1992-06-18

Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I may have inadvertently misinformed the House in reply to a question from the member for Scarborough-Rouge River.
I was asked if the names of CSIS informers are now routinely given to politicians. I replied that the names of CSIS sources are not, in the course of my tenure in the position of Solicitor General, revealed to the Solicitor General.
I have since been advised, and I wish to advise the House, that there have been a very small number of exceptional occasions when the director of the service found it necessary to advise me of the name of a human source.
To the best of my knowledge, based on a review with my officials, no person who is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident has ever been named to me as a source.
I would also like to assure the House that I have never asked the director of CSIS for the name of a CSIS source.
In the very few cases when the director has found it necessary to provide me with the name of a source, those cases were related to instances of sources who had provided valuable service to Canada and my being informed of their names was necessary for administrative reasons.
I regret the inconvenience to the House but I want to reassure the House that names of CSIS sources are not routinely provided to the Solicitor General or to politicians.


HEALTH AND WELFARE, SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SENIORS AND THE STATUS OF WOMEN FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women entitled Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, Preventable Tragedy.
Your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 109.


NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs on Canada and security in Europe.
During both world wars and throughout the cold war, Canadian servicemen were actively involved in protecting freedom and democracy in Europe. Now that the cold war is over, it is only normal that Canadians continue to care about security in Europe.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact totally disrupted the political and military scene in Europe and offers the prospect of sustainable peace. However, the tragic situation in Yugoslavia as well as ethnic tensions in the former Soviet republics show that the Soviet threat having disappeared does not in itself preserve peace.

June 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Governments and people are increasingly aware of the fact that security is not a military matter any more and that attention must be paid to economic development and environmental management.
While recognizing that Canada must maintain its active membership within NATO, we recommend that Canada continue to take an active part in the CSCE process and to help build up its conflict prevention centre. We also recommend that Canada join forces with other members of the international community to help the former Soviet republics and eastern European countries dismantle their nuclear arsenal and rebuild their economies. If there is to be sustainable peace in Europe, Canada and the international community as a whole must support these young democracies not only in word, but with positive actions.


Mr. Brewin:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 35(2) reads:
(2) Upon presentation of a report accompanied by supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), a committee member of the Official Opposition representing those who supported the opinion or opinions expressed in the appended material may also rise to give a succinct explanation thereof.
I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary, to the House leader for the government and to the official critic for the Official Opposition. I have a brief dissenting opinion and I understood-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I must ask for unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
The committee is presenting an interim report on some of the issues considered during recent hearings on the subject of aboriginal people with disabilities.
This report is also available in audio cassette format from the clerk of the committee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
In accordance with its general mandate under Standing Order 108(2), your committee has considered the question of conditions in the former republics of the Soviet Union and reports its findings and recommendations.


THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Hon. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, in accordance with its general mandate under Standing Order 108(2).
The Subcommittee on Development and Human Rights of the standing committee has considered the question of South and southern Africa and the Canadian policy post apartheid. It reports its findings and recommendations to the government and asks for a report within 150 days.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations.
The report deals with conflicts between provincially registered trade names and federally registered trademarks. The committee hopes its recommendations will serve to reduce and eventually eliminate such conflicts so that small and medium sized businesses will be free to use their business and corporate names without fearing the possibility of an action for trademark infringement.
June 18, 1992

The committee requests that the government table a response in accordance with Standing Order 109.


BILL C-42 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-42, an act respecting the protection of certain species of wild animals and plants and the regulation of international and interprovincial trade in those species.
The title was changed from an act respecting the protection of certain species of wild animals and plants, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]


COPYRIGHT ACT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to amend the Copyright Act.


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


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical bill seeking to amend the Copyright Act. It will modernize the outdated definition of a musical work.
This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the new transmission rights created at the same time as the implementation of the free trade agreement. It is urgent that the clarification be made through the wording of the act that any musical composition, with or without words, is a musical work regardless of its physical attributes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Beatty moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
Routine Proceedings INVESTMENT CANADA ACT


MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-89, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted with recommendations.
Mr. Loiselle moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RENAMING ACT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-353, an act to rename unemployment insurance.


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


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the term unemployment insurance by replacing it with the more positive term employment insurance in all federal statutes and regulations or other texts made thereunder. Using of this new terminology would be more in line with recent trends in government policy and should be seen as reflecting a more progressive and positive approach.
Mr. Speaker, I may add that this change does not in any way affect the tenor or substance of existing statutes but will stress the use of a term that is more positive than the one in current use.
In concluding, I would like to point out that this bill reflects the views and expectations expressed by many Canadians in the course of prosperity consultations held in my own riding and elsewhere in this country.

June 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Robitaille	AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS
moves that the bill be now read the first time and	MATTERS) ACT
printed.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is „	„
deemed adopted.	Hon. Gules Loiselle (for Minister of Transport) moved
that Bill S-ll, an act to amend the Airport Transfer Bill read the first time and printed.	(Miscellaneous Matters) Act, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-354, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act.


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


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise and table my private members' bill, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act, which has been seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North and has been co-sponsored by 15 members of the Alberta caucus.
The bill amends the Young Offenders Act to reduce the maximum age for a person to be considered a young offender to 15 and by providing that young offenders who have been twice convicted of indictable offences be tried in adult court.
I truly look forward to the second reading of this bill when many of the concerns of Albertans and all Canadians can be brought forward. Only by working together can solutions be found.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mrs. Sparrow moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING SHOP CANADA DAY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to seek unanimous consent today for the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should proclaim
Saturday, July 4,1992, Shop Canada Day to keep consumer dollars in
Canada and to support Canadian retailers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no agreement.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from many Albertans residing in several communities of southern Alberta petitioning the House of Commons on the question of the Young Offenders Act. They are requesting the Young Offenders Act be updated with a lowered minimum age.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition with hundreds of names from Levis and Mascouche, Quebec; Trenton, Nova Scotia; Beaton, Ontario; Medicine Hat, Alberta; Moncton, New Brunswick and many other areas.
June 18, 1992

The petition draws the attention of the House to the following: That thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line; that over 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 years of age live in poverty; that the 37 cent increase in old age security pensions in 1992 is inadequate to meet the needs of many Canadian seniors; that it is desirable for all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that Canadian old age security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition certified pursuant to Standing Order 36 and it is signed by many residents of Calgary and other areas of Alberta.
These petitioners, in memory of Ryan Garrioch, draw to the attention of Parliament the following: That the majority of Canadians support equal treatment of criminal offenders but with legislated age shelters from criminal law for very young adolescents and that chapter 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality rights.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to have the opportunity pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of many people from my riding.
They make the statement that every day 12 Canadian women die of breast cancer and this year 5,000 women will die of it. They expect the numbers to increase.
They are asking for new research dollars to find the cause and cure for breast cancer. They are asking the government to develop partnerships with health care industries, university researchers, service providers and government agencies.
They are asking that the government put this as a policy priority and are hoping this will advance soon.
Routine Proceedings GOODS AND SERVICES TAX


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions which are signed by over 500 people from my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby, from the lower mainland area of Vancouver, Ontario, Montreal, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, from virtually every region of the country.
This petition says that since the goods and services tax is applied to feminine sanitary products such as tampons and pads, and since these products are necessities for women between puberty and menopause, and since the government has decided that the goods and services tax should not apply to certain foods because they are necessities, the petitioners call on Parliament to consider removing the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.
This petition is of particular concern to me for the following reasons. Two Canadian citizens have been held in prison in San Jose, Costa Rica for the past 40 months without trial.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to make a formal request of the Government of Costa Rica to act within the boundaries of its constitution and as a member of the International Human Rights Commission to proceed with the trial for the Canadian citizens, Jana Zmic and Leonard Zmic. Jana Zmic's sister, Roni Arseneault, is a constituent of mine. I am pleased and ask Parliament to follow up with this petition.


Lynn Hunter: The second petition I wish to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 is in relation to the prospect of a referendum.
The 36 petitioners call upon Parliament to accept a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments with two stipulations, a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.

June 18, 1992
Routine Proceedings YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 83 constituents from the city of Calgary who petition this House in memory of Ryan Garrioch, the 13-year old who was stabbed to death in my riding some few weeks ago.
His parents are with us today. They have circulated a petition across the country that already has 150,000 signatures requesting that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions today, pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition is from residents of the province of Ontario. They are petitioning the Government of Canada to rescind its decision with regard to the Court Challenges Program and call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate this program forthwith, thereby giving Canadians the opportunity to make legal interventions on behalf of minority groups and disability groups across this country.
The second petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, is signed by residents from the great province of Nova Scotia, in particular from Sydney and Church Point, Nova Scotia. They too call upon the Government of Canada to rescind its decision with regard to the Court Challenges Program, thereby reinstating this very worthwhile program which has enabled Canadians, particularly disabled Canadians and minority groups to petition and to make legal interventions.


Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 175 residents in the town of Sheho in my riding of Yorkton-Melville who are facing the closure of their post office.
The petition reads: "Whereas our national postal service is an essential link between rural residents and our friends, our families and business contacts; and whereas rural post offices are not only the heart of rural communities, but often the only federal presence; and whereas Canada Post and the federal government are closing rural post offices across the country; and whereas this is unfair to rural communities and unnecessary given
Canada Post's annual profit statements; wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament"-and this is the key part-"to ensure that the Canada Post Office in Sheho, Saskatchewan, remains intact with a permanent postmaster or postmistress and staff and appropriate personnel".
This is a very important issue to 175 people in a small village in my riding.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is an honour to present a petition with 63 names from constituents of my riding of Okanagan Centre.
The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject constitutional amendments proposed by the government and also to enact legislation providing for the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by the majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of a single province.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in offering signatures in support of a petition that was explained earlier today, that the majority of Canadians support equal treatment of criminal offenders, but with legislated age shelters from criminal law for very young offenders.
I am pleased to have been asked to present these petitions to the House of Commons today. They are totalling up in the hundreds of thousands and are at
150,000	already. I am sure there will be support from all members of Parliament in seeing something done about this.


Mr. Ronald J. Dubamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my first petition deals with petitioners from Nova Scotia who ask that the goods and services tax on books and reading materials be removed. They point out that there has been no such tax on books and reading materials since the founding of the nation. They believe it is contrary to democratic principles and objectives such as enhanced competitiveness and increased productivity.
June 18, 1992


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition represents petitioners from Alberta who point out that the merging of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council is dysfunctional at this particular point in time. They note that Canada's greatest challenges are really in the social sciences area. They identify domestic violence, environmental problems and problems of abuse as those that are best dealt with by the council.
The petitioners ask that this decision be deferred, that there be consultation and then a decision made.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my final petition is from petitioners from Manitoba who ask that Parliament monitor very closely the work of the CRTC with respect to the use of foul language on radio and television. They point out it is not necessary for informing or entertaining and that it is often contrary to the basic efforts on the part of the family to raise the children.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, containing several dozen names, stating the following: "We the undersigned residents of Canada, in memory of Ryan Garrioch, draw to the attention of Parliament the following: That the majority of Canadians support equal treatment of criminal offenders but with legislated age shelters from criminal law for very young adolescents. Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated juvenile delinquents act with a lowered maximum age of 13 years."


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three petitions. The first petition is signed by some 106 petitioners mostly from my constituency of
Routine Proceedings
Kootenay West-Revelstoke, including all of the cities and many of the villages.
The petition draws attention to an application to divert Canadian waters from the North Thompson River near Belmont to sell in San Diego, California. It points out that under the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Tirade Agreement the export of bulk water from Canada to the U.S. would enshrine Canada's obligation to maintain such exports even in the event of domestic water shortages.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S. A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.
I should just add those feelings are exacerbated by the recent draw-downs of the Kootenay and Arrow Lakes to make up for water shortfalls south of the border.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The second petition is signed by 58 signatories from communities throughout my constituency. The petitioners point out that the goods and services tax is applied to feminine sanitary products.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider removing the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from 56 petitioners from communities throughout my riding, including Rossland, Edgewood, Nelson and Argenta.
The undersigned residents draw the attention of the House to the following: that there has been a promise from the government to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates for three years; that the recent cumulative increases to UI premiums are unfair and insensitive to small business during hard economic times; that further job losses due to business closures would further impair the chances for a full economic recovery.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to freeze unemployment insurance premium rates for one year.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations. As you are aware, the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte also put in an application. Our preference would be that the hon. member be allowed to put his first.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the House. Yesterday, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte gave me notice of an application for an emergency debate. I have received today an application from another member on the same issue. I will hear the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, if he wishes to be heard.
I understand the courtesy of the hon. member for inviting the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte to speak first, but under the rules of this place I am bound to hear the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the hon. member indicate to the House that he was relinquishing his place to my colleague from Newfoundland. Is that not acceptable to the Chair? I seek the guidance of the Chair on that. Perhaps we need the-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. House leader and I could discuss the matter privately, but I have made the decision and I am afraid we have to stick to it.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, as you said, yesterday I gave notice that I wished to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of debating an urgent issue, namely the failure of the northern cod fishery.
The collapse of this economic mainstay of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia represents an economic crisis for dozens of communities and thousands of people. These Canadians urgently require an indication of the kind of short and long-term strategies the government will employ to deal with this crisis. The imminent summer recess will diminish the ability of these Canadians to speak to government through their representatives, therefore I request that we adjourn the House to debate this important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan has raised essentially the same question that was raised yesterday by the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I know-and I want to say this to the House-that the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte today supports the position of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.
As I said yesterday, it seems to me obvious to all hon. members that this matter is a very serious one. Yesterday I advised that I had listened very carefully to the exchange in the House in Question Period with respect to this. I am going to do that again today.
I am not prepared at this time to order the proceedings of the House be adjourned for an emergency debate, but I am saying both to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan and the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe- Baie Verte, and to other members who come from Newfoundland and Labrador and other members who are very concerned about this, that I am paying very close attention to the exchanges in the House on this very serious matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I move:
That in relation to Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill, and that 15 minutes before the expiry of time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted if required for the purpose of this order and in turn every question necessary in order to dispose of this stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that I was unable to be on time for the vote. Had I been here when you put the question, I would have voted with my party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the previous question at third reading stage of Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and Pension Benefits Division Act.


PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts in relation to pensions and to enact the Special Retirement Arrangements Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, be read the third time and passed, and the amendment of Mr. Edwards.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with calling in the members?


Some hon. members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we are clearly ready to proceed immediately but I am wondering, as there were noes, we might go a little quicker than normal and not have the full 15 minute bell. Is that agreeable? As soon as those who are required are here we can proceed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The answer is no. Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please rise. On a point of order, the hon. government Whip.
Government Orders


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House might be disposed to take the vote that we have just taken and apply it to this.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid I heard a no.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and on the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p. 10744).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When Bill C-73 was last before the House there were seven minutes
remaining in the question and comment period following the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words concerning this particular legislation before the House. Of course it is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act in the name of the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
The motion made by the official critic for the opposition is that this bill be read six months hence. In other words, that it just simply be thrown into the garbage can for this particular session. The actual wording "six months hence" is the wording that has been adopted under the British parliamentary system going back to Westminster in Erskine May and repeated in Beau-chesne and then in the Standing Orders, a custom I believe that goes back to 1622, which says you would not look at the bill again, that it be ripped up and discarded by members of the House of Commons.
I have had an opportunity in the last couple of moments to examine very carefully the wording of this legislation. Nowhere in the legislation before the Chamber dealing with Canada Post does it talk about service to Canadians. Nowhere in the bill does it talk about the time it takes for a letter or a parcel to get from point A to point B in Canada or internationally. Nowhere in the bill does it talk about lost mail. We have an incredible number of cases. We have seen a substantial increase in the number of complaints from people who mail letters in this country that are never received at the other end.
We have had a substantial increase in the number of students who complain that their applications to university, their registration for university and their requests for the syllabus and entrance information are being lost in the mail.
We have a lot of complaints from senior citizens who say that their letters never reach the destination written on the front of the envelope. Of course, we see Canada Post then coming back and saying: "Oh, no, we have got all these statistics that say we have a better service in Canada than we ever had before" and within two days a letter will go to its destination in another part of this country.
June 18, 1992

Of course Canada Post forgets to point out that is for letters that have a typewritten front, exactly in the middle of the envelope, done by machine, certainly not written by some senior citizen or some person in a very rural area of Canada who does not have a computer in their front living room to address their envelopes.
None of these subjects are addressed in this bill. Here we are in the House of Commons debating Canada Post and nowhere in the bill does it talk about service to Canadians. In fact, it does not talk about letters at all, it does not talk about parcels, does not talk about stamps, does not talk about the closed post offices. Once upon a time in our rural areas in Canada we had the one public building in a community which was the post office, and that is where all the business was transacted. That was the centre of activity for the community. In fact, that is the place in a lot of communities where the cheques were changed. It was the banking centre, it was the community centre, it was the place with the Canadian flag on the pole.
That has changed drastically since this government was elected, because there has been an intentional effort, of course, to close post offices and to replace them with these supermailboxes where you have to dig your way into it in the snow. It did, I must admit, provide de-icing fluid for some of the locks a couple of years ago.
Nowhere in this bill that the House of Commons is debating today, and the government just brought in a motion of closure, nowhere in this bill that has been dealt with by a committee of the House of Commons, nowhere in this bill that will now be dealt with by the Senate, is there one word about those matters which affect Canadians when they think about Canada Post. In fact, there is nothing in this bill that any ordinary Canadian would even talk about if you brought up the words Canada Post or if you brought up anything.
Words in this bill deal with such things as redeemable shares, beneficial ownership, security interest, and so on. This bill deals with shares of corporations. This bill deals with the kind of language that Canadians have come to expect from the Canadian House of Commons since this government was elected. This deals with the kinds of things that cause the Government of Canada in dealing with corporations and corporate shares to change the law in Canada in December, just before Christmas, and now
Government Orders
it is a law in Canada today that all of the shares that are held in private trusts that are capital assets will not be taxable for another 30 years. That bill, which meant for the richest of Canadians, the biggest corporations in Canada with tens of billions of dollars held, escaping the capital gains tax, that will be able to be deferred for another 30 years while ordinary Canadians have to pay the GST.
That is the kind of language in this bill. The kind of language in this bill of corporate shares and corporate interests was the same language as was in the bill that defined corporate entertainment under the Income Thx Act, which means that now escort services in Canada are tax deductible. That is the kind of language you would see in this bill, the kind of language that the Government of Canada is interested in, and that is corporate shares, corporate policies.
Do not forget all of these corporate people who receive their $15,000 and $20,000 Christmas bonuses, what they call productivity bonuses, approved by this Government of Canada. That is the type of thing you would see, the types of phrases that are used in this legislation.
What is the government doing bringing in this legislation dealing with the post office? It is a good question. Why tie up the House of Commons, the Senate, printing, and everybody else talking about Canada Post when all you are doing is talking about shares and assets? You are not talking about letters, parcels, post offices, service to Canadians, people or anything like hat.
What is the government doing tying up the House with a bill like this? You would not understand half of this bill if you tried to read it. As a former law clerk of a provincial legislature, I must say I have difficulty following the blooming thing.
As I finish reading it, I still do not understand the purpose of this bill. You can read the speeches of the Government of Canada and they say nothing. What it says is "we are going to give shares of Canada Post"-the post office-"to employees".
It sounds okay on the surface of it. It is the thing to do in corporations in Canada today. Give shares to employees. Sounds like an admirable thing to do, a great thing to do I suppose until you look at what they are doing. The shares are not defined.

Government Orders
I will tell you one thing that is defined that I found rather interesting. I will have to read it out to put it on the record. It says here: that the shares are non-voting shares.
Why on earth would you give shares to people if they are non-voting shares? What are you afraid of? The hon. member says dividends from a corporation that lost $100 million dollars last year. Ha, ha, ha. Funny. Very interesting. Oh boy, what a rationale that is. Dividends.
I will tell you why they are non-voting shares. The Government of Canada is afraid that ordinary people, employees, would actually have a say in the running of the corporation. That is the real reason for this definition of non-voting shares.
I would suggest that when the minister stands up on third reading of this bill, he tells us how many similar situations there are where employees have shares of a company which are non-voting shares. I would bet that it would be about 1 in 10. Then, of course, there is the restriction. They can only own up to 10 per cent of the corporation in question.
I support the motion tabled in this Chamber to have this bill read six months hence. In six years, says the hon. member for Miramichi. Let us make it six decades. How about that? That would even be better because I have never ever read such a lot of language that means absolutely nothing.
Of course I cannot at second reading go into some of this exact language, but I can assure members that it means nothing. The actual decisions under this bill will be made by future ministers and the Minister of Finance on the approval of the President of the Treasury Board on the establishment of bylaws by the board of the corporation; if you can figure that one out.
That is what Canada Post is now spending its time on, an act to amend the the Canada Post Corporation Act. It is not spending its time looking at the numbers of letters that are lost in the mail, not spending its time looking at the needs of rural Canadians, not spending its time paying attention to the closing of the post office in Joe Batt's Arm.
Oh, no, it is spending its time on redeemable shares, security interests, and beneficial ownerships. In all of it Canada Post says that the employees could only own 10
per cent of the total amount of shares available. The shares will be non-votable shares and under this bill there will not be a dollar value placed on the shares. What a bill.


An hon. member:: And they are in the hole any way.


George Baker: They are in the hole any way. I hope all members of this Chamber will support the motion put forward by the Official Opposition, meaning the Liberals, soon to be the government of this country after the next federal election. I hope everybody will support this motion, shelve this bill, and say to the Government of Canada: "Look, for goodness' sake, get back and sign a deal with your employees. They haven't had a contract in three years, come next month", instead of dealing with shares, with capital ownership and with corporate dividends.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague on this shemozzle that is now called the post office. In his area of the country were the rural post offices tom out and thrown away? Were the people who went to meetings given any kind of rational approach to what the post office is doing? Did they send out these PR people with packaged information, or disinformation I should say, and try to come up with a scheme whereby they would have the people completely confused? I know that is what has happened in my own riding. It made no difference what we said, what kind of argument we put. They were programmed and that was the only answer we could get from them.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that I should have dealt with it. I want to thank the hon. member from Miramichi who has sat in the House, I can recall, since 1974. He knows the post office inside out. He knows the basic requirements of the rural areas of Canada. Once upon a time we had a railway in those rural areas. We had Air Canada in those rural areas. We certainly do not have them landing. We have lost the federal presence in the air. We have lost it on the ground. We have lost the post offices in our rural areas.
The truth of the matter is that before Canada Post makes a decision on the closure of post offices it gives a list of those closures to the Government of Canada and the Government of Canada approves the list. The government can say it does not approve of the list but it certainly does not disapprove of the list. What is on that
June 18, 1992

list is finished. It is gone. We can go through all the procedures we want; it is gone. The post office is closed. The building is gone. The flag is gone. The job is gone, in many cases several jobs. In some cases it is more than one job; it is several jobs that are gone from a rural area. One other thing that is gone is service. The service is gone.
I do not care how many surveys they come up with, the government and Canada Post Corporation, which say that it takes x number of days for a letter to get from point a to point b. I can assure the House that is not the case.
I do not know how those figures are compiled. We had better service in Newfoundland when we had the mail on the Newfie bullet. When the Newfie bullet was operating and stopped at every little settlement, we could put our mail on the Newfie bullet one day in St. John's and have it taken off the same day in Gander, Newfoundland. In fact I believe the service was better even before the Newfie bullet when we had the dog team. I can remember when we had a dog team service in the community that I was living in. There was better service for Newfoundlanders at that time. I imagine we could go back to the pony express.


An hon. member:: The government has gone to the dogs.


George Baker: The service has gone to the dogs, I can tell you that.
It does not make any difference how we send a letter. I have had cases recently of students who have run out of time to register at university because the money they sent in the mail, the mail order, was lost or the letter of registration was lost. We have had countless numbers of cases of this.
People have come to the conclusion that it is just not safe to put a letter in the mail any more and count on it getting to the place it is being sent to on time. Instead of two days between provinces in actual fact it is over a week.
In answer to the hon. member's question, our service has deteriorated, and what does Canada Post do? It gets the Government of Canada to come up with this bill that
Government Orders
talks about giving shares in the corporation to employees as a good PR gesture and saying: "Boys and girls, look, we are going to allow you to get 10 per cent of this corporation, but we won't make it voting shares because you might have a say in the corporation. We won't give you a contract. You haven't had a contract for three years. We are going to give you 10 per cent of the shares. Actually we are not going to give it to you. We are going to sell it to you and we are going to come up with the amount of money you are going to have to pay later".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to follow the member from Gander-Grand Falls, one of the more expressive and dramatic members of the House. However I did not know the Liberal Party wanted the postal service to go back to the dogs. He was saying it was much more efficient when the dogs did it back in Newfoundland many years ago. I also did not realize that the member was that old, unless I am mistaken about when dogs were used in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
In any event I support the motion before the House to give this a six-month hoist. It is not a good bill. I am sure my rural colleagues in the Conservative Party agree as well. Even my friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore probably agrees it is not a great bill. Therefore let us give it a hoist. Let us give it a study.
The government wants to sell off up to 10 per cent of the shares in the post office to the employees. I think that would be the first step toward privatization of the post office. I do not really want to set up a modem-day version of the pony express in this country.
The post office is in place to act as a service to all Canadians regardless of where we live. I know you, Mr. Speaker, as a very distinguished Chair of this House would agree, coming from rural Alberta, that we cannot privatize the post office in this country. It must remain a Crown corporation. It has been a Crown corporation ever since it began, supported by a number of Conservative governments over the years.
To open the door, to start to privatize the post office of this country, is a mistake. We have seen it happen with Air Canada. We have seen it happen with other Crown corporations. The government now is trying to do the same thing in Bill C-73, the bill that is before the House today.

Government Orders
I appeal to the backbenchers of the Conservative Party to stand up and speak out on behalf of their constituents. I even know the government Whip from Calgary probably in his heart of hearts is veiy upset-and he has a big heart-that his government would open the door to privatizing the post office. I do not know why he supports the bill. Maybe it is the Reform Party in Calgary giving him the nudge. It wants to privatize absolutely everything.
I hope he will get up and speak his mind on this bill and help those of us in the opposition fight for the ordinary Canadians to keep the post office as a service to all of Canada.
I rise mainly because I wanted to put on the record the facts regarding the post office as it pertains to my riding of Yorkton-Melville in rural Saskatchewan. We have recently had the closure of rural post office after rural post office. In fact since 1984, when the government across the way took office, we have had 174 post offices close in the province of Saskatchewan. In less than eight years of Conservative government 174 post offices have closed their doors. Another 37 are being reviewed.
In many of those cases the people of the local towns have rebelled; they have petitioned, they have called meetings, they have lobbied to have their post office remain open. However, we have had a government which has not been receptive, which has not listened to what the people in those communities have said.
The post offices closed in my riding since the Conservatives came to power are in the following centres: in the small community of Arran, which serves the northeastern part of my riding; the small community of Danbury, which is now the home of the newly elected MLA Ron Harper, from the riding of Felly; the small community of Okla; the community of Togo; the community of Orkney; the village of Runneymede; the village of Waldron; and again to a larger centre, the town of Saltcoats, where several hundred people live in a thriving community, the post office has closed down; the village of Stornoway; the small town of Dubuc.
Some members across the way will remember the campaign by the people in the village of Dubuc. About two years ago a delegation came down to Ottawa. They came before a parliamentary committee and made their case. They got national news stories and a lot of stories in Saskatchewan about their fight for the preservation of the Dubuc post office, in that case a very well-kept building. People wanted unanimously to keep it open. They did not want a retail postal outlet, a RPO, but the government failed to listen, they failed to respond.
The towns of Tantallon, Lintlaw, Spy Hill, White-spruce and Mikado have all lost their post offices since 1984. Those are the towns in my riding that have lost their post offices.
In addition to closures, we now have a number of post offices being reviewed in terms of whether or not they should remain open: the towns of Gerald, Bredenbury, MacNutt, Springside, and the large town of Kamsack, which has a population of about 3,000 people. The government is now reviewing the post office with the possibility of closing it down.
I mentioned Sheho. Just today in the House I tabled a petition signed by 174 people from the town of Sheho. That is roughly the same number of people who are patrons of the post office and they are asking the federal government to keep the post office open. I hope that the postmaster general will do something quite extraordinary, listen to the people of these small communities and keep the post offices open.
In addition to that, roughly a year ago the city of Yorkton, a city of 18,000 people, lost its post office. It is one of the largest centres in the country to lose a post office: a city the size of Yorkton with around 18,000. In my riding, we have had a reduction of hours in the town of Churchbridge, the town of Langenburg, the town of Theodore; in all cases causing concern to the local people who are served by the post offices in these towns.
Members across the way will say, what about the RPOs, the retail postal outlets? If they were to go around in rural Saskatchewan in my riding, they would find that the residents are pretty well unanimous in wanting to keep the post office, and are speaking out to keep that facility.
I will give members three examples of letters I received recently. A person who is the postmaster in the town of Goodeve, Mrs. Evelyn Lutz, writes: "Our community has many elderly people and to take away the
June 18, 1992

post office from this village would be devastating". Mrs. Lutz makes a very good point.
As you go around the prairies, and you are from the prairies, Mr. Speaker, you know that in the small towns and in the villages of prairie Canada, we have a lot of senior citizens. The average age of some of these small hamlets, towns and villages would be up in the upper fifties or sixties or perhaps even older. You can sometimes go down a street and you think that the only people living in a small village are people that are on retirement. There is the occasional family with small children. It is these older people that need the postal service.
That postal service is a very important aspect of culture in this country in terms of popular culture. People gather at the post office. They meet then-neighbours at the post office. It is the centre of communication and the centre of activity in the community. It knits together and holds together these small communities.
I remember when the people of Dubuc were fighting for their post office. They made the point and it is still true. Often in small towns, the only place you will see the Canadian flag flying is over the post office. That is the only federal presence in a small town or a small village. When they closed down the Dubuc post office a couple of years ago, down came the Canadian flag, the only explicit federal presence that we had.
Now with the crisis facing this country, we need more flags flying. We need more of a federal presence. We need more of Canada in all parts of Canada. Instead, the federal government is tearing it down, piece by piece, flag by flag, post office by post office. The people out there notice and they are worried about it.
In terms of the cost, a lot of these post offices are very efficient: city of Yorkton, 18,000 people; Kamsack under review, 3,000 people. Many towns of 500, 600 people have a good, efficient post office. When I say 500 or 600 people I mean in the town or the village there are 500 or 600 people but the surrounding farms will add maybe another 100 or 200 people. The community is one that is large enough to service a post office economically and efficiently.
The second constituent that has written to me recently is Jean Barteski, from the town of Invermay. I hope the member from Toronto who is concerned about retail postal outlets, the RPOs, who is sitting in the back bench, will listen. Ms. Barteski says: "The switch to retail outlets is helping destroy rural Canada. Let us put a stop to-"
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hughes):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Halton-Peel.


Mr. Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not wish to be identified as the member from Toronto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hughes):: Perhaps the member from Saskatchewan can carry on with his speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member from Ontario, let us say. What Jean Barteski was saying was that the switch to retail outlets is helping destroy rural Canada. Let us put a stop to post office closures.
Finally, I have a letter from Mr. Glen Smith of Saltcoats. He says in his letter: "Quite a number have been closed in our riding and one supposes the rest are at risk in Saskatchewan. Rural Canada needs these jobs and this federal presence".
Once again, here is a gentleman talking about the federal presence disappearing because of the closure of the post office. The flag is gone, the federal presence is gone, the community gathering point is gone, the service is deteriorating, the consistency of the hours is not necessarily there. The fact that we will lose jobs is also a key point.
All of these rural post offices have a postmaster or a postmistress. They all need a back-up person, part-time help, and it is a real asset to a small village, town or hamlet to have a few extra part-time jobs in terms of the economics of the community.
Often it is one family with children who go to school. It provides extra economic input into a small community. With the closure of the post offices it is gone.
Finally I want to say that if one looks at the statistics we find that in this country since 1984 there have been 1,239 post offices closed. One hundred and seventy-four of those have been in the province of Saskatchewan, roughly 15 per cent for a province that has around 4 per cent of the population of Canada.
If we add the number of post offices closed and those under review, there are now 1,595 closed or under review across this country. Two hundred and thirty-one of those are in my province of Saskatchewan, again a much greater share than we should have in accordance with our proportion of the population in Canada.
I cannot agree to support this bill. It is a bad bill. The post office has failed miserably in providing a decent and reliable service to the people of this country.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
The whole objective of the post office is to run at a profit. It is the wrong priority, the wrong objective. First and foremost the post office should be a service to all people in this country, regardless of whether we come from a large city, a small town, a farm or a fishing village in Newfoundland, it must be a service to the people of this country, provided at the same cost for every citizen of Canada. That is the whole philosophy behind the post office and behind a postal stamp.
With those words I want to encourage the House to hoist and defeat this bill. It is not good for Canada. Hopefully the Conservative Party will join us in making sure this bill is done away with. It is a bad bill for the country.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for York-ton-Melville for his remarks here today. Quite frankly, I have not heard him talk so passionately about a federal presence. I am not saying he has not done so before, but this is something I share his views on, from the flag to the Canada word mark, and all the points he made about how the government has dismantled these symbols. I cannot argue with that.
My concern is that this approach to privatization or this approach to earnings per quarter versus public service is absolutely wrong. I am concerned that it is moving beyond things like Air Canada, VIA Rail and the post office into almost every department in this government.
I think specifically of the direction our constitutional debate is taking, where we are starting to take the federal presence out of some of our other areas of responsibility like tourism and housing. We are pushing it away, retreating from national governments. One of the things that has galvanized the will of this country over many, many years is the fact that we have had a national postal service and an airline service, the fact that it was not just Tourism Ontario or Tourism B.C., it
was Tourism Canada, soon to be abolished or pushed off again to the provinces.
My question is does the member not see that this dismantling of national services, national departments, is really going to mean that those regions of our country, smaller provinces or smaller regions, rural Canada, et cetera, are going to be the big losers in this government's thrust?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it really tears the country apart. We have had a dismantling of several national institutions: Canada Post, VIA Rail, the railway across this country, the down-scaling of CBC, other national institutions as well, and the privatization of Air Canada. All of these things have led to the dismantling of this country and to the alienation of Canadians from a central government, from the country of Canada itself. This really concerns me.
I mentioned today a whole series of post offices in my riding of Yorkton-Melville. The same is true of the abandonment of railways, the CNR and the CPR, which served all kinds of small towns. There used to be a connection there of the country east and west and that is disappearing very rapidly. It also ties into the trade deal where the east-west links are no longer as relevant, where again it is north and south. I am afraid the same thing will be happening with the signing of the NAFTA agreement, the free trade agreement with Mexico in terms of giving up a lot of of our sovereignty.
What we are seeing here is less of Canada pulling together. We seem to have more of a feeling in this country that we should have 10 little fiefdoms or kingdoms of provinces doing more and more things by themselves.
The point I make, and maybe people in the bigger cities have not thought of this before, but often the post office-and my friend from Nova Scotia knows because he has small towns in his riding-is the only building in town with the Canadian flag. The older people in particular are really proud of the presence of that flag. Mr. Speaker, on your right you have a Canadian flag. I was here on the day about 15 years ago when we decided to put the flag in the House of Commons. When you go to Dubuc and Springside and all those little towns in my
June 18, 1992

riding, that flag is gone. What is left? You have a few garages, a cafe, a few stores, a service station, a Saskatchewan government insurance office and a school that flies the Saskatchewan flag, but where is the Canadian flag? It is gone.
The other thing I said that I want to repeat is that for these small towns and communities, particularly on a Saturday morning, the post office is a centre of activity. Fanners and villagers come in and meet their friends, neighbours and family. Often, as a member of Parliament, not just in campaigns but other times as well, when I want to meet people and get a sounding and a feeling for the community, I go on a Saturday morning or any other morning of the week and stand in front of the local post office and meet the people. It is amazing how in a couple of hours you can meet just dozens and dozens if not hundreds of people. It is an activity they look forward to.
My father and mother live in the small town of Wynyard, Saskatchewan with a population of about 2,700. My father is now just a bit over 80 years old and he still enjoys going down every single day to the post office. That is where he meets most of his friends, gets most of the news, exchanges points of view and keeps in touch. It is an activity and a thing to do. It is like a community centre where people can meet. That is gone. It is gone and if this government gets its way it will be gone and gone, not just for 1,200 or 1,400 communities I have mentioned in this country, in fact there are 1,239 that have had their post offices closed since 1984, but it will be gone for the other hundreds of rural communities that are still hanging on in a very fragile way to the post office that is serving them.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the period of time that we conducted about a six-month study into pretty well all the facets of Canada Post. We wrestled with a great number of the issues which have been raised during this debate. We heard from delegations from places like Dubuc, Saskatchewan, from corporate competitors of Canada Post, from labour people, from virtually anyone who has anything to do with
Government Orders
Canada Post. We issued a series of recommendations as a result of that.
Having gone through that whole process, I can see through the rhetoric of a lot of what has been said in this House, particularly by the last two speakers. There is a lot of rhetoric surrounding the culture and the mythology of Canada Post. There are the absolute statements which are made in this House that service has been diminished, that there are fewer points of service for individual Canadians to access the postal service.
I would like to put on the record that in fact there are more points of service because of the move to retail postal outlets from corporate outlets than there were prior to that program starting. There are actually more places today than before where Canadians can access postal service, just as there are more addresses now being serviced by Canada Post in total. The level of service has actually gone up. Statistically we can prove that.
As far as the rural post office fulfilling a role as a community drop-in centre, I am not sure that as a Canadian taxpayer that is necessarily how I want my tax dollars spent, providing a community drop-in centre in* number of thousands of communities across this country. I thought we were talking about postal service, delivering letters, the cost and efficiency of dispatching our mail. That is what Canada Post is supposed to do, not provide drop-in centres.
In terms of the federal presence, I will grant members opposite that the diminution of the federal post office presence in small communities does, in fact, remove some of the national elements, the national fabric, the national presence. There is some validity to that argument and I will accept that. However, I am not sure at what price that needs to be maintained. I am not sure that the gross inefficiencies of a lot of rural post offices are really worth making the whole system less efficient simply to have a Canadian flag in that community. Maybe there are better ways we can do it, more effective ways.
My feeling is if we have to force nationalism, if the Government of Canada has to go into Dubuc, Saskatchewan to put up a Canadian flag, and if there will not be a Canadian flag flying in that community unless Ottawa goes and does it, then our country is in a lot worse trouble than maybe a lot of us even think.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I would like to have the member's thoughts on that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suppose our country is in a fair amount of trouble. It is going through a real crisis right now in terms of unity.
The point that I made is it is not just the flag. The post office is the only federal institution, the only federal presence in a small community, and once that is gone it is gone. I think that is a point we should take into consideration.
In terms of efficiency, a lot of these post offices are efficient. Some are in very small hamlets and very, very small villages where they have to be subsidized. Again, should people be penalized because they live in a small village or a small hamlet or on a farm that is serviced by a small village or a small hamlet? I do not think they should be penalized. I think they should be subsidized to get the same kind of service people are getting in the rest of the country.
That being said, a lot of these post offices are efficient, are making money, are in larger communities, have modem facilities and are being run in a very competent way. In my own riding, for example, as I said already, the town of Kamsack with over 3,000 people plus in a large rural community, has many, many, many hundreds of patrons. It is an operation that is efficient or should be efficient because the economy of scale is there. There is no reason to close that. The people of the town want that particular post office. The same is true of many other communities in my riding and right across the country, communities that are large enough to have efficient operations that are a service to the community.
In terms of the member from across the way from Ontario, when he talks about the drop-in centre or the community centre aspect of the post office, if he understood rural Canada he would realize how important that is, a place where people can come together on a Saturday morning or come together every day and meet their neighbours and converse and compare notes and just be part of the community.
It is a bit different in a large urban centre. There is a different psychology altogether. One of the problems of this country is we do not realize what the popular culture is in terms of its differences from one part of the country to the other. The post office is a very near and dear thing to the people of rural Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. Under Standing Order 74, the 39 minutes of debate are now concluded, and we are going to commence 10 minute maximum speeches.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to offer some comments on this particular bill and to respond to some of the comments that have been made earlier as well. Bill C-73 will enable Canada Post Corporation to create an employee share ownership plan for all of its 57,000 employees.
This legislation will allow the Crown corporation to do several things. It will allow it to continue to improve its service to the people of Canada and to do so at reasonable and competitive rates.
Second, it puts its present and future employees on an even footing with the employees of other enterprises in the communications and distribution industry, particularly those of competitors who offer employees a piece of the action as a way of building an esprit de corps and thereby providing the incentive for increasing profitability-
Third, hopefully this will help set the stage for improved employee-management relations and thereby reduce the likelihood of disruptions in the postal service. We all find it very frustrating when some major important services like the postal service are disrupted by labour-management disputes.
All members of the House and indeed all Canadians are aware that there have been in the past labour-management conflicts at Canada Post. Despite many years and millions of dollars spent in contract negotiations with its union leadership, Canadians are still from time to time the unfortunate victims of these kinds of strikes.
Those disruptions have not only caused untold hardship to individual Canadians, they have also meant a dramatic loss of business to Canada Post. What is worse is a lot of that business does not come back to Canada Post once the strike is over. A lot of it stays with Canada Post competitors.
That means that even after the corporation weathers a strike, it comes back with a smaller share of the market. A smaller share of the market means that smaller profits or even a loss, as will be recorded by Canada Post for the year just completed, will occur and that occurred largely as a result of the strike last fail.
June 18, 1992

