Debates of May 27th, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall all questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, an act to amend the Department of Labour Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Department Of Labour Act

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, like the other components of the strategy, the emphasis is on pragmatic, meaningful measures to target the real needs of those affected by change and the needs of the region as a whole at a time of unprecedented transition.

The Atlantic groundfish strategy is, in fact, the opposite of the band-aid approach that has characterized the previous responses to the economic crisis in Atlantic Canada. The strategy represents instead a long term investment in communities deeply affected by circumstances beyond their control.

It is also an investment in people, including those older workers who have invested and contributed so much for so long to the groundfish industry.

As members are aware, the Atlantic groundfish strategy has two primary objectives, to re-establish a rationalized, restructured fishery, and to serve as a catalyst for diversified economic growth outside the fishery.

As such, the strategy offers a wide range of programs and options specifically tailored to individual career and employment requirements.

These options include training activities such as literacy training, community based adult basic education, university study programs and entrepreneurial training.

Green projects that connect environment enhancement with meaningful skill development in an emerging industry.

Employment incentives to encourage participants to find and accept jobs.

Self-employment assistance to stimulate business start-ups outside the traditional fishery and support entrepreneurship training.

A community opportunities pool allowing individuals to develop and contribute to community based projects and initiatives where they live.

Portable wage subsidies to allow non-fishery employers to hire people and provide on the job training.

Mobility assistance to provide relocation support for those who wish to find work outside their community.

Several adjustment programs for youth and of course older workers.

I now want to address more specifically Bill C-30, the proposed amendment to the Department of Labour Act. It is crucial to note that when we refer to older workers in the east coast fishery we are talking about those from 55 to 64 years of age. The Department of Labour Act already has the authority to make assistance payments to former employees between the ages of 55 and 64.

However, an amendment to the act is needed to include fish plant workers who will reach 55 within their Atlantic groundfish strategy eligibility period.

It is this amendment, Bill C-30, and the compassionate and pragmatic reasons supporting it that I wish to recommend to the House today.

The strategy was developed with input from all those affected by the change: the provinces, business, industry, unions, communities and, most important, those whose lives and livelihoods were so closely tied to a diminishing resource. Some of them will be part of a streamlined future fishery. Others will take up new opportunities in new fields.

However, for many fish plant older workers there is the real possibility of falling between the cracks at a critical time in their lives. That is why the Atlantic groundfish strategy includes special considerations for their circumstances.

The fact is that because of their long term commitment to the fisheries many older workers have no realistic prospect of finding other work or learning and applying the new skills that a fast changing marketplace demands.

Although they are free to opt for the active training measures available under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, their background could limit the benefits to be gained from the participation in the strategy options and in the long run their chances of finding employment outside the fishery.

In the public hearings of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans many plant workers acknowledged this reality and asked about the possibility of establishing early retirement provisions starting at age 50.

This essentially is what the fish plant older worker adjustment program and the related amendment to the Department of Labour Act proposed; a realistic, compassionate, income maintenance option for these workers who have given so much for so long.

Under this program eligible fish plant workers who are between 50 years of age and 64 as of this May 15 may receive income supplement payments.

The program would be administered jointly by human resources development and participating provinces that enter into agreements. The cost would be shared on a 70 per cent federal and 30 per cent provincial basis. Eligible workers will have 90 days after they are informed of their eligibility to opt from the fish plant older worker adjustment program. They will then receive income support until they reach the age of 65.

Income assistance payments will be calculated on the basis of 70 per cent NCARP unemployment insurance benefits averaged over the three best years of 1988 to 1993 with a monthly maximum of $1,000. Until these benefits begin fish plant older workers entitled to TAGS will receive income support equivalent to their three year average UI NCARP rate less 6 per cent. The older worker adjustment program will be cost shared with the federal funding set at 70 per cent and participating provinces paying the remaining 30 per cent.

For older fish plant workers the maximum cost of this program to the federal government will be about $60 million. We believe that 1,200 older fish plant workers in Quebec and the Atlantic region will participate in this program. About 75 per cent of those workers are in Newfoundland, 15 per cent in Nova Scotia and the rest in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec.

Let me stress that participation in this program is voluntary. Fish plant older workers who want to benefit from the strategies, training and career planning initiatives can do so. The concept presented under the fish plant older worker adjustment program is one that our provincial partners and those personally affected recognize as having specific merit and relevance.

In the past and under previous governments of all stripes older worker readjustment policies rarely refer to early retirement because it was thought to perhaps encourage voluntary layoffs and create pressures for a universal and expensive rush to early retirement. However because of significant changes in social values and work patterns in recent years and yes, in the economy, more people are choosing to retire before they reach 65 years of age.

There can be no doubt that early retirement is an emerging human resources issue seen variously as a source to reduce unemployment, as a useful tool in industry restructuring or as a viable bridge to new lifestyle options. However we do not use the word voluntary for this program since fish plant older workers affected by the Atlantic groundfish crisis have not voluntarily chosen to leave their jobs. The fish plant older worker adjustment program addresses the fact that these workers were forced out of the labour force.

Precedents exist for the kind of initiative we are proposing today, for example, in Atlantic Canada. There is a plant worker adjustment program which already applies to workers aged between 50 and 64 years. The program assists older fish plant workers laid off as a result of fish stock declines in Atlantic Canada. It is now being terminated as it applies only to layoffs which occurred until December 31, 1993.

Other examples of income support programs for laid off older workers exist, including the northern cod early retirement program and the program for older worker adjustment. The northern cod early retirement program applies however to workers aged between 55 and 64. This program was created in 1992 to encourage a permanent reduction in the numbers of fishermen and plant workers laid off because of depletion of the cod fishery.

There is also a program named program for older workers adjustment, POWA, which applies to workers aged 55 to 64 who were affected by major involuntary layoffs from all industrial sectors across Canada. The fish plant older worker adjustment program is a logical application of these initiatives. It is also a necessary response to a unique and urgent set of circumstances.

I spoke briefly about the kind of contribution fishers and plant workers made to the economic life of their communities. Now I want to say a few words about the way of life that their work supported and carried forward through the generations.

Many if not most of the people who need help now live in small communities where people count on one another in a very unique way. Their communities were sustained by a fishery resource that is no longer available to them. The real resource is the people and the people are still there.

The future is theirs to create, but we cannot ignore the present needs. The skills of the past may not be in demand but the courage, the resourcefulness and the determination of the people are still there. This program recognizes how important it is for the individuals involved to maintain self-sufficiency and dignity in the face of unprecedented adjustment and change in their livelihood and way of life.

As such, the government sees the proposed amendment to the Department of Labour Act as essential to fully recognizing the past contributions and future needs of these older workers. We have drawn on the knowledge and experience of many groups and individuals to produce this legislation and this strategy.

It is realistic. It is definitely comprehensive. It reflects the principles and beliefs of this government so it is a fair and compassionate approach. It is designed to meet the kind of emergency which Canadians have not faced since the days of the Great Depression so it is innovative and effective.

This strategy and its programs are based on sound research and wide ranging open discussions with the people who are working to meet this challenge. Those who looked at the report submitted by the task force on incomes and adjustment in the Atlantic fishery, commonly known as the Cashin report, know that serious people examined the situation and came up with some realistic ideas.

The strategy is the product of two months of consultation with fishery workers and their associations and unions as well as representatives from fishing communities and from the processing industry. We have had the benefit of speaking with officials from both federal and provincial departments with responsibilities in this area.

The measures we have brought together under the Atlantic groundfish strategy reflect that consultation. Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland is one of the provincial leaders who contributed to the development of this strategy and he welcomed the measures it proposed.

In addition, the fisheries minister of that province, Walter Carter, called it a reasonable package and in Nova Scotia fisheries minister Jim Barkhouse said he was pleased with the strategy. Union leaders have welcomed the approach the government has taken both in helping people and in planning the future of the fish resource.

In the red book and in the speech from the throne, the government clearly spelled out a commitment to fairness and compassion in introducing fishery adjustment measures. We reinforced this commitment a month ago in St. John's. Common sense and common decency demand that the pragmatic positive implications of this amendment receive speedy and unanimous endorsement from all members.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 reminds me of an old photograph found in the remains of a house which has burned down, because it is the reflection of the disastrous condition of the fish industry in Atlantic Canada, which is mainly due to the mismanagement of the fishery issue by the successive governments of the last 20, 25 or 30 years. It seems that we could not find a way to get scientists, fishermen and governments together to deal with this tragedy caused by the near extinction of some species.

