1985-11-01

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's headline in the Journal de Montreal reads "SOS from Montreal East concerning eight plant shutdowns and possible loss of 7,000 jobs". In addition, the same newspaper reports the shutdown of another plant which will lay off 47 employees before Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, the problem caused by lay-offs in Montreal East is growing much worse because the workers involved are middle age men and women of 45 to 55. If the Government does not do anything to remedy the situation those people will draw unemployment insurance benefits and eventually end up on social welfare.
I would remind the Government that the Montreal East survival committee has urged the Government, first, to give Montreal East a zone four designation so it can avail itself of benefits related to plant upgrading and installation of new facilities, as well as of the so-called early retirement program for employees.
Second, Montreal East residents are asking that the Canadian Government assume its responsibilities by giving contracts to the Vickers company, allocating funds to the prospective buyers of Montreal East's Gulf refinery, and awarding contracts to the Bombardier company.
Mr. Speaker, when he was on the hustings the Prime Minister said that Montreal would become an international city, and all I can hope for is that it does not become a ghost city.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, the Continental Bank has recently been given a clean bill of health by the Inspector General of Banks. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) have all said repeatedly that the Canadian banking system is sound. However, recent events have demonstrated just how profoundly the Government's mishandling of the CCB and Northland affair has shaken the public's confidence. Now, the fact that sophisticated investors and money managers are reluctant to inyest in one of Canada's largest and most established banks, provides a clear signal as to just how far confidence has eroded.
Ordinary Canadians and investors alike have lost confidence in the Government's ability to regulate and supervise our banks. Confidence must be restored to this pivotal sector immediately. What the Government has done up to this point has obviously been inadequate.
I suggest that the first step to restoring confidence in our banking system would be for the Prime Minister to provide some strong leadership and remove the Minister of Finance, who must accept ministerial responsibility for this colossal financial bungling, and for the Prime Minister also to ask the Minister of State for Finance to say absolutely nothing about the stability of the banking system, for her comments on stability in the past have always turned out to be the kiss of death for the institution involved.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House a matter which is most disturbing. Yesterday I received, as thousands of Canadians have been receiving through the regular mail, a business envelope with the words "Taxation Notice; avis d'impots" in bold, red print in the upper left-hand corner. Through the cellophane window of the business envelope Canadians see their name and address, postal code, and a number preceded by the letters "TX".
Clearly anyone seeing such an envelope would be led to believe that some level of Government was writing to them with regard to taxes assessed or owing.

November 1, 1985

Mr. Speaker, does one get a tax assessment notice or a reminder when opening the envelope? Or does one get an official Government document? No, Mr. Speaker, one gets a picture of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and a letter asking for a financial contribution to the NDP.