If Canada Post does not make a profit it cannot employ as many people, it cannot continue to expand into new areas, and sadly, it cannot provide the high level of service which Canadians have the right to expect. It becomes a vicious circle.
We believe this legislation will put an end to that vicious circle from the start. Our ultimate goal is to get away from the outdated notion that Canada Post exists only as a battleground for the classic labour-management struggle for philosophical and operational control. Unfortunately some people are still locked into that mindset and that is not particularly constructive for society.
Most of our major competitors around the world are getting away from that kind of a mindset. Canada Post is in the business to deliver the mail and to do so on a profitable basis. Labour disruptions jeopardize that business both nationally and in world-wide markets. Unlike manufacturers, service industries like Canada Post cannot build up big inventories and continue selling during a labour dispute.
Let me hasten to add that employee share ownership does not mean doing away with unions or that people are going to work for half their wages. Far from it. We are going to continue to have strong unions at Canada Post. Canada Post will continue to offer competitive wages to all of its employees. The corporation successfully negotiated fair and generous settlements with five of its unions in the year preceding the strike and had difficulty with only one, CUPE, which resulted in disruptions in postal service.
I move:
That the House continue to sit through lunch for the purpose of
continuing consideration of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada
Post Corporation.
I know there are many members very interested in speaking on this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, in the 10 minutes I have under the rules I am happy to speak on Bill C-73.1 must say one could use a lot more than 10 minutes when you start talking about the postal corporation and especially from my perspective. I have been a member of this august Chamber while we still had a postal service in a department of government. It has gone from a department of government in
Government Orders
which members did have a little input, to say the least, in postal service to their constituents.
Then the great panacea came and we took it out of a department and made it a postal corporation, a Crown corporation. That was going to be a new day for labour relations, a new day for service to Canadians and a new day for postal service in Canada.
I was here in the Chamber when those bills by the then Liberal government were debated and I was in the opposition. I can even remember who the critic was for the Official Opposition of the day who sometimes sits in the chair in which Your Honour sits. There was a general agreement, because there had been dissatisfaction with postal service as a department of government, that perhaps a postal corporation, a Crown corporation, would remedy many of the complaints people had.
We now have the postal corporation and Bill C-73, following the remarks of a lot of members who have spoken before me, seems to be another extension of a Crown corporation to now giving shares to employees and perhaps beginning and will complete the road to privatization of a post office.
Having not seen the improvement in postal service from a department to a postal corporation, I have very real apprehension if we are going down the slippery slope, as we say in the jargon, of the privatization of a postal service in this country. This country will not be able to provide the service to Canadians from coast to coast if we get in that line.
Before I continue I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, for having the courtesy of letting me take the floor before he took the floor because we all know we have a certain rotation here. I had been here a little earlier and I was getting a little hungry for lunch but he is younger than I am and he can wait for lunch if he has not already eaten. I do appreciate that courtesy to say these few remarks.
I am sorry the member for Halton-Peel has left. He was the chairman of the committee for consumer and corporate affairs. He was a very active chairman. He was a very active columnist before he came to Parliament on many issues Parliament has spoken about. I say philosophically, in a general way at this stage in the debate, the question he put to the hon. member for Yorkton- Melville had some merit in that perhaps factually there were more points of service.

Government Orders
The answer of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville to that question illustrates in graphic degree the dichotomy that you have in a bill dealing with postal services between the rural and the urban member. Quite frankly, the postal corporation and the whole background of the postal corporation and its service or problems of service to the Canadian people really illustrate the differences between a bureaucratic approach to service and a departmental approach through which you can help service the people you are supposed to represent.
Ten minutes go very quickly and I want to get into basically this whole business of post office closures. There are perhaps more points covered. In a lot of the new areas of the country, with suburbia, I do believe with all the concern that we have with closure of post offices that some of the retail outlets, because of the difference in hours some cases, even in my own riding, are providing a better service than was provided when the post office was closed.
The real problem in this whole issue is it is one thing to put a retail outlet into a growing area of Canada and a new area of Canada and a suburban area of Canada where there are lots of people and the retail outlet can be put in a shopping centre in which there is no history of a previous post office. This is the total difference between retail outlets, which in many cases provide a very good service to the people they are supposed to serve. That is totally different than the present postal corporation policy of post office closures.
It has a policy that when a postmaster or postmistress retires or there is a vacancy because of death or sickness, the operation of that individual post office is reviewed. What has happened is that the so-called review of the post office really becomes the beginning of a closure of that post office in established areas, towns, villages, in which they have had post offices for years and eons.
I agree completely with other members who have spoken here today, especially with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville who spoke in very glowing terms about the very real psychological function, let alone the service function.
My hon. friend from Macleod is a very fine member from a rural area. I have been in Macleod. His speech was written by the postal corporation. It was perhaps an interesting contribution to debate. In his heart of hearts I
would be very surprised if he has not run into the same problems that I have run into, that the hon. member from Peterborough has run into, in trying to intercede with the postal corporation about the closure of a local post office that has had a history in a community and is the only federal presence in that community.
It is a staged procedure by these PR people who go out doing their job. Admittedly they are doing their job. They have their instructions to have local hearings, talk to the people. Mabou, which is in the riding of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, is one of the only post offices that I have heard about in all the closures in Canada which in effect the people have on their own initiative taken over from the postal people, as I understand it, and are going to run a post office that was set for closure.
That is the situation of having the rhetoric that we have an input into post office closures as members of Parliament. The reality unfortunately reminds us of Mr. Trudeau's admonition about members being nobodies. You can argue whether he meant in the House or 50 yards from the House. That is an interesting debate. In terms of post office closures, as far as I know from my experience and the experience of most other members here, once a post office is set for closure, even if it has been providing service for years, that post office has been closed and members do not have an input.
The point is that there has to be a balance. I am not hidebound to the realities of growing areas and retail outlets. As I said earlier, some of that has provided a very necessary service. I have no hesitation in voting for the amendment to put this bill off to another day or voting against the bill which talks about corporate shares and dividends and is more worried about the corporate world than about the people world.
I sat in this House during the debate on the postal corporation bill. The public has great reservations about what the devil members do and how well we do it, how poorly we do it or how we do ourselves good and bad. The horrible thing is, and there is not a member who can deny this, in terms of one of the basic services a government is supposed to give to its people, a postal service, members are basically nobodies because we created this postal corporation and set it up on a pedestal.
June 18, 1992

You can write letters to the minister responsible for the postal corporation and you will get your official answer from his assistant and they will look into it. You may get a letter from someone in the postal corporation but onward the wheels turn and pretty soon the doors close and another post office is terminated. All the psychological negatives that have been mentioned here before about keeping a little presence of this country, let alone having a little purpose in being a member, have been eroded and that has been very unhealthy.
I cannot get on to all the things I would like to say, but I will have another chance after we get rid of this motion for second reading. I was here also when a fellow called Mr. Kieams was the first Minister of Communications in 1966. He started a little policy of rationalization of existing post offices in the then postal department.
Why is the government in a lot of trouble today across the country? Some months ago I looked it up and Mr. Kieams rationalized a total of 26 post offices in Canada from coast to coast. One was in my riding at the time. There was hue and cry from coast to coast about what he was doing to these social centres.
Now, as my friend from Yorkton-Melville says, and I think the figures are even more, we have already closed over 1,300 to 1,400 post offices. Is it any wonder that this government is in a rather poor state in the polls?. Along with many other things, without repeating them all, I suggest that in terms of service to the constituents, this whole post office closure policy has been about equal to several other misguided policies of this government which justify the low state of the polls. Unless this somnolent caucus of the government wakes up and tries to make an input on post office closures there will not be any dramatic change in the polls, nor should there be.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to remind the House that what we are debating is not second reading of Bill C-73 but the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that the further debate on this bill be considered six months
Government Orders
hence; in other words, that this bill be withdrawn by the government.
There is a very good reason for putting forward that amendment. At this point in its mandate, a six month hoist, as this motion is often called, perhaps if this government had the good sense to call an election there would be a Liberal government in place to put forward legislation to amend the Canada Post Corporation which would make more sense and would be more contemporary than this little bill which the government put forward on April 30 for our consideration.
When all of the problems and all of the concerns are considered that Canadians across this country have expressed to members in this House about the bad service, the bad employee relations, the closure of rural post offices and the litany of complaints which we have heard over the last seven or eight years concerning Canada Post, the government seems to be on some other planet when it puts forward this legislation which it purports will resolve all those ills.
The minister in charge of Canada Post on May 14, when he spoke at second reading of this bill, argued that the legislation would allow the Crown corporation to do several things. Let me cite from his speech.
One, it will build a stronger partnership between management and employees, thereby resulting in more harmonious labour relations in Canada's postal system.
TVvo, more harmonious labour relations will better position the corporation as it invests in new technologies and expertise it needs to expand in new areas of business activity at home and abroad.
Three, it will put its present and future employees on an even footing with the employees of other enterprises in the communications and distribution industry-
Four, it will continue to improve its service to the people of Canada and will do so with reasonable competitive rates.
Everybody knows about the desperate state of employee-management relations at Canada Post. I wonder about the paradox of having introduced this legislation, which is strongly opposed by the two major unions that deal with Canada Post; the Union of Postal Employees, which is opposed to this legislation-and some of its representatives have even spoken to me about it in my constituency-and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
If this legislation is supposed to improve labour-management relations and lead to a more harmonious working environment in Canada Post, you would think that this government would have sought, through Canada Post, to negotiate the kind of share savings plan which it has proposed as a centrepiece of this bill.
What it is trying to do in typical Tory fashion is impose this share savings plan on the workers of Canada Post, a share savings plan which is very faulty to begin with, a small concession to the workers. It is a faulty small concession because, as other members who have spoken earlier have said, it provides non-voting shares. A small fraction of the dividends Canada Post can generate through profits that it has accumulated, very often by cutting service across the country and laying off its workers, would be returned to the employees.
To offer that to the employees who are being laid off at Canada Post or to those communities which are losing their rural post offices and which are being provided with very inferior substitutes is a bit like offering a condemned man one last meal. The meal may be tasty but when he considers his future prospects he loses his appetite for the meal.
That is essentially what is happening with this bill. It is a very paltry and insignificant contribution or attempt by this government to deal with the myriad of problems that Canada Post has perpetrated on Canadians through its reckless attempts to become profitable at the expense of service to many parts of Canada, particularly the rural parts of Canada where I live and where many other members of this House also live.
As well, it has generated the climate of labour-management relations which is legendary in the degree to which it is acrimonious and poisonous and which is characterized by endless grievances. I really do not see that this legislation is actually going to change very much. It really needs to improve the kind of treatment it gives to its employees.
I would like to cite an example of that kind of management style which is so counterproductive. For example, in the community of St. Peters in my constituency, very recently a woman who had been working as a part-time employee with the post office was led to believe she was going to lose her job. Canada Post
wanted to change her job classification to one that is bilingual even though she was a unilingual employee.
The community is overwhelmingly unilingual. She was told that she would not be able to continue in her job. This caused a great consternation among all of the community members who supported the service she was providing to the community and they wanted to keep her there. Although Canada Post led her to believe for weeks that she was going to lose her job, it finally had to recant and keep her in the job, after she had gone through all of the anxiety of thinking she was losing her job.
The whole community had to rise up and defend this person's job record and argue for keeping her in that position. That kind of case shows that Canada Post has certainly a long way to go in terms of developing its relations with its workers. It is instances like this and others that have poisoned the relationships among workers in Canada Post.
The rumours are right across Canada of the minister's intentions and the application of the minister's intentions to privatize Canada Post.
I realize I only have one minute left. I hope I will be back later on when we consider second reading of Bill C-73 if we fail to do what we should do in this House which is to reject further consideration of this bill.
I would like to speak to this issue of privatization and the effect that it will have on rural communities. I also want to relate the experiences of communities such as Mabou, which my hon. friend from Annapolis Valley- Hants mentioned earlier. Last year, this community valiantly attempted to maintain postal services after a vigorous battle with Canada Post. It wanted to close down and terminate Mabou's rural post offices. Last night the community of Judique was faced with an ultimatum from Canada Post to close its rural post office. The residents of Judique are strongly opposed to this decision but they realize that dealing with this corporation is like dealing with a steamroller in that it does not listen. All Canada Post wants to do is to privatize at all costs.
I hope to get back up again on this important issue.
June 18, 1992


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today and address this particular matter.
As many people will know, this bill seeks to make shares of the Canada Post Corporation available to its employees. One of the actions of government that I find difficult to accept is the closure that has been imposed on this particular debate on a fundamental question; namely, whether this particular corporation in a sense is going to be privatized.
I find that alarming and unfortunate because we are talking about the future of several thousands of Canadians in a climate of recession and a climate in which people are really concerned about their futures and their jobs. I want it noted that this government has done this on several occasions. Some people say it always does it whenever it is dealing with a delicate issue and particularly when it thinks it is going to get into difficulty.
One of my colleagues has described this particular move by government as one which seeks to place another nail in the privatization coffin of Canada Post. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not, in principle, opposed to privatization of certain sectors. I think we have to examine under what conditions this might take place.
For those who are enthralled with this whole notion of privatization, I urge you to go out in front of the House of Commons today and talk to the employees of Air Canada and ask them a number of questions. Ask them what they think of privatization, because they have been privatized. Ask them how many people they have lost since they were privatized. Ask them how many more employees will lose their jobs in the very near future. There are alarming comments that have been made with respect to losses of jobs that are going to affect many, many men and women. They are going to be announced very, very shortly. I hope that is just a rumour and an unfounded one, but I am extremely suspicious.
While you are out there in front of the House of Commons where there are roughly 400 people from Air Canada who are demonstrating, ask them how successful they have been in having a level playing field in the private sector and how difficult it has been to try to get access to the Japanese market.
Government Orders
The reason for my bringing those to the attention of my colleagues is that a lot of people look at privatization as some sort of a panacea, that all of a sudden all of the problems that existed are going to be gone. This is an example of privatization and it is not all rosy. If you were to go to the employees today and ask them what they think about it, you would be extremely surprised and certainly there is real concern out there, a legitimate concern.
I want to point out, as have a number of my colleagues, that this bill is an extremely general one. Why is there no value in shares? Why is there no identification of the number of shares? Why do we not talk about the net worth of the corporation? Why is there no definition of an employee who will be able to buy those shares? Why is the amount of shares individual employees would be able to purchase not announced?
Once again the government has left to regulation by cabinet and Treasury Board the powers to establish the terms of the share offering. Why cabinet? Why Treasury Board?
As I mentioned, the bill does not provide specifics on share offering. The bill does not place value on assets, on the value of shares. The bill even permits shares to be given away. The first reaction that one has is to whom would they be given away? It might be very attractive for some high-placed friends of the government in executive positions in the corporation. I would hope that would never come to be but certainly some people suspect that.
The other element that needs to be noticed is that the shares are non-voting shares. If they are non-voting shares then you cannot take part in the decision making and you cannot be on the board. How useful is that?
The bill does not protect employees. Those employees have not had a contract for three years. It has gone through mediation, it has gone through all kinds of hoops and hurdles and still today-and my colleague raised it the day before yesterday-we do not have an agreement for our postal employees. I find that shocking. I find that most unfortunate.
How would this bill help that kind of situation? I should point out that there has been no effective communication or consultation with the employees with respect to that-none whatsoever.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
It does not address the basic essential question, which is service to Canadians. It is important to make profits. It is important to make money if you can. It is also important to respond to the needs of Canadians in a number of sectors, certainly in this sector.
People talk about making the corporation a more efficient one, one which is responsive to the needs of Canadians. Let me give you a few examples of how this is going about right now and how it has impacted upon my riding.
There have been a number of closures of postal outlets. For example, the Marion Pharmacy in August of 1989, a full postal outlet in the Norwood area, closed despite numerous letters and petitions from local residents. Canada Post had offered the proprietors at that time some postal services but never followed through. This is not responsive to the needs of Canadians.
Metro Drugs on Autumnwood Drive closed in the fall of 1990. I am told that the business closed this spring. This is not good for business.
There are other examples. McCullough Drugs (Tache and Marion) closed within the last two years, as did the Drake pharmacy outlet which closed in 1991 despite thousands of petitioners and concerned residents, including a seniors' home on Elizabeth Road, very close to that facility.
We have to realize that the closing of those outlets and the changing of the services in those outlets affect all residents of the area, particularly those who are seniors and those who may have a physical or other disability limiting their ability to get about.
How will the offering of shares to employees help these people who until recently were able to use those facilities I have mentioned? It will not. It simply will not, not one little bit. How will this bill address the concerns of millions of rural Canadians whose post offices have been closed?
That is a serious issue. It is a serious concern for those smaller, more isolated communities. It is one that it will do nothing about. I suspect it will exacerbate it.
I have not even mentioned supermailboxes. We have not talked about those recently. I am sure that my
colleagues would like to be reminded that they are still not very popular. I get stories, I get calls from residents still. Very often older people find it difficult because if placed on the wrong side of the street it can be extremely slippery. We have adverse weather conditions in a number of areas in Canada, such as Winnipeg. They are still extremely angry. They do not see this as an improvement. On the contrary, they feel as if they have not been treated fairly and have not been consulted.
I am going to tell you a little incident about a lady who called my office. She sent a watch to Calgary in an envelope that was properly addressed and that had a return address on it. It had the whole works. Unknown to her, though, was that the company was no longer operating. What happened since then is that the post office did not return the envelope. They have been unable to locate it. What is worse is that they are unwilling to compensate her for the lost item. We shall continue to pursue that. We are not going to give up.

As I just said, this bill is not at all specific; it is very vague. We do not know exactly what it is talking about. In fact, it overlooks basic issues affecting services to Canadians. It provides no protection at all for employees. Where is the bill going with all that? Canada Post wants to privatize, but why? What will it achieve with all that? How could it improve the services to Canadians? Will people in small and remote communities benefit from such a measure? Will this bill give anything more to those in my riding whose post offices have been closed and services altered drastically? Will those who are older or disabled have to go from one place to another? Will they benefit from such a bill? Absolutely not. I know that privatization can be good in some cases but very harmful in others; it can be most unfortunate. Ask the Air Canada employees who are in front of the House of Commons today how many jobs have been lost since Air Canada was privatized. How many jobs will still be lost? These questions should also be raised here and answered. Also consider all the difficulties they had in getting access to the private sector so that they could have healthy competition with the other sectors that interest them.
June 18, 1992

I conclude by saying that I absolutely cannot support such a bill, because I do not believe that we are giving priority to the Canadians who receive services from that corporation.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-73 today, a bill to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
I have heard many speakers today talk about the act itself and make reference and comment on Canada Post. The one thing I have not heard either from the minister or from the government is really the basic tenet of the Canada Post Corporation Act.
The act clearly states that what we should be doing is providing service to Canadians. This service is really paramount in this country. Each time I hear a comment it concerns how we can save money, generate profits and make this an efficient business.
I find that in each move that has been made by the government over the last several years, we see the price of postage stamps rising dramatically and we see the loss on the Canada Post side rising dramatically. As a matter of fact, this year there is rumour of a projected loss of $130 million. There seems to be a loss of efficiency and yet the price of those stamps keeps soaring up by hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadian consumers.
Now today we face a change in the act which would bring in a change in the legislation which would provide or allow Canada Post to sell 10 per cent of its ownership to employees through a sharing proposition.
The minister in charge of Canada Post stated that the plan is a common sense next step to ensure that improvement continues. I fail to see where there has been any improvement at all. There is an increased cost in postage, much dissension about loss of service and an increase in losses in that company. Where are those improvements that the minister suggests are continuing?
Canada Post claims it would improve customer service. In my mind it is making a proposition to employees who are saying they do not want to buy those shares. How does that improve customer service and reliability? How will it improve the financial sufficiency of Canada Post?
I have some real problems with why the government has stated that there will be improvements. As a matter of fact, I wonder why the government put this on the table at all because I cannot see how any group is satisfied. This is outside of the fact that it seems to be the
Government Orders
first step toward the privatization of Canada Post. This is certainly taking it in a direction that the act would not allow it to go. I guess this is a major concern that is being stated by all of my colleagues.
The government claims are quite difficult to follow through as we talk about it, but despite the claims noted, a closer review of the legislation reveals there are some major problems. The shares are to be offered to employees yet there is no definition of an employee in this. Is it full-time employees who are being laid off by the thousands? Is it part-time employees who are losing their jobs? Is it casual employees? Can this be used as a bonus to supervisors? I am not certain but I have my concerns.
The government wants employees to feel that they are more a part of the corporation and yet shares for employees are to be non-voting shares. The only shares retained by the government are going to be the voting shares. Any shares that are turned over to the employees will give the employees no say. Therefore you are not involving the employees in the operation of the corporation. You are asking them to take money out of their pockets to buy something for which they have no power to use with any votes in the future.
The bill suggests the selling of 10 per cent of Canada Post Corporation. What exactly is 10 per cent made up of? There is no value or indication of the make-up of the corporation, no description of what the corporate assets are and therefore there is no idea of what that 10 per cent represents.
Canada Post continues to claim there are improved services and financial self-sufficiency. However, I continually receive letters and complaints from Canadians across Canada about Canada Post closures, conversions or rationalization plans. These Canadians do not see the so-called improvements as better, but rather they see it as a dismantling of a national institution.
The government, referring to the share offering, maintains that a price for these shares will be established in the future. However, the bill itself indicates that shares may be offered for consideration or for no consideration. Therefore, shares could be given away. The bill permits the giving away of shares. Could this then be a move to corporate bonuses in Canada Post? We see the huge, huge salaries that are being paid at the present time. Are we then starting to look at giving some of the corporation to those executives within Canada Post?

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
How are issues such as the value and the number of shares and assets to be determined? Should these important matters be dealt with by the Governor in Council or cabinet? No, they should not be dealt with there. They should be dealt with here in the House of Commons. The Canadian people have the right to know how the government will decide what the value of the shares are, what the corporate value is and if people are being treated in some reasonable way. Do not give it to the minister and Treasury Board to make those decisions.
In addition, Bill C-73 would permit bylaws of Canada Post Corporation to be inconsistent with any provision of the bill. The government would have Canadians believe that it intends to improve situations at Canada Post because of Bill C-73, yet the bill does not adequately address the issues. Authority would be vested with the board and cabinet to be inconsistent with the act itself.
The government realizes that there are very serious and complicated issues in dispute at Canada Post Corporation. CUPW management has been unable to achieve a contract for the last three years. For three years there has been negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and back to work legislation. There is still no settlement.
Now the government wants to do something to make the employees feel more a part of the corporation itself and less a part of working together. The answer they have is Bill C-73. This bill will not solve the problem. It does nothing to improve employee-employer relations. In fact, the bill is opposed by the postal workers.
How can the government state that there will be improved co-operation when there is no co-operation of any kind put forward in this bill? How does Bill C-73 address the concerns of Canadians on Canada Post? Will Bill C-73 reopen the post office that was closed in the village of Erieau in my riding? Will it reopen post offices in many small communities in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Quebec, in the west and across this country? We have seen some 1,200 post offices axed in the last six years. This bill will do nothing to help that situation.
Will Bill C-73 compel retail postal outlets to provide the same service for the price that Canada Post offices provide? Certainly not. Will Bill C-73 save the postal identities of Winona, Fruitland, Vineland, which they will wipe out according to the bill? No.
I see my time has run out and I hope I will have the opportunity to speak to this later. However, my concern is that this bill creates more animosity, more tension and more problems in Canada. It certainly does nothing to enhance or improve our service to Canadians.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion on the six-month hoist and to oppose Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
There is not a single subject that is more akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull than a bill that has to do with Canada Post Corporation coming before members of Parliament who have any memory of Canadian history regarding Canadian postal services. I cannot think of a greater horror story or a worse example than this institution. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, it had a terrible labour relations record, but at least it delivered the mail on time.
It was turned into a Crown corporation in the early 1980s and at that time, under the presidency of Michael Warren and under its new mandate, it managed to bring back mail services from a period in which it took over two weeks to get across this country back down to a position of only two or three days. It improved some services. It reduced the labour relation grievances within the post office from over 100,000 down to virtually nil. It gave postal workers who for years had been out on strike, one after another because of terrible labour relations in the old Canada Post system, some feeling of pride.
In 1984, with the election of this government, the whole clock was turned back again. The only thing worse than having a service which is in disarray is having a service that having been in disarray is drastically improved and then turned back and thrown on the scrap heap again.
June 18, 1992

It is no wonder that Canadians from coast to coast, especially those in rural communities who have been specifically victimized by this corporation, are up in arms and have absolutely no faith in the credibility of this government, especially when it comes to delivering basic services like the mail.
This government is swallowing some outdated concept from mini-WAC, old Bill Bennett in British Columbia who privatized the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and saw shares go from $6 almost down to zero in his attempt at privatization. It was the same kind of policy that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs in that government espoused when he was Prime Minister for a short period of nine months. He wanted to do it to Petro-Canada and the people turfed him out, especially the people in British Columbia who could remember what the Socreds did to their resource corporation and turned an effective corporation into a scrap heap that was worthless.
How they think they can adopt that same kind of policy and that somehow it is going to improve morale among postal workers and do anything to turn around the attitudes of Canadians to have a more positive outlook on their postal services really boggles the mind. It is beyond imagination.
When the Crown corporation was first created in 1981-82, my colleague for Kootenay East was the postal critic for our party. I was postal critic for the next two or three years following that. Michael Warren had a mandate which he pursued very effectively. He met on a regular basis, at least two and sometimes three or four times a year, with postal critics from all caucuses in the House. If you had a problem you had an answer back in writing directly from Mr. Warren, often within 24 or 48 hours. Attention was paid to the problems that were raised, specific local problems as well as national problems. The attitude totally changed in the work force.
If the government really wants to do something about improving labour relations, one of things it ought to do is get a collective agreement, an honest collective agreement, because it is now two or three years that postal workers have not had one, between the employees of Canada Post and the corporation.
One of the other things it could do is restore what we had when the corporation was first set up when there
Government Orders
were two representatives of labour, not necessarily directly from postal employees but on the board of that Crown corporation, so they had some direct or indirect input into the corporation. Those directors were kept on when the government changed to the Tories. Slowly but surely they were frozen out. Resignations were virtually forced upon them.
Once again the bridge that connected the employees to the management of that corporation and gave them some feeling of participation in it was dissolved.
Some of us in this place have had some experience working within Crown corporations that have had employee representatives sitting on boards. You do not need ownership for that to be effective. You need a partnership in which the employees of the corporation believe that their opinions on non-labour relations matters-let us not confuse it with a bargaining relationship-are listened to, from the implementation of new technology, funnelling through engineers' reports to see how they actually work on the floor of an industry, to delivering a product. In a myriad of ways you can begin to develop some meaningful relationships between the ideas employees have and the day to day operations of that corporation.
Giving 10 per cent ownership of non-voting shares is not going to accomplish a damn thing. It means nothing. It is seen as cosmetic by the employees. It is certainly seen as cosmetic by any one who has had any past experience with that kind of marginalized employee participation and ownership because it is not participation. They are non-voting shares.
How can the government think for a moment that simply because 10 per cent of its shares belong to some of the employees who have no voice it is going to make a difference in attitude among 99 per cent of the corporation's employees? They have no vested interest even from a straight economic point of view in what is going on in the corporation.
At the same time the corporation goes out and hires scabs, provokes violence on the picket lines. I use the term provokes violence not lets it happen, advisedly, having seen it first hand on a number of occasions over the last couple of years. How it thinks that is going to turn attitudes around I do not know.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
A lot needs to be done with the Canada Post Corporation. How the government thinks it can get away with closing down our rural Canada outlets, wiping out rural post office box delivery and replacing it with group boxes and the whole host of measures that it has taken to alienate the Canadian people, the consumers, from the one corporation they ought to be able to count on to deliver a decent service is beyond me and I think beyond any rational Canadian. It is a cosmetic performance.
I support the motion for the hoist. This is bad law. It will accomplish nothing. It will accomplish less than nothing. It will move us even further backwards than we are today.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-73, which is so important because it concerns the privatization of a Crown corporation that provides a vital service to Canadians: our postal service.
The government claims this bill would enable employees to acquire 10 per cent-one wonders 10 per cent of what- of Canada Post's net assets. How would this be done? What are the details? That information is not available, and that is why I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who moved for a six months' hoist to give the government and the minister responsible for Canada Post a chance to do their homework and come back with a detailed piece of legislation and a business plan. When a company decides to go to the public, to go to the stock market to sell shares, it goes with a business plan and written instructions indicating which shares will be voting, which non-voting, and so forth. There is nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder, considering the opinion Canadians have of Canada Post and the misadventures that have befallen our postal services over the years, who would be prepared to invest in this kind of business, even as an employee of Canada Post. I think we should be realistic. We are a little-I don't want to use the words, but suspicious says it more or less. Why is the government taking this approach? We are told it wants to give employees a chance to participate in the corporation, but there are no details.
The government claims that when employees realize they can have a 10 per cent interest in the corporation, they will become more responsible and that this will make for peaceful labour-management relations within the corporation. As you know, Canada Post did have a quiet time for several years after it was incorporated, because it had been given a clear and specific mandate, consisting of three components.
The three components included providing a better service for Canadians as the first objective; second, better labour management relations; and third, they had to stop asking the government for money because the government was too busy dealing with the deficit. During the first few years, until 1984-85, objectives were met satisfactorily. In fact, from the time the corporation was created and up to 1986, if I am not mistaken, there were no strikes.
However, the strikes started again as soon as the Conservative government tabled its management plan, which included setting up supermailboxes in urban areas. Gradually, home delivery, something most Canadians were used to, was phased out. New homes would not have home delivery.
That is what happened, and I remember, because I was the critic at the time. I went across the country. I went to British Columbia and to the east, and some untenable situations had been created. On the same street, some residents were getting home delivery, while across the street, they had to get their mail from the green boxes, later called superboxes which, despite the name, were hard to open because keys tended to rust and the boxes froze, and so forth.
The other part of this plan, in 1986, was to privatize rural post offices or close them down altogether. Previous critics as well as the present critic for Canada Post, are still very much aware of this problem throughout Canada.
There was a board of directors on which the employer was represented, the union and consumers. All the ingredients for maintaining harmony were right there in the the Crown corporation's board of directors, which represented a good cross-section of our society. The potential was there to have good labour-management relations and to meet the all-important objective: to serve Canadians and have the best postal service in the world.
June 18, 1992

However, in its first budget after the 1984 election, the government, through the Minister of Finance, said that from now on the corporation would have to absorb its own deficit. That is the kind of measure the minister took. That is what the privatization issue was all about. We know how disastrous that has been.
Since then I do not think that the postal services have improved, even though the government claims they have. A greater number of Canadians receive their mail in green boxes or superboxes, and many others no longer get postal services in rural areas. Mr. Speaker, this is very serious.
Now the government wants us to believe that Bill C-73, which would give 10 per cent of the net worth of Canada Post to its employees, could promote harmony and peace in the labour relations within that Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Bill C-73 can solve the problem that exists within Canada Post.
The corporation is an essential service for all Canadians. The moment you start privatizing everything- We saw what happened with the railways and with Air Canada. Mr. Speaker, everything that was created to help us identify as Canadians is being destroyed.
It is certainly easy to privatize postal services in Montreal and Toronto, given the volume in those large cities. But what happens to Canadians living in sparsely populated regions such as the north or the east? Do you think the private sector will keep providing equal services for everybody? Should we not, as Canadians, at least have access to the same postal services? I have nothing against the private businesses; they are there to make profits and pay dividends to their shareholders. This is how it works in the business world. The government would privatize Canada Post Corporation tomorrow if it had the support of Canadians. Just think of the symbolism of the post office in a small community. In some areas, it is the only federal symbol; yet, the government wants to close it down.
Government Orders
It even removed the words "Canada Post" on the boxes, at this crucial time for our country. My colleagues and I will support the motion of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asking that this bill be read a second time in six months, in the hope that the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation will change his mind, come to his senses, withdraw this bill, and give Canada Post the necessary leeway to improve its relations with its employees and the consumers, in order to try to provide a better service to Canadians.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, to add to what my colleague just said, if this amendment is adopted by the House, we could have an election almost immediately, since it would indicate a lack of confidence in Her Majesty's government. We could therefore have an election that would give Canadians the opportunity to choose a new government that would do a much better job than this one.

What I wanted to talk about today are the problems this bill has posed for Canadians and they are serious problems because the bill is trying to create false expectations out of the post office.
I do not know who could have thought up this scheme.


An hon. member:: Harvie Andre.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No doubt it was the government House leader who is, after all, responsible for Canada Post in this House. This is probably one of his privatization brainwaves that he picked up along with the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization who is running this privatization department.
The person they should privatize and get out of public life is the minister responsible for Canada Post, the government House leader. If he could be privatized that would be very good. We could have an election and he could be privatized by the votes of the people of his constituency in Calgary and we would not have to go through a share offering.
What the government is proposing in this case, the minister has put this forward in a serious way apparently, is to privatize part of Canada Post.

Government Orders
The way it is proposing it is quite bizarre because it is going to allow the sale of up to 10 per cent of the shares, none of which will have votes, and the government will retain 90 per cent of the shares, the only voting shares. Therefore, the government in effect will control this corporation, at the same time allowing some ownership by others in the corporation.
I want to make perfectly clear what is being foisted on the Canadian public here. The government speaks about Canada Post as though it were something different from the government. It is 100 per cent government owned. It is just like another government department except it has a board of directors and operates something close to arm's length from the government, although one does not know how close that is unless one is in government.
Assuming it is at arm's length, here is a corporation wholly owned by the government carrying on business in Canada with one very important power that other corporations do not have; namely, a monopoly on the right to distribute mail in Canada. With that right goes a right to apply to the government and the government has the power to increase postal rates and to charge for the service it provides.
In other words, there is no commission like the CRTC to oversee its rates. There is no other body that can control those rates except the Government of Canada. Even the House of Commons has lost its control over the rate increases imposed by Canada Post.
My recollection was that in the old days when Canada Post wanted to raise rates it had to come to Parliament and it was an act of Parliament that dealt with the issue. Now that it is no longer a government department that process is gone. Therefore, as parliamentarians we have no control over the rates of Canada Post except for possibly the government caucus which, if it would flex its muscles once in a while and tell the cabinet what to do, could tell the cabinet not to approve another rate increase and Canada Post would not get a rate increase.
Rate increases at Canada Post are nothing more than a tax on Canadians. You would think to hear the minister speak that a rate increase is just a cost of doing business.
It is nothing more than a tax because if the rate increase makes profit for the government it reduces the general tax burden on the rest of us, and if it does not then we increase the general tax burden.
Postal rates are in effect a tax.


