agreement?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, what the minister said was that there was some hope you might have a draft agreement by some time in March. He has always said: "The sooner we can get some kind of a draft agreement the better off we will be". There is no intention whatsoever of attempting to have an agreement that is not ratified by Parliament.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister.
Millions of Canadians who have experienced the first-hand devastating effects of the Canada-U.S. trade deal want to know what this government's intentions are with the Mexican trade deal. Is it to take this bad deal and make it worse? They have a right to know as taxpayers, as Canadians, what this government's intentions are.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Will he commit today that before any deal goes any further there will be a full consultation process with the public, with a committee that travels to all provinces and territories, so that this time Canadians will have a chance to comment on a deal before they are locked into it?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite wrong when she says: "so that this time Canadians will have a chance to comment on a deal before they are locked into it". The last time, Canadians had an opportunity in a democratic election to comment on the free trade agreement and they spoke in favour of the agreement.
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The last time the House of Commons committee on the trade deal went to 10 cities in 10 days and Canadians did not have a full opportunity to comment. I want to say to the Prime Minister that this time he has a responsibility and the House has a responsibility to Canadians to let them know about this deal.
This weekend while trade ministers were meeting behind closed doors, with the doors wide open there was another group meeting in Mexico with representatives from the U.S., Mexico and Canada, talking about the need to have trade deals that are not just about the economy but that include issues around the environment, health and safety standards, and social rights for workers.
This government has that opportunity now. Will the Prime Minister who last week said he was concerned about human rights ensure in these international trade talks that there is an agreement around social rights, environmental rights and human rights in this trade deal?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, let me take the preamble of that question, because once again the hon. member is wrong.
There were in fact two committees of this House that went right across the country and heard arguments on the free trade agreement. There was a special committee and there was also the external affairs committee of the House.
The Canadian people had many opportunities to discuss this and of course as the Prime Minister said they also had an election. What more do you want?


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In a recent speech in Chicago his Minister for International Trade speaking about Canada said: "No man, no woman, no child goes without-decent shelter or proper food".
Given the thousands and thousands of people who rely on food banks and shelters for the homeless on a daily basis in this country, will the Prime Minister withdraw

Oral Questions
this statement, or is he admitting that when it comes to knowing what is really going on all across this country he and his government are blind to the dismal reality caused by this government's policies?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the statement he has just quoted is out of context and was explained to be out of context by the Minister for International Trade to the hon. member on the floor of this House of Commons last week. This exchange took place last week, and the Minister for International Trade gave a full and complete explanation.
In part of his explanation the minister referred to tax reform which took some 850,000 low income Canadians including 250,000 seniors off the rolls completely; the GST tax credit, that in 1991 $2.4 billion will be paid out to 8.6 million low and middle income tax filers; that the child tax credit was increased by almost 50 per cent since 1986; and so on. This indicates the context in which the statement was made by the hon. minister.
I think when my friend examines the statement objectively he will come to the conclusion that as usual the Minister for International Trade spoke frankly and well on behalf of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must have been so busy lobbying at the UN he did not notice that I did not ask the Minister for International Trade a question on this subject or any other subject last week. The Prime Minister seems to forget that there are still more than three million Canadians living below the poverty line in this country. Can he explain that?
I want to ask the Minister of Finance: today the Department of Finance reported that the deficit for the period from April to August is nearly double what it was in the same period last year, and the department said this was a result of "costs associated with the implementation of the GST and the impact of the recession on tax bases".
Will the Minister of Finance admit today that his projections on the deficit and the economy were wrong, and that this recession is turning out to be much worse than has already been expected? Will he admit that it is his government's policies that are causing these problems?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think one of the
most important things that has developed today is that the Bank of Montreal announced its prime rate would be
8.5	per cent, the lowest in 14 years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We said last February that if we followed the plan that we embarked upon in the budget of February 1991 it would lead to lower inflation and lower interest rates, and so it has begun.
In response to the other part of his question, I simply want to remind the hon. member that the number of low income Canadians declined by over a million since we have come into office.
The real average family income grew at a rate of over 2 per cent per year since we have come into office. Yes, the first half of this fiscal year has seen the deficit higher than normal. We expected that. We indicated that in the budget as a result of the transitional costs and the slowdown in the economy, but the transitional costs are behind us and the economy is starting to boom.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last week the Canadian Labour Congress declined participation in the government's prosperity plans process. Given that the Porter report commented that labour should be treated as a partner, not an adversary, why does the government not recognize the importance of labour's participation in the prosperity plan?
Will the Prime Minister outline an approach that he intends to follow to show that labour will be guaranteed a partner in this process?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, as you know, labour was invited to be part of the umbrella group and co-chair. Labour has said that it did not wish to take up one of those co-chair positions, but it will be involved in the process through the community consultations and through the sectoral consultations.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. The minister is well aware of the need for co-operation. However, the labour movement is equally aware of the government's actions toward Canadian labour.
October 28, 1991

Given the government's treatment of workers in Canada with its own employees, the Public Service Alliance and now Canada Post, is there any wonder why labour is cautious of the government's initiatives? Will the minister show leadership, follow the advice of his own report and not proceed until labour is a full partner?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that it is the government's responsibility to try to show leadership in this whole business of making Canada prosperous. That is exactly what we are trying to do.
Labour will be on side on this issue. After all, nobody in this House wants his or her standard of living diminished, nor does anyone in labour.
There is one way to do that, and that is to make the country competitive. That is exactly the kind of leadership role the Government of Canada is taking.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan - Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
Rumours continue to abound regarding further cuts to both programming and staff at the CBC, including the possible closure of TV stations in Ottawa and Winnipeg and the loss of up to 500 jobs.
The CBC president has projected a $50 million shortfall and the chairman has warned that by mid-October the CBC will have to begin implementing lay-off and closure strategies. I want to point out that it is now late October and I fear the other shoe is about to drop.
I ask the minister whether he will recognize that the time is up for further delays, that the CBC needs a firm commitment and it needs it now. Will he assure us that the government will not force the CBC to toss people out on the street like it did last year?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to rumours. It would be helpful I think to all involved if he would not spread rumours himself by raising such questions on the floor of the House of Commons.
Oral Questions
As I indicated previously in the House, the government is looking at the whole question of next year's budget for the CBC. Obviously it is an area of interest to us, as it is an area of interest not only to the employees and viewers of the CBC but to the private sector as well. When we have something to announce with regard to that we will be pleased to inform the hon. gentleman.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the government has forced the CBC to rely more and more on commercial revenues, competing with the private broadcasters for what is an ever increasing piece of a shrinking pie.
I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to correct the mistakes of his predecessor. Will he commit himself to a mechanism of long-term and stable funding for the CBC so that it will be able in future years to fulfil the mandate that it has been given.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all aspects of the CBC's budget to try to ensure that it is well and properly financed and that it is able to discharge the mandate that was given to it by Parliament. In addition to that, in early December I will be convening a summit of broadcasters in Canada, the whole of the industry, to try to discuss how we ensure the survival as well of the private sector in Canada.
I expect as a result of the government's internal reviews and as a result of the summit we will be able to make substantial progress in both areas.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is about his high dollar policy. Our exporting resource sectors, oil and gas, farm products, forestry, coal, fish and so on are seeing their competitive position eroded around the world because of a high dollar policy, the higher the better dollar policy.
The minister has received representations from exporting sectors across the country including western Canada. Is he prepared to do something to bring the dollar down? Why does the minister in Japan, for example, sound like he wants an ever higher dollar?

October 28, 1991
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we said in the budget that the key to economic recovery was to bring down interest rates and the key to bringing down interest rates was to reduce inflation, inflationary expectations and inflationary pressures. That is what we have addressed.
The result of it is that we now have a prime rate today of 8.5 per cent. Ten years ago under his party's administration we had a prime rate of 22.75 per cent. I know that businesses would rather have an 8.5 per cent prime rate than a 22.75 per cent prime rate.
I simply want to remind my hon. friend that the merchandise trade balance has risen by $8.1 billion at an annual rate to $13.5 billion in August. It means that Canadian companies are competitive. The merchandise trade balance is improving.
It is thanks as well to the free trade agreement where exports to the United States grew by $5.4 billion between 1989 and 1990. Those exports are still increasing, thanks to the free trade agreement.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about 10 years ago. The very companies that were supporting the government on free trade are saying that its high dollar policy is killing them and putting their employees out of work. In fact if we take the non-government regulated prices, inflation is now about .5 per cent this year.
My question is: Our interest rates are now about 1 per cent higher than the United States. Will the minister-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


David Kilgour: Is that funny?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will put his question.


David Kilgour: Will the minister, if it isn't John Crow who is really the Minister of Finance, bring interest rates down faster, bring them lower so that the dollar can go down and we can get people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would like to forget about the bad old days
when interest rates were 22.75 per cent. As I said, 8.5 per cent is a heck of a lot better than 22.75 per cent.
I will just go back one year. For ordinary Canadians who may have $50,000 mortgages, they are paying $150 per month less on their $50,000 mortgages this year than they did last year. That puts money in the pockets of ordinary Canadians. That will transform into more buying and a resurgence of the retail sector. It is all dependent upon the reduction of interest rates. That is our policy. That is our goal and it is producing results.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Last Thursday over 7,500 farmers rallied in Regina to protest the cutbacks in the government support programs last year and the shortfall in income of $1.3 billion this year.
The minister knows that the announcement he made a couple of weeks ago is little more than 50 per cent of the identified shortfall for grain and oilseeds producers.
When is the government going to make the payments to farmers who have already waited a year for this support and assistance which should have been provided in 1990?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the hon. member is suggesting that the $800 million which was provided by the Government of Canada to an industry that is having a great deal of difficulty is not enough. He apparently does not appreciate it as much as the people who have been phoning and writing my office saying they understand how difficult it is for a government to come forward with assistance of that magnitude during difficult times. But we have done that. We will continue to support agriculture as we have in the past.
As the hon. member is fully aware, there will be over $3 billion in support payments going to agriculture, grains and oilseeds in Canada before the end of June 1992.
October 28, 1991

The hon. member has to recognize that $40 an acre is being given by the government to a very important industry because we recognize the hurt it is undergoing at this time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Over 7,500 farmers in Regina last Thursday did not understand because they are going broke. Rallies have continued just the same since the minister's announcement as before, because they are not getting the cash. The amount provided a little over half of that required.
Will the minister bring in the legislation today so that these cheques can be sent out immediately and not wait until next spring. The cash is needed now. When will this minister and this government act?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of this government and this Prime Minister has been to consult with farm leaders when asked to come to their assistance. We have done that.
The hon. member must recognize that I will receive a report from the third line of defence committee as to how they propose the assistance should be paid out, and how they propose it should be proportioned.


