1993-02-05

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House on February 25, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, like most of my colleagues, I would also like to comment on this bill, which concerns the implementation of certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.
The budget tabled by the minister on February 25, 1992, was an unsuccessful attempt to streamline federal government operations. In 1984 the Conservative government tried to convince us it could control public spending, reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. Today, eight years and several months after an economic recovery that is unique in this country's history, followed by 33 tax increases, we are now back where we were and even worse, because today the debt has at least doubled and the deficit is about the same as it was in 1984.
In February 1992 the Minister of Finance tried to reduce the deficit by restructuring a number of government organizations and agencies. We know from past experience that every time the government tries to reduce the deficit by making cutbacks, the opposite happens. That is why I find it hard to accept this plan to
restructure agencies that have done good work and are in fact badly needed at this time. To cope with globalization, we need the advice of our scientists and economists, and we have to prepare our human resources for the fierce world competition they will have to face.
Unfortunately, in his budget the minister proposes to wind up a number of organizations, including the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the Pay Research Bureau, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and the Economic Council of Canada. This is unacceptable. The government also wants to close the Science Council of Canada and the Demographic Review Secretariat.
This government always seems to pick the wrong time to do things. It introduced the GST at the worst possible moment in our history, when we were getting into a terrible economic recession. The same thing happened with free trade with the United States. Now it wants us to enter into a free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. This is one more example of bad timing.
On Sunday, there will be a big demonstration in Montreal to protest the unemployment insurance reforms proposed by this government. Today, we heard there are more than a million and a half unemployed workers in this country and now the government wants to make things even worse for these people. People who still have a job have something else to worry about, because if they lose their job, they might not receive unemployment insurance benefits. We saw a few examples yesterday in the media, where employers have already started to tighten the screws on their employees in anticipation of the new legislation. You can imagine the mental anguish of these people.
I would not say the government does it on purpose, but lately I have been trying to understand why, when they introduce new measures, they always pick the worst possible time. The government has plenty of advisers: it has thousands of public servants. I really fail tounders-tand why this government always tries to make life more difficult for Canadians because that is what it is doing.


Government Orders
What it forgets among all the structures and systems it is trying to implement is that behind all that, the first consideration is a human being, someone with a human face. In everything we do and that must be done, we must always remember that we are dealing with people first and foremost. Every time we introduce a new measure in this House as an opposition member, a government member or a minister and every time we do something in a parliamentary committee or in caucus, that measure affects people. We should think of those affected first. Unfortunately we can see that in the past eight years we have forgotten the human element.
I come back to unemployment insurance. For those who leave their job voluntarily, let us say without just cause, the law already provided a penalty, a waiting period of one to six weeks. In 1990 the government decided to extend this penalty, this waiting period, and made it seven to twelve weeks. So someone who quit without just cause would be penalized for three months and I wonder who would deliberately leave a job to stay at home and receive nothing for three months. Is that really credible? This morning, I learned that another major Quebec institution opposed to this bill, the Legal Commission, says that this kind of abuse that the government wants to avoid or get rid of is almost non-existent; there is none. That is not the problem with our unemployment insurance system.
So again it is introducing a measure that does not correspond to reality, that does not solve our problems but creates more victims and places other people in a bad situation.

The Prime Minister is in Washington today. One of the slogans of the President of the United States in the last election was putting people first. I hope while he is in Washington the Prime Minister thinks seriously about that phrase putting people first because everything we do in this place, everything we say, whether in this House, in cabinet, in our communities or in our caucuses, affects people.
We are here to help people. We are not here to help big business; they have all the help they need. They have
consultants, lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, whatever they want.
The people who really need unemployment insurance want to know it is there for them. However, that the law does not provide. Before, if they had to quit their jobs, they could count on unemployment insurance. As we saw in the December 2 budget and in the bill before the House, conditions are now applied, otherwise there is no unemployment insurance.
What are these people going to do? Those who qualify will go on social welfare, but many do not qualify. Some in my riding who lost their jobs more than a year ago have no unemployment insurance and they do not qualify for social welfare because they own a house. They worked so hard to buy a home and now there is no UI, no job, and they will have to sell their homes if they want to eat. That is the point we are at and Bill C-105 does not help the situation.
It makes it worse for some people who have jobs. If something happens that they have to leave their jobs, perhaps they do not get along with the employer, they will be in that situation as well.
We are not doing our job because we are not helping people. We are not putting people first.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is up. I would still have a lot more to say, but I hope that in this difficult period my colleagues on the government side will be able to put pressure on their ministers and that in making their decisions they will think of people first.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak on this bill this morning. In some ways I am delighted to do so because it gives me an opportunity to express my views, and the views of my party, which are very much in line with my hon. colleague from Saint-Leonard.
Frequently in speaking on these issues there is difficulty trying to follow the pattern of the government with its arrogance and insensitivity in pursuing its economicpoli-cies, particularly as they pertain to eastern Canada and particularly as they pertain to the maritimes.


The purpose of Bill C-93 is to implement certain changes made by the budget tabled in February of last year. The bill is divided into 10 parts and rather than speak on each of the parts, I want to restrict my comments to the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency and particularly the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation which the government is proposing be closed down.
I want to put this in the perspective of where we are sitting on this side of the House and the kinds of things I have heard in the last four and a half years. In the case of my colleagues to my immediate left, some of them have been listening a lot more than eight years to the economic policies of the Conservative government.
When I was campaigning during the election before I came to this House, I recall the general promises that were made in philosophical terms. As the country is now struggling out of a recession, the Conservative government member, in preparing for an election, will be going back and asking Canadians to elect them at a time when they have failed miserably in the essential elements of their four-pillar policy. I am going to quote it because I think this has to be done in the backdrop of this policy. They talked about economic reform, social justice, national reconciliation and constructive internationalism.
They asked people, either philosophically or specifically, to put aside their personal concerns and make further sacrifices in the name of global competitiveness and long-term prosperity. As I speak today, the kind of prosperity I see around me in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada, in the western part of Canada, and indeed in all of Canada, is jobless prosperity.
My colleague from Toronto tells me the difficulty that one has. My colleagues from the west tell me the difficulty that we have. I do not have to speak to anybody to tell of the difficulty we have in Newfoundland. I am sure I speak for my colleagues from Nova Scotia and particularly from Cape Breton, and I know that part of the country very well, when I tell you the difficulties that they are having there which are not unlike those difficulties we are having in Newfoundland and that were epitomized and highlighted to such a pathetic degree in the last couple of days by the unconscionable action that is being taken in Port Hawkesbury. There was the fly-by-night closure of a plant by a person who got grants from this government and is now getting out of business
Government Orders
and leaving 79 people dismayed, out of work and very angry.
There are a lot of angry people in Atlantic Canada. I think there is a very good reason for it. Having made the promises of the four pillars that I just spoke about on October 3, 1988, the Prime Minister told the Saint John Board of Trade: "We will not have one Canada that is prospering at the centre while the other regions do not receive their fair share of the economic opportunities".
That was in October, 1989. Shortly after that, both the west and Atlantic Canada watched in dismay as in the April budget western diversification was cut drastically and ACOA was essentially cut by 25 per cent. The term used, and I remember it so well, was reprofiling. Reprofiling to ACOA meant a reduction of 25 per cent.
Not only that, but we saw a reduction in regional development and forestry agreements. Military bases were closed, ports were closed, post offices were closed, VIA Rail service was vastly reduced, and it is almost disappearing right now, freight rates were altered and UI regulations were changed to the detriment of most. It includes certainly all fishermen and seasonally employed individuals.
I talked in generalities there. So much for all parts of the country being treated equally. Let me just talk about transfer payments that have happened since 1989 to this very day.
With the implementation of Bill C-20, by the year 2000 the federal government will have essentially kept back from Canadians, according to the best figure I can get, $97.6 billion worth of services and resources that are essentially provided in health care and post-secondary institutions. Federal transfer payments, I would remind hon. members, account for, in a rough order of magnitude, 50 per cent. It used to be. It has now been reduced from 49 per cent to 45 per cent.
With regard to the federal government transfer to Newfoundland, let me put it in a term that can be understood very clearly. From the time I arrived in this House until this very day, the cost to Newfoundlanders, because they had to pick up the tab, in the transfer payment reduction by various bills has worked out to very close to $200 million. When you are dealing with a budget that is in the $3 billion plus range, $200 million isa lot of money and Newfoundlanders are hurting because of it.

Government Orders
I could speak of other examples; the deficit, the goods and services tax being introduced as a bad tax at the wrong time. I could talk about the closing of post offices that are inequitable in various parts of the country. I could talk about any number of things and it would not be a happy message. Let me talk more directly to this particular aspect.
The idea in one of the 10 parts of this bill is to close down Enterprise Cape Breton and move its function and staff to the main office of ACOA.
We are opposed to this move to kill Enterprise Cape Breton for a number of reasons. In the budget speech the government stated that this, along with some of the other organizations, were being eliminated because they had served their purpose and were no longer needed. Nothing can be further from the truth. Enterprise Cape Breton is probably needed more now than it was before.
As I said at the outset of my presentation, the Cape Breton economy is still extremely troubled, as epitomized by the example of Port Hawkesbury. Special programs to address it are certainly needed more than ever but we do not see any programs coming around the comer.
The unemployment rate in Cape Breton right now has reached 25 per cent and is certainly climbing. The rate was only 16 per cent when the corporation was created. Now all of Atlantic Canada, but particularly Cape Breton's economy, faces great challenges today. I would suggest that it faces more challenges today than it did when the corporation was created in 1985.
Why is that? It is just because of the general state of the economy that all Canadians are suffering, or because the unemployment rate is high in all of Canada and is much higher of course in Cape Breton, but because of other factors that have occurred since then.
The business of Cape Breton apart from coal is very much in the fishing business. I am familiar with that and I do not have to tell anybody on any side of the House of the difficulty that fishing has suffered in my riding, which has been closed for the last year, will be for the next year and God knows for how long. It is a very dismal and grim situation.
In Cape Breton the NAFO zones surrounding the Cape Breton littoral have been vastly reduced and now we are in the business of actually reducing the number of licences that bona fide fishermen held through some fluke of the way the catch is organized and the way the catches are credited to the licences. It has not hit my riding yet because very few people are fishing but in the rest of Atlantic Canada and Cape Breton this is a major source of concern.
I believe we have a major problem on our hands. Essentially those who suggest that voters' expectations have become unreasonable or that they are asking for more is a myth. In this particular case, the closing of the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is not in the interest of Cape Breton and I would suggest it is not in the interest of Canada.
It is not Canada or the political system that is at fault here. In fact it is the government and its policies that are found wanting.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, listening to the last speaker, no matter how much I recognize the contribution he has made in the time he has been here in Ottawa, I wonder if he realizes how absurd it sounds and why in my opinion the people of Canada, in spite of their current popularity, will never put another Liberal government back in.


An hon. member:: How can you say that?


Dave Worthy: The absurdity is that they promised more. They promised more and more and yet their leader has said that fiscal responsibility and restraint, remarkably, has become one of his number one priorities.


An hon. member:: It was yours for the last eight and a half years and you have not done anything about it.


Dave Worthy: If the Liberal Party, the people opposite, are serious about restraint and fiscally responsible government, they should be encouraging the moves that we have made.
The member talks about regional disparities and how we are being unfair to the regions. In my lifetime in Canada, which is now approaching 58 years, I have never seen a Canadian government that has been as fair to the regions. I come from the opposite end of the country from the member. I come from British Columbia. In spite of the restraint that has been required by this government, the fairness we are seeing has never been seen before.


The premier of Alberta was in town just two days ago attesting to the fact that this current Conservative government is finally giving some fairness to the people of Alberta. The prairies are having terribly hard times but we have never seen a Canadian government that has been prepared to try to help as much as this government has.
We all know that the province the previous speaker comes from is suffering terrible hardships but we also know that this government is doing everything it can to be of assistance.
The Hibernia project is not there to take away jobs or wealth from the regions but to provide wealth and provide jobs. The members of our party from central Canada are frantically trying to find solutions for the people in those parts of the country that are suffering the most.
The measures contained in Bill C-93 are part of this government's program of fiscal restraint. Streamlining government will not only save money but it will also increase the efficiency of government and the services it provides to Canadians.
The Liberal leader recently said that deficit control is essential and that fiscal restraint should be and would be one of his number one priorities. However, we have seen the people opposite again and again block, vote against, and do everything they can to prevent any of these fiscally responsible moves which the government is taking.
It is time for the people opposite to match their rhetoric with action. It is time for the Liberals in particular to stop their obstructionist and filibustering tactics and allow Canadians the benefits of fiscally responsible government. Therefore, I move:
That the question be now put.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have three questions, which I will answer. They are: Why is the government proceeding this way? What hashappened since the government made its decision? Finally, have there been proposals from some agencies,
Government Orders
advice or recommendations to the government that could help it if it wanted to look at them carefully and responsibly?

Why is this being done? There have been suggestions that it might be because the government wants to realize savings but it has backed off a bit because we have said: "You put the figures on the table and we will look at them. Let us see how much money is really being saved".
Then it attacked it from another angle, efficiency. Then of course we said: "All right. If you say it is going to be more efficient then show us how it is going to be more efficient". That has not been done and I think that is really quite unfair. Let us look at the real reason. We know that there were a number of those organizations that were no longer functioning and had not operated for a number of years. We know that there were minimal savings in some particular cases.
I will give governments the benefit of the doubt on the questions of savings and efficiency but I want some proof before I can say: "Yes, you are right". Until I get that proof I am not going to accept it.
Let us examine what is probably the real reason. We know there are a lot of people out there who say, with some justification, that there is too much government and that it is too costly. What has the government done? It has taken these organizations and tried to give the impression that it has done something rather large and significant.
My colleague is nodding his head and saying yes. I know he agrees with me.