An hon. member:: It charges the GST as well.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It charges the GST as well. It is a tax on a tax. If the post office were still a government department it would have a little more trouble justifying charging the GST on postage rates. I am glad my colleague from Montreal reminded me of this fact. It is an important one. Canadians are paying a tax on a tax when they buy postage stamps or pay for postage. They are being bled white by this government and its Draconian policies. Now to make it look as though it is softening the blow, the government is proposing to privatize Canada Post and put it up for sale, at least in a limited way, to some undefined members of the public.
This bill should not be proceeded with. The fact is Canadians are sick and tired of the way Canada Post is being run by this government and privatization of it is not going to make it any better. The fear is that it will make it worse.
Supermailboxes have been a cause of real concern. People living in new subdivisions cannot get door to door mail delivery. They get their mail from a supermailbox. I get constant complaints in my constituency office from the electors of Kingston and the Islands who are served by supermailboxes. The supermailboxes freeze up in winter. These people are unable to get the keys into the locks because they are jammed up with ice. They are unable to get access to the boxes when it is too cold because they will not open properly. In terrible weather senior citizens in my riding who live in these subdivisions served by supermailboxes are forced to walk in treacherous conditions to the supermailbox to get their mail. They are not paid to do that. Post office employees who deliver the mail are.
If the mail were delivered to homes the way it is in other parts of the riding that are not so new, we would not have this double standard, this second-class service, that some people are forced to endure because of the changes in policy of Canada Post brought about as a direct result of this government's policies.
The minister responsible for Canada Post in this House, the government House leader, and all his colleagues have flown. Here we are discussing a government bill and not one of them is here to listen to the criticisms of the bill and they have put closure on the debate. It shows a complete unwillingness to listen to the views of Canadians who are appalled by the government's actions.
June 18, 1992

Then we have labour relations in the post office. I can recall about two years ago having a public meeting in my riding for post office employees who were disgruntled with the way they were being treated in the post office at Kingston. Just recently one of the substations in Kingston closed down and all the post office boxes that had operated in that facility had to be moved to some drugstore or other private facility located in the riding.
Why close a good postal facility, Mr. Speaker? Because Canada Post claims it loses money. Well, I can tell you how it makes that claim stick. It raised the rates on the post office boxes, doubling and tripling the rates a couple of years before in some instances, and then wondered why customers were lost. Then the argument is "we have no customers using the service so we had better close it down".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being two o'clock, we now proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to a deserving company in my riding.
Tbrbocristal, a maker of artificial snow, has successfully broken into the international market. This young company holds more than 40 per cent of the world market, thanks to two major assets: the superior design and quality of its artificial snow-making equipment.
Tbrbocristal's equipment is state of the art. For example, the guns are computer controlled and adjusted to produce the most snow, regardless of fluctuations in temperature or humidity.
Tbrbocristal, which is only seven years old, is an example for tomorrow's entrepreneurs who want to provide consumers and business people with a quality product.


THE TORONTO STAR STRIKE
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, in these tough economic times, eveiy Canadian knows the value of working together for prosperity and success. Every Canadian knows that if we are to beat this made-in-Canada recession, a recession our Prime Minister induced, labour and management must work together and not at cross purposes.
The labour dispute at The Toronto Star is a good case in point. Since June 8 members of the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild have been on strike. Since that date, management has continued to put out a drastically reduced version of the Star. The Star is one of the best English language newspapers in the world. Its writers and editors have won countless awards for their excellence, and it saddens everyone to see this institution of 100 years locked in such a dispute.
I call on representatives of management and labour to work together to come up with a mutually acceptable resolution, and I call on this government to take whatever steps it can, within the jurisdiction that it has, to ensure that this dispute is resolved to the equity and for the betterment of all.


CANADA'S 125TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Fredericton the citizens of my riding celebrated Canada's 125th anniversary with a warm and enthusiastic expression of the unified spirit of pride and patriotism which our country so badly needs at this time in our history.
More than 10,000 people turned out to share friendship and to demonstrate citizenship on the banks of the Saint John River, and the results were inspiring to behold. Truly it was a display of the broad and rich fabric of diversity which characterizes Canada. English and French languages were being spoken; a host of multicultural costumes and cooking was on display; native cultural participation was evident; and volunteer contributions from one and all. It was an all-Canadian event to remember.

June 18, 1992
My appreciation and congratulations go to all who made it happen, and in particular to those organizers called the Fredericton Civic Pride who took the initiative.
The toast was to Canada, this magnificent country we all adore.


LUBICON CREE NATION
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the Canadian Council of Churches sent an observer delegation to Little Buffalo Lake in north-central Alberta. Their mission was to investigate and report on the living conditions and treatment by Canadian governments of the people of the Lubicon Cree Nation.
and women who were Canada's negotiating team for the earth summit on environment and development in Rio.
The tireless dedication of these Public Service employees over two years has earned Canada the respect and admiration of the entire world in the struggle to stop the devastation of our environment. But behind our team stood an army supporting them every step of the way on the road to Rio. Just as important, every day hundreds of thousands of Public Service employees work without recognition to provide us with clean air, clean water, safe food, good health care, help for the needy and all the qualities of life that we call Canadian.
I pay tribute to them all, recognized or not, in public and thank them all for their contribution to Canada.

It was this delegation that first applied the term genocidal to the situation they found. It was this delegation that first drew the attention of the world to the destruction of the Lubicon people's traditional way of life and the ongoing refusal of Canadian governments to deal fairly with them.
Last Thursday, eight years later, a second Canadian Council of Churches delegation travelled to Little Buffalo Lake. Their conclusions? If anything, things have become worse and government intransigence more calamitous. Death and disease run rampant. The very spirit of the people is being ground to dust.
This ugly stain on Canada's record must be removed. The Canadian government must begin real negotiations with the Lubicon Nation, in good faith and starting with a detailed point-by-point response to the Lubicon's 1989 draft settlement offer.


NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE WEEK
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this week, June 14 to 20, is the first ever National Public Service Week in Canada. I want to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the outstanding team of men


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, the subcommittee on health issues tabled its report today on the very serious issue of foetal alcohol syndrome and its effects. The report contained numerous recommendations for better education and better preventive measures in order that the people of Canada might become increasingly aware of the danger involved in consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
I stood in this House on several occasions and discussed the gruesome details of the possible results for Canadian children who are bom with this disability. The key is in prevention. This disease is fully preventable yet completely incurable.
That is why I congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare for his quick reaction to the report's recommendations. Two hours after the report was released, the minister announced a four-part plan to implement some of the committee's recommendations immediately. One step that the minister is prepared to take now is a pilot program to label alcohol beverage containers in several Canadian provinces.
While I am extremely pleased with the minister's quick response, I would also encourage him to study the committee's report in depth and take further steps to see

that Canadian children can be spared the tragic effects of foetal alcohol disabilities.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr, Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, Nibin Amik is a First Nation community of 310 residents and is located in my riding of Cochrane-Superior approximately 450 miles northeast of Thunder Bay. The community is accessible by air only.
On May 7 of this year, Summer Beaver suffered a serious setback when their log school burned to the ground. The fire occurred during the school day and fortunately most of the 85 children were outside at recess. No one was injured, but all teaching supplies were burned.
Summer Beaver is in desperate need of a wide range of supplies that could be used in their temporary school. The school is an elementary school up to grade six. The community will also require adequate facilities for the students in September when school begins again.
I urge the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to address this crisis situation at Summer Beaver and assure the residents that there will be a school facility for their children in September.


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, families of Yugoslavian origin in my riding, like John Plesac's family in Val d'Or, have been worried about the situation in Yugoslavia for months.
A battalion of Canadian peacekeeping forces in Croatia should be at Sarajevo airport to help send humanitarian aid through.
Our people are proud of what our Canadian soldiers are doing with the United Nations in trying to establish and maintain peace in Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavian families in Abitibi and I want to thank our Canadian soldiers today and assure them of our gratitude.


CONSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional negotiations have failed. The federal government has not been able to obtain a consensus from the English speaking provinces on offers acceptable to Quebec. Let us be up front about it: it is a failure, plain and simple.
There is just one thing left to do: Quebec must hold a referendum on Quebec sovereignty, nothing else. That is why I ask the federal government to stop negotiating under the table with Mr. Bourassa, because he does not represent what Quebecers want.
If the federal government wants to know Quebec's position, it should let the people of Quebec hold a referendum on sovereignty. I know what Quebecers want: they want to be masters in their own house, so that they can develop properly.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks there have been many negative comments about police men and women.
I call upon all members of Parliament and society at large to thank and praise our police men and women from municipal, to provincial, to our RCMP officers. Under increasingly complex and sometimes terrifying conditions they deserve our understanding and full support.
When they pursue a known drug dealer, order him to stop, fire a warning shot, and then are attacked with a knife, I want them to know that I fully support them if they deem it necessary to use their revolver to protect themselves and thereby society at large.
I urge the government not to concentrate its attention exclusively on individual rights and freedoms and the defence of those accused of, or suspected of, criminal activity, but rather to focus on protecting law-abiding citizens and particularly police officers, as they serve us, seek to protect us, and uphold law and order.

Tributes


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in February of this year the municipal council of Belcarra, a beautiful village in my riding, passed a resolution on national unity. It is intended simply to convey support to those in Quebec favouring a renewed federalism. The resolution was passed on to other municipalities and over 70 municipalities in British Columbia have endorsed it.
Last week acting mayor Jamie Ross of Belcarra, presented it to Claude Ryan on the steps of the Quebec National Assembly. I am pleased to read it in the presence of a group of young Voyageurs here from my riding and from the Montreal riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grace who are in the gallery now.
The resolution says this:
That the Municipality of Belcarra, in the Province of British Columbia:
(1)	Encourages all citizens to remember all that we have already accomplished and what we can accomplish in the future;

(2)	Expresses the sincere desire that the Province of Quebec choose to remain a valued partner in this great nation that we share.

(3)	Conveys its best wishes and best regards to its counterparts in Quebec.
That is a powerful message on national unity. Come on Canadian politicians, listen and get on with the job.


IMMIGRATION REFORM
Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to commend the minister of immigration for the immigration reform initiative presented this week.
First of all, this bill is good news for all Canadians, since it will enable the government to better manage immigration and achieve our economic objectives.
Furthermore, while preserving our country's humanitarian tradition, this reform will give us a more efficient, less costly system that will process applications more quickly and above all discourage fraud.
Ours is a welcoming country and will continue to be so. With this reform, we will be able to unclog the system and eliminate abuses, as the Canadian people want.
Even more important, this reform will give us the ability to control our immigration so that it works in the interest of all Canadians, as well as all those who benefit from it.


ASSOCIATION FRANCO-YUKONNAISE
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Association franco-yukonnaise plays a vital role in preserving and promoting the French language and culture in the Yukon.
Last week, the federal government reduced its financial assistance to this organization by $80,000. This cut forced the association to stop publishing the Yukon's only French language newspaper, L'aurore boreale, eliminating two jobs and ending its cultural promotion programs.
At a time when promoting Canadian unity is so important, francophone communities throughout the country see the funds allocated to them reduced.
Therefore I urge the Secretary of State to restore the funding to the Association franco-yukonnaise so that it can continue its work in the Yukon's French speaking community.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, many people in my riding over the years have expressed their concerns regarding the immigration process.
They are concerned about the expense incurred by Canadians when people are allowed to enter Canada illegally and remain here through a lengthy deportation process.
I would like to take this opportunity to express appreciation to the Minister of Employment and Immigration for taking the views and concerns of the people of Canada into consideration with his latest initiative and proposals for change.
June 18, 1992


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, today hundreds of Air Canada employees marched on Parliament Hill to show their disapproval with the government's handling of the airline industry.
Their presence here today is a vivid illustration of the complete failure of this government to provide policy leadership in one of Canada's most strategically important industries.
As a result of the government's inaction the airlines, their employees, and Canada's ability to compete globally have been put at risk. No other national government would be content to sit on its hands if its airline industry was going through the turmoil now happening in Canada.
Rather than waiting, the government should provide some much needed policy direction about the future of our airline industry. If the government does not know what to do, at least let the transport committee of this House proceed with an investigation into the state of our airline industry.
The chairman of this committee refuses to call a meeting to deal with this issue while Canada's airline industry is at peril.


An hon. member:: Shame.


John Paul Manley: Like a group of Neros, this government and its members play their fiddles while vital Canadian interests are at risk.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada must be taken to task for its weak response in Rio de Janeiro to climate change.
Yes, a commitment was made two years ago to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. But today, Canada has yet to produce a plan spelling out how we will reach that goal.
Canada also lost the opportunity to play a constructive role by not supporting the initiative of numerous nations including Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia and commit to a carbon dioxide reduction program beyond the year 2000.
Tributes
Canada holds the dubious distinction of emitting per capita more carbon dioxide than virtually any other nation. The Government of Canada has a responsibility to the global community and must prove it can match its rhetoric with meaningful action.


HON. HERB GRAY THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF ELECTION TO HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Speaker:: This is an unusual event but one that I think will meet with your acceptance and appreciation.
Since my election as your Speaker in 1986, I have thankfully not been obliged to have recourse to what is probably the most severe procedural measure available to a presiding officer, that of naming an hon. member. Yet there was bound, some day, to be an occasion when such a step would become inevitable. Today is such a day. It is my duty, therefore, to name an hon. member.

By this, I do not mean that I intend to use the disciplinary powers provided to the Chair by Standing Order 11 of the House of Commons. Quite the contrary.
I want, on behalf of all the members of this House, to honour one of our colleagues on the day that marks the 30th anniversary of his loyal services to our institution.

I name you Herbert Gray.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Herb, Herb, Herb.


Mr. Speaker:: You have served your country, notrepays, avec distinction, as a member of this House for 30 years.
You have successfully fought 10 consecutive general elections, in itself a remarkable tribute from the people you represent. Having been the member of Parliament for Essex West since 1962, you were sworn in as a minister in 1969, thus becoming the first Canadian federal cabinet minister of the Jewish faith. Your service in several senior cabinet posts and, more recently, in senior critics' roles in opposition, including the high office of Leader of the Opposition, is testimony to your devotion to this institution and to the country.

June 18, 1992
Tributes
Your achievements do you great honour. We, your fellow Commoners, can only hope that we will continue to benefit from your wisdom and dedication for many years to come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, one does not have to think long and hard to find the words to pay tribute to the hon. member for Windsor West. We met when I arrived in the House the year after he was elected, and althought I took a sabbatical for a couple of years, I sat on the Liberal benches with the hon. member for Windsor-West for nearly a quarter of a century.

As you said, Mr. Speaker, he served this House very well in many capacities. He has always been a very hard working member of Parliament, a very dedicated minister, and an excellent interim Leader of the Opposition, but there is one thing that has to be an example to all members of this House. He has always been a fantastic member of Parliament for the people he has represented.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is an example for all of us that every time the member for Windsor West got up, whatever his duty, we always knew that he was from Windsor, Ontario and that the interests of his constituents were always reflected in his policy stance. He has always been a very good supporter of the party. He was an example in terms of discipline, but he served his people first and foremost. For that he has to be an example to all members of this House.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to say that he is re-establishing something that seems to have disappeared from Canadian politics. After we have served for many years in very important positions, the press, the media and public opinion seem to say that perhaps we should go elsewhere. In Europe people serve after they have been Prime Minister and minister for years, keeping their seat in the House, offering advice, example, and participating in the debate for a long, long time in their lives because experience and judgment are very important.
That is why we on the Liberal side do not want to make too much about 30 years. It is not enough. We want him for many more years.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sure that despite the differences between the parties, all members of this House wish that Herb, Herb, Herb will be around for a long, long, long time.


Some hon. members:: Herb, Herb, Herb.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Windsor West.

Thirty years in politics is indeed a very long time. It is a testament to the stamina of our colleague that he has successfully steered his way through 10 elections and the vagaries of political life. Fewer than 27 members in the history of Canada have served in this House for 30 years.
There is a former member sitting here today, Mr. Stanley Knowles. I would like to say to the hon. member for Windsor West that he has about 20 more years to catch up on Mr. Knowles who will have been here for 50 years and today is celebrating his 84th birthday.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a grand acknowledgement to the member for Windsor West that he has served this House well. He has served his country well. He has been a leading spokesperson for his party and a very able cabinet minister.

He always conducted himself with great dignity and showed great respect for others. The entire House has benefited from his wisdom.



There is much made, I might add, of the member's penchant for rock music, something that may be little known to the public. One can tell just by looking at the member for Windsor West that he certainly is a fan of the Kentucky Headhunters. However, as someone who has spent 30 years in the House of Commons, we know that the member for Windsor West is no Rolling Stone.
He is respected. We do appreciate the work he has done for his party and for this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. William Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Government of Canada to recognize the 30th anniversary of the election of the hon. member for Windsor West to the House of Commons. He is the longest continuous serving member of Parliament.
When I came here as a rookie in 1965, he was already a fixture as the hon. member for Essex West. Only the hon. member for Saint-Denis can claim to have sat in Parliament with the hon. member for Windsor West before then, having been elected in a by-election in 1964.
Over the years we have seen many changes in the House of Commons. Good friends have come and gone and been replaced by new good friends. What has never changed is the dedication of the hon. member for Windsor West to the process that is exemplified by the House of Commons.
Today we find ourselves in the middle of yet another discussion on the future of our country. The hon. member for Windsor West can no doubt recall many instances over the past 30 years when the future of our country was at stake. Each time he rose above the partisanship that existed here to make a valiant defence of the virtues of our country.
The hon. member for Windsor West has worn many hats in the last 30 years. He has been Minister of National Revenue, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion, President of the Treasury Board, Opposition House Leader and Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in 1990.
Tributes
He was a royal pain in the side of our government at that time.
Thirty years of service to the people of Canada as a federal member of Parliament is something to be very proud of. I join with his family and friends and hon. members from all sides of this House in wishing the hon. member for Windsor West a very happy 30th anniversary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I take this special opportunity to stand in celebration of Herb Gray's 30th anniversary in this place as one who can claim to have contributed to his first victory by being a part of the sacrifice then made by the New Democratic Party in the first federal election in which it ran. I have to say that in spite of the chagrin at the time, I knew then that Herb Gray would be a charismatic luminary for almost ever in the Liberal Party as he is today. I share with him the struggle that we from Windsor have undergone in order to ensure that our city is considered to be part of the map of Canada and not its periphery.
I take great pleasure in congratulating my friend and colleague on this his 30th anniversary. I do not know whether I can agree with my leader that he should have another 20 years. I cannot give up the struggle, but I do respect this man.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being named again, I hope you will permit me to take a few minutes to respond to the words of tribute just paid me.
I do want to express my deep and sincere appreciation for these kind words. Listening to them makes me believe that perhaps I have not got off to such a bad start after all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I have been reminded here and on the Hill recently, this is the 30th anniversary of my first election to the House of Commons. It is not something I think about a lot because I am not the type of person much given to reminiscence. I prefer to deal with things as they are and as I would like them to be.

June 18, 1992
Tributes
Mr. Speaker, you will be relieved to know that I do not intend to depart from that habit today. However, perhaps you will allow me to share with you and the members of the House one anecdote relating to my first election to this House of Commons.
Some months after that election, I came to Ottawa on what was to be the first day, the opening of the new session. That morning before the House opened, I decided it would be a good idea if I took a look inside the House of Commons Chamber, where I had never been before. I walked up to the door of the opposition lobby and before I could go in a guard came up to me and very gently but firmly took hold of my arm and said: "Young man, just where do you think you are going?" He was most apologetic when he learned that the guy with the brushcut and the horn rimmed glasses was, in fact, a member of Parliament and was entitled to go into the Chamber to see where his seat was to be, before the House opened that afternoon.
The question the guard asked me at that time is still relevant: Just where did I think I was going? On that fall day, for some so long ago but for me only yesterday, I must say I did not enter the Chamber with a complete game plan for the next 30 years. I did not anticipate the possibility that this occasion would arise. I must say that I did go in expecting to speak and work for my city and my country, to work to implement the program of the party for which I campaigned and also, since I entered through the opposition lobby, to work so that after the next election I would not only come back, but I would be seated on the other side of the House. Well, I guess things have not changed that much after all.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, today is above all a day for me to state my thanks but not just for the warm words that have been expressed. I want to state my thanks for the marvellous opportunities I have had to work with the great leaders of my party. I especially thank my current leader for his words of tribute. I want to express my thanks for having been able to work with the wonderful people of our Liberal caucus.
It is also a time to thank my family, my parents of blessed memory, my wife and children who mean so much to me, for their encouragement and understanding. I also want to thank the Almighty and my constituents for having helped me reach this day.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I express my appreciation to the people of my community who have supported me and demonstrated their faith in me. Because of this they are sharing with me in whatever words of tribute are being expressed today. Their support has enabled me to spend these years working for them and for our country.
My city of Windsor with its rainbow of peoples, its ability to fight back against difficulty and adversity, its openness and its tolerance, represent for me what is the best and what must continue to be the best about our country, a country of understanding and openness, a country which celebrates its unity through its diversity.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as you know I am proud to be the son of immigrants, Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. The principles of social justice in my heritage are very important to me.
Looking at the story of my parents and their hopes and aspirations, and looking at my part in that story, makes me want to say to the members of this House that it is only a small part of the larger story of the Canadian dream which is being told and retold every day in this country by the strivings of tens of thousands of people who are working to create better lives for themselves and their families and thereby to build a better country for all of us.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is the 125th anniversary of the creation of our country. I want to commit myself again as should we all to continuing to work to preserve and strengthen its unity and strengthen its well-being as the foundation for a better life for all its people.

We must all stand together to fight for the unity of our country and for all Canadians.
*
June 18, 1992

Oral Questions

I have been privileged to serve as a member of Parliament, not just in this Chamber, but in its committees, in our party caucus, in the cabinet, in my community and across this country.
Our system today is subject to a lot of criticism. That is healthy. Let us, however, paraphrase the words of Churchill who said that our system of government has its problems but when we look at all the other systems then we will decide ours is not so bad after all.
What comes next? I should tell you that I have already begun to plan with my riding executive for my next election campaign, but-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I know that this depends on the Almighty and of course my constituents, but I want to tell you about the spirit in which I make these plans. That spirit is reflected in the words of Wilfrid Laurier in his classic speech to the young Liberals of Quebec in 1877 when he said:
I am a Liberal. I am one of those who thinks that always and everywhere in human things there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up and new forces to be developed.
Many of you are familiar with those words but very few are familiar with the words that came after in that classic speech. Laurier said:
Our means are limited but our nature is perfectible and we have the infinite as our arena. Thus there is always room for the improvement of our conditions, for the perfecting of our nature and for the attainment by a larger number of an easier life.
These words are as relevant today as when they were spoken over 115 years ago.
When I walked in the door of the House of Commons that fall day in 1962, after that altercation with the guard, the next thing that happened was I found myself standing here speaking to you, responding to words of tribute I appreciate very much. Standing here speaking in this marvellous place, in spite of its problems, is still the focal point to which Canadians look when it comes to the protection and enhancement of their liberties and wellbeing. May it always be such.
Looking out from this Chamber and all across this great country, surely I can conclude by saying as did-

-George Etienne Cartier, when he wrote the following as a student 158 years ago: "Comme le dit un vieil adage, rien n'est si[ beau que son pays. A son aspect, le Canadien s'eerie: 6 Canada, mon pays! mes amours!"

Mr. Speaker, I have been able to serve and work for my country and its people for what George Etienne Cartier called "Canada, my own beloved land" and hope to be able to continue to do so for some time yet. I say to all those who have helped me to do this, merci, thank you very much. I am eternally grateful.
[Editor's Note: All hon. members rose and applauded.]



ORAL QUESTION

[Stage Direction]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, if I can find one. My question is directed to whoever is the spokesperson for the government at this time.
We read in the media that confusion reigns in the current constitutional debate. Formal talks ended a week ago, and the country is still in the dark. I would like to know from the government whether someone will soon report to the House on his matter. We would like to know whether the Prime Minister will convene a First Ministers' Conference soon, so that Canada will know exactly where we are on this question. People are fed up, and they want these issues to be settled as soon as possible.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, discussions are ongoing between the federal government and the provinces. If it would be useful to have a First Ministers' Conference the Prime Minister is prepared to do so, but he is awaiting a report from the Minister Responsible for Federal-Provincial Relations.

Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we read in the papers and we hear on radio and television that the government is planning to have a referendum only in the provinces where the premiers do not want to agree with the government.
I want to ask the minister if it is true. I would like to say to this minister that we proposed a referendum, not as a club to try to put some discipline on some premiers, but to give a voice to the Canadian people and give the Constitution to all the citizens of Canada. We want every Canadian to be consulted. We do not want the government to use it as a political tool, but as an instrument of unity in this country.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, we could not agree more. The referendum should not be used as a political tool or for showboating or for dividing Canadians. The only basis on which a referendum should be held is if it will unite Canadians.
Our goal is to see an agreement between the federal government and the provinces for constitutional renewal. All of us on all sides of the House should be working for that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are asking for. I am happy that the minister said the Conservatives do not want to use the referendum as a tool against the premiers of Alberta, Newfoundland or Manitoba, but to give a voice to the Canadian people.
I would like to know from the minister if this government will take that stance and make sure that the Constitution really belongs to the people of Canada and not to the backroom boys who are back in the back rooms against the will of the people at this time?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed something here but I fully remember the last time that constitutional change was made. The hon. member at that time was back in the kitchen doing deals. There will be none of that under this government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: And you voted for it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member is terribly proud to say that after he cooked up the deal in the kitchen we voted for it. What we want is an arrangement where all the premiers work together with the federal government, where there is an agreement between the provinces and the federal government which will unite Canadians.
We do not need showboating, we do not need divisive comments and we do not need partisanship.


BALTIC STATES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or somebody.
Last weekend, 90 per cent of the people of Lithuania voted for the unconditional withdrawal of the over
200,000	Russian troops that are presently occupying the Baltic states. As the external affairs committee reported this morning, there are enormous difficulties in sending these troops back in terms of shortages of housing, training and employment.
I want to ask whichever minister is responsible these days: Will this matter be raised with President Boris Yeltsin in the visit tomorrow? Will we gain a commitment for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltic states? Will the government be offering, as recommended by the external affairs committee, direct assistance for housing and for employment so that the Russian troops can return to their homeland?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, regrettably the Secretary of State for External Affairs has become ill and is unable to be here at the moment. I would certainly take the hon. member's representation as that and communicate it.
I am sure, as he well understands, there will be a long agenda of items under discussion. This will undoubtedly be a part of it, but I will ensure that his representation is made on the broader question of aid to Russia and the kind of commercial relations we might have.
Obviously we are interested in the issues the hon. member raised. I am sure they will be part of the discussions the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister who will be speaking on behalf of the government if, in that meeting with the President of Russia, the question of a demilitarized zone in the Arctic will be raised, if we will gain agreement from the President to go ahead immediately with the establishment of an Arctic council, and if we will establish joint programs to clean up Arctic waters, especially those that have been polluted by nuclear waste.
June 18, 1992

Will the government agree to the recommendation of the committee that there be an ambassador for circumpolar affairs so that we can give real priority to the common border that we hold with Russia in the hope that it will become a fully peaceful, denuclearized, demilitarized border in the basis of the relations of our two countries?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, in exactly the same way I answered the first question, I think that is a valid point the hon. member raises and is something that ought to be discussed.
In respect to the first question, I have subsequently been informed that Canada's view is that Russia should establish a timetable for the swift removal of its forces from that area. We will be making that representation and asking Mr. Yeltsin what the timetable is and encouraging it to be as short as possible.


MEME BREAST IMPLANTS
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

Today it was reported that in January 1989, a senior official of the Department of National Health and Welfare wanted to take the Meme implant off the market for further testing. Mr. Speaker, this was in 1989, it was a senior official, and he felt it was urgent at the time. Women's health was at stake but the government did nothing. Why did the government decide to ignore these warnings at the time?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member is referring from the health protection branch is not the whole story.
The Meme implant was reviewed both intensively and very much had the total research and investigation done. The whole department was included. Indeed I can tell
Oral Questions
the member that there was a conclusive report with regard to the Meme implant.
I would also like to say that the CM A back in 1991 did a specific review that was arm's length from the government. It did not come forward with any scientific evidence to prove it was not safe.
The health of women-the health of all Canadians- in this specific issue comes first and foremost. We will always stand behind that.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, with a government that says it really, truly believes that the health of women should come first and foremost, I would like to ask why it took three years to act on the advice of a senior bureaucrat that the Meme implant should be removed until further study.
Furthermore, I would like to ask the spokesperson for the department why a senior member of that department would dismiss today, as quoted in the newspapers, women's health issues and the Meme transplant controversy by saying: "It sells papers. It is a women's issue". It is a women's issue. It is a women's health issue.
I want to ask this government why it did not take it seriously in the past? Why in fact did the chair of its own panel in 1992 say today that she had not received all of that information? How can this country and Canadian women have any faith that this government is going to put women's health issues first?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Baines has received and has full access to all the documentation within the department. Women's health and women's safety do come first.
With regard to the remarks that the hon. leader of the NDP quoted from the paper, "it sells, it is a women's issue", I absolutely apologize. If what that department person said is true, I apologize on behalf of the minister, myself and everybody on this side of the House. It is unacceptable.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, there are many issues concerning women's health that I am sure are of concern to the parliamentary secretary responding and to all of us.
Recently this week there was a report released entitled Breast Cancer, Unanswered Questions, a report that made 49 recommendations about the kind of leadership role the federal government could take basically in research, in education, and indeed in consultation with the provinces and territories.
I would like to ask the spokesperson for the minister whether the minister, at the meetings this week with the provincial and territorial ministers of health, is raising this urgent issue of health concerns for women. It is clear that when we have something like breast cancer from which one woman every two hours dies in Canada, this is urgent.
Has the minister of health raised it with provincial and territorial ministers, and what plan of action is contemplated?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. leader brought forward the health cancer research document that was tabled in the House the other day. It does stipulate 49 recommendations in this area, specifically education, research and working together, the federal department along with the provincial departments of health and welfare, and I would say with the public and with the medical fraternity.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is at the Canada health meetings today. He was there yesterday and last night. He will be reviewing the total act. I can assure my colleague that the issue of breast cancer will be brought forward. I hope that he will be able to report directly to her in the next few days.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to say that we appreciate the unequivocal apology of the parliamentary secretary for the statements made. We would also like to tell her that an apology is not going to set the record straight. The parliamentary secretary herself cited Dr. Cornelia Baines as one of the key players in the panel which finally determined that in fact the Meme implant was not a risk factor for women.
In the same article that same doctor who participated on the panel said that the conclusions of the panel might have been different had they known about the internal minutes. We are talking about internal minutes that have been hidden by someone from the eyes of the panel and the public about this very serious issue.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to go one step beyond an apology and to order a review of all the material, throw out the panel findings because they were based on inaccurate information, and bring forward legitimate information including the information from her own department that the Meme implant was putting women at risk.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, there have been no hidden minutes from the panel or indeed anyone. Dr. Baines did go on to be appointed to an independent review of the breast implants.
As my colleague does know, the Meme implant was withdrawn well over a year ago by the manufacturers, and the silicone gel breast implants have been put into a moratorium for some months now. There will be no breast implants taking place within Canada until further review.


Sheila Maureen Copps: With all due respect for the parliamentary secretary, she was not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker, since it was revealed today that the department of health has been withholding information on this for three years. I think that Canadian women are entitled to know why a memo from a professor in her department who spoke of possible risks was hidden both from the public and from physicians interested in this matter. What are they doing in her department?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Canadian women do have the right to all the information. Their health is foremost for each and every one of us. There is no hidden information.
The department did an intensive scientific review, the research and the development with regard to implants, both Meme and silicone gel breast implants. I can say right here in the House there is no specific scientific evidence proving that they are unsafe for women.
['Translation\


GRAIN INDUSTRY
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the individual answering for the Minister of Finance. It pertains to wheat shipments to Russia.
The wheat is moving at only half capacity. In the seaway only 20 ships out of 47 are moving. Only 1.7 million tonnes of wheat have been ordered. That is less than 50 per cent of normal. Despite the government's assurances that the Wheat Board can handle the situation, the tie-up continues.
As I understand it there is a problem in the finance department. It is not giving the right signals to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I want to know what the hold-up is in the Department of Finance.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I will tell the hon. member that the figures we have here indicate that initial payments were made in light of the information available and based on the figures we had. I do not believe that there is a problem. The news report is untrue, Mr. Speaker.


John Harvard: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister knows what he is talking about, because we get a very different story from the industry.
There are 27 ships idle in the seaway. The shipping industry has laid off over 3,000 employees and only 1,000 cars have been allotted to the railways. Normally that figure is 4,000 cars. Farmers soon will not be able to move any grain at all. In other words it is a mess out there.
There is a problem in the finance department. I want to know from this individual if he can say explicitly whether the Minister of Finance has given the go-ahead
Oral Questions
to the Wheat Board to apply credits to cover shipping charges. Yes or no.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why, but there are still people on that side of the House who get up and complain about the way this government deals with western Canadian farmers. Never has a government defended farmers in the west and throughout Canada so much.
The money made available to western farmers has increased more than 500 per cent over the years, Mr. Speaker. The initial payments were made and are still being made in accordance with the rules. I think that the hon. member should instead thank us for the way we have acted in recent years, rather than complain and simply report complaints from the newspapers.


BENZOYL PEROXIDE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to whomever is speaking on behalf of the minister of health.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now imposed a requirement for safety labels on acne medicines which contain benzoyl peroxide. Benzoyl peroxide is both a cancer initiator and promoter. Some years ago an external committee recommended that all sales of medicines containing benzoyl peroxide, which is used largely by teenagers for the treatment of acne, be banned for over the counter sales.
Is it now time, now that the Americans have acted, for the Canadian government and health and welfare to act in Canada to protect those teenagers and young people who are using a potential carcinogen on their skin twice daily?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, with regard to benzoyl peroxide, yes, this has come forward in the news in the last couple of days.

June 18, 1992
Oral Questions
I must say with regard to the concentration in the ointments and salves sold in Canada versus that in the United States, that ours is about a 50 per cent concentration of what theirs is.
Also the ingredients are listed very explicitly and very carefully on all these salves and ointments sold within the retail business or indeed the wholesale business throughout Canada. There is not the cause for alarm in Canada, as indeed there might be south of the border.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. We are talking about medicines used by teenagers for treating acne. They are supposed to understand that benzoyl peroxide means something.
In fact, the concentrations the hon. member is talking about are the concentrations used for eliciting cancer in animals, the same concentration as used in mice.
I repeat my question to the minister, is this government prepared to re-examine recommendations made by its scientists and an external advisory committee that this stuff be banned from over the counter sales to kids?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, it is very serious and I take the member's question very seriously. I assure him that the health and welfare department will be monitoring this situation very closely.
I have to say the concentration strength of that product in any of the ointments and salves sold within Canada is less than 50 per cent of that of the United States. We will watch this very closely. With regard to labelling, it will become as specific as possible. 5 there are any further changes I will notify him.


GIANT YELLOWKNIFE MINES LIMITED
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
Giant Yellowknife Mines Limited in Yellowknife has been involved in a very serious labour dispute for the past several weeks. This is a very ugly strike.
It has all the ingredients that ugliness makes. Replacement workers are being flown in by the company. I really question the wisdom of replacement workers in the safety sensitive position of working underground. Guards are being flown in by the company. Vicious dogs are being flown in to protect the guards.
Violence is happening on the streets of the town every day. Feelings are seething throughout this community reminiscent and analogous to what we have seen recently in large urban centres in this country.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour if he would intervene directly before any more violence happens in this community, to take active participation and bring those parties together?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am active in this dispute. I have contacted the parties. I am in daily contact with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
For the information of my hon. friend, I have received a request from the Minister of Justice and the Government of the Northwest Territories to impose back to work legislation in this legal strike. I should tell the hon. member this has never been done to my knowledge in the history of this country by any Parliament on a dispute which is private and local in nature.
Nonetheless, because the request comes from the Government of the Northwest Territories, I will consider it very seriously and I will get back to the Minister of Justice of the territories very shortly.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, for the same minister, I appreciate the answer and I realize that he too takes this situation very seriously.
I respect what he has just said concerning trying to bring in legislation, but that certainly takes a great deal of time. The situation, I do not think, will allow for that time.
I ask the minister if he will convene a meeting here in Ottawa, bring in representatives of labour and management into a neutrally acceptable area of Ottawa and try
June 18, 1992

and resolve this tragedy so that no further violence takes place?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, of course we deplore the acts of violence that have taken place in Yellowknife.
As I said in my earlier answer we are in contact with the parties and my hon. friend knows that in these types of disputes the best settlements that can be achieved are settlements that the parties achieve by themselves. However, I have been in touch with the parties and I am hopeful they will be back at the table.
I think it would also be helpful if people would try to stay out of this dispute. I am not referring to my hon. friend but I am referring to a number of politicians around the country who try to get involved. I have been told by the parties that it is hurting the situation instead of providing for a settlement.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could assist the House. Because of the interventions earlier, I think which we all enjoyed taking a part in, I hope this will be acceptable to the House to extend Question Period to 3.15 p.m.
I must say though I have already had representations that some ministers may have to leave for other obligations and I am sure we understand that. I hope the House will accept that.


HENRIETTE HADDAD
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. There are widespread reports that Henriette Haddad, who was taken hostage in Lebanon in 1985, is still alive, was recently hospitalized in Iran and has now returned to Lebanon. There are also strong indications that her captors are now willing to negotiate her release on humanitarian grounds.
When Mrs. Haddad's son and I met with the Prime Minister in April, he promised to actively pursue this case. I want to ask if the minister will now make a commitment to pursue these new developments and seek the release of Mrs. Haddad as soon as possible?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there are approaches being made at the ambassadorial level, both in Ottawa and Tehran, in order to obtain confirmation of this newest information on Mrs. Haddad's fate.
Oral Questions
As you may know, Mr. Speaker, the Iranian Embassy in Paris today asserted that it had no information on Mrs. Haddad's whereabouts. The Iranian Embassy in Paris also denied that any of its staff had been in touch with the Haddad family representatives or intermediaries. That same message was communicated to the Canadian Embassy in Paris.
While embassy officials in Paris say they have no information and they have not contacted the family and they communicated that to the Canadian Embassy, we are, nevertheless, following up whatever leads are available. We are in contact both in Tehran and here with Iranian officials. We will certainly search out every lead in an effort to determine Mrs. Haddad's fate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government itself must take an active part in the negotiations, which until now have been carried on by the committee to free Mrs. Haddad. The government must also insist on calling Mrs. Haddad a hostage and not just a missing person. This is absolutely necessary to obtain her release. Is the government prepared to make that commitment, which is very important for Mrs. Haddad?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course, that is precisely what I just indicated we are doing, contacting the Iranian officials in Tehran through our embassy and the Iranian Embassy here.
I have to repeat, the news story which came out saying that the Iranian Embassy in Paris confirms she is alive is being denied publicly by the Iranian Embassy in Paris and it has communicated this denial to our embassy in Paris. Nevertheless, we are still following up with Iran in an effort to establish whether we can discover the fate of Mrs. Haddad.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of health.
There are reports today that the minister of health says he will act on the unanimous recommendation made by the Sub-Committee on Health Issues in its report on foetal alcohol syndrome by entering into pilot projects on warning labels with interested provinces.

