1992-05-15

[Stage Direction]
41 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 15, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 14, 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)
Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-73.
I support this bill because I believe that all Canadians can take pride in the entrepreneurial spirit that Canada Post is building and that this plan will allow the corporation to share that spirit with its employees directly.
The purpose of this legislation is to enable Canada Post to create an employee share savings plan. In turn, this legislation will provide Canada Post's employees with a tangible reward for building on their company's success.
We are entering a new era of communications worldwide, particularly the information transfer business of Canada Post. Competition is a constant in any business and to succeed businesses such as Canada Post must continue to improve the quality of their products and services.
Let us make no mistake about it. Canada Post is a business. It is in competition not only with other courier companies and delivery services but also with new
information transfer technologies like fax machines and direct fund transfers.
In that competitive climate Canada Post has been proving to the public and Canadian businesses that it can provide a reliable and affordable service. In fact, Canada Post was the first postal administration to hire independent auditors, Ernst & Young, to measure its letter mail delivery performance.
The latest results for the period of January to March 1992 show that Canada Post has met its publicly stated delivery standards 98 per cent of the time. This compares with the performance of less than 85 per cent on time delivery when the surveys were first taken in 1987.
Employee participation through the share plan is a common sense step to ensure that improvement continues. Canada Post is now recognized as a modem, effective postal system able to compete with the best in the world at a price that Canadians want, one that has made the fundamental changes necessary to improve service and reliability.
A major step in this process has been the achievement of financial self-sufficiency. Canada Post has announced a profit for three consecutive fiscal years and for two years in a row it has paid a dividend to its shareholder, the Government of Canada.
Financial self-sufficiency ensures that Canada Post is not a burden on taxpayers and allows Canada Post to purchase the new equipment needed to keep improving its products and services.
Since the mid-1980s, Canada Post has invested in research to develop the next generation of mail processing equipment. Instead of equipping the postal system with off the shelf technology as was done 20 years ago, manufacturers were asked to build to specifications which had been designed to respond to customer expectations.
Computer based sorting equipment now enables Canada Post to deliver 40 million pieces of mail every working day to over 11 million addresses across Canada.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
As we approach the 21st century, we find ourselves in a world where large corporations are competing in a knowledge-based global economy where technology will provide the edge. Canada Post is investing more than $2 billion over its current five-year plan period in such things as new equipment, building modernization and technology upgrades. The new equipment can even compare postal codes with addresses. If the code is wrong, the right one will be supplied instantly. It means that the speed of processing mail will be dramatically increased.
The work Canada Post has done in building a centralized, computerized network has paid off. Canada Post is not acknowledged as a world leader in the development of technology for postal systems. It is the result of the corporation's extensive work with suppliers to create, modify and extend equipment that can be used within the postal industry.
To meet the challenge of the electronic age, Canada Post now offers customers a mixed electronic-print mail service which can provide next business day delivery. Here again is an example of the package of services made possible by technology and necessary by the needs of the modem Canada business.
More and more businesses are supplying Canada Post electronically with their messages and client lists either through direct communication links or via magnetic tape or diskette. Canada Post manufactures the mail piece at eight sites across Canada. The final products which are indistinguishable from mail originating from the purchaser of the service are delivered by Canada Post within established service standards. Here now is a convenient way for businesses to cut their costs.
This type of mail combines the speed and efficiency of long distance transmission of information in an electronic form with Canada Post's capability for delivering hard copy messages to over 11 million businesses and home addresses across Canada. The advantage is that the message travels the bulk of the distance in bits and bytes rather than on paper and planes. It is fast and it relieves the mailer of the responsibility of physically creating and handling hard copy mail. This system not only works for large volume mailers but can work for any customer with the ability to connect to Canada Post's network.
Canada Post's involvement in new technologies not only benefits its customers, it has also created opportunities for Canadian companies. When Canada Post wanted to create a means to track and trace its products, it got some help from SHL Systemhouse. This company learned so much during the course of the co-operative project that in February 1991 it won a contract worth $270 million U.S. to supply a similar tracing system to the United States postal service.
Canada Post has also worked to build an international industry with Canadian skills. Co-operation in providing postal services has been critical in developing this strategy. Canadian businesses need a reliable means of distributing materials quickly and to accomplish that Canada Post needed partners.
Last year, Canada Post announced its participation in a joint venture with the Australian based transportation company, TNT Limited and the postal administrations of Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden. This joint venture will give Canadians access to a high quality international express service with assured on-time delivery and end-to-end tracking. The venture now means Canada is a major player in the international express market.
I have heard some members opposite criticize this Canada Post initiative as a waste of the taxpayers' money. Here we have a major foreign, Federal Express, the U.S. courier company, which also thinks so much of TNT that it is willing to sign for the delivery of its parcels in Europe. Federal Express knows a good thing when it sees it. This government knows a good thing when it sees it. Canadians can be proud of their postal system and its international accomplishments. It seems only the opposition wants Canada Post to return to the 19th century and delivery of mail by horse and carriage.
Another partnership effort has been the creation of the International Post Corporation. IPC is owned by 22 major postal administrations which among them deliver 60 per cent of the world's mail. In fact, Canada Post's President Don Lander is also chairman of IPC. IPC is working to remove technological and procedural roadblocks that may prevent its members from meeting the needs of their citizens.
Canada Post uses technology not only to improve its own operations but has formed an international consulting firm, Canada Post Systems Management Limited, to market its Canadian technology and expertise. This firm is consulting with postal administrations in Central
May 15, 1992

America and has worked in Europe, Mexico and the south Pacific.
The use of technology, the effective interpretation of the needs of Canadians and of business opportunities, the development of partnerships with industries and businesses both domestically and internationally, are all fundamental to the creation and successful development of a business that is growing and adapting to the needs of the marketplace.
Tremendous progress has been achieved by the corporation since it has been given a clear commercial mandate by this government. To achieve financial self-sufficiency, Canada Post transformed itself into the effective and reliable provider of postal products and services it now is. Technology, customer service, and partnerships made the difference and remain fundamental to the corporation's ongoing success.
However, for all the strategic decision-making, the investments in technology or work with customers, most of what the corporation does depends on the people who are Canada Post.
Obviously we on this side of the House, and hopefully our colleagues on the other side, support this legislation because we believe it will have a positive effect on employee-management relations at Canada Post.
Labour relations are no different from other aspects of Canada Post's business, so serious reforms were brought to bear on the relationship between employer and unions at Canada Post. An example of this is the attendance management program which has reduced absenteeism from an average of 19 days a year for each full-time employee to levels close to the industry standard.
Another part of the transformation occurred when the Canada Labour Relations Board reviewed the number of bargaining units at the corporation and ruled they be consolidated into four units. One of these is the operations unit represented by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Canadians are only too aware of the sometimes difficult relationship that Canada Post has with its largest union. It is not surprising that any postal disruption
Government Orders
generates headlines and affects almost every person in the country who receives or sends mail.
It is my hope that this legislation will build on the improvements which have already been accomplished at Canada Post. The process of change at Canada Post has had its ups and downs but it has paid off.
Canada Post is a far cry from the post office it replaced a decade ago. Management's approach to its employees is far more than the headlines give them credit for. Not everything is dark in Canada Post's labour relations. There is another side to every coin.
The corporation has achieved collective agreements with all its other bargaining units without work disruption regardless of a number of serious incidents during the strike.
Canadians should remember that the vast majority of postal workers want only to have a secure job with good pay and decent working conditions. They want respect, fair treatment, and recognition for their good work.
One of the biggest challenges that Canada Post has had to face over the years has been to change the mind-set of its workers to instil the values, threats and opportunities of a competitive business in thousands of employees who once worked in a government department that had little competition.
This legislation will promote a greater understanding and involvement of employees and the challenges and opportunities of the future. That is fundamental to their motivation to become builders and beneficiaries of the corporation's success. It is important that employees realize that Canada Post is a competitive business, that success rests upon their shoulders, and that meeting the needs of Canadians is the strongest job and income security package ever invented.
This government initiative is the latest step in a process that has already begun to change the way that Canada Post relates to its employees. Many of them have already demonstrated their commitment to the corporation and its future and have made significant contributions. Canada Post introduced a number of programs specifically designed to recognize and reward exceptional performance.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
Canada Post understands the importance of showing its appreciation to outstanding employees and now singles out and rewards exceptional performance through its silver and golden postmark awards. Each year employees in every division of the corporation may nominate their co-workers for the 10 categories of the silver postmark recognition awards. The awards go to employees for exceptional achievement in such areas as community or humanitarian work, or for those who go beyond the call of duty to make that special effort which meets customers' needs.
From among these winners, those whose actions or involvement truly stand out are selected to receive the national golden postmark awards. Let me tell the House about some of last year's winners.
Mark Eisenbraun, a retail representative in Keswick on Lake Simcoe, received a call from local police advising him that some stolen mail had been found floating in a swamp. While two co-workers collected letters at the edge of the marsh, Eisenbraun got a wet suit, a large net and waded into the middle of the swamp to get the rest.
John Brady, an operations manager in Victoria, spent seven hours on a Christmas Day making sure a local high school basketball team would be able to attend the Cotton Bowl in Dallas as planned. Responding to a last minute call from the coach, Brady found the team's package containing airline tickets, food vouchers and football game tickets, saving the trip.
Crystal Trider, an industrial engineer in Halifax, was working on a Saturday, the day before Father's Day. Among the mail arriving at her plant that day were Father's Day cards which had been sent in Canada Post's special occasion envelopes. Of course these had not been sent in time for delivery but she volunteered to deliver them herself. Her initiatives made the holiday even more special for dozens of dads in the Halifax area.
These are some examples of the outstanding people who work at Canada Post, people who believe that a job is more than job security and good wages, people who believe that satisfaction comes from doing a job well and not just meeting but exceeding the expectations of Canadians.
This is one of the ways Canada Post is recognizing employees. There is also the employee involvement program which encourages staff to submit ideas which cut costs, improve operations and increase productivity.
Winning employees receive a percentage of the first year cost saving their ideas brought to the corporation.
Canada Post has also developed a scholarship program which provides financial help to 90 sons and daughters of CPC employees who are attending post-secondary institutions.
There is also a commitment to internal training programs so that employees can confidently operate the new state of the art equipment that is continually being introduced in mail processing plants.
In 1989 Canada Post introduced the Heritage Club, with membership restricted to long service and retired employees and their spouses. Currently there are 29,000 members: 11,000 who have retired, 5,000 who are still part of the work force and have 25 years of service, and
13,000	spouses.
Community involvement is the key to the Heritage Club's mandate. The activities of individual club chapters receive some financial assistance for local community enhancement.
Other activities have a community orientation. Canada Post employees across Canada volunteer their time for the Santa letter writing program sponsored by the corporation. This year alone, thousands of employees volunteered their time to answer over one million letters written to Santa's special HOH OHO postal code.
Thousands of people volunteer their time to answer the letters. I understand that even some of the most militant CUPW members participate in responding to letters that come from all over the world and are written in many different languages. The program adds something special to our employees' holiday season and generates goodwill on behalf of Canada throughout the world.
These are some of the good things that are helping to ensure that postal workers share in the sense of progress at Canada Post. The examples I have mentioned clearly show that things are evolving in a positive way at Canada Post. The share savings plan will build on this in a positive way.
The share savings plan will provide an incentive for employees to increase Canada Post's financial performance and thus increase the value of their shares. It will attract, motivate and retain highly qualified employees and recognize their contribution. It will permit all employees to acquire and own a piece of the corporation
May 15, 1992

in which they work and create a sense of entrepreneurial spirit.
It will build the level of pride by employees for the success of their company. It will develop a long-term commitment for the company, its products and quality of service.
These are the reasons I believe all Canadians should be enthusiastic about the opportunities offered by this measure. This spells out improved service for Canadians, improved employee-management relations and a healthier Canada Post.
People want to be proud. I believe that Canadians in general and particularly employees are seeing that Canada Post is becoming a place they can be proud of.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his recognition of the qualities of the postal system in this country.
I too share his view. I stated on the floor of the House last night that the post office, in terms of productivity and efficiency, probably has one of the highest rankings of any organization in Canada. I think a lot of Canadians are really surprised when I stand and say that, but by using the criteria that business uses to judge productivity the post office comes out ahead most of the time.
Of course we salute all the things people within the post office are doing within their community. We salute the efforts of management to improve the morale and to improve the productivity.
The problem I have with this attempt to experiment with equity participation, a principle that I support, is that I do not see anything in the bill which talks about the criteria for assessing the value of the shares. How is the value of a share to be determined? To me, I just do not see anything in it that would set up the criteria.
Another point would be shareholders' rights. Often people get involved in share option schemes and sometimes they do not have any rights. That could come back to haunt the government.
A third point I would like to ask the member about has to do with the federal presence. I need the member's attention because it seems to me this is the most serious problem we have with the postal system in this country.
Government Orders
In 1980 we put the Canada word mark on every postal unit in this country. Whether it was a post office, a post box or a truck that delivered the mail, we put the Canada word mark on it. It was a symbol of the national government's presence in not just the larger communities but small towns. The Canada word mark is the symbol of this great country and of this great government.
A few months ago the Prime Minister was talking about patriotism. I support his view that we should be more patriotic.
I would like the member to give me his reasons as to why the post office was stripped of the word "Canada" in close to 40,000 units across Canada. They were stripped of the Canada wordmark. In all postal operations across Canada, the word "Canada" was painted out on trucks and post office boxes. They were stripped of it.
We spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in 1980 to put the word "Canada" up there to give people, especially those in disadvantaged regions, smaller regions and smaller towns of our country, a feeling that the national government was present.
On the value of shares, what criteria are to be used? On the rights of shareholders, what rights are shareholders to have? Finally why was "Canada" stripped from the postal service?


Mr. O'Kurley:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite asked a question with regard to the details about the shares, how the dividends will be determined, and so on. Obviously there would be consultations with Treasury Board and the Department of Finance.
Canada Post is an arm's length Crown corporation. It is owned by the Government of Canada. Therefore the Government of Canada through Treasury Board and through the Department of Finance would have some input into how those details would be determined.
In terms of the offering of shares to its employees, it is important to point out that Canada Post is a corporation. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Canada Post is a business operating in a competitive business environment. In that vein the whole aspect of relations between labour and management is critical.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
In countries where there is the most success with labour and management we see that labour has had an opportunity to participate in some sense of accountability in the system. That is why I believe this initiative in the bill will be a positive one.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, I find something really very troubling about the exchange that occurred between the Liberal member and the hon. member subsequent to his speech.
I cannot believe the speech we heard earlier could have been written by anybody except a press officer for Canada Post. I cannot possibly believe these two gentlemen on both sides of the House could regard the paternalistic arrangement and relationship between management and labour described in the member's speech as an appropriate one for stimulating good productivity.
If they have not learned the lessons of Alcan, Chrysler, Ford and a number of other productive industries in this country, that the relationship between management and labour should be a partnership with a common purpose of serving the customer, then they do not understand at all. They do not understand that giving employees a 10 per cent shareholding without any voting power is no contribution to improving productivity and labour relations in the decision-making process at all.
It is ridiculous and absurd to suggest that workers are so stupid as to believe that 10 per cent of non-voting shares will give them effective influence.
I cannot understand how that member or the member on the other side could believe that this would overcome the distrust that has existed in the post office for years, highlighted by the fact that post office management said that it had a wage offer on the table which it withdrew in the face of arbitration. It think this penny-ante stuff is going to help labour relations in the post office. I say there should be a reform that recognizes that labour and management have a common responsibility and that is to serve the Canadian public. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers is ready to do that. Let the management wake up, let this government wake up and let those on the other side of this House wake up and understand what a good labour relationship is all about.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last night when we debated this issue there was not a single member of the New Democratic Party here when I gave my speech in which I said that I oppose this bill. The member is totally taking things out of context.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is a nice Friday morning, is it not?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Madam Speaker, with regard to the member's comments about labour relations, it is important for members of the House and also for all Canadians to recognize that success is not achieved by the old model of confrontation. Effective service to Canadians is not achieved by the NDP's preferred model of confrontation between labour and management.
When we look at the strongest economies in the world, Japan and Germany for example, one of the things that we find in those economies is a co-operative model, co-operation between management and labour. This initiative by the Government of Canada is the first step in achieving that co-operation which is necessary.
Often we see labour posturing for a strike and wanting that confrontation. It puts millions of dollars into strike funds. It would be important for the NDP, as representatives in many cases of labour-taking its marching orders from labour-to encourage labour groups to invest those strike funds into shares in corporations. It is important to recognize also that you cannot have authority without accountability. Buying shares in a company is one way of assuming the accountability that management always assumes.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I must say I am not thrilled to participate in this debate, but I am glad I am participating in it at the moment after hearing my colleague's speech from the Conservative Party suggesting that his idea of good management-labour relations is to have a chart. If you behave well you get a star beside your name at the end of the week. This somehow is supposed to cause elation and productivity among the workers.
I have heard a lot of talk about labour-management relations and I have listened to a lot of speakers suggest how to get more productivity out of their operation and encourage participation at a very high level among their employees. I have never once heard the set of recom-
May 15, 1992

mendations that the way to do that is to refuse to sign a collective agreement with your employees.
Imagine how humiliated those people working for the post office this morning will feel when they find out that while the government has decided not to sign a collective agreement for nearly three years with the employees of the post office, the government members are standing up and saying: "We found a solution. Forget collective agreements, we have this star idea. We are going to give everybody a gold star if they perform well". It is embarrassing and humiliating.
Now we have Bill C-73. This is the ace in the hole. They said that already the people of Canada, including those who work for the post office, own the post office. It is a Crown corporation. We own it. The government says: "We have another idea. We are going to allow you, who already own the post office, to buy shares in the post office but there will be no voting and you will have no say in its operation". Somehow this is supposed to get people elated.
This is awful. It is awful for the House of Commons to spend time on this sort of nonsense. Imagine what every rank and file worker is feeling across this country who works for the post office.
Here they were waiting for a collective agreement, waiting for some leadership from the government, and this is what they got, Bill C-73.


An hon. member:: More letters to Santa Claus.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The whole thing is laughable, but it is sad. It is sad when we consider that one of the most important services we have in this country from the federal government is the postal service. This is the kind of management approach, the kind of paternalistic approach to those thousands of hard-working employees across the country. All of us, from our own personal experience, whether it is in our work as members of Parliament, meeting with those who work for the postal corporation, whether it is our friends who happen to be members of various unions attached to the postal corporation or their affiliates, or whether it is simply the people who deliver our mail whom we know personally, these individuals are dedicated and committed Canadians.
They work very hard to deliver the mail. As others have stated, one of the most effective and efficient systems in spite of management and in spite of this
Government Orders
government is Canada's post office. The rank and file workers of the post office are committed to the post office, committed to mail delivery, committed to a high level of service and committed to the people of Canada. I cannot say that of the government or of most of management. I wish I could.
Let us look at the legislation. Bill C-73 will make 10 per cent of Canada Post non-voting shares available for purchase by Canada Post employees on a voluntary basis. As soon as this was uttered by the postal corporation, those who work for the corporation came forward and said that this was absolute nonsense. Therefore, here we are continuing on.


An hon. member:: Did Don Lander say that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: A number of people are suggesting that this is the beginning of the full privatization of Canada Post. I know the minister responsible for Canada Post has said that this is not the case. What did he say? If you listen to what he actually said, it was: "There are no immediate privatization plans in the cards". He went on to say on May 1, 1992: "If I had to bet, I would bet that in the next couple of decades you will see post offices being privatized all over the world and I would not mind seeing Canada first". That was a minister of the cabinet responsible for Canada Post saying that he would love to see Canada Post privatized. He said this is not immediate privatization. We are suggesting that this is the first step.
Then the Prime Minister has said that he is not aware of any plans to privatize the post office. As a matter of fact, he said he would not be in favour of that. This is the Prime Minister who had other things to say.
On April 13, 1988 the Prime Minister said that some people wanted to buy the CBC but that the CBC was not for sale. He said that Air Canada was not for sale. We all know that the government sold Air Canada, beginning in 1988 with the shares offered first to its employees. In other words, this is the government's approach. The first step is to sell some of the shares to the employees before moving into full privatization.
I say that the Conservative Government record speaks for itself. When you want to privatize a major Crown corporation, you offer some shares to the employees first before you go on to the general share market. We oppose this because it will have absolutely nothing to do with improving labour-management relations with the postal corporation.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
How could you expect employees of the postal corporation to feel that they are part of an operation when the government is treating them this way? At the moment there are over 100,000 outstanding grievances at Canada Post. That is roughly two grievances per person.
That tells it all. The unions said they wanted to resolve this dispute, agreed to resolve the dispute, turned it over to an arbitrator and the legislation came through to require this. The postal corporation pulled all of its offers and today we have no collective agreement for the employees.
This is not the way to conduct an operation. My hon. friend from the Conservative Party who just spoke said that the government is committed to making Canada Post a profitable business. It has to be a profitable corporation. This is a government service that has to make money. It has to be profitable.


An hon. member:: It is the measure of all things.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is the measure of all things, as my colleague from Edmonton reminds me. That is the Tory measurement.
The government does not suggest that this is necessary for the RCMP. It does not have to be a profit-making policing corporation. The fire departments are not profitable. The ambulances do not make profits. The hospitals are not supposed to make profits. Universities are not supposed to make profits. The Canada Post Corporation, which services every person in this country on a regular basis, has to make money to be successful.
We say this is nonsense. NDP logic asks why should we choose one service to have to generate revenue from the people of Canada when already we own this? Quite frankly, we can say that in terms of cost recovery, we have always supported measures that would result in cost recovery, but to be convinced that this ought to be a profit-driven business is ludicrous.
We say that having these programs put into place in an effort to increase employee morale by using the silver star system is something you would find in a kindergarten class. A grade three class would probably be embarrassed by that approach.
We oppose this legislation, obviously. We oppose this legislation because we believe that this will do absolutely nothing to promote labour-management peace within the postal corporation. As a matter of fact, it is such an embarrassing piece of legislation, such a humiliating piece of legislation and such an aggravating piece of legislation that it is like walking up to every postal employee and poking them in the eye with a finger. That is what the minister is trying to do here. We think this is the wrong approach to labour-management relations.
We also oppose this legislation because unquestionably this is the first step toward the full privatization of Canada Post. I know the record is clear that the government's plan is to privatize every rural post office in Canada. That is the stated goal.
Already it has privatized significant numbers. One of the best examples of this totally silly decision was in my own constituency in a small community called Westwold, British Columbia, which has a few hundred citizens and services a rural farm area primarily.
It had a post office which was the centre for the entire community. It provided the nucleus for the community. People would come during the day, exchange views and see what was happening in the community as a result of notices, and they would conduct their postal business.
The postmaster had to vacate and so the postal corporation said this is the opportunity now to privatize the post office, to close it down. The question was where does it to go? There are no businesses, no retail outlets in the community. It said: "Listen, we have a good idea. There is another community about 30 kilometres away. We can put it there and let everyone drive there every day to collect their mail and do their postal work. Or, there is a legion in the area that has a bar and we could have it as an adjunct to the bar". A lot of people said: "This seems to be kind of silly because a lot of times the children are picking up the mail or, quite frankly, I do not relish the idea of picking up my mail in a bar".