It is as if the government were trying to give the impression that it was doing something very important, but that is not the case at all. It was to respond to a certain constituency in which it wants to be re-elected.

It has lost a certain number of supporters and it is trying to get them back. Let us be very, very frank. That is why this decision has been made.


Government Orders
The second question is: What has happened since this decision was made? I do not want to talk about each organization, I want to focus on one, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which is being folded into the Canada Council.
We all know it has been operating since 1977-78 and has been doing very well. We also know that it was set up because there was a vision at that time that Canada's major challenges were social problems. Economic development is a social issue. What about the 1.6 million unemployed and the almost five million who are living either at the level of poverty or below the level of poverty? Most of them are women and over one million of whom are children. What about the 2.3 million Canadians who receive social assistance? What about the more than two million Canadians who will be fed at food banks this year?
We often talk about abuse in our society. This is a social issue that social scientists can study. They can give us precious and valuable advice so that we can find solutions that are meaningful, creative and put our country in the forefront of nations.
Since this government's decision we have received literally hundreds of letters, as many petitions if not more, and roughly the same number of calls. A number of important meetings were held where people have asked us to please make the government understand that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is not better off folded into the Canada Council. Please make the government understand that its major challenges today are social issues such as unemployment, abuse, food banks and aid to various people. Please make the government understand that this is a step backward, not a step forward. This is what these people have said in their petitions, their letters, their telephone calls and in the meetings which they have had with me and many other colleagues.
People want the government to understand there will be virtually no savings and no additional efficiency. The fact is that there may be no savings whatsoever. No one sees any efficiency here.
I challenge the government. The government thinks it is right and it has had a number of speakers who have made that point. I ask the Conservatives to find one credible man or woman who has laboured long and hardin the social sciences to stand up and say that what
they are doing here, the folding in of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council into the Canada Council, is a progressive step. I challenge them to find one Canadian, one man or woman who has credibility in the social sciences to say that this is a step forward. If they can, I would be really quite shocked and surprised because I do not think they could find one person. If they can, I am quite willing to acknowledge that, but they will not find him or her and that speaks loudly of this government's decision.
These organizations that have written, sent in petitions, made phone calls and have had meetings have put forward proposals to government. A number of organizations have told us, with some justification, not to do it. It has been working since 1977-78 and we have been making some progress in attacking those social issues and finding creative and meaningful solutions for Canadians. Do not take a step backward. That was one group of people.
When these organizations felt that the government would probably not want to review its decision in spite of the evidence that they had put forward that it was not a good decision, what did they say? They said that they had not been consulted. The government could stop this part and defer it until Canadians have been consulted thoroughly. Subsequent to that study and consultation, if the government feels it is a good decision for Canadians, that it is going to help us resolve much more significantly than we have in the past our social problems, then and only then make the decision.
There has been another group that felt that the government would not even do that.
That is, let them consult Canadians and try to find out if it was really a sound decision. So they proposed something else. They said, "If you cannot stop this bill, if you do not want to consult, we will propose some amendments."

I would ask the government to check very carefully the amendments that have been proposed. I have proposed some. I would be the first to suggest that there may besome that are useful. There may be others that are less useful.


We have amendments from the Social Science Federation of Canada. I saw one set of amendments coming from a group representing 15,000 social scientists in this nation. We have amendments from major national organizations, AUCC, CAUT and others. I would ask the government at the very least to examine those amendments before ramming this bill through. It is the least that it can do.

I will close by saying this. I understand that the government wants to make some changes. I believe that it is quite natural for a government to want to make certain changes, but I would really like it to say honestly that it is making these changes because it wants to try to recover its losses in recent months and years. It is not a matter of efficiency, of streamlining or saving money; it is really to win back some of its lost followers.

That is what I would like the government to do, to put forward its agenda in a truthful, honest way. It is to attract those people it has lost. It has very little to do with anything else, with savings or efficiency. There are a number of proposals on the table. At the very least it should stop this part of the bill and consult Canadians. Then and only then should it decide whether or not this is the best way to proceed to ensure that our social scientists have the tools and the infrastructure in place necessary to attack our grave social problems.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague from St. Boniface has opened up a very important and very useful line of concern about Bill C-93. I was particularly struck by his description of the serious social problems affecting this country and the need to begin developing serious solutions.
If we ever needed more evidence of that problem, we saw it in the figures that were released this morning dealing with the serious problem of unemployment and joblessness in this country. When we talk about a drop-out rate of 56,000 people who have totally and completely given up any hope of getting a job in this country, have dropped out of the labour market, are no longer even convinced that the chance of finding a job is
Government Orders
there, then they are going to become part of a large, broad subterranean grouping of Canadians who are forgotten, neglected, creating a two-tier society, a split-level country. We are setting in place major structural problems for years and years ahead and there is no will, no interest, no concern about dealing with that problem.
This bill talks about reorganizing government to make it more efficient presumably. Efficiency is not the only criteria. Effectiveness, the ability to achieve serious results in terms of the issues and problems facing Canadians is also a prime responsibility of any government.
The tragedy we see today is figures that talk about the continuing sorrow of young Canadians, where the unemployment rate is close to 20 per cent of people under the age of 20. That is becoming a permanent, continuing fact of life in Canada. It is not temporary, not transitory, but one that is becoming part and parcel of the Canadian scene. We have a government that is indifferent to that plight. It refuses to take any action.
It is so ironic that today the Prime Minister is visiting the new President of the United States, saying we have to start on a new foot. We have to get new beginnings and we have to begin establishing new frameworks. The irony is that just two days ago, that new President announced a stimulative program to inject into the economy of the United States $31 billion, which is a much stronger economy than ours. The program will create jobs in infrastructure, public works and deal with the problems of structural unemployment in the cities. These are the very same problems that my colleague from St. Boniface talked about.
Our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance reject any opportunity to co-operate with the Americans to develop a stimulative economic package that would help us develop a response to give some hope back to those
66,000	people who dropped out of the work force today.
We can only hope and pray that perhaps on the way to Washington, like Saul on the road to Tarsus, the Prime Minister will have a revelation and will come back with some understanding that this economy needs a stimulus, that young people need hope, that Canadians need jobsand that we have to come to grips with a kind of underlying burden of unemployment in this country.


Government Orders
Perhaps the new President of the United States can use his persuasive powers to convince and overcome the stubbornness of our present administration. It is time for a change. It is time for a change in direction to deal with this serious problem.
I want to point out one other aspect of this bill that again is tinged with enormous irony. We are talking about a need to reorganize, presumably to make things work more effectively.
One of the aspects of this bill which will not demand headlines but certainly concerns me is how it will affect Canada's representation abroad. It has become a cliche to say we live in a global economy. What is important about that fact of life is that so much of our trade, our relations, depends on how Canadians are perceived.
In a recent Angus Reid poll, taken in 15 other countries, unfortunately the prominent perception of people abroad is that the Canadians are far too dependent on the foreign policy of our southern neighbour.
We have to try and change perceptions and realizations. One way is to ensure that there is an effective understanding of the culture and education of this country. We have tried, even though it has been poorly financed and not properly supported, through the external affairs department, to set up Canadian studies programs in countries around the world, where in universities, high schools and educational institutions there would be a greater understanding of what Canada is all about, our concerns and our issues.
In Bill C-93 that program is being folded into the Canada Council. The program is being eliminated from external affairs which already has the structure abroad to make that case and it is being folded into the Canada Council.
To make some genuflexion in that direction, the amendment to the Canada Council Act reads:
In performing its international functions and duties, the council
should take into account the foreign policy of the Government of
Canada.
To begin with, there is a fundamental problem. We have to discern what the foreign policy of Canada really is.
More important, why are we creating a duplication of effort in setting up the Canada Council, which will have to establish people to work abroad at the same time as we are eliminating that function in external affairs? Is that what we call an efficient use of resources? Do we take with one hand and set up a new institution with the other?
I can foresee in the days ahead that we will now have Canada Council representatives in various countries abroad, duplicating what the external affairs department was already doing but not being part of an integrated, coherent activity. It will be fragmented and separated, trying to discern what should be the foreign policy of Canada.
It becomes a matter of serious credibility when a government says that these measures are being taken to save money and to get more efficient delivery of services. If we look at what is going to happen, it is duplication of services and the recreation of a function. It adds on to another agency a task that is already being performed. There is simply no rhyme or reason in this proposed reorganization. It simply does not make good common sense.
Surely we are dealing with scarce resources and trying to find out the best way of ensuring that Canadian interests overseas and in the international environment are effectively and properly carried forward. At the same time they are once again disrupting the functioning of an active program, turning it over to another agency, thereby creating a new function, hiring new people, getting them trained and trying to integrate it with what is already taking place.
One has to ask: Where is the common sense in that kind of approach? Again to use the remarks of my colleague from St. Boniface, it totally disrupts the ability in a very important way to come to grips with the understanding of these issues. The social sciences and humanities is the study of people. We must look at how the problems of people have to be dealt with.
It is a different set of intellectual, academic and research concerns than dealing with the arts. A totally different set of judgments has to be made. Different players have to be involved. Yet they are also being folded in without any particular coherence being given for their function.


It is very difficult for us to say that we can support a bill which cripples the ability of this country to come to grips with its economic and social problems, which duplicates its functions abroad and which ends up in my view costing more money, fragmenting our functions and duplicating something that is already being done. That simply does not make good common sense.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-93.
I must say at the outset that the bill reminds me of the historical reality-and we can us it as a metaphor-that while the emperor fiddles, Rome bums. In this country we see the government spending a lot of attention fiddling with organizations, small departments, and so on. Perhaps some change is justified, but while attention from the government is focused on these small issues which have great significance and impact on certain people, our country's major issues are not being dealt with.
My colleagues spoke very well about some of those issues, but the biggest problem is that we are forced by this government to pay attention to this bill and what it is that the government is proposing to do. The government has not really rationalized the content of the this bill and told us, explained clearly, or allowed the public to have adequate input into why this bill is good for this country.
As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues, I certainly have great difficulty with the parts of this bill which wind up the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and transfer its function and staff to the Canada Council and, as my colleague before me eloquently stated, transfer certain functions and staff of the Department of External Affairs concerned with the promotion of Canadian culture to the Canada Council.
I have heard many people express deep concern about this move. They have expressed very strongly that this move is not advised. Particularly with the winding down of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council into the Canada Council, it is pitting different groups against each other instead of trying to promote their individual functions, which are very different but very important to the future of our country. Specifically it is those functions which fall in the Social Sciences and Humanities area versus those that are more focused upon Canadian culture. They are two different functions
Government Orders
but both are very important to the future of this country. They are not pitted against each other.
Another colleague spoke very eloquently about the winding down of the Enterprise Cape Breton corporation without having a full review and a full understanding on the part of the Canadian public about the implications. It goes on and on.
A colleague on the other side of the House said this was just another example of a fiscally responsible government. However we are not assured at all, in reviewing and analysing the actions planned by this bill, that what we are doing thereby is going to be more efficient or more economic. Sometimes when we see bills like this one it appears the government is panicking in its desperate desire to find ways to free up money. It does not appear that it is actually accomplishing its stated goal of doing that, but instead, in a panic it is just rushing to cut programs without good rationalization.
In my riding of Northumberland people are suffering grievously from the cuts this government has made to various programs. The whole emphasis of this government for the last eight years has been to cut in the name of debt and deficit reduction. We on this side of the House support that as well, but we simply cannot irrationally cut programs without a good analysis of the consequences of doing so. We are now living with the consequences of this government's irrational cuts.
Besides being very concerned about debt and deficit reduction, we should be equally concerned about increasing wealth and about increasing our Gross Domestic Product so that we can analyse where we are going as a country. Indeed as government we always have to review what programs and policies we are supporting and what the rationalization is.
There are some very good programs in place, specifically our social safety nets. We should not be getting rid of them as we have been. We must maintain national programs of communication which we see being eroded day after day, be it Canadian National Railways, VIA, the post office or the CBC. We see irrational cuts of programs being done to reduce debt, but we have not looked at how we can, instead of cutting, improve those programs, make them more efficient, make them more economic and at the same time put a very strong emphasis on other programs and investments that can bemade by this government to increase the wealth of this country.

One of the main factors of growth are our small businesses. Major employers in this country have been hurt grievously by the cuts of this government. We see so much unemployment and so much misery, and the bottom line is that our municipalities are having to bear the great burden for that, that this party cannot support the in many instances unjustified cuts in this Bill C-93.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, while this government has made substantive improvements to the Young Offenders Act, I was pleased to learn that this and related legislation is to receive further consideration this year. To help provide greater peace and security for our Canadian homes and families, there are two additional changes I would recommend to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General.
First, sentencing for repeat offences under the Young Offenders Act should be more meaningful and consistent with the severity of the crimes committed. Second, after conviction, the names of those found guilty should be made public so that people can have a clear understanding of what is going on in their community.
I am sure these changes would be welcomed by my constituents in Durham, and most certainly by a great majority of Canadians.