June 18, 1992
Oral Questions
While this is a partial victory for those who have worked for several years on foetal alcohol syndrome, it is not a partial problem but is the leading cause of mental retardation in Canada.
Will the government meet its federal responsibility and begin a national label warning program that deals with this serious national health problem?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the foetal alcohol syndrome report was tabled in the House. Indeed, it was veiy well done and I want to congratulate the committee and its members.
Various recommendations were put forward, one of which was alcohol warning labels. We do get into research and also education. Although the minister has quickly reviewed this report, he will do an intensive study of it and will respond within the 150 days. Warning labels is one area in which he would be most interested. We will certainly be talking to all provincial governments in relation to this.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplemental is for the same minister. On April 1, in answer to my question concerning warning labels, the minister of health replied: "If there is a unanimous position by the ministers of health to do something about it, we will certainly consider their recommendation."
Is the minister taking this unanimous report to the provincial ministers of health at their meeting in Ottawa today? Is he actively seeking their approval to get effective warning labels and effective signage in all drinking establishments adopted in all provinces and all territories in Canada?


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, the report was tabled I believe between 10 and 10.30 this morning. I am not quite sure if the minister has had a chance to review every recommendation specifically. I know he is most interested in the warning labels, not only on the bottles or the cans of the substance itself, but also with regard to drinking establishments.
I have to say that only by working together with our provincial counterparts and the public will we be able to resolve this very serious issue.


FIREARMS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister answering for the Minister of Justice.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General has for the past several weeks been hearing representations with respect to the regulations pertaining to the firearms legislation, Bill C-17.
Virtually all of those representations have called for a less violent society and yet there are some very significant ironies revealed. For example, the new legislation contains special arrangements for the use of fully automatic firearms in theatre and movie productions which will indirectly incite far more violence than will ownership of those weapons by legitimate gun collectors.
Will the government await the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General before implementing the new regulations? Will it heed the recommendations of the standing committee based on the representations which it has had from across Canada?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question.
There have been extensive consultations with user groups before, during and after the legislative process. The minister set up an advisory group in which the user groups had representations as to the firearms regulations. The firearms regulations were published with plenty of time for input from the public and the user groups. That input is now before the justice committee, as are the regulations.
I can assure my hon. friend the government has every intention of treating the report of the justice committee seriously in order that we can get the best regime possible to have safety for the public and at the same time to allow the user groups that use firearms legitimately to go about their business.
June 18, 1992


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador are running out of restraint because they have run out of funds as of May 15 when their unemployment insurance ran out. There is desperation growing in our province and it is growing to crisis proportions.
I want to ask the government why it is that instead of talking about long-term plans for stock regeneration, it refuses to talk about immediate compensation for fishermen and their families who need the basic necessities of life? Why not announce a compensation program and take its responsibilities not tomorrow but today?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the great concern of my colleague opposite and other members from Newfoundland and Labrador, indeed all of us here in the House.
However, I think the member was present yesterday and heard the Prime Minister indicate in very specific terms how concerned this government has been about the situation. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also given similar undertakings, as has the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I can assure my hon. friend that this government is very seriously considering any interim measures that may be necessary. I think he would agree that today would not be an appropriate time to make an announcement without further information.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. The health and welfare subcommittee has tabled its report today on foetal alcohol syndrome, the greatest cause of mental retardation in Canada. It is a preventable tragedy and the minister is the person who can do much to prevent it.
Why has this minister failed to introduce warning labels on alcohol as recommended by the same committee five years ago?
Oral Questions


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. The spokesman for the department of health has just left Question Period. I am very sorry for that. She will answer the question tomorrow.


THE TORONTO STAR STRIKE
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services, who just ducked out. The question for the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. We had interventions in which we all took part for a very significant event. We are running late. I am trying to do the best I can. I do not think we need any comments. I made it quite clear that ministers would probably have to leave.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean he did it on purpose.
My question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. The employees of the The Toronto Star have struck that company. The Government of Ontario, the city of Toronto, have all cancelled their government advertising. I would ask this government if they would be prepared to do the same thing.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the proposal and I will take a look at it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question for the government House leader is in regard to the business of the House for today.
Should debate on Bill C-73 collapse later this day, could he indicate to the House what he intends to call for the remaining part of this sitting day?
We have a special session of Parliament tomorrow. Could he also indicate what the business of the House will be commencing after Question Period at 3 p.m. tomorrow, and of course the business for Monday and Tuesday of next week?

Oral Questions
While the minister is on his feet, perhaps he could indicate to the House, that if rumour become reality in the sense that the House is called back in mid-summer session, whether or not he would be prepared to give reasonable notice to Opposition House leaders on the business which will be taking place? We may assume what it might be, but I ask concerning reasonable notice.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in terms of today, unfortunately we had to time allocate second reading of Bill C-73. If that debate collapses, if time permits and if there is agreement among the parties, I hope we might consider Bill S-11, the Airport Transfer Act, which is fairly routine, to get that passed and allow the airport authorities the confidence of knowing what the rules will be as they assume responsibility for the airports in Vancouver, Montreal, Edmonton and Calgary.
There is also Bill C-46, on which I also understand there is general agreement. This is a bill that would permit federal law enforcement officers to issue fines in appropriate circumstances, as opposed to having to issue a summons, which is now the case.
This bill is particularly important to members in recreational vacation areas, since police enforcing boating laws and so on will be able to do so by virtue of fines rather than having to summons the offenders, should that be the case.
Tomorrow and Monday, it would be my intention to call Bill C-86, the Immigration Act, and on Tbesday the government will call Bill C-26, the Public Service Reform Act, for report stage.
In terms of the potential of the House of Commons coming back, I would like the opportunity to pass the usual motion that the House can be called into session for the purpose of Royal Assent, because the Senate will be carrying on with some business, I understand, after we leave.
If for any other reason the House is called back, certainly I give the House leaders of the Opposition and the New Democratic Party, and indeed all members, assurances that adequate notice will be given. I am sure they share with me the hope that in fact such notice is unnecessary and that we are not called back. Nevertheless, if the country is at stake, I am sure we would willingly come back and help to keep it together.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
84TH BIRTHDAY OF HON. STANLEY KNOWLES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to note officially that today is the 84th birthday of Stanley Knowles.
On behalf of all members I would like to pay tribute to a gentleman who first came to this place in the fall of 1942. It will be 50 years this November since Mr. Knowles was first elected to the House in a by-election in Winnipeg North Centre where he took over from the late Mr. Woodsworth who was the founding leader of the CCF party.
I think we owe Mr. Knowles an awful lot of gratitude for the contribution he has made to this country and to this House.
I was first elected in 1968. When I came down here at that time Mr. Knowles was recognized as the father of Parliament, Mr. Rules of this place, a very kind and very courteous gentleman who treated all members of the House of Commons with great respect.
I remember a regular routine around this place. About 3.30 in the afternoon a messenger would come in with a cup of tea and some Arrowroot biscuits. Mr. Knowles would go behind the curtain; he was the only member of the House who never went up to the coffee shop or up to his office, or even out to the lobby, for his tea and biscuit break. He used to sit right there in the back and make sure he kept his ears alert to every word that was spoken in the House of Commons.
We owe him a great tribute and a tremendous amount of respect.
I remember the first year I was here, Madam Speaker,
I was 22 years old at the time. The only time he became annoyed with me was one day when I leaned over to him and asked him, because he was the House leader, what Sir John A Macdonald was really like. Mr. Knowles had been here for a long time but he quickly informed me he had not been here in those days.

Anyway, I pay tribute to Mr. Knowles and we hope he is here for many, many more years to come.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In the name of the House I am delighted to join with the hon. member for York-ton-Melville in offering our best wishes to the hon. gentleman on his birthday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p. 10744).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had three minutes left.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I was addressing my remarks concerning Bill C-73 and I hope I will get an opportunity to make another 10-minute speech after the vote on the amendment is concluded so I can go into greater detail of my criticisms of this bill.
What this bill is seeking to do, as I indicated earlier, is privatize the post office to a very limited extent. I submit this is really the thin edge of the wedge.
There is no protection whatever for the employees who purchase these shares in Canada Post Corporation. The corporation is supposed to be, according to its current mandate, a self-sustaining operation. It is supposed to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis. In other words, it is not supposed to turn a profit. It is supposed to be self-sustaining. It is to pay its own way at best.
What this government is trying to do is turn it into come kind of profit machine that I presume will be eligible to make donations to the Progressive Conservative fund of Canada or whatever, the PC Fund, their big money machine, for election campaigns.
Government Orders
That is not the purpose of Canada Post. Canada Post Corporation is to provide a service for the public of Canada, to deliver the mail across our country. It is to operate according to its mandate on a self-sustaining basis. So how is the purchase of shares by anybody going to be of interest? Why does anybody want to buy shares in a corporation that is supposed to break even. The purpose of buying shares is to generate some profits and share in the profitability of the corporation.
This corporation is not supposed to be a profitable operation, Madam Speaker. It is supposed to be a public service for Canadians.
What we are doing is inviting these employees to buy shares in a corporation that should not make money. Therefore, the shares should not go up in value. Why are these being offered? The shares are being offered to induce people to buy and then later the government will say: "To help these people out, having sold them this bill of goods in the first place, we now have to do something that will allow their shares to go up in value or will give them some return on their investment".
I do not know what the government is planning to do. It has not come clean with this House. It has not come clean with Canadians. In fact, this bill is some kind of deceitful exercise, designed again to hoodwink the employees of Canada Post into believing that the government is serious about doing something, but without saying what it is serious about doing.
It is an excuse for inaction. It should be rejected out of hand. The government should withdraw the bill. It should be voted down in the House.
If any of the members who support the government would read this bill and see how stupid it is, they would stand up and vote against it at the end of the day as well and get rid of it. It is not a worth-while project to proceed with. It is not a reasonable way to deal with a Crown corporation that has over the years served Canadians reasonably well. It is only in the last few years that we have had these constant cutbacks in service that I alluded to earlier.
This bill does not address those issues. Those are the ones that concern Canadians, not who owns shares in Canada Post. For that reason, I urge all members of the House to look at this bill carefully, study its provisions and say: "Really, is this in the best interests of Canada? Is this something we should be even discussing in this House?" The government has brought it forward as a

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
serious legislative proposal. I suggest it is not worthy of serious consideration and ought to be rejected.
I see my time has expired, Madam Speaker. I will save my further remarks until later on.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I want to enter this debate for historical reasons which I will explain, but first I want to meet the challenge of the member who just spoke and answer the question: "Is this bill in the best interests of Canada?" As I will explain, the bill is suited to the ongoing benefits of Canada Post, the workers of Canada Post and the citizens of Canada.
Let me go back in time to 1980 when the Canada Post Corporation Act was dealt with in the Parliament of Canada. It was of great concern to me at the time. The postal service was in turmoil, deficits had mounted to $600 million a year, people were complaining across the country about the level of postal service and Parliament was asked to act. The Liberal government of the day brought in a bill to make Canada Post a separate Crown corporation.
I had for many years served as a legal officer in the province of Nova Scotia. I was well aware of the distinction between various emanations of government called Crown corporations, commissions and departments. I knew that basically there was no real difference. The differences were cosmetic in many cases. Those kinds of differentiations did allow for different perspectives and allowed for change and reform. That is what I thought was involved in the bill that was brought forward to make the Canadian postal service a Crown corporation under the name Canada Post.
What I said at the time in the Parliament of Canada on November 20, 1980 was that the bill gave the opportunity for change and more important, the opportunity for a new beginning. I described it then and I will describe it again today, almost 12 years later, as a leap of faith. The Parliament of Canada gave the Canadian postal service a new start, not knowing what the result would be.
What we did know was that the postal service was inadequate. There were complaints broadly, as I said, across the nation. There was an enormous deficit. Labour-management relations had been reduced to the lowest level possible and to put it in simplistic terms, the postal service was a shambles.
Whether the move to a Crown corporation called Canada Post was the solution or not, history will judge. It was an action that needed to be taken at the time. Even though I and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party were in opposition, we supported the new arrangement.
We could call on the opposition-I suppose we have a right-to support new arrangements that have as their motive and their goal the improvement of the postal service across Canada.
That brings me to the challenge put forward by the opposition. It is to answer the question of whether this change is in the best interest of Canada.
Anybody who has looked at the postal service over the last decade and more and looked particularly at Canada Post since its statutory inception, will realize that at the heart of the difficulty is labour-management relations. That is the relationship of the management of Canada Post and the approximately 60,000 people who work for Canada Post. They have over the years distinguished themselves, both on the management side and on the labour side, as being unable to resolve their internal problems.
As a result, everybody in Canada suffers. If there is any technique or any action that can be taken to reverse this process which has been ongoing for several decades, then I believe that we should take that leap of faith and support that process.
I have no hesitancy in supporting Bill C-73 which brings a new breath of life into Canada Post by involving, in a very important and vital way, the labour force of Canada Post. It gives each person who works for Canada Post the opportunity to benefit by improvements.
What kind of benefits could arise from the new arrangement? We do not have to look inside Canada Post. We can look anywhere in Canada at the enormous growth in other areas of postal services. The companies that were instituted and established in Canada in the past decade were really substitutes for Canada Post. All of the services that are a day-to-day occurrence in business offices, commercial offices and professional offices across Canada really avoid the use of Canada Post. There are courier services and parcel post deliveries. The magnitude of these developments is tremendous.

There are billions of dollars being spent by Canadians. There are billions of dollars in revenue being lost to Canada Post for the simple reason that the Canadian public does not trust the services of Canada Post. They do not trust the services of Canada Post because of the internal friction, in part.
Any initiative that can be seen as a potential for resolving some of those difficulties that occur internally in Canada Post is going to benefit the employees of Canada Post in the long run. That will lead to the improvement of the internal relations of Canada Post so that it can become more productive and more competitive. This will bring in some of that revenue that is being lost to other persons who are providing the services that Canada Post can provide.
Job security has been, for a number of years, the number one concern among the unions representing the workers of Canada Post. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the former Letter Carriers Union always talked about job security.
It is very strange to me that in an industry that is expanding across this country every day that the courier services are providing increased services and hiring people. Given that situation, why would an organization already in the field of providing delivery services be concerned about job security? The reason is that it is not attracting the business. If it attracted the business, it would have the job security.
The Parliament of Canada has to help Canada Post and its employees overcome these difficulties. That, hopefully, is the purpose of this bill.
I am willing to ask my colleagues to take another leap of faith to benefit Canada Post for all of Canada, but especially for the employees of Canada Post. I could, in the time remaining to me, chart all my complaints about Canada Post. I could talk about the closure of the post office at the Head of St. Margarets Bay that became a national event recorded by the CBC. It was complete with cameras and reporters. It was the funeral that was instituted to mark the closure of the Head of St. Margarets Bay post office in the federal constituency of Halifax West. I am concerned more recently at the closure of the post office in the town of Bedford. It is one
Government Orders
of the most enterprising and progressive towns in Nova Scotia and it lost its postal service. However it was replaced by a more efficient service, I hope. Again we take that leap of faith.
I accept these things and I hope people accept these things as part of the leap of faith that in the end we will have an effective postal service in Canada that will provide each and every Canadian with the services that they demand and are entitled to at reasonable cost. I believe that Canada Post has the capacity and the potential ability to provide effective services to all Canadians at a reasonable cost to the taxpayers. As far as I am concerned this means no deficit.
What is our role in all this process? It is to make sure that Canada Post has the statutory instruments to allow reaching that goal. It is not for the benefit of the management of Canada Post or for the edification of the president of Canada Post and the staff he gathers around him, but for the benefit primarily of the people who are involved in the operation of Canada Post whose careers depend upon the success of Canada Post. They literally feed and take care of the welfare of their families because of the employment income they receive. In broader terms this is for the benefit of all Canadians.
Anything that we can do to enhance the efforts of Canada Post in making it an organization that functions effectively and efficiently will be well received by all Canadians who will get the benefit in the end.
We have to put aside those difficulties that have been caused in the past, whether it is in Halifax West, the Head of St. Margarets Bay, the town of Bedford, Kingston or wherever. We must hope that we can come up with some initiative or polity that will enhance Canada Post for the benefit of all Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member rising but he has already spoken on the bill. We are now in the period where there are only 10-minute speeches and no questions or comments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, if the 10 minutes have not been used up then surely a question can be put to the hon. member in the course of his speech. I did not hear you say that the member had finished his time.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member had concluded his 10 minutes and there is no period of question or comment after that. I am sorry. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants has already spoken on the bill.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-73 of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I cannot help but look at the intent of his amendment and realize that what he is trying to do here is to ensure that if Canada Post is privatized, and the employees are allowed to own shares, that they will have the ability to sit on that board of directors.
Canadians, particularly across rural Canada, have a lot of apprehension about the dictatorial policies being exercised by Canada Post and by the government itself on this issue.
We have seen post office after post office across this country closed down. In some cases there is a call for community consultation, but the consultations are meaningless. In fact, I only know of one place in my constituency where Canada Post Corporation had to back down. I am speaking here about the village of Newbury. It was only by the tenacity of the reeve, Diane Brewer, and her council that they were made to back down. Some of the information that Canada Post was giving out was not true. She was told that Canada Post would not allow a municipality to operate the post office, but today that is happening and they are operating it extremely well.
I have to give credit to Diane Brewer and the council of Newbury for having stuck to their guns in forcing Canada Post to back down. We have seen a whole host of closings since that.
I attended one of those meetings and I had other representatives attend other meetings. Canada Post is not there to negotiate with the people of the town. It is there to tell them what is going to happen whether they like it or not.
There is one particular case that I want to speak about. It is the case of the heavy-handed tactics of Canada Post and its insensitivity to history and to those who served their country in time of war. This concerns the village of Watford and the local cenotaph that was erected in the village by the Royal Canadian Legion. I am an honorary member of Branch 172 of the Legion. It maintained this site for 59 years. Then, when the post office was closed
down, Canada Post was going to tender the property for sale. Whether or not Canada Post intended the cenotaph to go with it, I cannot say at this point.
I want to just read into the record part of a letter from the Royal Canadian Legion to Mr. Craig of Canada Post Corporation. It quotes him as saying that Canada Post indicates that the property on which the cenotaph stands is maintained by Public Works Canada. The statement is absolutely incorrect. The letter goes on to say: "We, the Royal Canadian Legion, have maintained the property and the monument in every way since the erection of the monument in 1933". That was for 59 years, and yet Canada Post, that did not have the property in its name, claimed that it had maintained it and owned the property and the cenotaph.
I quote again from the letter: "We believe the cenotaph, as well as the fenced property on which it stands, is owned by the Watford branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. If you have documents to substantiate other ownership or maintenance, please send me a copy within 21 days or by March 28, 1991".
The village would like to buy the property and they still have not got it. The village would buy the property and the building and here we have Canada Post playing games with the monument that recognizes and honours those who fought and died for this nation in the two world wars and in Korea. It is playing games for what reason, I do not know, but it is a shame that this sort of thing is allowed to happen.
The village submitted a request to purchase the building and cenotaph, as I mentioned earlier, but then Canada Post responded that it would lease it to the town. It did not want to sell the building. What is it waiting for, a better offer or until the spirit is broken as we have seen in so many cases? The town then responded that it would agree and it would submit a request to lease with the option to purchase after so many years. That would be negotiated. Do you know that Canada Post has not responded as of this date to this submission or this request? This request was made last fall.
What kind of trust do we have in an operation like that? What kind of an example does this set for other parts of society to completely ignore a cenotaph in a village centre that has been maintained by the Watford branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 172, for 59 years? Surely there has to be some responsibility here to respond not only to the request of the Royal Canadian Legion but also to the town itself.
June 18, 1992

This amendment will make sure that employees buying into Canada Post will be on the board of directors to ensure that these heavy-handed tactics are changed to and there is recognition of those who serve this country. Then we will have no more of those instances ever being allowed to happen again.
I had a phone call just a few minutes ago. The village asked Canada Post again this spring and there has still been no answer.
I hope someone on the government side will recognize the folly of what is happening here and will recognize the Canadian people deserve to be treated better than to have all these institutions closed down and privatized.
I am very well aware of the fact that over the years, many of the people who fought for this country overseas were given priority to serve as postmasters in these communities on their return. Of course, in order to achieve that position they had to be bonded and they were. Now there is no need to be bonded. One can be a tremendous credit risk and still get the job if one is willing to work for next to nothing.
Canada Post completely ignored the fact that these post offices were usually the centre of activity in towns and villages. That is where the old people would come every day to converse with each other, to pick up their cheques and so on. They would ensure that somebody check on someone who was sick and needed help. If someone's mail had not been picked up for a couple of days, the postmaster himself as a concerned citizen would look into it.
As Canadians, we have a sense of obligation to small communities across rural Canada to maintain these post offices and to maintain the institutions in our villages. Above all, we must ensure that cenotaphs, such as the one in the village of Watford standing on property maintained by Royal Canadian Legion Branch 172 for 59 years, have a claim on that property. They deserve better than to be treated the way they are at the present time.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, this is an important debate we are having here today. It is a debate that really should not have to take place but because of the penchant of this government for trying to
Government Orders
destroy rural communities, I am going to speak in this debate today.
Canada Post, aided and abetted by the government of the day, has set out to destroy rural Canada. In virtually all of the small communities in Canada the post offices have been removed.
In some cases the post offices are now in community stores. Some are efficient because the people are efficient but there is nothing efficient about Canada Post. We have heard a lot about the necessity for Canada Post to pay its way and to be a profit centre.
For a couple of years it was a profit centre for the government. Now, after bragging about how efficient it was and having destroyed the postal networks at least in rural Canada, we find that Canada Post now has a deficit.
This is certainly not the first time there has been a strike. I would point out when there is a strike, it is not just the employees who are at fault. I am sure in this case there is probably enough blame to go around but if the employees of Canada Post are treated the way that members of Parliament are and in the manner that small communities are treated by Canada Post, I have absolutely no sympathy for Canada Post at all.
I have never been able to get a straight answer out of Canada Post. Of course, the president of Canada Post is obviously too busy to talk to a member of Parliament. Instead, public relations people are sent to our offices or call us on the telephone when we have a problem. All you get from them is a bunch of gobbledegook. These people have no power to make a decision. They have no power to correct a wrong. They are simply there to make the boss look good.
We have lost our rural post offices in areas where they had been for a hundred years. We have also seen extreme increases in prices for services. I can give you one example in the community of Doaktown, a small community by Ottawa standards. The lock boxes in the post office used to have a fee of $5 a year. When Canada Post took over from the post office that fee went from $5 to $50. That is one of the reasons Canada Post was able to make believe it was making a profit.

Government Orders
I attended numerous meetings in my riding with representatives of Canada Post when they were there to tell their good news to the people. The news was that they were going to lose their post office and they would be much better off. I tried at several of these meetings to get through to these PR people that the sovereignty of this nation resides in the people of the nation. It does not reside in Canada Post.
One might as well have been talking to the wall because these automatons were programmed. They were not allowed to say anything they had not been told in their little booklet to say. Naturally, the people were seized with a great deal of anger.
In one situation, in the little village of Loggieville, the community wanted to take over the post office and run it. They were not even allowed to do that. It would have cost Canada Post nothing. But somebody in Ottawa had decided that rural Canada was not worth what the postal service was giving. It has been destroyed in my opinion and it will take a long time for the people in these rural areas to forgive this government for what it has done.
I repeat that the sovereignty of the nation resides in the people of this country. It does not reside in cabinet. It does not reside in this Chamber. It resides in the people. It is time for this government to stop trying to be the dictator of Canada, start listening to what the people have to say and give the people as much as possible the benefits and services they need.


Lawrence MacAulay: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this debate on behalf of the constituents of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island.
Bill C-73 is an act to amend the Canada Post Act. It should be called the selling out the post office act. The bill is just another example of the government trying to do things through the back door. The government should come clean with the people of Canada and call a spade a spade. This bill is going to privatize the post office.
The government says it only wants to improve productivity and service to the public. Let us take a look at the record of service this government has had when handling Canada Post.
Since the Tbries came to power hundreds of post offices have closed down. Many small towns across the country have lost the only government presence they had. People do not mind paying taxes if they see some benefit for paying them. What is the benefit in going to a drugstore miles down the road to get your mail? For most rural Canadians, the post office was the only place where they regularly saw the Canadian flag. By closing down the post office, the government has removed that.
Two years ago on Prince Edward Island, Saturday rural mail delivery was eliminated. The government said the move was to rationalize the service. In 1982, when the post office was made a Crown corporation, it was felt that Prince Edward Island had special needs requiring mail to be delivered on Saturday.
From 1982 to 1990 there have not been all that many changes on Prince Edward Island but the government no longer felt we needed Saturday rural mail service. That move has inconvenienced many people, particularly senior citizens. For older people living a number of miles out in the country, it means that most likely they will not get a daily paper. As a result of the cuts, the post office lost a huge contract for delivering the newspapers. Instead of improving the service, it has gone down in Prince Edward Island. Canada Post actually lost dollars at the time by removing Saturday mail delivery, just for efficiency.
The last slap in the face to islanders came last December. That is when the post office decided it would no longer sort in Charlottetown the mail from communities in Prince Edward Island to places off the island. Off-mail now gets processed in Halifax. This has caused delays in the mail system, especially UI cheques which must be mailed on specific days to be processed properly.
I wonder if the members and the government realize what it really is to be on a low fixed income and to be waiting for your unemployment insurance cheque. The people need these cheques. They do not have another account to go to if the cheque does not come on Thursday and instead it comes on Monday. That hurts. It hurts the people in Prince Edward Island. That is about all that this service has done.
June 18, 1992

Mail from Prince Edward Island to places elsewhere in Canada or the U.S. now receives a Halifax postmark. Imagine receiving a piece of literature from the tourism department of Prince Edward Island with a big Halifax, Nova Scotia postmark. It is an insult to islanders. It is as if we do not exist. This should not be tolerated.
I would also like to mention a very special case in my riding of Cardigan where it has been impossible to get any action from Canada Post. In a part of Webster's Corner, the people wanted the route extended down the road because a number of people had moved into this area. Canada Post said no but gave the people a roadside lockbox which they said was good enough for them. The box constantly fell over in the mud.
I asked Canada Post, since it would not do any more, to put a concrete slab under the box. Canada Post said no. The people on the road to Webster's Comer have to deal with a box that falls over in the mud in the spring and freezes in the winter. It is very difficult as a member of Parliament to go to Webster's Comer and describe the efficiencies of Canada Post. This is a problem.
The legislation proposes to sell up to 10 per cent of the value of Canada Post to postal employees. The government says the measure is meant to improve employee performance by giving them a stake in the company. In any dealings I have had with business, you have to satisfy your customers too. This is one fact that seems to be eliminated. The theory goes that if you own something you will take better care of it.
The government believes that improving morale will help services to Canadians. I believe the government has this backwards. If the government wants to improve the labour relations at Canada Post, it should really start by improving the services to the customers, to the Canadians they are actually working for.
The only thing this government is concerned about is turning the post office into a profit-making machine and making it more attractive to sell. That is the Conservatives true objective, to sell the post office. The government has done its level best to destroy almost every important national institution. It sold Air Canada, which is now run by a couple of Americans; Petro-Canada; it almost destroyed VIA Rail by eliminating routes especially in Atlantic Canada. It certainly does not exist very much where I live. It cut the budget of the CBC, forcing the corporation to shut down television stations and to cancel very popular programs like Land and Sea; and now the government has taken aim at the post office.
Government Orders
Over the last little while we have seen government-sponsored ads on how great it is to be a Canadian and how we should concentrate on the things that keep us together. The very purpose of the post office is letting Canadians communicate. In rural Canada the post office is the only place where people see the Canadian flag. We need to see the Canadian flag more and I think that rural Canadians wish to feel a sense of being Canadian. Rural Canadians are Canadians as well as urban Canadians and central Canadians.
I just hope, and I call upon the government, to not sell the post office. It is an important institution. It is important to Canadians and it is important to this country.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act; Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act;
[Translation\
Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof; and Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof.



ROYAL ASSENT

["Madam Speaker, I too want to participate in the debate on Bill C-73. As I do, let me say the speech by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, was an absolutely outstanding speech because it embraced what is important about Canada Post for the whole country.\nThe member pointed out that Canada Post is not only an essential ingredient to nation building, holding the country together in so far as rural Canada is concerned, but is important for those citizens who have made their contribution to this country, those senior citizens, particularly in urban Canada, who now find for economic reasons that they must live in senior citizens' complexes. Canada Post is a way of staying in touch with their loved ones no matter where they have gone.\nI thought the member demonstrated why Canada Post is an ingredient of national unity at a time when the country is being tested, when the stresses and strains on the fabric of this nation are more pronounced than perhaps at any other time in our history.\nAs my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception said a few moments ago, thousands of people gathered in various communities of Newfoundland and perhaps elsewhere in this country, demanding that their voices be heard, demanding that there be an opportunity for their voices to echo across this Chamber, demanding that their fears, their anger, their frustrations and their hopes be reflected in the voices of their members of this place by way of an emergency debate in the case of Newfoundland on the fishery.", 'Even as this place cannot find the time to allow that voice to be heard, in the dying days of the session, as this place gets ready to close, perhaps until September, even as we deny that voice a chance to be heard in this place, what does the government do with those precious few remaining hours that are left for the elected representatives of the people to meet and to discuss and to debate and to exchange ideas? What does it do with those remaining minutes? It puts forward this bill, Bill C-73, a blank cheque, a loaded gun pointed right at the head of Canada Post, at the postal service, and I put the emphasis on service.\nIt is a bill, it is a piece of enabling legislation. It transfers to a minister unchecked, undefined and unbridled powers to do with the post office as he sees fit.\nWhat are we being asked to do with this bill? We are being asked to transfer in a blind arrangement the future of the post office and the role the post office plays in Canadian society into the hands of a minister who will not share with Parliament what he intends to do with that power being transferred to him.\nIf you look at the bill it does not tell us what the value of the shares are going to be in privatization. It does not tell us what the number of shares are going to be in privatization. It does not tell us the net worth of the corporation. It does not tell us that if employees can buy shares how they shall be defined. It does not tell us the amount of shares every individual employee will be allowed to purchase. It tells us nothing save that the government intends to privatize the post office and it would like Parliament, with blinders on, completely blind and disoriented and confused, to transfer authority to the minister and that the minister functioning in the back room with his advisors will make all the decisions.\nWe are being interrupted by a greater power.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member, I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Peter deC. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 18th day of June, 1992, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours Sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

Government Orders



[Stage Direction]
June 18, 1992

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and on the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p. 10744).
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this bill, but I am not pleased with the content of what I have to say. It is very negative. It is not as optimistic as my general notes are when I got up to speak in this House.


Mr. Tobin:: And your nature.


Fred J. Mifflin: And my nature.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Optimistic.


Fred J. Mifflin: Or indeed the nature of my riding. I represent a group of people who like to be optimistic, who like to toe the line. They work hard. They like to belong to a system in which they work hard and the government is responsive in turn to the way they look at a democratic system. But I have to tell you that right now they are beginning to wonder what sort of a system they live in.
There have been three issue since I have been elected that have haunted the people of my riding. There is no other word for it. One was the goods and services tax, which they could not afford. Another one was Bill C-21, which mucked up their unemployment insurance. They are still trying to come to grips with that.
We have a situation right now where the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte had attended a demonstration in his riding two days ago, a thousand people from St. Anthony, people who normally do not demonstrate. I have been to St. Anthony many times, fine people, excellent people.
As I stand in front of the House today, I have a demonstration being organized in Clarenville by the plant workers of the Bonavista peninsula. They are not just livid with the government. They are not mad with just the fact that something is not being done. They are worried, they are anxious. They have to show that they are concerned and nobody is listening to them, not a soul. We are listening to them. I am listening to them. This side of the House, I know, is listening to them because we met this morning to discuss the subject of fishing. However, this bill relates to the post office. That is the third thing that has got not only the people in my riding upset, but throughout Newfoundland and rural Canada, as much as these other two major issues that have put off Canadians with this government.
Why are they put off with it? I have to slow down, Madam Speaker, because it is a very, very upsetting subject. They are put off with it because it is part of the business of closing down Atlantic Canada. My constituents wonder where it is all going to end. They are not going to be very pleased today when they see Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation, which permits the sale of 10 per cent of the corporation to employees. They will ask "Where does it go from here?"
To my mind this is nothing more nor less than the first step to privatize the Canada Post Corporation. Why bother going through this step? Why not be straightforward with the bill? Why not be up front with Canadians and tell them that we want to privatize Canada Post, instead of going through these diversionary methods?
I am delighted that the member on the other side of the House, the government side, nods his head. I do admire his courage because he is obviously in the same situation that I am in my riding, and others on this side.
I want to give the facts here. I want to state what the numbers are. In the last two weeks alone I have been involved with the shutdown of the Shearstown post office, the whole community, and Bay Roberts and Bareneed and Port de Grave. They are all upset. That is just in the last two weeks.
June 18, 1992

I have another one from Hare Bay, which is in my riding. Let me read what a gentleman from Hare Bay said. He wrote me on June 7, a Mr. Saunders. He said: "Mr. Mifflin, I am very disturbed about the way Canada Post is treating rural Canadians with regard to the closing of small post offices. I would appreciate you taking a firm stand against this action on my behalf".
That is one letter. I have received over a hundred of these, from a hundred communities. I have 260 communities in my riding and they are all rural communities.
With respect to Canada Post and rural communities, let me say what has happened.
In 1986 Canada Post had a 10-year corporate plan and the development of that would close, amalgamate or privatize 5,221 rural post offices employing 10,000 people across this country. This is a time when we are looking for jobs. In my riding a steady job is a status symbol, not many people have one. The last time I checked the figures, over 900 post offices were closed, with a corresponding loss of over 3,000 jobs.
We talk about equity here; 83 per cent of the rural post office positions belong to women, and the job losses have hurt them the most. In addition, closing a post office in a rural area removes in many cases, as the hon. member for Cardigan just said, the only federal presence in the community, and it terminates an essential ingredient in their social fabric, not the least of which is the consideration for our senior citizens who now have to go out in the rain and in the wind and in the snow. Again, the example that my hon. colleague from Cardigan used. I have many examples of them, Madam Speaker.
The name of the game is service to the public. Canada Post is trying to make profits. In the fiscal year of 1988-89 it made a profit of $96 million. The next year, $149 million. It is like charging for national defence. Do we have to make money because we need to have a defence department? No. The name of the game is to defend our country. You do not expect to get money back from it. The name of the game for Canada Post should be service to the Canadian public.
Judging from the information that I am getting, this service is anything but good. Why? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had to resort to a private company outside the country so that he could get reliable
Government Orders
service. He said so last Friday. That is an awful state of affairs.
There are other initiatives that this government has announced that this policy of what it is doing now is totally against the Affirmative Action for Women and Youth. I just stated that 83 per cent of the rural post office jobs are held by women.
Conditions for seniors for autonomous living. This does not help seniors who live alone, or to live without help. What does this do to regional economic development? Not very much.
To really put this in perspective, these are the words of Prime Minister Mulroney who made this promise in 1984: "Restoring the quality of service will become top priority with Canada Post".


An hon. member:: Another sacred trust.


Fred J. Mifflin: That is a sacred trust. It has gone the way of other sacred trusts. Therefore, I believe that this post office bill is inconsistent with government policies in other areas and the government admits it.
Second, this bill results in the loss of badly needed jobs, especially for women. Third, and we have ample evidence here today and even from the government side of the House, it degrades the quality of service for the public. Fourth, it trades off profit for poorer service and it represents the breaking of another sacred trust by the Prime Minister.
Is there any wonder that constituents are concerned about what their future holds? Is there any wonder that anywhere from 500 to 1,000 people will demonstrate in Random Square Mall in Clarenville tomorrow? I do not think there has ever been a demonstration there since the mall was built. Is it any wonder why they are going there to cry out to get some attention from the media and from anybody who will listen when they say: "Our voices are not being heard". The voices of the people from St. Anthony are not being heard so they turn to their members of Parliament to say: "Help us. Pay attention to us. Come down and watch this".
I would be down tomorrow but I feel that I can do better here with my colleagues trying to talk some sense into this government to at least hear what the fishermen and plant workers have to say. They have the prospect of their industry being closed down for five years-

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


An hon. member:: Waiting for the emergency debate.


Fred J. Mifflin: -waiting for the emergency debate to take place.


An hon. member:: Fifty members have asked for it.