One good thing about Bill C-30 is that it recognizes the fact that some people are in a difficult and unacceptable situation. We see workers who, at 50, 52, 53 or 55 years of age, have lost their jobs. These people had developed some expertise in their field. These were fish plant workers you could rely on, but they do not have the skills to find a job in some other line of work. I do not think you can ask them to relocate, because they often have lived all of their lives in the same community, where they have gone through some difficult times and witnessed the failure of the federal government involvement in the Atlantic Canada fishing industry.

I would like to remind members that, a few years back, we often heard, especially when the Conservatives were in office, about cuts to programs aimed at protecting certain species. I may recall that at the time there was an agreement under which administrative responsibility for the protection of species was delegated to the Government of Quebec, an agreement that was adopted in 1922. Under Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government, it was decided to withdraw this delegation-this was around the beginning of the eighties-and today we see the disastrous result. In Quebec and throughout the Maritimes, we have seen an industry collapse, an industry that is no longer able to provide work for the people in the communities which had made a living from the fisheries for years.

I often wonder what we are going to do about the industry in the future. It is all very well to come up with band-aid solutions, but there is a basic problem, a problem that will not go away and it is high time the government took the initiative. I think that along with the compassion reflected in this bill, which lets people go on living in their communities, we must find new ways to intervene so that our maritime communities can look to the future with greater confidence in the potential for their development.

I think there are a number of questions that should be asked about what the government intends to do about the fisheries in the future. What will the fisheries mean to us? Will the people who worked in the industry only be able to pass on their memories of days gone by? I am reminded of what happened in the seventies-and it seems we never learn from our mistakes-when Forillon Park was created in the Gaspé. The government forgot that people had their homes there, and they even asked them to leave. Today, we realize that we could have called on these people to develop tourism in their area, making sure that they took an active part in it and earn some money that way.

The measure is interesting, but we can wonder if it will be applied openly, giving the necessary support to people who have all kinds of initiatives, such as setting up community projects, or turning a small village or a town into a tourist attraction. I hope that they will not have to cut through the same red tape as others before them with similar projects.

For example, in my riding, some people applied to the independent workers assistance program. They were told that there was no money for that. They are on UI and since there is no money, new businesses cannot be allowed, and yet it would not cost anything more. Is this kind of treatment going to be applied to workers who will retire that way? I hope not.

There is another question one must ask. Will the agreements be signed on an individual basis or will it be a general agreement passed with provincial governments? Individuals should not have to face government bureaucracy alone. In their tragic situation, they must be treated humanely.

This bill brings the retirement age for fish plant workers down to 50. Do they not deserve a lot more? Let us have a minute of silence. It is like a death in the family. The parliamentary secretary said earlier that in areas like Atlantic Canada, the human resources were the main resource. I do agree, and it is probably the mistake we made in the past; we dissociated the human resources from their environment rich in other resources such as fish and forests. And because people wanted to catch fish, and mistakes were made in stock management, we are now in this desperate situation.

Should we not learn from our mistakes and strive for renewable development at the local level? I believe that there is a know-how to be found among the people who lived in those environments and know what it is to earn a difficult living, day after day, people who have also experienced seasonal work. If we do not take advantage of what these people can teach us, we will have missed the boat, we will not learn from the sad experience of these victims of our poor management of fish stocks. This bill is the result of the shortsightedness of past governments.

The situation in the fisheries is also preventing the next generation from learning the trade. People will be retiring thanks to a bill which will give them a minimum income, but we should use their knowledge to give young people the desire to fish, perhaps for species presently underused, and also to develop know-how in the processing of these new species in order to provide employment.

I believe that it is an acknowledgement that government intervention in the fisheries failed in Atlantic Canada and in Quebec.

This bill is more or less an acknowledgement by the federal government that it did almost irreparable damage. We also realize that it is preferable that the people affected be allowed to retire rather that try to retrain them for work in other sectors, because it is too late.

I believe that the government should try, as much as possible, to humanize its action, particularly when dealing with the people targeted by the bill.

Bill C-30 is somewhat like reparations, something we do because we feel guilty for what we have done. I think we should see beyond that. In conclusion, I hope that people affected by this measure will enjoy to the maximum the years that lie ahead. I hope they will see in this situation an opportunity for a new start and will put their own professional experience to good use for the future development of their community.

I lived in the Gaspé Peninsula for a few years and I know that people in that region have good common sense, a quality which sometimes gets scarce the higher you rise in the bureaucratic machinery; I think we should listen to what they have to say in order to arrive at more acceptable solutions.

Allow me to make a parallel with the forestry workers. In the area of forest management, the situation is similar to that of fisheries ten years ago. We are beginning to feel the real threat of a shortage. Some workers in the forest management communities have presented various proposals for a restructuration of forest harvesting that would allow the resource to renew itself and would prevent a situation similar to that of the fisheries.

The government always finds a solution for people who are really at the end of their rope, who have nowhere else to turn to, and I hope it will do the same in this case and listen to the message being sent so that it will not have to pass the same kind of bill for the forestry workers in seven, eight, ten or twelve years from now because that would be absolutely absurd.

In his speech for the tabling of this bill, the parliamentary secretary praised the whole government action program for Atlantic fisheries. I think we should also seize this opportunity to see what could be done in other areas so that a situation like this one will never be repeated.

Other sectors of industry are facing somewhat the same situation. Workers who are 50, 52 or 55 years old and who have experience in a specific field cannot easily be slotted into other jobs. I hope that this example will serve to make the government more aware of the importance of treating other groups in this manner and of being as attentive to their concerns as they were in this particular case.

There is no doubt that the government is less responsible for the situation that prevails in other industries. However, fishery is one sector for which the government has primary responsibility. Other players have always been asked to do their part and co-operate, but the guidelines have always come from the government. Moreover, it was the government that turned a deaf ear to the warnings that were repeatedly issued, either by the fishermen or by scientific groups, about the repercussions of actions taken in the fishery.

In conclusion, I hope that the workers who have lost their jobs will be able, as a result of this measure, to continue living in dignity, to weather the crisis and to ensure a bright future for their local community. I hope that governments will listen to their concerns and that they will be given the necessary means to get their communities back on track.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill not because we do not care but because we do not believe that it is as realistic or as compassionate as the government would have us believe. We suggest that the bill is defeatist, that it shows a lack of faith in people.

We believe that happy people are people who are productive and people who have some control over their own destiny, men and women who earn a living and provide for their families.

People do not want to be pushed aside and told: "Here is $750 or $1,000 a month. We understand you are only 50 years of age, but that's it. Your life is over. You can no longer provide for your family and in fact you cannot provide a positive example for the younger members of your family". We do not think that is what people want in any part of our country, let alone in Atlantic Canada.

We have a government which in the last election promised jobs and now all it has to offer is early retirement. The government estimates that there are 1,200 older fish plant workers who will participate in the early retirement program and that the cost will be $6 million to the federal government. It claims that 75 per cent of the eligible older fish plant workers will be from Newfoundland.

It is okay to criticize what the government is doing but I think what is called for here are some suggestions on what we can do to make things better for these people. If I could I would like to share how I felt when I visited Newfoundland.

When you get off the plane there and make a purchase you are going to pay almost 20 per cent in sales tax and GST. If I were an entrepreneur and I arrived in Newfoundland and I had to pay almost 20 per cent sales tax, I would probably get back on the plane and head right back out of town. If I stayed around long enough to take a look at what the personal income taxes were I

would swim to get off the island. I think that is where the problem is here.

There is a problem wherein we have a province that is not economically attractive to entrepreneurs to establish businesses. What we need is more fundamental change in the economy to make it possible for the economy to grow.

What we do not need are more handouts. More handouts do nothing for people. They destroy people. They destroy their spirit and their will.

On this issue I am preparing a private member's bill which will make suggestions for cutting capital gains tax which I think will be very helpful in this regard.

Bill C-30 provides legislative authority for one part of the Atlantic groundfish strategy, the part to be delivered by human resources development. I assume the department believes it has authority for those other components of TAGS that it will be delivering.