CANADA POST
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, since the adoption of its corporate plan in 1986, Canada Post has shut down over 1,200 post offices under a so-called natural opportunity policy. Under this policy all 5,221 rural post offices are scheduled to be closed down over a 10-year period. Individual post offices are shut down when the natural opportunity
of retirement, resignation or death of a postmaster occurs.
Recently there were six cases of post offices in and around the Prime Minister's riding where the postmasters had retired. Instead of opening the natural opportunity, new postmasters were hired and post offices remained open in five of six cases.
Why is it that a post office serving 121 people is kept open in the Prime Minister's backyard, while those serving thousands of people as in Spaniard's Bay and other Newfoundland communities are being shut down?
The minister responsible for Canada Post says that Canadians favour the closing and privatizing of post offices. If this is the case, why are post offices in the Prime Minister's riding being kept open? It seems there is one rule for the Prime Minister and another for the rest of us.


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, once again I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the decision last February to allow first-time home buyers to purchase a home with a 5 per cent rather than a 10 per cent down payment.
During the first year of this program it has been utilized by 68,806 home buyers. When it was first introduced 12 months ago, the minister estimated that it might help some 20,000 home buyers over the entire two-year lifetime of the program. Yet the combination of lower house prices and stable mortgage rates in most parts of Canada has more than tripled the demand for the 5 per cent down payments in the first year alone.
Obviously the program has been a smashing success, not only because it has directly increased home ownership and indirectly increased the supply of rental accommodation, but also because it has increased consumer spending-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


GRANDPARENTS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, across Canada thousands of grandparents live with the agony of never being able to have contact with their grandchildren. They live with the daily despair of knowing their grandchildren may think that their grandparents no longer love them or want to see them.
David and Madeleine Bremner are two such grandparents. For three years since the tragic death of their young daughter they have not been allowed to visit, write or talk with their grandsons in Nova Scotia. Their cards, letters, Christmas cards, Christmas presents and birthday presents are returned unopened.
Quebec law ensures that the loving bonds between grandparents and grandchildren cannot be broken without cause, yet this government has refused to consider the same measures.
I ask it to please listen to the petitions of despairing grandparents. People who want to support grandparents may request a petition from my office.


THE LATE FRANGOYS BERNIER
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, today, all of Canada, but especially the people of Quebec, mourn the loss of Frangoys Bernier, this great musician who was carried off by a long illness that he fought bravely until the end.
Frangoys Bernier started his career at Gravelbourg College, in Saskatchewan. Later, he was musical director for the Montreal Festivals, artistic director for the Quebec Symphony Orchestra and Chairman of the Music department at the University of Ottawa.
Frangoys Bernier has put on the Canadian and Quebec charts unique performances that reflected his great talent.
He was a pioneer in interpreting works of Canadian composers, including Roger Matton's Te Deum, when he was the director of the ORTF Orchestra, in Paris.
The crowning achievement of his career was certainly the Domaine Forget of Saint-Irenee, his music school, an establishment located in beautiful Charlevoix which will continue to honour the memory of Frangoys Bernier.
To his family, we extend our deepest sympathies and the assurance that his works and achievements will perpetuate his memory.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to again express concern about the American's use of their anti-dumping provisions to harass Canadian companies. Today it is Canadian farmers whom they are harassing. We have been harassed on softwood, we have been harassed on steel and now we are being harassed on grain.
Yesterday in Question Period I asked the minister of trade a question related to an American expert who talked about the corruption and the harassment that is behind the U.S. anti-dumping laws. I quoted that this reveals the hypocrisy and the absurdity of the U.S. dumping record.
We are being treated as patsies by the American government and by American special interests. It is time for this government to stop allowing the Americans to run railroad rife over all Canadian industries. It is time for this government to stand up for Canadians and say enough is enough.


GARBAGE DISPOSAL
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, after the last provincial election, the residents of Ontario riding expected a new approach to the serious problem of landfill and garbage disposal in the region of Durham and metro Toronto.
The previous Liberal government had trampled all over the rights of the local residents and was about to impose its wish on the residents of Pickering.

The new NDP government has released its reports and will now consider allowing garbage to be dumped in four locations: in Pickering and in one mega-dump site right on the border of the Rouge Valley watershed. The residents of Pickering and in particular Whitevale deserve better.
I call on the NDP Government of Ontario to open its mind, allow garbage to be dealt with in new ways, investigate new technologies and widen the geographical search for potential landfill sites.


BILL C-76
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, yesterday in a legislative committee meeting on Bill C-76 where we were to have examined, among other subjects, the government's imposition of its decision to increase interest on student loans, the government's desire to impose registration fees possibly on the poorest of organizations and the government's changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, government members refused to allow even one outside witness per clause of the bill.
When the opposition left in protest, government members snuck out, found another Tory robot, a yes person, and rammed the bill through.
Organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Students and the National Anti-Poverty Organization are outraged by the government's contempt for the democratic process and its total disdain for openness and public participation in the political committee process.
Will this government ever learn that it simply cannot treat Canadians unfairly?


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, the NDP has been resorting to their old tactics of scaremongering as they try to frighten Canadians into believing that free trade is bad for Canada.
In fact Bob Rae has hit a new low in using this well-worn tactic. It has been reported recently that at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, politicians from other countries travelled far to boost their countries and their regions but only in Canada did they go abroad to tear down the country. And Bob
Raewonders why the recovery in Ontario is so slow in coming.


BILL C-105
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, the Conservative government is continuing to breach the wall of the unemployment insurance plan built to protect the unemployed from the effects of job loss.
The Liberals began to take away the bricks from that wall in 1978 when they reduced benefits by over 6 per cent.
The legislation proposed through Bill C-105 seeks to bring down the wall entirely to establish a level playing field between Canada and the United States. The legislation is a violation of labour standards and human rights. An employer can commit any act of discrimination, order extremes in working conditions, literally get away with almost anything because the results of quitting or firing are total income loss.


LOCKPORT BRIDGE
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the government. It was not many months ago that I was up in this House representing the citizens of Lockport in my riding of Selkirk-Red River.
It was at that time that the status of the Lockport Bridge was in question. The government by way of the Minister of Public Works has responded in spades. The St. Andrews lock and dam and the Lockport Bridge will be refurbished at a cost of $20 million.
This will extend the life of the 82-year old structure well beyond its 100th birthday. On behalf of the citizens of the riding of Selkirk-Red River I thank the government for a quick positive response.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of the House how Canada Post has what could best be considered a duplicitous policy on the shutting down ofrural post offices. Today I would like to expand upon that a little bit.


Guess where St-Irenee is? The population, 363, lost its postmaster but kept its post office. Baie St-Paul, population 3,000, still has a post office even though the postmaster retired on March 12, 1992. Forestville still has its post office. St-Simeon, St-Joseph de la Rive. Where are all those places, my colleagues ask? In the riding of Charlevoix.


An hon. member:: Who is the MP for that riding?


Don Boudria: The government says it does not interfere with the operations of Canada Post. I would like to ask this government across the way why is it then that the Minister of Public Works was able to get a freeze on the closure of the Westville, Nova Scotia post office?


QUEEN'S COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow in Calgary I will be presenting 38 Calgarians with the Queen's commemorative medal marking Canada's 125th birthday. It is indeed fitting that we pay tribute to those citizens who have devoted so much time and energy toward making their country and indeed their communities a better place to live.
Many more Calgarians are equally deserving of recognition and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all of them as well. Once again Calgary has proven itself to be truly the city of volunteers and we thank you.


CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, in the next few weeks the current Canada-U.S. agreement in respect of cruise missile testing will come to an end. With the Prime Minister meeting today with President Clinton there is an historic opportunity to end cruise missile testing not only in Canada and the United States but around the world. President Yeltsin has made a standing offer to stop cruise missile testing if the Americans will do the same. There are only two coun-triesstill testing cruise missiles, Russia and the United States.
Security in the world depends on using this historic opportunity to negotiate and to bring to an end the arms race while these countries are co-operating. I would call on the government and the Prime Minister to end cruise missile testing now by refusing to renew the Canada-U.S. cruise missile testing agreement.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, recent surveys in Calgary Southeast show an increasing alarm in violence against women. A growing number are demanding that we strengthen the laws which protect Canadian women from so-called stalkers and predators.
I am encouraged that the Minister of Justice is taking immediate action. We have the opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians our commitment to protecting women and our families. I urge the minister to press forward with measures designed to combat the terror which faces too many women in our country.


REFUGEES
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, according to the Geneva convention any person who has reasonable fears or valid reasons for believing that he or she will be subject to persecution on the basis of their ethnic background, religious belief or political and social activities has the right to seek refugee status. People seek refugee status in Canada precisely because the legal system in their own country of origin has not been able to protect them. The Immigration Refugee Board recently rejected a claim by a young woman from Saudi Arabia who faced deportation on the grounds that she should "respect her father and submit herself to the religious views which govern her country".
Had this woman returned to Saudi Arabia she would have in all certainty been imprisoned or put to death for criticizing Islamic beliefs.
It is obvious that women who are lucky enough to have escaped from lies and total subjugation should qualify as refugees. Rights should be gender blind. I ask theminis-ter to place a moratorium on the deportation of women until new guidelines which incorporate the category of persecution on the basis of sex can be established.

Oral Questions TAXATION


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, while the Liberal Party of Canada ponders a business transfer tax to replace the GST, I ask the Liberal critic for consumer and corporate affairs to publicly raise his objections to a tax that would tax basic groceries, a tax that would tax rent, a tax that would be invisible to consumers, a tax without rebates to low and modest-income Canadians, a tax that governments could raise without consumers knowing and a tax that is ultimately hurtful to consumers.
Where does the Liberal consumer critic stand on his party's very cynical replacement tax for the GST?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister is meeting his new friend, his best friend, President Clinton, will the Prime Minister emulate Mr. Clinton's policy as reported in The New York Times today and stimulate the Canadian economy? Or does he intend to stay on the same course, with policies that are strangling our economy?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance delivered a financial statement in December and made many proposals to help the economy of Canada. Today we were pleased to note that the unemployment rate dropped a full one-half percentage point, from 11.5 per cent to 11 per cent.
That is not reason to celebrate wildly by any stretch of the imagination because there are still too many people unemployed in this country, but all the indicators are extremely positive. We have the basics in place and we are expecting a modest but steady recovery in this year 1993. The statistics from the first month of January arevery positive, indicating that we are going to have a good 1993.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, it is a very sad day when the Government of Canada can congratulate itself on the unemployment of more than a million and a half Canadians.
It is a sad day when there are more than a million children still lining up at food banks.
I want to ask the minister a very direct question. Why is it that this government continues to pursue a stand pat do nothing policy on the economy when our unemployment rate is 11 per cent while in the United States at a 7 per cent unemployment rate President Clinton is prepared to act forcefully? Why does the Prime Minister not take a page from President Clinton's book and stimulate the Canadian economy?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Liberals one day are knocking the Americans and praising them the next. One of the reasons people of this country will not elect them is because they are all over the map talking about what comes into their minds at that particular moment.
I must say that in the last nine months we have had
161,000	new jobs created in this country. That is very positive. Second, every economic think tank is saying that Canada will lead the G-7 in economic recovery this year. President Clinton has seen that and he does not like to see Canada leading in the G-7. That is why he is doing what he is doing. We made our economic statement back in December, long before President Clinton was even sworn in and we are starting to see some of the results of that economic statement today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Unfortunately Madam Speaker, Canadians have not gained jobs. What they have done is lost hope.
More than half a million young people in this country cannot get a first job. We have a drop-out rate that should scare every one of us who wants to provide hope to a new generation. The unemployed cannot find work and the government is not even prepared to protect those people with jobs.
With all our problems in the steel industry, will the Prime Minister at least return from Washington with the commitment that U.S. harassment on steel will stop? Can the thousands of Canadian steel workers who are infear of losing their jobs have some comfort about fan-trade between Canada and the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, Canadians must be watching the television play of this and saying: "Poor Sheila, just like Bad Luck Schlepprock in the comics, always looking for bad news, always looking for things that can hurt the hope and the confidence that people want to have in the economy today".
Surely, my hon. friend is aware of the 161,000 jobs in the last number of months that are helping people get to work, jobs that are being created by the policies that this government is following.
In specific terms on the steel agreement with the United States, my hon. friend knows this is something that the Prime Minister has already taken to the President in the previous administration and will be doing so with this administration as well.
I will be meeting with Mr. Kantor, the new U.S. trade representative, on Monday. I will be taking the same message.


EMPLOYMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to address the same minister with a very precise question.
The statement from Statistics Canada this morning said that out of the 63,000 people that counted for the decline in the unemployment figures, 57,000 were people who had totally dropped out of the labour market because they have no hope. Is that the way we are going to solve the unemployment problem by having Canadians simply drop out of the labour market because they know they cannot get a job?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Winnipeg is twisting the facts.
We have never expressed any degree of satisfaction with the level of unemployment today. That is why theMinister of Finance has done the things he did in the last economic statement and in the budget of a year ago.
Oral Questions
What my hon. friend must realize is that since September we have seen 161,000 jobs created in Canada. Surely my hon. friend would say that is good news and stop going around looking for bad news like the little Bad Luck Schlepprock next to him.