Fred J. Mifflin: There have been 50 members today who have asked for this. In my case, since February 21, some people have not had any compensation because they were not qualified in time when the plant in Port Union closed down. That plant holds 1,200 workers. There are 500 workers in the town of Charleston, which is a small town not far from my home town. They were told that their plant will not open and as of May they have no money or compensation and no hope of getting any.
Is it any wonder that the people are marching off to protest? Is it any wonder that they have no faith in the government? Is it any wonder that they want me to get up and talk about post offices and all the other actions that have been taken by this government that shut down Atlantic Canada, and Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.
I am fed up to the teeth with this and I hope the government takes some notice of the speeches that it is going to hear in this House on this despicable bill.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I have been listening to members opposite make their contribution to the debate on the bill before the House today which provides for the sale of part of the shares of the Canada Post Corporation to its own employees. I must say I am veiy surprised that opposition members decided to criticize this legislation on every possible ground but failed to focus on the purpose of the bill.
I heard some extremely critical remarks about Canada Post earlier today, but perhaps we should go back a few years to the time when members opposite formed the government and Canada Post was a government agency. For many years, political interference by the party in power in Canada Post was so strong that the agency was
unable to run its operations effectively. It was a hot bed of Liberal patronage and politicians regularly interfered with this government agency at the time. We saw the results. Costs went up year after year, and when we came to power in 1984, the Canadian postal service was one of the most costly and least efficient in the world.
Canadians across this country complained about postal services, because the post office was managed from this House, from the government benches at the time. Our government did some housecleaning by making the agency a Crown corporation, operated at arm's length and administered by a group of competent managers with a specific mandate.
Our government gave Canada Post a specific mandate: to provide Canadians with adequate postal services at reasonable cost, and to implement a cost recovery plan. The result was two consecutive years of profits for Canada Post. This had been unheard of before, simply because politicians on this side of the House-our government-decided not to interfere with the managing of Canada Post. That is a well-known fact. That is why Canada Post booked the results we see today.
The hon. member for Miramichi spoke earlier of a deficit this year for Canada Post, which should come as no surprise. The corporation experienced some very serious labour relations problems which led to a strike, and any company that experiences a strike inevitably suffers a loss of income that will turn up as a loss on its books. This is only temporary, and I am convinced that current management at the corporation will put Canada Post back into the black in a matter of months.
I heard opposition members question the government's motives for allowing Canada Post to sell 10 per cent of its shares to its employees. What's wrong with that? I ask members opposite: What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with allowing the corporation to sell 10 per cent of its stock to the employees? There is nothing wrong with that.
June 18, 1992



This measure will simply give Canada Post employees a say in their jobs and how the corporation is run. If, as members opposite are claiming, the government did have the privatization of Canada Post in mind, what is wrong with letting Canadians become shareholders in the corporation and thus real owners of the corporation? This kind of system will give Canada Post shareholders the right to say what they think of management, as shareholders.
In any company, shareholders have the right to insist that management and the board of directors manage the company so as to provide services on a profitable basis and, as I see it, far more effectively than the corporation does at the present time, although there have been many improvements and it now operates at arm's length.
The Liberals are critical of the government because of this arm's length policy. It is a policy that we have been applying systematically. Politicians no longer interfere with Canada Post, and that is as it should be. That is how we managed to set up an efficient and viable system that is making a profit.
Today, I challenge members opposite to tell us why they are so afraid to see Canada Post develop a more modem approach. Is it because they realize that, in the event they get back into power, they will no longer be able to interfere with Canada Post? I think that is the question we should be asking, Madam Speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are no questions at this point in the debate. Resuming debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the 10 minutes have not expired.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No questions at this point in the debate. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is well aware of the Standing Orders. The Chair cannot entertain any questions without the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have some no's.
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, there was a practice in this House for years-


An hon. member:: Generations.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -or generations. It goes back to the beginning of time that when a member was making a speech another member could get up and ask the member a question if the member making the speech permitted it.
I realize that we have these time rules. The practice has developed in the last few years that because of the question and comment period that is allowed after 20 minute speeches, it is rare for a member to be interrupted.
Members who have been in this House for some years know the practice. Back in the days when the time limit was 40 minutes it was very common for members to stand up and say to a member who was speaking: "Might I ask the hon. member a question? Will the hon. member permit a question?" That was the way it was put. If the member permitted a question, then a question was asked and answered during the 40 minutes.
All I was asking is that since the hon. member had not used his 10 minutes, would he permit a question during his 10-minute speech? He is about to finish. His time is still running. Will he permit a question?
If he will not, that is fine. However, it seems to me that it is not a question of unanimous consent, but whether the hon. member will permit a question in his speech.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I was going to make the observation to you, as indeed you are well aware, that the rules have changed since the time of the practice to which the hon. member has referred. Consequently, what he is asking of the individual now is not appropriate.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is something of a scholar of the standing orders-


An hon. member:: He is a new member.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: -in spite of being a new member. He has been accused of being the reincarnation of Mackenzie King who was something of a master of House rules. I think he will find, if he examines Standing Order 74, that it is very clear that Your Honour was absolutely right. A question and comment period is not available during 10-minute speeches.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I would absolutely concur with the words of the member who has just spoken that indeed there is, as the Speaker quite rightly points out, no formal question and answer period or informal question and answer period after a 10-minute speech. That is not at all being suggested by my colleague and friend.
I have been here for a few years, but not as long as the member for Windsor West, obviously. It is a dozen years. My colleague across the way for Mississauga South has been here for a similar period of time and perhaps a little longer. Asking a member whether that member would permit a question has fallen out of practice, but it has been quite normal. I recall a number of occasions when my friend did exactly as the member for Kingston and the Islands has suggested.
Sometimes the member will say yes and cede his place for a moment for a question. Sometimes the member has said-and this has been the practice-"I will permit questions at the end. I would like to finish my thoughts first". It is quite normal, particularly when a member has not used his full time, as a courtesy, for a member to put exactly that request. That is all the member for Kingston and Islands has said. I submit that it is a worth while practice in this place.
I recall my friend for Mississauga South questioning, for example, some of the statistics I was quoting out of the last budget document. We had quite an interesting- for some people I might say amusing-exchange of statistics in the budget document. We both quoted them in rather interesting ways. However, that is the purpose. It is to hold members accountable so that when they speak in this place they understand and realize that they may be held accountable.
I submit that it makes for a much better debate when there is the possibility that what you say may be challenged or questioned. It would be a great shame if the Speaker's ruling is misinterpreted. I hope it is not improper or wrong or not allowed for a member to ask another member on his or her feet whether or not that member would permit a question. I hope the Speaker's ruling would not be misinterpreted that way. Parliament would be poorer.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would like to start by apologizing to the hon. member for naming the former name of his riding. Somehow the name has stuck in my mind and occasionally I will be looking for the word "Humber" and "St. Barbe-Port au Port-Baie Verte" will come back to my mind. I guess I have been sitting here for quite a while too.
I agree with the hon. member that if there is consent of the House we can always go outside our rules. But there must be unanimous consent. The House is its own master and I am here as a servant of the House.
If we look at the Standing Order under which we are now proceeding, after the part of debate where there are only 10-minute speeches, they are not followed by a period of questions and answers.
The only thing that I can do is ask if there is unanimous consent that the hon. member-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He hadn't used his 10 minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Once the hon. member sits down he has completed his speech, whether he has used the 10 minutes or not. That is my understanding of the rules. I am quite prepared to be corrected, that his time expired the moment he sat down.
For questions to be asked we would need consent of the House, which was not given.
I think we should now go on with debate and I am ready to recognize anyone who will rise on debate.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to have this opportunity to speak right after the member for Manicouagan because during the course of comments by my colleague previously the member for Manicouagan responded to a statement that this was one step on the way to privatization by saying "that's right".
I am looking back at the records of the Commons debate, Hansard of April 30, 1992, page 9920. I am looking at a very direct question that was put to the minister responsible for Canada Post by my colleague from Essex-Kent who said to the minister very specifically:
Earlier today the minister introduced measures to allow employees of Canada Post to buy shares in the Crown corporation.
Will the minister take this opportunity to admit to Canadians that he was embarking on the first steps of privatization of Canada Post?
June 18, 1992

That is exactly the point made previously, Madam Speaker.
I would like to read the reply from the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the minister responsible for Canada Post. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I would admit that. It would not be
the truth if I were to do that.
He made it quite clear that this bill was not intended as a step toward privatization and yet we have a member of the government sitting on the other side of the House not 10 minutes ago, in response to a comment from this side of the House that this is the first step toward privatization saying "that's right".
Is it any wonder that Canadians have a lot of trouble trusting this government? When the minister in April said "that is wrong, that would not be the truth, if I were to admit we were taking the first steps toward privatization" and now in the heat of June another member of that same government sits there and says that that is exactly what the government is doing.
If Canadians right here in this Chamber can hear completely opposite stories from two members of the same government, is there any wonder that the popularity level of the Prime Minister and his government is at the stage it is? Is it any wonder that Canadians can hardly wait to get rid of this government? Really, is it any wonder that they hold the government and this institution in such disrespect when from that side of the House we hear contradictory statements constantly. We hear denials one day and the accusations become reality weeks or months later.
The member opposite seems to want to debate the free trade agreement. I would love to debate the free trade agreement, the past one and the future one, and point out all the failings of that agreement if he would have the courtesy to put that item on the agenda of the House rather than trying to interrupt a member who has some important issues and points to say on behalf of her constituents on the bill that is before the House on Canada Post.
As well, I note today that the Liberal Party is alone in fighting against this abomination of a bill, the first step in getting rid of a service that has served this country well since Confederation. The socialists are not here. The
Government Orders
NDP, which speaks out against privatization, which would like the state to own and operate everything, is not here to say one word in defence of Canada Post. It is not here to say one word in defence of maintaining in the public domain an essential public service to a country like Canada that is so far and so widespread, with such a scattered population, that the ability to communicate with one another is fundamental to national unity. It is fundamental to our sense of being Canadian.
The Liberals stand alone here today defending the continuation of that service in the public domain and in the public interest, not in the interest of profits.
I want to make a few points about the treatment of employees in Canada Post. The minister has made the point that this is to try and get employees more involved in Canada Post, to let them feel a little more a part of the corporation and to make them a little more productive.
There are many ways in which Canada Post has shown that it does not care one whit for its employees. Its treatment of women is abominable. In the interests of profits it is contracting out work, putting on more part-time people, taking people who worked for it for a decade or more and suddenly putting them back on night shift.
It is entirely refusing to pay women equal pay for work of equal value. It has taken provisions out its contract that requires its contractors to pay women decent wages. It talks about shared decision making. Its day to day operations are a total denial of any respect for its employees or any attempt to let them feel proud of their work and to feel that they have a employer that they can work in partnership with.
Labour relations at the post office are no secret to anybody in this country. They are in an abysmal state. One can only question them since this bill before us is a shell. It gives us absolutely no details. It tells us not one thing about what is really going to happen here, what the shares are going to be worth, what they are going to mean to employees or which employees are going to be able to buy them. One can only speculate that if there is any value to the shares at all, they will go to senior managers and if there is no value to the shares at all, then the employees at the lower level might have some access to them.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I want to go back and let people recall the privatization of Air Canada. There is a pattern to privatization. Senior managers and corporations always love to push for privatization because they always seem to manage to set up privatization deals that give them a good hunk of shares, a good stake in the company which means the loss of jobs and less income for those who actually do the work that produces the profits.
I want to go back to Air Canada because I remember with great chagrin the night I heard Claude Taylor, just before the privatization of Air Canada, on Cross Country Check-Up saying that if only he were free of all these fetters of government ownership, of government direction, he could run Air Canada much better, much more profitably. I suspect that the privatization of Air Canada benefited Claude Taylor and a lot of other senior executives in Air Canada.
It has meant the loss of thousands of jobs. It has meant the loss of service to northern and remote communities in this country. It has meant increased costs. It has meant reduced service and it is a classic demonstration of why privatization in an industry like transportation or communication, that is so essential to keeping this country together, is not in the public interest.
The public interest is something that does not seem to matter a lot to this government or to Canada Post.
I can only mention small postal outlets in my riding, 10 to 20 feet from a senior citizens' building, being closed down and moved a mile away. These older people who are trying to live on their own, 190 of them in one apartment building, who want to be able to communicate with family and friends who have now moved all over Canada, cannot even get out in the winter to mail a letter, to pick up some stamps, to mail a parcel at Christmas time.
This is happening all over my riding. I have in my riding the second highest proportion of seniors in the country and so I worry about these things. I wish Canada Post worried about people who have to rely on the mail simply to remain in touch with their loved ones. It does not. It does not even make sensible decisions.
I have a branch of the post office that has been out on Richmond Road in Ottawa West for many years, since I moved out to that part of the city. Lo and behold, 100 feet down the road it opened up a private outlet. What does that mean? Better service to me? No. Now I have to go to two places.
Our time is short today but the bottom line is we want a postal service that delivers service to Canadians, one whose purpose is not profits, not exploitation of its workers but service to Canadians. We want the honest truth for once from this government on its intentions. Do not give us a shell of a bill that does not tell us what its real plans are.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I too want to participate in the debate on Bill C-73. As I do, let me say the speech by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West, was an absolutely outstanding speech because it embraced what is important about Canada Post for the whole country.
The member pointed out that Canada Post is not only an essential ingredient to nation building, holding the country together in so far as rural Canada is concerned, but is important for those citizens who have made their contribution to this country, those senior citizens, particularly in urban Canada, who now find for economic reasons that they must live in senior citizens' complexes. Canada Post is a way of staying in touch with their loved ones no matter where they have gone.
I thought the member demonstrated why Canada Post is an ingredient of national unity at a time when the country is being tested, when the stresses and strains on the fabric of this nation are more pronounced than perhaps at any other time in our history.
As my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception said a few moments ago, thousands of people gathered in various communities of Newfoundland and perhaps elsewhere in this country, demanding that their voices be heard, demanding that there be an opportunity for their voices to echo across this Chamber, demanding that their fears, their anger, their frustrations and their hopes be reflected in the voices of their members of this place by way of an emergency debate in the case of Newfoundland on the fishery.

Even as this place cannot find the time to allow that voice to be heard, in the dying days of the session, as this place gets ready to close, perhaps until September, even as we deny that voice a chance to be heard in this place, what does the government do with those precious few remaining hours that are left for the elected representatives of the people to meet and to discuss and to debate and to exchange ideas? What does it do with those remaining minutes? It puts forward this bill, Bill C-73, a blank cheque, a loaded gun pointed right at the head of Canada Post, at the postal service, and I put the emphasis on service.
It is a bill, it is a piece of enabling legislation. It transfers to a minister unchecked, undefined and unbridled powers to do with the post office as he sees fit.
What are we being asked to do with this bill? We are being asked to transfer in a blind arrangement the future of the post office and the role the post office plays in Canadian society into the hands of a minister who will not share with Parliament what he intends to do with that power being transferred to him.
If you look at the bill it does not tell us what the value of the shares are going to be in privatization. It does not tell us what the number of shares are going to be in privatization. It does not tell us the net worth of the corporation. It does not tell us that if employees can buy shares how they shall be defined. It does not tell us the amount of shares every individual employee will be allowed to purchase. It tells us nothing save that the government intends to privatize the post office and it would like Parliament, with blinders on, completely blind and disoriented and confused, to transfer authority to the minister and that the minister functioning in the back room with his advisors will make all the decisions.
We are being interrupted by a greater power.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
["Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member and ask him to show me indulgence at this time. I promise I will recognize him later.\nIt being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper."]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada-Chapter 18.
Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures-Chapter 19.
Bill C-36, an act respecting corrections and the conditional release and detention of offenders and to establish the office of Correctional Investigator-Chapter 20.
Bill C-78, an act to amend certain acts with respect to persons with disabilities-Chapter 21.
Bill C-71, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 22.
Bill C-59, an act to amend the National Parks Act-Chapter 23.
Bill C-84, an act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 24.
Bill C-67, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter 25.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p.10744).
Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before we were interrupted by the requirements of the Governor General, this bill that is being proposed by the government in the dying minutes and hours and days of this session of Parliament before we adjourn for the summer break is a blank cheque. The government is asking for a blank cheque. The minister in charge of the post office is asking for a loaded gun.

June 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
He is asking for the authority to dramatically alter the size, shape and purpose of Canada's post office. He is asking for the authority and enabling legislation that will allow him to do it behind closed doors in consultation with senior managers of the post office and in consultation with senior bureaucrats. However, there will be no consultation with the people of Canada and no consultation with the elected members of the House of Commons. That is why I object to the bill.
If the government has a plan to reshape the post office, to change the post office and to alter the post office, then tell us what it is. Do not ask for authority to tinker or to alter or to make unrecognizable Canada's post office without telling us how you intend to do it, tell us up front. However, the government will not do that.
One of my colleagues, the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception suggested that this is nothing but a Trojan horse. This is a plan to privatize the post office, to break it down, to turn it over to the private sector and to run it on the same principle as McDonald's sells hamburgers.
The member opposite said: "Yes, correct". Even as I say it now-and the cameras do not show it-the member looks at me and with grim determination nods his head yes. All of the witnesses of Canada in this Chamber who can see the hon. member, see him nod his head yes with a grin on his face. He looks like the latest franchise owner of McDonald's hamburgers. He looks like he just had a big mac attack.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member and ask him to show me indulgence at this time. I promise I will recognize him later.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: that Bill S-10, an act to incorporate Green Shield Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker, after the consultations we have had on both sides of the House I would suggest that you would find unanimous consent for the motion that this bill proceed today through consideration at second reading, in Committee of the Whole and at third reading.
I would like to speak very briefly to this bill. It is a very simple matter. It is to straighten the corporate affairs of Green Shield Prepaid Services and to incorporate a new corporation called Green Shield Canada Prepaid Services Association.
The current Green Shield company originated in Windsor, Ontario as a prepaid drug plan service. It has since expanded dramatically throughout Ontario, serving a number of organizations with prepaid drug payment plans and with prepaid legal plans, that class of service. It is a non-profit company.
The company is incorporated provincially in Ontario and it seeks to become a national company. Unfortunately there is no provision either in Ontario law or federal law for it to transfer from one corporation to another corporation, being that it is a non-profit corporation, a not for profit corporation.
The consequence of this bill has been vetted by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and of course the Minister of Finance. The bill has had a hearing before the Senate.
It is a very regular type of bill. All it really does is take the company that presently operates in this health care field, selling prepaid services to Ontarians, and moves it to a federal corporation so that it will be able to operate

June 18, 1992

and offer its services on a non-profit basis right across Canada.
Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to treat this as a completed bill with three readings, to treat it on that basis.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to consent to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South. I do not know whether he wants to deal with that by motion now, or whether he is prepared that we make our speeches and then at the conclusion of the second reading speeches we could go into Committee of the Whole and deal with the bill at that point.
I am pleased to consent to that, but I would like to address some remarks on second reading of the bill. If that is satisfactory, I will proceed to that now.
The hon. member for Windsor West, who today is celebrating the 30th anniversary of his election, has asked me to substitute for him in dealing with this bill since he is unable to be here this afternoon. He was here earlier, as Your Honour knows. Unfortunately a meeting in his constituency this evening has taken him away from Ottawa for the time being. He asked me to speak on his behalf in respect of this important bill.
Green Shield has carried on business for some time as incorporated under the Business Corporations Act of the province of Ontario. It has been a company with which many members are familiar, at least Ontario members, because the acquisition of health insurance coverage has been common place, particularly as I recall-and I am going from recollection-on items not covered under OHIP or for persons who are travelling.
I understand the business has been a successful one. It is desired to extend the business of the corporation across Canada so that other Canadians in other provinces are able to take advantage of these services. I presume this will lead some additional service being provided or at least competitive services being provided elsewhere.
I am glad to see the Solicitor General has joined us. I expect he will also be speaking in support of this bill too.
As a result the company has determined that the most effective means of achieving the objective is to apply for incorporation by act of Parliament rather than under the Canadian Business Corporations Act. I note that this bill
Private Members' Business
is intended to incorporate the company on that basis, as incorporated directly by act of Parliament. It is a fairly unusual step to be taken today for new companies. Usually private members' bills that come before us amend incorporating acts of corporations that were incorporated many years ago. However in this case apparently Green Shield has decided to proceed in this way, and that is quite satisfactory.
In addition, as I understand it there was some discussion in the other place when this bill was debated as to what happened to the profits of this corporation. My understanding is that there is a foundation of a similar name which has received these profits over the course of the years Green Shield has been in operation and uses the profits for various charitable purposes.
Also my understanding is that the foundation was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario. Therefore, in the event of dissolution of the foundation its moneys would be payable to charitable objects only in Ontario. To resolve that problem, I understand that Green Shield has now incorporated a new foundation under the laws of Canada so that, again in the event of dissolution of the foundation, the profits could be distributed to other charitable objects throughout Canada. I understand that has solved a possible problem with this bill that might have met with some objection as it proceeded through the other place.
I note that my colleague, Senator Frith, made an excellent speech in the other place on this bill in the course of the debate there.
Having dealt with these minor problems of incorporation in various jurisdictions, having dealt with the matter of the disposition of the profits through the charitable foundation, I think the about to become a company, Green Shield Canada, has met the possible objections that could have been raised to the procedure it has chosen to adopt. It has come before Parliament.
We recently passed a resolution waiving the normal notice provisions in respect of the petition, its lateness in any event. That has happened with respect to the three bills we may end up dealing with during private members' hour today.
We are now in a position where the bill can proceed through this House, following which it will receive royal assent. If that happens the company will then be incorporated and everything will move along smoothly.

June 18, 1992
Private Members' Business
This procedure is unusual. I think it is the first time an incorporation has been done in this House since I was elected. I am interested that this procedure is still available to corporations or groups of individuals that seek to incorporate in this way. It is an ancient procedure, one that dates back many, many hundreds of years. Certainly many of the early English corporations were established by act of the British Parliament.
The power to carry out this incorporation went on here for some time. There were two principal means. One was the granting of a charter by the Crown such as the Hudson's Bay Company got in our early corporate history. Then as Parliaments got busy passing these private acts incorporating companies, it was decided to proceed with easier techniques by passing things like the Business Corporations Act which allows incorporation without recourse to the legislature. That is the usual way of incorporation in Canada today. This is quite an unusual procedure but nevertheless entirely proper and quite interesting.
For legal students who study corporation law this particular precedent will be an interesting one because of the fact that this corporation clearly carried on business previously in the province of Ontario as a business corporation and through its foundation incorporated in the same province, I am not sure under which act but I expect under the corporations act of Ontario. I suspect there were two different provincial acts involved in the operation of the company.
Having said that, I am pleased to support this bill. I commend the hon. member for Mississauga South for sponsoring it in this House and for his efforts in ensuring all-party support for the bill and the co-operation of members on all sides of the House on its speedy passage.
I hope that will be forthcoming a little later this afternoon.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I rise to support Bill S-10 which, as has been cited, is an act to incorporate Green Shield Canada at the federal level. As has been pointed out too, it is a rather unusual process that we deal with in looking at this Senate bill.
Of course, as I said, I support it. I should tell the House something about Green Shield. Green Shield is a
not for profit company that provides among other things prepaid dental, medical and hospital insurance and has a considerable tradition in this country.
I point out with some pride that it originates in Windsor. It in fact administers some 750 plans with 500 participants and processes nearly five million claims.
Groups served by Green Shield range from as small as six to 35,000 including GM, Ford and Chrysler. Its annual revenue exceeded $200 million in 1991. Its 1992 fiscal plan calls for revenue to exceed $230 million. It is, like the city of its location, a socially useful and dynamic company.
This bill permits the transfer of jurisdiction from Ontario to Canada on terms that provide for appropriate regulatory authority by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.
An incorporation by a special act of Parliament is the only viable option that Green Shield has so that it may realize the goals of federal incorporation and achieve a national scope within a single regulatory framework. Otherwise the process would be exceedingly and excessively complicated.
There has been a thorough review of the bill at both the policy and the regulatory levels. Green Shield representatives have worked closely with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Department of Finance to ensure that this legislation would be appropriate.
I would only summarize by saying that it is a bill made necessary by a series of complicated circumstances.
The outcome will not only benefit the company, but I can assure you that having Green Shield converted to Green Shield Canada can only accrue to the benefits of Canada and to those who need the kind of services that Green Shield has so effectively provided in the past.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this proposal and second reading of Bill S-10.
As has been explained in the Senate and earlier today in the House, the purpose of this legislation is to allow Green Shield Prepaid Services Association to transfer its jurisdiction from Ontario to Canada. Its new name will be Green Shield Canada Prepaid Services Association.
June 18, 1992

Since Green Shield is a not for profit association, one with no share capital, it is not a simple matter for it to incorporate federally. Under the Canada Business Corporations Act, entities that wish to incorporate must have share capital. Green Shield Prepaid Services Association has no share capital. It has no shares or shareholders.
Similarly, the Ontario Business Corporations Act requires share capital in order to incorporate. In Ontario, Green Shield was incorporated under Part III of the Ontario Corporations Act, and is registered or licensed under the Prepaid Hospital and Medical Services Act.
Because of a defect in the Canada Corporations Act, Green Shield cannot be continued federally. Furthermore, if it did try to incorporate under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act, the statute which deals with the incorporation of not for profit associations without share capital, it could not register or license federally to carry on prepayment plans because there is no federal statute equivalent to the Prepaid Hospital and Medical Services Act.
The remedy, therefore, is incorporation through an act of Parliament and licensing under the provisions of the Insurance Companies Act. This is what is provided for in Bill S-10. I have been assured that this approach has been taken only after extensive consultations with the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance.
In the Senate it was mentioned that Green Shield introduced the first North American prepayment prescription drug program in the 1950s. Since then, it has extended its coverage from pharmaceuticals to dental, legal and other services, and covers workers in most Canadian provinces.
Though it contracts with employers headquartered in Ontario, the employees who may reside and work outside of Ontario are nevertheless covered by their employer's plan with Green Shield. By incorporating federally, Green Shield will be able to contract with companies that are headquartered outside of Ontario and with individuals who reside outside of Ontario. This is the underlying purpose of Bill S-10.
Tbming to the bill itself, I refer members to clause 4, subclause (1) which reads:
The objects of the Association are to provide, operate and
administer prepayment plans throughout Canada.
Private Members' Business
Prepayment plan as defined earlier in the bill refers to the prepayment of the costs of specified services. The term specified services is itself defined as follows:
such social, health, dental, legal, pharmaceutical or other services as are specified in a prepayment plan
These are the endeavours that Green Shield is interested in pursuing nationally.
Subclause 4(2) of the bill reads:
The Association shall carry out its objects as a non-profit organization and for socially beneficial purposes, without purpose of gain for its members, and any profits or other accretions to the Association shall, subject to section 10, be used in promoting its objects.
We have a non-profit organization which will operate prepayment plans for "socially beneficial purposes". If there are any profits, they will be funneled back into the promotion of its objects, namely, the operation and administration of prepayment plans throughout Canada. If they wish to get into other business activities or operate prepayment plans other than those concerning health, dental, legal or pharmaceutical services, subclauses 7(2) and 7(3)d require the consent of the Minister of Finance.
Clause 8 provides that if the directors wish to wind down the company by transferring its prepayment plans to another entity or by selling all or substantially all of its assets, approval must be obtained from its members and the Minister of Finance. If the association is dissolved or wound up, an obvious question is what happens to the assets. After all, there are no shareholders.
Subclause 10(2) provides that following the payment of all obligations the balance is distributed not to the members of the association, but to "such charitable or non-profit corporations as are designated for that purpose in the by-laws". Where there is no designated recipient, subclause 10(3) provides that the Green Shield Foundation will receive the remaining assets.
This non-profit foundation incorporated under Part III of the corporations act of Ontario in the 1970s is not now active. It was established in order to prevent the reoccurrence of the Windsor Medical Services Inc. incident, where, with the introduction of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in 1969, Windsor Medical Services was wound up and following lengthy litigation, its surplus distributed to the doctors who were members of the corporation.

Private Members' Business
If Green Shield Canada Prepaid Services Association were to wind up, the surplus would go to a non-profit entity and not to individuals. I also note that clauses 16 and 17 of the bill specify that the Winding-Up Act and the Insurance Companies Act apply to the association. In the case of an involuntary dissolution, both statutes apply. Where there is a voluntary dissolution, only the Insurance Companies Act applies. In either case, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions will play a leading role.
The Superintendent of Financial Institutions also has a role to play if the association wishes from time to time to distribute any surplus it has accumulated. Subclause 10(1) of the BUI S-10 reads:
When the Association has, in the opinion of its directors, unappropriated surplus in excess of the requirements of the Association, it may, with the approval of the Superintendent distribute all or part of the excess to such charitable or non-profit corporations as are designated therefor in the by-laws.
I assume that the charitable or non-profit corporation that would be the logical candidate for the surplus is the Green Shield Foundation. As for the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, his role would be limited to ensuring that the distribution of a surplus would not endanger the continued viability of Green Shield Canada Prepaid Services Association. The Superintendent would not be concerned with where that surplus went, as long as its distribution was not imprudent.
There are of course certain advantages in activating the Green Shield Foundation. As I mentioned earlier, the association is limited as to the types of activities it may pursue. If it wishes to step outside its authorized activities, permission of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions must be obtained.
The Green Shield Foundation, however, apparently has a greater range of permitted activities. Green Shield could launch initiatives through its foundation that it could not pursue through its association.
There is one aspect of this relationship that intrigues me. If Bill S-10 passes, we will have a federally incorporated association that eventually could be operating throughout the country in every province and territory.
It receives payments from individuals and corporations in every region of the country, accumulates a surplus which it then transfers to its foundation under subclause 10(1) of this bill. The foundation then uses this surplus to fund a new scheme. The foundation, however, is incorporated in Ontario, and like the present day association, is limited in its dealings outside the province. The end result is that the foundation launches a new scheme of benefit primarily to individuals and companies resident in Ontario, funded at least in part from the nation-wide operations of the association.
If the foundation as well as the association were incorporated federally, I would not be raising this scenario. In any event, it is difficult to speculate about this without knowing more about the foundation. Perhaps we can pursue that another time.
I suggest that we give this bill second reading and refer it to committee where this issue can be discussed along with other issues. I look forward to hearing from members who are supportive of this and wish it speedy passage.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand there is unanimous consent for this motion to be brought to a vote at second reading at this time.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-10, an act to incorporate Green Shield Canada.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Objects of Association


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member for Mississauga South could tell us whether the terms of clause 4 are normal for this kind of corporation in Canada. Has he had any opportunity to review any other acts of incorporation?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Chairman, this is a very standard clause that provides the objects to operate the corporation. I would not think there should be any particular difficulty. The objects speak for themselves.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
On Clause 8-Transfer of Plans, etc.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Mississauga South has inquired whether there would be any tax consequences on the transfer of assets under this bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, it is a not to profit corporation so the corporation files are not for profit return as a charity. The consequence is that there are no tax complications that arise as a result of the transfer of the assets of the Ontario corporation and the conversion of the Ontario corporation, as it presently is, to the Green Shield Canada not for profit corporation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, could the member tell us whether there is any GST on the transaction?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I do not believe there is any GST because it is not selling anything. All it is really doing is transferring a corporation from one jurisdiction to another so that the entity remains the same. It changes its names and its jurisdiction but it remains the same and consequently being no sale, there is no goods and services tax.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 17 -Application of the Insurance Companies Act


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, has the hon. member for Mississauga South checked all these sections of the Insurance Companies Act that may apply to this particular company to make sure that they are all the correct ones?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, Madam Chairman. The provisions I think the member is speaking about are the Winding Up Act, the Bankruptcy Act
Private Members' Business
and the provisions are particularly eliminated with respect to the transfer and the new association created.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, the hon. member misunderstood my question. It was in regard to clause 17 of the bill. The provisions of the Insurance Companies Act, there are quite a large number of them, are said to apply to this association. I wonder if the hon. member has had a chance to review all those sections of the Insurance Companies Act and could give us his assurance that these are all the ones that ought reasonably to apply.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have and these indeed are the sections of the insurance act that apply. They are incorporated into this bill because that is the easiest way to put them into this act.
Clause 17 agreed to.
On Clause 18-Amendment to OSFI Act


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: This clause has to do with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. I wonder if the member from Mississauga could inform the House of discussions with the office of the superintendent and if he believes this is a good piece of legislation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To acquaint the House, Green Shield had a series of meetings with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on the organization of this bill. The way the bill is presented was the result of those discussions. This legislation is really the creation of the solicitors for Green Shield, together with the office of the superintendent, working through the Minister of Finance, on the incorporation of this bill to transfer from Ontario jurisdiction to federal jurisdiction in the manner of this bill.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Donald Alex Blenkarn: that the bill be concurred in.

June 18, 1992
Private Members' Business


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to say how pleased I have been to be able to participate in this legislative process this afternoon and I thank the hon. member from Mississauga South for his thorough research in preparation for today's dealings in Committee of the Whole and for his explanation, very succinct and concise, of the purposes of the bill.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am told that the hon. member might ask for unanimous consent of the House so the House would deal with another bill at this time.


Mr. Porter:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations across the floor of the House and there may be unanimous consent to deal expeditiously with all three readings of this private member's bill, which has proceeded through the Senate. Bill S-9 is an act to amend the incorporation of the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.
I would seek permission to speak briefly to the bill if I may.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the bill at this time?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to give unanimous consent to proceed with the bill through all stages, but I want to tell the hon. member that I would like an explanation of the purposes of the bill in the course of his remarks. He does not need to keep it short.
I would like to hear a good explanation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.


NORTHWEST CANADA CONFERENCE EVANGELICAL CHURCH
Robert Harold Porter: that Bill S-9, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill S-9 is a very short bill. It contains only two clauses.
The purpose of clause 1 is to remove the present limitation on the value of property that may be held by the church.
Subsection 7(2) of chapter 79 of the Statutes of Canada 1928 at present reads as follows: "The aggregate value of the real estate held by or in trust for the corporation in Canada shall not exceed at any one time the sum of $1 million".
This clause would remove the limitation of the church to hold more than $1 million worth of assets. It does not put any new limitations, it simply removes that particular limitation.
Clause 2 would provide the church with a French name. The French name of the corporation incorporated by the said act is Conseil de I'Eglise evangelique pour le Nord-Ouest du Canada. I am sure that will come out a lot better in the translation.
The member opposite suggested a detailed explanation. It is basically to reflect the changes in today's society, the real estate values that may have implicated this as it has many other churches in expanding and developing assets across the country.
The second section of the bill recognizes the cultural diversity of Canada and places it within communities in which the second language may be required for those people who are involved. It would assist the church in meeting today's challenges in continuing to serve the spiritual needs of thousands of Canadians.
June 18, 1992

That is basically what is being asked for, the changes that are requested, and I would respectfully submit that bill today.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went in committee thereon, Mrs. Champagne in the Chair.
Andrée  Champagne: House in Committee of the Whole on Bill S-9, an act to amend an act to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.
Shall clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Chairman, could the hon. member tell us where this church is incorporated and where its principal assets are?