Bill C-30 therefore responds to one of the recommendations of the Auditor General in his latest report with regard to the previous Atlantic groundfish package. The Auditor General stated this:

The government implemented a program for which in our view no clear and satisfactory authority existed. At no time did it go to Parliament to seek proper substantive authority for its actions. Parliament was denied thereby proper opportunity to review and debate the government's proposed program as part of the normal legislative process, to decide on its objectives and to approve expenditures to achieve those objectives.

The Auditor General went on to state:

The government should present to Parliament legislation that will provide a proper authority for this program and for any future programs of a similar nature.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is to be congratulated for the introduction of this bill as recommended by the Auditor General. But where is the rest of the bill? Does this bill really give Parliament the opportunity to debate the program's objectives? No, it merely attempts to patch TAGS into a pre-existing legislative authority.

Unfortunately this is not its greatest deficiency. Where is the legislative authority for those parts of TAGS that DFO is delivering?

DFO will be attempting to retire fishermen, their licences, and to create industrial renewal boards. This part of the TAGS program is without legislative authority and I call on the government to bring in the remainder of the required legislative authority to cover it.

DFO officials tell me that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans intends to use the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act as part of the authority. The Auditor General has already ruled that the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act is an inappropriate legislative authority. That act, the Auditor General noted, was passed in the mid-eighties to permit the government to implement the Kirby commission's recommendations.

It is important to note that the Kirby report and the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act were founded on the expectation of a doubling of the groundfish harvest. The Kirby report saw the problem of the fishery as one of finding ways to market the growing supply of fish, the oversupply, not the lack of supply.

TAGS expects to reduce the catch capacity by 50 per cent. The underlying assumptions of TAGS and the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act are incompatible.

The Kirby report said that one of the bright spots in the fishery was the outlook for the harvest, that by 1987 the cod catch would be more than triple the 1976 harvest. The total groundfish catch will have more than doubled.

The act expanded the catch potential and the fish were caught. Now there are none. Let us have done with any talk of using the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act to deliver any part of TAGS. I call on the government to bring in to the House a comprehensive bill that would outline its objectives and would give it the necessary authority to carry out the needed changes in the Atlantic groundfishery.

Dwindling stocks, caused in part by a failure to manage the fishery, created the need for TAGS. While the government is spending nearly $2 billion on TAGS due to this failure to manage the fishery, it is not even maintaining existing surveillance and enforcement programs on the east coast.

No better case exemplifies the willingness to allow this important infrastructure to run down than the letting of the contract for the fisheries observers in the Scotia-Fundy region earlier this year. The government did not even follow its own tendering rules. The tender requirements were manipulated in order to give the contract to a company that had no experience with foreign vessels and the offshore fishery.

The company has been allowed to use observers without the necessary experience. There has already been overfishing as a result. There have been published reports in sector 3-0 of vessels without observers catching undersized fish and dumping the unwanted fish at sea. There have been problems with Cuban vessels in the silver hake fisheries which by law must have observers on every vessel. The Cubans are fishing in Canadian waters without experienced observers on board.

This makes a mockery of TAGS. The improprieties in the letting of this observer contract are too numerous to list today, but I do want to comment on one further problem that came to my attention this morning.

Fisheries observers this morning told me that those fisheries observers who appeared before the standing committee only a few weeks ago have been blacklisted by the new observer contractor who has refused to hire them simply because they came to Ottawa and addressed the committee on the improprieties on the letting of this contract. If that were not bad enough, there is also an investigation under way into allegations against the chief of the fisheries observer program in Halifax as to his involvement in the letting of the observer contract.

The investigator was to have submitted his report today. The investigator told my office this morning that the investigation had been delayed for perhaps two weeks.

I call on the government to explain the status of this investigation into the chief of the observer program and to explain why DFO has delayed the completion and release of the investigator's report.

In his report the Auditor General noted two other items I think worth mentioning. He said that the government had difficulty in targeting payments only to those clearly affected by the moratorium. What he means in this regard, as I understand it, is first that it is very difficult to define who those plant workers are who were directly involved, and second many people who are not covered by this program were as well seriously affected by the decline in fish stocks.

The other point that he makes, and I think again it is very appropriate, is that fewer people than expected were taking training that would lead to work outside the fishery or were taking up retirement options in response to the adjustment component of this program.

What we have to do is help people overcome the difficulties that have been forced on them by this program, not simply to give them a handout and say: "Here it is, take this, go away. We do not want to hear from you again". We must provide opportunity for people so that they can lead successful and happy lives.

We on this side of the House envision an east coast fishery that is viable, self-sufficient and sustainable. We believe that the fishery can and should be a cornerstone of a more diversified economy in Atlantic Canada. We are confident Atlantic Canadians can compete in a world economy.

The government would have Atlantic Canadians living dependent on government handouts and in a constant state of instability. It is the desire of Reform members to encourage the implementation of a comprehensive program of change which would see the people of Atlantic Canada not only working but working in an environment that is both profitable and satisfying.

On the other hand the implementation of the government's plans will be to perpetuate the tragedy that is currently taking place in Atlantic Canada.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak on this bill, a bill that has great significance to me and to my riding, indeed my province and my section of Canada.

I had to redo the presentation that I prepared because I was assuming that this bill would get unanimous support in the House. I was surprised and I might even say disturbed to find that this bill does not have the support of the Reform Party. Perhaps if I had been here last week I would have known about this. I fail to see the logic of why it cannot accept this bill. Perhaps later during the debate today some hon. members from that party will be able to express to the people of Newfoundland and to Atlantic Canada why they do not find it in their hearts to support this bill.

I think it is a very important bill. It is important to the people of Newfoundland. It is important to those plant workers in this particular case who have been employed in the industry all their lives, generations, who have not been able to and are unlikely to find work with the devastation of the industry.

Rather than speak directly on the bill, perhaps with the idea of having the Reform Party revise its outlook on this, I would like to give some indication of the proportion of this tremendous catastrophe that has befallen us. I am not going to attribute blame. I am not going to talk about the politics. I am going to give the dimension of it.

I can appreciate that those outside the fishery would find it very difficult to understand what has befallen those people in Atlantic Canada through the loss of the groundfish. They know now the industry may not be allowed to rebound for a decade. The best scientific advice is five to seven years.

To understand the proportion of this catastrophe, in terms of the Cashin report it is a called a famine of biblical proportions. I do not think that is an exaggeration.

The sea is to those who fish like land is to those who farm. Any farmers here or representatives of farmers would appreciate what that statement means. Fishing, like farming, is more than a job because the relationship of the fisher to the sea is more than economic. It is organic. It is a way of life. It is a community.

I come from a family which has been in the fishing industry for seven generations. My grandfather was in the business until he was 66. He was in it from the time he was a young man.

There is a sense of belonging. There is a sense of accomplishment. There is a sense of community. There is a sense of past, present and future involved in this kind of organic relationship, in this case, to the sea and to the fishing industry. I cannot think of any more global terms or inextricably linked terms in which to put it.

Having said that, the devastation of the industry affects not just one industry towns. It is not a question of Catalina, Bonavista, Port Union, Melrose or a single town, it is a whole coastal area. In the cases I just talked about, it is the whole Bonavista peninsula. The plant in Port Union that employed 1,200 people supported 65 communities. That plant's closing down essentially means that most of the working population for men and women will not have jobs, not just in the three or four communities that are served by this plant but by 65 communities. I know that is hard to realize.

Again I would like to express the importance of the industry to Atlantic Canada. The parliamentary secretary said that in the case of this bill, 75 per cent of those affected are from Newfoundland. I want to concentrate on Newfoundland because that is the area I know the most about.

We have very few centres in Newfoundland that are not dependent on the fisheries. I will give the exceptions in case there is any doubt in anybody's mind. We have three pulp and paper towns, Corner Brook, Grand Falls and Stephenville. There is one mining town in Labrador City. There is one town that is based on hydroelectricity and that is Churchill Falls. There are a handful of very small farming communities. I have a few in my riding, I suppose the best known is Codroy. There are also several administrative and business centres like St. John's and Gander.

Almost all of the other 800 communities in the province depend entirely on the fisheries. Indirectly, even the administrative and the business centres that I talked about depend on the fisheries as they exist in large measure to provide services to the fishery dependent communities. The loss of groundfish fishery for a period of five to ten years can trigger the collapse of whole coastal areas, as I talked about earlier.