This technique is one which is a misrepresentation, at best. It misleads Canadians into thinking their municipality or federal Government is corresponding with them when, really, it is only an NDP ploy for money.
Canadians will not appreciate this joke being played on them. They will find this brand of NDP humour to be in bad taste. All Canadians who are victimized by this NDP brainstorm should demonstrate their disgust by throwing this so-called "taxation notice" in the garbage.
The only good thing which can be said about this trick is that the NDP has finally admitted that it, its policies and its tactics, are taxing to all Canadians.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, for some time women's centres across the country have been experiencing severe financial problems due to federal funding cut-backs.
The Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre in Winnipeg is but one example. This centre provides an invaluable service to many Manitoban women, offering information and referral services, crisis intervention, counselling and volunteer training, to name only a few of its services. Much is done at these centres, and it is done at a very low cost and in an efficient manner.
Ongoing funding must occur, and once again the Manitoba Government is stepping in to replace vanishing federal funds. The Manitoba Government is willing to offer $21,000 in core funding, which is in addition to the $24,000 offered by the province for programming moneys.
We are asking the federal Government to be prepared to match that amount, knowing full well that, without core funding, programs are difficult to deliver, with no place to deliver them from and no staff to provide the services.
Given the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), not only during the election campaign but during the televised debates, to offer money for such centres, will the Government finally deliver on the many promises made to Canadian women, starting with the Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on July 17, 1984, the Leader of the Conservative Party wrote to Mr. Harry Pelissero, President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I should like to read what he said. The first promise made to the OFA was:
A Progressive Conservative Government will commit its share of the necessary funds in order to ensure completion of the municipal drains in eastern Ontario under the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement.
Thus far that is a broken promise. The second promise was:
A Progressive Conservative Government will establish an Agri-Bond Program to provide loans at reduced interest rates to agricultural producers. A tax exemption for earned income on these bonds would be provided to attract investment capital to this program.
That is a second broken promise. The next broken promise
was:
We will reduce the price of farm fuels by 20 cents per gallon by removing the 9 per cent federal sales tax and by not collecting the current excise tax.
Strike three. The Government is out on that one as well. Another promise was:
A Progressive Conservative Government would look to expand the role of the Farm Credit Corporation to take into account. .. interest rates-
That is another broken promise. Finally:
A Progressive Conservative Government would be very aggressive in dealing with subsidized agricultural imports.
And the biggest lie of them all:
My colleagues and I look forward to working closely with you in the future.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday after I had presented a petition to the House, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) stated:
I too have a petition from the fine city of Victoria, British Columbia, containing a few hundred names of people-
1 was surprised to learn later that his petition did not live up to his boast. A petition it certainly was, sent in by concerned citizens of Canada, but not several hundred. Actually the number was only seven, of whom two actually live in Victoria. The only part of his presentation that was true was the part about Victoria being a fine city.
The Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, for whom up until now I have had a high regard, should realize that he discredits himself and the party of Woodsworth, Coldwell, and Stanley Knowles with such a gross exaggeration. It is probably the NDP staff who dole out these petitions to the NDP members to table, but the Member must accept responsibility for what he says in the House of Commons. No amount of tolerance in
m
November 1, 1985

debate can excuse a Member from claiming that seven equals several hundred.
I am sure the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap will want to take the first opportunity to apologize to the petitioners for trivializing their serious concerns in this matter, and 1 expect he will also apologize to the House for his misleading remarks.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time I have risen in this House to report on the economic progress in Alberta. Today there is more good news in Alberta, which means good news for all of Canada. In Alberta projected investment is up 12 per cent. Oil and gas drilling is also up with a 22 per cent increase in well completions in Alberta from last year. The unemployment rate in Alberta has declined from 11.8 per cent to 9.2 per cent. Twenty-five thousand jobs have been created in Alberta since the election. This is a record of which this Government can be proud.
Monday will mark the fifth anniversary of the National Energy Program, but it will be the last. It is finally dead and gone. Now Western Canada can regain the positive spirit in which new investment can create more new jobs for Albertans.
Next Wednesday the Prime Minister will be in Edmonton to participate in the official ground breaking ceremony for the new Canada Place building. This new federal complex will be a mark of progress in downtown Edmonton. It is an indication of economic development. Edmontonians are looking forward to this event and we are proud that the Prime Minister will be there to share our enthusiasm.
The Canada Place complex is a $200 million project for Edmonton. It will create hundreds of jobs for my constituents in Edmonton East. We are on the move in Edmonton and this Government can take credit for the progress.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, there is in today's issue of the La Presse newspaper an article indicating that Montreal East is crying out for help and damning the Conservative Government for the closing of a great many plants, insisting that the area has been in a slump ever since the new Government came to power, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign that Montreal would regain its status as Canadian metropolis.
Oral Questions
There is a similarity ... the closing of plants and the laying-off of employees is the result of the Government's failure to act and put pressure on the various companies to continue the work they had been doing for many years.
I am blaming especially the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), as well as the Minister of State (Transport) (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) who is from the Montreal area, for their failure to provide the Bombardier firm with the support it needed to continue building railway engines in Montreal East as it has been doing for decades, or to adjucate contracts to the Canadian Steel Wheel, a firm with much expertise and well-trained workers in the area of smelting works-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! 1 must regretfully advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Chairman of the Continental Bank of Canada announced that his bank had been forced in recent days to borrow up to $2.9 billion from the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks in order to prop itself up. Has the Minister anything to say to the House in respect to this particular matter?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the Right Hon. Member back to September. At that time, because of the uncertainty that was in the market-place, 1 met with the chairmen of the largest chartered banks and initiated a broad inspection process which was focused on the smaller Canadian-owned banks. As a result of that, the Continental Bank was subjected to a very extensive inspection involving representatives from those banks. The Continental Bank came up with a clean bill of health which was endorsed by the members of the inspection team.
Since that time there has been a reduction in the funding capability of the bank. It has been forced to seek liquidity financing from the Bank of Canada. This arrangement that was announced yesterday was designed to put that funding on a broader and more sound basis which involved the chartered banks which, by their actions, endorsed the results of the inspection process. In that way they are sending a signal to the rest of the market that the bank is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the question invited a long answer but there must be a limit, I am afraid.