An hon. member:: That was yesterday.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, I say to the hon. member for Regina, it was not yesterday. I look forward to receiving that report in the next two or three days. When we have received the report we will attempt to act upon it.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, on May 211 rose in this House and asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he would give an undertaking that research like that of Dr. Chan of Calgary on the safety of breast implants would be funded as soon as possible.
Oral Questions
The minister responded that the department had received Dr. Chan's study in March but had not received a request for funding.
Dr. Chan has now asked for $130,000 to measure urine and blood levels of TDA in 1,000 Canadian women with Meme breast implants and has been told unofficially that he is being turned down.
Will the minister tell women now that he will fund that study?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member the answer. I do not see why I have to answer to women of Canada in terms of Dr. Chan.
I was not informed before Question Period that this request was turned down by the department. The member did not ask me that question before, but I will check with the department to see if a decision has been made. So far I have not been informed if it is official or unofficial. I will check and get back to the member soon.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I refer to a news clipping I saw in The Vancouver Sun two days ago. It was on the news this morning.
I would have thought that the minister would be aware that it is out in the news that there has been an unofficial turn down, as I mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, the media has reported that plastic surgeons of North America are spending $3.9 million to lobby because of the downturn in the implant business. They say they are the victims of bad press. Well, I would ask the minister if he would at least commit $130,000 to the victims of Meme breast implants.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship between a campaign launched by the plastic surgeons and the fact that we accept or not giving the grant. I cannot ask any organization in the country not to launch a campaign of this kind if they believe it can help their cause. On the other hand, we will make a decision, or maybe a decision has already been made, on the merit of what is requested by Dr. Chan. It has nothing to do with a campaign by the plastic surgeons in Canada.

October 28, 1991
Oral Questions


CANADA POST
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation.
The collective agreements have been extended from the expiry date mentioned for each agreement in the Schedule until July 31, 1993, according to the bill to provide for the continuation of postal services tabled today by the Minister of Labour.
Could the minister give us the assurance today that the Canada Post Corporation will abide by every single clause of the collective agreement, since for several months, a number of managers with Canada Post in Ottawa and Quebec City have showen no respect for employees in the Abitibi region?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post, as does the union, must always respect the collective agreement. It is a legally binding contract and both sides are expected to enforce and respect it. I am sure that will continue to happen.


YUGOSLAVIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As the minister knows, the situation in Croatia is deteriorating and hundreds of lives are being lost every day. This morning the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a very alarming report that the UN arms embargo is now being largely violated or ignored by member states.
Will the minister take steps to have our UN ambassador, now that he is free of other duties, to ask for an immediate meeting of the Security Council to consider this report by the Secretary-General and to begin looking at what immediate actions can be taken by the United Nations to stop the bloodshed of innocent people in that region.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this country has really been very active in the United Nations and with other organizations through the European Community in trying to bring peace and stability to this extraordinarily troubled country with the tragic situation that is going on right now.
Ours was the first request to the Security Council. That is why the Security Council dealt with the issue in the first place.
Our ambassador to the United Nations has been active ever since, and will continue to be active in trying to move international action on this forward. Let me say that for Canada's part, we have done everything we can, including offering extra monitors to the peace process. We have been in touch with the European Community which is taking the lead on this. We are doing everything that we possibly can to try and bring some stability to this terrible problem.


Lloyd Axworthy: About three weeks ago the minister indicated that Canada was going to consult with its UN and European partners to determine further action, including a strict economic embargo.
Considering the continued bloodshed, I would suggest that three weeks is more than enough time to have urgent consultations. Will the minister indicate today if Canada is now prepared to publicly support the call for an economic embargo against Yugoslavia to stop the fighting, to stop the bloodshed, to stop the conflict.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have never ceased to be active on the Yugoslavian problem. We have never stopped. Since the last question was asked we have continued to be in touch with Europe. We have continued to be in touch with the United Nations.
There is some real concern in some quarters that an economic embargo will hurt the people it is intended to help. When you look at what is going on right now in Dubrovnik and in other areas of Croatia, an economic embargo is not going to stop that. What is going to stop it is when the Yugoslavian army stops attacking and surrounding and putting an embargo on places like Dubrovnik.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
This weekend I met again with the Association of Limousine and Taxi Drivers servicing Pearson airport. Their livelihood during this economic recession particularly has reached the breaking point since this government not only issued more taxi and limousine permits but also increased the fee of their licences by over 500 per cent.
I ask the Minister of Transport why the government cannot be more sensitive to the industry by rolling back the increases to a more moderate level and eliminating the over 150 new licence permits since Terminal 3 is not generating new passengers and that the over-all traffic at Pearson from the government's own account will be down 5 per cent this year.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that he is about a month and a half late in his request. We did exactly that a month and a half ago.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sergio Marchi: They did it on April 1 and I have been asking about it repeatedly. I will not apologize for continuing to stand up on behalf of Canadian workers who feel that these policies are doing them in.
I return to the minister and say to him that when government privately dealt with privatizing Terminal 3 it also erroneously gave away the cab and limo service concession to the private developers.
I ask the Minister of Transport, now that the government has had to buy back that clause for an estimated $5 million, why is this government forcing the limo and cab drivers to pay ridiculous increases to make up for this government's costly mistake?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat for the benefit of the hon. member for York West that we had a meeting with representatives of limousine and taxi owners in August. We reached an agreement, and we even based further
Oral Questions
increases in licence fees on the rates in effect in Mississauga, which was agreeable to taxi owners, taxi drivers, the mayor of Mississauga and everyone in the Toronto area. It seems only the member from that area is not aware of the response we got.


FORESTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on March 26 of this year the minister of forests stated to the standing committee on forestry that funds for a new Nova Scotia forest agreement had been identified and that he did not anticipate a delay in its signing. That was seven months ago.
Will the minister announce today that he will sign a new agreement with the province of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. We would like to know the day from the minister and, further, given that the province of Nova Scotia has had to carry on with funding to this date for the seven months that an agreement has not been signed, can the minister assure the House that the funds for the new agreement will incorporate those funds that the province has had to spend?


Frank Oberle: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can given this assurance but I would also like to point out to the member that in the case of Nova Scotia the agreement was negotiated in two phases. An interim agreement has been operational for the last two years and I will be able to sign the new agreement as soon as a date can be arranged.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs. Last week, there was a demonstration in front of the Terrasses de la Chaudiere building in Hull, when Algon-quins from Lac Barriere demanded $1 million to pay

October 28, 1991
Oral Questions
lawyers to sue the Government of Quebec and pursue their land claims in Quebec. The Government of Canada doesn't want to give more than $130,000. Could the Minister confirm that his department agreed to pay the Algonquins of Lac Barriere $130,000 to take the Government of Quebec to court on land claims?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is ill informed on some of the aspects of this matter.
The Algonquin bands of western Quebec of which there are some nine have been seeking to have a land claim recognized for negotiation by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have committed to a small number of those bands close to $500,000 in the preparation of research on which the department would base a decision as to whether or not to negotiate the claim.
We believe that work is all but complete and, with the expenditure of another $130,000 to look into matters relating to current use of those lands, we believe we will be in a position to accept the land claim for negotiation soon.


Gilles Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, doesn't the minister realize that by contributing such large sums of money he becomes part of the current conspiracy against Quebec, and that the province certainly does not deserve to get this kind of treatment from the federal government?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is incredible.

In fact the Government of Canada is committed to the negotiation and settlement of land claims in all parts of Canada where we can be persuaded that there is a legitimate claim.


AGRICULTURE
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, some farmers are very concerned about the results of the current GATT negotiations.
Yesterday I met with representatives of several supply management organizations, all of whom expressed their support for Canada's proposals for strengthening and clarifying article XI of GATT. They are concerned that Canada will be forced to abandon its firm stand on article XI in order to reach a compromise between all parties.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister assure this House of his commitment to a strengthened and clarified article XI?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is appropriate because at this time there are unjustified fears.
The Government of Canada developed its position at GATT with the stakeholders, with the farmers and with the producers. That position is to maintain, to strengthen and to clarify article XI. That means that Canada, the government along with the producers, will maintain that position on supply management throughout the negotiations. We have stated that before.
I have stated that not only has Canada said we would maintain it. I have actively been promoting the position of clarification and strengthening of article XI wherever I have had the opportunity to meet members of GATT.


TEXTILE INDUSTRY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago Dominion Textiles announced that it was shutting down its Hawkesbury Fiberworld plant laying off permanently another 86 workers, stating that it could no longer compete with U.S. plants because of the high dollar policy of this government.
Given that this is the second plant closure in two weeks for the same reason in my riding, how many more plants have to be closed and how many more people have to lose their jobs before this government understands the disaster that its high dollar policy is causing to my constituents and others?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member blames the ills of the textile industry in his riding on the value of the dollar. I would like to see that rationale.
October 28, 1991

Perhaps the hon. member may want to share some of the information with me because quite frankly, as has been pointed out on many occasions, you cannot devalue your way to prosperity in this country. One has to compete in the international marketplace, the global marketplace. Many industries in fact are doing just that.
I think the merchandise trade balance surplus which is growing is a clear indication that Canadian companies are indeed competing.
The hon. member should know that the value of the Canadian dollar over the last 40 years was 92.6 cents. Today the dollar is in the 88-cent range, considerably below the 92.6-cent average which was the prevailing average over the 40-year period.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about 40 years ago. We are talking about people who are losing their jobs today.

I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of State (Small Businesses). Eastern Ontario is being hard hit as a result of unemployment rates of up to 15 per cent in Hawkesbury, 16 per cent in Cornwall and similar rates in Pembroke and other parts of the region.
When will the minister announce a recovery program for Eastern Ontario which is suffering as a result of the policies of his government and his Minister of Finance, who refuse to listen?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have discussed this at length over the past few months. He knows that we are preparing a program which will address eastern Ontario in particular.
One thing that he should notice is that he has agreed with me in the past that what is needed is a more
Oral Questions
competitive environment in eastern Ontario. A lot of this has to do with training. A lot of this has to do with a more productive labour force, and that is part of the prosperity discussions and consultations that we are going to be beginning with shortly. I hope the hon. member will join in those discussions.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
This weekend in Victoria there was the national coaching seminar at which 151 coaches signed a petition expressing their deep concern with the removal of Abby Hoffman from her position and in particular the timing, which was four months before the winter Olympics and nine months before the summer Olympics. They are very concerned about the morale in the sports field leading up to these important international competitions.
Could the minister take this opportunity to assure them, athletes, trainers and the public in Canada that this government remains committed to high performance at the international level as a role model for Canadians, and as a bond for Canadian unity?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, I was in Victoria also over the weekend and unfortunately I was not given a copy of the petition.
On the other hand, I was informed about the concerns with respect to high performance sports, which I addressed very specifically in a speech I gave to Sports Forum II the night before I left for Victoria and at which my hon. friend was present. The Government of Canada is still committed to high performance sport.