Let me be more specific and quote figures for those who may not be as familiar with this as some others in the House. Almost every fourth person in the goods producing sector in Newfoundland relied on the fishery-one in four. Regarding the plant worker, viewed from the manufacturing sector, every second person was engaged in fish processing, which is now virtually wiped out.

Let me talk to my colleagues from Ontario and perhaps from Quebec. If a calamity of similar magnitude befell Ontario's manufacturing industry some 800,000 people would lose their jobs. In Newfoundland 16 per cent of the total workforce depends on the fishery for all of its income compared with 2.6 per cent in Ontario in manufacturing, auto industry.

If you compare 16 per cent in one province with 2.6 per cent related to the auto industry, putting this another way, the devastation of the fishery in Newfoundland has the same effect as five times closing down the automobile industry in Ontario.

You are from Ontario, Mr. Speaker. I do not have to tell you what that would mean. That is another indication of the kind of proportion that we are talking about.

Let me go back a few years, the year that I was elected, 1988. Harvesting and processing in the fishing industry provided employment income to about 48,000 people, which generated a total income of approximately $700 million a year.

In 1994, 1995 and beyond much of this purchasing power, sustaining thousands of families in hundreds of communities along the coastal areas, will be severely reduced.

I have 260 communities in my riding. Everyone relates to the factors that I mentioned. As a result, the majority of these people and their families will suffer sustained income loss. I am just talking about the families and those who are directly affected.

I want to talk now about the cumulative effect. What is the second, third or fourth order effect? The multiplier effect will reverberate through an already weak economy. The official unemployment rate hovers at about 25 per cent, but the unofficial rate is over 50 per cent. I do not have to tell many people in the House that this is the case.

People say to me that I have Hibernia in my riding. Hibernia cannot be viewed as a significant offset to the devastating problem in the fishery. It cannot absorb all the communities. It cannot absorb the unemployed. In many cases it cannot even cope with the training period, the training opportunities and the skills that are developed. It could cope with some, yes, but Hibernia at its height could not even cope. We are talking about 48,000 people.

If no compensation measures are taken, the large and small fishery dependent communities I talked about will face total economic and social collapse. There are other results as well: the compensation expenditures, the retail trade, and the financial viability. I have had people say to me that they appreciate my standing up for fisherpersons and plant workers but that there are construction workers and other people who do not have jobs. I appreciate that and try to do what I can for them as well.

The point of the matter is that if I do not support those in the fishing industry and the compensation is not there, the corner grocery stores will shut down and the butcher shops will shut down. I suppose eventually the schools will shut down because there will be no pupils to send; there will not be any people left.

This money does more than compensate those directly involved. It keeps stores going and all the second, third and fourth derivatives. It is not only that. If there is no compensation, government revenues will decline. There will be another effect which does not affect us directly in the House of Commons. As a Newfoundlander I concern myself with its provincial budget. In 1992-93, $180 million was spent on social welfare in large part to look after people who had not been able to get compensation in the fishery or who had gone through their unemployment insurance related to the fishery and could not qualify.

In the budget of March 17, 1994 tabled by the Newfoundland government it was noted that 13.6 per cent of all expenditure in Newfoundland would be for social welfare. That is a sad note. It is even sadder to say that in this coming fiscal year there will be $29 million more needed than the year before to look after social cases, those unfortunate people who have not been able to qualify. I could go on but I think I have made my point.

It was suggested that maybe governments of the past had made mistakes. I know they have made mistakes. Governments are not perfect but governments have responsibility for these kinds of disasters. The government certainly has responsibility now to help affected individuals adjust to the calamity of losing their livelihood and with no hope of it being replaced.

Plant workers who were 50 years of age as of last May 15 or would be 55 years of age over the course of TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish strategy program, very much apply in this case. It is the responsibility of the government to look after them. It has a responsibility toward fishery dependent communities to help them adjust. This is true throughout Atlantic Canada but particularly in those coastal regions primarily dependent on groundfish.

The southern and northern coasts of Trinity Bay, all of Bonavista Bay and in many cases the northern part of Conception Bay have been wiped out. I mentioned the Bonavista peninsula earlier.

There is a responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They have a responsibility themselves because they are dramatically affected as a society. To adjust to the disaster or the economic and social consequences is a necessity. It is not something that is just desirable or could be done; it is something that should be done and has to be done.

We cannot take conventional approaches to these kinds of adjustments. I agreed with something said on the other side a few moments ago, that some old methods of the past have not worked. I do not disagree with that.

In the summary of the report of the fisheries committee, particularly with respect to witnesses from Newfoundland on March 31, the chairman said that we would fail if we tried to be 100 per cent successful. I agree. We are not going to be 100 per cent successful.

I appeal to the Reform Party that is not going to support the bill that Bill C-30 is a measure of success which I do not think should be downgraded or denigrated. It should be viewed in the total package. It is one part of the package and I happen to think this part is successful.

The task is too great to be undertaken in the way things have been done in the past. The key to shaping the fishery of the future and dealing with appropriate adjustment programs will be involving the affected people through their own programs and through their own institutions: fishermen and industry organizations, co-operatives and community organizations. That was done in the Cashin report. That was done in the fisheries committee when it was reviewing this matter. That was done by the minister and his staff. That was done by the human resources minister in advance of the bill.

Sending in outsiders, however well intentioned, to sit fishery workers down in classrooms and tell them about the future in itself will not inspire confidence among those whose livelihoods have been destroyed. Unless governments in partnership with the industry and the people affected can shape a credible vision of hope, the coastal society of Atlantic Canada will be consumed by anxiety and despair. I do not believe there is one member of any party or an individual member of the House who would want that to happen.

I have spent most of my time putting the bill into perspective. I have relied on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development to talk about the details of the bill. Bill C-30 is a very simple bill. It basically says that the minister may enter into an agreement referred to in a subsection of the Department of Labour Act to have the act apply to former employees who are less than 55 years of age. The condition is that former employees must be 50 years of age or more as of May 15 past. Significant to the debate is former employees of fish plants whose employment has been terminated by reason of a permanent reduction in the workforce at the plants because of a decline in fish stocks.

I say to those who do not support the bill that I have 57 processing plants in my riding. They will not look kindly on any member of the House who says that it is imperfect, that it is not totally the government's responsibility, that Newfoundlanders are being shortchanged and this is just adding to the situation, or for any other reason. Those who have run out of dollars to support their families and who are at an age when their prospects of finding work in a province where the unofficial unemploy-

ment rate is close to 50 per cent would not take too kindly to that either.

I stand as a member of the House, as a spokesman for my party, to say that we appreciate the disastrous proportions of the calamity that has beset Newfoundland. Whose responsibility is it? I could spend the rest of the day attributing blame and I probably would not be right. I might feel a bit better, but it would not do much for those people who have been affected.

I am saying to all members in the House who do not support the bill to take the perspective I have given, to take into consideration the 1,200 people and their families directly affected by the bill, and to take into consideration the possibility of anxiety and difficulty of living, of getting up in the morning, supporting themselves and sending their kids to school. Many of the 50-year old plant workers have young children. I know them individually. A proportion of the 1,200 plant workers in the 57 plants in my riding will be watching the newscast on their televisions today and reading the Evening Telegram or their local papers. They will be very pleased that at second reading of the bill this member, this party and this government gave full and total support to a bill that I believe is one of the most important bills the House has ever seen.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the passion displayed by the hon. member in his presentation and the quality of the arguments put forward, but I would have a brief comment to make.

I would have liked him to have displayed and to display the same passion on the UI entrance requirement issue. So, here is my question: if we are going to be this compassionate and supportive of plant workers confronted to the difficult situation of finding themselves jobless and unable to find a new job, how does he reconcile this position, these impassioned and perfectly justified remarks with the provisions concerning 50-year old workers?

How does he reconcile that with the changes made to the unemployment policy, changes which, as it is, will affect mainly the provinces he is particularly concerned for?

Let me give you an example. In the Magdalen Islands, last year, 43 per cent of UI recipients could barely meet the minimum 10-week requirement. With the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, many of these people will be forced onto the welfare rolls.

I was wondering if the hon. member would not see fit to make on their behalf representations similar to those he has just made to his government regarding the increase in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for unemployment insurance and the reduction of the benefit period. Could he not put the same arguments to his government, and particularly to the Minister of Human Resources Development, to be realistic and show compassion for the workers affected because fish plant workers seldom manage to find work for more than 10 weeks?