Mr. Rodriguez:: What is wrong with that?
May 15, 1992


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is exactly what the postal department said.
Today the post office in Westwold is in the Legion bar. This is wrong. This shows the bull-headedness and the single-mindedness of the postal corporation to privatize no matter what, no matter if it makes any sense at all.
This is about the most ridiculous decision of the postal corporation imaginable.
We oppose this bill because we have looked through it carefully and we have asked if this bill improves the service to Canadians. Does this bill help improve service to urban and rural Canadians? We have gone through this bill clause by clause and we have not found a single point in this legislation that would lead us to believe this will improve service one iota. We cannot support it for that reason.
We asked ourselves if this will result in the postal corporation's stopping harassment of its union members and sticking to its word. We looked through and found no evidence of that. We assume that will continue.
I am trying to think of a single reason why anyone would support this legislation. I have listened carefully to my colleagues across the way and perhaps this is then-idea of comedy or humour because I have not heard a single reference to any reason why this bill ought to be supported, even by members of the government.
They talk of a need to have a more efficient post office. This will not do that. They talk about improved management relations. This will not do that. They talk about this being a progressive idea because it will give the opportunity for people to be meaningfully involved in the future of the post office. That is not the case. These are non-voting shares. The post office is already owned in part by its employees and now to say they can have a chance to buy and own a part seems to be nonsensical.
As we pour through the legislation at second reading and discuss the principle of the legislation, we are trying to identify a single reason why we should support this. We are trying to listen carefully to the Conservative members while they speak to identify a single reason and yet it is very wanting. I can only say we will not support this legislation.
Government Orders
Let me make a suggestion to my hon. friends sitting opposite on the government benches. If they wanted to send a very positive signal to the employees of the postal corporation, they would withdraw this legislation and say our first priority will be to settle the collective agreement. That would be the first gesture.
If they said they would withdraw this silly nonsensical legislation and instruct our negotiators to resolve this contractual dispute immediately, it would send the second most positive signal to the employees of Canada Post. It would encourage them to see some hope in an approved operation.
The way the government and the minister responsible for Canada Post could make Canadians and the people who work in the postal corporation the happiest of all would be to announce that on July 1, Canada's birthday, the Progressive Conservative government will call an election.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks. I have a question for him.
He is seeking a single reason why his party should be supporting this legislation. I would like to ask him if he agrees with any of the reasons for this type of move currently being proposed by the New Democratic government in Ontario.
I noted in the Speech from the Throne that one of the objectives of the Government of Ontario in the coming session is to achieve worker-ownership legislation. Worker-ownership legislation will come forward for final debate.
I would like to quote from the proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, a discussion paper tabled by the Ontario Ministry of Labour in November 1991. This is a most interesting document. I will quote from the Ontario NDP government's labour reforms under section 1.3, entitled "The Government's Social and Economic Agenda". I note with interest that one of the points the Ontario NDP government is making as part of its agenda is:
"Encouraging worker investment and ownership in Ontario companies in a manner which recognizes the benefits of worker participation for both labour and business".

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
If the hon. member is looking for a single reason to support this legislation it is surely coming from his colleagues in Ontario. The Ontario government is saying that workers should be stakeholders. They should be more than employees, they should be participants in the ownership of companies.
The single reason that the member is looking for is the benefits. Consider the phrase that members of the Ontario NDP, your colleagues, are using. They are the benefits of worker participation.
What are the benefits of worker participation? Obviously, when somebody who is an employee becomes a shareholder, a stakeholder in an organization they have more interest in the success of that corporation, in the efficient management of that corporation, in the delivery of better services for that corporation and in the establishment of better labour management relations for that corporation. Those are four benefits. There are now four reasons why you can support it, and standing right behind you is the NDP government, your colleagues, in Ontario. It obviously has recognized that this move is the right move. Comments?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. friend was not serious when he put those questions.
This legislation prohibits employees from having meaningful participation in Canada Post. It says: "You will not be able to vote on anything we do in Canada Post". I have a savings account with a local credit union. I have more voice simply by having a savings account with a credit union than these employees would have by having non-voting shares. He knows that. He knows he is simply making some nonsensical gesture in this House to mislead.
On another point. Surely to goodness if you want to-


Garth Turner: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member erred in the inflammatory language he was using. He alleges that I have sought to mislead the House. I have not. I would ask that he withdraw.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not think that the hon. member for Kamloops was saying that the hon. member for Halton-Peel was deliberately trying to mislead the House, though he was getting very close to impugning motives to the hon. member. Maybe the hon. member
for Kamloops could have the opportunity of concluding his comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. member obviously did not know what he was talking about then. I do not think that he would intend to mislead the House. His suggestion that this legislation will give employees meaningful participation in Canada Post is absolutely false. It is a falsehood. I am only assuming that he has not yet read the legislation.
Second, the employees already own this business. The employees own the business. He is now suggesting that they can have further ownership. I do not understand the points my hon. friend makes.
Ask anyone who has studied or bothered to read a single book on labour-management relations how to encourage the maximum amount of efficiency and productivity from your operation and they would say that it is wise to include people in a meaningful way, in terms of ownership and participation in management. That is what the New Democratic Party government is suggesting we do in the province of Ontario. That is what we would like to see done right across the whole country, not this scam or illusion that somehow this is going to enable people to play a meaningful role in the management of Canada Post.


Mr. Harb:: Madam Speaker, are questions and comments finished?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is a minute left before we go into statements pursuant to Standing Order 31. Does the hon. member have a question or a comment for the hon. member?


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I am quite interested in the tone of the debate. I wonder if it is not time to bring this whole debate to a civilized level so that we could have some meaningful discussion on the pros and cons of this legislation.
It is an extremely important piece of legislation. It is an historic one in a lot of ways. I would not want to take the time of the House of Commons to debate the details of it at this point in time. I can see that we are getting close to eleven o'clock.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Maybe the member will have his wish after Question Period.
As it is eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
May 15, 1992


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, next week has been declared Native Awareness Week. Several departments will be participating in the event this year which will be sponsored by the Canada Department of Agriculture.
This initiative complements the federal native work force participation initiative. It is designed to increase an awareness of and promote the contribution of natives in the Public Service. In doing so, it will promote more harmonious and productive exchanges between natives and non-natives.
On behalf of the Minister and the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I am pleased to highlight and support this event. I commend the Department of Agriculture for its initiative and all participating departments for their co-operation.
Let me take this opportunity to recall that our government has taken several initiatives in recent years to ensure that natives take their rightful place not only in the work force but also in Canadian society. These include the native agenda, the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, and the integration of aboriginals in the constitutional discussions.
However today I want above all to pay tribute to our aboriginal community for its increasingly important contribution to our work force and our common heritage.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Madam Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of the House to the mortal danger menacing Canada's science and technology infrastructure.
Yes, it is none other than the dreaded techno-punching terminator, alias the Prime Minister. Nothing has escaped his scourge of devastation and destruction: Nobel prize winning labs at the National Research Council, industrial research and research on the environment, alternative energy and health care, the Science Council, and now our very ability to gather and analyse research and development statistics.
What message does this send to Canadians? Does this imply that the results of the prosperity initiative are in and science and technology does not play a central role?
As for science and technology statistics, both the quantity and the quality of the data are at risk, especially quality. We need a government that will demonstrate in deed as well as in words that science and technology are critical in addressing the economic, social and cultural challenges facing Canadians.


VOYAGEURS 92
Mr. Garth  Ttorner@Halton-Peel: Madam Speaker, several weeks ago the Secretary of State announced a program called Voyageurs 92 intended to allow members of Parliament to twin their ridings and give 125 young people in each riding a chance to visit another part of Canada.
I would like to thank the minister for doing that. I would also like to thank the corporate sponsors, especially Air Canada, for making this exchange program possible.
In Halton-Peel the concept has been embraced enthusiastically by the eight secondary schools located therein. The Voyageurs program in my riding under the direction of committee chairman Alf Spence was quickly over-subscribed and now has a growing waiting list.
The students look forward to learning about a new part of Canada. They believe that as more Canadians experience the beauty and majesty of their country any thoughts of it breaking apart will certainly melt away like the spring snow.


BREAST CANCER
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the government to implement a focused systematic program to examine in detail breast cancer research, education, early detection, and treatment.
It is astounding that this year one in nine Canadian women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. The rates are up substantially from 20 years ago. In 1991 alone
5,000	women lost their lives through breast cancer and

May 15, 1992
15,000	new cases were diagnosed. However, in 22 years early detection methods remain largely unchanged.
I am hopeful that the subcommittee on the status of women will recognize in its report, expected in June, the need for greater public awareness about the impact of breast cancer, the need to increase our research efforts to find out what causes breast cancer, to discover better early detection methods and to improve treatment with a view to finding a cure.


SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, a great battle was fought and won in this Chamber five years ago to protect forever the Gwaii Haanas Archipelago, or South Moresby National Park Reserve as it has come to be known. Some $106 million was committed to be spent over eight years. Canada has failed to live up to its legal commitments.
Also $50 million was promised to develop a world-class tourism destination to diversify the regional economy and to adjust from logging to tourism.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment announced that an agreement has been reached with the Haida nation regarding Gwaii Haanas. Bill C-59 will now proceed, with agreed amendments. Some $5.8 million will be spent this summer on visitor reception centres and park reserve development.
However, the delays to date in implementing the spirit of the agreement are unreasonable. Residents expect $44 million to be transferred now to the locally controlled Gwaii trust. The funds for reception centres and operation and development costs must come from Ottawa.
The cost for the Sandspit small craft harbour must come from Ottawa. The forest companies and the loggers have been compensated. The funds for reforestation have been allocated. There can be no more delays in funds for the affected communities.


CANADA HEALTH AUXILIARY WEEK
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, this past week has been designated Canada Health Auxiliary Week by the Canadian Association of Health Care Auxiliaries. The theme this year is auxiliary leadership through education.
There are more than 100,000 health care volunteers affiliated with over 800 auxiliaries in local communities across the country. These volunteers play a strong and vital role in our health care system in humanizing the health care given to hospitalized patients, in raising funds for much needed equipment and services, and in sponsoring educational programs within their communities. They provide a unique and valuable service to Canadians.
I invite my colleagues and all Canadians to recognize the work and dedication of health auxiliaries as well as their enormous contribution which makes our Canadian health care system unequalled anywhere in the world.


CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1978 says that it is discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees who are performing work of equal value.
The pay equity provision of the act must be respected by all federal government agencies, all federal Crown corporations and all private sector businesses regulated under federal law. Almost one million employees are covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Approximately 45 per cent are women. Very few women, as we know, have benefited from the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value.
We must eliminate discrimination in compensation between men and women. Employment equity concerns fairness in the representation of various target groups such as women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the disabled in the work force, and in the treatment and employment practices such as recruitment, training and promotion.
May 15, 1992

I call on the government-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


CANADIAN YOUTH SERVICE CORPS
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, several years ago the government cancelled the Katimavik program and said at that time that a new and better program would come along in its place for Canadian youth.
I believe now is the time to initiate something that could be called the Canadian Youth Service Corps. It would be a new program that would recruit Canadians from age 18 and upward on a voluntary basis for one year of service to the nation.
This would be an opportunity to serve in perhaps one of several different streams: for example, environmental, military, social help to seniors and Canadians with disabilities and community service.
Canadian youth participating in such a youth corps would move to different parts of Canada and work with Canadians from different parts of our country. In the course of giving service they would learn both about Canada and about themselves.


PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, Canadians and particularly seniors have a continuing concern about the price of prescription drugs.
Green Shield has documented the dramatic increase in the price of drugs averaging 11.4 per cent a year since the extension of drug patents in 1987 to the multinational drug companies. This increase threatens our provincial drug plans and our entire health care system.
Even the federal minister of health stated recently that such increases, which are well above the rate of inflation, would kill the health care system.
Who should Canadians hold responsible for this dramatic increase in drug prices? The Conservatives, for agreeing to the extension of the patent protection on
behalf of the multinational drug companies as a pre-condition to the free trade deal, and Judy Erola, a former Liberal minister of consumer affairs, the chief spokesperson and lobbyist for the multinational drug companies.


NATIONAL NURSES WEEK
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to remind members of this House and the general public that this is National Nurses Week. The theme "Nurses: Allies for Change" shows the key role that nurses play in looking into the system and changing and strengthening it. The physical, mental and social well-being of all Canadians depends on this system. Nurses are committed to meeting the challenge of applying the principles set forth in the Canada Health Act, to maintaining effective, affordable health services and to renewing partnerships in the field of health.
I call on my colleagues to join me in congratulating Canada's nurses.


MONTREAL'S 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure, as a Canadian, a Quebecer and the member for Saint-Leonard, to wish all Montrealers a happy anniversary celebration. On May 16, 1642-historians do not agree on the exact date-the French founded what was to become one of the greatest cities in America. In the past 350 years, Montreal has become a leading centre of culture and economic vitality for Quebec, Canada and America.
Despite the temporary economic difficulties that the city is going through, I hope that all members of this House join me in wishing Montreal and all its citizens very happy 350th anniversary celebrations.
Bonne fete, Montreal. Happy anniversary, Montreal. Buon compleanno, Montreal.

May 15, 1992


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, foetal alcohol syndrome, known as FAS, is a disease with far-reaching repercussions. It is caused before birth when a pregnant mother consumes alcohol.
While we do not know a great deal about FAS, we do know that children bom with FAS exhibit varying symptoms of mental retardation. Some children are visibly handicapped, while others learn of their disabilities later in life. The trauma for the child in the family is great. It is often worse for adoptive parents who have no clue to the cause of their child's problem.
Witnesses appearing before the House committee on health issues told us there was no cure for the neurological damage of foetal alcohol syndrome. Although the tragedy is great there is hope, foetal alcohol syndrome can be prevented: Alcohol consumption should be avoided during pregnancy.
I encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare to undertake with his provincial counterparts a campaign to inform expectant mothers about foetal alcohol syndrome. Let us avoid further tragedy.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, there was an article in the papers recently about excessive amounts spent by the Canadian International Development Agency on a reception held in Ottawa. This has created considerable controversy among Canadians and certainly does not enhance CIDA's reputation. In fact, it was not the first time excessive spending by the agency was mentioned.
Canada has a moral obligation to help less developed countries where famine and extreme poverty are prevalent. Considering its mandate and its mission, CIDA should realize that the public will not condone such excesses, which are a flagrant contradiction of its mission
to help countries where famine is endemic. I ask the government to order CIDA's senior officials to-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member for Drummond.


WINNERS OF MARC LESCARBOT AWARD
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to two of my constituents, winners of the Marc Lescarbot Award, in the local awards category, in recognition of their outstanding contribution to the advancement of the arts in the region. This year, the Lescarbot award, volunteer category, went to Germaine Proulx for her contribution to the arts. Ms. Proulx is well-known in local cultural circles. She was actively involved in promoting cultural activities in a number of areas, in addition to founding the Drummondville Ballet Academy which celebrates its 45th anniversary this year.
In the arts patron category, the Lescarbot award went to Noel Sylvain. Mr. Sylvain is a patron of the arts, in the true sense of the word. At his instigation, Union Life has repeatedly and in many ways supported, encouraged and sponsored artists and the arts in our region.
I am delighted to see that the unselfish and dynamic contribution made by Germaine Proulx and Noel Sylvain is finally given tangible recognition.


TRINITY-SPADINA CONFERENCE
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, justice and jobs, alternatives to free trade and the corporate agenda will be the subject of a conference starting this evening in Trinity-Spadina, Toronto.
The themes will include thrust and key elements of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement, discussion of alternatives for Canada and Latin America, strategies for democratizing the economy, how Canadian banks gouge Canadians and Latin Americans, why the banks support the FTA and NAFTA, and how NAFTA and the
May 15, 1992

FTA will affect food processing jobs, family farms and access to affordable food in Canada and Mexico.
Speakers will include spokespersons of the Canadian Autoworkers Union, Miguel D'Escoto, a former Nicaraguan minister of external affairs, a leading opposition member of the Mexican Congress and a leading Mexican economist, members of the Canadian Parliament for Surrey North and for Oshawa, and Tony Clark, chair of Action Canada, on why renegotiations will not work and how to build for cancellation of the FTA and NAFTA.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
Every day this week members of the Liberal Party have risen in the House to plead with the government not to abandon Canada's unemployed. We talk about the lack of mobility assistance, adequate training dollars, job availability, and what not.
Today the Canadian Mental Health Association said that as unemployment rises in Canada there are increases in infant mortality, suicide, murder, spouse and child abuse, family breakdown, and so on.
When will the Minister of Finance start to consider that this never-ending recession which has been going on now for more than 27 months is hurting all Canadians very badly and the time has come to change his policies?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Canadian Mental Health Association report. Are we going to lead Canadians down the path of only doom and gloom?
If he wants to compare the rates of suicide, family break-ups, alcoholism and drug abuse and tie them to the unemployment rate, I invite him-and I am not saying it has no affect-to compare it with other countries in the world where there are rampant problems in that area.
Oral Questions
The answer is not to try to blame unemployment for everything. We should, rather, maybe join other Canadians under this prosperity initiative and try to identify ways where we can improve this situation. That is what the government is doing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. minister that yesterday one of his colleagues in this House, the member for Halifax West, said: "One of the things that you learn in an election is not to bother with welfare houses".
Was he reflecting the views of that party and that government not to care for the people who are suffering in society and who have lost their dignity because they cannot find jobs? When will this government put on a human face and repudiate that awful statement by the member of Halifax West?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, if words mean anything, the leader of the Liberal Party stood on January 21 and called for a great one-year emergency economic plan. Do you know what he suggested for unemployed Canadians? He suggested that the Government of Canada should increase its training funding by a meagre $150 million.
We are providing 20 times that amount each year for unemployed Canadians. The Liberals should come clean with Canadians and tell them what they really think.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to say to the minister that the problem is not going away. One and a half million Canadians are out of work, and we now know that more than 600,000 Canadians have left the labour market and have given up on finding a job. This means that 1.5 million people have lost their dignity in Canada because they cannot work and that 600,000 more Canadians have given up altogether and may be too embarrassed to go out and look for work, because this government refuses to give them a chance to earn a living, to live with some dignity and to be proud citizens of this country.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition keeps saying this government has no consideration for the unemployed and is not

May 15, 1992
Oral Questions
concerned about their situation. The fact is that we increased our budgets. At a time when fiscal responsibility is paramount, we still increased all funding used to help these people. I fail to see why the hon. member thinks he can improve their situation by shouting that we have done nothing at all, although program effectiveness and program funding have both increased. I suppose we could also do what the Liberals did. We could keep raising taxes or increase the deficit.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Leader of the Opposition raised a question about the statement of the Conservative member for Halifax West in the press and I quote: "One of the things you learn in elections is not to bother with welfare houses". The Leader of the Opposition invited the minister to reject that statement and he did not do so.
I ask the minister, will he reject the statement right now, or does his silence mean that he and his government agree with his colleague and are writing off the poor and unemployed in this country?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, if rejecting a statement by a member of Parliament or interpreting silence as a kiss-off, then the Liberals are guilty of a lot of things in this country.
The question is simply, what efforts are being devoted by this government to tiy to help the unemployed? We have increased the spending under the Department of Employment and Immigration by $300 million this year to try to address that tough situation.
Canada is subjected to this recession. Canada is subjected to restructuring that is taking place in this global economy. The private sector has to answer this challenge with the help of government. It does not want us to substitute and do it for them. The tools have to be in place and that is what we are trying to do.
Talking about education and training, Canada is spending $11 billion a year. When looking at the books that is
more than last year and the year before but the Liberals will still claim that it is less.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I return again to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and invite him and ask him to reject the callous words of his colleague the Conservative member for Halifax West who said: "One of the things you learn in elections is not to bother with welfare houses". Does he not realize that by remaining silent he is confirming that this is the view of his government?
I ask the minister to speak up and reject these callous words or stand condemned of rejecting the more than 1.5 million unemployed people in this country.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member, who is an experienced member of Parliament, wants to know whether it is the policy of this government not to care about people on welfare and about housing, no, it is not. It is quite to the contrary and the record clearly shows that.
I was not there. I do not know what the member said, but I know that member. I think the member for Halifax West is just as concerned about poor people and people in need than any Liberal in this House. Therefore, do not try to make the member for Halifax West out to be an uncaring member of Parliament. Of course, he is not a Liberal. He does not have a comer on everything, but I think he is a hard working member for his people.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, this week the anti-poverty critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, released the action plan on behalf of the New Democratic Party entitled "Changing Course". In that document we made 38 recommendations on how this government can reverse some of the effects of its economic policies.
I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that while the official unemployment rate in Canada is 11 per cent, the Canadian Mental Health Association in its report outlining not only the effects of unemployment in financial terms but also the traumatic psychological effects points out that the real unemployment rate is 19 per cent.
May 15, 1992

Clearly, this constitutes a serious crisis in this country for every community, every family, every province and territory. It is clear that as we reduce unemployment we will reduce social expenditures.
Given that we have a serious crisis of unemployment in this country, would the Minister of Finance consider bringing in an emergency budget based on the principle of full employment as we have promoted to be included in the Constitution of Canada, which would address the need in Canada to have an economic policy based on full employment?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, in spite of what the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party suggests, there has been a substantial decline in the number of low-income Canadians since we assumed office in 1984, something in the order of 600,000.
That has been brought about by new job opportunities, by skills upgrading, by tax reform, and by improving and directing scarce resources to those people most in need. That is what the child benefit package I unveiled in the budget is really all about.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration has outlined the emphasis we are making with respect to job training and skills upgrading, an increase in that budget of about $300 million this year over the previous year, some $3.4 million. We are seeing a larger number of Canadians leaving the unemployment rolls and becoming more involved in training and skills upgrading.
That is precisely what is required under the restructuring that is going on within the Canadian economy.


THE ECONOMY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance.
We are seeing more people using food banks and more people even giving up looking for jobs. The Minister of Finance cannot turn aside from the reality of what is being affected by these high unemployment rates across this country.

I have a supplementary for the minister. A single
Oral Questions
parent with two children who earns the minimum wage would have to work 90 hours a week to rise above the poverty line. More than half the poor in this country have jobs. The unemployed are not the only people in this country who are living in poverty.
If his government is sincere about wiping out poverty, why does it not collect the $8 billion worth of unpaid taxes mentioned by the Minister of National Revenue, and use the money to deal with this problem right away?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to a so-called $8 billion worth of unpaid taxes. I do not know where she gets that figure, but the hon. member should know that when she refers to those people who have paid lower taxes or no taxes, a lot of it has to do with the application of the lifetime capital gains exemption.
I am not sure what the position of the New Democratic Party is. It depends on what day you listen to those members. Some days they are in favour of a lifetime capital gains exemption on farmers and small businesses and on others they are not. They are going to have to make up their minds.
The hon. member has colleagues who are in provincial governments. They too are faced with the reality of meeting fiscal constraints. They are also faced with the difficulty of rising costs, both in health care and education, and we are trying to deal with those.
However, let me just say this. The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party talks about New Democratic Party proposals. Its unemployment insurance critic said the government should look into just printing the money needed and to spend its way out of the recession. Instead of borrowing the money we should just create it and then we will not have to pay it back. That is the silliest economic philosophy I have heard in Canada, let alone coming from a member of Parliament.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I am suggesting to the minister today that the Minister of National Revenue has said there is $8 billion of uncollected revenue. His government in fact should look at collecting that and addressing poverty in that way.