Lloyd Axworthy: This party is looking for good news. That is why it is asking when and if the present government will begin to take measures to provide good news for Canadians.
I come back to the fundamental question. We have an increase this week alone of 6,000 on the welfare rolls of Toronto. In my own city of Winnipeg there are over
30,000	people on the welfare rolls, a 200 per cent increase over a few years ago. These are people without hope.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade while the Prime Minister is down in Washington today: Is he going to understand for the first time that what the Americans are doing is what the Canadians should be doing and that is putting money into the economy to get people back to work and to create hope?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned Ontario and he mentioned Manitoba in his question.
Let me tell the hon. member that in the month of January, employment grew in Manitoba by over one half of 1 per cent and 43,000 new jobs were created in Ontario.
For Heaven's sake, when will the Liberals accept some good news instead of standing up here and bad mouthing the results that are happening in this country today which are positive and are leading to a recovery in 1993?


PREMIUM AUTOMOTIVE TANKS INC.
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
This week when Premium Automotive Tanks of Port Hawkesbury in Cape Breton closed and the owners, like thieves in the night, brought in trucks in the middle of the night, loaded them up and took the equipment downsouth to New Hampshire, they did not just take away the equipment. They took away the workers' pride, dignity and livelihood.


Oral Questions
This company received a large amount of government grants totalling almost $2 million and there are still some outstanding funds to be repaid. What steps is the government taking to get the repayment of the $500,000 of taxpayers' money that is still owing? Has the government given financial aid to Spectra Steel, the purchaser of this company?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has acknowledged that Spectra Steel which is a company from Longueuil, Quebec has acquired the plant and will operate the plant in Longueuil, Quebec according to an agreement between Premium and Spectra.
The position of the Government of Canada is that officials have not allowed the repayment of the debenture by Premium to the Government of Canada until they are absolutely sure of the particulars of this transaction. This is to make sure that any transaction we have done is in accordance with the agreement they had made with ACOA. Officials from both the Government of Canada as well as from the province are actively working on this at this point.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the company, as the minister points out, has been sold to Spectra Steel and really had a terrible record. Certainly, that has been acknowledged by everyone. The company lied to the workers. One week before closing it was doing training with the workers and praising them for their productivity. When I spoke to workers yesterday they had one message and one message only for Ottawa: "We do not want a handout, we want a job".
The mayors of Port Hawkesbuiy and the surrounding area have written to the government asking if it will do a full investigation into this situation given the implication of federal funding as well as the effect on jobs in the area. Is the government prepared to undertake a full investigation in Port Hawkesbuiy as requested by these elected officials?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we on this side deplore the way this whole thing has happened. The Prime Minister spoke of that, the minister responsible for the Atlantic Cana-daOpportunities Agency has spoken about that and I have spoken about it. We deplore what has been done and how it has been done. As far as an investigation is concerned, there are officials working on this matter right now.
Rather than looking for all the bad news she can find, surely when my hon. friend goes to Nova Scotia she could visit the Michelin Tire Company which makes 12 per cent of the tires in North America, or Purolator Courier. Has she ever visited that company in Moncton which opened a service centre last October? It employs 100 people now and 400 people will be employed there over the next three years.
Did she ever congratulate Canadians who are providing the successes behind the 11.9 per cent increase in exports, many of whom come from communities like Moncton and Port Hawkesbuiy right across this country?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the last thing I need is a lecture from this government on respecting the workers of this country. The workers have built this country and if the government respected them it would not have signed the trade deal and it would not be contemplating following through with NAFTA.
It is clear as we look at what happened in Port Hawkesbuiy that job requirements for companies are absolutely essential when funds are involved.
There is another issue related to that. Through the NAFTA agreement we will not have the ability as a government to put those kinds of conditions on foreign companies that wish to take over Canadian plants. Under Articles 1106, 1107 and 1109 of the NAFTA agreement the government would not have the freedom from government imposed performance requirements or the freedom to repatriate dividends or royalties.
How on the one hand can the minister of trade condemn poor practices by companies and on the other hand sell out Canadian workers by signing a NAFTA that does that same thing and encourages it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, no one is selling out Canadian workers. If she would look at the facts she would see that there has been an 11.9 per cent increase in exports to the United States last year compared to the year before. There has been close to an $18 billion increase in exports to the United States since the free trade agreement came into force. That is double the rate that the Japanese, the Germans or the United Kingdom have increased their exports to the United States. Surely my hon. friend should see some good news in this.


I would ask her one thing. When in the last four or five years has she ever celebrated success in this country by going to some of these companies and hearing how they have increased their exports to the United States and asking them what impact the free trade agreement has had in that increase in exports which is creating jobs in Canada?


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, I certainly do not believe it is time to uncork the champagne bottles yet. There are still 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
What is of extreme concern is that the unemployment figures released today reveal an alarming trend. Unemployed Canadians are giving up hope and are dropping out of the labour force. While this government claims we are in an economic recovery, the unemployment rate today is higher than it was in January 1992.
When will the minister accept that the unemployment situation in Canada is in crisis? When will he restore hope for those Canadians who have lost their jobs?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I find it interesting. The hon. member does not recognize that there were
161,000	new jobs created over the last eight or nine months. That is a good, positive trend. The unemployment rate is dropping. That is a very positive thing as well. The hon. member must understand that.
The hon. member gets up in the House week after week and talks about youth unemployment. Let us talk about youth unemployment which is still unacceptably high. We are not popping open any champagne bottles. We are not celebrating anything, but the trends are very positive.
Oral Questions
The youth unemployment rate fell by 0.6 per cent. This accounted for a large drop in the unemployment rate. I might say that since over-all employment peaked for the fourth quarter of 1990, youth employment is becoming positive again. That is a good sign and is something the hon. member wanted all along.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, if the minister is going to talk to us about statistics then perhaps we can respond. Canada lost 500,000 jobs during this recession. So far we have recovered only
161,000,	a far ciy from the 500,000 new jobs the finance minister predicted would be created in 1992.
What measures is the minister going to take to have an impact on this so-called jobless economic recovery?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member was in the House when the Minister of Finance delivered his economic statement in December and his budget earlier in the year.
There are provisions in there to help the economy, although modest, because of the limitations we have with the economy in the shape it is and with the income that the government has. We have taken some very positive stands and the statistics are showing.
The hon. member will not accept the positive good news. Housing starts are up 7.7 per cent. Employment in the construction industry in January was up by 18,000 jobs. Take the good news and run with it so that Canadians will build confidence in their economy and it can go on to recovery in 1993. Do not go around with a little black cloud over your head all day.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, the minister had better check his facts because his facts are wrong about youth.
The minister must be aware that the number of youths now employed in the labour force has fallen by 103,000 in the past year. In the past five months alone, 90,000 young people have left the labour force. They are losing their jobs.
What concrete action will the minister take to create jobs for these young people?


Oral Questions


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his figures but mine show that I have employment has risen 0.6 per cent. The unemployment rate fell six percentage points for youth in the month of January. The jobs are starting to be created and we saw 161,000 new jobs over the last eight months.
They are getting back into the labour force and the jobs are coming back. That is what recovery is all about. It is going to continue in 1993 and Canada is going to have the best recovery of the G-7 in 1993. We have the basics in place with low inflation and low interest rates. The jobs are coming back.
The hon. member should be pleased about that and should encourage people who do the hiring in this country to continue to grow and expand.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, one month does not a statistic make. We have a mammoth youth dropout rate; 44,000 more in the past month alone and over half a million young Canadians who have never held a first job. That is a 48 per cent increase since before the recession.
When is this minister going to give these kids a break? It was not their fault that there was a recession. When is he going to come forward with some concrete steps to put them back to work?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has come forward with concrete steps and the hon. member knows that. We are starting to see the results of that. For heaven's sake, I just mentioned that in January-


An hon. member:: One month.


John Horton McDermid: One month, but the unemployment rate is dropping. The hon. member is obviously not happy with that. I could hear them today if the unemployment rate had gone up. Oh, my God, it would have been wild around.
They cannot stand good news over there. One of the problems is that the nonsense being spouted by the opposition does not give confidence to a country. They should start talking positively because the trend is increased employment and the creation of jobs, and the hon. member should be happy about that.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Some months ago I raised in this House with the minister the aggressive pursuit of Canadian investment by the benefits of reduced taxes and lower electricity rates in the state of Texas. At that time the minister admitted that there was no method under the free trade agreement by which he could stop the Americans from this kind of procedure, regretted it and said he would look into it.
Today I would like to bring to his attention an even more aggressive move by the Americans, after the free trade agreement, into Canada through recruiting Canadian investments.
Here is a letter sent to Mr. B. M. Done, president of the Reliance Foundry Company in Surrey, B. C. It says to come to Iowa: "No property taxes for three years. No corporate state income tax. Fifty per cent of your employees' wages for one year while on-the-job training. A 1 per cent rate for unemployment costs. A non-union business community in a right-to-work state" and workers compensation down to $2.62.
What action will he take to stop this kind of raiding of Canadian investment, many in the United States, under the free trade agreement that is giving away our jobs to the Americans?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. Prior to the free trade agreement we had a net inflow of investment of about $3.5 billion. Since the free trade agreement came into force we have had a new inflow of over $5 billion. I believe the figure for the first nine months of last year was a net inflow of $5.1 billion for a nine-month period.
Those facts speak for themselves and I think are a good attestation to the benefits of the free trade agreement.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, this government refuses to stand up for Canadians. We have lost tens of thousands of jobs to the Americans, and even the Toronto Blue Jays cannot hire a Cuban because of American regulations.

What is going on? Who is running this country? Is it the United States or Canada?
This kind of enticement is attracting thousands of jobs into the United States. How is the government going to handle it when Mexico says: "Come down to Mexico. We only pay 80 cents an hour in the Maquiladora, no pollution standards and no environmental health safety standards. Come on down under NAFTA"? We will be sold out again by that minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, there is such a babble of misinformation from the hon. member-


David Barrett: Here is the letter. Last time you told me to table the letter.


Mr.   Wdson@Etobicoke Centre: There is a lot of
bluster down there but little information. Let us look at
some of the facts here.
We had an increase of exports to Mexico of about $190 million over the first nine months of last year. Clearly Canadian companies are able to export successfully into the Mexican market.
With the NAFTA we are going to see an elimination of non-tariff barriers and an elimination of tariffs which run as high as 20 per cent. This is going to create a level playing field between Canada and Mexico because 80 per cent of Mexican products came in last year to Canada duty-free.
The NAFTA is going to be a major benefit to Canadian companies to open up the market in Mexico, which is a middle income market of about 25 million or 30 million people. This is a very good-sized market for the size of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the minister of state on today's unemployment figures.
How can the minister characterize these figures as good news when the only real reason that the unemployment rate seemed to drop is that 56,000 people gave up looking for work? They decided it was hopeless and dropped out of the labour force.
Oral Questions
How can the minister and the government take any satisfaction from driving people back to the welfare rolls rather than putting them back to work?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I knew my hon. friend would get up before Question Period is over, because he is Mr. Negative of the Liberal Party; always has been and always will be. There is no question about that.
Improvement in employment over the last few months has been sustained. There are 161,000 new jobs created. The hon. member for some reason does not like that. He dismisses that as not good news? That is not good news at all.
I might remind the hon. member that the participation rate in our labour force in Canada is one of the highest in the world and continues to be. With the unemployment rate dropping one-half of one per cent for January, that is good news.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Horton McDermid: Poor Herb cannot even hear the answer because his members are yelling too loudly behind him.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, Canadians will remember how the then Minister of Finance refused to even say the r word, recession, when it was under way. Everybody but him and his government knew that they were in a recession because of the policies of that Conservative government. The weakness of the Conservative approach is that they have no answer for unemployed Canadians except useless quips about other people in this House.
How can the minister of state claim that there is good news when the rate of unemployment this month is a full point higher than it was a year ago before the government claimed the recession was over?
I ask the minister: "Why don't you get real and know what is going on when it comes to jobs and misery for ordinary Canadians?"


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to use the r word today: recovery, recovery, and it is happening. It is happening in Canada. All the statistics that are coming out are leading to a sustained recovery, not-spec-tacular, but a sustained recovery. I am prepared to use it and I will use the i word too: interest rates.


Oral Questions
Remember a member of Parliament who said he would resign his seat if interest rates went up. Oh, sure you did. We all saw it on television. Don't tell us you did not say that. You are still here, for heaven's sake. Don't start throwing those quips over to our side without taking a look at yourself first.


METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Despite a public relations visit by a caravan of federal ministers to metropolitan Toronto, this federal Conservative government has completely ignored and abandoned the economic devastation that has been allowed to happen in metropolitan Toronto.
Why is the federal government, together with its friends at Queen's Park, holding up on some $9 billion of local projects in Toronto which would create over 100,000 immediate jobs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: A point of personal privilege, Madam Speaker.