Would the hon. member be prepared to make representations to the Minister of Human Resources Development to at least restore the status quo with respect to UI benefits and the length of the benefit period?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for the point the hon. member raised. Many of us have been in the situation he has been in. I would imagine he comes from a part of Canada where unemployment is particularly high. He did not give the rate but I judge from what he said that it is high.

As a member of Parliament representing fishermen I have suffered the criticism-we all suffer criticism and nobody enjoys it-of supporting one group against another. That is certainly not the case at all. When the necessity was there I was supporting construction workers and other workers peripheral to the fishery. I refer to truckers and people who have stores that sell spare parts and maintain fishery vessels large and small. I could extend it to people in construction work who are not building piers and breakwaters because the requirement is not as great as it was.

The situation is not entirely the same. In this case a total industry was wiped out by an act of God or whatever. I really did not plan to attribute blame. It is not just the responsibility of the communities. Responsibility rests with communities, which means individuals. It rests with the provincial government. It rests with the federal government. This catastrophe or loss of work is so great that the effort required is not just a regional effort but is a national effort as well.

In my response to the member I say that the disastrous effect of a complete wipeout of an industry does not get the same response from government or individuals in other sectors who are not affected to such a large degree.

If I were the member I would say that does not really do much for my workers. I appreciate that. I guess the points made by the Minister of Human Resources Development were that the resources are limited and the present system, it has been proven by a number of experts in the field, does not do anything to get people back to work, so the adjustments that have been planned, that have been programmed, are not similar to those that are being discussed in this particular bill.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Postal Services Review Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

moved that Bill C-203, an Act to provide for the review of postal rates and services and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this bill to the House of Commons today. This is not my first attempt; as you may know, I presented this same bill in the 34th Parliament, but unfortunately I was not lucky enough then in that my name was not drawn by lot, as is required for debating such an initiative.

I would like to take a few moments to give you the background of this bill. In June 1988, the minister who was then responsible for Canada Post announced the creation of the Postal Services Review Committee, PSRC, which I am proposing to the House today.

In August 1988, the government tabled a bill, C-149, to create the Postal Services Review Board. Unfortunately, when the 33rd Parliament was dissolved, the bill died on the Order Paper.

Meanwhile, in November 1989, the PSRC made public several recommendations, most of which were not acted on by the Conservative government of that time. In 1990, the Minister of Finance in his budget abolished the review committee.

At present, Canada Post must publish its new or amended regulations in the Canada Gazette , after which the interested parties have 60 days to make their comments to the minister responsible.

After the Board of the Corporation reviews the regulations, the proposal is sent to the Governor in Council, who in turn has 60 days to accept or reject it. If no decision is made within that time, the regulation is deemed to be accepted and approved.

Under clause 18 of the bill I am proposing to this House today, Canada Post would have to submit a copy of any proposed regulation to the board for review at least ten days before it is published in the Canada Gazette . The board would have 120 days to hold a public hearing into the merits of the proposed regulation. The public would be notified of the times and places of each hearing at least 30 days in advance so that they can submit their recommendations in writing to the board.

The board would then publish its recommendations and comments in the Canada Gazette as soon as possible. The corporation would have 30 days to notify the board in writing whether or not it accepts the recommendations and, if not, to outline the reasons of its decision. This response would also be published in the Canada Gazette . The proposed regulation in its original form or, if amended as a result of the board's recommendations, in its amended form would then be submitted to the Governor in Council. If the Governor in Council has not approved or rejected the proposed regulation 30 days after receiving it, he shall be deemed to have approved it. It is similar in this regard to the current practice.

All major service proposals from Canada Post would be treated the same way. The corporation would have to send the board a copy of its corporate plan at least 180 days before submitting it to the government. The board would have 120 days to review the proposal, including a 30-day public notice, hold hearings and send its recommendations to Canada Post.

Again, the public would be informed of the recommendations. The corporation would have to respond to the board within 30 days and the response would be made public. This response would be in line with the proposal that the corporation would attach to its corporate plan and would be forwarded to the minister to be approved by the government. It would then be up to government officials to make the final decision concerning the rate increase and other major changes to postal services. In other words, the government would keep its decision-making authority. However, we would have this quasi-regulatory process I am proposing today.

The main thing is that this process will be as open and public as possible. Canadians will be kept informed, they will have the opportunity to make comments, to know the recommendations made by the Board, as well as the response of Canada Post and the decision reached by the public authorities.

Besides the regular reviews of the postal rates and services, the Board will conduct other examinations at the request of the minister. In other words, the minister will have the authority to ask the Board to undertake additional reviews on any issue related to Canada Post. This way, the minister will be able to ask the Board to hold public hearings on any issue. In such a case, the Board would present its recommendations either to the minister or to the Canada Post Corporation.

The bill that I have produced today, Bill C-203, has its origins in a previous Parliament. It was designed to address a number of concerns related to Canadians that reflected the previous government's broader agenda.

We all know that government, the Tory government, cut many services to Canadians in the name of balancing the books, not just postal services but many other services as well; VIA Rail, the CBC, I could go on and on, but especially the post office and especially in rural Canada.

In essence the Conservative government thumbed its nose at Canadians, particularly rural Canadians, and slashed programs without considering the impact on the people of our country. What a change with the compassionate and caring government that we have now.

That environment at the time fostered resentment and suspicion among Canadians that they were being shut out of decisions affecting their daily lives. There was a strong perception that the former government and by extension federal institutions in general were not serving Canadians as they were intended to do but were ignoring their concerns.

Even though this is a crown corporation and not a government department, Canada Post is the most visible federal government presence for many Canadians, especially in rural areas and small towns. Consequently the general dissatisfaction with the former government's method of operation caused people to question how the corporation serves them and whether their interests are being adequately considered in decisions about postal service.

I remember those awful decisions of years gone by when Canada Post decided in communities in my riding to shut down the post office.

That reminds me of something that happened in St. Albert, a community in my riding where the famous St. Albert cheese is made. This is a very dynamic, fast growing community with its three farm co-ops. So, obviously, no one could argue that St. Albert did not need postal services any more. However, the previous government decided to close the post office in that community. Why? Was it because it was not needed any more? No. Was it because the people did not need postal services any more? No. Was it because the post office was losing money? Absolutely not! It was closed because the postmaster had retired. Can you imagine making business decisions like that? Can you imagine closing down a plant because the manager retires? Fortunately, that government, and its attitude, were replaced by a more reasonable one.

For rural Canadians, the best day since the last election was when the minister responsible for Canada Post rose in this House to say that there would be no more post office closures in rural areas. That was an important day for my fellow citizens living in villages and small communities.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate again the minister responsible for Canada Post.

It is the lack of concern shown by the previous government regarding the needs of Canadians living in rural areas and, to some extent, in urban centres, which prompted MPs like me to table bills such as this one. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure accountability and services to Canadians in rural areas.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

It suits your own needs!

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member opposite is alluding to sovereignty again. I want to tell him that the day after he was sworn in, the Minister responsible for Canada Post made another important decision. He told Canada Post officials-and I am not blaming them, I am blaming the previous government-that from now on, the Canadian flag would fly over post offices. This had always been the case in the past and the tradition was reinstated. The only federal symbol in rural areas is again present, thanks to the minister who, on that day, fulfilled his responsibilities toward Canadians. He displayed that same sense of duty when he said that enough was enough and that no more rural post offices would be closed. From now on, the Canada Post Corporation will be there to serve Canadians. This is what I call leadership! This is the kind of decision Canadians expect from their government, and I congratulate the minister for taking those initiatives.

As we all know, Canadians resoundingly rejected the previous government's exclusive focus on the bottom line. Might I add they rejected pretty soundly the previous government, period. The fact that there are only two members bearing that party's affiliation in this House is testimony to that.

The purpose of Bill C-203, as I said previously, is to enable the public to play an important role in the establishment of postal rates and the provision of postal services. It would put in place additional safeguards to give Canadians a greater voice in how Canada Post serves them and to avoid the possibility of unilateral and arbitrary decisions by Canada Post, decisions that were made in the past because of the lack of political leadership.

I remember asking questions of the minister responsible for Canada Post. Remember that word, responsible. When I would question the then member for Calgary Centre, Harvie Andre, who was the minister at the time he would say: "Don't ask us about Canada Post. It is a crown corporation. I'll not do anything". Those were the kinds of answers we were getting.