Robert Harold Porter: Madam Chairman, I believe the church is incorporated in western Canada, in Medicine Hat. The assets would be involved within some of the church organizations that it may have. It has churches in various communities throughout Canada.
I would assume that over the years as they have grown the value and the assets of those properties have probably reached the point where the $1 million limit that was in place in 1928 is irrelevant today. I think that is reason it is being requested.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I was given to understand that there might be a third bill to be dealt with
Private Members' Business
today, Bill S-7. It is on the Order Paper. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader could tell us anything about discussions that may have taken place in respect of that bill?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, it had been our hope that the three bills, including the one my hon. friend has just mentioned, might be dealt with during private members' hour this day.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is that one of the parties has not had a full opportunity to consult on the bill. The proposal is that Bill S-7, if unanimous consent exists later, not this day but at some other day, might be brought forward.
I believe the examination is nothing more than due diligence and there had not been an opportunity to do so earlier.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary, in the course of his discussions with the other parties, might also look at Bill C-306, standing in the name of on. member for Restigouche-Chaleur. That bill has been reported from a standing committee. It is back from the committee at the report stage. It is an act to amend to the Department of Forestry Act. I believe it changes the name of the department and does nothing else.
It received full support from all sides of the House when the bill was debated at second reading. I see that it has been reported from the committee with amendments. It strikes me that it might be one that could be adopted before the end of the sitting on June 23 if there was again consent to proceed with the bill.
Given the apparent unanimous agreement in respect of it, I wonder if that could be explored with a view to possibly clearing the item off the Order Paper. Certainly if it were brought forward later, possibly we would have debate in the fall and it would take up one full hour of private members' hour. If called without any opposition, it could be cleared up without taking up the full hour and it would help in the disposition of other business before the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may help both the member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. parliamentary secretary, the bill to which the hon. member refers, in the name of the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur, is on the Order Paper for Monday.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
If there are no amendments, the third reading could be given on the same day. I am just saying it as a question of information.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I raised the issue because given my interest in Private Members' Business as a member of the subcommittee of the House management committee on Private Members' Business, I hate to see the hour taken up on Monday if the bill is going to pass without debate.
It is the same as getting two through today. We could have stuck with the rules and only dealt with Bill S-10. We managed to clear off another one, Bill S-9 I believe. We may do Bill S-7 another day.
All I am suggesting is that perhaps we could dispose of the bill at this time without taking up the entire hour. We could then move on to another item of Private Members' Business such as Motion No. 3 on the Order Paper, the motion in the name of Mr. Caccia and have a debate on that instead.
I realize that there are procedural impediments but clearly we have solved a problem for another week by dealing with Bill S-9 today. That is why I was hoping the parliamentary secretary might be able to assist.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the alternate doses of carborundum and grease that we are getting from opposite today.
It is a very constructive suggestion. My friend is not only an expert in parliamentary matters, in procedural matters, he is also a helpful individual. I suspect that he may have been a logger in a previous incarnation because I expect he will be an expert in forest matters when we get to Bill C-306 on Monday.
I think that we are falling into a bit of difficulty here. What my friend has said is helpful but I do not think that it is appropriate to further negotiate the business of the House on the floor of the House. Those discussions, I assure my friend, can take place. I am willing to participate in them behind the curtain.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will now suspend the House until six o'clock. On a point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, perhaps you will find that there is consent to proceed with Orders of the Day.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we call it six o'clock and proceed with Government Orders?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p. 10744).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: There were three and one half minutes left in the speech of the hon. member Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I will now recognize the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member who still has three and a half minutes left is in the back, I would be willing to relinquish the floor and begin my speech later.
I appreciate the opportunity to add to the debate we have had for most of this day with respect to the proposed changes in the Canada Post Corporation and what the changes in section 27 of the Canada Post Corporation Act are trying to accomplish.
I should say at the outset that since I have been in the House of Commons, I have followed the issues concerning Canada Post as a critic. I have been very impressed with the majority of things they have been doing in the last three or four years. Their management and their people have tried to bring the delivery of mail and parcels into the 20th century.
I am particularly impressed with Canada Post when I visit their facilities across the country. Members on my side of the House are glaring at me because I am complimenting Canada Post. I will get their comments after I am finished with mine.
Canada Post has the ability to adapt to the manufacturing processes of the 20th century. They take a parcel or a letter or whatever it may be, which they call a unit of production, and figure out the best way to facilitate it. When you take a look at what Canada Post has been doing with respect to management and employee responsibility in such a tiered process, there is a tremendous responsibility at every level of the operation. Many businesses in this country can learn some very important lessons from the way Canada Post handles its operation today.
June 18, 1992

I also see that in the merchandising and the services it provides. If I recall correctly, at one time it had relinquished the field of delivering parcels and especially letters on time. We find now its merchandising policies and its dedication to providing a service on time is truly a credit not only to those who serve in the management of this Crown corporation, but every person who is responsible for every step of the process for getting a letter or parcel posted in one part of the country and delivered in another in fairly good time. The employees and the management should truly be complimented.
That is why I have some difficulty today trying to understand what Canada Post is attempting to do with the legislation that is before this house. There are many more pieces of legislation that we have to discuss. There is the Immigration Act tomorrow that requires at least 10 days or two weeks of debate and yet we are going to try and cram it into two days and here we are talking about a piece of legislation with respect to changing Canada Post which really makes no absolutely no sense at all.
I will comment in a few moments on why I do not think this legislation should really be here and be discussed and debated in the House today.
Let me say that although Canada Post is truly impressive in a great many areas today, in my judgment it forgot some of the fundamentals of what the Canada Post Corporation truly is.
I come from a mid-sized community, Thunder Bay. I also represent many areas of a rural nature. Nipigon has its own little post office, Red Rock has its own post office, Armstrong has its own post office, Gull Bay is serviced by Armstrong, Dorion just recently closed down its local office and has its facilities handled by good friends of mine, the Atkinson family.
What we find is that in many small rural communities, not only in the area I represent but throughout this country, perhaps the only federal presence we have in that community that is representative or symbolic of Canada is the local post office.
It is the only facility that carries the Canadian flag, that has the Canadian colours, that has the Canadian symbols. This is where Canada Post truly has gone astray.
Government Orders
When Canada Post started closing down these rural post offices under the guise of offering better services-it may be offering better services but I am not prepared to make that admission right now-what it is doing is closing down institutions which have been part of rural Canada for the last 100, 115 or 120 years. What is catastrophic is that with the closure of those rural post offices in those small communities it has removed all vestiges of a federal presence.
I do think that given the history of Canada Post and given its background and the services that it provided to this country, not only to large urban centres but throughout the country into small communities, more than anything else is the knowledge of all Canadians that there is a national presence in those small communities. Canada Post provided more than just the delivery of mail, the reception of mail and the forwarding of mail.
That small rural post office has been almost a social net, where people as they get elderly and have lived in a community for years and have had the opportunity to go down and pick up their mail in the morning, meet and discuss items of mutual interest, the post office has become a meeting point. I agree that that is not the responsibility of Canada Post but it is the responsibility of the Canadian government and a responsibility that we have inherited and we should not do away with.
Canada Post in its rural settings not only provides a national presence but it has the ability to assist those people. We all know today that if you do not have some legal training I doubt whether anyone in this country, even with legal training-I have some legal training-can fill out and complete all the forms that most citizens have to do in order to carry on with their day-to-day living.
The forms they have to fill out for their citizenship, to begin with, the forms that they have to fill out for getting their driver's licence, the forms they have to fill out to get their old age security, their old age pension, and the myriad of problems that arise when we have such a social net within our country, Canada Post in its rural setting and through the very fine people who work in those rural post offices, provided that service, provided that advice, provided that assistance to those small communities.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I wonder, when these small rural post offices close down, how those people who before had been able to get that type of assistance through their small rural post office, are going to go to get that assistance now.
Having said what I said at the outset about Canada Post, I think their management has gone just a step too far, and has developed perhaps too intense a business concept. It has forgotten the genesis of Canada Post, its beginnings, what it truly provided for a community. I think Canada Post has lost its way.
The other area that I would like to mention, Madam Speaker, in addition to the closure of so many small rural post offices is this new concept where mailboxes are put at the ends of streets in new developments. That may work in a climate where the sun shines and it only rains once in a while, but it does not work here.
I look at my friend from one of our rural ridings in British Columbia. I know my time is getting short, Madam Speaker, but let me just make the point that his constituents are the same as mine. We all grow older and with the seasonal differences in climate and so on, it is just not as good as it once was.
If we were to do anything in this country that would be beneficial to providing better services for all Canadians, it would be to completely remove those ugly post office boxes at the end of every street and to start delivering mail to every home in this country, as it should be.
I oppose this legislation. I do not know why it is here in this House. I do not think anyone knows why it is here in this House. It makes absolutely no sense that 10 per cent of a corporation would be sold to its employees who do not want to buy it. It provides no security for them. It provides no profit. It provides no gain. I do not know what the purpose of the legislation is.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak this afternoon on this particular bill or on the amendment. However, the hon. member for Ottawa West motivated me to do so.
When that member was speaking, she said that the socialists were absent from the debate, socialists who believe in socializing everything, and where were they, why were they not taking part in this debate on this particular bill and on the amendment. She effectively
said that we were not taking part in the debate and we were in favour of socializing everything.
She is wrong on both counts. I believe she knows that. I cannot accuse her of telling a falsehood, but I can certainly say that she was exaggerating to say the least.
The socialists of Canada as represented by the CCF and the NDP have never been in favour of socializing everything. However, a service like the post office is a natural candidate for remaining as a government-owned organization. Apart from being a service, it is a monopoly and that is another good reason for it remaining totally under public ownership.
This move by the government to sell off some shares in it is an obvious move to totally privatize it. The socialists who have spoken in this debate-I am not sure how many but two of them today and others on previous occasions-have all opposed the legislation and have supported the amendment to hoist it for six months which of course is killing the bill. We want to do that.
We can all relate our own stories about the post office. I was listening to the member who preceded me and I have some of my own.
I was raised in a relatively small community in British Columbia, South Wellington on Vancouver Island. At that time it had a population of around 500. The post office was a service organization there.
The member talked about various government forms and the assistance that would be given by the postmaster or postmistress in filling them out. Passport applications and old age pension applications, the many forms that one needs in dealing with government which are now picked up by going to a special office in a city could then be picked up at the local post office. Help was available if needed so it was not just forms.
In South Wellington in those days there was one telephone in the community. It was in the post office. Beside the post office was a family-owned grocery store. It was in the same building as the post office but separated by a door that could be locked on occasion. If the telephone rang in the post office and there was a genuine emergency, then it was not beyond members of that family to go and get the person who was required to answer the phone. On other occasions, the phone could be used by people coming into the post office for that purpose.
June 18, 1992

The post office itself, as well as providing forms, was also the nearest thing to a bank that was available to many people. It provided services which are currently available only in banks, a savings organization that was available to the post office. Postal money orders could be purchased in the post office. It really was something that tied Canada together.
If the mail was piling up for one individual, then the postmistress would advise a neighbour. She would perhaps say to the neighbour: "Would you like to deliver this mail to that person?" That is, if it was not registered mail. Or alternatively ask: "Have you seen that person lately? Is he or she well? Is there some problem? Would you like to look in on that person?" With messages like that people looked after each other in those days. The post office was the place that brought them together, the common place where people called, where they met each other and talked. It was a social centre.
It was more than a social centre. It served the people of that community of South Wellington as it did many other communities all across Canada. Today it is not a service organization, it is profit driven. We have lost something in that.
The post office boasts of its success when it makes a profit. In this particular year, I understand it is not making a profit. It is experiencing a loss of some tens of millions of dollars. It mismanaged employer-employee relations to the extent there was a very serious work stoppage, a result of an argument between employers and employees, which cost a lot of money to give something less than proper service to the people.
Whenever there is that kind of stoppage it cannot be blamed on one group or the other. One can certainly say that Canada Post has to take more than its share of the blame for that work stoppage.
It resulted in the loss of service and resulted also in the tens of millions of dollars of losses the corporation will be reporting this year. But that is not so important. It is the service that was lost. Losing money is important, particularly at this period in the history of Canada, but more important is the loss of service.
Government Orders
Loss of service not just because of that work stoppage but loss of service because Canada Post is retreating from its previous policy of taking its service to the people. Instead it is saying: "You come to us. We are not here to serve you. We are here to offer something if you wish, but you have to come to us. Look for us, find us somewhere, and you can then make use of our services."
It is cutting back on the variety of services, the things that used to be available in post offices, making it more difficult for people generally to get whatever service they want from that post office, by having to go further, by having to drive.
In the days I was talking about there was one car in the area of the community in which I lived, one automobile. Now, of course, everyone drives. They go much shorter distances than we had to go to pick up our mail. But in those days we walked to get the mail.
In those days the post office was a service. I do not think it was losing money in those days either, but it offered services far beyond those offered today. It helped to keep Canada together as a nation. It helped maintain contact between people who now find it difficult to maintain contact.
We should be trying to improve that as a service. We should maintain it as a publicly owned organization, an organization that because it is a monopoly and because it is a service, should be a service oriented organization, should be publicly owned and not privatized as this legislation provides.
We have no hesitation. All of the New Democrats when this bill comes up for a vote will be voting in favour of the motion to hoist, recognizing that what we are doing is killing the bill.
We are hoping that we can achieve that and kill it at least until after the election. Hopefully then the new government will turn the clock back and start improving Canada Post, start improving it from the point of view of providing and maintaining a service to people rather than boasting about profits that it makes from not providing an efficient service.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


David Walker: Madam Speaker, I join in this debate on Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, to register my disagreement with the government strategy dealing with Canada Post.
Members on this side of the House have found it very difficult dealing with Canada Post on any grounds. Rather than look at the questions of service and responsiveness to Canadians this government is looking at changes in ownership patterns. It is avoiding the major issue it is supposed to be facing.
I was happy to hear that the previous speaker from the NDP was quick to praise the operations of Canada Post in the old days under the Liberal Party. It is not very often we hear such complimentary comments. We all know that even in those days there were a few problems, but I thank him very much for his support and we hope to be able to return it to the fine levels of service in the next few months and years.
What has struck me, as a member of Parliament, is when looking at which departments are easy to deal with and which departments are totally incompetent, totally unable to respond and totally unable to answer a basic question, on a scale of negatives, Canada Post is front and centre.
Never in all my time as a member of Parliament have I ever been treated so poorly as I have in dealing with Canada Post. The only other organization to treat me so poorly was General Motors but that is another story for another time.
In dealing with Canada Post, I am struck by the fact it is unable to understand that its strategy may be wrong, it may in fact be making a mistake, that it should make changes.
When dealing with the Department of Employment and Immigration for example, the regional director will sit down and talk with a member of Parliament and say: "Well we only have so much money. We think we are going to do it this way. What do you think?" Do you know what? Its officials respond. They talk and they come up with a strategy. It may not always be the one wanted but you know it is the lack of questions dealing with the regional public administration in this House concerning employment and immigration. It is because
of that level that these people seek out members of Parliament and try to develop a consensus.
On the other hand, Canada Post sends what can only be described as God-awful notices at the last minute on a Friday afternoon to indicate that on Monday something is being closed down. Its officials will meet you, under duress, but normally speaking they will not. If they do meet you under duress, it is to explain why things cannot be changed, and they always look so sad.
There was a period two years ago where I had a number of changes in the organization of mail services in Winnipeg North Centre. One of the key points of survival of an older community and older neighbourhood like Winnipeg North Centre is as it goes through a period of decline everyone wants out.
Businesses want out because they are insecure. They have older buildings or the streets are insecure or there is a poor traffic pattern. People living in older homes decide not to fix them up. So it is really up to public institutions to maintain an infrastructure, to make it easy for those who stay there to maintain a life in an older neighbourhood.
Let us take the matter of pulling out the services of mailing parcels, a very simple thing. Older Europeans living in Winnipeg North Centre send parcels back home. All of a sudden, they have to go far away to be able to do it.
Canada Post pulls out a map and says: "This is not far away, Mr. Walker, it is close by. Look at it." I say: "Have you ever got on a bus with those parcels? Do you know that the bus turns that way and the post office is that way? Do you know that you have to walk across seven lanes of Main Street, the worst street in urban Canada and wait for the bus and then get off and walk back across the street?" "Well, Mr. Walker, we have research," they say. I say: "Well that is great, is it market research?" They say: "It is great market research." I say: "Well I spent a couple of years doing market research." They say: "Great, we will get the guy to call you. You will have a great conversation."
It is now 24 months and counting and I am sure one day he will call me and have that meeting. If Canada Post is not willing to sit down and have this basic discussion about the information in which it is changing around communities then why should it be allowed to develop a corporate plan independent of parliamentary scrutiny? The answer is that it should not be allowed to. This
June 18, 1992

government should take responsibility for what it is doing because it is withdrawing basic services.
Back to that famous postal station where these people have to go down Selkirk Avenue, across the street, up on the bus route, and across the street to do their services. Well the post office is now making it more convenient for them. It has closed that post office so they do not have to worry about trying to go there, they can try to find somewhere else.
The frustration that we have is not in dealing with change, because no one in the House of Commons believes that there are not some changes in the service, but in dealing with the quality of the change process. If I phone up public relations in Ottawa and say: "This is what has happened to me in Winnipeg," they reply: "I cannot believe how bad the guys in Winnipeg are. They should not treat you that way, Mr. Walker. We will look right into it." He is right there beside the market researcher and returning phone calls. If phone calls to members of Parliament are not returned, my basic question is to whom do they return them? The answer is that they do not return them to anybody. The frustration with such a basic thing as the postal service is incredible when it should not be that way because you have to manage change.
A few minutes ago the member from Thunder Bay was up talking about what was going on in Red Rock and Nipigon and communities in his constituency. Three years ago, he and I were involved with a non-partisan tour reviewing the cutbacks of VIA Rail. We invited, in good faith, the Solicitor General who was the Minister of Transport. He was offered the opportunity, but VIA Rail was so busy that there was no seat available for the minister. He could only watch us from CTV and CBC.
We asked what the backbone of federal presence was in a town like Red Rock. There were two things. They were VIA Rail and Canada Post.
The government has taken out VIA Rail and that leaves Canada Post. You just heard the member talk about the quality of service as a result of recent decisions. We could go across the country, community by community, and make suggestions to the government as to how to look at issues as they are. One issue is
Government Orders
ownership by employees when employees through their unions have made it quite clear that they do not want that strategy. It is trying to dump on to the employees, something they do not want. You have to ask what it is doing.
You say to yourself that perhaps there is a certain class of employees that is more interested than others. That is not ever spoken about and perhaps we should talk about that. Perhaps it is the first stage of getting the public used to thinking of Canada Post as shares and shareholders. Perhaps the next step after that is privatization.
If privatization is the issue, then put it on the table fellow members of Parliament. Put it on the table, Mr. Minister. Let us see the privatization strategy of this government. Let us not see this piecemeal strategy from one community to the next. Let us have a strategy for dealing with postal service in this country that makes sense. Let us see if this organization can manage change.
It was very boastful two years ago, but now we hear it is going to lose money.
When is that going to be announced? It will probably be late Friday afternoon when no one is paying attention.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, Wednesday.


David Walker: Wednesday? It will be after we have gone home. Oh, that's brilliant. Tuesday? Wednesday? This is it. This is like drawing straws. These guys cannot figure which day is the most convenient for them.
I am sure that at the last possible moment we will hear the bad news. I am sure it will be lost because there has been nothing but bad news from this government. That is perhaps another question.
I stand up to oppose what is a very poor piece of legislation. Our critic has had a detailed explanation of our position. He gave it several says ago. Many members from this side have stood up to make the same arguments. We in this particular party have led the charge for the modernization of Canada Post, but in a responsible way that improves communities.
The government makes light of the fact that changes have to be brought in a responsible fashion. It will pay the price for that.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I call upon the government to withdraw this piece of legislation and start over again with building a more responsible postal service.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate and urge the House to support the motion that would cause consideration of this bill to be postponed for six months.
This debate on second reading gives us all an opportunity to bring before the House the problems that each of us get from day to day with Canada Post and to look at the administration of Canada Post.
I would first like to focus on the larger issue of Canada Post's labour relations. I practised labour law and they used to talk a lot about labour problems. Most of the time when there are labour problems, the real issue is management problems. Good corporations which have good labour relations have properly dealt with those relations.
Canada Post has, without question, the worst labour relations of any company in Canada over any extended period of time. There can be no doubt that it is the experience of all of us that the source of the problem is the management policy of Canada Post. The Conservatives seem to consistently endorse these policies.
Here is a company which still has over 100,000 grievances outstanding. I have personal experience from arbitrators who have been asked to deal with this. The inability of management in this case to get its act together has been completely beyond their experience. There is no doubt where the responsibility lies for this mountain of grievances that remain unresolved. It is with the management of Canada Post. They are unable to deal with the simplest of grievances. They allow them to build up, issue after issue after issue, so that the employees are effectively deprived of what they are entitled to under the law, which is a reasonable disposition of their grievance. That right has evaporated.
The Canada Labour Code has an essential bargain with the labour movement that falls within its jurisdiction. The bargain is this. If one gives up one's right to strike, except at the end of a contract, then the Parliament of Canada will assure an individual an efficient system of disposition of grievances. There is a system set up in legislation to do that. It is reinforced by the collective agreement.
However, here we have a management which has intentionally gone out to destroy the system by failing to deal with it. If anyone argues about the intention of Canada Post management in this regard, you first have the principle that their intention is judged by the effect of their acts. The effect is clearly to destroy the collective bargaining system and the grievance system. Second, it is clearly consistent with everything else that Canada Post management has done. It also spills over into the way in which they deal with the general public.
Let me say that in addition to the pile of grievances which have created an intense morale problem within Canada Post from coast to coast to coast, we see their other work-if it can be called that-with their employees through the rest of the collective bargaining process.
The employees of Canada Post-and I ask those from across the country who are listening to compare it to their own circumstance-have been three years without a collective agreement. Their management has not had the will or the ability to reach a collective agreement for three years. Only with the intervention of this Parliament was there any wage increase voted and that was after Canada Post broke its word to this Parliament and to its employees during the strike last year.
Canada Post, at that time, agreed on certain terms and conditions about the arbitration under which back-to-work legislation would be voted on. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers kept its side of the bargain and withdrew the picket lines. However, the moment the legislation was adopted and the workers went back to work, Canada Post took its part of the bargain off the table. It left the employees and the arbitrator without the agreement they had had from Canada Post.
We have an arbitrator now working on a collective agreement that is going into its fourth year. We have the grievances, the failure to have a collective agreement and a persistent pattern of management which seems designed to bring the whole post office machinery to a halt.
June 18, 1992

I will conclude with a reference to the other aspects of this "management" that the government wants its employees to buy into.
Each of us in our ridings have different problems, but let me refer to a couple in my riding. First, in Victoria, if you want to complain about the service of Canada Post you end up phoning somebody in Vancouver who has no idea where anything is in Victoria in any event and is usually not well trained to deal with the issue. This is a matter of intense frustration-and that is after you have had to take a long time trying to get through on the phone-to the people of Victoria.
The capacity for the public to make complaints or even ask questions about what is happening in Canada Post has been removed from our community which, after all, is the capital of British Columbia, a city of over 300,000 people. It has further taken the ability to actually confront a human being on a person to person basis. All you get is a disembodied voice on a telephone that does not know the nature of the problem in any event.
However, when you can get through that bureaucracy and you can get someone to respond, you get bafflegab. The best example I have is a problem we had in our constituency with condominium apartments. Canada Post decided it was going to compete with those companies that hand out flyers and it was going to offer a service to the companies that wanted the flyers delivered. It provided its own delivery system and hired workers who were non-union, non-bonded.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Good.


John F. Brewin: The Solicitor General says good, which tells you something about this government's attitude toward the rights of employees to collective bargaining.
It hired non-union employees to go around and deliver these on the weekend. It turned over the keys to apartment buildings which it had entrusted to the letter carriers, to these young kids who go out without a uniform on a Saturday or a Sunday. They were allowed into the building from dawn until late at night. They had complete access to the post boxes of all those who lived in the building. There are many, many seniors who live in these buildings who are very concerned about security. It
Government Orders
created a great fear within many people about the lack of security this involved.
When we started talking to Canada Post about this, we discovered the heart of corporate mentality. It said the customers want this and that. It dawned on us, a group of seniors from these condominiums and me, listening to this official from Canada Post talk, that the customer to Canada Post is no longer the general public. It is no longer the individual member of this community. It is no longer the Canadian citizen and resident who established Canada Post through Parliament in the first place. It is now the commercial venture that wants to peddle its junk mail on the weekends.
I submit that what we have seen is the privatization of the mentality of Canada Post and this bill represents the first step toward the legal privatization of Canada Post because the bill provides for the establishment of shares which in this first instance will be available to the employees. However, it will merely take a stroke of the pen to extend them to those who wish to buy up our postal service and complete the process of privatization which has already begun.
It is a great tragedy for this country that what was an important public service has been destroyed by this government and its predecessor over a period of time. No longer can we say we have a confident Public Service designed to serve the people of Canada. We have an increasingly private company designed to serve the corporate sector in this country. It is a tragedy and a sad day for Canada that this has happened.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address this issue, Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
I find it a little strange that we are debating a bill called the Canada Post bill. It seems to me that the first principle is that the bill should reflect the reality that is out there. As far as I can recall, we have removed that reality. The name Canada Post, Postes Canada, is now called Mail/Postes. We have removed the name Canada.
Why are we calling this bill the amendment to same when it is no longer a reality?

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Second, and more sadly I guess, is the implication behind the changes that have taken place to Canada Post. I cannot help but call it Canada Post because that is what it is in my memory bank and that is what it has meant to me as a citizen living in a major city but one who has also lived in the country and been part of that small constituency that appreciates and enjoys and recognizes the importance of a rural post office.
I know that when we go to the country in the summertime the first thing we look forward to is going to visit our local little post office. We walk the several miles. It is actually three and a half miles from our home in La Macaza. You go and chat, you meet all the locals, you catch up on the winter stories, what has gone on with everybody, who is well and who is sick, who has graduated from school, where they have a new job, meeting the new children and so on. It is really the centre of communal life in the small rural communities. One of the unfortunate realities of what has happened to Canada Post is the closing down of much of rural Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Rural Canada is alive and well.


Sheila Finestone: I would suggest that the Solicitor General can make his observations. He is entitled to his point of view. I will respect the difference in his point of view. I hope he has at least the decency to respect and listen to what I have to say.
One of the other things that I would find as I went to Canada Post and to my local post office is that I could pick up forms, I could get information, I could send a money order or a money cheque because there was nothing available, no banking services. It was an important institution in the life of the community.
It seems rather a sad critique on this country and how we are looking to building a sense of Canadian unity, a sense of Canadian identity, when we would first of all remove, certainly in rural Quebec, one of the few places where you would see a Canadian flag in every little town through which one would travel. You would have the sense that you are a part of Canada because of the name Canada Post, Poste Canada.
It also would seem to be that if you move from the country area where it serves that important link, you move back into the city area and think about what
Canada Post did on a national scale. Canada Post was a vital element in the supplementation and the subvention of our communication links through our magazines and our community newspapers and our books. Canada Post provided an important subsidy to the delivery of magazines and books and community newspapers and the little church newspapers that kept everybody in the countryside and in the community district well informed of what was going on at the local level.
The government has seen fit to cut more than half the kinds of money used to support our community newspapers. It is a very sad day if you add up all the factors that are cutting down the identifications that represent Canada and that make us feel there is a sense of nationhood. After all, we are more than just the reception and the delivery of service as a postal service. We are also the centre of much business activity.
That business activity which we subsidize in the way of books and literature and community news had a vital role to play. You come from an area where you had a community newspaper, you wrote articles in your community newspaper and members of your constituency have been deprived in many cases of your wise counsel occasionally, some that I would agree with and some that I would not agree with.
On the other hand, you had subsidized air freight and that has been reduced to the Northwest Territories and northern Quebec. If you have seen the price of a loaf of bread and meat and general food up in the north you would know how important that postal subsidy was.
Another thing came to my attention and it is just of recent date that I have noticed this. I do not know about you but as a young person I used to collect stamps and I used to collect the little identifications where the stamp came from. I remember being excited when it came from Europe and what little town it came from in France or England or Israel.
I used to know where it came from and they knew it came from Montreal and they knew that it was perhaps from one of their other friends in the city of Montreal. No longer. It says Canada and the date. That is all it says. Look at the cancellation stamps on your envelopes and see if you do not feel there is a loss of a sense of identity across this country because of a silly little thing like that.
June 18, 1992

I know this is all in the interest of business and certainly I do not agree that one should stay frozen in time. This is a changing society. It is certainly one in which we have moved to the electronic era, to instant communication of all kinds. The fax machine is a perfect example. I do not know now what we would do without the fax and without the car phone. I know life would not be as easy to get along with and we certainly could not cope with lots of things.
I am not saying we should not move forward but I am saying there may be lots of important business principles that are fundamental and changes are needed in our country. A country is not just a business. It is something we seem to have forgotten and I think that is a sad commentary and maybe it is part and parcel of the reason why we are all so cranky out there. We forgot there is something special about a country that is not bottom line business management.
City names have been removed from the cancellation stamps and now you only have a postal code, so you lose your local and regional identity. If you remove "Canada" from Canada Post and if you remove the flag from the rural and urban towns you have a loss of sense of unity. You have something rather strange going on in this particular bill in which the government feels that it should privatize-I should suggest not privatize, although I think that is what is in its mind as you look down the road. Rather, that it is going to sell 10 per cent of the shares to the workers at Canada Post.
I would like to know what kind of a gift package that really is. Canada Post last year lost something in the order of $100 million. You tell me as an enlightened person, are you going to go out and buy shares in a company that is losing $100 million? I do not know about you but I would not do that and I do not know that many of my friends or family would do that. I do not know why the minister thinks this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that he is offering the workers of Canada Post who, by the way, have the worst record in the world as workers. I do not know if it is their fault or that of the inside organization or the management but they certainly do not have the best reputation in the world.
This minister tells us that this is a great scheme. He is going to sell of 10 per cent of the shares of Canada Post to its employees. As I said, I did not think it was such a great idea and then I come across the fact that the
Government Orders
Conservative majority on the committee that was studying some of the proposals around what to do with the Canadian post office said in its recommendation number 36 that the Government of Canada should privatize Canada Post once adequate financial performance comparable to the private sector levels has been attained and once the industrial relations climate has been improved.
I do not think we have reached the financial well-being of the country, nor does it seem to me that the total industrial relations have been straightened away so that it would seem that even the opposite side of this House would agree that this would be a good idea.
It is our sense that Canada Post should remain a Crown corporation. It should remain a Crown corporation because it should serve us and serve the individual in our society. That is the whole point of having a postal service for anyone.
I do want to talk about one particular problem in my riding that I hope whatever happens will be addressed. That is the question of the supermailboxes. In my riding, in the new areas and in some of the older areas, the giant green supermailboxes are out there. I do not know if the postal service thought you should have one answer for anywhere across this land but in this city, in Mount Royal riding, in the kinds of streets and the type of people we have with the rough ice and snow that piles up, the cold and the sleet and the rain, and particularly the seasons of the year which are very difficult, the senior citizens in my riding cannot get to those boxes. They have difficulty opening the boxes. I would think that service to every home and every door in the metropolitan areas is an absolute must. I would like to see that extended to all the urban areas.
I can understand where that would be difficult in small towns, although I must say that there was a delivery by car and a lovely postman who used to drive up and drop the mail in your little box. It was a really important part of catching up on the news and gossip.
In the major cities in a northern country like Canada, we cannot afford to allow people to go out in the inclement weather and not be able to pick up their cheques.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: It is healthy for them.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: You think it is healthy for them. Well, not all these people are as healthy as you are and may you keep your good health.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Come to a small town and find out.


Sheila Finestone: All I can tell you is that it is not the best way. I object, Mr. Speaker. I would like to finish by saying that I really object to this legislation. It is not in the best interest of Canada. It is not in the best interest of the workers. There are a lot of things we can do to improve it, but this is not the right route. I would like it reconsidered.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, as I commence my remarks on Bill C-73, a bill to make changes to the post office act, what could I possibly say about the post office that has not already been said in this House over the last 100 or so years. I venture to suggest that everything that could possibly be said about the economies of scale, the cost of postage, the efficiencies of service, the hirings and firings and the patronage and the locations and closings of post offices around the country has all been said 100 times or more.
This particular bill has been described by our critics as the thin edge of the wedge in a privatization. While it in fact is not a privatization, they view it as a precursor piece of legislation. To say the least, they are very cautious about it.
Canada Post is by all measurements a large corporation in significant transition. It has had to move from the age of the hard copy, the hand-written letter, into the age of electronics. It now has competition in terms of communication from other couriers who handle niche markets from the fax machine and from parcel deliveries. In fact, if you think about it, what has really occurred is that the post office this country set up many years ago to handle the mail was to do its job then working with virtually the only medium that existed at that time for communication. In a sense the post office then had a monopoly on the totality of communication beyond the spoken word and that was the written word put in a letter, stamped and delivered by hand to somebody in another location.
Since we gave the post office that monopoly, copying many other countries around the world, we now communicate in many different ways. The simple radio was a means of communication. We have television and other
electronic devices I made reference to. This means that no longer do we have to rely on the post office as a monopoly conveyer of communications. That has changed the role of the post office. That is why in some quarters the post office is looked upon as a candidate for privatization. It is not a monopoly, it is not an essential service the way it was 100 years ago, therefore, it may be a role that government does not have to play anymore. That has been suggested and our critics are vety cautious about that.
The first thing I want to say about privatization is that our party is not prepared to accept half a privatization, a tentative or a punitive privatization or a little bit or a trial privatization. You cannot have half a privatization. Therefore, we are not prepared to support this initiative because it looks good.
I recall earlier in the day when someone asked the same question: Is this a privatization? There was one member opposite who was nodding his head. I know he does not speak for the government, or nod his head for the government, but there is a real sense in this House that the post office is a candidate and this bill is a precursor of that.
Other privatizations this House has looked at and accomplished by legislation over the last few years have made us aware of potential problems, challenges in the process of privatization, and none of that has been addressed as we look at the post office. It is totally premature to look upon this as a possible entry point to privatization.
One of those problems, of course, in privatizing is to get a handle on the value of the assets. In this case I recall in the early 1980s the process by which all of the lands which were used by post offices and owned by Public Works on behalf of Canada and its taxpayers were simply transferred to Canada Post. Millions and millions of dollars worth of real estate in large cities, small towns, villages all over the place was simply transferred to Canada Post without reference to its asset value. We have not begun to assess that asset value in Canada Post.
We on this side of the House are not in the business of giving blank cheques to the government. That is conceptually why we do not want to support this legislation here today.
June 18, 1992

I noted earlier today what for me was a very sad event.
I am not so sure all members had noted it, but we gave third reading to a bill, Bill C-55, governing pensions here earlier today. Within that bill there were two clauses whereby this House gave the Governor in Council the right to make regulations which would override the provisions of the very statute we were passing. That is the first time I am aware this happened in this House.
Some members spoke to it last night but the government did not want to listen. That was called a Henry VIII clause. It is a reference to the last time in history when this really happened in a big way. It was when Henry VIII back in the 1500s decided he wanted that power over Parliament. He wanted the right to override by proclamation provisions of statutes that were passed by the House of Commons, by the Parliament in England.
He got that power, he forced it on Parliament, and the only time Parliament was able to get rid of that was when Henry VIII died, and they did get rid of it. I just want to point out that we in this House gave a blank cheque today to the Governor in Council to make regulations to override what was in our statute.


An hon. member:: That was the most ridiculous thing.


Derek Vincent Lee: That is not just a blank cheque, that is an abdication of our parliamentary responsibilities. If there ever was a thin edge of the wedge that is it. I am cautioning Parliament in that regard.
This bill is purporting to offer a form of employee participation in the profits of Canada Post. There was a time when Canada Post did not look for profits but in this case the corporation has modernized itself and it is pursuing improving economies, better management, more efficiency, and lo and behold, profit.
It has managed to derive a profit based in part I might add by the fact that it is not in a position where it has to write off or depreciate all of these assets of real estate and buildings that were given to it by the taxpayer about 10 years ago. That is water under the bridge. It is potentially a very healthy corporation and there is no reason in the world why it cannot break even and make a profit.
In any event the goal as I understand it from this legislation is to permit employees of Canada Post to
Government Orders
participate in those profits, a form of profit-sharing by letting them acquire by purchase-although it does not say purchase-maybe the shares will be given as gifts, we do not know, with a limit of 10 per cent on the number of shares. They would be non-voting shares and they would be sold, given, transferred or rewarded to employees. In principle, one does not see much wrong with that unless you stop and look at the fact that we have a Crown corporation. I am not comfortable mucking around with the capital structure of a Crown corporation until we in this House have decided what we are going to do with the Crown corporation.
If this House had decided that it was going to be split seven ways or privatized or restructured in any way, then we could talk about all of these other things and business principles.
Right now I think the government is just trying to slide in a little bell and whistle here that is premature because this House has not decided what it wants to do with Canada Post. I know the government has not. If it has, it had better come clean and tell us and not try to slide the thing through with a bill like this.
Let me wrap up and indicate non-support of the bill. I caution about embarking on a quasi-pseudo privatization without fully endorsing the concept and thinking it through and valuing the assets. I caution also about the kind of clause that was contained in the bill earlier today.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
The amendment is negatived on division.
Amendment (Mr. Boudria) negatived.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue this debate, focusing on one of the points that my colleague from the town of Mount Royal made about federal presence.
Before I get into the point of federal presence, I want to say up front that I am a fan of the post office of Canada. I know that the post office is probably one of the most efficient companies in Canada.
I remember back in 1981 when we were having difficulties with the post office. There was a major strike on at that time. The efficiency experts went into the post office. They were the types of people who used the same sort of measurement and standards they used in all corporations across Canada. When the study was finished, they discovered that the post office was one of the most efficient companies in all of Canada. It was running at about 97 per cent or 98 per cent efficiency.
When we got these numbers we were absolutely flabbergasted at how the post office could be this efficient and why so many people were upset with the post office. We focused on the area of metropolitan Toronto, which had a very high level of productivity and efficiency. This was even before it was in this mode of privatization.
The problem is that when 20 million pieces of mail are handled in a day, if 2 per cent of that mail does not get delivered within a cycle, which I think at that time was about 48 or 72 hours, then all of a sudden people start complaining; oh, I didn't get my mail on time, et cetera. But 2 per cent or 400,000 pieces out of 20 million pieces is really, by industry standards, not that bad.
As Canadians we do not really appreciate the post office as much as we should. But I take the government to task on this issue of dismantling the post office. When the member from Saskatchewan was talking earlier today, he talked about the fact that in his province close to 100 rural post offices had been closed down. In the country within the last seven years over 1,000 post offices had been closed. When the member for Halton-Peel
said earlier today that he did not want to spend taxpayers' money subsidizing post offices, that is not the way to look at it.
We should realize that these post offices are instruments for pulling the country together, that they are a federal presence. Do not just think of the post office as delivering mail, think of what other supplemental services can be added to the post office so that the federal presence in the community can be enhanced. If there is one thing that we need in this country today it is national instruments that will pull us together. We need the federal presence in this country more than we have ever needed it before.
We know, for example, in some provinces in this country that they do not even fly the Canadian flag. One thing for sure about the post office; you could always count on the Canada word mark, that is the word Canada with the little flag over the a. Remember when that first space arm was opened up in outer space and that Canada word mark was on the side of that Spar Aerospace arm? That Canada with the flag over it gave everybody in this country a great sense of pride, a great sense of appreciation for the talent and the technology of Canadians. It was a patriotic feeling.
The post offices in this country, especially in rural areas, provide that same kind of feeling. They are not just delivery systems, they are symbols of the Government of Canada.
I was approached in my riding office about three weeks ago by a group called the Falcon Group of Canada. In fact, one of their offices is based here in Ottawa. These people have developed a very special technology and they have sold this technology to the United States postal system. It is called the "Postal Buddy Corporation". This postal system, which is like a computerized technology, allows postal patrons to file changes of address, notification for publications of their new address, it prints postage-paid change of address cards, it will organize information on travel trips across Canada. It is very exclusive technology and was developed here in Canada. Interestingly enough, it has been sold to the U.S. postal service before it has been sold to ours. I find that interesting. Mind you, I think that the postal service is going to be seeing them in the next week or so.
June 18, 1992

Here is an example of a Canadian technology, designed and made in this country, which allows the post office to be more than a place where you buy your stamps and get your money orders. It allows the postal service to have new opportunities for generating more revenue and to make it more profitable. That is where the post office should be heading.
If the revenue was there to make it a self-sustaining unit, especially in the rural areas, then surely to goodness the government would not be so preoccupied with closing all of these places which are instruments of national unity.
This debate tonight, where we are focusing on this 10 per cent employee equity participation bill, really should not be a front burner item right now. We should be using the post office to pull us together, to put the federal presence right across this country, especially when it is so inexpensive to set up and operate a post office.
When we get in this bill to where we are talking about this share distribution for employees, I say to myself that first of all there is absolutely no share rights in this share distribution. There is no definition as to how we are going to put a value on this. Just think of the massive amounts of land that the post office owns from coast to coast. How is that going to be factored into the value of the company? Quite frankly, I have never seen a real evaluation for the postal service in this country. I have never seen an evaluation for the land of the post office. How can we going to put a value on these shares?
We know the mistake that was made when we did the share offering on Air Canada. We put it out at almost $2.50 less than what the analysts said it was worth.


Mr. Soetens:: What is it trading for now?


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member for Ontario asks what is it trading for now. That is another reason why we should not be in such haste to put out equity in the post office at this moment because the value of those shares is very low, especially property values.


René John Soetens: We made the right decision with Air Canada.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Well, you did not really make the right decision in the long-term and I will tell you why you did not make the right decision. The Government of Canada
Government Orders
has now lost its ability to use Air Canada as an instrument of public policy.
That is the one major difference I have with many members on the government side. I really believe that there are times when these instruments like VIA Rail, Air Canada and the post office are instruments of public policy-making and the most important thing that we could be using them for today is pulling the country together.
Look at some of the tremendous difficulties that we are having, not every one but a lot of us, with the Voyageur Program, which is a fabulous program. I salute the Secretary of State for that program, but if we do not follow the programming of Air Canada then there are a lot of youth in this country who are going to miss the boat on the Voyageur Program.
Getting back to the post office, I have always been a big fan of the post office. I am not against equity participation, but at this moment in time when we have so little real definition to give for the value of these shares I just do not think it is a priority issue and it should be put on the back burner.
Let us go back to using the post office of Canada as an instrument to pull this country together. Let us also start looking at some of the alternative ideas out there for rural post offices so that they can provide more sophisticated services like the ones that this Falcon group provides.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to the House today about Bill C-73 which will enable Canada Post Corporation to create an employee share ownership plan to allow employees to invest in their company.
Canada Post has changed to better serve Canadians and to meet the challenges of the globally competitive world evolving around us. The participation of employees through the share plan is a common sense next step to ensure that improvement continues.
Over the last 10 years this corporation has learned a lot about corporate reshaping. Its management took the government department it inherited, stripped it down to the basics and rebuilt it. That modem post office began in 1981 when Parliament took some 63,000 employees, fully one-quarter of the Canadian Public Service and said: "Okay, you are a business. Act like a commercial corporation".