Sergio Marchi: How can the minister stubbornly refuse to initiate a stimulative package that would help spur job creation and economic confidence in Toronto and across the country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I stood up and said "a point of personal privilege" when my hon. friend referred to our "friends at Queen's Park". There are limits to how far the rhetoric can go in this House. With friends like that, no one needs them.
My hon. friend reminds me of those folks in Queen's Park. We should both be directing some comments to our friends down at the other end here. Here we have a premier going over to Davos, Switzerland, and saying things in front of 800 financiers and business people from around the world that will turn off investment in Canada and turn off investment in Ontario. It is ridiculous.
We have a premier of the province of Ontario who says that his number one priority is beating the Government of Canada by defeating it in the election.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are the only friends you have.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I cannot believe what I am hearing. Surely the premier of the province of Ontario has more problems than he can handle that are within his own jurisdiction: problems with health care, problems with welfare, problems with transportation. He should listen to The Globe and Mail. It said that if he wants to be prime minister, he should seek the job. If he does not, he should do a better job with what he has in his own home province.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, the only person in government that is more unpopular and more incompetent than the premier of Ontario and his government is this crew. The r words are resign and ridiculous. Those are the real r words.
I return to the minister of trade who veiy cutely abandoned any response on the responsibility that a national government should have for one of the key economic sectors in the country which happens to be the temporary riding of the minister on the other side.
Given that the economic situation in Toronto has reached such an alarming proportion that the municipal leaders of that city have had to call for an economic summit on February 19 and given that his government is a key participant at that summit, is this government finally prepared to recognize the need to stimulate the Toronto economy?
Is it prepared to commit and announce an infrastructure program that would assist a kick-starting of the economy rather than having Ontarians and Torontonians watching this ping-pong game between federal Conservatives and provincial New Democrats?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, first let me remind my hon. friend that last month 43,000 new jobs were created in Ontario.
Let me also remind my hon. friend that this government was a participant in the saving of the de Havilland corporation. Many of the defence industry productivity-grants go to the metropolitan Toronto area. Bill C-91, which the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party-


Sergio Marchi: There are 85,000 fewer jobs in Toronto than at the start.
Mr Wilson (Etobicoke Centre): Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend will not listen to the answer, he should not put the question.
The answer is that with Bill C-91, which the Liberal Party did not support, the result has been the creation of a number of substantial volumes, about $600 million of investment in the pharmaceutical industry in Mississauga and in Scarborough, just to name two particular places. With regard to the airport, my colleague and I just announced the privatization of the airport which will result in about $300 million worth of investment in the airport facility.
I could go on. There are many things this government has done to support the economy of metropolitan Toronto. I look forward to discussing these further at the meeting on February 19.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and is about the criminal pollution of the St. Lawrence River by Tioxide Canada and the sweet political deals that allowed it to happen. I am sure the minister is aware that since 1985 Tioxide has been forced to clean up its plants in Italy, Spain, Britain and France but during the same period of time, those same eight years, no efforts were taken to get Tioxide to clean up its plants here in Canada and now it has chosen to run rather than clean up.
Will the minister assure this House that he will order a thorough independent examination of the cosy relationship between Tioxide and certain ministers of the Crown here in Ottawa and in Quebec City and make sure that any illegal activity that is turned up brings about immediate prosecution both here and in the province of Quebec and that he will make the results of the investigation known publicly as soon as it is completed?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, let me first correct one false assertion-by the member. In regard to at least 50 plants identified along the St. Lawrence River in accordance with the St.
Oral Questions
Lawrence action plan, and that included Tioxide, the government has undertaken to reduce the toxic effluent of these plants by 90 per cent in the life of the St. Lawrence action plan. There was a lot of work being done on all of these 50 plants, including Tioxide.
Furthermore, as I mentioned before in this House, and the member will know this, charges have been laid and some evidence gathered. The courts will deal with that matter in the case of Tioxide. Those charges are laid under the Fisheries Act.
As to his further allegations, I have no idea what he is talking about.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that while Tioxide was upgrading and rebuilding its infrastructure everywhere in the world except in Canada, the plant here was running downhill. It was during that period of time that the government should have been taking steps to force Tioxide to march in lock-step to clean up its plant here and do in Canada what it was doing everywhere else in the world.
My supplementary question is this. Since Canadians want to know that the owners of Tioxide will be punished for their actions before they run off under the protection of the free trade agreement to Louisiana, will the minister assure this House that the Tioxide polluters will be held in custody if necessary so they will face the music with their assets frozen, which they are not at the moment, and that a special bill will be brought before this House to ensure that all those responsible, including bureaucrats and ministers who fail to enforce and uphold the laws of Canada and Quebec, will be brought before the courts and properly punished?


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I think the line of questioning of the member for Skeena in so far as his last comments are concerned is not very solid. I am not sure what he is referring to. I assume he will want to step out of the House and put forward whatever case he may or may not have.
As far as the charges are concerned, charges have been laid and it is for the courts to determine what will happen. It is not for us to go beyond what the courtsmust do and assume their duties in examining the evidence and determining what will happen after.


Oral Questions
If I may add in respect to the responsibility of dealing with Tioxide, if the hon. member looks at the record, he will find that both provincial and federal governments worked with the company in good faith in dealing with their pollution problems. There were many contracts and agreements entered into at both levels of government, more specifically with the provincial government, in dealing with these issues and with the results that we are now faced with.


REFUGEES
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He is aware of reports that a refugee claimant who is the wife of a Somalian warlord has been visiting her husband in Somalia while at the same time receiving welfare payments here in Canada.
Will the minister advise the House whether this report is correct and if it is correct what the government is doing about it?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member must know, because of the Privacy Act I cannot discuss the particulars of any individual cases in the department.
I can assure the hon. member and members of the House that the changes we have brought about to the Immigration Act which were staunchly opposed by our friends on the other side will give us the tools to allow us to prevent that kind of abuse of the Canadian taxpayers and we will be proceeding with the implementation of Bill C-86 to avoid that kind of abuse.


WINNIPEG WATER QUALITY
David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. Earlier this week I got up during statement period to voice my concerns about the water quality for the city of Winnipeg. As you know the Ontario government has not put forward an environmental review of a miningop-eration which is about to begin on Shoal Lake, which is the water supply for the city of Winnipeg.
I know I and many members of this House have had representations from the citizens of Winnipeg about what the Canadian government should be doing. I would like to ask the minister what he plans on doing regarding this issue.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I understand that both Ontario and Manitoba support an integrated management plan so far as Shoal Lake is concerned.
I also understand that Ontario and Manitoba ministers have already met to determine the nature of such a planning process and my department has offered whatever assistance that we may be able to put forth in terms of conducting that process.
Now whether or not an environmental assessment may be done will be determined according to what projects are put forward. We will follow all of this very closely to see whether or not federal intervention may or may not be necessary.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Twenty thousand workers lost their jobs in January 1993 and the unemployment rate is almost 2 per cent higher than it was last year. What will the Minister of Employment and Immigration do to help these people in need, other than condemning them with Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, we must find ways to help Canadians across the country who are struggling with these economic problems, but without raising taxes and without necessarily increasing the deficit, because in the final instance, the taxpayer has to foot the bill. We must find ways to do this with the resources we have now.
In December, we increased the amounts allocated to help people receiving unemployment insurance benefits get new training and get back into the labour market. We included $260 million to develop what I call an unemployment prevention program for these people, which helps them identify human resources requirements in certain sectors of the economy. All thesemeasures-a total of $3.8 billion-are commitments under programs financed by the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the unemployment insurance fund, to help these people get back into the labour market. This is all part of our economic recovery and job creation plan.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, doing something about preventing unemployment does nothing for the 1.6 million people who are already unemployed. We cannot prevent them from being what they already are.
On the weekend, the Quebec Liberal Caucus will join thousands of workers in a protest march against Bill C-105. Will the minister have the courage to meet these people and explain why he is launching an attack against the unemployed?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party should honestly tell these people that it does not have a plan, that it objects to Canadian workers and employers paying for the benefits of a person who voluntarily, without just cause, decides to quit their jobs. It costs workers and employers $1 billion annually. The Liberal Party of Canada can strut its stuff with these people, but I think Canadian taxpayers ought to know where the money comes from to pay people who choose not to work.

English]


SOVEREIGN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I have a question for the minister of state about the Sovereign Life Insurance Company.
He will know that the federal seizure of the company on December 21 will affect adversely about 240,000 Sovereign policy holders, 1,000 Sovereign brokers, 250 head office employees, 300 in-house agents and $810 million in company assets. Will the minister tell the company why he seized the company?
Oral Questions
Since I am to combine the two questions, the minister was present on November 30 when the company asked for an 80-day extension to produce audited 1992 financial statements and an unqualified actuarial opinion. At all times there was in excess reserves of $52 million. He had in support an independent actuarial opinion signed by two former presidents of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. What does the government intend to do now to minimize the damage done by this grossly irresponsible action done to a major financial institution in my part of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that everything was done over a fairly significant period of time to try to preserve Sovereign Life as a company.
Many requests were made of Sovereign Life by the superintendent which were not met. Every effort to find other purchasers for the company to extend its life was made. That was unsuccessful.
It received a fair and full hearing. At that particular time a decision was made to wind up Sovereign Life. We have support from many areas within the insurance industry, especially those who are responsible for paying out and ensuring that the policy holders are protected.
We feel that we gave them every opportunity and it was the decision of the Minister of Finance upon the recommendations of both myself and the Superintendent of Insurance that winding-up procedures take place.
That went to court, as the hon. member knows. The case was heard in court and the decision of the court was to wind up the company.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister will know that next Thursday and Friday panel hearings resume on the softwood countervail tariff dispute between Canada and the United States. Included on the agenda of that panel meeting are two among

Routine Proceedings
other important items. One is the ongoing ridiculous allegation by the Americans that Canadian laws regulating the export of raw logs is countervailable in Canada. There is some question as to whether one of the commerce department's verification team members, who came to Canada to snoop through our files and verify their ridiculous allegations, was a member of a previous U.S. lumber lobby coalition attack against Canadian softwood exports.
Can the government assure this House that this government will use every opportunity to tell the Americans, including the Prime Minister's meeting with the President today, that this countervail action should be thrown out, in particular the ridiculous allegations over our raw log export policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the support of the hon. member. That is precisely the position of the Government of Canada. It is a position that we have taken right the way through this whole debate and it is one that we will continue.
As my hon. friend knows, we have taken this matter to a dispute settlement panel because we disagree with the actions taken by the United States. That panel process is running its course. I will take the opportunity next Monday when I meet with U.S. trade representative Kantor to bring him fully up to date with the views of Canada on this so that he understands fully the seriousness with which we hold this issue and the importance that it represents both to our relationship between the United States and Canada as well as to the economy of very important parts of the country.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 26 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TABLING OF DOCUMENTS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, during Question Period the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca quoted from the Storm Lake Area Development Corporation in Iowa. On his behalf I would like to table this document.
At the same time I ask the Minister for International Trade, who quoted from a document in response to our leader's question, if he would table that document in the House as well.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As far as the first request by the hon. member for Churchill is concerned, he knows this is not part of our rules. Unfortunately the Minister for International Trade is not in the House at the moment. I am sure someone will let him know of the hon. member's request and he will, or not, respond to the hon. member's request.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, then I ask unanimous consent of the House to table the document that the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca quoted in Question Period.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Consent is not given.



INTERNATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRENCH-SPEAKING PARLIAMENTARIANS PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF ACTIVITIES OF CANADIAN SECTION

Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians on its activities at the meeting of the Bureau de la Commission politique et de l'administration generale of the Assembly, held in Paris from November 12 to November 14, 1992.



BILL C-76 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Brian White (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-76, an act to amend certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, with an amendment.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the member just reported Bill C-76. I understand that government members on the committee would not allow any other witnesses except representatives of the Minister of Finance. Representatives of students, who are affected by this legislation, were not given any opportunity whatsoever to appear.
I ask, now this report has been tabled, if the Speaker would look into what happened within the committee and determine why witnesses of the public were not allowed to appear before the government ensured that this matter went to clause by clause study.
I understand that only Department of Finance officials were allowed to appear, no student representatives were allowed to appear before this committee.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out for the benefit of the House and my hon. friend from Churchill that regardless of what the facts may be with reference to the witnesses before this particular legislative committee, that since the reforms of Parliament in the second phase of the McGrath reforms, the practice of legislative committees is to hear witnesses who have expert status and would be able to contribute to the refinement of the bill by pointing out drafting errors and that sort of thing.
On the other hand, if a bill is referred to a standing committee, then the scope of that committee is much broader. It is capable of hearing witnesses having to do with the policy aspects of the legislation before the committee.
Routine Proceedings


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the parliamentary secretary is trying to do. We have had any number of legislative committees which have had witnesses who are not technical experts. That is certainly the truth.
It may not be what the government wishes to be the truth, but legislative committees have heard from witnesses on all aspects and all clauses of a bill. That is the history. That may not be what the government would like to be so, but the history is that legislative committees do that.
If he wants to imply that the only experts with regard to Canada student loans are Department of Finance officials, I would suggest that perhaps the students themselves are technical experts on this.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I think it is important for the government Whip to understand that not only did Bill C-76 deal with Canada student loans, it also dealt with a variety of other things, including imposing registration fees on lobbyists.
At the same time as that committee was sitting, there was a full inquiry into the lobbying industry, complete with witnesses, in another room on Parliament Hill and those people were not even asked. They could have gone to the legislative committee at a moment's notice to explain how this bill affected them. The decision by the government members was not only wrong, it was unreasonable. The people were right there. There was no delay involved if that was the fear of the government.
That is why it is important for the government Whip to understand what was done and to hopefully take steps to rectify the wrong that has been created.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As usual, the Chair is very reluctant to get involved in the business of a committee, and I think that is as it should be, a committee being master of its own business and proceedings. Since the bill has now been reported back to the House, the Chair will review the various points made by hon. members and, if necessary, I will report to the House on the committee that examined Bill C-76.