November 1, 1985

Oral Questions MINISTER'S ROLE


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were informed that the Continental Bank of Canada, the seventh largest in the country, was obliged to borrow almost $3 billion to stay afloat.
Was the Minister of Finance consulted in this matter? Did the Minister take part in negotiations to stabilize the bank? And what position did the Minister take with respect to protecting the Canadian taxpayer?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in my first response that I initiated the inspection process to establish for the bankers and the general public the solvency of the Continental Bank. As a result of the participation of the Bank of Canada in this financing arrangement, we have obviously been very much involved in the discussions and the arrangements that the Continental Bank announced yesterday.


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT OF MINISTERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. At a press conference two or three weeks ago when reporters put questions to the Prime Minister about the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, the Prime Minister stated to the country that it was merely a blip. It has now been recognized, because of what happened yesterday, that the crisis was not over then.
My question to the Prime Minister derives from the fact that this crisis really began in March when the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance botched up the initial bail-out and sapped the confidence of the country. In the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, does the Prime Minister not feel that the confidence of the country can best be restored by replacing the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it must be Friday; that is a Friday question. In point of fact we would find many people who would suggest that the crisis or difficulties did not begin in March.


Mr. Foster:: Four banks have gone bust now, Brian.
day by Statistics Canada indicate that the economy expanded at an annual rate of more than 6 per cent.
[Editor's Note: And the incandescence of the lighting in the Chamber increasing momentarily:]


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Even the lights agree. Let the Hansard reporters record that from on high there was agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: Mostly darkness.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And darkness was avoided by the Government once more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Garneau:: Mr. Speaker, a serious question does not deserve such a frivolous answer.


STATUS OF CONTINENTAL BANK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, the President of the Continental Bank announced at a press conference that if the support package failed to restore depositor confidence in his bank, he would have to consider a merger with other institutions. My question is as follows:
Are the Minister of Finance and the Government concerned about the high degree of concentration that would result? If so, what does the Government intend to do to avoid this?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to the actions of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides as well as of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap in relation to the previous two questions. It is the politics that are being played by Members opposite-


Mr. Broadbent:: He didn't ask a question yet.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that are causing these problems, which was directly alluded to by the President of the Continental Bank.


Martin Brian Mulroney: They began some years ago with Government policies which had the effect of really debilitating the economy of Canada.
I would have thought that rather than asking questions of a crepe-hanger nature the Leader of the Opposition would have been referring us to the fact that new figures released yester-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: That is paranoia, I'll tell you.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is the evidence before the tribunal. Mr. Deans: He has not even asked a question.