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Back in 1981 the mail had become increasingly irregular. Strikes denied Canadians their postal service for weeks at a time. Annual deficits reached $600 million at that time and to try and equate that, it worked out that probably 5 cents on every letter that was mailed was a subsidy that the taxpayers paid.
The plants of Canada Post 10 years ago were inefficient. They were outdated and contained obsolete equipment. Previous governments had always found more pressing needs for their limited resources than investing in the capital assets for the post office.
This new Crown corporation had annual revenues of more than $1.5 billion but it had no accounting system. It operated from one end of the country to the other but no one knew where the money was going at any given time.
In order to meet the enormous task that lay ahead Canada Post had to begin thinking like a business. By asking Canada Post to prepare and submit annually for approval a five-year corporate plan the government recognized and encouraged this needed change in attitude. As a result Canada Post began to emphasize a corporate culture stressing such values as customer sensitivity, quality, and reliability.
These values are not easily instilled but the corporation has worked over the years to ensure that these will be the values which their employees live day to day.
It is no exaggeration to say that changes the corporation had undergone are staggering. They stood eveiy-thing on its head, examined every process, questioned every assumption. They had to challenge their people every day. They demanded their creativity and their complete commitment. In other words they said to the employees: "Don't leave your brains hanging on the outside door".
The process was a tough one on every one from the executive offices to the plant floors. Some left but many soldiered on and this is a tribute to the quality of these people who have indeed done a fine job.
The purpose of this legislation is to permit these employees who have contributed so much to acquire a piece of Canada Post and enhance their success. Clear evidence that their efforts were beginning to bear fruit appeared in 1988-1989 when the corporation turned a
profit for the first time. This point bears repeating as taxpayers are no longer forced to pay for their postal service twice, once when they pay their taxes, and again when they buy their stamps.
Canada Post has made progress over the last 10 years but it can feel its competitors breathing down its neck every day, not just in Canada, but from around the world.
The sales force is slugging it out with the courier and parcel business and the advertising delivery companies such as newspapers.
Even the basic letter mail is under threat from facsimile machines and new technology such as electronic data transfer. If you have paid your bills lately through an automated teller bank machine then you know what I am talking about.
The corporation's development of new technology and new markets means employees will be fundamental to building on that achievement as the corporation expands its courier, postal, and mail information transfer business. Employee participation as proposed in this legislation will contribute to a new sense of partnership between management and employees. The whole point of the plan is to form a partnership whereby employees feel more on the inside than on the outside in order to meet the competitive challenges that business faces.
I am pleased that it has discovered a growing market out there for its systems that can be put into place to get its operation under control. I am talking about these new technologies that have been developed through Canada Post. Indeed it is already close to a multimillion deal with the New Zealand postal service and is implementing control systems there.
Canada Post's international reputation is such that it was recently recommended by the World Bank to Venezuela which approached the bank seeking assistance in upgrading its postal system. This sort of recognition by a major multilateral organization like the World Bank sends a clear message of the high regard in which Canada Post is held internationally.
The opposition would have the government return Canada Post to the days of the pony express. I would urge members opposite to take a close look at the new Canada Post.
June 18, 1992

What we have here is a made-in-Canada success story. Canada Post has won international acclaim and respect for what it has achieved over the last decade. The new Canada Post is providing Canadians with postal service for the 21st century. The members opposite should accept once and for all what all Canadians and Canada Post know, that Canada Post has become a world leader in its field. The government knows that and that is why I will be supporting Bill C-73.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I want to just follow up. I am actually a great believer in employee involvement in the ownership and management of companies because I think it furthers the idea of partnership in making progress. There is also the concept that employees-not just management and not just executives-create the success of any corporation and any endeavour.
However, I do not think that is what this bill is all about. If this is what Canada Post wanted to accomplish with this bill, it would have worked with its employees to see what kind of greater partnership they would be interested in in running the mail service in this country. It would have been a mutual deal. It is not. That is the reason you have had the comments from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. It is quite clear that the government is following a matter of political ideology and launching the way to privatization of postal service in this country, just as it has with a number of other areas of public enterprise that still serve major public policy purposes.
I want to talk about CN Express, for instance. Again, the government went through a two-stage process of hiving off the trucking operation of Canadian National. A short time later it privatized it. With Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, it hived off and separated the two operations of Nordion and Theratronics. A short time later, it privatized them.
We know perfectly well that the public never finds out in these privatizations the worth of the property that was invested in and nurtured over many decades. They do not know what it was sold for and what special deals were made behind closed doors to the benefit of the purchasers.
Let me give just one example of CN Express, which became CN Route Canada and then Transport Route Canada and then went bankrupt. That deal included $60 million worth of real estate bought and paid for by the
Government Orders
taxpayers of Canada. It was transferred to private ownership and then bled off to other companies before the company went bankrupt. It left hundreds of employees across this country without jobs and in jeopardy for their pension plans and other benefits that they were entitled to.
The same problems have occurred in other privatizations. We have to remember that this is not something that just appeared out of thin air, whether it is Canada Post or CN Express or Air Canada. This is something that Canadians have invested in because they believe it is something that is good for Canada.
The two most essential public services that Canadians have invested in are communications and transportation. We put a lot of money into those public services because we believed that there is a cost to being Canadian. We pay that cost so that people in the far reaches and in the smallest communities of this country can be part of the community of Canada.
However, it has cost us money. When you have invested in a property, you expect to know that you are getting value for it when you sell it. That information is never available to Canadians. There is never an evaluation, as my friend for Broadview-Greenwood has said, of what we have invested, what it is now worth, what the purchaser is getting and what the taxpayer should get back in the public coffers as the price of that product.
The employees are getting nothing. It is a shell game. They get shares that they cannot vote on and do not know the value of. They do not know whether there will ever be any dividends on or any profit on these shares. Come on. Make me an offer that I cannot refuse. This is not it.
I do think that we are headed down the road of privatization, so I want to talk about some of the ways in which Canada Post has achieved what the member for Cambridge called efficiencies and profit. For one thing, it has jacked up the price of a postage stamp and virtually every service that it provides. It simply transferred the burden on taxpayers from general revenues to the price they pay for the service.
There is no cost saving. It is the same cost. It just means that those who are dependent on mail service to communicate with the rest of Canada are paying more and we collectively are paying less for a service that we think is important to national unity.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I referred earlier, when I spoke today, to the large numbers of seniors in my riding who have seen their access to postal services gradually shrink. These are the kinds of things we have to look at as a nation knowing that we are going to have an increasingly older population. How do public services adjust to allow older citizens to continue to be fully involved in their community?
Taking away services and asking them to go a mile to a post office or a mile to pick up a registered letter instead of across the street is not progress for society. It is a diminution of services. It is a reduction in the quality of life for Canadians. Yet I can tell you from numerous experiences in my own riding that Canada Post does not pay attention to these issues. This is because, as the member for Cambridge has said, its main drive is to save money to make profits and not to provide service.
With its ideology that the private sector can do it better, it makes absolutely stupid decisions like duplicating services within 100 metres of each other. Where there is a perfectly good postal station that is capable of delivering full services, Canada Post has to say: "Oh, no. That is not good enough. We need to privatize part of that service".
So 100 metres away it opens up a private sector outlet. Now, instead of the convenience of going to one location to buy stamps, weigh a package and pick up registered mail, you go to one location to do some of those things and then you go to another location to do others. In the meantime, you have spent 10 minutes pulling out into traffic and parking again to accomplish what you used to accomplish in two minutes in one location. That is why I say that what we are talking about here is a pattern of ideology and not better service and not less cost.
We have a post office that is saving money at a time when our trucking industry is in trouble in Canada. We also have a post office that says: "We will go where the best bucks are and if that means transporting the bulk of our mail by American truckers then we will use American truckers". Forget completely that the Canadian trucking industry is bleeding to death.
Does that make any sense in the public interest of this country for a public corporation to be seeking only the
best price and not the public good? Of course it does not make any sense.
Anybody can make money by cutting services, by sticking up community post boxes and by doing crazy little things like having a group of homes in the middle a built-up area where everybody else gets door-to-door mail delivery and a handful of homes do not. Is that what we believe in in this country?
I always thought that we believe that wherever you live in Canada you are entitled to be treated equally by your public institutions or at least fairly. Is it fair that I get door-to-door mail service five days a week and my neighbour, not five minutes away, has to bundle up her two little kids in the cold and truck off down the street to get her mail? Of course that is not fair and that is not Canadian.
Anybody can make money if they are willing to mistreat people, to cut out jobs, to abuse people and to have them working in abusive working conditions.
The Solicitor General is sitting over there acting as if none of this is important and none of this matters.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since this is for the record, was that 600 feet? I just want to make sure for the record that this long trek with the kids was 600 feet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to say to the hon. member for Ottawa West that her time now has expired. I will let her finish in 30 seconds.


Marlene Catterall: Simply in order to respond, it is obvious that the Solicitor General has never bundled two kids in the middle of winter and trekked them anywhere. I made no reference to any number of feet.
I resent the interruption and the lack of concern of the Solicitor General for the diminution and the degradation of service to Canadians.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a number of questions and attempt to address them with respect to the government's attempt to amend this particular act.
The first question I want to ask is how will it improve mail service for Canadians? No one has addressed that. There is an assumption that if this were going to happen then that would follow. I am not sure that is true.
June 18, 1992

Before I get into that and give you specifics as to what has happened in my own constituency, I want to talk about the efficiency factor. Everyone knows that we are spending roughly $155 billion, we are collecting $125 billion in revenue and there is approximately a $30 billion shortfall. We have to be sensitive to losing money in whatever sector. However, when we talk of efficiency, we have to talk about it in terms of the impact it has on citizens.
We know that as a result of some of the changes that have occurred recently in Canada Post the last few months and years, there are in fact fewer services available to Canadians. We know that in some instance the quality has improved, but there are instances where the quality has not improved. If we want to be fair we have to acknowledge that.
We know as well that the prices have gone up rather dramatically. I am not even talking about the goods and services tax that has been added to stamps and a number of other products.
Efficiency is important but at what cost?
The basic premise here is Canada Post is supposed to provide a service to all Canadians in a fair, equitable, sensitive kind of way. This is what has happened in my constituency. I want to give a few examples.
There have been many changes to postal outlets. There have been some closures, but in many instances it is really the amount of service. The number of services available has changed.
For example, in 1989 Marion Pharmacy was changed. A full postal outlet in this area closed despite numerous letters and petitions and Canada Post was supposed to offer certain services but never followed up.
Metro Drugs on Autumnwood Drive closed in the fall of 1990. There are other examples as well. McCullogh Drugs (Tache and Marion) closed within the last two years, as did the Drake pharmacy outlet in 1991, despite all the comments that were made by senior citizens from the area.
In all of these areas the people who have been most affected are seniors, people with disabilities, particularly if they happen to be physical disabilities. I think we have to recognize that.
I want to tell you about another recent change. Roughly a month ago I was at a meeting in St. Germain
Government Orders
which is in the southern part of my riding, a small little community. Canada Post was there. It was a really fine meeting. It was explaining to the citizens exactly what was going to change.
It would appear at first glance that it is going to replace what the citizens had with something that is perhaps roughly of the same quality and I hope so because I want Canada Post to know we are watching very carefully.
How will this particular bill improve the service of millions of rural Canadians whose post offices have been closed? It will not. How will this particular bill improve, for example, the supermailboxes?
We know that they freeze up, you cannot get them open, and we know people are inconvenienced because they are not always easily accessible. How will it improve these kinds of services? There is no way it will improve them. I am told as well there has not been a significant amount of consultation with respect to these changes.
I want to tell you a little anecdote. A woman called my office. She had addressed correctly in a package a watch she was sending to Calgary with her return address. Lo and behold that company had closed. Lo and behold the watch never came back. It cannot be found and Canada Post will not make up the loss.
When I ask the question of how will the service be improved, no one has bothered answering me and I am not at all convinced, if I look at the record of Canada Post over the last few years, that the service will be improved.

On the contrary, I believe that it will continue to deteriorate and I am very sad about that because, as I just said, most Canadians in my riding and elsewhere in Canada will be affected, and especially seniors, people whose mobility is reduced, who find it difficult to go from place to place. I do not like that.

The other major question I wanted to ask is how will this help employees? Many of you will know there are a number of employees of Canada Post who have not had a contract for a number of months. It is more accurate to say in a number of years. They have been through the various steps of conciliation, arbitration, who knows what else, and still nothing has been done.

Government Orders
For example, I had a postal worker, a delivery person, who asked me a couple of months ago what is happening. Why is nothing being done? How will this improve the plight of the worker? I cannot see it.
When we look at the offer that has been made we are talking about 10 per cent of the shares but they are non-voting shares so the employees cannot be part of the decision making. They cannot be part of the board. What is it you are really getting?
Of course this is the first step toward privatization. Let us not kid ourselves.
I am one of the people who believes that under certain circumstances and certain conditions it can be extremely helpful.
I was visiting with 400 plus employees of Air Canada at the front today. I asked how many jobs had been lost since they have been privatized. I asked whether they expect more jobs to be lost. They do. Lo and behold, they are very suspicious. I suspect they are even more suspicious than politicians on the opposition side. They believe that there are going to be announcements just a few days after the House rises. It will be very interesting to see whether this prediction comes true. I hope not. I really and sincerely hope not.
Ask Air Canada, which is now privatized, how successful it has been in trying to find a level playing field. Ask how successful it has been in persuading the government that it should have access to the Japanese transportation lines. Ask and you will be told it has had no success at all; none whatsoever.
I would not be surprised that once the Canadian Airlines deal is completed with one the American airlines, it may give Air Canada access to the Japanese market in order to tell it to be quiet. We will see whether that prediction comes true.
I hear the hon. minister making all kinds of comments. I hope they are recorded in Hansard so we can follow them up later on.
Finally, I ask all members what happened to Route Canada. Do you remember that? It was going to be excellent for everyone. It persuaded long-term employees to leave CN to join this new corporation. What
happened to those long-term employees? To make a long story short, my colleague referred to it, it went bankrupt and lost virtually everything. Some of you will know that it is in the courts today. Some people never got paid all of their wages, I am told. Some people have lost their pensions. Some people have lost pensionable years because they could not continue to work. Many of these people were not able to find jobs subsequent to that. In other words, the workers got shafted royally.
Anyone who thinks that privatization is the panacea, I think we have to look at both sides. In some cases it works because the conditions are appropriate, the commitment is there, there is some protection for the workers, some long-term planning, some adjustment programs for those who have to leave. However, in many instances it has been a dismal failure. We still have to see how it is going to work out with Air Canada. Certainly we have a lot of proof when we talk about Route Canada.

I also asked a second question: What does this bill provide for the workers? Many of them have been without a contract for three years, I believe. They went through several stages in the hope of reaching an agreement, but nothing, absolutely nothing, has come of it. They become frustrated and offended, and who wouldn't? Anyone who is without a contract for three years, after going through all those stages in the hope of coming to a solution, would be frustrated by less than that.
I do not believe that the employees will be well served by this bill, especially in view of the agreement allowing the sale of 10 per cent of the shares, since, as I just mentioned, they have no say in the corporation's future.
I see that my time has now expired.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in connection with this piece of legislation. It appears that from the opposition side we are talking about just about everything other than the piece of legislation. It is saying that Canada Post should keep every post office open everywhere and at the same time it is running Canada Post down.

I would like to speak from the side I came from of being raised in the country. I noticed my friend from Prince Edward Island mentioned the farmer who liked the idea of going 600 feet. We have been doing that all our lives to find that the mailboxes are frozen shut. The farmers have had to deal with that all their lives. They take the children out bundled up or bundle up themselves to go out and get the mail. There are a great number of people who have never experienced this business of having the mail dropped off at their door while they sit inside.
I am not a total advocate of Canada Post. I have had my concerns about its operation.
It is almost like a bank. Everybody loves to hate it, it seems.
In deference to it, certainly it is getting better at the business of attempting to make itself more productive and efficient and I would like to give it some credit for that. We are moving to have an independent or free enterprise retail space, initially in my area, but not the kind of co-ordinated phase-in that we probably should have had. In my riding it has gone from a small post office in a very small municipal gathering to retail free enterprise and is working out very well with more service hours, longer hours and more service hours on the weekends and so on. It has worked reasonably well.
I want to say that initially when it did it, it certainly was not handled in the best manner. It is getting on to it now. It is getting better organized and knows how to handle the phase-in so that the service is franchised into many outlets with longer hours, into shopping centres and this sort of thing and people appear to like that. We have to go with change. It is certainly not necessarily right that everybody trucks to the post office for their mail. The bill does not have too much connection with it.
The legislation is to allow for a stock purchase. People who work for organizations get a lot from that. That will have them develop more interest in their organization as Canada Post employees. That is an important aspect of this legislation.
I want to take a few minutes to say that as a person who has not always lauded Canada Post for its operation, and I still at times feel it could operate much better, it is
Government Orders
certainly improving to a great extent. The delivery time is up to a very respectable level these days.
Also, as we are making the changes to a more private enterprise, that is retail wise, that sort of phase-in is being done in a planned way. It has been done in a way in which it communicates with me as a member of Parliament. We know what it is planning on doing. When that happens it is also communicating with the community. It is communicating with the business community, with its workers, those who use Canada Post, the clients. It is certainly doing a much better job.
I wanted to take a minute in the midst of all this condemnation of Canada Post to stand up and thank it for its drastic improvements in the delivery of mail and also for its improved productivity and efficiency as it moves into 2000 in mail delivery.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak again on Bill C-73. Because the post office is so important to rural Prince Edward Island and so important in the federal district of Cardigan, I take this opportunity.
We have all heard the government's song and dance that the bill is going to improve service for Canadians. After almost eight years we know what the Tories mean when they talk about improving services. The government is closing post offices in rural Canada. That is hardly improving services. It is eliminating Saturday rural mail in Prince Edward Island. Improving service? I doubt it. It is removing the identity of the province. Improving service? I doubt it.
As my hon. friend from across the way indicated, the government did this everywhere else in 1982, but Canada Post realized how important this was for rural Prince Edward Island. It was financially profitable for Canada Post to continue delivering mail on Saturday but, for no reason at all, the government has now decided to eliminate it. This has caused a lot of problems for the older people in particular who live out in the country. There is certainly no way that they will ever get a newspaper on Saturday. This is just some of the unfairness of this government. If this was a financial move that would save dollars for Canada Post there would be some sense to it, but it has lost dollars doing it.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Along with this is delay in unemployment insurance cheques. Is that what we call improving service? To the vast majority of my constituents the answers to these questions would be no.
The government is trying to. pass the bill off as the best way to improve postal services across the country. It says the post office employees will be able to buy shares in the company and have a stake in its operations. The Tories are saying that by having union members take a cut of the profits, the productivity of the post office will improve. To be honest, I do not think Canadians believe the government.
If you ask me the only people who will benefit from this plan are the people at the top, people like Donald Lander who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, not counting these great Christmas bonuses the government likes to give to its patronage appointees. It is the managers making over $100,000 a year who will buy the shares in the post office. It will not be the letter carriers who make $3,500 a year. Who is the government trying to fool?
As I said earlier today, this bill is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act. If government was truly honest it would call the bill the sell-out of the post office act. The Tories say that only employees of the post office will be able to buy shares. Most Canadians know a little bit about stocks and they know that a stock is only worth something if you can sell it to somebody else. The unions representing the employees say they do not even want to own the post office. What is the point? The point is that the Conservative government is only creating the foundation for completing the privatization of Canada Post.
Let us look at the situation. Hundreds of rural post offices have been closed over the last few years, reducing services but improving profits. Processing stations have been closed, reducing services and increasing profits. Door-to-door delivery in new subdivisions has been eliminated in favour of the so-called supermailbox, reducing services and increasing profits. Literally thousands of semi-post offices, half drug store half post office, have been opened across the country. All of these things have reduced services to Canadians in the interest of profit.
The government is fattening the young calf for the slaughter. The true objective of the Conservative government is to sell the post office, and this bill is just the
first step. The post office is the latest addition to the obituary of national institutions. Air Canada was privatized a number of years ago. At the time the government said it was to improve services. Today Air Canada is run by a couple of Americans who have destroyed airlines in the U.S. The service is now so good that you cannot get a direct flight from Charlottetown, a provincial capital, to the national capital. That is what we call service.
Petro-Canada is on the list as well. The government privatized that one not so long ago. It said it was to improve services to Canadians and allow for more oil and gas exploration. Today Petro-Canada is floating in a sea of red ink. The company is being forced to close thousands of stations across Canada. On the good side, Petro-Canada has recently opened its first gas station in Vermont. That is improving services for Canadians.
I certainly do not want to sound too harsh but it seems to me that everything the government touches goes wrong. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been suffering from budget cuts for a number of years. The government is so committed to serving Canadians that it forced the CBC to fire 1,700 people, close 11 stations, and cancel one of the most popular programs in Atlantic Canada, Land and Sea. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if you were to see that program you would understand how informative it is. It is an indication of how unconcerned the government is.
Back in 1985 the Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister of Transport, commissioned a study that said VIA Rail needed to be improved. It needed to improve its services to Canadians. In January 1990 Canadians finally saw the improved service when VIA Rail cut a third of its routes and cancelled "The Atlantic" out of Halifax, not to say what it did on Prince Edward Island. If that is what we call service, it must be Tory service.
The bill has nothing to do with improving services. If the government wanted to improve services, it could have stopped closing rural post offices. The government is only interested in its own business agenda to the detriment of the Canadian people.
I have said before and I will say again in most parts of rural Canada the post office is the only place that we see the Canadian flag flying. In these difficult days of constitutional negotiations and concerns about national unity, rural Canadians need to feel that they belong to this country.
June 18, 1992

If the post office is privatized you will see two levels of service, one for the large urban centre where the post office can make a profit, and a lower service for the people in rural Canada.
People in all parts of this country need to feel that they belong to this country and they certainly do not feel they belong to this country when they pay taxes, see their services removed, see their post offices closed, have their unemployment cheques delayed three or four days-


Kenneth Albert James: And farmers' cheques.


Lawrence MacAulay: And fanners' cheques, too. I am a farmer and I am well aware how bad I needed cheques, or how bad the bank needs it through me. I am well aware.
I believe my hon. friends across the way do not understand what it truly feels like to be waiting for an unemployment cheque on Wednesday or Thursday, but just because of a little blip in the service it does not come until Monday. Possibly they needed something and were not able to buy it. Our hon. friends across the way seem to forget that. I deal with that every day. It is so unfortunate that the government seems to forget.
As I mentioned before, it is impossible to understand why a government would discontinue Saturday rural mail everywhere across the country. Is that why it was discontinued in Prince Edward Island? It was making a profit. When it cancelled Saturday mail delivery it meant that it was not circulating the local papers. It lost the contracts. In fact Canada Post lost dollars by eliminating Saturday rural mail. But as the hon. minister indicated, it was that way across the country. Sometimes things have to be done differently.
I urge the government not to sell Canada Post.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity for the second time today to speak to the principle of this legislation, which is an act to amend Canada Post Corporation.
This morning I spoke to the amendment by our party to have this legislation considered six months' hence or, preferably, never.
Government Orders
My main arguments this morning had to do with the question of why this government was proceeding to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act in the way it has chosen to when there are so many other concerns across the country, particularly in rural Canada, about the operation of Canada Post.
I would like to speak tonight to some of the problems concerning Canada Post and the direction in which this government would want to move that corporation.
This morning when I addressed this issue, I closed by referring to the communities in my riding that have seen their rural post office closed and their postal services systematically reduced. I was mentioning the case of Judique which was recently notified that its rural post office would close and which last night confronted the minions of Canada Post Corporation that were sent to lay out the community's options and calling this a consultation.
I might have mentioned the case of Petit de Grat, St. Joseph du Moine, Monastery, or Orangedale which lost its post office a year or so ago. The Canada Post building which used to be in Orangedale is a pizza parlour and the local residents get their mail from a green box which is located next to the Kwik Mart store.
One community which did not take the closure of its rural post office lying down was the village of Mabou. Under the leadership of Tom Kent, Pauline MacDonald, Herbert Jeromel, Father Bob Neville and many others, this village rallied to fight Canada Post and make the closure of this post office a national issue.
In the process they managed to shame Canada Post into making a small concession in its rigid rural conversion agenda and to allow this community to set up a community corporation, Mabou Communications Limited, to operate the Canada Post office in Mabou and to sell out of that building a range of ancillary services such as computer services, fax services, stationery supplies and other related services in an attempt to make that building a communications centre serving the village of Mabou and all of the surrounding communities which come to Mabou to do their postal service and also many of the other related services they have need for.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I might say that under the very able managership of Pauline MacDonald at Mabou Communications Limited, if it is possible to make a go of it, it will be successful. It is not going to be easy because they have not been given very much co-operation by Canada Post in being forward looking and seeing how we could make this rural post office work and working with the communities to that end.
The Mabou post office and what they are doing with the Mabou post office I think is a sign of what what Canada Post Corporation could be doing to enhance and extend, instead of reducing the services, which it provides to the rural part of Canada.
What Mabou is doing could be a real pilot, could be showing the way for the future, if Canada Post and this government are willing to look and see what they are attempting in that veiy proud and very innovative community.
Many on this side of the House have expressed a concern about what will happen if Canada Post is privatized. That is something which the minister in charge of Canada Post and many other members on the opposite side of this House have acknowledged is not only desirable but in fact is really the ultimate aim of this government.
Indeed, we are seeing evidence of this in practice with the decision that is before us in this bill which begins the road toward privatization. It makes it easier to accomplish. We are also seeing it with some of the service reductions which are taking place in the rural communities, for example, the end of subsidies to weekly community newspapers. The Oran, for example, out of Inverness in my constituency sells its papers across western Cape Breton, and has many subscribers all across Canada, indeed all across North America. But given the distances involved, it cannot really operate unless it has some assistance with the mail distribution costs.
Canada Post, in ending the subsidies to these community newspapers like The Oran, The Casket, and others in my riding and in other ridings in rural Canada, makes it harder for these newspapers to do their worthy job of communicating to the communities that they serve.
Another example is the dramatic increases in the costs of rental for post office boxes. The people who live just outside the fringe of communities that have still their rural post offices, have to rent boxes. It is another
example of a reduction in service or an increase in price and a movement toward this cost recovery philosophy of Canada Post, and very likely making Canada Post ready for privatization.
Another example, of course, is the centralized sorting which we are beginning to see increasingly with Canada Post. If a resident is mailing a letter in Antigonish to St. Andrews or Lower South River, which is five or six miles away, very soon that letter will take the long trip to Halifax before coming back to the community where it could almost be delivered faster by hand. That is supposed to be improved service.
What these trends mean and show us is the inevitable logic of privatization, what will happen if privatization of Canada Post occurs in the kind of country that we live in. What will it mean? It will mean essentially that we will move to two classes of mail service; one service for urban, densely populated Canada, and the other a lower level of service for the rural, less populated parts of this country. What we will see will be higher prices for all categories of Canada Post service, or a much reduced service.
I realize I have very little time left so I want to close with a suggestion for Canada Post and for this government. They have taken a road that the only way for Canada Post to make a profit is to streamline, rationalize, cut costs. That has meant all of those activities and all of those decisions which I have described earlier. But that is one way of ensuring the profitability of Canada Post. If it withdraws itself to the urban core of Canada and eliminates all the unprofitable parts of the country, then it will probably be able to make a profit because of the higher cost of servicing the rural parts of the country.
Has this government ever considered something like this? It could use the facilities of the rural post offices that it has built and maintained for so many years to deliver government services which are currently offered by the various departments, such as Canada Employment Centres, unemployment insurance, the income security programs, which are also being centralized. Why not create itinerant offices on a part-time basis in some of those rural post offices which Canada Post is now trying to unload? Why not use these facilities to deliver federal government services directly to the people where they are, rather than having the people who live in rural Canada travel miles and miles to get government services?

June 18, 1992

That is the thinking we on this side of the House would like to see adopted in changes to the Canada Post Corporation and in modernizing and making contemporary this very fine and very important institution.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the member opposite describe what he would like to see done with Canada Post, as he addresses what is in Bill C-73 before us tonight, it sounds as if he wants Canada Post to be run the same way it was being run 25 years ago.
We know that we had a corporation then that had a lot of complaints. When I came into this House in 1984, over half the complaints I received were all related to Canada Post. I can tell my hon. friend those complaints have diminished to maybe no more than a couple in a month now.


An hon. member:: They have given up on the government.


Ross Belsher: No, they have not given up on the government.
Some members have mentioned the community mailboxes that have been used. They were tested and one of the test areas from 1983-1984 was in my riding at Sardis, British Columbia. I can tell you they were reasonably well received because it was not a case of the post office expanding to door to door delivery to all the new urban areas that were coming in. This was an experiment and it has proven to be very successful.
There have been times when things have not gone that smoothly, such as the replacement of the green boxes with the new superbox. It was just a couple of weeks ago I found out that the corporation had not communicated well enough with some of the citizens involved and I had to intercede on their behalf. I must say that the corporation did respond and is coming to an amicable solution to the problem we identified a couple of weeks ago.
When we come to the closure problems we have encountered in many of the rural areas, I can give examples of where it has gone very smoothly and I can give examples of where it was planned and where Canada Post Corporation has had to change their mind.
One that has gone very smoothly is at Huntingdon, British Columbia in my riding. I did not receive a single complaint from the people who were getting their mail
Government Orders
from the Huntingdon post office because Canada Post came and communicated with them and they came to an amicable solution about how they would get their mail service and it is an ongoing thing today.
Three or four years ago when the closure of the Cultus Lake post office was announced, we did not agree with it nor did the citizens there. I felt they were using the wrong reasons for closing it. The building had burned down. The post office was using a disaster as its reason for closing it down. That decision was changed and the post office has been rebuilt and to this day is servicing that area.
I can think of no better way to make sure that the employees feel a kinship to the corporation they work for than if they own a piece of the action. That is what this legislation is all about. It allows the corporation to put up to 10 per cent of the value of its assets in shares that can be sold to the employees of Canada Post. That is what is permitted in this legislation we have before us this evening.
I feel that Canada Post has made great strides in the last half dozen years that I have been closely watching them from here in Ottawa. I see how the people are reacting to Canada Post as I go back and forth to my riding. Is the corporation loved by all the citizens? No, it is not. However, I can tell hon. members that the mail is certainly coming through on a more consistent basis than it did in the past and the service is improving. We also have more outlets for people to buy their stamps, mail their parcels and get their money orders than we had when I started here.
I will be supporting this bill when it is time to vote on it.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73 is a phoney piece of legislation. It is bogus. It provides for the sale of 10 per cent of Canada Post to its employees.
I guess the first question Canadians should be asking is, exactly what is the government trying to achieve? What is the hidden agenda here? What prompted this move on the part of the Government of Canada? Is it simply being magnanimous on its death bed? Is it trying to redeem itself in the eyes of the 57,000 or 60,000 loyal employees of Canada Post? Exactly what is the agenda of the Conservative government?

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
Bill C-73 will allow in a very general way the Government of Canada to sell 10 per cent of the corporation to its employees. Bill C-73 does not define employee, it does not quantify the assets and liabilities of Canada Post, it does not indicate whether these shares will be transferable and if so under what conditions.
The government claims that with the sale of these shares to Canada Post employees, somehow morale will improve, somehow the post office will become more efficient, somehow services will improve to the Canadian taxpayers but it fails to explain how.
If this government was serious about making peace with Canada Post employees, it would ensure that the workers who are presently working would be working with a contract. As I understand it, the employees have been without a contract for almost three years. Canadians suffered through a veiy serious postal strike last summer. We all recall the images of senior citizens waiting out in the heat of summer to pick up their pension cheques. We are reminded of how people were unable to receive mail for an extended period of time.
This government ought to make peace with its employees rather than trying to hoodwink them and Canadians into believing that somehow this legislation will improve service and morale.
As I indicated, this bill does not provide specifics. One thing is clear. This government is trying in a very surreptitious fashion to privatize completely Canada Post. We on this side of the House, the Liberal Party, vehemently oppose the privatization of Canada Post. It is a public service and therefore it should be in public hands. One should not make a profit, we believe, in providing service to Canadians. It would be easy for Canada Post to make significant profits. It made profits in a few years. Last year it lost $100 million. It blames that loss on the strike. Yes, it is possible for Canada Post to make profit but at what expense, at what cost?
Post offices are being closed. A significant number of Canadians have to walk to supermailboxes in order to collect their mail when a great number of others are able to get door to door delivery. It is possible to create a profit at the end of the year but one could only do so by
either increasing the cost of sending a letter or a parcel or by cutting back services.
We believe that this is a first step toward privatization. It gives the government the authority to privatize 10 per cent of the corporation for now. One should point out that even though "selling shares of Canada Post", those who purchase those shares would have no voting rights at all. They would have no say in the running of the corporation.
Surely if the government was sincere and honest and desirous of having its Canada Post employees work closely with management in improving Canada Post, it would be selling these shares with the right to vote and the right to participate in the decision-making of the corporation.
Thank God we are on the eve of a general election campaign because if we gave that bunch across the way any more time, they would even sell this building here, the House of Commons, to the highest bidder. They have proceeded in the last eight years to privatize all kinds of different institutions. If given the opportunity, they would privatize Canada Post. That is their agenda. In fact there was a Conservative report that was brought forward a number of years ago that indicated quite clearly the intention of the government to privatize. Why would someone want to buy Canada Post? Why would a group of individuals with a lot of money want to buy Canada Post? They would want to buy Canada Post if they were able to turn a profit.
The question then becomes should the delivery of mail, should postal service in Canada create profit? It seems to me that providing a service and making a profit at times are diametrically opposed. If you are interested in keeping the price of a postage stamp as low as possible and keeping service as high as possible, then you are not going to make wheelbarrows full of money at the end of the road. It does not make sense. If you privatize, if that is the intent of the government, which I believe it is, at the end of road the buyers of Canada Post will want to increase profit. We believe on this side of the House that can only be achieved by hiking up the price of a stamp or cutting back on service.
June 18, 1992

So it is conceivable that in the not too distant future there will be no such thing as door-to-door mail delivery. Not just people living in new subdivisions, but everyone in Canada will have to walk to the end of the street, key in hand, to collect their mail from a supermailbox.
I do not believe that Canadians want that. I do not believe that senior citizens want to or will be prepared to walk to the end of the street or walk a number of blocks to a supermailbox. I am afraid if the government continues on the path it has embarked upon, the inevitable result will be a cutback in service.
I do not know when we are going to have that debate. Perhaps it will take place during the general election campaign in the not too distant future, the debate over whether Canada Post ought to be privatized. We know the position of the government and it will have to justify and argue its position in the general election campaign. It will have to explain to Canadians why it wants to diminish the postal service, why it wants to privatize the postal service in Canada.
I believe that Canadians will send a very clear message to this government that they will not accept the privatization of this very essential instrument and institution in Canada that has served to unite this country from one coast to the other.
This government, as I indicated previously, during the course of its two mandates has proceeded to privatize a number of Crown corporations. It will be recalled that one of the first moves of the 1984 Conservative government was to do away with the Foreign Investment Review Agency. The government made it clear back then that there was a huge for sale sign out on the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
Again this is part of that agenda which the government has been discharging over the last number of years. We know, if given the opportunity, it would bring in legislation for the complete privatization of Canada Post.
In closing, might I again say that the Liberal Party opposes this bill. We opposed it at first reading; we will oppose it here at second reading; we will oppose it at committee. We believe it is a fraudulent piece of legislation. It is dishonest legislation because the govem-
Govemment Orders
ment really has not indicated what the purpose of it is in a straightforward manner.
We know that the employees of Canada Post have seen right through it from the moment the minister made his announcement that he was going to sell 10 per cent of the corporation to the employees. The first reaction of the employees was to ask: "Who in the heck are you trying to kid?"
I urge hon. members opposite to realize the writing is on the wall, to realize that they have a few short months left of political life here in the House of Commons of Canada, to come to their senses and to vote against this nonsensical piece of legislation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak long. I will be very brief. I only want to make about five points.
The first point I want to make is that Canada Post is totally mismanaged. It is full of neo-Conservative ideologues who think they are running some sort of modem corporation and have no idea how to run it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Based on your background in business?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, based on my understanding of humanity and based on seeing what is happening in this country. I invite the Solicitor General to listen to this. The Conservative government could fall not on free trade and all the other big issues such as the Constitution, which it should fall on, but it is going to fall on an issue like the post office and I will tell you why.
The post office is a symbol to Canadians. When you go to a small town on the prairies or a small town in my riding, you see a Canada Post office and it means something to people. It was a symbol of Canada. This Conservative government has taken this symbol and destroyed it. People understand that, especially the people in the small rural areas where it has been devastating to these towns.
In my area it has moved from a perfectly good post office where there was good service and good wages for people to this low-wage clerk, Mac's Milk, 7-Eleven stuff in which mail is sometimes thrown around or lost. There is very little security. People try and do their best but they are $5 an hour clerks rather than people who really wanted to do that job and their priority job was the post office.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I said bad management. The government missed the boat. Look over in Europe and in Britain specifically where Canada Post could have got into the area of telecommunications. It is into courier services, but not really into it the way it could have been. It could have built a modern communications system building on the basis of the Canada post office which was a symbol and a great institution in Canada and a government organization. Instead, it threw it away.
Canada Post has terrible labour relations. It is 19th century labour relations in this outfit. It deals badly with other people. It deals badly when I deal with it as a member of Parliament.
We have a situation in this country where everybody pays the same for a stamp. We all pay taxes equally and yet some people have door-to-door delivery of mail and other people do not. That is not fair and that is not equality.
New subdivisions have these post boxes. I spent months trying to get one of these post boxes moved from the front of a person's house who was getting all kinds of people coming by his house to pick up the mail. I had a lot of trouble with Canada Post.
Canada Post has bad labour relations, poor management and very little view of the future. It has this kind of blinding neo-Conservative philosophy.
Do you know something? This government will spend millions of dollars on the 125th anniversary of Canada and all the propaganda about what a great country it is. We do have a great country but look what makes it a great country: good medicare, good social services, national radio and television like the CBC. We used to have a railway system in this country and we had a post office that we could be proud of. It was a symbol in every little town in Canada.
The government could have modernized by keeping the structure of what was known as the post office. I say to this government that it is going to be defeated on issues like this.
Government has dismantled the Canadian postal system. It has this terrible system now with increased costs for stamps, with very little good delivery. The result is a national institution has been destroyed. It has the gall to come to this Parliament and bring in this bill to do this phoney privatization of share scheme.
If you want to deal with your workers go and have good labour relations. Be honest and straightforward with the workers and restore the post office to the Canadian institution that it once was.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the main motion. While I did speak earlier today it was on the amendment and I spoke having recently discussed some difficulties we have in the business of compensation for fisher persons and plant workers in my riding and indeed this is going to be endemic in Newfoundland and Labrador within a matter of days.
I want to get back to the issue of the post office. I want to go back to 1988 when I was first elected. I have said this many times. I have 260 communities in my riding. Not one is even semi-urban; they are all rural. The largest is a town of about 6,500 to 7,000 people. I have about 10 towns that range in population from 3,000 to 6,000. In the remaining, the populations vary from about 100 to 500, basically no large populations, so essentially it is a totally rural district.
When I was campaigning, you could leave one of these communities and travel across the island of Newfoundland, not on a passenger train but on a CN system. You could ship freight by train that ran across the island. You could visit any of these communities. In each of those communities there was a fabric of this country which the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam talked about as did my friend from Toronto, the hon. member for York South-Weston. In practically every one of these 260 communities there was a small building with a red sign on it that gave the name of the town, gave the postal code and flew a Canadian flag.
In each of those buildings people would gather to pick up their mail and to talk. Senior citizens used to go and get assistance with applications for various pensions. The postmaster or the postmistress in each of these small post offices-in fact, in one case it was in the basement of a house-were always receptive to people in trouble.
Often it had very little to do with the postal system or any difficulties with anything to do with the post office. It had to do with it being the building with the Canadian flag that was a representation of the fabric of the country and the presence of the federal government. It was where people could go if all else failed and talk to the person in charge of that postal unit. They knew they would get help.