Routine Proceedings POINT OF ORDER


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the question raised by the member for Mission-Coquitlam on Dr. Chan's funding, I just got the information that the department actually turned down the request by Dr. Chan. The reason was that study he would make would take about a year and a half to two years before having some conclusive answers. Already the American United States FDA has asked the company that makes the Meme implant to undertake immediately a very comprehensive and extensive study similar to that proposed by Dr. Chan and conclusions will be available long before the proposed one.
In light of what she asked me concerning women and their health, I think it will be better to wait for the answer from the Americans instead of having something which will come later in Canada. That is the reason why the proposal has been turned down by the department.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might respond to the minister's comments. I thank him for seeking the information and coming back to me on it.
While I appreciate that we are very reliant on the American Food and Drug Administration, it would seem to me that for a long time we have known that the Meme was a problem and we did not act until we waited for the FDA. I would ask that the minister reconsider and do something now for Canadian women.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I am sure you will find the necessary consent for the following motion:
That the Order to refer Bill C-35 to legislative committee G be rescinded and that the same bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not consult with my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition. We would therefore like to wait a little, until we have consulted, to give our agreement.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the Whip of the Official Opposition to take my word on it, but may I ask that we could agree conditionally to him just advising the Table or the Chair that those consultations have taken place, because they have.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the debate can continue and I will be back later after consulting my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So I see that there is no unanimous consent for now. I therefore ask hon. members on both sides of the House to get together to move the situation forward.


PETITIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of Canadians who are dissatisfied with this government's policies toward assisting farmers. My colleague, the very distinguished member for Algoma, brought to our attention today the fact that the government has only provided a little bit more than half of the assistance that was required for Canadian agriculture. My colleague is quite correct in what he is saying as he always is.
These Canadians agree with my colleague, the member for Algoma, that the revenue provided to farmers is most inadequate and they call upon this House to convince the government to provide more funding for agriculture.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table on behalf of the right hon. member for Yellowhead a petition concerning the Jasper airstrip. It has hundreds of signatures of people who are very concerned with the possible closing of the Jasper Park airstrip.

Routine Proceedings
I would like to also add my personal support for keeping that particular airstrip open.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present a petition from residents mostly of Kamloops and Campbell River who urge Parliament to oppose Unitel's application to get into the telephone business primarily because of the severe impact it will have on areas outside of our major cities. It will negatively impact on the rural areas tremendously.
The petitioners are also asking that hearings be held in the communities concerning Unitel's application.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have a petition to present from a number of people in British Columbia who are concerned about the potential devastation of the phone system if Unitel's application is granted. They call upon the government and the minister to oppose the application, and to hold local hearings in areas that will be affected, particularly outside the urban core.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Ottawa, Gatineau and Gloucester concerning firearms. The petitioners declare that the accessibility of firearms is a key factor in homicides, accidents and suicides and that many types of weapons which are easily available in Canada are not needed for legitimate purposes like hunting and competitive shooting.
The petitioners ask Parliament to legislate now so that no one with a criminal record can own a firearm.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today to present on behalf of a group of farmers from southwestern Ontario calling for the government to provide the same assistance that would have been provided this year if the GRIP and NISA programs had been in place.
The announcement by the government two weeks ago was only half of the amount that is needed, so they are petitioning and calling on the government and on Parliament to provide that assistance which is urgently needed by Canadian grain, oilseeds and horticulture producers.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from people throughout British Columbia: Campbell River, Comox, Nanaimo, Cranbrook, Kimberley, Courtenay, Rossland, Trail, Castlegar and Kaleden, in total about 500 signatures.
These petitioners call upon the government, the Minister of Communications in particular, to oppose the bid placed before the CRTC regarding Unitel's application to carve off a piece of the long distance telecommunications market.
The people are very concerned about the effect that will have on telephone rates, particularly for those individuals in communities outside major metropolitan areas.
I would like to submit on their behalf these petitions today.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House today under Standing Order 36 a petition signed by a number of residents of primarily the interior of British Columbia who are expressing their concerns about changes in telecommunications policy in Canada.
The petitioners call for full consultation among all parties affected by any changes in the long distance and local service relationship, in particular rural areas.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on a commemorative stamp for the 125th anniversary of the birth of Marie Sklodowska Curie, for her scientific contribution to humanity.
The petitioners, residents of Canada, think that her discovery of radium, which is used throughout the world for therapeutic purposes, should be pointed out by

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
Canada. They believe that Marie Sklodowska Curie, who twice won the Nobel Prize for her discovery of radium and was the first woman to earn a place in the history of science, should be recognized by Canada.
They ask Parliament to call upon Canada Post to pay tribute to Marie Sklodowska Curie by issuing a commemorative stamp for the 125th anniversary of her birth on November 7, 1992, which is also Canada's 125th anniversary.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



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 second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate the hon. member for Essex-Kent had the floor. You have ten minutes left.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I was really trying to point out some of the inadequacies that have come along with regard to the government and Canada Post in dealing with a potential powder keg that they have had over a very long period of time.
Through the seven years this government has been in power we have seen a decline in the relationship of the employee and the employer situation at Canada Post and a decline in most of labour's problems as far as the government is concerned.
Where have these energies been placed? Obviously there has been some concern over the last while with regard to Canada Post and its approach to public relations. It seems to me that the greatest public relations goal that Canada Post could have carried out would have been to set something in place which would give its employees some confidence, some esteem, some good feelings about the corporation. It has not chosen to go in that direction. It clearly has chosen to take other action.
One of the actions that many people in my riding have been very upset about is removing the word "Canada" from Canada Post. We no longer have the word "Canada" there. I guess that is the course of privatization, but it also is the course of disassociation of this government from Canada Post. That is veiy unfortunate because this government is still responsible for that service.
As my colleagues have stated many, many times, the removal of the word "Canada" from Canada Post is a removal of a symbol that all Canadians did cherish and it is something that should not have happened.
We have seen it pursuing sponsorships like a SkyDome box. We have seen it sending out advertising in areas of the arts and car racing, rather than getting down to the nitty-gritty and dealing with its employees in some positive fashion.
While it is advertising and renting boxes at the SkyDome, it is receiving over 100,000 complaints about what is happening within the corporation.
I received several copies of video promotions which were sent to the employees about how great the Canada Post Corporation was. Those video reports came back to me, telling me what negative action Canada Post and this government were taking with regard to dealing with the employees.
As a matter of fact the promotions were causing exactly the opposite, negative reactions from its employees. The result is that many of the things it is doing, bragging about the profits, its advertising, renting boxes at the SkyDome, are causing the employees to ask: "Why does it not treat us relatively fairly. Why does it not sit down and negotiate a contract that would be reasonable for us?" Canada Post has stepped aside. Over the last two years while the employees have been working without a contract, the government has totally avoided pursuing this issue and getting things straightened out.
What has happened as far as the service area is concerned? If we really believe that service to Canadians is the priority of Canada Post, why have we seen 1,000

*
*mnm
October 28, 1991

post office closures in the last couple of years? Why have we seen door to door delivery stopped and supermailboxes put in their place? Why are seniors, who at one time received mail at their homes, now travelling somewhere else to pick up their daily deliveries? Certainly, that creates a tremendous hardship and at the same time it created a great deal of tension between management and the employees.
Two levels of service to Canadians is a hallmark of this government's approach to Canada Post.
If the bottom line really were service, then it would not have taken the approach it has over the last seven years. It certainly would have looked at the situation of its workers and handled it much differently.
Watching seniors line up this summer highlighted in my mind the attitudes of Canada Post and this government toward the workers they employ.
I was questioned about the long lines seniors experienced and the difficulties they had in collecting cheques. In the 100 degree temperatures, many people were unable to stand in line over long periods of time and it was very distressing to these individuals.
I phoned Canada Post and talked to the executives there and suggested that CUPW had recommended that they would take those cheques, deliver them to seniors and make sure the system operated properly. The answer that I got back from Canada Post showed the difficulty that exists. Management in Canada Post suggested that the workers could not be trusted to deliver the cheques and therefore they were not taking action at that time.
The next day, Liberals in our caucus got together and discussed the issue and demanded that the government accept the suggestion of Canada Post and that the minister pursue what CUPW had suggested.
We then sent a letter to the minister and had a press conference in order to bring this item out to the public. The result was that the minister did act and accepted CUPW's request. I will commend him for that, but the minister should have been involved with that much sooner rather than sitting back.
At the same time, we made a recommendation to the minister that, instead of allowing this process to deteriorate as it had, he to appoint a mediator and make certain that the hearings on both sides were handled reasonably well.
Government Orders
The minister at that point again responded to Liberal recommendations. He came out that evening suggesting that he would appoint a mediator. It was two days later that he appointed Alan Gold as the mediator in the dispute. But I want you to realize that the Liberal Party is not just sitting back criticizing. We have made very positive recommendations as to how this minister and this government can move along with the process rather than totally sitting back, ignoring the situation and allowing it to deteriorate.
I believe that the mediation that has gone forward with Mr. Gold, CUPW and Canada Post is very positive. I understand that a little earlier today, CUPW gave Canada Post notice that it may possibly go out on strike as early as tomorrow. That creates another disastrous situation.
But the government seems to move step after step after step to add to the turmoil, the tension and the real causes rather than tiy to resolve issues and create a better climate for all to work under.
It is the government's responsibility to look at the causes of tension, to look at the difficulties and not just bluntly say: "Take it or leave it, this is the way it is". I believe that is why this government over seven years has developed such difficulties with all of its workers and not just CUPW workers. If we look at all of the workers who serve this government and labour across this country, it is very, very downtrodden. Jobs have been lost, anger raised and there has been almost a rebellion in the land. What is causing it? I believe it is this government's inaction to deal properly and fairly with the work force of this country.
It is important that this government take that on.
I will reiterate again that no one in this country, in the Liberal Party, in the Conservative Party or the NDP Party wants to see a strike or the disruption of the vital service Canada Post offers. It is the responsibility of this government to make certain that the tensions and problems that have generated over the last seven years are dealt with and dealt with adequately and properly.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take part in this debate, but I will not have time to make a speech and give my opinion on the subject. I listened