May 15, 1992
Oral Questions
The minister mentioned the responsibilities of the provinces. The Canada Assistance Plan states that governments should provide funds to ensure: "The basic requirement of food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, and personal requirements". This is not being done.
This government, by putting the cap on CAP on the three provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario where over half of Canada's poor reside, has walked away from one-half of Canada's poor. Will the Minister of Finance in a sincere attempt to address poverty, reinstate the 50/50 cost-sharing of CAP with those three provinces that contain half of Canada's poor?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants the federal government to print more money or find more money and send it on to the provinces.
If she looked at page 91 of the Ontario budget she would find according to its records that federal payments to the Government of Ontario in 1992-1993 will rise by 17.2 per cent. This is at a time when we are trying to constrain our government expenditures to no more than 3 per cent per year.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways. Is she suggesting we follow the policy of her party as enunciated by her employment critic, the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau, as reported in th& Hamilton Spectator. "The government should look into just printing the money they need to spend their way out of the recession". He goes on to say: "When we borrow money to do a project that money has to be repaid. We are just chasing in circles like a dog chasing its tail and not getting anywhere. Instead of borrowing the money we should create it and then we will not have to pay it back."


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Canadian Mental Health Association says this is the worst recession in Canadian history. It has brought
with it record numbers of suicides, child and wife abuse, drug addiction, alcoholism and the breakdown of families.
Instead of accepting the association's report and helping these unemployed victims of recession, the government kicks them when they are down by slashing UI benefits and killing job training programs.
Will this government today introduce programs to save our 1.5 million unemployed whose pain is eating at the soul of this country?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, many members of Parliament have seen first-hand the devastating results of a family faced with long-term unemployment or no job prospects. I do not think anyone takes pleasure in seeing that.
Many of us have struggled to fight the destructive elements that flow from this kind of situation. Just last week with the Liberal premier and an NDP premier in British Columbia, this government entered into a demonstration project with both B.C. and New Brunswick to try to break that cycle of dependency of people, to try to help these people in need to become self-sufficient and independent.
The hon. member should recognize that these measures which have been taken are important steps in trying to help needy Canadians.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, the numbers are not good enough.
Last week I met with unemployed constituents in my riding of Winnipeg North. They told me the federal government has done nothing to help them. There is no job training, no counselling, no hope.
Will the minister fly to my riding and tell my constituents he is doing all he can do? Can he look them in the eye and say that his hands are tied?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, again and again, we have Liberal theatrics. The hon. member wants to look at Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg and he wants numbers. I know the Liberal way is always measuring any action in terms of dollars spent, the taxpayer's money, by the way, and only one taxpayer.
May 15, 1992

We have in place in the city of Winnipeg, just like in every other city in Canada, a whole range of programs for Canadian youth, for the unemployed and for social assistance recipients.
I have just completed with all provinces the signing of a social assistance recipients agreement. We are working co-operatively with the provinces in trying to complement each other's programs in order to be more effective for those poor people.
The Liberals like to print money the old way and then they want us to tax people more or even increase the deficit. Canadians have made it clear that they have had enough taxes. They have had enough of this deficit that is killing the future of our kids.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
This government has made a practice of blaming unskilled workers for high unemployment when the real culprit is their own anti-inflation experiment that has starved the country of jobs.
The workers sacrificed by this government face the perils of family violence, higher rates of infant mortality and family breakdown, while traditional unemployment support is being denied.
Did the minister calculate the human toll on Canada's unemployed and their families when he chose to pay for a 2 per cent drop in inflation with their livelihoods?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to the plight of Canadians who are affected by job losses and unemployment resulting from a recession that is not confined to Canada, and a restructuring that our economy has to go through. That is not unique to Canada but it is imperative for the country if we are going to remain competitive in these markets. That allows us as Canadians from coast to coast to coast to earn the money in order to have the standard of living we do in this country.
She says we blame unskilled Canadians. We do not blame unskilled Canadians. But maybe unskilled Canadians could blame that member and her party for having in this House and in the other place stalled the reform of this UI program to take this money and activate it in order to train Canadians.
Oral Questions
From $500 million a year two years ago to train unemployed Canadians, this year we will be spending $1.8 billion and unemployed Canadians will benefit from the policy of this government.


Albina Guarnieri: Madam Speaker, Canadians know that Tory times are hard times.
We have witnessed a Tory chain of despair that has forced workers off assembly lines, through the unemployment lines and straight on to welfare.
I ask the minister who prides himself on competitiveness to tell us how Canada can compete when the talents of nearly one-fifth of Canadian workers have been wasted in this Tory fiscal furnace.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I know I have to be polite and respect the rules of this House and I will.
I will tell the hon. member this. I think Canadians see it. The people over there, les socialistes en cravates, want us to print money to get out of our problems, and the Liberals want us to spend our way out of our problems. However Canadians are telling the government that we have to be more efficient with their dollars, with the taxpayers' hard earned money. We are doing this, Madam Speaker.
I know the hon. member cares about poor people. She asks what the Minister of Finance did for the working poor. In the last budget this government started something that will revolutionize social security programs in Canada by targeting hard earned money to the working poor, to those people who need government assistance in order to meet their obligations.
Of course, no Liberals could see through this, it is much too complicated.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, when it comes to printing money they will print it for Olympia & York.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. I want to ask the minister what mechanism he has in his office to monitor legislation in the United States that is being passed by the House or by the Senate that is

Oral Questions
in direct violation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should withdraw the innuendo in the first part of the preamble.


David Barrett: It is not an innuendo, it is an accusation.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Okay, withdraw the accusation if that is how he is going to describe it, because he knows there is no truth in it.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question because he has misstated something I said in this House last week, when he said that I referred to some practices undertaken by municipalities in the southern United States as contrary to the free trade agreement. They are not contrary to the free trade agreement; they are practices which I would just as soon not see take place. They are not contrary to the free trade agreement.
He did ask a specific question: Do we have people monitoring what is happening in the United States to see whether actions are taken which are contrary to the free trade agreement? Yes. That is what our embassy is for. It is very active in aggressively seeking out places where bills have been presented by various members of Congress and making sure that the administration understands where they are contrary to the free trade agreement. In practically every case we have been able to get those beaten down.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, in the aside that we are exchanging, I will not withdraw that statement about Olympia & York. The government will find money for them if they need it and that is my accusation.
My second question is for the same minister. Is the minister aware that two days ago, in the House of Representatives, a bill passed that would require all ships involved in foreign trade to certify that they were neither built nor repaired with the aid of foreign subsidies? They were ships without certificates showing that would be barred from transporting goods in or out of United States' ports. Also the bill would require the commerce department to publish a list of foreign ships that receive government subsidies.
The only large floating drydock in the hands of the Canadian people is on the west coast of Vancouver and it has had a subsidy. It could not have been built without one. If this bill is enforced, it means any ship carrying Canadian products into the U.S. could not land in the United States.
This is a direct violation of the free trade agreement. What is the minister going to do about it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I suppose the innuendo or accusation, however he wants to describe it, that he has just thrown this way would also apply to his friends in Queen's Park because the speculation that is running around about Olympia & York applies equally as much to the province of Ontario as to the federal government. Is he saying his friends in Queen's Park are wrong as well?
When it comes to printing money, that is a specific policy I understand of the New Democratic Party. With all the bluster that the hon. member can sum up, maybe he might get it through his head that he could tell the truth about the policies of the New Democratic Party.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
After studying the cost of over 3.5 million prescriptions, covering 16,000 drugs worth over $1 billion, the Green Shield report clearly shows that Canadians have been misled and that drug prices have been rising in Canada at an annual rate of over 11 per cent.
My question to the minister is this. Why does the minister and his government continue to deny and obstruct the fact that they have completely failed in their responsibilities to protect Canadian consumers from unwarranted rises in the cost of prescription drugs?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, our officials should not be accused of misleading consumers throughout Canada, because the figures-I have the Green Shield report which our officials analyzed-do show that the cost of patent and non-patent medicine increased in one province, Ontario, in a
May 15, 1992

limited period. The cost includes pharmacists' fees, prescription fees and the fact that new medicines on the market are being used. Many new drugs on the market are much more expensive than those that were there before, so it is like comparing oranges and apples, or tomatoes and com. Yes, we are very concerned about this situation, and that is why my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I and our provincial colleagues will look at this together-


An hon. member:: It is a disgrace.


Pierre Blais: Yes, the former minister of consumer affairs just spoke about a disgrace, although they opposed-


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
In 1987, when the government decided to increase monopolistic patent protection in Canada, in response to concerns from seniors, provincial governments and consumers that this would lead to higher drag prices, the hon. House leader said, and I quote: "The Drug Prices Review Board will ensure that prices are reasonable and do not get out of line".
Do the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and his government really believe that an 11 per cent annual rise in the cost of prescription drugs is reasonable? Further does he believe that the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board warrants any credibility in the eyes of Canadian consumers?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I said yesterday and I repeat today that I am not satisfied with a general increase of that size in the price of drugs. I already said that and I hope that my colleague is not suggesting that we should invade provincial jurisdiction, since the provinces are responsible for generic drugs.
What I am saying is that we, in our field of jurisdiction, have to look after patent drugs. The figures that we have on the price increases of patent drugs throughout Canada show us that they are less than the rate of inflation. Those figures are real, and the hon. member knows it because he did not challenge successive reports of the Drug Prices Review Board even once since 1987. Never-
Oral Questions
theless, since the prices have increased in general and it is in provincial jurisdiction, we must sit down with the provinces and look at this increase together and find a solution together.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Yet another promise was made by the current House leader when he was the minister responsible in this House on November 18, 1986, when he said: "The price of drugs will not increase by one cent, not those now on the market, not those coming on the market. Drug prices will not go up but by a single penny".
Given that the price has not gone up by one penny but has gone up by 11 per cent every year since 1987, why did the government mislead Canadians on such a fundamentally important health issue to all Canadian families?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I will use the words spoken by the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel. It is a disgrace for a member who knows the facts to lead Canadians to believe things that are not true. That is a disgrace.
The truth is that the price of patent medicine throughout Canada has increased at a lower rate than inflation. The over-all price of all medication, including generic drugs, with the cost of medication, pharmacists' fees and the more expensive medicine which doctors now prescribe more often, has increased for consumers and health costs across Canada have gone up as a result. We are prepared to discuss this reality with the provinces not to invade their field of jurisdiction, but to discuss with them how to control these prices, as we have done at the federal level. We have managed to control them.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, on this issue, we on this side of the House agree with another quote, one from the member of Parliament for Halifax West when he said in reference to this government: "The public no longer considers us honest". That is what his colleague on the government side said.

May 15, 1992
Oral Questions
Given that Canadian families know that the price of medicine has risen dramatically, why does the government refuse, given its false promises, to roll back the cost of medicine being currently charged to Canadian families and hospitals against the commitments of this government?


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, as for quoting a former minister of consumer affairs, I might quote one myself. Judy Erola was a minister of consumer affairs and she considers this government's position good. She was a Liberal minister, if I am not mistaken. What we did in 1987 was to align Canadian legislation with what was going on in other parts of the world, so that now Canadian researchers can work here in Canada to improve medication and create new drugs to treat Canadians. That is what we wanted to do with Bill C-22. The price of patent medicine over which we have jurisdiction has not gone up more than inflation, despite what members opposite seem to be saying.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
As the Acting Prime Minister will know, the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development will begin in Rio de Janeiro in less than three weeks.
A little less than three months ago, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources tabled its interim report. Contained in that report was a series of recommendations to which the standing committee requested a response. No response thus far has been forthcoming and the UNCED deadline is drawing near.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has accepted the standing committee's recommendation No. 3 to, and I quote from the report: "seek a global commitment to a reduction of total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent
from 1990 levels by the year 2005 to be achieved by co-ordinated global efforts". Has the government accepted that recommendation and will it be working for it in Brazil?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that the Standing Orders of the House allow the government 150 days in which to report, as was discussed with members of the committee. The hon. member is possibly trying to create the impression that the government is not willing to respond. The government is responding.
The Minister of the Environment has clearly stated many times that the issue of the Canadian position in Rio is one that has been established for some period of time, namely on stabilization based on 1990.
Me Ross Harvey (Edmonton East): Madam Speaker, a supplementary question. The problem, of course, is that the 150 days does not expire until July 23. If we are to have a response from the government prior to the commencement of the UNCED conference, we must have it very soon.
Let me ask as a supplementary question whether the government has accepted now, as policy, the fourth recommendation of the standing committee which is: "the federal government instruct the Canadian UNCED delegation to support proposals to facilitate Canada taking global action such as contributing financially and through technology transfer, to emissions reduction efforts in other countries".
Has the government accepted that recommendation? Will it pursue that goal in Brazil?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my first answer applies also to this recommendation concerning the Standing Orders of the House. The government will reply at the appropriate time.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, we have been listening to the responses of the Minister of Employment and Immigration and we certainly agree with him that he has revolutionized the social welfare programs.
May 15, 1992

He has just been forcing more and more Canadians on to the welfare rolls with those programs. The figures of Statistics Canada show that in Quebec, there are more families who live under the poverty line than anywhere else in Canada except in Manitoba.
Does the minister not realize that the Stats Canada figures are just confirming the growing food lines, the poverty lines, the hopeless and the homeless lines across this land? I ask the Minister of Communications-do not mix me up-the minister of employment-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Sheila Finestone: -what concrete, new measures is this minister prepared to announce today that might give one ray of hope to a Montrealer, to a Quebecer with these new statistics in front of them?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, again the hon. member refers specifically to the people unemployed and on welfare in Quebec.
She will be pleased to know that notwithstanding the opposition's strong resistance to trying to activate this passive money under UI, instead of paying people to do nothing at home, we are encouraging them, helping them get new training and upgrading their skills.
I know that Liberals have opposed this and are still opposing this, but we are doing it. Because we are doing this, we will be spending close to $800 million this year in the province of Quebec trying to help these people retrain and upgrade their skills.
She says that this policy of the government has resulted in more people being unemployed. Last year my department helped 630,000 Canadians go through these training programs and we expect with the increase in the training money that we have brought forward, $300 million, that we should be able to help more this year.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, all this propaganda with no policy is why I mistook him for the Minister of Communications.
Community cultural groups have been reporting to me that there is the highest level of social tension ever being experienced in the centre of Montreal right now. The government's policies are drawing and driving more and
Oral Questions
more Montrealers into poverty, and it is not prepared to announce even one new program.
I would like to know, does the minister not meet poverty and homelessness on his streets like I do along Victoria and Cote-des-Neiges? Will the minister listen? Could he tell me what he says to his constituents so that I can tell them the same story?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, for the information and edification of the hon. member, I need no lessons about poor people.
I come from northern New Brunswick. I come from Atlantic Canada and I have seen what these passive programs are doing to our people in Canada, in Atlantic Canada. We pay them money to do nothing on welfare and UI. We are trying to activate this money and we are being opposed every inch of the way by Liberals instead of standing up here and trying to help those people.
All they can do is call for more money, more taxes, a higher deficit.


Larry Schneider: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade.
Certain representatives of the Government of Saskatchewan have recently been critical of the amount of consultation that has occurred between the federal government and themselves concerning NAFTA and GATT.
Can the minister rationalize this accusation? Has there been meaningful consultation or is this accusation simply posturing for the top row of the chicken coop in the hallways of the Saskatchewan legislature?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am not sure how to characterize it, but there have been very extensive consultations on the NAFTA itself.

May 15, 1992
Routine Proceedings
In the last year, we have had some 30 federal-provincial conferences or telephone conferences. On the Uruguay round, over the same period, it is a few more. It has worked out to at least one federal-provincial meeting a week on either of the two major trade negotiations that are under way.
My last meeting was this past Monday. We went through in some detail the current status of the NAFTA negotiations. It was my assessment, having heard the comments of the provincial representatives, that they are quite satisfied with the level of consultation and feel that their interests are being well represented in the negotiations.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
It is beyond belief that the government has refused to support a compulsory international ban on the dumping of radioactive waste into the world's oceans. It is all the more incredible that it has refused to do so at the earth summit in Brazil where Canada is seeking global support to prevent overfishing in the north Atlantic. Our case on the fishery depends in part on convincing the world to take environmental custodianship of the oceans. The place to make that happen, according to the minister of fisheries, is in Brazil.
Why then is the government undercutting the earth summit? In fact, why is the government undercutting its own attempt to protect the Atlantic fishery?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member spoke to the participants in the prep-coms from other countries he would find that Canada had played a leading role in all of the issues that are coming before the earth summit in Rio.
Our Prime Minister will be there making strong statements on a number of the things that we want to accomplish there and certainly the high seas summit and the conservation of the fishery has been well received. We took the lead on that, and I will be raising it again at the Organization of American States when I am there this weekend.
I think that the hon. member will want to join with all Canadians at the earth summit and be very proud of the record that Canada will have there.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment indicated that it is his understanding that Canadians will not be informed of the environmental impact of the North American free trade agreement until after the minister signs the deal with Mexico and the United States.
Will the Minister for International Trade assure this House that the Minister of the Environment was wrong and that the environmental assessment will be made available to all members of this House prior to his signing the agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, at various stages in dealing with the agreement there is an initialling of the agreement, the initial announcement after the negotiations are completed. There is a signing of the agreement at which time it would go to the legislatures for handling and then there will be the full debate on the legislation as presented.
At this point in time, I cannot give my hon. friend a specific statement as to when the environmental assessment results can be made available to members of Parliament, but there will be opportunity for full discussion before the final legislation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 27 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.)
May 15, 1992



FORESTRY AND FISHERIES


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries. The terms "Department of Forestry" and "Minister of Forestry" will be changed to read, respectively, "Department of Forests" and "Minister of Forests", with the necessary adjustments in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



REFERENDUM ACT


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-81, an act to provide for referendums on the Constitution of Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Andre 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.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION ACT


Bernard Valcourt: for leave to introduce Bill C-82, an act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and the National Housing Act and to amend another act in consequence thereof.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Valcourt moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have five petitions signed by some 200 Canadians who would like the government to reconsider its decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program.
This program, according to petitioners, helped clarify to the courts the constitutional, linguistic and equality rights of Canadians. It also made the courts accessible to all Canadians seeking justice and was a very inexpensive program that benefited all Canadians, regardless of their means, which approximately cost about 10 cents per person per year.
The Court Challenges Program was an essential development of legal precedents in this country following the adoption of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These people rely on this program to have their rights clarified in the courts all over this court. The abolition of the Court Challenges Program is an incalculable loss of equality and social justice in this country and the petitioners urge the government to consider the advisability of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which facilitated the accessibility of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all Canadians.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present four petitions signed by over 500 Canadians from Vancouver Island, Vancouver and the Ottawa area.
These people are pointing out the hypocrisy between the government's words and actions when it comes to human rights violations internationally, specifically the very tepid Canadian response to the slaughter of innocent Timorese several months ago.
These people are calling on Parliament to condemn the Indonesian military occupation of East Timor, to condemn the genocide of the East Timorese people, to support publicly the right of the East Timorese people to determine their own destiny by referendum and free

May 15, 1992
Routine Proceedings
elections, and to support these causes in the United Nations and all other international arenas.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present four petitions from people in Manitoba, Ontario and most of Quebec.
The Canadian Race Relations Foundation is one of the most essential components of any drive to eliminate racial discrimination in Canada.
The petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government to consider the advisability of establishing the Canadian Race Relations Foundation this fiscal year.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from Edmonton Kinsmen and Kinette club members indicating their support for the proud to be Canadian project during the celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation.
Unfortunately this petition could not be certified since it does not meet all the criteria, but as a kin member myself, I wanted the members of this House and the Canadian public to know of the strong kin support to nurture a positive life-long-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have to call the member to order. It is quite unfair to rise under presenting petitions with a petition that has not been certified.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents in the national capital region. These petitioners are calling on the government to step up its efforts when dealing with refugee cases.
Many of these refugees are suffering from personal and economic hardship and their future is undecided as they are awaiting the slow refugee process.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on the same subject. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to take special steps to deal with the refugee problem and to show some compassion. Thousands of people need the government's compassion, and I hope the minister of immigration will respond with compassion to the thousands of very important cases that are still pending.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition with 30 signatures from Nepean and area residents. The 1992-93 federal budget has eliminated the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption on real estate purchased after February 1992 and restricted on real estate purchased before 1992. This capital gains exemption gave many middle-class Canadians an affordable means of investing their savings at a minimal cost to the government.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reinstate the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption on real estate.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased especially today to be able to present a petition on behalf of 31 members of my riding who ask this Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people related to constitutional amendments.
We just saw first reading of such a piece of legislation and to my constituents, I hope we have that in place sometime in the veiy near future.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 236,278 and 288.


Mr. Caccia: Since the June 1990 announcement of the Minister of the Environment that cabinet policies would be subjected to an environmental impact assessment and that a public statement would be released, (a) which policies have been subjected to environmental impact assessments (b) who conducted each assessment (c) when and how was, or will, the public statement be released?
May 15, 1992


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: As the hon. member knows, policy and program proposals, where appropriate, are advanced for cabinet review, after consideration of the environmental implications of such proposals. Of course, when the analysis shows that no significant environmental effect is anticipated as a result of a certain proposal, that conclusion is indicated and no further elaboration or statement is required.
Some examples of recent policies and programs that included a rather substantial environmental assessment which supports the early integration of environmental considerations in the decision-making process, include:
The Canadian Policy on Nuclear Vessels in Canadian Waters which examined the environmental considerations and effects of visits of nuclear-powered vessels to Canadian ports; and
The Transit of Dixon Entrance by U.S. submarines, a policy for which an environmental assessment was an integral part of the decision.
Of course, on the program proposals side, all program initiatives proposed under the green plan-77 to date- were subjected to an environmental assessment at the planning stage.
Similarly, Agriculture Canada integrated an environmental assessment of the Farm Safety Net Program.
In addition, an environmental review of the North America free trade agreement is being conducted by this government.
In response to the question of who conducts each assessment, it is the initiating minister of the policy or program that is responsible for ensuring that the integration, quality, and timeliness of the environmental assessment is considered fully and early in the decision process.
The public statements are released at the same time as the government's policy or program initiatives are announced. Supporting studies or documents are referred to in these statements. For some of the policy proposals cited above, the entire studies were referred to and made available to the public.


Mr. Milliken: For each fiscal year since 1988, did the Department of Finance
commission any public opinion polls and, if so (a) how many (b) what
was the total cost?


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Public opinion polls commissioned by the Department of Finance 1988-1992:
Routine Proceedings
a) Fiscal year 1988-89-2 Fiscal year 1989-90-6 Fiscal year 1990-91-13 Fiscal year 1991-92-2
b) Fiscal year 1988-89-$230,000 Fiscal year 1989-90-3397,500 Fiscal year 1990-91-$679,850 Fiscal year 1991-92-$226,800


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East): Since January 1, 1989, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received any complaints concerning unregistered lobbyists' activities and, if so (a) how many were referred to the RCMP for investigation (b) how many were referred to other agencies for action (c) how many were referred to the office of the Minister (d) what was done with the remaining complaints?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: The Lobbyists Registration Act came into force on September 30, 1989. Since that time, the registrar who is responsible for administering the act has been made aware, through the media, of two cases of potential non-registered lobbyists, and both cases were referred to the RCMP. No other formal complaints have been received.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.
k *


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 164 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 164 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Stupich: Since September 1984, has the government entered into contracts with (a) Saga Communications of St. John's, Newfoundland (fc) Ad Vantage Ltd., of St. John's, Newfoundland (c) Medford Associates Ltd. of Halifax, Nova Scotia (d) THton Development Ltd. of St. John's, Newfoundland (e) Omni Facts Research of St. John's, Newfoundland and if so (i) on what dates (ii) for what amount (iii) for what purpose.
Return tabled.