Government Orders



HOUSE MANAGEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Valcourt
Vien
White
Winegard
Van De Walle Weiner
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-44
60TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
++NAYS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons): Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the 60th report of the Standing Committee on House Management regarding the selection of votable items among Private Members' Business. Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
Althouse
Baker
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Catterall
Foster
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harb
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Manley
Mifflin
Mitchell
Phinney
Rideout
Samson
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barrett
Benjamin
Blackburn (Brant)
Copps
Fblton
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kristiansen
Lee
Marchi
Mills
Parker
Prud'homme
Rompkey
Stewart-36



PAIRED-MEMBERS

[Stage Direction]
nil
Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please
say nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Anderson	(Division No. 407)
 YEAS Members Andre
Bjornson	C ha rest
Cole	de Cotret
Desjardins	Dick
Duplessis	Edwards
Fee	Ferland
Hawkes	Hicks
Horning	Hudon
Hughes	Johnson
Landry	Langlois
Layton	Malone
Martin (Lincoln)	Mayer
McDermid	McKnight
Monteith	Moore
Redway	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, as reported (with amendments) by a legislative committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are four motions in amendment listed on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, all four standing in the name of the hon. member for Churchill.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will be applied to Motions Nos. 2 and 4.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 1 will obviate the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 3 while a negative vote on Motion No. 1 will require a vote on Motion No. 3.


Mr. Karpoff:: Madam Speaker, a point of order. With respect to the bill that has been called, I wonder if we could have a minute to get copies from the table since this was called without any notice to the opposition.
The government had indicated that it might be calling a number of other bills today, including Bills C-98, C-54 and C-69, but had not indicated that this bill would be brought forward today. I wonder if the table has additional copies of the bill and the amendments.
The hon. member opposite is getting worked up because he has to admit the government has become sneaky.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I may add that the government gave us no notice whatsoever that this bill would be considered after the vote. We are trying to reach the Official Opposition critic, in order to make this debate as reasonable and intelligent as possible, so that people can hear both sides. However, if the government keeps acting the way it has done since this morning, there is no telling what will happen this afternoon.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I understand, and I am sure the Chair understands, that this is not a legitimate point of order on the part of the opposition but I did want to correct the record.
Every Thesday afternoon I meet with the House leaders. I lay out my legislative plans and what I would like to get through. I look for co-operation and support in proceeding with the nation's business in an orderly way.
I indicated that Bill C-73 was one of the bills I would like to see passed today. I had hoped we would get borrowing authority done. Of course it was not done.
Government Orders
Ihad hoped we would get Bill C-93 done but it was not done.
We have had a clear indication, threats today to move concurrence. In fact the tactics of the opposition are simply to not agree to anything and to delay everything. We unfortunately have responsibilities to the country to proceed. This legislation was signalled on Thesday. We did not expect to have to call a motion to move to Orders of the Day today. We thought we would proceed in an orderly fashion.
Unfortunately we were driven to it by the tactics of the opposition. I regret any inconvenience caused to the spokespersons of the opposition but frankly if they are looking for somebody to blame, they might look to the leadership of their own party.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, the government House leader just said there are weekly meetings, and of course the bills are discussed at those meetings. We made it clear that we were prepared to co-operate with the government on certain bills.
The minister said just now that we refused to consider Bill C-98. Well, we were supposed to start debate on this bill this morning, but the government decided at the last minute to proceed with Bill C-93. The government moved a motion to revert to Orders of the Day, there was a vote, and we have just wasted 30 minutes. I hope he is there now, but a few minutes ago when the Clerk read the order for resuming debate on the bill in question, he was not even here. So how can you expect us to co-operate when the government acts this way? It is customary for us to be notified, to give our critic enough time to get here and respond to the government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I just want to inform hon. members that in the Projected Order of Business for today, Bill C-73 was included with other bills. I am now told that copies of the bill are available, and unless the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam really has something new to contribute to the debate, I would like to move the four motions in the House so that we can proceed with debate.

I will put the motions to the House if I may.

Government Orders


MEASURE TO AMEND
Rodney Edward Murphy: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-73 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-73 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-73 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately
after line 32 at page 4 the following:
"This act shall not be fixed to come into force any sooner than the
first day in the year 1997 A.D.."
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-73 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
He said: Madam Speaker, I did not have a chance to get up on the point of order with regard to how this bill was called so quickly, without any consideration to the process that normally exists when there is going to be a change in the Orders of the Day.
I spent three and one-half years as whip for the New Democratic caucus and I know there are courtesies. Effort is made to make sure that the parties know what the legislation is so that the various critics and various government spokesmen are able to be here.
I find it very regrettable that the government, in its haste to make sure it gets this legislation through the House, has ignored those common courtesies.
I resent it as an individual but I also resent it for those other people whose time has been inconvenienced. They may have appointments with me and with others and now are in a situation where those appointments cannot be kept. It affects people from in town and from out of town as well. I find this regrettable.
I am suggesting in the motions before the House that clause 1 be deleted. Through the day I am going to move that all the clauses in the bill be amended or changed. It is important that we have a debate on this at the appropriate time. I do not think this is the appropriate time.
As well, there is another debate that has to occur, that is about what is happening with the postal service across this country.
I have been the critic in this area, among my other critic roles, for a number of years. I am always receiving complaints from small operators, from employees, from-communities right across this country about how mail
service is being ruined by this government and by Canada Post.
I have found it offensive the way Canada Post officials deny information to members of Parliament and to the parliamentary committee that is responsible for reviewing the estimates for Canada Post. I have accused the top executives of Canada Post of misleading the House of Commons, the Senate and of being evasive when it comes to providing information which the public deserves.
The government has allowed this to happen. The government has allowed Canada Post to break its word. The government has allowed Canada Post to destroy our postal system in this country. There are all sorts of examples that could be cited as to why this is happening.
Why does the government want to destroy Canada Post? Why does it want to make sure that the various communities across this country do not get the postal service they deserve? Why is it in the community in which I live outside of Ottawa, there is about a one-half mile stretch that does not receive rural postal service? The mail people come from one end of the road to one area. They come from the other end of the road to another area. There are about 10 to 15 houses in between that do not receive regular service. They have to go to a different community to get their mail. It is ridiculous.
Just before the Christmas break I revealed a leaked Canada Post document about how they were going to force various franchises to pay up front for stamps and the various articles they sell on behalf of Canada Post. That document stated they were going to tell only some MPs about what was going on. They were not going to give this information about what was happening in the ridings to all MPs.
This document also pointed out that as a result of this change in strategy a number of those small businesses that are carrying on service on behalf of the public, on behalf of Canada Post, were going to go bankrupt. The Canada Post document pointed that out.
There was no concern for small business. There was no concern for the communities involved. There was no concern for the people who have to go and get their mail. This is the problem. I know that my good friend from-Timmins-Chapleau is going to point out later in the debate that this is a serious problem.


We have hurt the handicapped. We have hurt the seniors. We have made it ridiculously hard for people to get their own mail and we are doing it for some ideological interest which Canadians cannot understand.
We are told that Canada Post often surveys these communities ahead of time and that 97 per cent of the people want this change. This is very interesting. You can go into these same communities, as I and others in this House have done. Half of the population comes out to a meeting demanding that the post office be kept open.
I really resent the way the government has tried to handicap the opposition on this debate. Therefore I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Churchill. The House at this time is debating a motion which stands in the name of the hon. member for Churchill. Henceforth the hon. member may not move that during debate on his own motion. The motion is not receivable.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I listened to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Churchill and none of them to my hearing pertained to the bill in question.
He went off talking about mail service, small towns, a whole lot of things that are not dealt with at all in this legislation. Parenthetically may I say perhaps the House leaders might discuss some day whether or not we should hold ourselves to the relevancy of debate in this House. Perhaps we will cause those who are looking down on us and watching on TV to have a little less disrespect than they now have because of those kinds of antics.
Fundamentally, this bill provides the opportunity for the provision of employee stock savings plans for employees of the post office. The hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau said privatization. In fact if he reads the act he will see that his accusation is totally false. There is no privatization involved here.
Government Orders


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Not yet.


Harvie Andre: Not yet he says. That is right. A new bill would have to be brought in to privatize. That is a new bill. It sounds very strange. Vote against this bill because a new bill might come in sometime in the future. I know the New Democrats are scared of the future, but they should not deny everything in the present because of fear of the future.
I thought this might interest him. I received a letter earlier this week with some information about the Swedish post office. The Swedish post office is no longer a monopoly as of January 1, 1993. Other companies are allowed to compete in terms of delivering first-class letters. On January 1, 1994 the Swedish post office is to be privatized. That is the law of Sweden, a country glorified by the New Democratic Party as the example the world should follow. So Sweden is privatizing its post office.
The member for Timmins-Chapleau shouts back there that we should not proceed with this bill because some time in the future some government might bring in a bill to privatize the post office and hence we should vote against this bill. The logic speaks for itself.
This bill does a very sensible thing. It provides for employee stock ownership. Is employee stock ownership a good idea? The fact of the matter is that some two-thirds of the companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange provide for this sort of thing.
The group GBB Buck Consultants did a survey of companies with these kinds of provisions of employee stock ownership programs. It said that 90 per cent of employers and 75 per cent of employees said the plans had a positive impact in their companies and over 90 per cent of surveyed employees took pride in owning company shares.
Canada Post in the last few years has gone from running a deficit of $300 million to $400 million a year, where its service was atrocious, where it was a drain on the taxpayer and the laughing stock of the users to running a surplus and is recognized by other post offices around the world as the most efficient post office in the world. That is a tremendous accomplishment.
This bill seeks to build on that because employees of Canada Post now do feel pride in their corporation. They do feel that it is doing a good job and they do want theopportunity to participate. It is not compulsory. They are not required to. They are simply given the opportunity to.


Government Orders
The idea of employee stock ownership programs is so revolutionary that the current Government of Ontario has said it intends to bring in a plan like this. The current Government of British Columbia says it intends to bring in a plan like this to promote employee ownership of enterprise.
I find it not surprising, but a little bit strange that the federal New Democratic Party says this is an outrageously avant-garde idea that must be opposed by all means possible. That really does not make common sense. This is simply in keeping with modem business practices. It has been a success when it has been tried. More and more companies are doing it. The majority of companies do it. Even socialist provincial governments are adopting legislation to facilitate it.


An hon. member:: I would be nervous about it if all these NDP members like it.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member has a point. If the socialists are now starting to like it maybe we had better re-examine it.
I am sorry, I said the B.C. government was considering it. It did it in 1989. The Ontario act was tabled in 1991 and of course Manitoba proclaimed its act in March 1991. It is a modern idea in keeping with modem corporations. It is something we ought to proceed with. This bill simply makes it possible.
I repeat, the amount of the equity that would be offered to employees is 10 per cent. That does not represent privatization in anybody's concept. The other 90 per cent rests with the Crown. If in fact that was to be changed and the Crown was to sell its shares, a separate new bill would have to be brought before Parliament.
The hon. member from the New Democratic Party and anyone else who thinks private ownership is an outrageous concept that should be fought at all times could in fact have their fight at that point in time.
I ask them to put aside their partisan interest, look at what this bill does, recognize it as it allows the continuing progress of Canada Post as a useful thing to do. The employees who choose to participate can. Those who do not will not. Ninety per cent of employers have found itsuccessful when they have put it in place and 75 per cent of employees have found it very useful.
With that kind of experience, that kind of evidence that it is a useful thing to do we ought to adopt this bill and allow the post office to carry on making the progress it has been over the last few years.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree with what the hon. minister stated a moment ago, that the motions moved in this Chamber were not relevant to the bill or the debate before the House.
The reason the motions moved are relevant and the reason the remarks of the chief Whip of the Liberal Party before this debate started are relevant is that the bill itself is not relevant to Canada Post. The minister states: "Oh, we are now going to give employees shares in the corporation". I wonder what kind of shares.
First of all, they cannot have any more than 10 per cent, according to clause 27.1(5). We notice that the shares held by the minister have the exclusive right to vote at meetings of the shareholders of the corporation. We also note in clause 27.3 that the employees' shares will be non-voting shares. The employees' shares will be of a different character, a different class.


An hon. member:: Second class.


George Baker: Just like the employees of the corporation now are considered to be second class by the government and by the corporation.
When the Liberals were in, what a service we had. When the Liberals were in, we had post offices. We had post offices in rural areas. We had mailboxes in the post offices. There was a Canadian flag over the post office. The post office was the community centre. That is what happened when the Liberals were in.
When the Liberals were in we did not have calls in our offices that mail had just disappeared. We did not have every medical school and law school in this country rewriting their requirements so that they do not say that applications have to be postmarked on a certain date. It says the application has to be received in that university. That has been an intentional change by our professional schools in this country.
It has been intentional since this government took over and since the service has so deteriorated in this country, where a firm is hired to gauge the amount of time it takes for a letter to go from point A to point B. Itthen brags about it but does not explain of course that the letter it is passing judgment on has to have the address perfectly in the centre of the envelope. It is no good to have it written by a mother who is writing to her son overseas somewhere or in another part of Canada in pencil or pen.