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
carefully to my hon. colleague, who only talked about the SkyDome suite, which seems to bother him a lot.
He also talked about labour-management relations. He mentioned as well that the company did a lot of advertising. Mr. Speaker, it is good for a company to have a sense of social responsibility, and I think that Canada Post, in my riding and in several others, has even financed advertising on figure skating for a few hundred dollars. It was not much, but I think it is all right.
When the hon. member talks about-

-labour relations and the turmoil.
I have been following this issue since my business people did not receive their cheques the last time. They were all calling me and they saying: "What is going on with Canada Post? For 20 years there has always been a problem".
At Canada Post in the past 20 years the president has changed many, many times. The problem we have with the union president is that I do not think it has changed in the last 20 years. At the end of every contract we have a strike or violence. I remember that. In 1984 when we took office the corporation was losing $400 million. Today it has a profit of $200 million. It is normal it invests in publicity or whatever it wants. I do not think it is bad.
I must ask my hon. colleague to answer these questions if he can and to take some notes. Does he really believe, if there is a strike tomorrow at noon, that all the cheques will be delivered to enterprises which create jobs in this country and try to make a buck? It has become a crime to make a profit in this country. Does he really believe that these people will get mail service because he defends so well the poor people and the poor union? What about enterprises that are suffering and old people who need their cheques? Does he really believe that the cheques will be delivered if there is a strike tomorrow at noon, as the union has requested?


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. It certainly opens up several issues that I believed I addressed. However, I will bring it back to that point.
As far as union leadership and leadership of Canada Post are concerned, I must point out that the president of Canada Post has been there for 10 years, and I thought the hon member would know that. There has not been a change. Don Lander has been there. He was there leading Canada Post. The hon. member can check the date he was hired. It is very clear what the situation was.
The hon. member pointed out that Canada Post is a profit making corporation. What a total joke. They said they made $196 million two years go. They made $96 million last year and $14 million this year. Those were their statements of profit.
Let me point out that they received $690 million worth of grants. They did not pay their employees. They have not been paid increases because a contract was not negotiated. They are two years behind on which they have to pay retroactive salaries. When the hon. member talks about a profit making corporation he is not talking about all the facts. He is only talking about a ton of propaganda, not truths.
When it comes to the delivery of cheques to businesses, when it comes to the delivery of cheques to seniors, this party intervened with his government, intervened with Canada Post and demanded that those cheques be delivered. CUPW made an offer to deliver them. Canada Post said: "No, we don't trust them".
I then requested the minister to make sure they were delivered and they were delivered two days later. It is the intervention of the Liberal Party that made that difference and I think the hon. member should clearly know that. The hon. member can ask his own minister if he does not believe that.
As far as the mediation goes to come to a solution, it was again the recommendation of the Liberal Party that came about with the suggestion of mediation and the process that was put in place.
When you stand up and say you are representing business, Canada Post has no right to buy a SkyDome box. Canada Post has no right to spend that kind of money. It is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is in the best interests of a few corporate owners. I would say to you that we have received strong criticisms of those
October 28, 1991

policies and you should listen to what we are saying because it is important to Canadians.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has got it wrong. I would just like to set the record straight. He was talking about profits of $196,000.


An hon. member:: Million!


Vincent Della Noce: But I think he meant $196 million. That is not quite the same thing, but the Liberals have trouble distinguishing thousands and millions of dollars.
I think he meant $196 million.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Essex-Kent on his intervention as the postal critic for the Liberal Party. He has had a lot to do with the whole issue and the evolving process that we have been going through in the last two months.
I wonder if my hon. friend would tell us what his sense of the back-to-work legislation is, what issues it may solve and what issues it may not solve. There is a sense out there, and in many cases it is the spin that members of Parliament and the government side put on a particular issue, that once we have dealt with this as back-to-work legislation or, as I would like to call it the essential services legislation, somewhere down the line this whole process is going to have to be revisited.
I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that particular scenario which seems to be on peoples' minds.


Jerry Pickard: I would like to thank my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River for his question.
I was first going to answer my colleague across the way, but I note that he did not stay to hear an answer. His question could not have been so pertinent or important. I find that quite Tory-minded.
My colleague from Kenora-Rainy River has pointed out that when we come to legislating people back to work, there are ramifications of that process. Certainly when we stop and think about ramifications, we are taking a movement upon a group of people and I guess you have to weigh these things: do they feel in the end that they were treated fairly? Do they feel in the end
Government Orders
that they were winners? Do they feel in the end that they can live with what comes down? I cannot make that judgment.
It would seem to me that when going through a process for two years, attempting to resolve problems to which they did not get a proper resolution, when they walk away and are legislated back to work, they feel animosity toward that legislation. They feel anger that they have not been heard and dealt with in a fair, open, free way.
That is why we have the collective bargaining process in place and that is why we use the collective bargaining process. I am not in any way saying that anyone wants to see a strike. However, what we do wish to see and what I recommended to the minister as late as Thursday of last week was that as long as the parties are sitting at the table negotiating, let them work out their differences. Let them work out the problem, let us not interfere and cause added problems to it. Let us not interfere so that some groups feel they are losers.
I think interference is not the best at this time. It could have been much more appropriate when negotiations stopped.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-40, whose purpose is to force Canadian postal workers back to work.

How did we get into this mess? The government across the way of course will say it is the fault of Jean-Claude Parrot or of anybody else who happens to disagree with the government. That is the standard Tory line.
It is not that simple. First of all let us remember that in 1986 the government across the way approved the corporate plan of Canada Post. So Canada Post's approach to management, the broad concept that it is aiming at right now has been approved by this government. No one forced the minister to approve that corporate plan. I did not see Jean-Claude Parrot successfully twisting the arm of the minister in order to have the corporate plan changed, nor was the opposition able to convince the government to do otherwise.

Government Orders
As far as I remember the only person who managed to get a small element of the corporate plan changed was a lone backbencher on the government side. In 1986 he started a caucus revolt on the issue of the threat by Canada Post whereby rural mail would be eliminated except for main county roads. All the boxes would have to be repatriated along those main roads and there would be no delivery in rural areas.
That was changed by the late member, Dan McKenzie, who led a group of Tory backbenchers to raise a kerfuffle in the Tory caucus.
Apart from that the corporate plan that Canada Post presented to the government was approved lock, stock, and barrel. That includes the shut-down of post offices in urban areas. That includes the closure of all 5,221 rural post offices in Canada. That is all part of that plan. We on this side of the House did not invent that.
The postmasters and the assistants' association did not invent that.

And neither did Jean-Claude Parrot, nor his union, nor the Letter Carriers Union which already existed at the time. Mr. Speaker, the government must admit it was responsible for this plan. It was the government that gave Canada Post these guidelines. And of course, lest we forget, there is a minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. I repeat: responsible.

The government says: "Look how smart we are. Canada Post generates profit". All right. Let us say there is the odd Canadian who still believes that this government is smart. An unlikely proposition given the popularity of the government across the way. Nevertheless, there could be the odd Canadian-there is the odd Canadian who believes that Elvis Presley is still alive, so nothing is impossible- who still believes that the Tories are smart.
Let me tell those misguided few, whatever number there may be, that this is how it works. The 1989-90 annual report of Canada Post is a good example. The member who is heckling across the way, the member for Laval East, said a while ago: "Isn't it Canada Post which gave us $149 million in corporate profits, therefore aren't we great?"


Vincent Della Noce: I didn't say that.


Don Boudria: All right, okay. Let us look at it this way. Of that $149 million profit, $118 million was generated by the sale of assets. This is about the same as if we sold the Speaker's chair and declared that the House of Commons had made a profit. Could you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? How preposterous that proposition is. That is not profit in the sense that most of us know it.
Of course it shows up in the books as having generated extra revenue for Canada Post but you would have a hard time replicating that. That is why, of course, profits have gone down in subsequent years as you are disposing of the assets, selling off the furniture to pay the rent.


Vincent Della Noce: We don't need assets, we need service.


Don Boudria: Let us look at what they have done to labour relations. My distinguished colleague from Essex-Kent has pointed out very astutely-he is always very astute, of course-that Canada Post has profit, any profit, simply because it is two years behind in paying increases to its employees. Small wonder. If I owed you or anyone else money, and I did not pay it, that is money that I would have more than had I paid my debts. That is the situation that they are in as well and it is something that people forget to say. Of course, it is Tories who usually forget to say that.
Let's talk about labour relations at Canada Post. We have heard all the horror stories in that regard. You will remember the Liberal task force on labour relations at Canada Post.
My colleagues from Essex-Kent, Kenora-Rainy River, Mississauga, a number of others and I went to various regions of this countiy. We talked to ordinary Canadians and postal workers as well about the labour relations of Canada Post.
We heard of everything from threats to sexual harassment to everything else going on inside that corporation against employees of the corporation by people in authority. It was just terrible. It was a horror story, the kind of which the United Nations deals with.
Let me give you a fine example of how Canada Post treats people. I brought this letter to the attention of the public before. It is dated December 1986 and it is a letter sent to an employee of Canada Post in the Vancouver mail processing plant.
October 28, 1991

I will say the name of the employee simply because the postal union has made this name public in the past. The letter is addressed to one L. Chu. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker.
The letter talks about this employee who is a real bad person according to management because he has a terrible attendance record. Listen to the facts. It says as follows: "For your information, in December of 1985, you booked off sick on one occasion for a total of one day. One reason that you missed this much work may be that you have overworked yourself.
In December of 1985, you worked 11 hours of overtime. Perhaps this year you should limit the amount of overtime that you work so that your health is not adversely affected".
The letter goes on like that with this kind of nonsense as if an employee who misses one day a month should be reprimanded. An employee who does 11 hours of overtime in a month is about the same as Parliament sitting an extra five minutes.
It is normal but this is the way they treat people. This is the way they treat people inside that corporation. I have cases and cases of such instances in a binder that I have here. I have literally three inches thick of horror stories and that does not even count the backlog of 110,000 grievances that we have right now before the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that some members across the way will say not all the complaints and grievances of the postal workers are well founded. That may be true. But
110,000	can't be all wrong! A substantial number of those cases are certainly true, are certainly genuine, and Mr. Speaker, they certainly have complaints and grievances that deserve to get a hearing.