Ross Belsher: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


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 a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Boudria (p. 10744).
Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is an interesting bill we are debating here today. It is one of these bills that in the future we would always be able to go back to, if the government had the opportunity to govern much longer, which it will not, and there would be a wealth of denials about the actual intent of the government when it introduces pieces of legislation.
I listened with a great deal of amusement to the minister responsible and some of his colleagues opposite. They gave eloquent speeches in the House today on those wonderful employees of Canada Post Corporation.
All I can ask is, why did it take you so long to realize that the people who work at Canada Post Corporation are indeed wonderful public servants who deserve some
respect from this government and deliver a tremendous service to all Canadians?
A member opposite was speaking just prior to Question Period, and I was almost apoplectic in my chair. He was talking about the wonderful service and what terribly efficient people work at the Canada Post Corporation. He even had to delve into the Never Never Land of the North Pole and Santa Claus. All these wonderful men and women that work at Canada Post even process mail that comes with the postal code HOH OHO. I say to him: "Oh, oh, oh".
He converted himself on the road to Damascus on this issue, because the record of this government in dealing with those wonderful public servants who are just trying to get a decent day's pay for an honest day's work has been absolutely abysmal.
The government got up today and got its members up like trained seals to read memorandums and speeches written by the department saying: "Forgive us, forgive us, forgive us, we know not what we have done. We really did not mean to kick you all over the mat and all over the carpet, you employees of Canada Post".
It is saying: "Yes, we finally realize that you are nice people and are deserving of some praise from the government, your employer in this country", but that is not the way it has been. To deny the past is not something I will allow the government to do here.
The Canada Post Corporation is perhaps the one service that touches every single Canadian because hopefully at some point in your life you are going to receive a letter from somebody. Every month I get too many bills from a whole lot of people and maybe a few letters as well.
Canada Post is one of the most visible signs of the Government of Canada for the people of our nation. The postman used to ring the door bell. We used to be proud that we had a national system of mail delivery which was second to none anywhere in the world. We used to talk about how proud our public servants were to deliver that service for Canadians from the Canadian postal service, Canada Post.
When the government led by Brian Mulroney came in, and I do not have the quotes here but I put them to the record often enough, the reckless rhetoric of the Prime Minister leading up to the 1984 election should have
May 15, 1992

given us a signal of what his true intent was in terms of the Public Service in Canada, including those public servants at Canada Post.
He talked at length about how there would be pink slips issued everywhere. We all remember those quotes from the election campaign. The master of hyperbole on the other side of the House, the great Prime Minister of Canada, was going to clean out the House, he was going to teach those nasty old public servants and post office workers a lesson.
He was saying: "Torydom is in town and fear for your jobs. You are going to be the scapegoat of everything we do wrong. You are going to be vilified by this government because you are an easy mark and an easy target". That is exactly what the Tories did.
We saw the great postal service of Canada dismantled piece by piece, letter by letter, by this government opposite.
The government first of all announced that in urban areas there would be no more delivery to new homes. There is the unbelievable situation in places like Dartmouth, where a small piece of the community had not yet been developed residentially. Maybe it was a fanner's field, or maybe it was something else. Maybe it was just not developed. Everybody around them has been getting mail for 100 years. Now somebody puts a new street in and they do not get door-to-door delivery any more. This Conservative government with its penchant for cutting back and its absolute desire to destroy anything Canadian, anything that every Canadian could reach out and touch and say: "That is what makes me a Canadian". It put in supermailboxes. In the middle of some of the biggest cities we have supermailboxes. Is that not wonderful. I pay the same price for my postal service as the person down the road, but the person down the road gets supermailboxes.
Back when I was elected the post office was a big issue. People wanted to know how the Liberal Party would deal with Canada Post, whether the Liberal Party was committed to reinstating door-to-door delivery, or whether the Liberal Party would ensure that in rural Canada, where the post office is the most visible and perhaps the only symbol of this national government, we would not abandon them.
Government Orders
There have been thousands and thousands of petitions presented to this Parliament since I got elected.


An hon. member:: Places like Cow Head.


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. friend from Newfoundland says places like Cow Head. I was in Cow Head. Those people have been abandoned. They have been abandoned because Canada Post made a decision that came right from the mouth of the government babes opposite in the front benches that it was going to dismantle Canada Post and not run it as a service, but run it as a business.
If that means that some Canadians can expect to get less service than other Canadians then so be it. If that means breaking the backs of the unions then so be it. If it means raising the price of a stamp as high it can dare go then so be it. If it means Canada Post acquiring companies and competing with good private sector companies, such as courier services, then so be it. If it means having the president of a Crown corporation, Canada Post, who does not feel that he is responsible to anybody but God, and maybe not even to God, then so be it. That is what this government has set about to do.
We have seen an erosion in mail service right across Canada. The government can give you all kinds of statistics. Maybe in an urban area like mine it is okay. Maybe people do not mind going down to the IGA to buy their stamps or pick up their parcels, maybe they do not. However, in a rural area the post office was not just a building where you picked up your mail; it was a symbol of Canada. In many of those communities all over Canada, in the prairies, the only visible sign of the Government of Canada, of this great nation of ours, of this great institution of Parliament, was the post office. The Tories did not have any mandate from the Canadian public to shut it down, to deliver it to the hands of the private sector. However, that is exactly what it has done.
In the last few years we have seen the government develop a policy, an abominable policy, to go into areas of our Public Service and make people feel that they are no longer welcome to contribute their day's labour for the meagre pay they get. It means going into places like Canada Post and allowing the president of Canada Post and some of the people he has put around him to go in and poison the atmosphere between labour and management to such an extent that last year, a year and a half

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
ago, there were nearly 100,000 grievances in Canada Post.
This is our government. This is our government's own postal service. This is the government that passes laws, that dictates the procedures that are acceptable and are not acceptable for workers on job sites. Yet in this corporation, which it owns, it has poisoned the atmosphere so badly that pregnant women down in the Gateway plant in metropolitan Toronto were not given permission to go to the washroom. That was two years ago. Racial discrimination was a practice in postal sorting stations in other parts of the country. Grievances that should have been settled right there on the workshop floor were forced into the grievance procedure. That was not by accident. It was by grand design.
This government is hell-bent on, and I have said it since 1988, privatizing Canada's postal service.
If that means delivering it to the highest bidder and that highest bidder happens to be an American south of the border, as much as I love my American neighbours down south, I do not want them delivering my mail in Dartmouth.
What the government has done here is a little sleight of hand. It has come in and said: "Look, here is what we are going to do here. We are going to sell off 10 per cent of the shares"-whatever the heck that means-"of Canada Post. We are going to let the employees buy into it".
The hon. member opposite said: "We think that if we allow them to take part of the ownership of the corporation, it will motivate them to provide better service. We think that it would give them a sense of entrepreneurial spirit. We think it would deliver a sense of commitment".
The hon. member opposite talked earlier about the awarding of medals and talked about some postal worker down in Atlantic Canada, I think it was in Halifax, who did something that he considered extraordinary. He went beyond the call of duty. If this government were not on a search and destroy mission on the unions of Canada Post, which it has been on since it was elected, it would have recognized that what he was talking about today was not the exception, it was the rule and it still is the rule in most of the postal service in Canada. Those
people do not have horns. They are just like you and I. They are trying to make a decent day's pay for a decent day's labour and they do not want to be harassed on the worksite and they do not want to have grievances filed and they do not want medals from the government.
All they want is a little respect for the job that they do on behalf of each and every Canadian. That is all they want. They do not need shares in a corporation that they already own as Canadians to have a sense of pride and commitment to their work. As a Canadian citizen, each and every one of those employees does own that Crown corporation because it is owned by the Government of Canada.
Let us strip this bill down for what it is. It is nothing short of a scam. It is a waste of time even to be debating the damned thing if it were not so important that we try to uncover the government's true agenda here. The government's true agenda here is not to motivate its employees. Can you imagine? I was almost waiting for elevator music to be played in the background while the hon. member eloquently professed this new-found love for the postal workers in Canada.
This bill is the first step on the slippery slope to privatizing the Canada Post Corporation. That is what it is. One of the members opposite is smiling. He is probably smiling because he knows I am on to them. He is smiling because he is not running again. He knows that what I am saying now is not going to affect him. He has probably already got his pension, he is okay.
What this does is it brings into legislation a process that was begun a few years ago. If you break the union's spirit, if you convince the Canadian public that these people really do not give them good service anyway, and then if you mandate the Crown corporation to increase rates, get into competition in the private sector so that it can improve its profit line, it makes it more attractive when you want to sell the darned thing off.
The government, if it were ever allowed to govern again after the next election, it would bring another bill in and would ask: "What is so different? We already started this thing. We gave 10 per cent to the employees. I do not know why the opposition is complaining and bellyaching".
May 15, 1992

The opposition is complaining and bellyaching because not everything can be run exactly like a business when you have a country like Canada. You cannot run everything exactly like a business. You cannot run the country exactly like a business. You have to run it as a nation. To run it as a nation means that there are costs incurred. To run it as a nation also means that you have to understand the requirements, the desires and the aspirations of those people whom you govern. This gang opposite has lost all sense of sensibility on that score. We all know that. It was jumping for joy last week because it was at 16 per cent in the polls. Can you imagine? Just think how it is going to jump if it ever hits 18 per cent.
We had the president of Canada Post at the consumer and corporate affairs committee. It was an experience. I have never heard so many words say so little in all my life.
We wanted to find out whether Canada Post was in the business of providing service or if it was in the business of improving its profit line so that it could ostensibly sell itself in the public sector, in the private sector.
One of the things that we looked at was the courier service. Maybe I am a little dense but I thought Canada Post's responsibility, since it had a monopoly on first-class mail, was to deliver first-class mail. I did not think that the responsibility of a Crown corporation, which has the weight of the public purse behind it, was to go and compete with private sector corporations. That is exactly what this corporation has done.
This corporation is cross-subsidizing a courier service, Priority Courier Service. It has now been able, through cross-subsidization from the profits on its first-class mail service, to go in and capture 25 per cent of the courier market in Canada.
Everybody here and out there probably watched something dealing with the Olympics. I asked the president why he would be getting into private sector areas which are well served, in private sector areas where people are losing jobs now because the market has softened because of this government's induced recession. Why would he be getting in as a Crown corporation and competing with those individuals? It is a business decision, he said.
Government Orders
"Are you taking money", I asked, "from the monopoly that you get on first-class mail and all the profits that ensue and pumping it over into your courier service, basically undercutting predatory pricing and undercutting your competition?" "Never would we do that", the president said.
I asked if Canada Post did any advertising in the Olympics. He said it did. When I asked him how much, he said that was confidential information. I watched the Olympics and I cannot remember once seeing an ad from Canada Post, but I remember seeing all kinds of ads from the courier service which is competing with private sector courier services and putting many of them out of business in small towns in Canada.
Now the president of Canada Post knows what his mandate is. It is to make the company as profitable as he can. If that means a loss of service in rural Canada, so be it. If it means higher prices, so be it. If it means dismantling the corporation, so be it. If it means predatory pricing practices on the private sector, so be it. The ultimate goal of this government is to privatize Canada Post.
I can foresee the day, if we ever gave these guys opposite another chance, that UPS would be delivering mail to my door by a fellow with an American flag on his lapel or on his shoulder. I can see that day if these guys opposite have their way.


Garth Turner: Get serious.


Ronald MacDonald: The hon. member opposite said to get serious. I am very, very serious. The hon. member opposite knows full well what the government's intent is. If he were honest with himself and his constituents he would tell them. If the intent of the government in this bill is try to motivate the employees of Canada Post to be more productive and to feel that they have a better say in what goes on, treat them with a little bit of respect. Do not be forcing them through the grievance procedure every time something happens on the floor of the post office. You do not have to bring a bill into Parliament, you just have to have some respect in the way that you treat the people of Canada Post.
The hon. member opposite knows this because he was the chairman of the consumer and corporate affairs committee. When the Liberal task force on Canada Post was conducting hearings, he came and sat in on some of the hearings and he expressed to me his concern about

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
the way Canada Post management was handling some of those grievances at the shop floor level. I want to remind him of that.
This bill here is awful. This bill seeks through the back door and through the premise that the government is trying to help the employees, to de-stabilize and start us on the slippery slope to privatization of Canada Post. It is not a bill I am going to support.
I believe that Canada Post has a primary responsibility to offer quality service to Canadians. I am not opposed to Canada Post's mandate being changed to suit changing times. I am opposed to Canada Post's getting involved in the private sector. They are all supposed to be private sector people over there. They all jump up and down and say: "Private sector, private sector". If they are so concerned about the private sector, get Canada Post out of the business of competing with private courier services across Canada for a start and start preserving some jobs. You cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth all the time, although a lot of members opposite try that all the time. I find that they bite their lip a lot.
I cannot support this bill. I know what this bill is all about and the Canadian public knows what this bill is all about. No matter what flowery language those converted on the road to Damascus opposite are going to use in this debate, those individuals who work at Canada Post will judge the gang opposite by its record and not by its rhetoric.
The record has been abysmal. It has crushed the spirits of people who wanted to work at Canada Post. It has driven people out and a once proud, productive and wonderful place to work, Canada Post, has become a nightmare for most of those employees.
In conclusion, let me say I would hope that the people listening out there do not get sucked in once again by another Tory promise that this is going to improve service. Remember what they said and judge them accordingly the next time you go to the polls.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Madam Speaker, I did not want to stop this show. This gentleman is about to graduate from the George Baker school of oratory. He has been so amusing so far that I want to ask him a question so that he can continue for a little while.
He came here in 1988. He is telling us all the wonderful things that have gone on with Canada Post. He does not remember the days prior to that when Canada Post was running a deficit of almost $1 billion. He does not remember when 70 per cent of complaints in member's offices were about Canada Post from the citizens of this country who were not getting service and turnaround time.
Now we have a corporation that we can be truly proud of. It is finally showing a profit, finally being productive and putting forward a real effort to deliver on time. Ninety-nine per cent of the mail is now delivered on time. It is showing a profit.
My question to the hon. member is does he not realize that when he talks about the ultimate privatization of Canada Post, by selling to the employees 10 per cent it will make it almost impossible for anyone else to buy it? Who are you going to sell it to? You offer it to someone and they say: "We do not want to buy it, 10 per cent is owned by the employees. We cannot buy it".
His argument is totally out of whack. I really did enjoy the hand waving and the George Baker school of oratory style. Please continue and please try to answer that question.


Ronald MacDonald: If the hon. member enjoyed the performance, perhaps he should have also listened to the content of what I said because the content was much better than the performance.
The content was absolutely factual and the hon. member opposite knows that. The hon. member can go back. If the hon. member thinks that they have done such a great job at Canada Post, I would invite him to see how many Canada Post employees he can get at his next rally if he were running again. I will show you that those Canada Post employees would not be on the inside of the hall. They would be on the outside of the hall with placards, where they were the last time after four years of Tory government in 1988.
I want to clarify something. The hon. member opposite would have us believe that I think profit is a dirty word. On the contrary, good management practices have to be promoted and, where established, recognized. There have been some substantial changes in Canada Post. Some have been extremely positive. Unfortunately, some have been absolutely devastating, mostly the ones affecting the employees of Canada Post.
May 15, 1992

The Canada Post corporation is also in the business of delivering something else which is not a dirty word and it is called service. What I seek is only a balance. I seek cost effectiveness in the delivery of the service but I also seek the delivery of service. I understand that as a Crown corporation it has a responsibility when it is owned by the federal government to try to equalize to the best of its ability, to try to equalize the level that is given, no matter where you live in Canada. That clearly is not the case now.
If the hon. member opposite believes that Canada Post just delivers letters and that is it, then he should talk to some of the people from Rural Dignity of Canada who came up here and met with his caucus. They met with the caucus of the New Democratic Party and they met with our caucus. They talked about the role of the post office in their communities. Every time they came and did that, it fell on deaf ears.
The other thing I want to say is basically that Canada Post offers good service. It is not the middle-level management and it is not the regional manager I have down in Nova Scotia. The regional manager has now been transferred to Toronto and he is one heck of a fine gentleman. He works as best he can with the restrictions that are put on him by the policies decided at the top. As a Crown corporation, the policy directive comes directly from the cabinet table through the minister responsible. That is where it comes from.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Oh, come on.


Ronald MacDonald: The hon. member opposite says: "Oh, come on". He knows full well that when people are hired by Governor in Council they take orders by Governor in Council. He knows that is the case.
In conclusion, profit is not a dirty word. Neither is service, respect nor recognition for the great service that the employees, the men and women of Canada Post, have given to the Canadian public.


Mr. Garth  Ihrner@Halton-Peel: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member alluded earlier, he and I served together on one of the House of Commons standing
Government Orders
committees which spent six or seven months looking into Canada Post and its operations. It came up with a fairly comprehensive set of recommendations for the future of Canada Post. One of those recommendations did in fact deal with the privatizing of the corporation.
My own personal position is in favour of that for this reason. If Canada Post could be privatized and then regulated by an independent, third party agency similar to the CRTC and the way the CRTC regulates the telephone monopoly in this country, perhaps we might have more accountability in terms of the operations of Canada Post. Perhaps there would be a mechanism whereby communities, unions or anyone else in this country interfacing with the post office might be able to go to an independent, decision-making third party or independent agency which would then be able to regulate the affairs of Canada Post.
I would like to know whether the member would see any merit in that particular reform of Canada Post and whether he might in fact see some real good coming out of a structural repositioning of Canada Post as I have just described.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I am quite familiar with the hon. member's views on this point. I believe he is truly interested in trying to have a more efficient Canada Post corporation.
I am not opposed to measures that would see a more efficient Canada Post corporation. I am certainly not opposed to any measure that would see greater reportability as well by the corporation to the Government of Canada for the people of Canada.
The current problem we have, as the hon. member knows, is that it is like trying to find hen's teeth at times to get answers out of the senior officers of Canada Post. Every time we ask them a question they hide under commercially sensitive data. We do not know what half the decisions are, unless we sit around the cabinet table.
The one thing I am against is establishing bench-marks of absolute profitability for every service delivered. It is just like user pay. When the government opposite talks about instituting user pay, it is wonderful if you are in an area where fees can be kept low. It is wonderful if you are in an urban area, but God help you if you live out in

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
the backwash somewhere. God help you if you live in a small community.
We know dam well that if we get into privatization of postal services, the next thing that will happen is that the services in the outer reaches of the country will diminish. Toward the centre and in the larger centres services will increase because that is where the money is made.


Garth Turner: That is what a watch-dog would take care of.


Ronald MacDonald: I hear the hon. member opposite. Let us get real here. Once we start dealing with the private sector, there are way too many members of Parliament who are lobbied far too heavily by high-priced lawyers and lobbyists in Ottawa.
The hon. member shakes his head. He should have sat down lately at the consumer and corporate affairs committee and listened to the banks wailing that they are not making enough money when they made $3.4 billion in profits. He should see the effect they have on government members opposite whenever any changes are proposed in any of the committees of Parliament dealing with their preferred position.
He knows as well as he knows his own name that the corruptness of the political system allows that as long as political parties are financed by private sector donations, the private sector companies that have the donations to give are going to seek a day of atonement.
I would like to see a Canada Post Corporation that has a renewed mandate to provide a certain level of service and that that certain level of service is delivered right across this country according to those standards in the most cost-effective manner possible. That is what I would like to see. In terms of those new areas it is getting into to provide a better service to Canadians like a private courier service, I would like to see it get the heck out of there.
Here is one of the problems we had. He talks about getting into the private sector. I personally would like to know how much money Canada Post lost on its courier service last year. I happen to know that almost every national courier service in Canada last year lost big bucks. I want to find out whether or not that competing priority courier service lost money. If it did, why in the
name of goodness are people paying for it when they go and lick a stamp to mail a first-class letter?
The member opposite talks about the private sector. That is what starts happening when we have Crown corporations with national mandates to provide levels of service and they start tinkering with the private sector where they really should not be.
The hon. member has raised a number of interesting points. He talked about privatizing this and privatizing that. Perhaps he tells us the true agenda of the back bench and the front bench as well.
In conclusion, no, I am not for privatization. I am for the efficient management of the Canada Post corporation and fair treatment of its employees.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-73. The constituents of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville are concerned about the fact that this legislation does nothing to improve postal services. This bill, which amends the Canada Post Corporation Act, is merely a first awkward attempt at privatization.
To quote my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, even Margaret Thatcher had the good sense not to privatize the British postal service.
Instead of building a postal system able to meet the needs of a country the size of Canada, the Conservatives are now destroying another Canadian institution, an institution that maintains links between all the regions of our country.

Liberals and in fact all Canadians do not want to see the privatization of Canada Post, which is something the bill does through the back door. In fact this bill is not even attracted to those people who would like to see Canada Post privatized.
The fact that this proposed legislation only allows employees to acquire non-voting shares is an attack on the rights of postal employees. By only giving the employees non-voting shares the government is denying them the right to have any direct input into policy-making decisions or administrative functions and is preventing them from being on the board of directors.
May 15, 1992



Madam Speaker, unfortunately, this bill does nothing to improve postal services for the people of this country. Canadians want our postal system to improve its delivery of postal services.

Canada Post is one of a long list of institutions that this government has gutted. It has limited home delivery by setting up supermailboxes. It has viciously attacked the fibre of our rural areas by eliminating many local post offices. It is little wonder Canadians are going through a type of identity crisis.
Members on the other side are convinced that the best way to build our nation is by destroying and dismantling the very things that bind us as a nation.
The government has wounded VIA Rail. It has slashed the CBC and it has begun the privatization of Canada Post. Members on this side of the House will never stand for this kind of action. We will oppose it because it is bad for Canada Post and because it is not in the interests of all Canadians.
We have to wonder why this government did not take the opportunity when it introduced this legislation to address all the problems involved with Canada Post.
All of us on this side of the House are in touch with our constituents and realize that the problems of this Crown corporation have to be addressed with the best interests of all Canadians in mind.
The minister responsible for Canada Post said that he believed this plan would be good for morale at the corporation. His argument is that if morale at the post office would improve then the service would improve. I have news for this minister. The employees who he claims will be thrilled because of this legislation have said no thanks. The union has said that the best shares in Canada Post are their wages. The employees want to have a new contract that will respect their needs and rights.
I am particularly concerned that this bill will do nothing about the conversions and closures of post
Government Orders
offices that have caused so many problems around the country.
While money might be the only thing on the government's mind, I believe that in this country the post office is an essential public service. I feel that we must provide equally efficient and proper service throughout the country.
I urge the government to take this opportunity to address the problems associated with a postal service that is only interested in looking at the bottom line, and I am not talking about the postal code. We need to put people first. If this government is not willing to take on that challenge, those of us on this side of the House are.

Postal services are essential to everyone in this country, from the business community in large urban centres to the child living in a remote part of this immense continent. The government can hardly expect this bill to do anything to solve the problems facing our post offices across the country.
The intentions behind Bill C-73 may, and I stress the word "may", be good, but there is considerable uncertainty among those directly concerned by this legislation. There is every indication that once we start going this route, other measures will follow and there will be no turning back.
Giving employees a chance to buy shares in the Canada Post Corporation may be praiseworthy in itself, but I must admit I find it very hard to believe the government is acting in good faith.
Does it really expect to be taken seriously when it says: "Sure, you can buy shares and you will be really part of Canada Post, but no voting rights, so no say in decision making".

Can anyone in this House possibly imagine what the shareholders of any major company would say if they were presented with such a proposal? Does anyone seriously believe that people who have put up their hard earned money, the ones who have accepted to foot the bill, must be muzzled when decisions are taken?
It is simply ridiculous that members opposite would take such action. No one can afford to purchase shares

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
and then simply defer all the major decisions that directly impact on their financial well-being, especially with this Treasury Board and cabinet.
I do not know a single investor who would be willing to sit back hoping everything will go well and knowing that when things turn sour whatever he has to say will go nowhere because his voting power is nil.