November 1, 1985

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In specific answer to the Hon. Member's question, he is posing a hypothetical question, a question with respect to events that we have no reason to believe at this point will happen. So let us follow things along and give the support which should be there for the Continental Bank.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENTS INTENTION TO RESTORE CANADIAN AND FOREIGN CONFIDENCE IN BANKING SYSTEM
Raymond Garneau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. 1 am absolutely flabbergasted at the comments made just now by the Minister of Finance, especially since it was at his request that we avoided asking questions about banks other than the Northland Bank and the CCB. Since the Minister of Finance is taking that attitude, I may add he even thanked us for doing so. Mr. Speaker, today we realize the harm that has been done to our banking system in Canada as a result of the incompetence and amateurish approach of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State (Finance). What does the Government intend to do to truly restore the confidence of the Canadian public and the public outside our country in our banking system?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated both privately and publicly to the Hon. Member the various things that we are doing to re-establish confidence in the Canadian banking system.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's not working, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think we have gone a long way; but every time there is an irresponsible question put by either the Hon. Member who has just posed the question, his Leader, or the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, there is a direct impact on what goes on in the banking system.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I encourage Hon. Members to act responsibly, including the Leader of the Opposition who should know better as a former Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very serious question for the Minister of the Environment. Action is finally being taken on the Niagara River, but an even more dangerous situation is becoming apparent on the St. Clair River. Will the Minister confirm that diving has once more found the substance first discovered in 1984, with massive concentrations of cancer-causing dioxins? And will the Minister tell us whether lab tests have now shown heavy concentrations of dioxins in these new samples?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly confirm that a tar-like slick has been found in the St. Clair River as recently as this fall, in addition to the slicks which were found earlier, I believe in August of 1984. It is clear that the substances do contain chlorinated hydrocarbons, including the cancer-causing agent, dioxin.
As soon as I found out about the most recent discovery 1 mobilized the top experts in the country, including those within my Department, but not excluding outside experts, for the purpose of confirming the preliminary findings and advising on the potential source.
Briefly, there are two possibilities; first, a direct discharge into the river from industries along the river; second, the possibility of a seepage from underneath the river bed from dump sites which are 30 or 40 years old. I will advise the Hon. Member when the analysis has been completed.


COLLECTING OF SAMPLES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we understand from ministry officials that a significantly larger number of samples are needed to show conclusively the sources, and to provide the methods of potential clean-up for these toxic matters. Will the Minister immediately launch full testing throughout the chemical valley section of the St. Clair River so that real action can be taken in the six weeks remaining before ice freezes the river over and makes it very difficult to proceed?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first reply, experts from across the country within my Department, within the Department of the Environment of Ontario, and the universities, have been mobilized for the very purpose to which the Hon. Member has addressed his question.
We will accelerate things, but I can assure the Hon. Member that everything is being done that can be done. There is some real doubt as to where the gooey substance is coming from. If the substance is coming from underneath the river bed from dump sites which are 30 or 40 years old and leaking into the river, the problem becomes much more serious for us than if the discharge is coming directly from the chemical companies along the river. 1 will keep the Hon. Member, and through

November 1, 1985
Oral Questions
him, the House, apprised of our progress on those analyses, and he can be sure that those analyses will be accelerated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


MINISTERIAL ACTION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We respect the Minister's sincerity, but I ask the Minister at once to authorize immediate, direct, and urgent action to do the testing which will answer these questions which the Minister himself recognizes are still very much up in the air. Will the Minister take the action required to get this substance dealt with before the river freezes?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether 1 am speaking the same language as the Hon. Member. I have told him twice that everything possible is being done.
The Minister of the Environment in Ontario, my own officials in the Department of the Environment at the federal level, and university experts have been mobilized into a team to produce the analysis that he is seeking. We cannot rush scientists, but to the extent that we can do so, we are riding herd on them as heavily as we can.


DISCOVERY OF DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE IN ITALIAN WINES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In this age of packaged and bottled products with additives, preservatives, colourants and sweeteners, the public must have complete confidence in the health inspection system of the Canadian Government. Otherwise credibility in these products in the market-place completely falls down. This was demonstrated during the recent tuna crisis.
When did his officials first find out that certain Italian wines contained diethylene glycol, a substance dangerous to health? Why would they not advise the Canadian public directly instead of simply advising the liquor boards of Ontario and Quebec? Will he tell the House if these wines are also found in other provinces?
Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct in terms of the premise that there can be absolutely no compromise on vigi-lence in terms of health and safety. With that as a general principle, let me answer his question.
The Department was advised when, as he will recall, there had been earlier similar incidents with wines from another European country. We advised the Quebec liquor authorities that they should look at these wines because of the information
that we received that there should be testing done immediately. That information was conveyed to the Quebec liquor authorities in early October.