Let me give a few instances. Last Friday I raised the case in this House of one Huguette Perrier of Dalkeith, Ontario, in my riding.
Mrs. Perrier was delivering the mail under a rural contract. She picks up the mail at the post office, sorts it out and delivers it on the concession. This person is 65 years old and a widow. She had been doing the job nine
Government Orders
years, since her husband died. Her husband was doing it before that for 15 years.
Between the husband and wife, they had been delivering the mail on that rural route for 24 years. Do you know what they did this year? They put out the job for tender and she lost it because of $1,500.

Meanwhile, the government opposite gave the president of the Canada Post Corporation a salary increase of $131,250! That is not his salary, just a salary increase, Mr. Speaker, adding up to a grand total of $370,000, if I remember correctly.

I have another case. Unfortunately, I cannot name this next individual because I don't have her permission. But I have a person who works in a post office in my riding, a woman again, who phoned me. Most of them are women by the way, 83 per cent of the people who work in rural post offices in Canada are women and the government should remember that. It seldom does. This woman works in a post office and has worked there for some time. She was sick and needed surgery. She had an operation and obtained a medical certificate prior to leaving. When she came back she received a letter from her superior cancelling her sick leave retroactively from the date it was awarded and deducting from her pay cheque a reimbursement of the sick leave that she took.
I intervened on her behalf and had the nonsense cancelled. Of course they ceased to collect money from her and they gave her back that which they had already collected.
That is the way people are treated in that corporation. When these cases were happening in my constituency, I got wind of a manager at Canada Post who had seemingly nothing to do. This person was phoning post offices in my riding and asking postmasters to remove the picture of the Queen from the post office. That happened in Hawkesbury, L'Orignal and Vankleek Hill. Who asked for this? No one that we could ever determine. It was simply someone in management at the post office who had nothing better to do than to concoct a scheme for himself or herself to have the Queen's picture removed

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
from post offices. Now what on earth is that supposed to accomplish?
When I protested about this to the officials of Canada Post, I told them that the day we decide to change the head of state of our country, it sure won't be a flunkey inside the postal system who will make that decision. It won't be a post office manager, it will be the Parliament of Canada after consultation with the people of Canada and no one else. But why did that particular manager make that decision? I never got an answer from Canada Post. The Queen's picture is back in the post offices finally. In one case it took about four months to put back the frame that took 30 seconds to take off, but they finally did it.
Why don't they just deliver the mail? Does that sound so hard?
In rural Canada, Canada Post got into this binge of shutting down rural post offices. Now here is how it went about doing it: It decided to shut down rural post offices if and when the postmaster died or retired. Now, in Canada Post jargon that is referred to as the "natural opportunity criteria". Here is how it works:
If a postmaster dies, that is natural and therefore there is a natural opportunity created, so you shut down the post office. That is how the natural opportunity criteria works. If the postmaster retires, he or she has aged and reached the age of retirement, ageing is also natural therefore the natural opportunity criteria has been met again. So that is how that works too.
So you shut down the post office and you franchise it out. There is no more post office and the mail is sorted 15, 20, 30 miles away. It is brought in weather permitting, and then of course people go and get it outside in supermailboxes that freeze in winter. That is known as improved service.
The way the criteria for this improved service works is the following:

Whether the post office in question made a profit or a loss was not a factor. There probably are examples where a rural post office makes a substantial profit, but Canada Post is not interested in such mundane matters. It is interested in closing a post office if it feels like it or if it seems like a good time to do it, without always considering there may be some very good reasons for keeping the post office open. No, it closes them regardless, to the
extent that we have lost about 2,000 post offices in rural areas in Canada, if I am not mistaken.
Some time ago we appointed in this country a Postal Services Review Committee. This Postal Services Review Committee was appointed by the government and led by Mr. Alan Marchment. This committee was to make recommendations on future postal increases, the quality of management and all kinds of things at Canada Post.
Guess what happened to this postal review committee? The committee was supposed to have been transformed into a board. There was legislation presented in this House. It died on the Order Paper. The government never proceeded with the legislation and never reintroduced it. This postal review committee and the future postal review board was to be the watchdog of the post office, a form of CRTC of the post office, if I can call it that. It died on the Order Paper.
Not only that but when the Postal Service Review Committee brought forward its report, the government read the report, did not like the contents and fired the committee because it did not like what it heard.

This is what the Review Committee on Canada Post recommended in its first and last report, after which it was disbanded by the government opposite. Some of its recommendations were:
That Canada Post examine the possibility of extending home mail delivery in urban areas.
Second, that Canada Post review its program for closing rural post offices.
Third, prevent deregulation of the majority of services offered by Canada Post.
These recommendations were made by the Review Committee on Canada Post. I myself appeared before the committee to discuss these three points and a number of other points, and I did so on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal party who told me those were the kind of recommendations we needed. The Marchment Committee obviously agreed, since the committee adopted them. However, the committee was then disbanded thanks to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation, who is sitting right across from

me, Mr. Speaker. I can see him quite plainly, the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation!

The question today is not whether we support the government. The question is: Do we need a postal service in this country? Any support for this bill should not by anyone be mistaken as supporting the Tories, the government or even the Prime Minister, most of all the minister responsible for Canada Post.
In conclusion, I say to the government across the way that when there are problems at Canada Post a mea culpa is needed on its part. It has created the mess we are in now.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to my hon. friend. I concede his depth of knowledge in postal matters. I learned a fair amount just by listening to him, as I can do from time to time.
I want to ask him a series of fairly straightforward questions. He began by speculating on fault as to the current dispute and the legislation the dispute has led us to. I understood him to say that Mr. Parrot was not at fault. I surmised from his subsequent remarks that he felt that the 1986 corporate plan was at fault. If it was, I would like to know specifically in what respect.
Second, I would appreciate knowing from the hon. member whether he embraces a particular position in the dispute. Does he embrace without reservation the position of the postal union?
Third, what would the Canada Post deficit be today if the corporate plan had not been invoked and if we had proceeded along the merry path the previous administration had set us upon?
Fourth, does the hon. member regard the Canada Post Corporation as an essential service? Does he think its employees ought to have the right to strike?
I do not want to be misunderstood on this because I do not believe there have been many cases of law breaking or even suggestions that there has been law breaking on the picket lines, but there were suggestions during the previous strike, the strike by Public Service Alliance of Canada members, and so I ask it in the broadest sense, when strikers are seen or are believed to have broken the
Government Orders
law is it the role of the police to keep the peace or to apprehend or arrest suspected law breakers?
Finally, I heard a very tantalizing observation by the hon. member at the conclusion of his speech when he seemed to suggest that he might be going to vote for this bill, and I would like to ask him whether that is what he meant.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if I can start with the last remark, I never meant to tantalize my colleague across the way.
If I can get back to the first point that was raised, the member said I speculated on the fault. I do not have to speculate. The corporate plan of Canada Post has leaked from the day it got into the cabinet room. It leaked so much it was as bad as the Minister of Finance's budget. It was all over the place and we all knew what it contained. So there was no necessity to speculate.
I was asked that if the corporate plan was a mess, to give an example of that mess. I will be glad to do so. Let me repeat something that is very tangible with the people of Canada. Before I even do that, let me remind the member that it was his own colleague from Winnipeg, the late Dan McKenzie, who organized the party of Conservative backbenchers to do, shall I say, a raising of the feathers in the caucus room-I cannot use other words in this illustrious Chamber-in order to get that policy changed. That particular one was changed because it was so bad. They could not get the others changed such as the closure of all 5,221 rural post offices that were there in 1986. That is a disastrous example.
I have illustrated the plan to remove rural mail delivery save on county and regional roads. That is another example. That one was changed. There was the plan for the supermailboxes that do not open but freeze up in winter. Ask anyone who owns a supermailbox that will not open and freezes up in winter how great those contraptions are.
Many Canadians will say that was not such a hot idea.
I was also asked by the member across the way what the profit would be if that corporate plan had not been adopted. I do not know what other corporate plans were submitted to the government but if that is the best corporate plan it could come up with, it should have sent the officials back to the drawing board and made new drafts in order to make one that was more acceptable.

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
On the issue of the right to strike and should it remain and so on, Tories are always poking away at that one, that is their right-wing agenda coming back.
Let me tell the member across the way that if that right is ever removed, it should be negotiated. When they enter into negotiations with the union as well, they can negotiate with it and see if they can find something better. Meanwhile, those threats of removing the right to strike in the middle of the labour dispute by Conservatives do not do any good.
Finally, I was asked how policemen should do their work. Perhaps the member knows that this is not the provincial legislature.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Further questions or comments? The hon. member for Laval-Est.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, before addressing what was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, I would like to set the record straight, because the Liberals have a terrible habit of getting figures all mixed up. First of all, the president has not been with Canada Post for 11 years. Mr. Speaker, these remarks are not directed to the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell but to the hon. member who spoke before. There were two presidents: Michael Warren, from 1981 to 1985, and Donald Lander, from 1985 until now. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell says he knows that. Too bad he did not say so before. I had to go and look it up.
Before, in 1981, Canada Post was administered by ministers and public servants-by bureaucrats. There were plenty of those! However there was also an annual deficit that varied from $400 to $600 million. Taxpayers are aware of this, and they don't want any part of it. I would prefer a profit of $200 million and getting my mail.
The hon. member said earlier:

"We sold the assets, that is why you made money." The important thing in this world is to get the mail delivered before two or three weeks, to get the mail like it is today, in two or three days. We have the best service
in the world now. Canada Post is one of the best services in the world. That is what the business people want in my area.
If my friend is looking for more names, the hon. member from the Montreal area was a postmaster general in the days when the mail was not delivered very much. We did not do a lot when it was freezing in the winter time, I admit that, but we had a $600 million deficit because it was administered by the bureaucrats and the minister.
What I would like to know from my hon. colleague is what is important, the colour of the trucks or delivery of the mail? It is to get the mail through in a few days, as soon as possible, so businesses can get their mail, the senior people can get their cheques and all this.