It is pretty obvious the Conservative government is trying to get out of the fix it is in by selling shares to Canada Post employees. Canadians know for a fact that something is definitely wrong at Canada Post. However, to let them pay the bill without giving them any power or guarantees in return is rather close to being obscene.

We do not only have to debate the philosophical implications of this bill. We must also discuss the practical. When embarking on this kind of venture I believe Parliament must be provided with the specifics. To be frank, this bill does not provide us with any details at all.
We have to ask ourselves why this legislation does not disclose the value of the Canada Post corporation. How are we as parliamentarians supposed to know the value of the shares being sold? We know that it is 10 per cent, but 10 per cent of what?
We also have no idea how much each share will be worth. We have no idea how accessible this program will be to the average worker at Canada Post. If there are very few shares then this will not benefit the employees of the corporation to any great measure. If on the other hand, the number of shares put into public hands grows quite large the fears of the Canadian public and the members of the Liberal Party that this ideologically driven Conservative Party will privatize Canada Post would have been realized.
Liberals oppose the privatization of Canada Post. We believe that essential public services such as mail delivery belong in public hands.
I think that members on the other side must forget exactly how vast this country is. They forget that profit motive does not take into account service in very remote parts of our country. How does this government intend
to guarantee continued, high quality service to the northern parts of Quebec and the territories if the private sector is allowed to take over this essential public service? That is why we opposed the recommendations of the consumer and corporate affairs committee when it tried to privatize Canada Post. It is very difficult to understand the committee's recommendation. It is very difficult to understand why it recommends an eventual privatization of the corporation while at the same time it says that industrial relations must be improved first.
When one considers the fact that the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is fundamentally opposed to the privatization of Canada Post one must question the government's commitment to improving labour-management relations.
As I mentioned earlier, such an action contributes to the destruction of our national symbols. It is destroying the ties that bind Canada into one nation. Even the actions of the corporation in recent years have shied away from promoting the national nature of Canada Post.
People in my constituency of Saint-Laurent-Cartier-ville have asked me to explain why the maple leaf and the Canadian flag have disappeared from our mail boxes. They have been asking me why they have disappeared from all material related to Canada Post. What do we have now to represent our national postal carrier? To tell the truth I am not exactly sure what it is. I think it is an envelope with wings, but I am not sure.
If the intent of this bill is to improve morale at the post office it is clear that the bill is completely ineffective. If the government was truly interested in improving morale, it would insist on improving labour-management relations by dealing fairly and equitably with the employees of Canada Post.
If the objective of Bill C-73 is to improve the quality of service we get at the post office it has clearly failed. There is absolutely nothing there. Not only has the service not improved, but the corporation is also losing money.
We must conclude that this is the first step in privatization, something that the minister responsible for Canada Post said he clearly supports. We in the Liberal party clearly condemn this action and we will fight it.



Madam Speaker, when Canadians look back on the years when this government was in power, they will remember mostly what it destroyed, starting with VIA Rail, which practically made this country, to our postal services, a means of communication that is still available to all Canadians, whatever their income or social status.
Canadians will remember high taxes, jobs that were lost and promises that were forgotten. And above all, they will remember elected representatives who failed to represent them. It is high time to put Canada back on track, and we in the Liberal Party intend to do so after the next election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is a sad day when we have to speak once again against a bill by the government, such as Bill C-73, which is selling off an essential government service.
We are told that the purpose of this bill is to make 10 per cent of Canada Post's non-voting shares available for purchase by Canada Post employees on a voluntary basis. We are not told what the shares are worth in dollars. We know what they are worth in dignity or voting power. They are worth absolutely nothing. TTiey are non-voting shares.
What Canada Post is doing is pretending to give the workers a share of control of the management of the company in which they work. That share of control is, taken in itself, a worthy goal and it is one that the Ontario government supports. However, the Ontario government does not try to cheat the workers out of having a voting share in the company if they buy shares in that company. It does not try to con them into thinking that by holding non-voting shares they have some power over their working conditions, over their wages and over the future of their jobs. That is what this government is trying to do. It is trying to con the workers and trying to con the public.
The government probably has two purposes in this. One is to further stall the labour negotiations which are already disgracefully late. It has been nearly three years that Canada Post has held its employees without a contract. This presumably is meant to change the agenda so that we do not talk any more about labour relations;
Government Orders
we talk about employees getting gold stars if the supervisor looks on them with favour.
We are told that by giving the employees the dignity of being shareholders they will work better. We are also told that they are fine employees and they are working very well now. In other words, the government has not got its story together correctly.
I agree that the employees are good workers. There are some who live in my constituency, and when they come to me with their complaints I can size them up as people who have worked there for years and decades and want to serve the public but are frustrated. Sometimes they are immigrants who are being shabbily treated on the midnight shift by a supervisor, but who sincerely want to work and have a good record in the community in terms of their character. I know that these employees are good employees that want to serve the public. They do not need to be given gold stars or meaningless shares.
We are not told what the shares are worth in dollars if an employee wanted to sell them, for example. We are not told what Canada Post is worth. What is 10 per cent of a question mark? It is a sham and a fraud, but it is in keeping with the past history of Canada Post and its dishonest dealings with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
The idea that this will improve the service to urban and rural constituencies is a sick joke.
The government pooh-poohs the idea that this is a step toward privatization. Yet the minister was quoted in The Ottawa Citizen, and I am not aware that he has repudiated this quote, and the article says: "Andre insisted that immediate privatization is not in the cards". We buy that. He did not immediately privatize Air Canada when he started selling shares to the employees, that was just the first of several steps toward privatizing. He let the cat out of the bag when he said that there is no immediate privatization.
The minister went on to say: "There are no plans either on the table or buried in a desk anywhere to bring forward a privatization of the post office". However, he then refused to say that there would not be any privatization. To say: "We do not have any plans" emphasizes that it is not going to be tomorrow or the next day but it could be farther down the road.
The Ottawa Citizen story goes on to say:
He refused to rule out future privatization-except to say that
nothing will happen until after the next election.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
We understand what those promises mean. The Prime Minister made a famous promise to maintain unemployment insurance without change or reduction. Yet immediately after the last election he reneged on that promise and slashed unemployment insurance, destroying a program that had existed in this country for nearly half a century and on which working people depend.
If we will just believe the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the post office until the next election, then they will do whatever they had planned to do all along.
He admits that. He thinks they can get away with making it a joke. He said:
If I had to bet I would bet that in the next couple of decades you will
see post offices being privatized all over the world and I would not
mind seeing Canada first.
That is like the famous boast of the Prime Minister when he said: "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize Canada". He has not even taken 20 years to destroy some of our best institutions, such as VIA Rail and Canada Post, and he has not even taken 20 years to seriously damage the health system and post-secondary education by cutting back on the federal government's commitment to share in those costs.
It could well be that selling these shares to some willing employees is an attempt to make a future private industry profit-oriented buyer more willing to buy Canada Post with the idea that the employees are tame. There are some gold star receiving employees who will do whatever they are asked to do and will not ask to have a union. Right now they have a union but the union has no contract. Perhaps Canada Post is waiting not just for the next election but for the final destruction and disappearance of all unions within Canada Post's jurisdiction in order to make it easier to sell.
The fact that it likes to remove Canadian emblems from visibility on Canada Post property certainly encourages the suggestion that the buyer that the government might very well prefer would be an American one, perhaps one of the American courier corporations who are already operating in Canada.
One of my colleagues said, jokingly: "Why not privatize the fire department?" As a matter of fact, it is not quite a joke. There is an historical precedent for privatizing a fire service. In ancient Rome there was a man called Marcus Crassus, an entrepreneur and a smart man, who organized a fire brigade. When a house caught
fire Crassus and his men would come on the run carrying buckets and towing a big tank of water. Crassus then would begin to negotiate with the owner of the house to buy it. If the owner thought his price was too low and began arguing with Crassus that it should be higher, then he could stand watching his house bum down while they argued about the price. If the owner finally agreed to Crassus' price, perhaps Crassus by that time had dropped his price, but if they finally agreed on his price then Crassus became the owner of the burned down house. Crassus became perhaps the largest landowner in the city of Rome in his time. He certainly became what we would call a multimillionaire, if not a billionaire.
However, I do not think that service is a model we would want to follow. Just letting private citizens' homes bum down is one thing, but if we were going to let the major buildings in the centre of Toronto or in the centre of Ottawa, or, Heaven help us, the Parliament Buildings, bum down, I do not think that the Crassus system would really be equal to the occasion. We must have certain public services that are provided by the elected representatives, with the money the elected representatives collect from the public, with whatever cost recovery is reasonable.
In other words, the first object of a service such as the fire brigade or the post office is to provide service to the public. The first object of the post office is to deliver mail to all Canadians because all Canadians are taxpayers. It is not merely to deliver mail first to those who can pay the most for it and let the others wait or not merely to give a low-priced service in the high density areas and let the people in the country pay far higher prices on somebody's reckoning of cost benefit.
The gambit of offering these shares to the employees as a move toward privatization is a dishonest one, especially against the record of this government. I do not believe people will trust the government with that any more than they trust it now.
It is said this is supposed to give us labour-management peace. That shows a 19th century attitude. They may be talking about 20th century or 21st century technology but the brains on the government side are locked in the 19th century, when owners believed they had a right to refuse any union representation among their employees, and they often used violent methods to enforce that so-called right.
May 15, 1992

Canada Post has the worst record in Canada as a bad and dishonest employer toward its employees. It has racked up an incredible total of 100,000 outstanding grievances. Some of those grievances have been entered by constituents who have come to me to ask me to help. They know their union is trying but with 100,000 grievances blocking the road, the chances of getting a reasonable, early and just settlement are pretty dim.
I believe that Canada Post was willing to have those grievances pile up in order to force the union out on strike. The grievance procedure is half a century old, developed first in the United States and then in all parts of Canada. The grievance procedure is an essential part of modern labour relations so that employees do not have to go on a wildcat strike in order to get an injustice rectified.
There is a procedure. You start with a steward and so on. You work up. Eventually you go to arbitration. In return for that procedure, plus other key matters such as seniority clauses, the union signs a contract. Even without seniority clauses, that procedure, at least in the province of Ontario and I believe in the other provinces, is part of the law. It is based on the law that there shall be a procedure of that sort although the details of it vary from contract to contract.
Without that procedure no union in its right senses would sign a contract. What the union gives in a contract is the guarantee that there will be no work stoppage during the life of the contract. That is the labour peace that is bought by union contract.
The most dynamic employers of our country such as the auto industry well understand the efficiency and the financial value to the owners of signing a contract. It does not mean they agree to everything the union wants. The union does not get everything it asks for. The company does not get everything it asks for.
Both sides understand that they have to make cars. They have to have an orderly work process and so they settle on a contract, sometimes with a short strike, but not with the kind of dishonesty that Canada Post has displayed in the handling of a strike. Canada Post advertised for casual workers and swore up and down it did not intend to use them for strike-breakers which was all it was intending to use them for. It hired helicopters
Government Orders
to bring the mailbags in and out of the sorting station in eastern Toronto, paying non-unionized Canada Post employees their room, board and travel expenses to replace unionized staff and so on.
These are dishonest strike-breaking practices which I hope before too long will be outlawed in the province of Ontario, as some of them are outlawed in the province of Quebec.


An hon. member:: So a company cannot run its business.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is afraid that somebody might go on strike. There is that possibility. There is also the possibility that the company will violate the contract and force a union out on strike. The union has two recourses against violation of the contract by the company. One is the grievance procedure which the management of Canada Post has destroyed by blockading it. The other is the right to strike at the appropriate legal time, which is what the union followed.
The company not only showed its bad faith in the time leading up to and during the strike, but Canada Post showed particularly bad faith in the settlement of the strike. It was proposed by go-betweens that there should be a resolution, that the union would come back to work and that an arbitrator would be imposed because both Canada Post and the union said there were only about seven, eight or nine items left of dozens and dozens that had been on the table in dispute.
The union not only agreed to come back to work, it sent out the word to its members to come back to work as soon as possible. Many of them came back before the deadline. They wanted to demonstrate their good faith in getting the post office working again.
After the arbitrator was appointed, management withdrew what it had already agreed as part of the offer. That was thoroughly dishonest. Six months later there is still no contract. There is now this gimmick to try to put the union entirely out of the picture.
There is no way that the employees of Canada Post are going to trust the management that destroys its union contract by violation and by outright deception. There is no way they are going to trust them in return for gold stars or a gimmick like that which are used in some companies to set one worker against another to try to

Government Orders
undermine the morale of a union. There is no way that there will be industrial peace.
What the Canada Post management and the minister in charge probably want is a complete breakdown of the post office. It seems to me that they are pushing it for all their worth.
They brag that there is 90 per cent efficiency in first day delivery. Many people that I know seem to be among the 10 per cent that cannot get it, including myself. I know that parcel post has deteriorated greatly since it was farmed out to little stores around the district instead of using the two post offices on Spadina Avenue, as they did before. Parcels are not delivered. They come back marked "not open" when mailed to an office that is open every business day of the week. We have to wait weeks to find out where the parcel is. Then we have to go around to some other part of town to get that parcel. It is a most inefficient system that has been brought in.
Nobody believes the claim of 90 per cent efficiency. Sometimes we have a happy surprise and there is next day delivery, that is true. You cannot make the employees work with a system that is being disrupted by the closing of post offices, disrupted by giving services away to competitors, disrupted by using patronage to give little sub-post offices to stores that often are not equipped either to store or to handle the mail efficiently. There is no way that post office will work. The first thing to do is settle that contract with the union and then go on from there.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an initiative to try and improve relations between the management at Canada Post and the employees, the labour group.
It is no surprise to most Canadians that the NDP and other political agents of big labour are opposed to any initiative that offered hope of real management and labour co-operation or team building.
One of the primary objectives of the union movement, one of the main purposes of the union and the NDP, is to stimulate conflict in the labour place, in the work place.
While the union-controlled NDP publicly supports the notion of improved labour relations, the secret constitution of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the national constitution adopted in 1990, tells a different story.
This NDP supported document reveals the true motives of the NDP and the union movement. On page 2, A-5, it says: "The union views as a primary direction of accomplishment of workers is to control the work place. This principle ensures that the union and its members will seek at all junctures to limit the power of the employer to organize our jobs, the methods of production and planning our work, or otherwise discipline our members. In its place the union will seek for its members full control of the work they perform and the environment in which they perform work".
In addition on page 12 it says with regard to industrial democracy, something you might find in Beijing or Tiananmen Square a couple of years ago: "Because the union recognizes the power of the labour movement and of our union rests on the collective strength of its members, and because the union views the interests of workers as conflicting with the interests of employers, the union rejects all forms of industrial democracy and quality of work life schemes promoting the notion of union participation and co-operation in employer programs".
In addition, in terms of co-operation between government, management and employees this is totally rejected by this secret document which the NDP supports.
In line with opposition to industrial democracy the union condemns-


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member for Elk Island insists on describing the union constitution as a secret document. To the best of my knowledge it is not a secret document, it is public document.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a point of order, it is a point of debate, and I know the hon. member will put his question.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot rule when I cannot hear.
May 15, 1992


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Mr. Speaker, following on what I said about the opposition of the NDP and the union movement to any form of co-operation whatsoever between government, management, and the workers, confirmation can be found on page 13 of this constitution: "In line with opposition to industrial democracy, the union condemns any and all attempts by labour bodies to establish partnerships between labour and government, or between labour, government, and employers".
"Within the trade union movement the union wants to promote and strengthen a militant and combative front with which to oppose any form of co-operation with management and government serving management's interests".
The most successful economies in the world have demonstrated that the way to become successful is through team work, through working together. We have seen that in Japan, in Germany, particularly the western part of Germany.
We have also seen the result of socialist policies in the former Soviet Union. We have seen the destruction and the degradation of the economy there.
We find that the NDP, through its support and through its control by the union movement rejects any form of co-operation.
We have seen what has gone on in the former Soviet Union.
Would the NDP come clean? Publicly it supports the notion of co-operative efforts between labour and management. It supports the notion publicly of improved relations and teamwork, yet it does not seem to be coming clean with the Canadian people in the sense that it also supports this document, this secret constitution by the union that seems to provide a different story for Canadians.
Which does it support, the idea of conflict and confrontation or the idea of co-operation?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer that question. I would say the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
In fact, regardless of what quotations the member may choose to select out of a document that he claims is a secret constitution, the fact is that last year, for example, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers attempted to co-operate.
Government Orders
I know that in Toronto the union asked that the old age pensions and other government cheques be made available for distribution before the legal strike date. The post office refused. It asked after the strike had begun on the legal strike date if it would be allowed to deliver them as volunteers. The post office refused.
Instead, the post office set up special stations and invited the public to come and collect its mail. Half the time, according to complaints from my constituents, their mail was not at the stations on the day they were told it would be.
The co-operation in action was on the side of the union, not on the side of the company.
Furthermore, I have experience of my own with a union, the Canadian Paper Workers Union. During the 18 years I worked in a factory I was a shop steward and I was secretary of the local. I took part in grievance bargaining, in contract bargaining. As a delegate to the Labour Council in metropolitan Toronto, I had regular reports from other delegates on the progress of their union affairs.
My point is that the labour movement and the NDP, to the extent that we are affiliated with the labour movement, are trying to get fair and reasonable bargaining. More than 90 per cent of contracts are settled without a strike or even intervention by the government in the way of mediation or arbitration. Of course, that does not hit the newspapers.
During the 18 years I worked at the Continental Can box plant we did not have a strike. But the people who want to blame the unions for all disputes simply do not look at the huge majority of times when the unions are the ones making the concessions in order to get the operation working again.
I am sorry that the hon. member has such a closed mind on the matter.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Trinity-Spa-dina, my neighbour actually. Parkdale-High Park and Trinity-Spadina are neighbouring ridings.
We used to do joint television programs, but then I discovered that the Liberal ideology is quite different from the NDP ideology so I canned that in a hurry.


An hon. member:: He was with Continental Can.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The competition was too much for you.


Jesse Philip Flis: The hon. member will be missed in this House. He asked a very important question when he began the debate. He asked: What is the government's agenda in bringing this bill forward?
I think I can answer him. The government's agenda is a hidden agenda. It is like many other things the government does in this House. It brings in certain bills but then it has a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda is to dismantle Canada Post Corporation step by step, the heritage of our country.
We saw this when the minister was asked whether this was the first step towards privatization. He said that philosophically, he is not against privatization. This means he is already giving Canadians the signal that this is one of the first steps toward privatization. If it is toward privatization, and I think it will be, there will be post office after post office shut down across the country.
In my own riding I just have two postal outlets, Station M and Station V. Station M has already been reduced in its service. Station V is on the chopping block again. The government wanted to close it two years ago. Those of my constituents who use the post office gathered petitions and I made representations to the minister. We held off the closure for two years, but now rumours are that Station V is back on the chopping block. Why? There is no reason.
Station V is the heartbeat of the community. People come in and they gossip. The post office manager, Mr. Cosy, knows most of the clients. He greets everyone by name practically. What a nice community atmosphere this post office provides.
I was bom and raised in Foston, Saskatchewan. It is called a one-horse town. Today maybe it is a one-car town. I remember as a small boy everyone gathering in the post office and catching up with the news of the community. We later moved to a slightly bigger town called Hendon. It was the same thing there. The post office was the heart of that community too. Then we bought a bigger farm and moved to Wadena, Saskatchewan. Even in this bigger town to this day the post office is the centre of the community. It is the town hall of Wadena.
I want to raise something that no other member has raised. I think the points about improved management-labour relations are a facade.
The minister talked about 76,000 employers and this will strengthen the partnership. This will make the relationships more harmonious. He talked about the esprit de corps that this bill will bring in. How can he think that giving 10 per cent shares, with no value defined yet, with no voting rights for the shareholders, that by throwing this little tidbit it is going to improve management-labour relations?
Come on. These workers know better. They know that this is just a facade. If anything, it will make relations even worse. Let them settle the three years of the collective agreement which has not yet been signed. Let them work on that if they want to improve the esprit de corps.
What is it that I want to raise that no other member has raised? I want to do something about the heritage of Canada because if these post offices in the small villages are going to be closed one by one, we are going to have yet another bit of Canada's heritage wiped off the scene.
We spend a lot of time debating what should go into the Constitution and how to keep this country together. Well, let us not dismantle it. Here is our heritage.
When I was a member here between 1979 and 1984,1 brought in a private member's bill to preserve the old railway stations. If you recall, one morning, without telling anyone, CP came and bulldozed down the railway station in west Toronto near my riding. After I left, Mr. Taylor from the Conservative Party picked up that bill, reintroduced it and it was subsequently passed.
It was thanks to the initiative of two private members, myself and Mr. Taylor on the Conservative side that the railway stations across this land are now preserved. Companies cannot tear them down without going to the public, to the community, holding hearings, looking at alternatives, before touching that building.
I am recommending to the government in my portion of debate that if it is going to go this route, and I hope it does not, but if the Prime Minister and the government want to destroy another part of Canada, let the government bring in legislation that will preserve all of the old historical post offices from coast to coast to coast to the
May 15, 1992

U.S. border. If it does not bring in that legislation, another bit of Canada goes down the drain.
If I can make any contribution in this speech, and I do not want to repeat everything that has been said before, I just want to emphasize. Be Canadian, Mr. Prime Minister. You say you love Canada. Show it.
I do not think we should play games and waste time with a private member's bill for that important legislation. I am tossing a challenge to the government to bring in a government bill to protect the post offices across this country.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and some fascination to the hon. member's comments.
During the period of time that I was chairman of the House of Commons consumer and corporate affairs committee we conducted a study into the history and the future of Canada Post and the postal service in this country.
I recall distinctly two of the witnesses who appeared before the committee were historians. They had recently completed a study on the history of mail delivery and mail service in Canada.
I was struck by the fact that the vast majority of postal outlets historically in Canada were located in private enterprises. They were located either in people's homes or general stores, almost without exception in rural Canada.
Canada Post in its former incarnation as a department of the federal government almost without exception in small communities operated in the private sector. It was only in a few of the large Canadian cities that there were what we would now term to be corporate-owned postal outlets, in other words buildings erected by the Government of Canada, or the governments of Upper or Lower Canada at the time, and operated by those governments.
So I think the member is really not being true to his history when he talks about the need to preserve government-owned post offices because they are historic monuments. Well, history does not bear that out.
Canada Post in its former incarnation started out in the private sector providing services to small communities in storefronts and in people's homes. It is an interesting devolution that has gone on where again Canada Post is abandoning a philosophy of having a large corporate-owned structure and going back into the small
Government Orders
enterprises, which often and ironically are open for longer hours and provide better service.
I am wondering if the member could give us his comments on that piece of history?