REQUEST THAT LIST OF AFFECTED WINES BE PUBLISHED
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to know when the Minister's officials first advised him of this, because during the tuna crisis it was brought to our attention by the Canadian public that these matters are considered so important that they should be dealt with the Minister.
When did he first know about this, and would he not now at least make a full list of these wines public, and also tell us what other provinces have these wines on their shelves so that all Canadians will know? Would he not accept the principle that the public should be informed directly about these products which endanger health, rather than simply leave it to the liquor boards of the provinces, since Ottawa has jurisdiction over products like these which enter our country?
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I operate very much along the lines recommended by the Hon. Member. The first note that I received on the issue was October 17, 1985, I believe. I also learned that information had been given to Quebec earlier to check the wines that were in question. I believe some of the information also came from the United States.
1 might say that there is very close co-operation and exchange of information between the various national Governments if, in fact, a problem might exist. I am willing to give him the list containing the names of the wines. 1 think that they have been made public. This was also done at Queen's Park yesterday by the Minister responsible for the LCBO. Obviously, we are checking which other provinces are involved.
I might also say to him that in terms of testing there might always be the argument of what is an acceptable limit. From our point of view and the Government's point of view, these chemicals which were used in wines for sweeteners and/or thickeners are simply not acceptable for Canadian standards.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Serious problems are facing the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada with respect to factory freezer trawlers and a poor catch of cod this year.
It has been over a month since the Fisheries Minister resigned. Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he intends to appoint a full-time Minister to such an extremely important and sensitive portfolio?
November 1, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend will join me in expressing congratulations to the Acting Minister of Fisheries, the Deputy Prime Minister, who has done a tremendous job in fulfilling those responsibilities on an interim basis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: However, at the earliest possible moment I shall be announcing a change. It is a very important and sensitive portfolio and I hope to be announcing some changes shortly.


John R. Rodriguez: That answer is not good enough for the people working in the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada and on the West Coast.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give a more firm commitment to the House that by next week at the latest we will have an announcement of a new Fisheries Minister who will be able to conduct that portfolio on a full-time basis rather than the part-time operation we are getting at the present moment?


Some Hon. Members:: Louder.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the gentleman to get exercised, but-


John Edward Broadbent: We want you to get exercised.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The last time we gave you some exercise was September 4, 1984, and we will give you some more the next time. Keep it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just keep it up, Ed.
I have had the honour of representing Central Nova and Manicouagan where the fishing industry is vital and the role of fishermen is indispensable. I am aware of the importance of this. We will be making some announcements at an early moment.


DIETHYLENE GLYCOL IN IMPORTED WINES
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare knew last spring that diethylene glycol was being used as an additive in certain wines imported to Canada. He also knew that it is illegal to use that substance as a food additive in Canada. Why did he allow the product into the country? Why did he not remove it from the shelves, especially in certain provinces, such as the Atlantic region, that do not have inspection?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member must be careful about what he says. I told his colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East that there had been another incident with wine from another European country concerning, as we all know, the Austrian wines. If he wants to go back to that incident, we can. However, I think he will know that that wine was pulled from the shelves and that not only did we work closely with provincial Governments, but they worked with their liquor boards.
I do not believe he should confuse that incident with this incident of Italian wines. We have said in the Department of National Health and Welfare that it is not acceptable to have any traces of diethylene glycol in wines, either for sweetener or thickener. I make that point, and it is on that basis that that information has been given to the provinces. Obviously we are pleased with the action taken by Ontario and Quebec. Obviously we are also looking at other provinces to see whether the problem exists there too.


George Baker: The general public will then ask, if it is illegal to sell this for use in Canada, why was it in the liquor stores in the first place.


ACTION TAKEN IN BRITAIN
George Baker: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Britain removed nine German wines from its shelves on August 2, and notified the federal Government. Is the Minister saying that what is a health hazard in Britain is not a health hazard to Canadians? What will he do about that?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I repeat to the Member exactly what I have said. If we have any notification, either internationally or from our own testing, that information is conveyed directly. However, I think he should be somewhat fair in his statement. If there has been a wine imported and we do not know about the contents, but find out through international or Canadian testing, immediately we want to take action, and that is obviously the approach we must take.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns an attempt by the Conservative Government of Prince Edward Island, aided and abetted by the Liberal opposition in that province, to thwart the dramatic and surging growth of the provincial New Democratic Party on the Island-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 1, 1985
Oral Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: -by passing amendments to the P.E.E Election Expenses Act. Will the Minister, in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the federal Income Tax Act, meet immediately with his colleagues from Prince Edward Island and urge them to rescind these unfair and undemocratic provisions immediately?
[DOT] (U40)