This debate is relevant. The bill is irrelevant. That is why our chief Whip a moment ago asked me to move a motion. Of course I am going to do it because I never disagree with the chief Whip. The motion is this.
I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Government Orders

Members
Anderson	Andre
Bjomson	C harest
Cole	Desjardins
Dick	Duplessis
Edwards	Fee
Ferland	Hawkes
Hicks	Hudon
Hughes	Johnson
Landry	Langlois
Layton	Malone
Martin (Lincoln)	Mayer
McDermid	McKnight
Monteith	Moore
Redway	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens	Sparrow
Stevenson	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
"Rimer (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt
Van De Walle	Vien
Weiner	White
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Worthy-43	Winegard


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion negatived.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 408)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Baker
Benjamin
Boudria
Copps
Gagliano
Gauthier
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Marchi
Mills
Murphy
Phinney
Rideout
Stewart-33
Assad
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Catterall
Fulton
Gardiner
Harb
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Kristiansen
Manley
Mifflin
Mitchell
Parker
Prud'homme
Samson


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon.
We have to remember the backdrop against which we are addressing this important issue today. First of all, the government changed the House order eight or nine times in the last 18 hours or so, including probably 10 seconds before it commenced the deliberations today.
I notice that the member whose riding is in the Brampton area seems to be upset by the fact that he has had a hard time following the agenda of the government as well. That is unfortunate.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think it is very important that the House and the country understand, as Your Honour has already said, the order of business for today was agreed upon.


Government Orders


David Kilgour: It is not a point of order.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: It was stated by the Minister of Labour yesterday in response to a question from the opposition House leader and appears on today's Order Paper. I think my friend would be diligent in correcting the record.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I can hear the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast saying it is not a point of order but I had to listen to what the parliamentary secretary was saying before I could in all fairness rule. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has the floor.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, since of course we did not hear a ruling, we must assume that in fact it was not a point of order after that diatribe was stated, which brings us to an interesting point.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I hope you withdraw your allegation.


Don Boudria: Withdraw my allegation. Well, if we must debate that then let us. Let us do that simply because yesterday the government was telling us it wanted to debate Bill C-93 and then it changed its mind to Bill C-98, then to Bill C-93 again. Today it stopped its own members from tabling petitions and brought forward Bill C-73. That is supposed to be an allegation. Those are facts.


Mr. McKnight:: Open the book on your desk. Read the Orders of the Day.


Don Boudria: I am sure the minister opposite who used to be the minister of agriculture and is now the minister of energy knows all of this but let us move on to Bill C-73.
We are talking of the post office and it pleases me to no end to talk about the post office today. Particularly today, because yesterday Canadians discovered to their astonishment some of the Canada Post policies. Here is how it works roughly.
If you are an ordinary garden variety MP and the postmaster retires in your riding, your post office is closed, period. Now, if you are the member for Charlevoix, the Prime Minister, and the postmaster retires in your riding, there is a different rule. Here is how it works. When the postmaster retires Canada Post refers to that as a natural opportunity. I suppose getting old or dying is natural. That natural opportunity is seized upon by the Tories opposite to shut down the post offices right across rural Canada.
In rural communities the post office is the only building with the country's flag on it. That is the post office in many rural villages in Canada.
What did Canada Post do? First of all it removed the coat of arms from its insignia. Then it removed the Canadian flag from its insignia. Not content doing that, now it is removing the post office altogether and there is nothing left. No more federal presence in rural Canada, no more Canadian flag. It is gone.
The member opposite is telling me to be careful about Canada Post. I do not know if he is going to send Don Lander after me if I am not careful or perhaps some of his spin doctors who are having lunch across the street in the National Press building. Half a dozen of them are trying to instil a message in the press different from the truth that we all know, to put it kindly. Nevertheless here is the truth.

The village of Saint-Irenee, with a population of 363, lost its postmaster, but it kept its post office anyway on December 1, 1992. Some of these villages are in the riding of the member opposite, others are in the Prime Minister's riding, like Baie-Saint-Paul, with a population of 3,733. I will even admit that if my riding had a community of 3,733 people, it might have kept its post office. In any event, the post office in Baie-Saint-Paul stayed open. As the hon. member knows, the same thing happened in Forestville: the post office stayed open. Saint-Simeon has a population of 1,020, which is not a lot. The postmaster resigned on February 4, 1991. It had an acting postmaster until March 9, 1992 and another one was hired. The post office stayed open. Good for them.
But why does the same rule not apply to other Canadians living in rural areas? As the member opposite knows, Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive has a population of 225 and 35 houses; the postmaster quit and a notice was issued to hire another. The new one has not even been hired, but the post office is still open and it has been announced that a new postmaster was being hired. As we know, Bradore Bay is a Group 1 post office, the smallest kind there is in Canada-


Charles A. Langlois: It's in my riding.


Don Boudria: I know that it is in the riding of the hon. member for Manicouagan.


The postmaster retired, Canada Post advertised the position within the Corporation and no one applied. No one. What did it do? It advertised it a second time throughout the system, in the same region that time, not just at the local post office. Once again, no one applied for the position. It tried twice to fill it.
In Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in Stormont-Dun-das, in Avonmore, in the riding of my colleague, the member for Gatineau-La Lievre, what did it do? It closed the post office the first chance it got! It has tried twice to keep it open in Bradore Bay. What did it do? It has still not found anyone who wants that job. It announced it would close the post office and it is still open today. So much the better for the people of Bradore Bay! But why a different rule for the Prime Minister's neck of the woods than for the rest of Canada and other members from rural areas?

Yesterday the Minister of Labour replied in this House that his government did not interfere with the operations of Canada Post. Tell that to the Minister of the Environment who is sitting across the way. Ask him about Lennoxville. Is the post office not still there in Lennox-ville even though Canada Post announced that it was closing? The Minister of the Environment is in his seat. I do not hear a heckle. Ask the Minister of Public Works what happened in his riding. It is the same thing.
There has been plenty of interference in the operation of Canada Post. Some ministers, particularly the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of the Environment have convinced the postal authorities to change their minds.
The Minister of the Environment knows it only too well, very well. He knows of the representation. The constituent in question was phoning him and me minutes apart trying to convince both of us to do our best to keep the post office open. That is not necessarily wrong.
What is wrong is that yesterday the minister gave us an answer that was less than accurate, to use parliamentary language. He said that the government did not interfere and the government Whip replied to that moments ago precisely. The government does not. He just repeated it.
Government Orders
Yet, Madam Speaker, I have indicted to you twice that that was not the case.
I know all of my colleagues will want to talk about this because it is an important issue for all of us.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I take the opportunity to speak on Bill C-73 this afternoon. I do not think there is anything I would rather do than debate this bill today.
The minister responsible for Canada Post got up a little while ago and made reference to the comments of the member for Churchill who happens to be the critic for the New Democratic Party for Canada Post. He said that he talked about everything except the bill.
I want to inform the House that anything we say about Canada Post and the changes that are taking place in Canada Post do refer to this bill. I will demonstrate in a moment what I mean by that. The minister went on to say to me as the member for Timmins-Chapleau that in Sweden they have moved to privatize their postal services and that we in the New Democratic Party are always quick to refer to Sweden when we make a comparison between the working conditions and the conditions that exist there as they compare to the conditions that exist in Canada.
I would simply like to say to the minister that if he wanted to follow all of the examples that Sweden put forward in terms of protecting their workers and the working relationship they have with their employers maybe we would want to look at this a little more favourably. Until he is ready to do that I do not think we are ready to support this bill.
This bill is the employees' share savings plan. Its intention is to tiy to instil a little more pride and a little more partnership between the employer and the employee.
Plans have been tried before where they gave watches and they gave gifts and clocks and pieces of jewellery and what-have-you to try to improve the relationship between the employee and the employer, Canada Post. It did not work. It failed completely because it seems certain people within Canada Post Corporation are content to create a little empire to rule over and act like little dictators. Until that problem is addressed, these little gimmicks are not going to work. They did not work before and this gimmick is not going to work this time.

Government Orders
If Canada Post wants a share savings plan to work between the employer and the employees, why is it that prior to the introduction of this plan, it was never discussed with the employees that Canada Post wants to participate? The employees were never consulted during two years of negotiations prior to the introduction of this bill. Why is that? Is it because it does not matter what the employees have to say? Is it because Canada Post wants to throw this at them and say take it or leave it?
The minister is quick to say it is voluntary. Employees do not have to participate if they do not want to. That is fine but what does it mean? It means that only those at the higher levels will want to participate. They are the ones who will benefit the most from this because they have the most to invest. They have the most opportunities to take part in this program.
For those employees who will perhaps want to participate we are going to see a situation even worse than what exists now in terms of spying on each other and watching what is going on, trying to cut measures in order to create higher dividends.
That is the name of the game and that is what this corporation is heading for. It is heading for more profits and it is asking the employees through an employees' share savings plan to loan money to Canada Post in order for them, and I quote the minister, "to improve service". Does it mean Canada Post is going to maintain employment? Does it mean it is going to create employment? No, it does not. It is going to improve service. We are going to ask the employees to participate in a plan to lend the employer money in order to buy mechanisms and technology machines to put them out of work.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It's called productivity.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Productivity? Give me a break. It is called putting people out of work. The hon. member knows it.
This plan will not improve the situation at Canada Post. It will not do anything to improve the conditions that employees at Canada Post have to face day after day.
In my riding there is a small rural post office in a little town called Foleyet. The postmistress cannot even take lunch. She cannot even take a coffee break. Why? Because Canada Post eliminated the person who used to come in and help her for 20 hours a week. Canada Post has told her to close the wicket, just close it down. Never mind the people who are waiting outside. Never mind if it is a rural post office and people come from miles around to get their mail. Just close the door. Ignore them, do away with the service.
That post office is still open. Do you know why? It is making money. It is showing a profit. Do you know why it is showing a profit? Because there is no bank in that town. There are no other means for people to access any kind of a financial institution and they are using this post office instead. That is why Canada Post cannot close this post office down.
There are hundreds of these post offices in the riding of the member for Churchill, the critic for Canada Post. He has numerous situations under the same conditions where if the corporation would only realize that with a little bit of co-operation, with a little bit of help, these post offices would not only create jobs but they would also create profits. Are members opposite listening? They create profits. That is something the government knows about. That is something it wants. Along with profits, it creates jobs. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with jobs and profits? You can have it both ways, just try a little bit.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Move into the next century.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Give me a break. Zip it up. This member is astounding. If you want to speak, get up and speak.
The employee share savings plan will work if Canada Post has the co-operation of the employees. The employees have been left out. They have been left out of all of these negotiations and therefore they will not support it. They do not want it. All the unions that represent the workers at Canada Post Corporation have said they do not trust this corporation and this is a move toward privatization. The minister has said it is not a move toward privatization. If it is going to be privatized, it has to have legislation introduced.
Again today he said that he admires Sweden for privatizing their post office. In the past he has said that he would welcome privatization of the corporation at a future date. All it needs is legislation.


With this government anything is possible. It has such a large majority it can jam anything through. Is privatization out of the question for this government? Absolutely not. Is this the way we want to go in this country? Is this what this government wants? It wants to privatize and put all these people out of work.
We cannot take the approach of cleaning up the problems that exist in Canada Post because if we get into this kind of a mess with employee share savings plan it really does not do anything other than loan the government money to put their employees out of work.
Perhaps it would work if these were at least voting shares and if they would actually produce a dividend. In 1991 the corporation lost $128 million. How much dividend would the employees get? How much return would they get?
The government will retain 90 per cent of the shares. We have to assume that it is going to do that at this point simply because it is issuing 10 per cent. Obviously this must mean that there are 90 per cent left. What is the government going to do with them? Will these be sold to the private sector? We do not know. The government has complete control. It does not need legislation to sell those shares. It is not necessary. These are voting shares and it can do with them whatever it wants. If they vote and decide to sell them, they can do it.
This whole bill is a disaster. It does nothing to address the problems that exist at Canada Post. It does nothing to enhance the lives of the employees at Canada Post. It does nothing to enhance service. It only creates more problems and it is certainly something that Canada Post does not need.
Bill C-73 is as much a disaster as some of the conditions that exist at Canada Post Corporation and this bill has got to fail.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-73 which proposes to make amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act.
The operation of Canada Post and mail delivery service in general is a very large issue across this country. Since I have been an elected member I have heard nothing but complaints about what Canada Post is doing.
Government Orders
Certainly long before I was elected I heard similar complaints. In my own riding we have had the closure of several post offices which have been very controversial. My local constituents have had a lot of difficulty in accepting some of the changes which have been made.
As has been raised by others of my colleagues here, it is of more than passing interest how the Canada Post Corporation, which the government says operates at arm's length from the government, happens to go across ridings, such as mine of Northumberland, closing small rural post offices which have in the past, and those that remain today, provided a very important and valuable service to the rural constituents. I do not want to belittle the important service that has been provided by our postal service over the years in this country.
A country as large as ours has to put a very special emphasis on maintaining very high standards in all of its communications and certainly our post office services are very important.
It is puzzling how Canada Post Corporation, operating at arm's length from the government, closes post offices and reduces postal services in a constituency such as mine, yet the constituency of the Prime Minister just happens to be able to maintain its usual services. We do not have constituents complaining in his riding as they might in mine.
I have tried my best to defend the interests of the constituents in my riding. The staff at Canada Post have done their best from time to time, but we know they have orders as to what they are to do and what they are not to do. It seems very obvious that this corporation is becoming more and more a private enterprise with profit as its main motive, not service to constituents across this country.
Yesterday a few members of our caucus had the pleasure of speaking to the National Pensioners and Senior Citizen's Federation. We had a chance to discuss with them many of the issues that are of great concern to them across the country and certainly postal service was one of their major concerns.
Their position is as follows. I would like to excerpt and have on record what they have to say about our Canadian postal service. I think it is relevant to the bill that is before us today.