Jesse Philip Flis: I do not know who these historians were but I am sure their research must have been dependent on what period of Canada's history they were looking at. If you go back far enough in the history of our postal service, you go back to the pony express. Now, I am not asking that the pony express be reincarnated here. But I am asking that our heritage be preserved through all the stages of history, from the pony express to priority post today, which cannot deliver a letter for me on a long weekend.
A year ago today I went to the local post office to send a letter to Ottawa. The recipient did not have a fax or anything fancy, but I had to get the letter there for Monday. I went into the post office late Friday. The post office apologized because Saturday the workers were gone, Sunday nothing moved and Monday was a holiday. The postal workers told me to go to a private postal delivery service to deliver my letter from Toronto to Ottawa.
This is indeed ironic when we hear the minister and other members boasting about how efficient the system is now. That is how efficient it is.
The hon. member who spoke earlier this morning talked about finding mail in the swamp. I sent out a lot of letters one December and two never arrived. A year later, two of those letters were returned to me in Ottawa. I guess those letters were floating in the swamp that the hon. Conservative member was talking about. Let us not play games.
Getting back to the heritage of Canada, I am glad the hon. member is interested in this. Maybe he can convince his Prime Minister and his ministers responsible to bring in such legislation. Knowing how aggressive he is, maybe he will do it himself.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear my colleague in his opening comments in response to the New Democratic member from the Toronto area in a neighbouring riding where he said that he used to share television time with him. I do not think he realized this, but the member said he used to work for Continental Can for 21 years and the member for Parkdale-High Park said that he quickly canned those shared television meetings. I did not know whether he

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
was making a joke. Anyway, I thought that was kind of interesting.
There is another aspect that I do not think my colleague or anyone else in the House has thought of and I am wondering if this is maybe a point worth considering as to why the government is proposing this bill. We all look at the bill and question whether there is something devious with the bill. I agree that there probably is.
I would like the member to respond to this. I am wondering if this bill is not a way to possibly drive a wedge between the union and the employees. Even though they are going to be non-voting members as shareholders in this corporation, would those shareholder employees be reluctant to criticize their employer which is Canada Post. I really believe that the question begs an answer. They would be almost put into a very difficult position if they felt there was something wrong with the management of Canada Post. Would they, as shareholders, be reluctant to question that employer?


Jesse Philip Flis: That is an excellent question. Responding to her preamble about joint television programs, they were excellent programs because the people from the two ridings could compare ideologies, philosophies, the approach of the Liberal policy of doing things and the New Democratic policy of doing things.
In fairness to the member for Trinity-Spadina, getting together at the same time was really the difficulty. I did not stop doing it because he worked for Continental Can. My brother worked for Continental Can, so I have to be very kind to Continental Can. Unfortunately, Continental Can was closed and my brother, after working 35 years there, lost his job; gone with hardly any pension or benefits. That is an aside.
The member is very astute in seeing what the hidden agenda is, to drive a wedge between labour and management.
If you are a shareholder, now you own the company. What do you do? Do you not agree with the workers who want this collective agreement signed? On which side of the fence will the shareholders be? Will they be on the
management side or will they be on the labour side? If the minister was sincere in what he said about improving esprit de corps in relationships, then you would think the government would have sat down with the union and with groups of workers and come to an agreement before it even tabled this bill. It did not do it. The union is against the bill. Where is this esprit de corps'! Where is this harmonious working relationship that the minister promises through this bill?
Nonsense, hidden agenda? Dismantle, privatize, get rid of all unions in Canada. That is the philosophy of the Tory policy. That is the hidden agenda.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, is the bill before us today.
Essentially, this bill would permit the sale of up to 10 per cent of Canada Post Corporation to employees by establishing an employee share savings plan.
The bill provides very few specifics of the share offering. We do know it permits shares to be given away. We know the shares offered to employees would be non-voting, therefore the workers would really not have a voice in the operations of Canada Post.
There are a number of inadequacies with this offer which I will address shortly. However, first I would like to point out that this bill does not address a number of areas with regard to Canada Post that this government really should be looking at. What about service to Canadians? What about protecting employees? Nowhere does this bill address the mandate given to the Canada Post Corporation in the original bill establishing the Crown corporation, the Canada Post Act.
At that time it called for the desirability of improving and extending its products and services in the light of developments in the field of communications; the need to conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that will meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size; the need to conduct its operations in such a manner that will best provide for security for the mail; the desirability of
May 15, 1992

utilizing the human resources of that corporation in a manner that will both attain the objects of the corporation and ensure the commitment and dedication of the employees to the attainment of these objects; and the need to maintain a corporate identity program approved by the Governor in Council that reflects the role of the corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada.
That was the mandate provided in the Canada Post Act that created the Crown corporation. Bill C-73 does nothing to address these areas. It is the beginning of the end in terms of meeting the provisions of this mandate. The bill gives no hints as to how the non-voting shares would be priced or what would be the rules for redeeming them or transferring them if a worker decided, for whatever reason, that he no longer wanted the shares.
Further, even those people who support privatization would disagree with the fact that employees would be given the right to acquire only non-voting shares. Such shares deny the employees any input into policy making or administration functions and excludes them from being members of the board. The main beneficiaries of such an offering, from my reading of this bill, would be the executives as part of their compensation plans. It provides for dividends to be set by Canada Post in accordance with the rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions attaching it to the shares.
The government is not saying what this might be. That is typical of this government. It really never tells us what it is going to do. The general lack of details and the sketchiness of those present make it difficult to debate this bill. This is par for the course for this government. We in opposition and all Canadians are not about to be fooled by this government's hidden agenda. We know it all too well.
Let us call this so-called incentive scheme what it is. It is nothing more than a back-door route to privatization. The minister says the proposal is to assist in employee-employer relations. Is that not a cute term? The unions have indicated they are in opposition to the concept, calling it a sham. If the unions are calling it a sham, why? It is because the shares owned by the employees are to be limited to 10 per cent and are non-voting in the affairs of the corporation. The employees of Canada Post and all Canadians already own Canada Post.
Government Orders
The Union of Postal Communications Employees says it has advised the corporation that the value of Canada Post must include at least $70 million to cover its liability for equal pay for work of equal value payments to UPEC members. The Canadian Union of Postal Workers says its members will not be bribed by this share scheme. It is calling instead for expanding and improving services for Canadians, which it confirms the government is cutting in an ad hoc manner in the name of profit.
Also, as CUPW says, if the government really wants to improve employee-employer relations, it would give the union a contract since it has yet to implement the terms of the back-to-work legislation passed last November.
I mention that the government is being dishonest about its reasons for this share offering. It claims one thing, improved employer-employee relations, and yet is really interested in privatizing the Canada Post corporation.
In the report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations entitled, Moving the Mail, Canada's Postal Service in the 1990s, recommendation No. 36 suggested that the Government of Canada privatize Canada Post once adequate financial performance comparable to private sector levels has been attained and once the industrial relations climate has been approved.
The Liberal Party emphasized in the minority report that we are opposed to the privatization of Canada Post because we believe that essential public services belong in public hands and furthermore we agree with what my colleague from Parkdale-High Park has just said. We said at the time that it is hard to comprehend the total impact of the committee's recommendation. It recommends an eventual privatization of Canada Post, and at the same time it says that industrial relations must improve first.
How will relations ever improve when Canada Post employees are so vehemently opposed to privatization? Canada Post has approximately 46,000 workers across Canada and we asked at the time of the release of the report, in our minority report, questions such as what would happen to their security of employment, benefits and wage levels. We predicted that adjustments and lay-offs would be widespread. These concerns and predictions are valid today, more than two years later.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
What of the equity of Canada Post land, its buildings and equipment? Most of the total $2.9 billion in land, buildings and equipment are in prime downtown locations. Privatization would result in a bonanza of prime space for the buyer at fire sale prices.
What about competition? Will the monopoly of our mail delivery be transferred to a private company? Who will regulate the activities of this company?
No other post office in the world has been privatized, so we have no precedent which might provide answers to some of these questions. Therefore, the Liberal Party recommended in the minority report and still holds firm today that Canada Post should not be privatized.
The government also let the cat out of the bag about privatization at that time when it said in recommendation No. 37 that the privatization plan be carried out by means of public share issue and should incorporate an employee share ownership plan. The Liberal Party recommended that this recommendation be eliminated and we say the same thing today.
On April 30 of this year we asked the minister responsible to admit to Canadians that this bill signifies the first step of the privatization of Canada Post and he flatly denied it.
Let us face it, Canada Post is being fattened up for slaughter. In other words, it is being prepared for sale to the highest bidder.
Much of the corporation's recent business success has been earned on the backs of average Canadians: higher postal rates, cuts in home delivery and the burgeoning use of supermailboxes in new suburbs. Vital postal subsidies in support of the fragile Canadian magazine and publishing industries have been cut. So have payments to Canada Post that subsidize air freight in the Northwest Territories, northern Quebec and areas of Canada that really need it.
Labour relations have not improved and have grown worse in recent years. Who is winning? Obviously it is not rural Canadians who have already lost the majority of their post offices. It is not urban Canadians, many of whom now have to go to supermailboxes a way from their
homes. Certainly all Canadians are paying more money for less service.
Canada Post workers are not the winners. They still have no contract, no job security. They are living with the looming threat of privatization which will put many of them out of their jobs. All they have is an offer of bogus shares in a company which because it is a Crown corporation they already own. The quality of their relations with management has declined steadily during the time of this government's mandate.
Will the only winners be the future owners of Canada Post, I ask? There is no doubt that eventually this essential service will be in the hands of the one of the Tory government's big business friends.
This bill, lacking though it is, is yet another step by this government in the selling out of Canada Post and in the selling out of Canadians in terms of having a secure and competent delivery of mail service in this country.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite quoted at some length in her speech from the House of Commons the consumer and corporate affairs committee report entitled Moving the Mail. I was quite involved in the preparation and the writing of that report so her remarks naturally interested me.
She noted correctly that one of the recommendations of the report was that Canada Post ultimately be privatized, that shares be offered to individual Canadians, and that shares also be offered to employees of Canada Post. She is quite right in saying that.
Where the member is not being fully fair to those listening to this debate is that she did not mention that was one recommendation which was intended to go hand in glove with another. The other recommendation was that an independent third party, regulatory, decisionmaking body, a watch-dog body, be created to oversee the operations of a privatized Canada Post.
When she conveniently forgot to include that part of the recommendation, it enabled her then to make the fabulous leap of faith that she did in her speech by then saying that a privatized Canada Post would have to have a fire sale of its assets, would have to cut service to individual Canadians, would particularly cut service to
May 15, 1992

rural Canadians and those in remote areas of Canada and would increase the cost of its services.
All those things can be handled completely in a privatized Canada Post if there were an independent, regulatory, third party agency. I ask the member to consider the model of Bell Canada. It is a privately owned monopoly providing a public service and is regulated by the CRTC to which any Canadian or any Canadian group can go. I know she would be cognizant of a few years ago when the Consumers' Association of Canada took on Bell Canada at the CRTC and won rate reductions. No similar mechanism exists today with Canada Post. I would consider a privatized Canada Post regulated by a CRTC-type organization to be much better than today.
There are communities in my riding, as I am sure in hers, that get up in arms from time to time when a postal outlet is being replaced by a retail postal outlet or by community boxes, et cetera. Whether those moves by Canada Post are right or wrong, the community or individuals now have no mechanism by which to go and question the actions of Canada Post.
Could the member envision any good at all in a restructured Canada Post, whether it is publicly owned or privately owned, which is governed by a regulatory agency modelled along the lines of the CRTC?
Is it not a model that could have some hope of winning and providing better service? If shareholders were also employees, would they not perhaps feel they had an independent court to which to go as well?


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question.
I guess to compare the Canada Post Corporation to Bell Canada Enterprises is very difficult for me to envision. Bell Canada Enterprises is a major corporation with several different arms connected thereto. It started from a private company. As it grew into Northern Telecom, Bell Northern Research and all the subsidiaries of the corporation, obviously this was when the federal government had to step in and provide regulatory measures for the corporation because it did have a monopoly. It had to ensure that this was a corporation that did not get out of hand. This corporation has done a tremendous
Government Orders
job in this country and as Canadians we should be very proud of it.
I do not know whether or not the Canada Post Corporation, because it is working in reverse, can fit the same mould as that of Bell Canada Enterprises. This is a corporation that has been managed by the federal government since inception. It has been managed by Canada for reasons of the immense size of this country and of the immense cost of getting our mail to the northernmost and the outermost regions so that all people of Canada and the territories would be served in an equal manner at the same cost.
There is a big difference in cost in getting mail out and in getting telephone services out. I have a very difficult time visualizing how we can even compare the two corporations. I am certainly open to looking at a model for Canada Post.
What has happened in recent years because of what I have to call interference by the Government of Canada in Canada Post? We have seen the deterioration of a system that has been the pride of this country. As my colleague from High Park has said, we have lost a bit of our heritage because this has gone down.
Nowhere have we seen such deterioration in a federally owned corporation as we have in Canada Post. I cannot fault the employees. I have to fault the restrictions imposed upon the corporation and the fact that it is required to make money. It is the only Crown-owned corporation, I might add, that is required to do so. The CBC certainly is not required to make money, yet Canada Post Corporation has to. We have seen the infliction of an incredible increase in postal rates over the last few years which has created probably one of the highest postal rates in the world.
However, to get back to the question of the member opposite, I am always open to listening to any proposal that is going to create better service for Canadians in the future. If he has some wonderful idea that can show me that our corporation can be as efficient as Bell Canada Enterprises and its subsidiaries then I certainly would look at it, but I am not convinced that we can even compare apples and oranges, because that is what I see.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, among the points made by the hon. member in her speech this afternoon was the contention that this bill can, properly in my view, be seen as the first giant step down the very slippery path to complete privatization.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
This is a point that has been made by other speakers in this debate as well, and it is a point that I think bears some consideration. Certainly the record of the government in this regard is very clear. For example, the first step in the privatization of Air Canada was a share offering to the employees. In a sense what we had there was a template that is just being applied to Canada Post in this instance.
However, I would like the hon. member to take this one step further and consider, should the government after the promulgation of this bill take subsequent further steps to effect a complete privatization of Canada Post, to what degree she would think it likely that the buyers of the privatized Canada Post would in fact be large American courier firms.
Is she aware of any firms engaged in businesses like the delivery of mail, in other words Canadian courier firms, that are of a size and capacity sufficient even to contemplate swallowing so huge a corporation as Canada Post? Or, would it not be natural to assume that the only companies on this continent capable of such a giant lunge at the public trough would in fact be the American courier giants?


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the New Democratic Party. I think he has made an excellent point.
In response to a question just like that one the other day, the hon. Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that the privatization of Canada Post would require separate legislation to come back to this House and that there would be ample opportunity for us to make a choice between private ownership or state ownership when that came up.
However, I think the member of the New Democratic Party is asking whether I perceive an American company moving into Canada or who do I see taking over the privatization? It could very well be an American company, but it also could very well be a Canadian company.
If I could go one step further than that, we as Canadians have been up until this point in time subsidizing Canada Post. There is no way on God's green earth we can ever have a postal service, whether it is publicly or privately owned, that is not going to be subsidized by
the government of this country. I really believe that and that is because of the immensity of this country and of far-reaching outposts.
I would much rather subsidize a publicly owned Canada Post corporation than a privately owned Canada Post corporation. I certainly would not want to subsidize an American owned private corporation that is running our Canada Post.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, in her remarks the member made reference to the back-to-work legislation passed by the House last fall and said that in fact it had not been implemented. Could she tell us what part of the back-to-work legislation has yet to be implemented?


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to my comments with regard to what back-to-work legislation was not implemented. Is that what he is saying?


Lee Richardson: Yes.


Beryl Gaffney: I am sorry, I do not have my back-up notes here and I cannot answer that question.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, in entering into the debate on Bill C-73 this afternoon I would like to start, if I may, by quoting some of its directly pertinent elements.
As members will know but as may have thus far escaped those who have been condemned to watch this on television, the bill seeks to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, in other words that act which has established the Canada Post corporation and under which the corporation operates.
It would seek basically at its heart to insert new sections into the act which would provide for the creation of shares and the dispersing of up to 10 per cent of those shares to the employees of Canada Post Corporation. It would provide as well for the statutory regime necessary for the administration of this sort of thing.
The key elements in this bill can be found in proposed section 27.1(5) which reads:
(5) Not more than ten per cent of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Corporation may be held or beneficially owned by the
employees of the Corporation.
May 15, 1992

and in proposed section 27.2(4), which reads:
(4) The shares held by the Minister have the exclusive right to vote at meetings of the shareholders of the Corporation.
Simply put, this means that shares in Canada Post Corporation will be created. Ninety per cent of those shares hereafter will be held by the minister on behalf of the Crown, in right of Canada. Ten per cent of those shares may be disbursed to the employees of the corporation.
The 90 per cent held by the minister will be the voting shares. The 10 per cent disbursed to the employees will have no voting rights.
This raises a number of questions at the outset. I suppose that one of the most important concerns what happens to a share held by an employee when that person ceases to be an employee. The only answer given in the bill is to be found in proposed section 27.1(3)(a) which allows the corporation, with the concurrence of the minister and the Governor in Council, to make by-laws that among other things can, and I am quoting from sub-subsection (a):
(a) prescribe voting rights, rights of shareholders to require redemption, rights of the Corporation to redeem, restrictions or prohibitions on transfer, procedures for the enforcement of the restrictions or prohibitions, and rights on liquidation;
The act proposes to create a situation in which the corporation can, under whatever terms it deems fit, grant or sell shares to its employees and then it may turn around and haul those shares back again, under whatever circumstances or conditions it deems fit, and the employees are left to enjoy it as best they can.
This is a very peculiar form of employee participation in management of a company, which is what the government insists, and has been insisting throughout the duration of this debate, is intended.
There are other questions. What if-and I must admit that this is an incredibly hypothetical case and one I do not at all expect to see-there were such a demand for these shares among Canada Post employees that the demand exceeded the available 10 per cent? Some employees would then be told: "No, I am sorry. The shares are gone. You cannot have any". What would that do to morale?
What if-and I think this is much more likely-the day comes when this government drops the other shoe and moves to full privatization and in the best free enterprise
Government Orders
tradition calls for anyone who wants to bid on these shares to buy them up? What if at that point the union decides: "Well, this is a tasty little venture and we can in fact now have the opportunity to put into practice that which our own constitution calls for", which was so ably quoted earlier by the member for Elk Island, "and assume control of the company?"
This bill prohibits that. It says that: "Not more than 10 per cent of the issued and outstanding shares of the corporation may be held or beneficially owned by the employees of the corporation".
Not only is it a question of the government introducing legislation that in no way advances effective management-employee co-operation, but this is a bill that precludes for all time the possibility of the workers in Canada Post assuming ownership and thus management of that company.
When one finds oneself confronted with the smoke that has been billowing up in this Chamber today, concerning worker participation and co-operation from the benches opposite one should take it with a very strong fan.
The argument has been advanced that the whole point of this bill is to jolly up the post office, to create a situation in which, because the workers own a part of the corporation, even though they will be specifically prohibited from exercising any of the normal rights of ownership, they will thereby be keenly interested in its fate and operations even though they will be granted no authority to do anything about its fate and operations. The idea is that they will feel much more well-disposed toward the corporation, a sort of warmth will well up in their innards and suffuse their entire bodies causing a smile to spread across their face every morning when they go to work and resulting in ideal employee-employer relations at Canada Post.
Let us assume just for a moment that such an assessment, however laughable it may appear on the face of it, is accurate. Let us then ask what happens if the shares are unequally distributed among the employees of Canada Post, so that some employees get 10 shares, some get five, some get one, and some get 50? Does this mean that we will then be confronted with the odd spectacle of varying degrees of employee satisfaction at Canada Post based entirely on their amount of their shareholdings? Of course not. Clearly that is absurd.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
However, the thesis being advanced in defence of the bill would seem to cany that in its wake.
Let us examine another possibility, in my opinion a far more probable one, which is that some employees take up the offer to hold shares and many do not. This effort to create a new harmony and enthusiasm at Canada Post would then create a situation in which some employees are owners of the corporation, though not effective owners, and some are not. What do you suppose that is going to do for employee morale and functioning? What do you suppose will be the result of a situation in which there is a clear cleavage within the work force at Canada Post, on one side being those who have at least a residual corporate interest in the corporation and on the other those who remain, simply and straightforward, employees. That is the situation we are going to have.
In that situation I cannot but suspect that the outcome will be greater rancour, lower morale, greater disputation and unease at Canada Post. That will be the outcome of this government's bill. I find it difficult to believe that the government does not understand that.
Therefore, I find myself looking for other explanations for the introduction of the bill. However, before moving to that I would like to note a couple of instances of circumstances that have created the ill will, the lack of co-operation, the distress, and the unease at the post office.
As members will recall, April 28 has been declared by this Parliament to be a national day of mourning for workers killed and injured in the work place. It is a most worth-while observance and one that we in this House observed with a standing moment of silence.
When the members of the Edmonton local of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers went to Edmonton management and said that they too would like to observe April 28 they proposed three possible means of doing so. They proposed that the flags on corporation facilities could be lowered to half staff, they proposed that a minute of silence could be observed during each of the shifts contained within the 24 hours of April 28, and they proposed that employees wishing to do so could be permitted to wear black armbands during the day.
The response of Canada Post management, in fact it came from the labour relations manager for the entire
foothills division, was: "No no; and oh, all right, but only where nobody can see you".
They were three perfectly harmless, reasonable requests from the employees at the Edmonton local and Canada Post management made a perfectly Draconian and unreasonable response. If you think that this is somehow uncharacteristic of operations at Canada Post, you have not been paying attention.
I recall one afternoon about a year and a half ago which I spent in my constituency office. The afternoon was almost entirely consumed talking to a Canada Post employee, a young woman who had been injured on the job, who had gone for physiotherapy, had been on worker's compensation, and according to her doctor was now prepared to go back to work under light duties. Canada Post management at that time said: "Sorry, there are no light duties you can perform. Therefore we require you to go back to full operations, and if you cannot do that your contract of employment will be terminated".
I spoke to this young woman for about three hours in my office and several times during that period she was reduced to tears, to weeping in my office. It was not a pleasant experience. I can only imagine what it was like for her. This is also indicative of the kind of compassion evidenced regularly by the management of Canada Post.
On June 19, 1991 there appeared an article in the Toronto Star by Mr. Peter Edwards in which it was reported that:
A high-level law enforcement agency likely bugged the headquarters of Canada's largest postal union during the last mail strike, according to a confidential report by a former military surveillance expert.
"It is obvious that the telephone system has been compromised," concludes the study, obtained by The Star. "Therefore, the telephone system should not be used to relay information that is considered sensitive".
The headquarters of the union is bugged. This is the action of a co-operative, indulgent management or government? No. This is the action of an outfit, regardless of which it was, that is determined to crush the legitimate organized voice of the employees of Canada Post by any means necessary. We are going to jolly them up by offering them fake shares? It is absurd.
May 15, 1992

Let us continue the litany of goodwill from the management of Canada Post. During the last strike of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, this last fall, only one corporate entity in the entire country brought suit against the union because of the disruption of that corporation's work during the strike. Was it a grain company? No, it was not a grain company. Was it a trucking company trying to get across the border? No, it was not a trucking company. Was it a single member of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association whose operations had been disrupted? No, it was not.
Mr. Speaker, I bet you can guess which corporate entity it was. You are right, the Canada Post Corporation was the only corporate entity in the country to bring suit against PSAC when it was on strike. This is the same management that has decided that in the interests of efficiency in shipping mail from Toronto to the west that mail, in part, will go courtesy of an outfit called "N. Yanke" of Saskatoon. It will run the mail through the United States, not through Canada, not through the towns with their gas stations along the Trans-Canada Highway. No, it is going to send it through the United States. It may save some money doing that but it is not good for the local economies of the towns along the way. However, this is all of a piece with the corporate philosophy of Canada Post management.
Last, I would be remiss if I did not note that this is the same management whose concept of service includes closing postal stations across the country. I have a list here. No, this is not like Senator McCarthy's list, it is an accurate list. It is not a secret document, I hasten to point out. This is a list of the rural post offices that previously had been federally operated Canada Post offices. They have been closed by Canada Post since November 29, 1985. There are 151 post offices on this list in Alberta alone.
For the hon. member opposite who suggested that what in fact is happening is simply a reversion to those halcyon days of yesteryear when the post office was run out of mom and pop's local country grocery store, sad to say, that is not what is happening. What is happening is they are being shut down and the operations are being moved miles, occasionally scores of miles away.
Government Orders
It is not a question of closing down a government facility and moving the services across the street into a drug store. Those services are gone, not in all instances it is true, but in the overwhelming majority of these instances.
All of these instances, rolled together, are why no one should have been surprised that the announcement of the bill by the minister was greeted with, let us say scepticism, by the duly elected leadership of the union.
By the way, might I note for the benefit of those opposite who took particular umbrage at the quotes from the constitution of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers previously read out by the hon. member for Elk Island, that those provisions were democratically agreed to by the members of the union and what is more, can be democratically altered by the members of the union at any of its national conventions, which I believe, although I am not certain, are held bi-annually.
That seems to be a great deal more than can be said for the policies of this government. However, this too comes as no surprise, knowing as we do the mixed enthusiasms with which the government clutches at the doll of democracy.
At the time the bill was announced, the duly elected president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers noted very correctly, in my view, and I quote from his release: "Our best share in Canada Post is our wages, and our security rests on the services provided to Canadians". They are very wise words.