I also wanted to tell the hon. member that if things are that bad, if this government is as bad as all that, how come Canada Post is one the best postal services in the world today? How come our businesses are satisfied? In 1984, when I was elected-and I am about to conclude my remarks-we saw trucks run by all kinds of companies, like Purolator, but not by Canada Post. Today, we hardly see any. At the time, Canada Post was losing contracts to private businesses, but today, it is a private business.
I have nothing but praise for Mr. Lander, the new president.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this was real good. It depends on what you think real good is.
I was glad that the member mentioned the colour of the trucks because I had almost forgotten about the millions that were spent by Canada Post to make a new logo. Instead of delivering the mail it had to design a logo that is shaped like a wing.
Some people were too busy flying off the handle with this new logo. Do you know what it did? It removed from the logo the flag of Canada and any identification of Canada and replaced it with a wing. Where it said Canada Post La Societe canadienne des postes it now says Mail Post. It has removed the word Canada and removed the Canadian flag from a national institution. That was the best it could do at that time and I am glad the
October 28, 1991

member reminded me of that. I had almost forgotten about yet another obscenity on the part of Canada Post.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, 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 Halifax-Port of Halifax; the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau-Mining; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-Land Claims; the hon. member for Winnipeg North-Health; the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-Fisheries.
Resuming debate.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to first comment on the last comment of the member from Laval East because he made reference in his questions to the previous speaker about delivery of the mail being the most important thing with Canada Post.
I would just like to refer him to an article in the Globe and Mail recently that said "Canada Post, Canada's largest Crown corporation, should be a dream operation. It has no competitors on its most lucrative product, first-class mail, renamed letter mail a couple of years ago when it was decided first class could no longer accurately describe the service. The price of a stamp is raised through an Order in Council, a cabinet decree that by-passes public scrutiny, and the government requires that private couriers charge three times as much as Canada Post to deliver a letter within the country".
Is this the same government that is now standing in this House and speaking in great glowing terms of how it believes that Canada Post is operating as a private corporation? Let us at least stay close to the truth when we are discussing Canada Post in terms of what Canada Post is.
I rise feeling again saddened in this House. This is the ninth piece of back-to-work legislation that we have seen from the government since the Conservatives have been in power. It is the fourth piece in the past year. It is the fourth while the current Minister of Labour has been in his position.
Parliament is becoming a labour court. Collective bargaining in the public sector has been reduced to being
Government Orders
dependent on back-to-work legislation, not on collective bargaining. It is symptomatic that there are problems with how government and Crown corporations operate when dealing with their workers.
It is the policies of this government with regard to Canada Post that have precipitated this dispute. The zeal for privatization has meant a reduced level of service, a worsening of labour-management relations and closures of both rural and urban post offices.
We have heard hon. members from the other side of the House standing up and saying: "We must order these workers back to work". Let there me no mistake, CUPW did not issue its 24-hour notice until after the Minister of Labour rose in this House and introduced legislation for continuation of service in Canada Post.
We are not talking here at this moment of back-to-work legislation, we are talking about pre-emptive legislation that puts into place before a labour dispute, before a walk-out, legislation that requires those workers to stay on the job. It seems more to me to be about the removal of the right to strike than back-to-work legislation.
Closures of rural post offices and of urban post offices have meant a loss of 14,000 full time jobs. Those were well paying jobs and only a fraction of those closures from which private postal outlets were created have gone to unionized workers making a decent salary. Most of them have gone to corner groceries and convenience stores, drug stores and those workers are low-paid and often have very few if any fringe benefits.
We have had hon. members get up on the other side of the House and talk about overpaid postal workers. I would reiterate there is nothing in this country that should make one worker ashamed of drawing a decent salary for a decent day's pay. Of the people I have been in contact with at Canada Post, I do not know anyone who does not deliver a good day's work for a good day's pay.
Canada Post is firing workers at three times the rate of the federal Public Service and of most private sector work places. Privatization is firmly rooted in this government's strategy of fulfilling the wish of corporate Canada. In fact the BCNI and the Fraser Institute have been referred to by the other side of the House in setting the agenda for Canada Post with little if any consideration

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
for the needs of Canadian people, and certainly for the needs of those who work for Canada Post.
Privatization there is no doubt, because of where Canada postal stations are being opened, is hurting women workers the most. In fact the trend that is being accelerated of last hired first fired is leaving women unemployed from Canada Post in ever increasing numbers. In rural post offices 82 per cent of the workers who worked for Canada Post are or were women. I want to talk a bit about Canada Post as it is reflected in my area of Canada. My riding of Mission-Coquitlam is what one would call a suburban-urban-rural riding. Some people commute regularly. Some people work in the soft fruit industry and farming. Other people in fact work in communities in my riding and actually work in the area in the forest industry and fishing.
For the commuter the closure of post offices has become a nightmare. For the elderly and disabled in my riding the supermailboxes-and I use that term with a somewhat puzzled look on my face-are a horror and a nightmare. To ask elderly people in communities like mine in Canada where there is limited transportation and where there are limits in terms of streetlighting to go to supermailboxes and pick up their mail is just beyond comprehension. Then they are told they are getting improved service and it is a supermailbox.
The hon. member who spoke just before me talked about freezing locks. We do not get quite as much cold weather on the west coast of British Columbia as some parts of Canada, but we too have problems with freezing mailboxes. We also have problems because of the amount of precipitation and rain we have with rusted mailboxes, where the locks cannot be opened because they have rusted shut. I do not think that that could be called super service.
Another thing we are faced with is terrible messes on the ground of soggy flyers, et cetera, that people leave behind which have to be waded through, not to mention people who walk their dogs to get their mail and whose
dogs do one thing while they are getting their mail and others are left to walk through it.
Supermailboxes are not a lot of fun, and for Canada Post to continually tell us that through this we are getting improved service is rather insulting.
In addition, you get a card to pick up a parcel in my riding. On a number of occasions I have received a card myself and have gone to the location where it says I should go to pick up my parcel, only to discover that those people got fed up and do not have the franchise for Canada Post any more and I have to go somewhere else but they are not sure where. I have to go to the post office to find out where I have to go to pick up my parcel. That is a regular routine happening in Mission- Coquitlam and I am sure it is not unique to that particular riding.
Last winter we had an unusual amount of snow in my riding and there are a number of rural delivery routes. I had all over the Christmas and January season endless complaints from rural route people who for weeks on end, not days, and in one case well over a month, did not get mail delivery because in fact the new people who had the new contracts could not keep up and could not cope with the weather on the roads. Yet for years when we previously had inclement weather before Canada Post had implemented its new super service we had no difficulty in those same areas where people had been receiving their mail for 25 years.
Last August when the rotating strikes began in my riding the workers said they would not deliver flyers on the last day or the day the cheques were supposed to go out, unless they were given the opportunity to deliver old age pension cheques as well. Canada Post refused to give the old age pension cheques to the carriers.
When I called Canada Post and inquired as to why this was so, the response was: "We are fulfilling our commitment to our customer". When asked who "our customer" is, the Government of Canada was the customer. When asked why, when they had a memo of which I had a copy that said the mail should be delivered on or before Wednesday and it was after Wednesday, the cheques
October 28, 1991

were not being delivered, I got the answer: "We are fulfilling our commitment to our customer".
When we have said that they want to deliver the mail, they want to ensure that people are not left high and dry without their cheques, and Canada Post is refusing to deliver those cheques even though there is not a strike in place, that begs the question of attitude. It begs the question of the attitude of Canada Post to its workers. That, I would suggest, is very much at the root of the reason why we are even discussing this legislation today in this House.
There is a backlog of over 100,000 union grievances filed by postal workers against their employers-100,000 grievances. The hon. member for Saint-Jean says withdraw them and we would not have a problem. My goodness, I am finding it really hard to keep my language parliamentary here. We are talking about 100,000 grievances. Even if half of them were bum grievances, that means there is still 50,000 legitimate grievances and it is high time that we started addressing the problem here.
CUPW spends a quarter of its annual budget fighting on behalf of its members with regard to grievances. God knows, if CUPW is spending a quarter of its budget, how many bucks is Canada Post spending to fight those workers through the hiring of expensive lawyers, taking these grievances to arbitration, or even end-running these grievances. It is a waste. If in fact labour relations were on a decent, even keel and there was respect for the workers in the work place, we would not be facing
100,000	grievances.
Workers in my riding and in other ridings I have been told of are being harassed constantly with spot checks of personal belongings, phone calls at home while they are off sick to determine if they will be returning to work or if they could assume other duties, including sick calls for night shift workers in the wee hours of the morning.
I have a large number of CUPW members in my riding who have told me of the harassment and intimidation that goes on daily in their work places. They told me of colleagues who have had to take time off because of the stress of constant surveillance and constant harassment. This is not cost effective. This is not good private sector behaviour. This is not the kind of behaviour that is going to produce a grand corporate profit, but in fact the kind of behaviour that leads us into the kind of discussion we are having today.
Government Orders
If Canada Post were really concerned about it being efficient and effective, it would spend more time and more resources improving its labour relations in the work place instead of trying to convince the rest of us that it really does provide a decent service when everyone knows that it is simply not the case.
There is another factor. I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how many times Canada Post workers have said to me: "I have always wanted to do a good job. I take pride in my ability and my skill, but I have been deprived by Canada Post of the ability to work with dignity because people are so angry at the corporation and I am the first line that people see and I get it from the customer who is dissatisfied".
One of the things that most members of this House could agree with is that they probably have file drawers full of complaints from constituents regarding Canada Post. They are complaints about changes that have a lot more to do with the Tory corporate agenda than with the priorities of Canadians who want and need a good postal service, a lot more to do with a corporate agenda than anything to do with the needs of people who serve their employer and sell their employer their working hours every working day of the week.
Some of the statistics regarding Canada Post are truly frightening. Since January 1986 Canada Post has closed over 1,160 federally owned and operated post offices. Canada Post's stated plan is to close all public post offices by 1996. This will cost 14,000 decent paying unionized jobs, and then the government wonders why workers who work at Canada Post are just a bit upset.
As I said earlier, there are 100,000 outstanding grievances with Canada Post. From 1981 to 1984, five workers a month were fired. In 1991 the average was 59 workers a month who were fired by Canada Post. According to The Ottawa Citizen, Canada Post is firing staff two to four times more frequently than the federal Public Service and most private sector employers in Ontario. A wonderful, wonderful labour relations record for Canada Post.
There used to be a guarantee that there would be door-to-door delivery to communities with more than
2,000	points of call. Not any more. In fact in my community whole communities have fought the changes to Canada Post. They have fought the closures of their post offices. The whole community fought to be rid of supermailboxes and get the same kind of service on this