Those answers were not satisfactory for my constituents. Rural Canadians did not like those answers.

Is it a coincidence that in rural Ontario, actually all of Ontario, where the Conservatives shut down so many rural post offices that all MPs are Liberals, except one? Rural Ontarians and Ontarians in general understood that kind of Tory mindset and the lack of leadership they provided in that regard just was not the way. That is why they elected this government. That is why this government took those two very important decisions I brought to the Chair's attention only moments ago.

What are Canadians' expectations of their postal service?

First, they expect fair and reasonable rates for mail delivery. Canadians want some assurance that Canada Post will deal with them fairly, particularly when the price of a postage stamp increases or the price of other services increases. There may well be valid reasons for proposing a postal increase. Everyone knows that has to occur from time to time. Everyone recognizes that costs can go up and they do.

Canada Post must be financially self-sufficient whenever possible, but if a rate increase is proposed Canadians want an opportunity for input. They want to know that Canada Post has not unfairly taken advantage of its customers.

In fairness to the corporation I must point out that the rate increase for letter mail since January 1992 has been at a lower level than the cumulative increase for the consumer price index during that period. However that is not the only issue. Canadians want to know they can participate as I said previously.

Second, Canadians want to know that Canada Post is fulfilling its mandate to provide a vital service. Notice those words, a vital service.

As a member for rural Canada I know the postmaster is not just a person who gives you an envelope. The post office is the place where forms are picked up for old age pensions, passports and a whole number of other services. The post office is a meeting place where Canadians congregate. I do not apologize for that; I think that is wonderful.

The postmaster is a person who is by statute of Canada assigned specific responsibilities such as vouching for someone's passport. You do not do that by simply replacing the post office with a service somewhere in the corner of a drugstore. A postmaster has specific responsibilities and important ones, particularly in rural Canada. That is why I am glad this government has said that the post office is in rural Canada, it is not there temporarily, it is there to stay.

Canadians have clearly said they reject the previous government's single-minded focus on cutbacks.

If changes to the post office are proposed, Canadians have the right to be consulted. They have the right to have their views considered seriously. We must ensure that the framework within which Canada Post operates provides Canadians the participation in decisions about the level and types of postal services available to them.

That is why I proposed this bill to the House today. I will say it again in closing, I am proud to see the things done so far by the minister responsible for Canada Post. I know everyone realizes we have only just begun and that more will be done in the weeks, months and years to come.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. I do not know whether he remembers, but we once met at the Saint-Clément post office, one of the post offices that was closed. I agree with the hon. member that the previous government lacked the most elementary respect for every aspect of rural development and for the vital role played by post offices in rural communities.

I agree with his objections to the policy of also making closures contingent on the age of the postmaster. I do not think the policy made much sense.

In any event, the moratorium ordered by the Liberal government was also mentioned by the Bloc québécois during the last election campaign, and in fact, we can say it probably came as a result of the will of the community and the leadership provided by people like members of Rural Dignity and the postmasters' association.

I think we have them to thank for this decision, and I believe that Quebecers and Canadians sent a very clear signal to the government that they rejected this somewhat ruthless policy.

Where the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I differ is on the quality of the moratorium. The one we have now is full of holes. I will give you an example. The minister has refused to reconsider past mistakes. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked earlier about the post office in St. Albert and I am talking about the post office in Saint-Clément.

The Liberals, who were then in the opposition, supported the reopening but, as soon as they were elected, they declared a moratorium. The Liberals now completely discard the possibility to examine those cases where real flaws have been identified, even the ones they denounced when they were in the opposition.

I have a short message to convey in this regard. The people of Saint-Clément are very patient. They take their time but they usually win and they have taken steps to have the post office reopened.

This will be an opportunity to see if the Liberal government, with this moratorium, really wants the communities to have their post office, because the will shown by the people of Saint-Clément will be supported by those of the area and-which will be very different from the last time-by the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup who supports people of Saint-Clément, rather than the opposite.

The moratorium declared by the Liberals also has other flaws, for instance the fact there will be no post office closing in municipalities with less than two post offices. This may look fine, but I am witnessing in my own riding another situation rather absurd, I must say, where it has been decided that a part of the mail going to Rivière-du-Loup would be sorted in Rimouski, approximately 100 kilometres away.

So they do not close the post office in a municipality-the moratorium forbids it-but they dismantle it from within. It certainly does not look like the best solution.

I feel this is more like playing on words. They are not respecting the essence of the moratorium by doing things like that, but there again they launched a process which I hope will succeed in guaranteeing the future of the post office in Rivière-du-Loup and will, at the same time, contribute to the economic development of the region.

As we said before, I think good common sense would dictate that the post office not be closed simply because the postmaster is reaching retirement age and that we do not, for no reasonable cause, send a postmaster to sort mail in a post office elsewhere when in fact there is work to be done sorting mail in his own municipality.

I believe the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is very persistent since he is tabling the same bill again, but his government does not have the same kind of backbone. In fact, the government could have proposed such a bill; the Bloc Quebecois would not have been opposed to the implementation of a regulation mechanism for the operations of the Canada Post Corporation. Provided that the system we set up is not too bureaucratic, I believe that, indeed, the action plan of an agency like Canada Post Corporation needs to be reviewed by the elected representatives of the people, because the objectives given to the corporation are not necessarily social, whereas government objectives could be.

I am glad that this bill has been introduced, but I am sorry that it is not a votable item, because there will be no real follow-up on it. Moreover, it is not introduced by the government, and the government should be criticized on that score.

What we need in this area is a real policy, a comprehensive policy that would show that we want to behave differently from the Conservatives. If we had a system guaranteeing openness of actions and mandate, if we had a board of directors made up differently, for example with representatives of the regions of Quebec or Canada, Canada Post would be more likely to listen to the regions and to consider more than strict productivity.

I believe that the employees of Canada Post do their jobs. They do them well, but according to the mandates they receive. If the board of directors was made up of people concerned with rural development they would certainly act differently.

Also, and this is quite obvious, we really need to change the approach to human resource management. Do you know that presently, in the post office of a medium-size town, there is no postmaster? Someone is in charge of sorting, someone else is in charge of marketing, but there is no real boss. That means that within the same organisation someone is only concerned about costs whereas somebody else deals with sales. No small business managed that way would last more than a year. There is nobody to balance both sides of the operation and that puts us in a ludicrous situation.

Moreover, there is a long history of bitter labour disputes, and a great degree of openness is needed to create a different climate at the Post Office.

Everything remains to be done at the Canada Post Corporation. We must salute the efforts made by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and recognize the need for an adequate regulation process that would not be overly bureaucratic, but we must go further than that. It is now up to the government. It must give a clear message. We need more than a moratorium full of loopholes which allows the Canada Post Corporation to pursue its down-sizing process without regards for the needs of regional communities. The government must make its position known and state unequivocally that the Post Office, as well as VIA Rail and other transportation companies, are regional development tools.

It is only when we receive this kind of message from the government, through its minister, that we will be able to say that the mission has been accomplished. In the meantime, everything remains to be done.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in this debate this afternoon. It is a concern of mine and has been for some time.

I join in the debate to support the concept of periodic reviews of Canada Post Corporation and its proposals to change the postal rates. I believe it is high time that Canada Post Corpora-

tion became answerable in some public way to somebody other than cabinet.

The postal service in Canada has been the subject of much debate and public displeasure for many years. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was concern expressed over large deficits and accumulated debt in the post office. Then the solution seemed to be to set the post office up as a crown corporation. This was going to bring efficient management to the post office. In some ways it may have brought some form of efficient management but it was a management that did not care about the people of Canada.

The people of Canada depend on the post office, on mail delivery. This is a vast, mostly rural country where mail delivery to the door or to the mailbox at the end of a farm lane is taken as a given in Canadian society.

Not any more. We have superboxes for homeowners in new suburbs to walk to and we have post office closures by the hundreds in rural areas. This has already happened.

Many rural Canadians have been saddened by the closure of their rural post offices because in many of these small communities their local post office was a spot where one could meet and chat with neighbours and their local postmistress or postmaster. It served a real social purpose in the community as well as a postal service.

In Lake Errock, one of our small postal communities in my riding of Mission-Coquitlam, the residents have worked hard over the last two years trying to get Canada Post to recognize the rights and necessities of their part of rural Canada.