An hon. member:: He is well overpaid.


Ross Harvey: He went on to say that it is clear-he is what? I am sorry I did not catch that. Did the hon. member say he is overpaid? He is paid at exactly the same rate as the line workers down in the postal stations.
Mr. Parrot went on to say that it was clear the Conservative government has no intention of permitting employees to influence the direction of the corporation: "If they really wanted to benefit postal workers, they would give us a contract". That is an admirable observation, given that the postal employees have been without a contract for close to three years, the final, the concluding, the conclusive example of the tender mercies of Canada Post management.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
This bill is a sham and a joke. That it is even before us is a pathetic comment on the declining mental fortunes of the government opposite.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: We have adjacent ridings, as you know, Mr. Speaker, so you will be kind to both of us, I am sure.
Does the member recall the cartoon in the 1964 election campaign when Senator Goldwater was running for president? They had a picture of him looking quite surprised and the caption was: "But Senator Goldwater, don't you recall that the government has always carried the mail?" These people want to have the government stop carrying the mail. They want their friends in the business community to carry the mail.
It is true that some of the people who carry mail are Liberals. The member from the back row over there who used to be a free enterpriser would doubtless like the Toronto Sun to carry the mail. The Toronto Sun is not going to carry the mail because there are a lot of people who have a lot of their lives, their effort, their sweat tied up in carrying the mail and they do a good job. They even deliver mail in the riding of the hon. member for Calgary Southeast until the next election. I was there last week speaking at a Liberal meeting. He will be happy to know there are lots of people there who are going to run against the member.
The really good news is that three people at the meeting were individuals who had been on the member's executive for Calgary Southwest until very recently. I would call that a switch.


Lee Richardson: Were you a free entrepriser?


David Kilgour: I got them stirred up Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Hirner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member opposite is not commenting on the speeches that have just been delivered or addressing a question to any topic that the member covered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is comment period. He has a little comment period and then he can address his question.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have spent a lot of time with people who work for the post office in Edmonton too. Will the member tell us whether he thinks that on a balance of probabilities the fault is more with the
management of the post office than it is somewhere else?
I have the feeling that the problem is mostly a management one. I have here a letter from a lady which took 12 days to arrive. I would be, and other members too would be interested in hearing whether the member thinks we can build bridges between people who work for the post office and management? How can we get more happy campers in the post office, more happy employees?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast very much for that question. The answer is a remarkably simple one.
First of all, stop resisting the grievances. Clear up the grievance backlog. Send them through the process and get them solved. That is step one.
That is not hard to accomplish. All it takes is a wee bit of will on the part of management. The problem is that for the longest time there has been a stonewall approach to those grievances. Clearing up the grievances would be a tremendous first step.
Second, stop closing the postal stations. Stop slashing away at the work force. As the member may know, the entire northeast quadrant of Edmonton is now without a Canada Post post office. There is none there. With the closure of Station C on White Avenue, the entire southeast quadrant of Edmonton will be without a Canada Post post office, with the consequent losses in jobs and services and the rest of it.
The third point is give the employees who are there now the technological and infrastructural tools they need to do the job. That would make them deliriously happy.
I speak to postal workers regularly. I have a lot of them in my riding and my dark confession is that some of my best friends are postal workers.
What they tell me over and over again is that they cannot provide the service that they want to provide because they are not granted the technological means to do so. That would be step number three.
Again, step one, clear the grievances; step two, stop the cutback programs; step three, upgrade the technologies so that the workers can provide the service they want to provide.
May 15, 1992


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would not want this opportunity to go by without commenting on the remarks of the turncoat member for Edmonton Southeast. It is not surprising-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. You will have to address your question to the Speaker instead of any other member in this House.


Lee Richardson: That is fine. We do not know what side members are going to be on, flip-flopping across the House and supporting the NDP one day, the Conservatives the next.
In any event, I will deal now with the member for Edmonton East who was referring to the earlier comments of the member from Elk Island who referred to this socialist manifesto here. He raised the matter of the secret national constitution adopted by the postal employees. He even referred to it as "our constitution". I do not know if he used to be a postman. He is also the NDP energy critic. We heard earlier today the wisdom of various NDP critics.
For example, we heard today the critic for unemployment in Hamilton discussing training programs, welfare and unemployment insurance. This NDP critic said that the government should look at just printing the money it needed to spend its way out of the recession. I just want to quote from The Hamilton Spectator. The NDP critic said: "When we borrow money to do a project that money has to be repaid. Instead of borrowing the money we create-"


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The government members were rising just a moment ago about matters of relevance. I think many viewers would be interested in knowing that the national debt has doubled under the Tories. They are the real money printers.


Lee Richardson: I appreciate that the various NDP critics are a little touchy over these matters when we quote the wisdom they bring to the people when they say that all we have to do to get out of debt is to print more money. There it is, I have just quoted the critic.
We are now dealing with the energy critic. I wonder if the energy critic would support this constitution which he referred to. I will have a look here at one section, section (d)(20) with regard to natural resources. This is the relevance the member for Skeena requests. This is
Government Orders
the national constitution adopted by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.
Let me ask their comrade from Edmonton East if in fact he agrees with (d)(20), the position in the constitution on natural resources which is: "The union calls for a nationalization of all resource industries without compensation". Would that be the view shared by the two members from Edmonton?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, no.


An hon. member:: That is your union.


Ross Harvey: It is not my union. My union, when I was a member of it, was the Office of Professional Employees International Union. I have never been a member of CUPW. I would be curious to know whether or not what he was quoting was in fact the constitution of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers or a policy document appended to the constitution? It is a small thing but I would be interested in knowing that.
Last, I do not know that it is really our part here in the House of Commons to be debating the provisions of the constitution of a duly constituted union within Canada. It may be a point of some considerable interest, but surely the hon. member would be serving his constituents and the people of Canada better were he to concern himself not with the provisions of the constitution of the Canadian Union of Postal Employees, but with the provisions of Bill C-73.
I can only suspect that the provisions of Bill C-73 are themselves so indefensible and that, by the way, is why there are no government members rising to participate fully in debate this afternoon. They feel themselves compelled to pull out of the hat whatever rabbit they can and wave it around hoping nobody will actually see Bill C-73.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member opposite his feelings on recent moves by the NDP government in Ontario to involve workers more in the participation and the ownership of enterprises?
The recent throne speech in Ontario promised worker ownership legislation to come forward soon in the province of Ontario. The proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act proposed in November of 1991 has, under this heading, the government's social and economic agenda: "Encouraging worker investment and ownership in Ontario companies in a manner which

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
recognizes the benefits of worker participation for both labour and business".
The NDP government in Ontario is saying there are benefits when workers are involved in the participation and the ownership of companies. If the Ontario NDP government has recognized that and accepted it, why is the federal NDP government adopting a position 100 per cent opposite?


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it will be. I would just note that yes, I am in complete agreement with those proposals and programs by the Ontario NDP government. I think they are long overdue and I heartily applaud them.
I would simply point out that they have absolutely nothing in common with the bogus share offering that the government proposes now be granted to the employees of CUPW.
When the Ontario NDP speaks of investment and ownership it means investment and ownership and control. It means that if you have part of a company you get to direct the company in direct proportion to the part that you own.
The benefits of worker involvement are precisely that when the workers are involved in the direction of a company, there are social benefits to be gained. What Bill C-73 provides is that either the employees of Canada Post can have their money sucked out for these shares that give them no rights whatsoever, or they can simply be granted the shares, still with no rights whatsoever.
To say that has absolutely anything to do with worker ownership and participation is-I will not say misleading-in error.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
This bill would permit the sale of up to about 10 per cent of Canada Post Corporation to employees and this basically would be accomplished by establishing an employee share saving plan.
On reviewing the Canada Post Corporation Act that was put in place when Canada Post was created, there
were five different points which were properly put. The first point is the desirability of improving and extending its product and services in light of the development in the field of communications.
I would like to state that I had the pleasure of visiting Canada Post recently and I was most impressed by the quality of equipment and the quality of technology. I might say that it is perhaps one of the finest technologies that exists anywhere around the world.
I was informed that many corporations from around the world come to Canada to visit Canada Post. They see the technology that is being used in terms of its tracking of delivery and in terms of the monitoring of the services.
A second point is the need to conduct its operation on a self-sustaining financial basis while providing a standard of service that would meet the needs of the people of Canada and that is similar with respect to communities of the same size. That by itself is a very noble objective and I would suggest that really there is nothing in the mandate that will require Canada Post to generate profit.
The only reference to the business aspect of it is that it has to be self-sustained in terms of its revenues and expenditures. Canada Post, being a Crown corporation, is in charge of providing services to the public.
Any extra funds or any surplus revenues generated can and should be used in order to enhance the services that Canada Post is providing to the public. Or, the extra funds can and should be used as an investment in future technologies or as an investment in research and development in a way in which Canada Post can remain on the leading edge and as a leader around the world in providing quality services to the public.
We have noticed something recently in Canada Post which is not its fault. It was pressured into this situation. We have seen services shrinking in a way. Nowadays, if a new development has taken place, the resident would have to go to a central location in order to pick up their mail. When you look at the over-all community, other mail persons still deliver the mail from door to door.
There is already a lack of standards when it comes to the services that Canada Post is providing to the community.
May 15, 1992

In some areas the taxpayer would have to go to a central location. In some other areas the mail person will come to the taxpayer's door.
I would say Canada Post has to choose this venue because of government pressure on Canada Post to not only meet its objective but to push Canada Post so it will start generating additional revenue. It will show that there is a profit whereby it could put the government in a position to sell off Canada Post eventually.
The third point in terms of objectives states the need to conduct this operation in such as manner that would best provide for the security of the mail. At least in dealing with my constituents I would say that there is a very good level of satisfaction when it comes to services provided by Canada Post. From personal experience, every time we have received a complaint we have taken that up with the administration of Canada Post and Canada Post has dealt fairly effectively with the complaint.
Part D, in terms of objectives, states the desirability of utilizing the human resources of the corporation in a manner that would both attain the object of the corporation and ensure the commitment and dedication of its own employees to attaining this object.
Here we might see quite a bit of tension when it comes to employee-employer relations at Canada Post. While one cannot put the blame totally on one party or the other, we can look at some of the facts that still exist at Canada Post, as they exist in many other Crown corporations and at the government level. As of today, the pay equity legislation or the pay equity act has not been fully implemented. When it comes to Canada Post, we have not seen the result of its implementation.
Estimates tell us that it would take approximately $70 million on the part of Canada Post to deal with the question of pay equity. On this front alone section 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 1978, states: "It is a discriminatory practice for an employer to establish or maintain differences in wages between male and female employees who are performing work of equal value".
It is already in the Canadian Human Rights Act and I would suggest that Canada Post is obliged under this act
Government Orders
to deal with the question of pay equity and to proceed with it.
Having said this, a $70 million liability on Canada Post's hands would probably put the corporation in a deficit position, not only for the next two or three years but perhaps for the next five years.
Speaking of the financial situation at Canada Post, over the past three years or so the books have shown some surplus, in excess of about $260 million profit. One might argue whether these profits are only in the books as a result of assets being calculated as assets that were sold and came to the treasurer of Canada Post being shown as revenues. On the other hand, one might say it might have been revenues.
In any event, for 1991-1992 Canada Post will see some deficit in the range of close to $100 million. When you add the additional $70 million that Canada Post will have to come up with in order to deal with pay equity, I would suggest that will put Canada Post in a situation in which it will not see a positive profit for the next five years or so.
One would then ask what this particular bill will do. Which employee, which corporation and which part of the country and what country in the world would want to invest in a corporation that is not making a profit? No one in their right mind would want to take his or her money and invest it in shares when there is no revenue.


An hon. member:: The government does.


Mac Harb: In the back of my mind I am asking, what is the logic? Why has the government come up with this scheme? As the minister argued, it will improve morale. That might be true if you have a corporation that really has a good track record in terms of profit and ability to generate more revenue.
In the case of a corporation like Canada Post, that is not the case. It is not a private sector corporation. The hon. member from Toronto was talking about the province of Ontario. I am not here to defend the province of Ontario.

May 15, 1992
Government Orders
When they were talking about employees being able to purchase shares in a corporation, they were talking about the private sector. I do not think they were talking about public sector institutions or public sector Crown corporations.
The minute we allow or make provisions for employees to invest in a corporation, if that corporation is a public corporation, automatically we have admitted to the fact that we are privatizing at least part of that corporation, whether it is 5 per cent or 6 per cent or 10 per cent. In the case of Canada Post, we are privatizing, as of the date the legislation is approved, 10 per cent of Canada Post.
I want to say that is the case. It is not in the act, looking at the five different objectives. I would like to read the last part of the act: "The need to maintain a corporate identity program approved by the Governor in Council that reflects the role of the corporation as an institution of the Government of Canada". Already the act states that Canada Post is a Crown corporation, it is in the hands of the Government of Canada.
This legislation amends the act. However, one would suggest to stop moving it out of public hands and into private hands at this time at a rate of 10 per cent.
I want to say that the best way to deal with the question of morale, whether we are talking about the public or the private sector, is through encouragement, training of the work force, dealing with issues of fairness and dealing with issues of the ability of an employee for advancement. Those are the kinds of things that would improve morale in both the public sector and the private sector.
As my colleague has indicated, in the case of Canada Post, the employees have not had a contract for the past three years. That is not a good thing. That will not help morale. It will not improve productivity. If anything, it will be to the detriment of the corporation.
That does not reflect on the corporation as well as on the government who oversees the operation of the corporation. In cases like this, it is the obligation of the government to step in in order to ensure that the question is resolved. To that extent, I would say only by doing that can we address the question of morale in Canada Post.
The minister is on record in The Ottawa Citizen dated May 1,1992. He is quoted as saying that one of the main reasons he is introducing the amendment is that it is a proven vehicle for improving morale. I presume he is referring to the employees in Canada Post.
Then let us see what the employees have said on this. They have said that their best share in Canada Post is their wages and their security rests on the services provided to Canadians and not the profit and the dividends of the corporation.
So right here we have the minister making a statement which is immediately refuted by the workers' representatives. On that I would suggest that the government with this legislation is privatizing Canada Post not through the front door but through the back door and that is not fair. I do not think Canadians should accept this. We have to be up front with Canadians.
Perhaps what the government is trying to do with this legislation is to throw a trial ball. If there is an outcry in the public domain and the public complains then it might think it over and might not proceed further. If government comes to the conclusion that it might be able to get away with it, I am sure that we see here today will be the beginning of the end of Canada Post as a Crown corporation.
I suggest that the government at this point in time withdraw the bill and go back to consultation both with the public as a whole and with the workers at Canada Post. Try to bring back legislation that will truly address the question of morale of employees at Canada Post, that will help Canada Post to continue to do the quality work it is doing in the community.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he has a clue of anybody outside Canada Post management who has requested this bill? I know none of the postal workers in my riding and my city came to me saying: "I really want to have a share in Canada Post Corporation". Did any of the postal workers in his riding? I suspect he cannot come up with an example like that.
Would he not agree that what we have here is a situation like exchanging gifts at Christmas without ever asking what anybody wants. Granny winds up getting a train set maybe and the six-year old nephew gets the night-gown. If nobody, and I mean nobody, outside Canada Post management has requested this then why the heck is it being done?
May 15, 1992


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. In fact, I have not heard an outcry from the public, the workers, or even the management of Canada Post pounding on my door saying: "Please support the legislation. It is a good piece of legislation and we want to proceed."
I want to take this opportunity to say no. It has been on the mind of the government from the very early days to privatize not only Canada Post but also VIA Rail, CBC, Air Canada and Petro-Canada. It is part of the over-all mandate. What we have seen lately with the closure or the deferral of over 46 Crown corporations is a clear indication that this government is really interested in one thing. That is to wash its hands completely of anything that has to do with public service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. It being three o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should join with provincial governments to establish a tri-level program for the funding of infrastructure improvements, including improvements to sewage and water treatment facilities, road and bridge repair and the construction of grade separations at railway crossings.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I got lucky and my motion was drawn. At this point I want to thank my colleagues in all parties who, through negotiation, agreed to let me come on early since I may not be able to be here much over the next several weeks. I am happy that my motion was selected for a three-hour debate with a vote which I hope I can be here for.
I want to begin by saying that any government, provincial or federal, of any political party that becomes so
Private Members' Business
hypnotized, mesmerized and traumatized by current deficits and total debt, become immobilized in doing very much if anything about reducing them or eliminating any significant portion of those debts.
Whether the debts are inherited from a previous government or as a result of the financial and fiscal actions of the government itself, it must take actions that result in a sounder financial position. This means it must start doing things that fly in the face of conventional wisdom of old line party policies going back many decades, namely, in tough times instituting cutbacks, reductions and eliminations of programs that in the end would allow them to reduce deficits and debts.
My Motion No. M-281 is one of the many ways available to government at both the federal and provincial level to start doing that. Policies aimed at full employment, increased production and thus more people paying taxes, are the only way to reduce deficits and debts, if not totally eliminate them.
We went through this before at the end of the Second World War, at the end of the Korean war, and in the early 1960s.
While I am on public debts and deficits, I am compelled to remind this House and the country that every provincial and federal debt has been brought about by Conservative, Liberal and Social Credit governments, every single one.
The Government of Ontario inherited about 80 per cent of the present debt it has and that was not done by NDPers. It was not any NDP government that got the country or any province into the financial mess we are in now. We did not do it and we refuse to accept any of the blame for it. However, in four jurisdictions in Canada, NDP governments will do something about it.


An hon. member:: Les, where were you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to get to that one in a minute.
Is it not strange that over the decades the CCF and the NDP were accused of being the party with the big spenders. Well, who were the big spenders over the last 50 years? I will not go back any farther; that could be even more embarrassing. Who was it who got us into this financial mess? It was our federal government and

May 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
provinces, the mess that they are presently in. Who was it who really were the big spenders?
It is ridiculous and laughable to hear Tories, Liberals, and Socreds, whatever number is left of them, criticizing NDP governments that have been in office anywhere from six or seven months to a year and a half or two, for their policies and their budgets.
It is equally ridiculous and laughable to read editorials and articles by columnists on the business pages and to hear various economists and other so-called financial experts who lecture NDP governments about these issues. All of them continue to advance policies that got us into the mess in the first place. Business executives are equally guilty. They lecture us, while they rush to Ottawa and provincial governments with their hands out as soon as they are in trouble because of their own stupidity.
Well, we do not need nor want any more lectures from these people. We will advocate and implement policies as much as we can that result in full employment, which in turn is the only way of reducing the deficits of federal and provincial governments.
We have done that before. I remind the House that we financed the entire Second World War without a nickel of foreign investment. All this running around, kissing the backsides of other places and corporations outside of Canada for foreign investment is another way of losing sovereignty and economic independence.
After the end of the Second World War all the debts that had accumulated during the dirty thirties and the war were paid off within the next 12 years. We had full employment. Why? Because our infrastructure had to be rebuilt. Every town and village and city in this country, our road system, factories, all had to be rebuilt and retooled, and we did it. By the mid-1950s all those other debts were paid off and we had full employment. I can recall making a speech once in the mid-1950s, along with a lot of other people, including Tories because the Liberals were in power, who were complaining when unemployment hit 3 per cent. We thought that was terrible. Now 7, 8, and 10 per cent are sort of accepted.
My motion is one of many ways in which governments at the federal and provincial levels can start to deal with the financial straits of this country in a significant
manner. When I look around and see all that needs to be done, I realize that we need another high-rise office building or shopping centre like a hole in the head. Public investment should be involved with private enterprise in rebuilding the infrastructure of our municipalities and providing more housing, both of which are high employment areas of commerce and production.
I deliberately left my motion general so that, should the House and the government agree to it, they can implement this sort of a measure in any way they see fit, according to their own policies. I did not get all that specific.
I want to suggest one way in which it can be done, and this was advocated many years ago. It would require by legislation if necessary financial institutions, banks, trust companies, and what not to allocate a certain percentage of their lending capacity to this national public infrastructure fund. That money would only be paid the going bank rate interest. If it was 8 per cent, that would be it. The federal government and the provinces would negotiate a sharing of some of the interest costs.
I would suggest that the federal government could pick up 2.5 per cent of the interest and the provinces, 1.5 per cent, or make it 1 per cent and 3 per cent, so that the municipalities can have money at not more than 4 per cent and do not end up in a worse situation than they presently are in with a servicing debt cost that grinds them under.
The money is there when we consider what is in the pools of investment capital, whether it is from RRSPs, pension funds or people who invest in financial institutions. When we look at the pool of capital that is there, we have no excuse for not doing it.
There is a list as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, of towns, villages and cities in Canada with sewer and water systems that need rebuilding, renewing, enlarging. My God, we still have communities pouring raw sewage into our lakes and rivers. We are in no position to lecture any other country in the world.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says it will take $20 billion over the next five years. So what? It is only money. Most, if not all, of it will be money we owe to ourselves. We would be investing in our own nation. We would be investing in our own people. We would be providing needs that are staring us in the face anywhere we go in Canada.
May 15, 1992

The situation is the same with housing. There are lists as long as your arm, Mr. Speaker, for chronic-care beds, for co-operative and low income housing. Again these are areas which are high in employment.
I mentioned the grade separations at level crossings which were cancelled. We used to have a revolving fund of $10 million a year, but that was cancelled since 1984. We kill more people at level crossings than those who die of AIDS in any given year. I am completely in support of all the efforts, the medical research, treatment, comfort and assistance to those suffering from that terrible disease, but we killed more people at level crossings last year than those who died of AIDS.
I cannot get anybody excited about that. How come? Why not? God knows there is a need to improve the efficiency of our transportation systems and the safety factor for our public.
There is a variety of ways to do this and this is only one of many, but I submit that full employment is the only way we are going to defeat deficits, national debt or provincial debt. We have gone through this many times before in our history. The problem has been that on many occasions we have had a recession or depression and then some more recessions. As far as I am concerned the present one we are in, in many aspects, is as bad or worse than the depression of the 1930s. All the nation does is sit and wring its hands. It cries and screams about the debt and the deficits.
If we put one million of those million and a half unemployed to work they would pay taxes. The municipalities should be able to afford financially to do a lot of things with their infrastructure, their sewer and water systems, streets, roads and bridges. Something should be done in the way of improvements to our national railway system. There is so much out there that one would have to be blind not to see what needs to be done.
We have proven this many times before. I recommend to my Colleagues a little book called The Unnecessary Evil by Professor Reuben Bellan of the University of Manitoba. Please get it from the library and read it, because it throws into a cocked hat all the conventional ways in which governments tried to deal with increasing deficits and increasing debts.
When I mentioned that we paid for the entire Second World War ourselves without any foreign investment, that is where I got that information. Nobody has ever
Private Members' Business
refuted that and nobody can. The money is there. Unless we require financial institutions to put it up and the provinces and the federal government pay at least half of the interest costs so that municipalities can afford to draw upon those funds, nothing is going to happen. We will sit and muddle our way through. Too many places and too many people will be neglected in terms of the kinds of public, municipal infrastructure they must have and should have.
I hope in the three hours allotted for this debate that my colleagues on all sides will consider the national objective of full employment and this motion as one of the many ways to achieve that. We did it during wartime. We can do it in peacetime by declaring war on poverty, unemployment and insufficient and inadequate housing.
The fact that we have tens of thousands of people in the north living in slum homes without sewer and water or electricity is incredible and unnecessary. That applies to the four or five million Canadians who lack basic fundamental human rights: the right to a decent roof over their heads, the right to a job, the right to good health care and the right to good municipal services. Those rights are being denied to too many people in our country right now. My motion is one of the ways to help correct that.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I might say I am pleased today to rise in this House to respond to the motion of my hon. friend from Regina-Lumsden.
As the House will know, I have had occasions in the past to share many debates on many important issues with my hon. friend from the opposite side of the House.
The member opposite from Regina-Lumsden has once again spoken eloquently on this subject. This is no surprise to anyone who has listened to him over these many years in this House of Commons. This Chamber, I might add, has been in awe of his prestigious memory regarding transportation issues.
I can speak from experience on my own part from the many years we have spent on opposite sides in the transportation committee. I would use the phrase a worthy opponent as being the most appropriate way of describing our relationship.