October 28, 1991
Government Orders
side of the street as their neighbours got on that side of the street.
What has the response from Canada Post been? No matter what you say to somebody, when you call Canada Post at the top levels to try to get some answers you get the corporate line: "We are committed to providing more service to Canadians". No matter who you speak to, no matter what the issue is and no matter what kind of information you are trying to get, you get the corporate answer of: "We are committed to better serving Canadians".
This is the outcome. Canada Post has purchased a corporate box in Toronto's SkyDome for $250,000. Canada Post's health and safety record is so bad that it had 10,036 debilitating work place injuries. In fact it was only exceeded by Devco. The Cape Breton Development Corporation had more injuries on a per capita basis. This is the Canada Post that is now unable to conclude a collective agreement with the union. Now the Minister of Labour comes to this House and introduces legislation that is not back-to-work legislation but the removal of the right to strike legislation because it pre-empts in fact a strike even taking place.
In conclusion, I would say that this government has a responsibility, albeit it is a Crown corporation it is dealing with, to make it very clear to Canada Post that corporate industrial relations have to improve so that we are not faced with this every time we go to the bargaining table.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Accordingly, the bill stands referred to Legislative Committee H.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and there is a predisposition for that committee to convene at 4.45 p.m. this day, approximately 15 minutes from now in room 209, West Block. It will convene for organizational purposes and my understanding is that we will probably be starting with the first witness at 5.30, provided the organizational meeting goes well.
I wanted to inform the House and all those watching of that pattern: 20 minutes from now, room 209, West Block.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm what my colleague, the government whip, just said. Yes, after consultation and discussion, the committee can meet at 4.45 p.m. for an organization meeting. If the witnesses are ready, after the organization meeting, the committee can meet at 5.30 p.m. to hear them.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that this is the arrangement. The steering committee will meet at 5.45 p.m. and agree on what I think will be a fairly short list of witnesses and hear those witnesses after 5.30 and then go into clause by clause study of the legislation at that time. At that time we expect that the minister will be quite reasonable and start listening to reason.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair notes all this agreement. So be it.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of motions that I need to put before the House at this time. The first motion is:
That the order to refer Bill C-35 to Legislative Committee G be rescinded and that the said bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Albert Glen Cooper: The next motion is the following. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Orders and usual practices of this House, on Tuesday, October 29, when the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology rises from his seat pursuant to Standing Order 33 to do a short factual statement on the prosperity agenda, that the next member to speak shall be the Minister of Employment and Immigration and that subsequently two members back to back from
October 28, 1991

each of the parties in opposition to the government make comment briefly thereon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, and I think you will find consent, that we call it six o'clock. May I say further that what we should do is actually call it six o'clock to the call of the Chair and so that once we can be organized for the late show we can proceed with that even if it is prior to six o'clock.
[ Translation]


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Just a word to avoid misunderstanding. There was no unanimous consent for the last motion and the House adjourns to the call of the Chair for debate on the adjournment motion.
Sitting suspended at 4.29 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED 4.50 P.M. The House resumed at 4.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a matter which this House has heard over, and over, and over again, both from me and from other
Adjournment Debate
members on this side. I refer to the future of Canada's world class port, the port of Halifax.
In the last six months I have put seven questions to the government during Question Period and seven times I have either been told "don't call us, we will call you", or I have been told that the container lines are leaving because of some mythical overcapacity problem. In one reply the Prime Minister told the House that he had some discussions with the Nova Scotia government, but what those discussions were remain a mystery.
Six times I have risen to speak in debate concerning the port and six times the phalanx of government backbenchers replied that there was no problem, that the seven container lines that left in 1991 would come back when circumstances permitted.
As the member for Halifax, I brought a private members' motion, M-540 before the committee and then this House. The government responded by voting against a modest proposal to change the way CN rail does business between Halifax and central Canada.
Two Standing Orders later and still no action from this government.
I rise again today to ask the government that preaches competitiveness to us on a daily basis to please, for once, let us compete. I demand on behalf of the out of work dockworkers and the silent piers of Halifax that this government wake up. Bring the ships back.
This government, by Order in Council, can make CN rail re-establish our lifeline to central Canada. No more studies. No more discussions over cocktails. Implement the proposals of the secret report, the report the government will not show us. As long as it goes on, as it goes on today, I will rise in this House again and again and again until the government realizes that it is throwing away the key to trade in the 21st century and the key to prosperity in the port of Halifax.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate again the hon. member's tenacity in this question. I am pleased again to respond to her. I think we are making progress.
Let us first address some facts. There have been some problems in the port this year and some business has

October 28, 1991
Adjournment Debate
been lost. The hon. member should also mention that the port has previously set new records for the number of 20 foot equivalent unit containers. We on this side of the House would like to see a new record set every year but that cannot always happen.
When there is a downturn in traffic everyone is rightly concerned and all the parties work together to make sure every action is taken to restore the traffic. That is why Canada Ports Corporation as a federal agency is trying to facilitate a longer term co-operation between the container ports and the railways to enhance the attractiveness of Canadian container routings in general and has worked with the port of Halifax in particular.
That is why Canadian National Railway and the province developed an agreement for the funding of lease and purchase of double stack rail cars. That is why the city of Halifax has come to the assistance of the port by significantly trimming the taxes on the container terminals. That is why the port has made several concessions that are directly aimed at improving the port's attractiveness to foreign ocean liners.
I will give some examples: Capping of berthage charges; wharfage discount inventive on all traffic originating in or destined for the United States; establishing a maximum limit to the number of times a liner must pay harbour dues; and as well, certain other port tariffs have been frozen for two years.
The hon. member has been asking for a copy of the Ports Canada Container Study. I am informed that the corporation will be releasing a report to interested parties very shortly, perhaps as early as this week.
More important than the physical release of the report, though, is that the report will be the basis of important discussions at meetings with the container ports, and their marine communities. These regional meetings will provide an opportunity for discussion and feedback not only on the competitive issues facing the ports but on the potential strategies to maintain our competitive position in the world transportation system.
If the member can share with the world the way to solve the problem of over-capacity on the high seas, she will have joined the rest of us who are working to promote this great port.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, on October 9 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what he was going to do to help the mining industry.
I pointed out to him that the mining industry in northern Ontario is in dire need. I informed him of the approximately 1,000 jobs that were lost last year in the Timmins area alone. The minister spoke of current negotiations for mineral development agreements between the federal government and its provincial counterparts.
The mining industry and those who depend on its livelihood would welcome just about any good news at this point. They need a firm commitment from this government that it will do all that is possible to ensure this industry's future.
I would just like to quote from a Canadian minerals yearbook, published and authored by Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada. This document refers to the year 1990 and I quote:
Lower commodity prices in 1990, combined with higher interest rates and a strong Canadian dollar, resulted in poorer financial performance for most producers.
The financial results for the first three quarters of the year gave indications that earnings for the full year could end up being as low as half the earnings of 1989.
I think that is an area that still exists today. It is an area that this government could be looking into. We have mentioned before that the Canadian dollar is too high. We have mentioned that Canadian interest rates are too high and I think that is one of the solutions that could be looked at by the minister.
Another area that the minister could look at was put forward by my colleague from Churchill and is the establishment of a national mining reserve fund. In his proposal he outlined the fact that Statistics Canada figures indicate that the federal government benefits from the mining industry. It received $1.5 billion in federal revenue from it.
He only asked that some of that money be set aside for the future to provide more security for those living in the mining communities. I think it is a fair and reasonable approach and should be very seriously considered by this government.
October 28, 1991

In conclusion, I would like to ask the minister once again if he would look into the future and think about protecting this country from further losses of revenue by letting this industry die.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from Timmins-Chapleau I would say that the industry in northern Ontario has been worth over $6 billion over the past few years.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and our department have worked closely with the province, labour, and the industry. We have announced in the last few months a national mining training program to ensure that the industry will be competitive down the road.
We have also worked with the industry, labour, and the province to come up with a mapping system called MILAC which will indicate exactly the land use that is available for the mining community across Canada.
At the mines ministers' conference just a few weeks ago there was a joint communique between the industry, the province, labour, and the federal government. We are going to be looking at the over-all issues which the mining community will be faced with over the next number of years in regard to competitiveness and external pressure from around the world.
I would also like to announce today that very shortly a mineral development agreement will be signed with the province of Ontario and northern Ontario worth $30 million. In that program there will be information exchange programs, productivity and technology programs and economic development programs for northern Ontario.
The minister and our department continue to work closely with the industry because we know it is the heart of not only northern Ontario but other regions of the country and we will continue to do our utmost to ensure that the stability will be there.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my dissatisfaction with the minister of Indian Affairs' response to my question of September 18 concerning the failure of the Dene land claims negotiations in the Northwest Territories.
Adjournment Debate
The failure resulted from the government's refusal to proceed with the land claims settlement unless the Dene agreed to the extinguishment of their aboriginal title. With the collapse of a comprehensive agreement the government then proceeded to negotiate with those tribes which were willing to abandon aboriginal rights and title in exchange for a land claims settlement.
The minister responsible for Canada's race laws and his staff at Indian Affairs are treating aboriginal people with the same colonialist Machiavellian divide and conquer approach that has been the hallmark of Canada's relations with its aboriginal people over the last 200 years.
In fact the minister was asked a question in the House today about the Algonquin land claims proposal. The minister led the questioner to believe that his department had funded land claims research for the Algonquin people to the tune of over $.5 million. In fact that funding went to a single band and the research was rejected by all but two of the Algonquin bands. In spite of that the government refuses to fund a joint research proposal that is supported by the majority of the Algonquin people. It is another example of the ministry's divide and conquer tactics.
The final example is the Lubicon nation which has attempted to bargain in good faith with the government for many years, in each case to be met with stonewalling and subversion of the talks. In fact the government even established a new band, the Woodland Cree and has settled its claims on the government's terms over part of the Lubicon lands. Now we hear that the government is intriguing among the Lubicon Lake people to establish another band which will claim another part of Lubicon lands, and again settle on the government's terms.
I do not blame the aboriginal people for their willingness to abandon some of their rights and title in order to achieve a land claim settlement. Many of these people are desperate and feel forced to sacrifice their rights in order to obtain the land and resource base they need to provide the basic necessities for their people. I blame the minister responsible for Canada's race laws and his department, who continue to use the most cynical, deceitful, divide and conquer tactics to deprive our

Adjournment Debate
aboriginal people of rights which are supposedly protected in the Canadian Constitution.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
The recent approval by the Gwitch'in of their comprehensive land claim agreement is proof of progress, and progress in the right direction. The Gwitch'in claim was under negotiation as part of the Dene-Metis claim for over 10 years before it became a regional claim in November of last year.
With the decision of the Dene and Chief Bill Erasmus not to proceed with ratification, the Government of Canada agreed to proceed on a regional basis with those groups which were pressing us to finalize their claim settlements. In the Gwitch'in ratification vote, 91 per cent of eligible voters voted; 94 per cent of those voting approved the agreement. This is truly a remarkable show of determination by this particular group and we prefer to negotiate an agreement and then abide by the decision the Indian people themselves make.
Under the agreement, the Gwitch'in will own 8,658 square miles of land, including surface rights for 27 per cent. They will receive a non-taxable payment of $75 million. Other benefits will include guaranteed wildlife harvesting rights and guaranteed representation of public-government boards to manage the wildlife, land and water and the environmental reviews.
This agreement, embraced almost unanimously by the Gwitch'in, is based upon the Dene-Metis agreement initialled in April of 1990. The Dene-Metis could also have voted on the agreement, but instead in July 1990 their joint assembly decided not to allow a vote on it. The Gwitch'in walked out of the assembly before the vote and the Sahtu region abstained.
This agreement is a clear indication of the government's commitment to accelerate the settlement on aboriginal claims and to adopt new and innovative approaches to their resolution.
In conclusion, the Gwitch'in agreed to exchange their unwritten aboriginal rights for written treaty rights. The president of the Gwitch'in tribal council himself said; "We don't feel we are extinguishing anything."