To Canada Post I suggest just looking at economics is not enough. The post office is set up to serve the people and it is hoped that the present government will be concerned about all Canadians and continue to recognize rural post offices.

The other problem faced by Canadians was the intermittent, or should we say the regular strikes or work stoppages by the postal workers. Who in the House can forget the regular nightly images on our television screens of the postal workers' union heads, Joe Davidson and later Jean-Claude Parrot, spelling out their ludicrous demands on behalf of their workers while we all suffered with mail delivery shut down?

I used to send out many Christmas cards and about that time I stopped sending out Christmas cards and I have not done so since.

I agree, the post office perhaps more than any other crown corporation needs a watchdog that can review price increases and internal matters to ensure that Canada Post is properly run and that taxpayers are at least in this instance getting their money's worth.

As I said, to this extent I agree with the thrust of Bill C-203. However, set up a new bureaucracy to monitor the post office, a new board supported by a secretariat, personnel and all the attendant trappings? Maybe when there was more money in the treasury and maybe when the public was less cynical about government appointments to tribunals such as this, but surely not now.

The previous government was infamous for the proliferation of boards and tribunals to which it would appoint its friends and supporters. The Canadian people voted last October to stop this kind of practice and we in the Reform Party respect the wishes of the Canadian people.

As I said earlier, the thrust of this bill is a good idea. Surely the types of things that the review board was going to do in this bill can be done by the government operations committee of the House of Commons.

Canada Post Corporation is within the mandate of that committee. The committee deals with the estimates of Canada Post Corporation and if the inquiries are structured properly this committee should be able to do the job of Bill C-203's review board.

I served for a short time on the government operations committee and it seemed to me at the time that after the estimates were reported back from the various departments which reported to this committee, this committee would have sufficient time at its disposal to deal with Canada Post Corporation.

My suggestion puts the responsibility for the post office operations where it belongs, in Parliament. It is the fundamental function of all of us here to serve the Canadian people. One way of serving them is to put the subject of mail processing and delivery in the hands of elected representatives.

To be precise, Canada Post would at least 10 days before publishing a proposed regulation in The Canada Gazette send a copy to the clerk of the government operations committee for review. The committee would have 120 days within which to hold public hearings on the merits of the proposal and make recommendations to Canada Post. The committee's recommendations would be published in The Canada Gazette and the corporation would have 30 days to report to the committee in writing.

The recommendations of the committee and the response by Canada Post would be submitted to cabinet. If cabinet did not act within 30 days the regulation would come into force.

Again, when Canada Post wishes to make major changes in service these corporate plans would be submitted to the government operations committee for review. Surely that is one of its purposes.

Ultimately after a public hearing process the recommendations of the committee would be sent back to Canada Post and then the entire package submitted to the minister in charge of Canada Post for final approval.

With respect to rate increases, while the final decision would be up to the cabinet, a full public hearing process would have taken place on the subject and the rate increases again by the government operations committee. An important issue that the government operations committee in its review of the post office may wish to inquire into is whether, as alleged by the Canadian Courier Association, Canada Post is using the revenues gained because of its exclusive role as a mail courier to subsidize the purchase and operation of courier systems. Such an inquiry would be a good first step in establishing that the members of the House of Commons were serious about holding the Canada Post Corporation to account.

The Canadian Courier Association in a letter dated October 29, 1993 sent to all members of the 35th Parliament set out its concerns about Canada Post. It recited the findings of the Nielsen task force and the inquiry of Alan Marchment carried out in 1986 to support their case. I suppose it was the purchase of Purolator Courier that prompted this outrage by the Courier Canadian Association. Who can blame it? Canada Post used its unique position to subsidize its areas which compete with the private sector so Canada Post can charge less than the private sector.

As I said, this would be an ideal matter for the government operations committee to investigate.

In conclusion, while I support the thrust of Bill C-203, I do not support the means to accomplish the end. I would support amendments to the bill which would put the government operations committee as the review agency and would also support whatever changes would be necessary to the rules of this House to allow the government operations committee to perform this task.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-203 was introduced to address the concerns of the Canadian public over postal service in Canada. It is a commendable effort on the part of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

As we have heard, this bill is substantially the same as Bill C-207 which was introduced during the previous Parliament. Since that time and since the introduction of Bill C-203, considerable progress has been made following the implementation of government policies designed to meet the needs of Canadians while enabling the Canada Post Corporation to carry out its mandate.

In 1981 Canada Post Corporation was given a broad mandate that included achieving self-sufficiency while acting as a commercial arm's length crown corporation, becoming part of the business marketplace, and providing a federal presence in communities across Canada. Since then Canada Post has been taking measures to reach these objectives and has made considerable progress. It is imperative that Canada Post maintain its ability to fulfil its mandate.

Much progress has been made since Canada Post Corporation was created in 1981. At that time Canada Post faced economic uncertainty and was losing $600 million yearly. Twelve years later Canada Post Corporation declared profits in the last four of the five fiscal years and has paid dividends to its shareholder, the Government of Canada.

By improving its efficiency, updating technology and improving labour relations Canada Post has managed a remarkable turnaround. Furthermore, its on time delivery of mail to Canadians has been under regular and open scrutiny through an independent consulting firm.

Canada Post has moved forward and will continue to do so as a competitive, lean corporation that not only delivers mail on time 98 per cent of the time but delivers an important service to all Canadians.

The government supports the positive changes made by the Canada Post Corporation with a view to meeting the postal service needs of Canadian consumers and businesses. The moratorium on post office closures announced at the beginning of the year by the hon. minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation is one of the best examples of positive change.

If you have ever visited or lived in a small town or rural community in Canada, you will understand the devastating impact of the closing of the post office on the community. The post office is the nerve centre of small communities in Canada and guarantees a federal presence and an important communication link with the rest of the country and with the world.

Since 1987 close to 1,500 federally operated post offices, almost one-third of all federal post offices in Canada, have enclosed or converted. The minister's announcement earlier this year put an end to the closures of post offices in rural areas and small towns across the country, an initiative introduced by the former government which turned a deaf ear to the loud and emotional outcry of Canadians who risked losing an important link to the rest of the nation.

The moratorium protects the majority of post offices across this country. As long as this government remains in power, 4,000 communities across the country are guaranteed the benefits of a Canada Post operated post office. Further, post offices located in large urban centres will not be closed without a public

consultation process conducted through the postal service customer councils.

This demonstrates the ongoing commitment by the Liberal Party in saying no to the policy of post office closures, a policy that seriously hindered Canada Post in carrying out its mandate to provide a federal presence in communities across Canada.

This brings me to the subject of exclusive privilege that has been granted to Canada Post. Some would argue that Canada Post's exclusive privilege for the delivery of letter mail gives it an unfair advantage and justifies the creation of a monitoring agency.

However, in today's environment the exclusive privilege is perhaps more accurately described as an exclusive responsibility. Only Canada Post has the responsibility to provide all Canadians throughout the country with postal services. Its competitors can pick and choose where they can operate profitably, ignoring Canadians in those regions of the country where small populations and great distances between communities would limit the return on investment or result in a loss.

The Liberal government believes that for all Canadians, postal service is a right, not merely a privilege. All Canadians must have access to affordable, reasonable postal service, regardless of where they live. This essential service is protected by exclusive privilege which ensures that small communities and rural regions, the backbone of our vast country, enjoy postal service at a reasonable cost.

The challenge of providing service to such a vast country is formidable indeed, Mr. Speaker. I support the principle of exclusive privilege because it allows for the continued existence of the necessary infrastructure to provide fair postal service to all people, regardless of where they live.

Since exclusive privilege affords the Canada Post Corporation a foreseeable income, the corporation can ensure universal access to postal service while maintaining its financial self-sufficiency. This policy is consistent with that followed by countless postal services around the world.

Furthermore, it should be taken into consideration that Canada Post does face increasing competition from the world of technology such as the electronic transfer of information. One-third of its business is in competition with couriers, bus companies, trucking companies, airlines and other such industries.

In this rapidly evolving environment, competition provides ample incentive for Canada Post to meet its customers' needs at an affordable cost.

Other actions that continue to bring Canada Post closer to fulfilling its mandate include the establishment of a national control centre and the corporation's new in business to serve program. The national control centre is located in Ottawa and is linked to all individual centres across the country as well as to the dispatching system of airlines and the weather forecasting network. It constantly monitors mail movement 24 hours a day, seven days a week in a drive toward even more efficient mail delivery. It is the most sophisticated mail monitoring system in the world and has become a model for other postal administrations.

