Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):

Mr. Speaker, on June 22, the Minister told this House:

We are confident that Canadian security was not compromised and that

Canadian authorities have acted to preserve our security.

Can the Minister still maintain this position and confirm for us that this statement made last week still stands today?

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister stated in this House last Monday that the railway workers of the Newfoundland Railway supported the financial package which closed the Newfoundland Railway and would provide $70 million for labour adjustment. Was it because they had been deceived by the statements of the Minister for International Trade and the President of CN into thinking that the $70 million was available for negotiated benefits over and above what their collective agreement or employment contracts required?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister end the uncertainty among workers and confirm, first, that there is no extra $70 million available to the employees in addition to the contractual obligation of CN; and, second, that this money is not part of the Government's contribution since CN is already obliged to make these payments to its workers?

Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):

Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member knows that the negotiations will take place on July 5. I think anything that we do at this point in time could possibly damage any negotiations that will take place. The package that will be put in place will be one of the most generous that this country has ever seen.

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):

Mr. Speaker, the confusion that the Government has created among the workers of CN in Newfoundland is astounding. The workers were convinced that the Government has a package of $70 million over and above their contractual obligations. I now hear that this is not the case. Why does the Minister not come clean and tell the people the truth?

Oral Questions

Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):

Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that it would be premature and irresponsible to make any statements until we have sat down and properly negotiated the agreements as laid out.

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. It involves the disposal of federal surplus lands. When the federal Government is disposing of surplus lands it has a policy of offering them first to provincial Governments, and then to municipal Governments, before making them available for housing.

Will the Minister direct the Bureau of Real Property Management of the Treasury Board to adopt a housing first policy so that when surplus lands are disposed of, particularly in areas where there is a housing crisis such as Metropolitan Toronto, they will be offered first for badly needed housing before anything else?

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):

Mr. Speaker, the House should know that since we took office in 1984 we have adopted a policy of reviewing the federal Government's landholdings and wherever possible disposing of excess federal property. To date we have sold some 492 properties. That has returned to the Treasury some $171 million.

Specifically with respect to the Hon. Member's question, I would tell my hon. friend that a review of federal landholdings in the Toronto area is presently under way. Once that is completed it is a question of discussing the matter with the provincial and municipal authorities and deciding on the best use of that property. That decision will be taken at that time.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of the operators' and technicians' strike at Bell Canada, which threatens to affect telephone services for about seven million Canadians who reside in Quebec, Ontario and the North West Territories. Those most likely to be affected are people with a hearing disability and the physically disabled who need operator assistance to make a call. Furthermore, people who are trying to communicate an

June 27, 1988

Oral Questions

emergency situation cannot make do with a tape recorder that answers "This is a recording".

Mr. Grise:

Don't call us, we'll call you.

Mr. Guilbault (Saint Jacques):

I therefore want to ask the Government, which certainly has a responsibility to ensure that such services are maintained, to inform the House what it intends to do so that the disabled can continue to make calls during the strike and emergency situations can still be reported.

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague, the Minister of Labour, that officers of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service have been in contact with the parties and are following the developments in the dispute. There was a conciliation process in place earlier that failed to win the support of the union members.

I understand that under its terms of licence the company must continue to provide service and that it is prepared to do

so.

We will of course continue to monitor the situation. It is a legal strike. My colleague, the Minister of Labour, will be following the situation to ensure that for those in need there will be the necessary services.

[ Translation]

Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Mr. Speaker, while I was asking my question, the Member for Beauce thought he was being funny when he said: "Don't call us, we'll call you!" That shows the extent of his concern for the disabled.

Ms. Copps:

The clown from Beauce.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

We are aware that a report had been commissioned from Mr. Warren Edmunson, a conciliation commissioner. We know the Government has a copy of the report in hand. I would like to ask if the Government is in a position to table the report forthwith, or at least to release the essential elements of the report in order that Canadians may better understand the issues at stake, especially as they threaten a service that they have paid for and to which they feel entitled?