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on October 4, I requested the Minister of National Health and Welfare to underline his department's policy on the sleeping drug Triazolan, better known by the brand name Halcion. This drug is the most popular sedative in Canada and has been prescribed to some 34 million people in this country since 1978.
My question to the minister was simple: Since the minister has indicated his department has agreed to move very quickly, within hours, if just cause were found to ban it in Canada, can the minister tell the House today-that was on October 4-what decision has he made?
The reason behind the question was a growing suspicion of the capability of the Health Protection Branch because I am afraid it is not equipped to anticipate dangers to the public health. This question was of a vein that had been pursued by me on other occasions, on other matters including the Meme breast implant, the heart drug Betaloc and with Sudafed and now with Triazolan.
I want to be reassured and I want Canadians to be reassured that the Health Protection Branch has the fortitude and power to act quickly, concisely and always in the best interests of Canadians when threats arise. I want Canadians to be reassured that the government is giving the Health Protection Branch enough financial and human resources to do its job.
I believe the threat from Halcion or triazolan does not come purely from the drug itself which is apparently under extensive clinical trials in order to have its use approved. I think the problem rises from societal and administrative problems which when coupled result in the over-prescription of this drug to thousands.
The monograph on the drug states that the dosage should be discontinued after 21 consecutive days despite the fact that many patients have been on the drug for months and sometimes even years.
I can understand how side effects which typically affect about 5 per cent of the triazolan users can cause more adverse responses if the drug is not used properly. It is just such an abuse that should be regulated and monitored by the Health Protection Branch. Within the HPD there is a separate area called the Adverse Drug Reac-
October 28, 1991

tion Reporting Program. This body should been given adequate resources to do its job.
Britain and the United States have shown concern about this drug and I would believe that the minister should not take weeks to make a decision on the safety of a drug affecting millions in our country.
If agencies like the Health Protection Branch and the Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Program were given a new mandate for protection and better funding, it follows they could better protect and serve Canadians.
I believe that Canadians should closely watch and monitor Canadians. Is there abuse of this sleeping drug in our society? Is it being commonly over-prescribed to patients who are female, aged and in long-term care facilities? If so, why? Why has the Health Protection Branch not reacted sooner? I hope today the minister can respond to my concerns with more than the usual: "We have struck a committee of venerable experts to study the issue".
I hope the minister will have a reply today, right now, on whether the decision on triazolan's safety has been decided and whether a directive to this effect has been sent to consumers, to pharmacies and to other health care providers.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's question.
On October 2, 1991, the Medicines Control Agency, which is the drug regulatory authority in the United Kingdom, suspended the product licence for Halcion or triazolan for a three month period.
This action was based upon a new analysis of safety data which the U.K. authorities interpreted as suggesting that risks associated with triazolan outweighed its benefits. Some countries, namely Finland, Norway, Jamaica, Bermuda and Argentina followed suit.
Officials of Health and Welfare Canada immediately contacted both the U.K. officials to request the data upon which they had based their decision and Upjohn Canada to request all the information that the company had provided to the U.K. department.
The department officials also met with senior officials from Upjohn on October 7, 1991. The conclusion drawn by Health and Welfare Canada was that, based on a
Adjournment Debate
preliminary assessment, there was no evidence of new risks at the recommended doses.
A more detailed assessment is being done based on documentation obtained from the U.K. regulatory authorities as well as from the Upjohn people. We hope to have that information within the next short period of time.
I would like to say that a similar position was taken by the U.S., by Sweden and by the committee for proprietary medicinal products at a meeting in Brussels on October 14 to October 16.
The CPMP made recommendations and its recommendations with regard to information are already in place in Canada. These include labelling information, informing physicians and consumers that triazolan should not be used longer than the 21 day period consecutively and that the lowest effective dose should be used, particularly with our elderly people.
I just have to say once more that with a panel of experts we will be reviewing this and we will come forward within a short period of time.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am a bit like my colleague from Halifax. I have been on my feet 14 times since this House resumed in September and mostly on the subject of control of the cod stocks in Newfoundland, the subject that is making fishermen angry. It is making them demoralized and it is causing a lot of anger in our caucus.
When you stand up and talk about it, it sounds reasonably simple, but somehow we cannot seem to be able to get the message across to the government or to anybody else that despite all the rules and regulations, we are the only country in the world that I am aware of that gives away to foreigners and allows them to take, through whatever means, the very resources upon which people depend for their livelihood.
Just a quick background on this so that we are all talking from the same text if you like. In 1978, a year after we established a 200-mile zone, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization which was established as a result of this, agreed that Canada would manage the

October 28, 1991
Adjournment Debate
cod stocks that I am speaking about essentially in 2J,3K-L, which are NAFO designated areas essentially off the north and east cost of of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though it was recognized as a transboundary stock, on the grounds that only a very small part of the stock was normally present outside the 200-mile limit and that for only a very small part of the year and also because of the vital importance of the stock to the coastal state.
That existed in 1978, but somehow in the last few years things have changed. Right now, NAFO does the scientific assessment of the 2J,3K-L stocks and, furthermore, it continues to establish quotas to be fished outside the 200-mile limit.
NAFO is toothless as it is devoid of teeth. Its moral authority counts for less than nothing in this world of dog eat dog and nations of the European community, for example, may through the simple expedient of filing a protest against the total allowable catch, which I will call TAC, set by NAFO free themselves from any obligation to be bound by it.
In practice in particular such nations as Spain and Portugal habitually ignore scientific advice. They flaunt their defiance of controversial strategies and they limit their catches only by the capacity of their fishing fleets.
Mr. Speaker, some examples: in 1986 Canada established a northern cod TAC of 266,000 tonnes. NAFO proposed the TAC for the European community countries of 36,000 tonnes to be taken from the nose and the tail of the bank in which these countries reported landings were approximately 100,000 tonnes. Can you imagine?
Let me take you up to last year. In 1990 the TAC was
190,000	tonnes. The NAFO quota was set at 15,377. They allocated themselves unilaterally 59,400 and they took 97,750. In other words, they took the same last year when the total allowable catch was 190,000 tonnes as they took back in 1986 when the TAC was 20 per cent or 30 per cent larger.
In the context of international irresponsibility this amounts, in the eyes of Newfoundlanders and I hope Canadians, to outright piracy. The mandate of the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot be properly executed. There is only one way it can be done, and this recommendation was made by the Independent
Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stocks back in February last year. It is not just the member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception. I am quoting what is considered to be a very authoritative document. Its recommendation reads, and I will quote it: "Ideally we believe that control should be exercised by a single authority and that authority should be Canada".
In conclusion, turning to the example of Iceland back in 1975, when other countries including Great Britain decided to take them on Icelanders declared that this was a resource that was essential to their livelihood. They brought out their gunboats to substantiate their belief in this and the fact that they would take control of their own resources. I wish to heaven's name we would consider doing the same thing.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has alleged that foreign vessels overfishing in the northwest Atlantic take almost as much fish as Canadians receive in allocations. He has also implied that the government is not serious about proper conservation of fish and the viability of the Atlantic fishing industiy.
While I appreciate the member's sincerity, both of these are far from correct. Groundfishing quotas allocated to Canadian fishermen in 1991 totalled 816 tonnes, including some 49,000 tonnes of groundfish stocks managed by NAFO. This total of Canadian quotas which are fished by Canadians mainly inside the Canadian 200-mile zone is about four times greater than even the highest estimate of what foreign vessels are catching outside 200 miles. The problem of foreign overfishing outside 200 miles is real and serious but should not be blown into fantasy proportions.
The other members of NAFO, including the European Community, received groundfish allocations from NAFO totalling some 81,000 tonnes in 1991. The foreign vessels fish their NAFO quotas mostly outside the Canadian fishing zone, on the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap. These are NAFO-managed stocks.
The problem of foreign overfishing does not occur inside Canada's 200-mile zone. It does not occur because of the quotas set by NAFO outside 200 miles. The overfishing problems occurs only when vessels from several countries choose to fish outside 200 miles in excess of the quotas that are established by NAFO.
October 28, 1991

I am advised that two members of the European Community, Spain and Portugal, as the hon. member has mentioned, are the main overfishing nations and two countries that are not members of NAFO, Panama and Korea, are also major causes of the overfishing problem.
The Government of Canada is very concerned about the overfishing that is taking place in the northwest Atlantic outside the Canadian 200-mile limit and the consequences of this for Atlantic fishing communities, especially in Newfoundland. We have conducted a comprehensive international campaign to eliminate foreign overfishing and are making progress.
The government is making sure people know what is happening in the northwest Atlantic and the consequences of overfishing. Federal and provincial parliamentarians of all parties, technical experts and fishing industry representatives have participated in making this information available.
Canada has also undertaken a legal initiative, including work within the United Nations, to seek a legal basis for international control of high seas fisheries and for
Adjournment Debate
recognition of the special rights and interests of coastal states such as Canada in management and conservation of straddling stocks. Agreement on measures needed to control high seas fisheries is a priority objective for Canada at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development.
We have not yet achieved our goals, as the member points out. We know that foreign vessels are still overfishing outside Canada's fishing zone. We will continue our efforts. The government does not intend to jeopardize future success by permitting Canadian fishermen to overfish, whether inside or outside our zone. The remedy for the fishery failure that occurred this year-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time is over. [Translation]
The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. This House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.17 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 29,1991