The national control centre is a great innovation that helps ensure Canadians receive a high level of postage service.

The future of the Canada Post Corporation looks brighter with a new approach to client services. The new watchword is "In Business to Serve." It is also the name of a new program. As I said earlier, Canada Post has to compete against a growing number of companies. While some technological improvements, like the National Control Centre, are helping Canada Post to keep its place on the market, a new marketing approach is also needed. With this new "In Business to Serve" Program, Canada Post will be able to meet the challenge by focusing on improved client services and recognizing the contribution of its employees and partners to this goal.

In conclusion, I would like to stress the real progress made by the Canada Post Corporation in order to meet the expectations of all Canadians.

By announcing a moratorium on the closure and conversion of post offices, the minister has already done a lot to address the issues raised by this bill. I am sure that the Canada Post Corporation will find the tools to provide Canadians with the postal services they need while remaining self-sufficient.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on a bill the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell introduced in order to impose some kind of regulation over the closure of rural post offices. In the last few years, under the previous Conservative government, many communities in Quebec, in Canada and in my own area had to fight to try to keep their post office. The people affected by those closures told us that this struck at the very life of their community.

Rural communities, of which I have a few in my riding and many in my area, are often built around the parish church, the school, and the post office. Those are the usual three institutions to be found in those communities. In many cases, they have already lost their school, some do not have a full time priest in their church any more and their post office has been closed

down. People in these communities are dismayed at the demise of communities on which their founders had put all their hope.

I am pleased to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell because it provides some kind of parliamentary control over the closure of post offices. It is a fact that the Liberal government declared a moratorium on the closure of post offices in smaller communities, but a moratorium is no more than that. The minister who declared the moratorium can lift it just as easily. In view of the significance of an institution such as the post office in small communities, I think the Parliament of Canada should have some control over the potential closure of those offices.

I went through an experience last week in my riding. It was not the closing of a post office, but of a school in the Saint-Jean-Eudes neighbourhood, in Jonquière. Saint-Jean-Eudes was once a municipality. After an amalgamation some time ago, it became a neighbourhood of the city of Jonquière. The people of Saint-Jean-Eudes had a city hall, a credit union, a post office and a school; they even had two schools.

Now, there is no city hall any more, no credit union, the post office is gone and they have been announced that their school will be closed.

When I visited these people last Sunday, I could see that they really had a feeling that a part of their community was going with their school. I was able to understand the feelings of the people of Saint-Clément, in Québec, and of St. Albert, in the riding of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. These people have seen a part of themselves, have seen major institutions leave their community, and they are concerned.

I think it is important for the Parliament of Canada to make sure that justice be done for small communities, that they be given the necessary means to remain alive and well. Of course, the argument that they are being given is that their post office is too isolated, too expensive, not profitable and that cuts are necessary. It has been said in the case of some small communities, and it is now being said even for some regions.

For example, some say that the Lac-Saint-Jean or Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region is too far from metropolitan centres like Quebec City and Canada and that we will no longer be able to provide some of the services.

As a matter of fact, they are now thinking of abolishing the passenger service between Jonquière and Montreal because it is not cost-effective, and the distances involved are too great. And so they cut a number of services in my region under the pretext that we are a remote area and that we must understand how the market operates. When it is not cost-effective anymore, we must stop spending.

I think that people have good reason to resist arguments like those because the government's responsibility with regard to regions, small communities and people in need is still the same. The government must ensure that its services meet the special needs of regions, small communities and individuals. It does not mean that we must give out all kinds of grants and pour money down the drain, but I think that before closing some institutions, a post office, a school or some services in the regions, members of Parliament should really think twice. They must ask themselves if they must apply only the law of the market or if it would not be better to be more generous and to take some initiatives so that these institutions can survive and keep the wheels turning in our country.

Canada is not made up only of big cities which work well and are cost-effective. It consists of a great number of communities, on the North Shore, in southern Quebec, or what have you; all these communities make up our country. Before taking measures that would jeopardize communities built by our fathers and institutions established by our predecessors, I think the Parliament should think twice and do what it must do so that these institutions, towns and communities will be able to survive and expand.

I invite my colleagues to support the proposal of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, since I think it seeks to maintain important things and to help Quebecers and Canadians live and be happy in their communities.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the management and control of an entity which is neither fish nor fowl. In theory it is an independent crown, but because any real competition is legislatively prohibited there is little incentive to be cost effective or to provide service. Therefore, it is legitimate that the post office be subject to government oversight.

However, I do concur with the proposal of my hon. colleague, the member for Mission-Coquitlam, that this should be accomplished by the government operation's committee and not by a new, additional bureaucratic committee.

Canada Post has forgotten its basic mandate which is to provide a public service. For example, as we speak Canada Post has proposed to eliminate the special rates for inter-library loans on books and to replace them with standard parcel post rates.

Just to give the House an example of what this would mean to some of our small regional libraries in rural areas, a book which would now go out under the present rate of 53 cents per kilogram returned would have to be sent out at a cost of $2.05 per kilo each way. We are looking at an enormous increase in rates, in fact an increase that is so great that it would effectively terminate inter-library loans in rural Canada. Another rural amenity is going to disappear if this is allowed to go forward.

I have calculated that for the regional library in my constituency at Swift Current, based on its current rates of loan, the costs would increase from a current rate of about $14,000 to a rate of $103,000 a year, almost $90,000 which a small regional library obviously cannot come up with. If you do not want people in rural areas to have books then this is the way to go. Let Canada Post have its own way without any government oversight and raise these rates as it will.

It is time that we took a hard look at the way this organization operates. It says that it has to be lean and mean. Well it is mean but I do not know how lean it is because it does not have to really compete. Since it is a natural monopoly let us for heaven's sake exercise the function of a parliamentary democracy and let the government get a handle on these people.

It is an arrogant, pampered organization. It is time it was brought to heel, preferably by the government operation's committee.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not rise to support Bill C-203 presented by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

The largest number of rural post office closures in Canada, as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell well knows, happened in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton. That is a big number to have happen in one riding. I have seen enough of the senior citizens, handicapped and disadvantaged Canadians who are suffering for a very basic service, to receive and send mail. It seems so basic.

The postmaster of the little Britain community centre is a man of great spirit who has great sense of community. The post office in Bethany is in a gas station. Lindsay has a sub-post office in a drugstore. Minden and Fenelon Falls were on the chopping block.

When I went to Sunderland I could not read the sign for the post office, it was so dilapidated. It looked like they were waiting for the disaster to happen. Well, Mr. and Mrs. Postmaster, I would like you to get your signs painted. Tell the public that the government will not close any more rural post offices.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention that I presented a petition earlier today, which I fully support, allowing senior citizens in a large complex to mail a letter. Why Canada Post can send a truckload of mail to a large complex, drop it off, but not pick any up at the very same location is beyond belief.

I support this bill by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I look forward to the strengthening of rural Canada and the strengthening of the rural post office service.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before closing off the debate I will give the mover of the motion no more than one minute if he wishes to wrap up, because this is not a votable item.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently on this bill. I am glad to see the attitude demonstrated particularly by the government in its wish to strengthen the postal system in rural Canada.

To those who wanted a parliamentary committee to review the continuing operation of the post office, I am not sure that every time we increase the postal rate by one cent or the price of parcel post that a parliamentary committee should have hearings across the country to review it. I would prefer that hon. members of the House deal with the substantive issues of our country and allow an agency such as the one I propose do the task of reviewing postal rates.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and a word of thanks to all my colleagues.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Before adjourning the House I want to take a moment, colleagues. At this time of year many visitors come to Parliament Hill and large numbers of young people come to our capital.

Earlier today I was not able to seize the opportunity at the time because we were in a serious debate, but one such visitor was Erica Louise Corbett. She is none other than the young daughter of William "Bill" Corbett who sits at the table as a principal clerk. It was her day to shadow Dad as part of a school project. I regret I did not have the opportunity to recognize her. I understand she is still probably somewhere in the building shadowing Dad. I want to tell her I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to recognize her, but I wish her and Bill the best on her project.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 2.32 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). Have a good weekend.

(The House adjourned at 2.32 p.m.)