May 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
It will come as no considerable surprise, though, that I would speak against this motion and take a different tack on it than what the member opposite has said. As I have said in the past, we have often found ourselves on opposite sides on such positions. This does not however diminish my own admiration for my hon. colleague, and I am glad to have an opportunity to say so in the Chamber this afternoon.
The hon. member today is speaking about the government going out and playing a greater part in terms of infrastructure. It would almost seem he is alluding to the fact that the government has not had any part in the infrastructure in our country, but this is simply not the case. We have in the past contributed money to help provinces and occasionally local governments with infrastructure, construction and maintenance.
Highways in fact have been traditionally an area where the federal government spends money to help other levels of government with infrastructure construction. Over the years the federal money has paid for a lot more than the road and bridge repairs envisioned in the hon. member's resolution.
The House well knows that the vast majority of roads is not federal jurisdiction. Indeed road mileage under direct federal control amounts to less than 3 per cent of the national total, and these are mostly in our national parks and on aboriginal lands.
The federal government for one reason or another also owns a number of significant bridges, mostly connecting Canada with the United States. Of the 97 per cent of Canadian highway mileage out of federal jurisdiction, almost two-thirds is under municipal and local control. The hon. member opposite has alluded to the fact that he is talking about the infrastructure within the municipal structure.
I might add that despite the fact highways are outside our federal purview, federal government contributions to highways go back a long way. The very first highway assistance program was established by Parliament in 1919 with the object of stimulating construction and co-ordinating provincial activity to achieve some uniformity in highway standards. This program lapsed in 1928.
Subsequently highway construction was a significant component of federal relief programs in the 1930s. It was during this period that work started on the Trans-Canada Highway. Serious work on the Trans-Canada however did not get going until after the Second World War. Parliament passed the Trans-Canada Highway Act in 1949 and initiated the era of major federal-provincial highway cost sharing programs. The Trans-Canada alone cost the federal government over $800 million before the act lapsed at the end of 1970. By that time, highway cost-sharing programs had become a fact of Canadian life.
I will not bore you or this House with a litany of all the programs which the federal and other levels of government undertook over the years, but a few bear mentioning. There were the Roads to Resources and the Atlantic Trunk Road programs in the 1960s and the regional development agreements in the 1970s. Over the years, all regions of the country have benefited from one or the other of these programs.
This brings me to where we are now and what we are doing. At present there are a number of federal departments and agencies involved in highway construction. Basically they can be divided into two groups: the builders and the funders. The builders include public works, environment and the National Capital Commission. These are directly involved in road construction on federal land. The main funding department these days is Transport Canada.
At present, Transport Canada oversees programs involving cost-sharing agreements with the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. A further program which provided money for improvements to the Yellowhead Highway and involved agreements with the four western provinces expired in 1991.
Generally speaking, the programs fall into the following categories: regional development programs, including economic and regional development agreements or ERDAs; co-operation agreements with the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador; highway improvement programs with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; and the specific Newfoundland transportation initiative. These programs collectively
May 15, 1992

amount to a federal commitment of over $1 billion in funding spread out over a number of years.
The highway improvement agreements with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expire in 1995-96. The ERDAs run to 1994-95. The Newfoundland initiative is until the year 2003.
In all, the federal government has averaged around $230 million a year in highway spending over the past decade. All provinces have received some of this money, with the bulk of it going to the provinces most in need of it.
As the recent federal budget indicated, the time may come for the federal government once again to launch a program to develop further our national highway system. I would certainly welcome such a program, primarily for the economic benefit it would bring in the form of a more efficient system for both domestic distribution and exports. This is really much in line with what the hon. member opposite has been proposing.
Even without a new program, however, the federal government is involved in highway construction and at levels beyond that envisioned in the resolution that is before us.
Although the hon. member's aims are worthy and I have no doubt about his sincerity, I was beginning to wonder at what stage of history he was going to take us back to, but he only took us back today to the 1950s. Many a time he has done this with us in the transport committee over the years. Rarely have we ever caught him out on his facts either. The member has failed today to take into account the current programs. For this reason, I will not be supporting this motion.
In closing, I would once again want to salute my hon. friend opposite for what he has contributed today to this debate. I also want to wish him the very best in the treatments that he is undergoing at this time for his health.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, first let me start by congratulating the member for his motion. Certainly the Liberal Party, when we looked at this issue back in the early days of 1988 and before, was the only national party that not only supported the idea of providing help to municipalities, but we had put a dollar and cent figure on it. We were the only national party that committed a $15 billion fund to be put toward infrastructure across Canada. That was done as a result
Private Members' Business
of a request which was made by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. That was not the case for the NDP. The NDP did not have a program, did not support a program, nor did it even want to talk about a program of partnership. However, my colleague's motion is a good one. Perhaps he has moved that extra necessary step.
Back in 1990 as a result of a request that was put by my colleague from Nepean and myself to our leader, the Liberal Party of Canada has launched a task force. This task force has travelled almost in every province and territory across Canada in order to meet with community leaders, business leaders, environmental and special interest groups to find out what they want us as a party to do in order to move forward with the question of infrastructure.
I would like to put on the record some of the recommendations that the Liberal task force has brought forward. Those recommendations at the time were endorsed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
While we believe that no single action will be enough to ensure the future health and viability of Canada's infrastructure, we believe that a broad range of measures is necessary to make a meaningful difference.
Our recommendations include:
a federal recognition of municipal infrastructure as a crisis of national proportion;
a federal commitment to share the responsibility for municipal infrastructure with the provincial and municipal counterpart;
the establishment of a minimum national criteria for infrastructure to provide environmental protection and a uniform level of services for all Canadians, so we will not see ourselves in the same situation every 15 or 20 years and we will set those standards and then we will make sure that our partners are meeting those standards;
a federal commitment to rehabilitate and expand the Trans-Canada Highway; and
the establishment of a process through which the federal government can take action. This includes defining the respective role of federal, provincial and municipal governments in infrastructure construction and management, identifying and priorizing needs on a national scale in consultation with and with the concurrence of provincial and municipal governments.

May 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
It also includes increasing incentives for maintenance and reconstruction of existing capital assets and the use of low capital, environmentally conscious techniques, such as waste reduction and recycling, exploring alternative funding sources including such options as more rational user fees for water services, applying fuel tax revenues to road construction, maintenance and increased private sector involvement.
Finally it includes increasing support for research and development to accelerate technological innovation and encouraging efficient municipal management methods to permit phased programs of rehabilitation, better management of infrastructure systems and effective use of funds.
We have on the record the position of our party when it comes to municipal infrastructure. Also, very recently the opposition leader has put forward a number of points that will help the Canadian economy. One of those points was a federal government involvement in the area of infrastructure.
It has been estimated that in excess of 300,000 jobs can be created as a result of a partnership between the three levels of government. As my colleague indicated earlier, this is an incredible investment in the future of Canadians.
When we talk about infrastructure, we are talking about roads, sewer systems and bridges. Believe it or not, those are the most important ingredients for economic development because industry will not locate in a town that does not have a proper infrastructure.
Housing construction will not take place in a town that does not have sufficient municipal services that would include proper roads, as well as sewer systems, water treatment plants, and so on.
My colleague from Nepean and I, when we were travelling across Canada, heard horror story after horror story from mayors, from councillors, from business people and so on. Every one of them told us quite bluntly that they would not be able to do it alone. They do need the involvement of the other partners, and that is the provincial government as well as the federal government.
Whether we want it or not, there is an environmental spin-off as a result of the federal government's involvement in infrastructure. The environment is at stake here and any federal government involvement in the area of infrastructure would help the environment.
Think in terms of the sewer systems that are leaking into our rivers, our lakes and the oceans. Think in terms of the water treatment plants that are not meeting provincial standards. In Ontario alone there are in excess of 90 different municipalities in which it was found the systems were not up to standard, and they were forced by the provincial government to meet those standards.
I cannot tell the House how devastating the situation is in Atlantic Canada in areas in which there is raw sewage being dumped right into the ocean. I say this and I am at a loss because in situations like this I would say that the federal government should have stepped in a long time ago in order to provide the necessary help and support for those municipalities to implement a proper sewage treatment plant and a proper sewage system.
I was informed as well that in areas such as Newfoundland there are a number of homes, thousands of homes, that do not even have sewer systems. That by itself is quite alarming and that is why the Liberal Party has recognized this issue as a national issue. That is why we are the only party to put forward a tangible proposal and a proper strategic plan that will deal with this question of infrastructure and will deal with the question of partnership among the three different partners.
With that, I would like to close by thanking my colleague who has introduced this motion for providing me as well as other colleagues with the opportunity to put forward the positions of our collective caucuses and our collective parties.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion of the member for Regina- Lumsden on Canadian infrastructure funding.
I support in theory the idea of federal involvement in infrastructure spending but I disagree strongly with the hon. member's approach. I know that he would be very disappointed if I did not.
I have had many discussions. The hon. member for Regina-Lumsden and I had the honour to go to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria a little over a year ago. During our spare time we spent a lot of time discussing transport issues and I bow to his extensive knowledge. Having been
May 15, 1992

in this House since 1968 and having served on the transport committee for many of those years, as my colleague from British Columbia has stated, his facts are very seldom wrong.
As I said before, I disagree with his approach. He seems convinced that with a few repairs here and there and the whole country will benefit. He made a statement that this motion is one of many ways that we can bring about full employment and thereby assist our country and our people.
I am convinced that in these times of severe fiscal constraint the federal government should confine its financial support for infrastructure improvement to areas in which it has identified clear national objectives which will be of lasting value to the country as a whole.
All this is by way of introduction to the national highway policy study, which is an excellent example of how this sort of thing ought to be done.
The federal government has identified highway improvement as an area in which scarce federal resources can be used to best effect. The federal government is now well advanced in studying the most effective way to make a valuable contribution to the national highway infrastructure needs. It is doing so in a rational, carefully considered, non-partisan fashion.
As we all know, highways are a provincial responsibility under the Constitution. Successive federal governments have recognized that highways also have a national economic significance as avenues of interprovincial and international commerce. Federal involvement in highway construction funding goes back a long way to, as the hon. member stated, the early 1920s when it was important to find jobs for our returning soldiers.
In the early 1950s federal participation was essential if Canada was to ever have a Trans-Canada Highway linking east and west. However, by the mid-1980s federal highway policy had been reduced to ad hoc support for various provincial priority highway projects. These were often, as it has been said, local roads which did not have any truly national significance.
Private Members' Business
Work on a comprehensive national highway policy commenced in 1988 and has proceeded through four successive phases. From the beginning this policy development has been a historic federal-provincial co-operative effort, and the major industry's stakeholders have also been consulted at the appropriate points.
In the first phase the criteria for selection of highways comprising a national system of economic importance was established. The system thus identified comprises
25,000	kilometres, which amounts to only 3 per cent of the total Canadian highway network but carries over 75 per cent of freight and 90 per cent of inter-city passenger traffic. Think about that. Three per cent of the total highway network carries 75 per cent of freight and 90 per cent of inter-city passenger traffic. This network links all major cities, ports of entry and other major transportation nodes in our provinces and our territories.
Seventy-five per cent of this system is still two-lane and, incredibly, some portions are still constructed of gravel. When analysed in 1988 over 38 per cent did not meet the minimum national highway engineering standards.
The second phase looked at the economics of the national highway system, in other words, highway related revenue, annual expenditures on capital and maintenance, the potential cost of upgrading and the economic impact of improvements to the system. It was in this phase that both the federal and provincial governments began to get a clear idea of the magnitude of the costs involved.
Effectively, governments were told that to upgrade the system to minimum standards, spending levels on the national highway system would have to double. The total bill now stands at an estimated $14 billion. This total will continue to grow while much needed upgrading is deferred by provincial governments.
The third phase included consultations with the main stakeholders. From this phase it was learned that there was strong industry support for a national highway policy. We also found that the public recognized that additional revenues may be necessary and was even willing to support new taxation, provided that it was dedicated to road improvements. That is food for thought in a country

May 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
in which dedicated taxation is not a common instrument of public policy.
The fourth phase of this study, which has just recently been completed, developed a framework for setting priorities and design and maintenance standards. It also examined principles for cost sharing, and possible preliminary program scheduling.
In summary, we now believe that we are at about the stage at which we know what has to be spent and where it has to be spent. We have now come to the most critical element of all, funding.
At issue are federal-provincial cost sharing and the sources of revenue. Not easy questions for any government, especially in times of fiscal restraint. I have dealt at some length with the national highway policy study because the process seems to me to exemplify how infrastructure issues involving different levels of government should be addressed.
It also shows how the current government has acted on an infrastructure issue which it has identified as being of national economic importance.
This brings me back to the hon. member's motion. What I have described is both more and less than he called for. It is more because it deals with the whole complex process of resolving a particular infrastructure issue, and not just road and bridge repair here and there.
It is less because it has focused on a comparatively narrow area, but it is an area in which federal intervention will have a significant and lasting impact on our national, economic, and social well-being.
I believe that this is the responsible way to treat national infrastructure issues.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to the motion of the member from the New Democratic Party on Canada's infrastructure.
This is probably the third time I have spoken in this House on this issue. Another time it was an opposition day. I and my colleague for Ottawa Centre initiated a study back in 1990 on the state of Canada's infrastructure. As a result of that study we developed this report which was available to anyone who was interested.
This issue is probably one of the most important issues facing Canada today, in terms of how it affects the environment, our deteriorating infrastructure, how it
could affect jobs in this country and reduce unemployment and welfare in the country as a whole.
In travelling across Canada and interviewing many people in many municipalities right across the country it certainly hit home as to how critical the state of the infrastructure is in many, many areas of the country, in particular Atlantic Canada.
On many occasions since 1984 representations have been made to the federal government for the creation of a program to shore up Canada's deteriorating infrastructure. These proposals to date have been ignored by this government.
I do support this private member's motion. It simply reiterates what we already said in our report in 1990. Without a major infusion of funds for the preservation and expansion of bridges, water-mains, roads, and sewers in Canada both the productivity and safety of all Canadians will be jeopardized. A Canada-wide infrastructure program would create more jobs than the trade deal alone. It would help develop every region of the country rather than bail out corporations in select communities as this government has done.
The member who spoke previously asked whether this problem has just been created since 1984. It has been created since 1984 because historically all three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal-have contributed to the costs of financing urban infrastructure.
From 1938 to 1984 the federal government made funds available for infrastructure programs in this country. Some of the programs included the Municipal Improvement Assistance Act from 1938 to 1949, the Sewage Treatment Program from 1961 to 1974, the Municipal Development and Loan Act from 1963 to 1966, the Neighbourhood Improvement Program from 1973 to 1979, the Municipal Infrastructure Program from 1975 to 1978, and the Community Services Contribution Program from 1979 to 1980.
These were all programs that helped municipalities right across the country. I might say that these programs were all initiated under Liberal governments.
In those years the governments of Canada had been committed to the infrastructure of this country. Today's federal government has refused to accept any share of the responsibility for infrastructure, leaving the munici-
May 15, 1992

pal and provincial governments to struggle with this increasing financial burden.
The government argues that in the Constitution it has no responsibility in the area of infrastructure. It is, however, very important to note that the Constitution does not provide for federal involvement in health care, education or social services. Yet, of course the federal government must be involved in those areas. It must be a major contributor and it is, although it has certainly been reducing that too in recent years.
Therefore, can the federal government deny its responsibility for the environment, clean water, regional and national economic development? When I talk about clean water and I talk about sewage treatment, there has almost been an abdication of political leadership on the part of this government. I am talking about an environmental impact here.
I want to give you an example. The Canadian government spends $3 billion to $4 billion in subsidies on fossil fuels while supposedly fighting for conservation. The same is true with our lobbying for the forestry management. At the same time we are decimating our own resources.
Why not cut these subsidies to an industry which is producing fossil fuels harmful to the environment and use the $2 billion, $3 billion or $4 billion to help with a municipal infrastructure program, reduce the debt or energy conservation? There could be any number of aspects that money could be used for. Do not tell me, fellows, that you do not have any money across the way.
The federal government is not only a badly needed funding partner, but is also in the best position to co-ordinate the establishment of national standards and goals. The federal government is currently levying heavy taxes.
The gentleman across the way just said that there was no way he could get money from whatever. They currently levy heavy taxes on the uses of gasoline and diesel fuel but channel not a cent of these revenues into our road systems. Do not give me that nonsense across the way.
Beyond speech making from the government side of this House we have so far seen little federal commitment to the environment. Our rivers and harbours are pol-
Private Members' Business
luted from Halifax to Vancouver. Beaches are closed summer after summer because the federal government does not make sewer construction and repair a national priority.
It is ironic that under the Great Lakes action plan the federal government has recently announced a $125 million fund for the restoration and preservation of this vital water system. This is in addition to almost $1 billion already spent by the government on the Great Lakes since 1972. Yet we are still pumping raw sewage into the Great Lakes system, and it does not make sense.
There is a cost to doing business and I recognize that. The transportation of goods and services is one important cost to business. Roads in poor condition increase costs, not only through increased use of fuel but through deterioration of vehicles and lost time. Poor roads and lack of waste disposal facilities also add to the cost of doing business, either through increased dump fees or increased costs to have their own waste hauled away.
As governments at all levels start placing stricter environmental controls and ask business to bear the cost of its pollution, business will be able to operate more efficiently in communities that have the infrastructure to handle and treat waste water.
We know that Canadians are the least energy-efficient consumers in the world. Every possible method has to be used to improve our record through sustainable development. The cost of cleaning up our damaged rivers and lakes far exceeds the cost of treating sewage before it gets to these rivers and lakes.
Polluters to date have remained unpunished. The federal government has failed to prosecute a single polluter in the province of Ontario during that last year. That is just disgraceful. The failure to go after polluters has occurred even though Ottawa has the Canadian Environmental Protection Act which carries a maximum penalty of $1 million.
No single action will be enough to ensure the future health and viability of Canada's infrastucture. A broad range of measures is necessary to make a meaningful difference. Specifically, these should include the following:
A federal recognition of municipal infrastructure as a crisis of national proportion;

May 15, 1992
Private Members' Business
A federal commitment to share the responsibility to rebuild infrastructure with its provincial and municipal counterparts;
The establishment of minimal national standards for infrastructure to provide environmental protection and uniform levels of service for all Canadians;
A federal commitment to rehabilitate and expand the Trans-Canada Highway;
The establishment of a process through which the federal government can clarify the respective roles of federal, provincial and municipal governments;
Identify and priorize needs on a national scale; and
Increase incentives for maintenance and reconstruction of capital assets.
We in the Liberal Party have supported this. My leader is on record as supporting a national infrastructure program. I would suggest that this government get serious. If it is not serious about the environment, it has a responsibility to Canadians and to everyone to get people back to work to improve our environment and to get on with the job right away.
It has been a privilege for me to travel across the country and to talk to Canadians. I have heard desolate responses from a lot of people.
I thank the member from the New Democratic Party for putting this motion forward and giving me the opportunity again to speak to this in the House of Commons.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise in support of the hon. member's motion to provide new funding for the infrastructure of our country.
It is an honour not only because of the substance of the motion that he has put and the wisdom of the suggestion that he makes. It is also an honour for a member of Parliament like myself who has only been in the House for the last three and a half years to rise in recognition of the contribution that the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has made throughout his political career.
In the province of Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden has been known for many things but above all else, he has been known as a gutsy fighter. He
will take on a fight for what he believes is right whether it is popular at the time or not, whether what he has to say is in keeping with the political fashion of the day or not.
He is a member who has always stood by his principles. He has always been prepared to fight the good fight. I think it might be instructive to some of us that this hon. member has been here for 24 years, since 1968. In fact, his courageous and principled stands have not ended up costing him politically. In fact, they have won him respect way beyond the boundaries of the political party he represents, or the constituency that he represents.
The motion which the hon. member has presented today should be seen in that same light. It is not popular nowadays to talk about governments spending money. The popular talk these days is how to slash, how to cut, how to reduce deficits and how to bring down government involvement in providing goods and services in this country.
The hon. member is a student of history. He is a student of economics. He has seen these cycles happen before and he has seen what happens when governments fall prey to the easy wisdom of cutting when times are tough.
The inevitable other end of that cycle is when times get better. Then governments start to spend like crazy and reinforce people's notions about what is possible. Therefore, we are always in a situation where we are doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing if any kind of economic sense were to prevail.
Certainly, the need has been established for the infrastructure program that the member outlines. Certainly, those of us who have not recognized the need in our own country need only go across the border to the U.S. of A. and see what has happened to their splendid cities since they have introduced the thinking of proposition 13 in California that forbids the raising of taxes at the municipal level to provide the kinds of services that the member is talking about.
The deterioration in those American cities is a scandal to behold. It came as no surprise to any of us who have walked those streets that they should develop the kind of tinder-box situations like we saw in Los Angeles. Certainly, what happened in Toronto is a wake-up call for us to pay attention to those same factors.
May 15, 1992

If I may just turn briefly to the notion that there is no money, in my constituency of Prince Albert-Churchill River when I first got elected in 1988, the federal share of welfare and UI was $70 million. People were appalled when I raised that figure. They were not aware that it was anywhere close to that.
Now that figure, three and a half years later, has risen to about $125 million in welfare and unemployment insurance costs in one constituency alone. That is the same constituency that has the highest rate of tuberculosis in the country, the highest incidence of infant mortality in the country, much of which is related to inadequate infrastucture.
As well, we need economic development to make taxpayers out of the people now currently on welfare and UI.
Private Members' Business
Therefore, I would like to conclude by congratulating the member and urging all members to support this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have six minutes remaining in his debate when this comes up again.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence of the Order Paper.
It being four o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 28(1) this House stands adjourned until Tuesday at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.00 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 19,1992