Government Orders
The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation wants the government to reconsider its decision to close all rural post offices. It reminds the government that almost 30 per cent of the membership of their group lives in rural areas. The government decision to close rural post offices has had a negative impact on those seniors' lives.
The Alberta Council on Aging stated in its brief to the federal government in 1990 that "seniors we talk to tell us the new services are much less satisfactoiy that the ones we had before when we had a knowledgeable, helpful and friendly staff in a rural post office".
The United Seniors of Ontario, said: "The rural mail delivery is an excellent service which should neither be reduced nor abolished. The supermailboxes are for the most part inaccessible to many seniors and should never be allowed to replace rural mail delivery at the rural post office". I have to say that in Northumberland I have had several problems brought to my attention by seniors who have had a lot of difficulty accessing the superboxes that exist in their communities, not just in the rural areas but in the suburban areas of my riding as well.
According to Rural Dignity of Canada, over 3,000 of Canada's small towns have concentrations of seniors, over twice that of the national average. I have many small towns in my riding of Northumberland. One-third of all Canadians 65 years and older live in communities of less than 10,000. As many as one-third of those 65 years and older do not drive.
Certainly the latest problem that I have had in my riding has been in the community of Hope Township where a post office was closed because of the very fact that many of the seniors do not drive and have to rely on others to help them. It has been a burden for them.
There was an attempt to try and set that closure of a post office right, but it does cause a lot of concern and change in a community that is at times very difficult with long-term impacts.
National surveys by seniors' networks show postal service to be among the top five issues of concern to Canada's elderly population. I bring that to the attention of our government because certainly it ought to be very concerned about the needs and desires of our senior population. When this is one of the government's fivemost important priority issues, it should certainly be stopping to listen to them.
The impact on seniors has many aspects, one of them being higher risks of physical danger. Outdoor boxes are placed in unprotected roadside locations without proper lighting or regular snow removal and seniors are at higher risk of physical danger. They create a loss of independence for seniors. In rural areas public transportation is non-existent. I can say that is certainly the case in most of my rural constituency. The superboxes and retail postal outlets may be split into two locations.
Those seniors without transportation are now required to depend on others to send or receive their mail. There is a loss of social contact that arises out of the closure of so many of our rural post offices. This was a contact that was very important to our seniors and allowed them to know that there was somebody who on a regular daily basis was there to check up and to follow what was happening lest there be some illness or accident that had befallen a senior citizen.
There is also a loss of a support network and the general lack of communication not just between a postal courier and a constituent, but also a constituent and neighbour. Since this government has undertaken the measures it has in the past to make changes to the Canada Post Corporation, communication across this country has suffered greatly.
The proposals that come forward in Bill C-73 today appear to me to be just one further step toward the privatization of Canada Post. As that occurs we have problems of loss of employment, loss of service to seniors, as I have just outlined, and loss of service to citizens of all types.
Other members have raised the issue of just how students who are trying to make application to get into university are hampered by our failing Canada Post Corporation's services across this country.
This is a vast geographical nation. We cover a large, large territory and it is imperative that we try to increase and improve our postal service. However, with the new and improved technologies that we have in the world today and with which Canada in particular is blessed, we find that instead of improved service we are paying more today for less and less service. Any moves in that direction which are going to exacerbate an existing problem I cannot support.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon.
Bill C-73 concerns Canada Post Corporation and gives the opportunity to employees of the corporation to share participation in the company. As has been noted, the availability of share participation has been deemed by responsible surveys to be a productive mechanism in 90 per cent of the cases. Indeed, 75 per cent of employees who have participated in such plans have favoured them as well.
While there is no way of knowing the extent to which Canada Post employees would take up this particular opportunity, the freedom for them to take it up or to refuse it is always there. I believe that the issue that is before us requires a good deal of debate.
In order to give an opportunity for all members of the House to participate, since we have had some interruptions today, I would move pursuant to Standing Order 26(1):
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-73, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.
And more than 15 members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my colleague so I have only five minutes, I believe.
I want to be on the record to make just a few points. Number one, I have always been a strong supporter of the postal system in this country. In fact, I remember being part of a study in 1982 when we discovered that the postal corporation, Canada Post, had an efficiency rating of close to 96 per cent.
In terms of efficiency, that is something that is unheard of. This was when we had post offices all over the country. This is something where philosophically I am on the other side of the spectrum from the government. I believe that the post office system of this country was a great instrument of federal presence.
Government Orders
I can remember the period of the referendum. The postal service in Quebec was a tremendous agent in helping to keep this country together. I think of rural Canada and the number of postal offices that were closed there in the last few years. It does not really contribute to galvanizing the will of this country in pulling it together. From a federal presence point of view, Madam Speaker, I say through you to the government that I am totally opposed to all of these post offices that it is closing. A lot of Canadians do not realize that these postal offices provide services beyond mail in rural Canada and even in urban centres. They have been access points for senior citizens in terms of getting their pension plans and other programs organized, and so it is wrong to be chopping up that federal presence across the country.
The other point is that it is not just rural Canada. In my riding there were two post offices which were running most efficiently in downtown Toronto and which were closed in the last six months. I received complaints from small businesses, people who run home-based businesses and use the post office box system as part of their business practice. The fact that we shut down these main post offices and turn them into franchise units where they do not have the facilities to provide the same level of service I think is wrong.
With regard to the relevance of this bill, I have absolutely no problem with the concept of equity participation for employees. This is a good thing. What I am really concerned about in this particular bill is that there is a non-voting share. There does not seem to be a code of shareholders' rights attached to this bill.
How do you value these shares? We all know that the postal service of this country is actually showing profits, not out of its operating system, but it has actually been liquidating assets in terms of land and buildings. I am sure in my riding where it has shut down the post office that the next step will be to basically sell the land or sell the building so it can get some quick cash to beef up the financial statement so it can ultimately turn it into a totally privatized operation.
In business, people have a system of earnings per share per quarter where the bottom line is all that business looks for. In government, we are in the business of servicing people. I think that the direction thegovem-ment is taking with this act is working against service to the public.


Government Orders


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, Bill C-73 which is an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, has one great fallacy. It fails to address the service of Canada Post to Canadians. Of all the things that Bill C-73 purports to do in terms of giving the shares of Canada Post, or an opportunity of those shares to employees, the government seems to be missing the biggest need and that is to address the postal service to Canadians in both rural areas and in urban centres.
We have tried to document with this government that closing stations, putting up supermailboxes, doing away with door-to-door delivery and removing the presence of the Canadian flag at postal stations across the country is not furthering or enhancing the sense of Canadianism and the important role that Canada Post has played traditionally through the many years. Not to even mention that there seems to be one rule in the ridings of regular members of Parliament and a completely different rule in the riding of the Prime Minister where the Canada Post stations are not being closed when in fact stations of greater service and of greater importance elsewhere are being closed.
The other point that I certainly want to dwell on in the few minutes accorded me in this debate is the way that Canada Post and the government approach public input. A postal station in my riding of York West was closed just a few days ago, Postal Station Downsview C in the Jane-Finch community. Canada Post officials late last year approached me because they were thinking of redesignating that postal service delivery. They had come at it from the standpoint of: "We wish to let you know this is what we are thinking of doing". I objected to that because I thought within the equation of that decision there was no thought given to what the clientele might think of redesignating or closing that particular postal station.
I suggested to them that it would only be legitimate and proper to delay any decision until they heard from the users, the clientele, the public, the community that had used that station for many years. Canada Post agreed with that process.
Then early in the new year I received a call saying that the building in which the postal station was located was sold and therefore they had to expedite their decision without public consultation. That decision was negative-because the decision was to close Downsview Postal Station C.
When we talk about indifference, cynicism and Canadians not believing in their institutions and governments any more and use this one classic example, is there any wonder?
The users of Downsview Postal Station C had absolutely no input and not one word to say about a post office that their taxes sustained and supported. I do not believe that is the way we should conduct public business. Canada Post is a public service to Canadians. Therefore we are having a public meeting next Thursday after the decision has been made.
Obviously there is going to be unhappiness and concern. It could have been managed and should be managed differently, not only for my riding but for the entire country. They should take Canadians into their confidence and allow Canadians the partnership to build and to redesignate and compromise so that both the community and Canada Post win. They should not shut out the communities. They should not agitate communities. They should not incite community activism which obviously will be organized now because of how things were done.
It certainly left bitter feelings in the community surrounding Downsview Postal Station C. It is not only a question of the stations that have been closed in the rural communities of Canada where it has taken on additional importance, but also in urban centres like my own city of metropolitan Toronto.
A lot of Canadians are dissatisfied with the postal service they are getting. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction that the user, the public, has no say. This is what we should be addressing in legislation before the House and not missing the mark and only talking about shares to employees. Let us talk about how we can improve this service for the benefit of all Canadians.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.
North Surrey has the largest postal sorting service outside the city of Vancouver. About 18 months ago the postal station was informed that it would be closed and consolidated with the city of Vancouver. The local councils objected. The GVRD objected. The mayor of Vancouver objected. It is the wrong location. The services should be located in the suburbs where the people are. Surrey has a much better transportation corridor than the city of Vancouver. It is against the officialcom-munity living plan of the GVRD to consolidate employment in the downtown core.


I met with senior people in the post office, including the vice-president for mail operations. About that time they found out that the Vancouver post office was structurally unsound. They realized that they could not consolidate safely into the city of Vancouver. I was informed that was off and they were now going to look for property in the Fraser Valley, probably in Surrey, to consolidate a postal sorting service. As recently as the last two or three months I have been informed that this was continuing and was even told about potential sites.
About a week ago a letter was delivered to my office by fax, addressed to me, not to the post office workers or to the unions. It was addressed to me. It was announced that the government was going to close the Surrey postal service as of May 31.
I would like to read one paragraph from this letter because I think it shows what is happening with this corporation. It says: "Any potential impact on employees will be dealt with in accordance with their respective collective agreement. Canada Post Corporation will consult fully with affected unions. No employees will lose employment as a result of the new network processing system although some will be accommodated in other locations".
The three-paragraph press release that went with it contained other interesting points, saying: "Canada Post is consulting with all affected bargaining unions to fully discuss this change. Canada Post will continue to update employees on a regular basis as more information becomes available".
This letter was faxed to my office at seven o'clock in the morning. At ten o'clock I phoned the local union to get its reaction and found out that Canada Post had not informed the employees and had not informed the union. I was put on the speaker phone and that is how 100 workers in Surrey found out that their jobs were gone.
Then it came back and said it wanted to work co-operatively with the union and the workers. It did not even have the courtesy to inform them. It sent a letter, not addressed to the union and a copy, but it sent a letter to the MP because the MP had been on its backside for a year and a half insisting that it treat employees fairly and
Government Orders
keep the services in Surrey. It felt it had to pacify me but it did not have any regard for its employees.
Later that morning I talked to the local manager who told me that the letter was inaccurate, that 20 people would lose their jobs. Out of the 100 employees, 20 of them would actually lose their jobs in spite of the fact that the letter to me said this was not so.
Here the corporation went ahead in spite of local governments, the GDRD, the city of Vancouver, all pointing out to it that downtown Vancouver was not the place to locate the service. The transportation corridors were more appropriate to airport, rail and road in Surrey.
Then it had the audacity to go in and say it wanted the co-operation of the employees and it did not even follow common courtesy, let alone personnel practices and it ended up with the member.
This is repeated over and over again and I am sure my colleague from Vancouver East will have other comments along the same line.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I oppose Bill C-73 because it is the first step in selling off Canada Post. This post office, which has been so undermined by this government and by the Canada Post Crown Corporation has been an essential public service since the beginning of Confederation. As other speakers have said, post offices were the heart of most communities.
Privatization is deeply resented by most Canadians. The bill is misleading to employees. It is an attempt to undermine collective bargaining. It will not give real power to workers who purchase shares. It will not promote labour-management peace but will increase hostilities.
It does nothing to improve or maintain effective postal services in Canadian communities, communities that have been decimated by this government's inhumane privatization policies and action.
In my constituency of Vancouver East, a multicultural multi-ethnic riding, Canada Post has closed every post office. I have received frequent complaints about the services in the small franchised units which they have been attempting to develop in small stores. The importance of skilled and informed postal workers providing services to the community rather than having untrained,


Government Orders
overworked, underpaid and often part-time clerks in stationery or drug stores is very apparent in my riding.
Vancouver East is home to large Chinese, Korean, Italian, Latin American and other international communities. A thorough knowledge of international postal systems is vital for the maintenance of family communications. Sometimes it can mean the very survival of family members in the country of origin.
Yet with this new system it is understandable that part-time clerks who are untrained and underpaid do not have the skills to communicate with people of different cultures and to understand foreign procedures. Many franchise unit staff members simply do not seem to know postal procedures. The result is that people are forced to chase their parcels across the city and the country. Seniors, parents with young children and physically disabled people find the services inaccessible and sometimes impossible to use.
It is outrageous that this government has allowed this devastating deterioration of essential public services. I
could go on and on, but in the time remaining I would like to move:
That the House do now adjourn.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion has been adopted and the House is adjourned until Monday morning at eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.54 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 8,1993