In times of trouble and in times of great anxiety like we are going through right now particularly in my province, particularly in my riding, I cannot begin to describe what a source of relief that is, just to go and communicate or commiserate with somebody having the same problem.
Members on the opposite side would say: "That's not the purpose of the post office". I would have to agree. I could not sell the post office changes or my reluctance to accept these changes and the reluctance of my constituents on the basis of what I have just talked about. I can on the basis of the service that it gives to the individuals.
Bill C-21 tremendously altered the unemployment insurance system to the point where it was not in the favour of those people I represent in this House. With the exception of that bill and the very unpopular move to introduce the goods and services tax at the time when the economy was about to break into a recession and the government knew it but went ahead anyway, this is the third most despicable, trouble-creating and troublesome move the government has made.
Why has it been that way? Because it causes jobs to be lost.
The facts are very stark. In 1986 Canada Post had a 10-year plan that was to close 5,221 rural post offices,
10,000	jobs, 83 per cent of those belonged to women, and this government talks about jobs for women, fair play for women.
As I stand in this House tonight, over 1,000 of those rural post offices have been closed and the plan proceeds to continue until I suppose the last of the 5,221 doors is shut.
Now we cannot travel across Newfoundland. We cannot go to Sydney and get a train and travel to the rest of the country because the train system is gone. We cannot go to the post office with the little red sign and the Canadian flag because that is being shut down. Practically every other institution that people knew and cherished and lived by is being shut down. Jobs are being lost.
Government Orders
So when I hear there is a bill to do with Canada Post I get very excited and think this is a bill to change all this around. This is a bill to right all these wrongs for the people in Hare Bay, Shearstown, countless communities in my riding. I thought it was great. I was going to have a good look at this bill because everything was going to be made right.
I look at Bill C-73 and what do I see? I do not see anything that makes me happy at all. I am not about to sit down tonight, write all my constituents and tell them that all the problems of the post office are about to be solved. In fact it is going to make the situation a little worse.
In the middle of this gigantic and enormous closedown of 5,221 rural post offices and 10,000 jobs, we are now told that the government wants to sell 10 per cent of Canada Post Corporation to the employees.
That in itself sounds pretty harmless I guess, but the problem is the employees do not think this is a good idea. Why would one want to sell something to somebody when they do not want to buy it? Why would one want to do that? It is bad enough to sell something to somebody who wants to buy it, but when they not want to buy it there must be a reason for doing it.
The head of the union himself asked why post office workers want to support the efforts of Don Lander to eliminate their jobs and attack their union. Why would they buy into an organization that was doing in their jobs? It does not make a lot of sense to me.
The bill itself does not talk at all about any of the problems of Canada Post Corporation. To read the bill one would think that everything was rosy, everybody was fine, all the post offices were operating and all the customers were happy. Tbming to customers, I thought Canada Post existed to give service to the customers. But now I find out it is for another reason. If they are going to sell something eventually-I suppose this is the first step to privatizing Canada Post-somebody who is going to buy it is going to want to make a profit.
I am not going to buy a business just for the sake of buying it. I want to make a profit. Is the name of the

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
game for Canada Post to make a profit, or is it to service the public? I would suggest it is to service the public.
It is like saying that we have a great armed force but we want to make money on it. We want it to defend the country but we want to make money on it. How ridiculous a statement that is. I would submit to the House that the same pertains to wanting to make a profit out of service to the customers of Canada Post.
When you confuse your aim in doing something in this world you always end up mucking it up. I think this is what has happened to Canada Post, and this bill is going to make it even foggier.
No matter how much my colleagues and I try-and we have discussed this-we cannot find anything in this bill that makes us happy. We cannot find anything in this bill that builds up any kind of warmth in our stomachs and in our hearts.
Before I sit down I have to say that I am sure some hon. members on the government side must find some of the detail in this bill somewhat difficult to take sitting down. I suppose they will be standing up pretty soon, but I will feel sorry for them when they get up vote. Some of them might think of the constituents they have and the complaints they have had about closing down and tinkering with rural post offices. Some of them may not even be around when we vote on this subject. I would not blame them.
We have a bill that does not address the problems with Canada Post that people have realized since 1986. It exacerbates them. On that basis alone my party cannot support this bill. Certainly when my time comes the bill will not be getting my vote.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for only a couple of minutes because I already made, I hope, an eloquent denunciation of the bill during consideration of the hoist motion.
I want to add information that has come to me in the last half hour from those who have been watching this debate on television. It demonstrates the arrogance of Canada Post that has conned the government into introducing this legislation as a further step toward privatization.
The very day we are debating second reading and approving in principle this bill, Canada Post is taking yet another step to devalue Canada Post and the service it is providing Canadians. Starting this weekend, right across Canada, Canada Post is going to stop processing the mails on the weekend. It is going to a five-day week so a letter mailed on Friday will not be processed until the following Monday or Ttiesday, adding yet a further delay to the service in Canada. Even if the employees turn up for work on the weekend they will be put to other tasks than the processing of the mail.
There are problem after problem after problem with Canada Post. Each of us in our own constituencies have heard them: lack of personalized response, an attitude in favour of the corporate customers that want to mail junk mail, not the individual homeowners who receive the mail, the citizens of this country. There are impenetrable labour relations' problems.
Rather than try to go along with the government's ambitions of privatizing Canada Post, the time has come that there be in every constituency in Canada an effort to develop virtually a royal commission at the constituency level.
In my riding starting next week we are going to pull together those who have come forward with various complaints about the service of Canada Post, those who have complained about having to go to Vancouver to talk to anybody about a complaint, those who complain and quite properly about the kind of service they have been receiving from Canada Post, the employees, and the union. We will pull them together to begin to see if we can develop an alternative to the kind of service we have been getting from Canada Post so that after the next election there will be in place a whole new approach to providing service in Canada, and not just the privatization of this once vital service in this country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak but the very careful suggestion that the hon. member for Victoria, which I thought was an excellent suggestion about Canada Post, brought a thought to my mind that I felt I had to share with the government. Perhaps the Solicitor General in assisting his colleague, the minister responsible for Canada Post, the government House leader, who I think spends very little time frankly on his Canada Post responsibilities-

June 18, 1992


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Come on, Peter. Leave him alone.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is busy doing his House leadership job and I recognize that. It is tough for him to get time so perhaps the Solicitor General could help him out on that.
I want to make a suggestion on how Canada Post could save money. Maybe it has already implemented this but I am not sure. It used to produce an audit. It hired an auditing firm. I think it was Peat Marwick Thome, but I do not want to damage the name of this good firm. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with Peat Marwick Thome, but it used to provide this audit. If that is not the firm that did it, then my memory has slipped. Members on all sides of the House I am sure received this audit which said that 98 per cent of the mail was delivered on time. It was one of the great things because it did not give the parameters. They said they would check mail that was postmarked on such and such a date to see if it was delivered within two days. If it got there within two days, which was the designated deadline, then it was delivered 98 per cent of the time. Their figures were very impressive.
I have not seen one of these audits lately. Either the figures have gone sour or else the auditors realized they were being set up for a con job by Canada Post. This is what happened. I discovered this myself after a bit of investigating. If you mail your letter after 3 p.m. on any day it doesn't get postmarked until the next day even if you mail it at the post office.
Go and check it out. Go to the post office and try to register a letter and get it postmarked after 3 p.m. It cannot be done. Registered or postmarked, they will not stamp for the day it is mailed if you mail it after 3 p.m.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Get up earlier in the morning.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Solicitor General says to get up earlier in the morning. That is the way he treats Canadians. Get up earlier and then your mail will get postmarked in time. If you do not mail it before 3 p.m. then it is postmarked the next day.
What does the auditor do? He looks at the postmark and says: "Oh, this wasn't mailed today on June 18 because it is postmarked June 19". If I mail my letter tonight it will be postmarked tomorrow. If I mailed it at 3.01 p.m. it would be postmarked tomorrow. You put the
Government Orders
mail in the mailbox down the street on the comer at 10 a.m. Collection is at 2 p.m. and it does not get to the post office till after 3 p.m. It is considered as having been mailed the next day.
It may take three or four days to get delivered, but according to the audit it has taken from the date of the postmark, so it is counted as having been mailed that day. What a con job. That is management. That is Tory mismanagement of the post office in this country. It is a disgrace. They are trying to hoodwink Canadians by this policy.
The hon. member can wag her finger to her heart's content. I will not be intimidated by this kind of tactic. I know what is going on and so do Canadians. They are being hoodwinked by this government into believing that Canada Post is providing superb service. Look at the ads they used to run. Does the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception remember these ads?


Fred J. Mifflin: Yes, I do. Who paid for them?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You would get them in the weekly newspapers. Who paid for the ads? It was Canada Post. Canada Post must have taken a loss that year. It ran full page ads with the results of this phoney audit. I have no doubt the audit was correct as far as it went, but then it excluded all this evidence of the non-postmarking of the envelopes. It was unbelievable.
That is the kind of thing that causes Canadians to lose confidence in the government because they feel they are being hoodwinked and bamboozled at every turn.
That is exactly what this bill will do. I fear for the employees of Canada Post who somehow think it is a good investment to buy these shares. These are non-voting shares in a company which is 90 per cent controlled by the Government of Canada that is trying to squeeze every cent it can out of this company.
It is a sad commentary when a government introduces a bill like this. I am pleased that the Liberal members in this House are going to be able to condemn this bill and oppose it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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

June 18, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties prior to the move that I am about to make, so it shall not come as a surprise to anybody.
On behalf of the government I wish to point out that clause 66 of Bill C-46 would abolish the right of the Crown to refuse to issue a passport or to revoke it as a consequence of a charge or conviction under the Contraventions Act. This clause would affect Her Majesty's prerogatives.
His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the purport of this bill and has given his consent, as far as Her Majesty's prerogatives are affected, to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit.


SPEAKER'S RUUNG
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have a ruling to make on Bill C-46.
There are two motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, both in the name of the hon. member for Niagara Falls.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.
I will now proceed with Motions Nos. 1 and 2 in the House.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to put the motions in the place of the hon. member for Niagara Falls because of his annual meeting this evening. I believe there were discussions and it was agreed that I could stand in his place.


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


Mr. MacLellan:: As far as our party is concerned, we would agree.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I agree.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-46 be amended in Clause 8
(a)	by striking out, in the English version, line 16 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"purposes of this Act;"
(b)	by striking out line 18 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"ceedings under this Act; and
(/) providing for subparagraph 18(6)(iii), section 20, subsection 21(2) and sections 24 and 27 to have effect or to cease to have effect as if they had come into force or been repealed, as the case may be, in the parts of Canada that are specified in the regulations.";
(c)	by adding, immediately after line 4 at page 5, the following: "(8) Subsection (1) is amended by striking out the word "and" at the end of paragraph (e) thereof, by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (d) thereof and by repealing paragraph (f) thereof."
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-46 be amended in Clause 86
(a)	by striking out line 34 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"86.(1) This Act, other than subsection 8(8), subparagraph";
(b)	by striking out line 40 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Subsection 8(8), subparagraph 18(b)(iii), section 20,".
June 18, 1992

He said: Mr. Speaker, these technical amendments flow from the legislative committee hearings and would allow a pilot project to be undertaken regarding the non-resident defendant provisions of the legislation.
Clause 27 permits the non-resident defendant to plead not guilty by mailing in submissions. Clause 24 permits the non-resident defendant to plead not guilty with representations by mail.
Several jurisdictions have expressed concerns about the administrative difficulty which could be encountered in bringing these into operation. Some jurisdictions would like to see the results of a pilot project before the non-resident defendant provisions are implemented more broadly across the country.
The proposed amendment would allow this aspect of the ticketing program to be tested in specific locations, thus giving us the flexibility to determine whether these sections can be reasonably affected.
The principle of pilot projects to test these provisions was put forward and accepted at the committee hearings, and the proposed motions seek to ensure that pilot projects can be set up in particular locations which have been identified in co-operation with the provinces as suitable areas for proper program testing.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the member for Lethbridge has made a good point. While I think it would be our hope that such a process could be done, it is fair to say that we really do not know the results.
Whereas the various jurisdictions have expressed concern as to this process and the concept is relatively new, a pilot project is a very prudent way to go.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would agree to this amendment as well. We did discuss it in committee but not at great length. I was not really aware that there would be a pilot project. However I must say-and I will say this in my speech at third reading-I was impressed by the public servants that came before the committee. They were very straightforward with us.
I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt. They need a pilot project. I think we should give them that leeway.
My friend, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, would agree with me that we had a very good legislative committee, a very straightforward group of civil servants who presented things and did not duck any
Government Orders
of the questions. When they did not know the answer they told us so. It was a real pleasure.
On behalf of the New Democratic Party, as our party's justice critic, I would agree to these amendments. We can deal with them tonight.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Hon. Charles Mayer (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles James Mayer: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill. My colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, said that he was very impressed by the public servants on this and I was as well. I do not know if it was because they had all the answers or because they were so calm. I knew they really believed in the bill. They were speaking so effortlessly and had all of the answers and I felt my first instincts on this were correct, that this is a good bill and that there is nothing here of great substance with which to find fault.
There are two aims in this bill. One is to decriminalize approximately 3,500 offences by creating the option for the enforcement officer to issue a ticket to an offender rather than pursuing a summary conviction or an indictment and to free up the court's time by eliminating the need to hear these minor offences.
That is not to say that in the regulations right now, 12 departments, agencies or groups in the federal service everyone has to plead guilty. What it does mean is that if someone is charged and ticketed, under the regulations designated under this bill, they can plead guilty and pay their fine. They do not have to appear in court. They can send in their money as is the case in other instances in which this is being used in the provinces.

Government Orders
That is not to say that the ticketing officer or the officer making the charge has to instigate the charge with a ticket. The officer can still bring a charge through a summary conviction or an indictable offence.
That is the choice of the officer. That does not mean that the person so charged has to plead guilty or does not get a chance to plead his case. He can and has that opportunity. What it does do is free up a good deal of the court's time. The process of having to come to court to pay these fines is no longer necessary. It makes considerable sense. It makes a great deal of sense.
The government has said that this bill will be revenue neutral. It will be better than revenue neutral because although the process will be revenue neutral, we will save a lot of the court's time. This will be a financial benefit to the justice system.
I feel that there is a possibility in this bill that we can expand to other regulations. We must be very careful to state here that this deals with regulatory offences. It does not deal with offences under the Criminal Code. That is very important. Proceedings under the Criminal Code will proceed as they have in the past. This deals with regulatory offences.
There has been some suggestion by gun owners that this is an attempt to perhaps circumvent their rights and that is not true. This has nothing to do with gun control. It has nothing to do with the Criminal Code. It has to do with straightforward, regulatory offences.
The one concern that people could have is that the regulations to be designated under this bill are through Order in Council. That is, the Parliament of Canada or the committees do not designate what regulations are to apply. The regulations to apply are designated by Order in Council. That means the government designates.
The concern is that what will happen is that very important and weighty regulations will be brought under this bill such as strong environmental regulations to stop the pollution of our streams and of our air. What will happen is that these companies will lobby the government to include these offences under this bill. The
reason is that the maximum fine under this bill is $1,000. You can have any regulation apply but the maximum fine is $1,000. You cannot fine anyone more than $1,000. If you are a young offender, the maximum is $100.
You could see that a corporation which had polluted a river or severely polluted the atmosphere or otherwise caused environmental problems would be very pleased to have its offence handled under this act as a regulatory offence with a maximum fine of $1,000.
This is maybe a little exaggerated. It may be going too far to say that the government would do a thing like this. I think that may be true but it is going to mean that we as members of Parliament are going to have to watch this very carefully.
This bill does have the support of all of the attorneys general in Canada. They seem quite content that this is going to be a major step forward. As I have mentioned, the Department of Justice is only administering this bill. There are no Criminal Code offences and the regulations apply to other departments and agencies.
I would also like to point out that this bill is not a new idea. It is an idea that has been promoted in the past. The Law Reform Commission in 1976 came forward with a document which set out this idea and promoted it strongly. That was 16 years ago. It took 10 years for this government to adopt the thinking that this may be a good way to proceed with offences such as speeding in your boat out on the lake for instance. We have it now, six years later, as proposed legislation.
I want to point out that here is a tremendous example of the value of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. This government doing away with the Law Reform Commmission as a result of its recent budget makes Canada the only country in the British Commonwealth, other than Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, without a Law Reform Commission. It is the only government in Canada that does not have a Law Reform Commission. Now that Quebec is instituting legislation to set up a Law Reform Commission, all the provinces have Law Reform Commissions. A federal country with a federal system of government depriving the provinces of access to this creative legal thinking without the federal government having this is just preposterous to say the least.

I would like to end this very important point of doing away with the Law Reform Commission by suggesting that this is not the only idea that the Law Reform Commission germinated. We have read citings in various court cases. I think 44 cases of the Supreme Court of Canada cite the documentation and the legal thinking of the Law Reform Commission, not to mention considerable articles and legal books on various points of law. Most recently in the legislative committee on this bill doing away with the Law Reform Commission, various groups came before the committee to plead with the government to change its mind in doing away with this very important organization.
If you could say that one group was more effective than another, it was the multicultural groups in Canada. There has been some very good work done by the Law Reform Commission on multiculturalism and the law which finished its first draft and was supposed to be the subject of meetings with the multicultural community four days after the budget was tabled. However, the budget was tabled and those meetings were cancelled. We do not know what is going to happen to that very good piece of legal thinking. Whether it will ever see the light of day no one knows. The thinking among the members of the multicultural community is no. This whole effort and this very important document will go to waste which is in itself a very unfortunate thing.
I also want to say that this has been a very important project on behalf of the member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka who has been very instrumental in pushing the government to bring this legislation forward. I feel he should be credited for the work he has done.
This is, as I say, a step forward. I think we are going to have to watch the way matters proceed with respect to this legislation. One of the ways is certainly with respect to the pilot project which my colleague, the member for Lethbridge, has mentioned, and also with respect to what regulations are brought forward under this bill.
As my colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, has stated as well, I think it might be important
Government Orders
to bring the new regulations that may be applied under this bill before the House of Commons before they are actually included under this legislation.
I want to say that I think this bill should pass. In my opinion, it is a step forward and it is going to be a benefit.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as the NDP justice critic to speak on this bill, one in a long series of justice bills that we have been debating in this House.
This is a ticketing scheme for minor regulatory offences. Currently, just to explain how the law works, a person wishing to plead guilty to an offence, even one as minor as picking flowers on federal property or speeding in an inlet or lake, must appear in court. Even in that person's absence, if the person does not appear, a trial must be held and witnesses must be heard. It is an expensive and time-consuming process.
We have an alternative method of doing things. We have ticketing offences in the provinces, traffic tickets for example. Bill C-46 proposes a ticketing scheme for minor regulatory offences and was designed primarily for the following reasons.
First of all, it decriminalizes minor offences against federal laws and regulations. As my friend pointed out, not the Criminal Code but other federal laws and regulations. Second, it avoids the need for a court appearance when a ticket is not contested. Third, it encourages improved enforcement. I might add as a Scotsman it is probably going to end up a little cheaper.
Bill C-46 does not create new offences. It only changes procedures that deal with existing minor federal offences. We are told that the government expects there will be over 400,000 tickets issued in the first year this scheme comes into effect. These fines will be paid. They will go into general revenue and so they will not be an additional means of raising funds, say for Agriculture Canada or Environment Canada. Savings will be realized as a result of a decrease in demand placed upon our courts. It seems like a good idea financially.

June 18, 1992
Government Orders
I spoke on the bill in the House at second reading and I will not repeat that speech. It was on Monday, April 6,
1992.	In case members want some bedtime reading tonight, they can get Hansard and have a look at it.
One point I did make in the speech and I will reiterate was that this idea which we all agree now is a good idea and is going to save the government money and streamline the judicial process was first introduced in 1976 by the Law Reform Commission of Canada. That is the same Law Reform Commission the member previously said the government is going to abolish.
It was doing good things. This is another argument to buttress the opposition's point of view that it really was not too intelligent to get rid of the Law Reform Commission of Canada because it advanced some of these ideas that ultimately became law. Here is a perfect example.
I should say also that I was impressed with the way the civil service and the committee brought forward the bill in a straightforward way and said when they did not know the answers that they did not know the answers. That is why I am prepared to agree. I was prepared and did agree to a pilot project in this matter.
Mark Berlin of the justice department notes that all provinces have a similar program in place. It is probably a result of provincial representations that the federal department is taking the initiative.
They did hint at a few things like using credit cards, Visa cards, and various ways to pay fines. I do not know how that is going to work. I told them not to get too fancy. Look at how the provincial traffic schemes work and try to follow that. Do not get too fancy or you will end up like the post office.
I will end with two wishes. As the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys pointed out, a lot of this law, as many laws, is in the regulations. I hope the regulations will see the light of day. I hope the department will publish them, show them widely, so that we can change them and make them better.
Finally, my last wish is this. I know it is a bit late to do this now but I have a bill in front of the House called the Plain Language Act in which I have asked that the government draft bills in plain language, plain English or plain French. It is too much to expect us to speak in plain language in the House but the government could draft in plain language. The government might want to have a
look at future bills, especially the regulations under this bill, and draft them in plain language so Canadians can understand exactly what is meant by the regulations. This would be a good bill to begin with.
I have talked about plain language, about open and competent regulations and about how important it is that this bill pass because it is overdue. It will make a better process and I hope a cheaper process for Canadians. Having finally got to the end of a long series of justice bills, I am pleased to sit down and to shut up. In plain English I say I am finished speaking and I hope this bill will pass.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat everything that has been said vis-a-vis the bill, but I want to stand on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary to express their deep appreciation for the co-operation that they have received and the very good scrutiny that this bill received by the justice committee.
I must say with respect to the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys and the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I feel like we almost live together, because we have done so many bills over the last while. We have become almost like brothers in a way, not to say that there are not some very sharp differences, as you might guess in a family, Mr. Speaker.
Having been through Bill C-49, the sexual offences bill; Bill C-17, the gun control bill, and then the gun control regulations that we just finished off today, as well as bills that the others have done on terrorism, jury trials, and then acting for the distinguished Solicitor General on Bill C-36 the Parole Act, these have all been huge bills.
It is too bad in a way that our constituents could not see the enormous good work that is done by members on all sides of the House at the committee level. Once the television lights are turned off and we can put ourselves around a problem, we can usually come up with some very sensible solutions. We only go mad, Mr. Speaker, when the television goes on us and we have to put on a show it seems. I guess that is just the way it always will be.
I also I want to express on the record to our long-time colleague, the distinguished member for Parry Sound- Muskoka, who has been a member in this House for many years that this bill was pushed by him over all of those years and he deserves a lot of credit for it.
June 18, 1992

Mr. Speaker, this is good public law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Richardson:: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to present Bill S-ll, an act to amend the Airport Transfers (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must receive unanimous consent to propose Bill S-ll. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Doug Lewis (for Minister of TVansport) moved: that Bill S-ll, an act to amend the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, be read the second time and by unanimous consent referred to the Committee of the Whole.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, having consulted with the gracious and hon. members opposite, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to move all stages of this bill tonight.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Oh yes, Mr. Speaker, we are happy to assist in passing this but I cannot let the occasion pass without making a speech.
I am sorry to disappoint the Solicitor General but there are some important points that have to be made in respect of this bill. If the parliamentary secretary wants to go first and make a speech I would be happy to hear him, otherwise I will proceed. We are giving our consent to put this bill through all stages tonight after the appropriate comments have been made.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for that consent.
It was not long ago we discussed the predecessor bill, Bill C-15, which essentially set the basis for employee protection benefits associated with any lease or sale of federal airports. Bill S-ll is really a fine-tuning bill.
Government Orders
As the House will be aware, the process of devolution to the local airport authority has been long and involved for the first group of airports. Along the way we learned quite a few things.
Since we last discussed this issue, we have signed transfer agreements with four local airport authorities in Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, and Calgary. This bill represents some additional legislative requirements to complete the process.
Essentially it maintains the status quo regarding federal income tax; it sets out the local airport authority's powers for seizure and detention of aircraft in the event of non-payment of fees with due reference to the courts.
As well the bill addresses the qualification of investments and the connection with the transfer of the airports to local airport authorities.
Finally the bill makes it mandatory for the local airport authorities to respect additional provisions of the Official Languages Act, namely Part V, the language of work, and Part VI, equal participation of English or French speaking Canadians for leased airports within the designated areas as defined by the Official Languages Act.
It came to our attention after Bill C-15 was already in process that in order to ensure the continuation of the status quo with regard to payment of income tax, a legislative amendment was necessary and hence the clause in this bill.
I should perhaps also expand on why clause 11 is required. Prior to June 1, 1992 federal trust, loan and insurance companies as well as federal pension funds were permitted to make investments accordingly to the legal for life rules. One investment described by the rules was a mortgage on a leasehold interest.
Since the concept of leasehold does not exist under Quebec civil law, mortgages on airport land would not be eligible investments. This could have made it difficult for the Montreal local airport authority to obtain long-term financing.
As of June 1,1992 the date of the coming into force of the new financial institution statutes, the legal for life rules were removed. Now any investment can be subject to a "prudent portfolio requirement". However federally regulated pension funds continue to be subject to the legal for life rules, but will be moved to the prudent portfolio concept in the future.

Government Orders
Therefore, the proposed clause 11 will ensure that there are no obstacles for pension fund investments in mortgages on airport land.
I believe the bill is pretty well self-explanatory, and I would like to close my remarks now by recommending it to you, and asking that Bill S-11 be given your consideration in as expeditious a manner as possible.
I thank my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House for their great co-operation in this matter in particular and for the their support of the local airport authorities in general.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member who likes to rise and say I told you so, but of course the Solicitor General, who I believe was Minister of Transport when this bill was originally introduced in the House, the divestiture bill as we called it, I think it was Bill C-15 might want to learn something from this little exercise because this is a case where unfortunately it shows up the problems that occur when the government does not listen to the opposition in this House.
The government would not have to introduce this bill tonight if it had listened to the opposition when Bill C-15 was before the House. I do not want to unfairly malign the Solicitor General but I suspect he was Minister of Transport at the time. Perhaps we will have true confessions later tonight.
What happened on that occasion and I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, will remember it because you I expect were listening to the debate and probably noticing how right we were when this bill was discussed in June 1991.
Time and again, members of the opposition rose and said that they could not understand why the government was not having the Official Languages Act apply in certain particulars to this bill. I have a string of members who rose and spoke on this issue. They were the hon. members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Hamilton West, Gander-Grand Falls and Ottawa-Vanier. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier was particularly explicit in
his explanation as to why Parts V, VI and VII of the Official Languages Act ought to apply to this particular bill.
He spoke eloquently and at length pleading with the government. Let me quote his words from page 998 of Hansard: "I intend to explain to the House the impact of this oversight or this government decision not to include Parts V, VI and VH". He gave a lengthy explanation and he went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that Parts V and VI are important to us because in our opinion they deal with the most fundamental issues. That is the right of individuals, the right of Canadians to equal employment opportunities but also the right to work in federal institutions in the language of their choice. If this policy applies to Air Canada, which we know must follow all of the provisions of the Official Languages Act, I fail to see why an employee of Air Canada would be entitled to equal employment opportunities and would also be entitled to work in the language of his choice whereas an employee of a local regional or municipal authority in charge of an airport would not enjoy the same protection.
This was all said in a desperate effort to help this government out of a mess that it created. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier moved a motion to amend the bill. He moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "be read for the third time and passed" and substituting the following therefor:
"be not now read a third time but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering clause 4 of the bill by striking out line 17 of page 2 and substituting-"
I do not need to read the rest of it, but he wanted to put the act in.
I may have maligned the former Minister of Transport because I see he spoke right after and he was Solicitor General. One can only assume that he opposed this very sensible amendment moved by my colleague the distinguished and very capable member for Ottawa-Vanier.
Here we are, almost one year later, and the government is coming back to Parliament on bended knee asking the opposition to pass the amendment we wanted the government to pass one year ago. Indeed, it wants more amendments. Many of them were the ones that were mentioned at the time.
June 18, 1992

Tax exemption has been included in this bill. My friend, the government House leader disparages the other place and speaks in uncomplimentary terms from time to time about the other place. Yet the Senate had hearings on Bill C-15. The question was asked, apparently by an officer of Transport Canada why this tax exemption was included in this bill and not in the original bill.
The answer was: "At the time we came forward with Bill C-15 there was no definitive decision from Revenue Canada whether or not under existing law they would qualify". Subsequent to the tabling of the bill, it became clear that they would not qualify under the existing legislation because authorities were a unique corporate institution". If it became evident after the tabling, why did it not fix it up?
It shows the indecent haste with which this government tries to force bills through this House. It ignores throughout the strong advice of the members of the opposition who tiy to correct the blunders that the government so obviously made in introducing the legislation.
The hon. member laughs. It would be a laughing matter if it did not cost so much money to run this House. We have a reasonable opposition here which speaks for such a brief time on almost every bill anyway. Instead of listening, the ministers flit off and go elsewhere. The members sit and laugh and ignore the remarks of the opposition, thinking they are a waste of time. It shows that our remarks are not a waste of time. If only somebody had paid attention government members would not be here today with this other bill. It would not have taken weeks getting it through the other place. This is an expensive process. Hon. members opposite laugh about it and think it is a joke. I do not think it is a joke.
Then there were the sections on seizure of aircraft. Sections 4(5) and 4(6) of the Aeronautics Act give the transport minister the power to seize and detain aircraft for non-payment of landing fees or terminal fees. Sections 9 and 10 of this new bill give the local authorities similar power.
Why was it not in the original bill? An officer of Transport Canada said: "We did not know at the time the first bill was introduced. We discovered after we did work with lawyers on the other side that it would be prudent to put it in." If we had spent a little bit of time thinking about it, there might have been some lawyers in this House who might have thought it was prudent to put it in.
Government Orders


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: You and I.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As the hon. member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon says, maybe we would have thought of it if we had gone to the committee.
Maybe the government should hire us on in the government departments. That would be a disappointment though. Then we would not get to speak in this House. We could give them some advice on how to fix these bills up, but we give them that advice freely in this House and it is freely ignored by the government.
I have to say I find it sad that in spite of the very serious efforts of at least four members during the debate in June 1991 on this bill, I believe all at third reading, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier to rectify the blunder, the government ignored all that advice. Now, as I say, it is back here on bended knee asking us to pass this bill tonight.
Of course, having put these amendments forward on a previous occasion, we are happy to support the bill tonight and to facilitate its speedy passage in the House. I am sorry that kind of co-operation is necessary given the complete absence of co-operation when the government voted down our amendment a year ago and refused to listen to the very reasoned and sensible arguments put forward by so many of our members at that time.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I know we are all anxious to get this over with this evening especially on a matter where we find ourselves to be in so much agreement.
I want to add to the comments of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. Again, it is nice that the Solicitor General is here, who was Minister of Transport at the time. The same as my colleague, we always hate to say we told you so, but in all humility, we told you so, we told you so, we told you so.
I would just like to comment on the bill itself before getting down to the particular amendments that we moved and supported in committee in March 1991. I want to comment very briefly on the purpose of the bill before us which is to amend the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act, the main provisions of the bill being to continue the existing status under the new local airport authorities recognizing that this does not represent any change in moneys paid to the government; to extend to local airport authorities the same powers, procedure and detention of aircraft as currently exists in relation to major non-payment of fees; to regularize the status of various financial investments for the purposes of security; and the one I want to add a few comments on, to extend Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act, namely language of work and equal participation

Government Orders
provisions to airports that are leased by the federal government to local airport authorities. This particular provision, Parts V and VI, does not apply to airports that would be sold in the future.
In committee on March 13, 1991 my colleague, the transport critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan, supported at that time by the Liberal member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon and the Liberal member for York West attempted to correct the language aspect of the bill.
In committee on the date I referred to, my colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan in reference to the amendments which he moved at that time which now appear before us as Parts V and VI said: "The purpose of the amendment is to have all aspects of the Official Languages Act apply to these airports".
I recognized that we had testimony from all local airport authorities involved to date indicating they did not feel it was appropriate. On the other hand, yesterday we also heard testimony from the union that indicated it felt it would be important for its members. Certainly in talking with it after the meeting about this particular clause, I understand that even though its members would no longer be part of the federal Public Service, because of the expertise they will have developed whether it is in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, or any of the other areas, they will be prime candidates for open competition within the federal Public Service.
As they move up the ladder within the local airport authority their expertise will be something that will be sought. It is to the benefit of the union's members and I think also to the local airport authorities to have staff appropriately trained in both official languages based on the existing legislation.
I realize that at this time it may only affect the local airport authority from Montreal and Mirabel but over time it may affect others. Until then it will not be an onerous condition on the western airports.
Montreal was very clear that it will have the most highly qualified bilingual staff of any place in the country and so I do not think it would be an onerous burden on it.
Following the member's comments, the member for York West said: "I would like to support the motion of Mr. Angus which is analogous to the very same amendment that we put forward as our fifth amendment".
Following that intervention, the member for Man-icouagan said: "I listened carefully to what Mr. Angus had to say. I was concerned about the same points during our public hearings. I do not believe that including Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act would add anything at all to this bill. Only the Montreal airport authority would be bound by these sections since Montreal is at present the only bilingual district recognized by the Official Languages Act. The people of Montreal have made it very clear that they will be competing with airports on the east coast of the United States, Toronto, and elsewhere. They want to be free to conduct their affairs in the language best suited to the circumstances.
It seems to me that by including Parts V and VI of the Official Languages Act in Bill C-85 we would be putting the Montreal airport authority at a disadvantage because Montreal is the only place where these sections would apply. They would not apply to Edmonton, Calgary or Vancouver because these cities are not recognized as bilingual districts by the Official Languages Act and therefore their airport authorities would not have to comply with these conditions. I would ask the committee to consider this point. By including these two sections in Bill C-85, we would be putting Montreal's airport administration at a disadvantage".
The government side did not listen to the amendments or suggestions put forward by both representatives of the Liberal Party and of the New Democratic Party, in particular the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. It did not listen in committee. It did not listen to the amendments and the arguments and suggestions later put forward in the House. Now, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has pointed out, we have had to go through the lengthy and costly exercise of having it
June 18, 1992

come back through the other place with significant argument and study there, and back to the House here.
We, along with the Official Opposition, are granting every co-operation we can to see this matter is dealt with as expeditiously as possible in this House tonight. We are happy to do that but we do state again that we wish the government would be more sympathetic and open in future to hearing reasoned arguments based on study of the legislation and its real implications rather than simply ignoring advice coming from the opposition because it is the opposition side.
We are happy to support these amendments and hope that we do not have to do this kind of particular exercise too much more often in the future.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, very succinctly. I was not going to intervene in this discussion after my colleague from Kootenay had expressed those thoughts, along with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. We on this side of the House right from the inception-I am glad that the former Minister of Transport is here-of the transfer of jurisdiction to local airport authorities supported that legislation with great enthusiasm. Many of us on this side of the House felt that the local airport authority was the only way we could compete in a global economy in so far as airport business was concerned. We were then in the process of an open skies debate. As a result, we felt that the local airport authority was a very good idea and supported it fully.
Since that time though, I have been very disappointed with the speed with which we have been able to proceed with the local airport authority in getting these airports in Canada transferred over to the proper jurisdictions. I can say, having been on that committee that my former colleague discussed, having visited with the local airport authorities in Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Mirabel in the Province of Quebec, they were all enthusiastic about going along with the legislation for the local airport authority, but for some reason or other it was constantly delayed.
My concern, and the reason for getting up, Mr. Speaker, is that I know there is a very active local airport
Government Orders
authority in my riding of Thunder Bay which wants to look after and take over the airport facility. They are very keen, they are very knowledgeable. I would not want to let this opportunity go by without impressing upon our colleagues across the aisle how important it is that they proceed with this proposal with all dispatch.
I just make that message and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of saying that.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Paproski in the chair.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. House in committee on Bill S-11, an act to amend the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On Clause 2-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Chairman, could the parliamentary secretary advise the committee whether the words in clause 2 amending the original bill in so far as it deals with the Official Languages Act are the same as those contained in the amendment moved at third reading by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, on June 3, 1991.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I do not have that old amendment before me. I am sure that if it was prepared and drafted by my hon. friend, the member for Ottawa-Vanier, the intent at least, if not the exact wording, would be very similar.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
Bill reported.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: By unanimous consent may I call it 10 o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 10 o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Friday, June 19, 1992, pursuant to a special order adopted earlier.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 19, 1992