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can well understand the concern of my hon. friend opposite for the precarious condition in which his Party finds itself in Prince Edward Island where it is so threatened that it is almost in the category of an endangered species. Under the circumstances, I will be very pleased to accede to his representation and ensure that fairness and equity are used in dealing with this situation.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS APPLICABILITY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's undertaking. I ask that in the course of that review he have his departmental officials review these provisions in light of the Charter of Rights to ensure that they do not breach the federal Charter of Rights in an attempt to try to keep politics on the Island as some sort of an old boys' club. I ask him to look into that on a priority basis in view of the by-elections which are currently under way.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat that I will certainly do that. I am sure all Members will agree with me that there is no place in this great country where politics is practised in a more decent and traditional manner than in the Province of Prince Edward Island.


John Edward Broadbent: Decent and traditional are frequently contradictory.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The natural gas pricing deal which she struck this week really does very litle or nothing for consumers. The Minister talks about lower prices for consumers, yet she knows that the vast majority of Ontario consumers are locked into long-term, fixed-price, taker-pay contracts until 1995. What is the Minister going to do to lower prices for consumers of natural gas in Ontario and Quebec?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has provided a break for consumers which was never offered by the previous Government. I point out that starting today contracts which come up this year can be negotiated freely between buyers and
sellers without interference by the Government, provided the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the consuming provinces put the necessary transportation system in place. Therefore, those benefits can occur immediately.


CANADIAN PRICE LEVELS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in view of these long-term contracts for consumers in Ontario and Quebec, can the Minister guarantee that consumers in these provinces will not pay more for western Canadian gas than will new customers in adjoining states of the United States?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): In our agreement with the western provinces we made it very clear that Canadians will never pay more for gasoline than will their American neighbours. At the present time in the States adjacent to Ontario natural gas prices are 25 per cent higher than they are in Ontario. Therefore, there is a lot of protection built in for Ontario consumers and industries.


CHALLENGE '85 JOBS FOR STUDENTS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration from whom I have requested, as have others, data which will provide specific information on the job producing effectiveness of Challenge '85. In order that I can join in providing the constructive suggestions for program improvements which she said she wishes to have from all Members, will the Minister indicate when precise information will be available on the number of student jobs produced, their average duration, the income earned, the distribution of jobs by region, whether they are career oriented, and whether they are business or private industry supported?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that last night I signed a letter to the Hon. Member giving him exactly those statistics.


John Edward Broadbent: That should get there in two weeks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I hope he will read it with real interest. It shows that over 100,000 jobs were created during the summer through Challenge '85, the highest number ever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It shows that the jobs were for the longest duration of any period for young people during a summer program. It shows that on average they received the highest income during that period.
*
-KM
November 1, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


John Edward Broadbent: Did you plant that question?


SITUATION IN CAPE BRETON
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have gotten such a timely response upon my return. I wonder whether those figures will reveal why fewer jobs were in fact produced in some of the most economically depressed areas of the land, such as in Nova Scotia, where in Cape Breton 20 per cent fewer jobs were produced this year than last.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are always regions of the country which need to have more attention and concern shown them than others which are more economically viable. Cape Breton is one such area and I can tell you, as a Cape Bretoner, that I will continue to ensure that that happens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Canada's seniors population will increase by 20 per cent in the next five years. At the same time many, many Canadians are seeking shelter. Will the Minister consider these factors and tell us whether there is a new policy directive forthcoming that will ensure that seniors can remain in their own residences in their familiar neighbourhoods in order not only to ease the problem of housing but to increase and improve the quality of the senior's lives?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member, not only for the question, but, more important, for his continuing interest in the well-being of Canada's seniors. He has had a number of conversations with me on the personal initiatives which he has been taking. The premise from which he starts, namely, that we can support the greatest amount of independence for seniors of any age group or health condition is, of course, a principle which the Government wants to pursue. I want to indicate to the Member that this is an on-going consideration of myself and of the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We are looking forward to further suggestions from the Member.
Oral Questions ENERGY


OFFSHORE EXPLORATION ACTIVITY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the statement of the Minister of Employment and Immigration for special status for Cape Breton comes to more than the Prime Minister's promise did for that.
My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister said that she does not expect a stampede of activity in the off-shore. The Minister can expect a stampede away from it. That activity which does take place will be by the multinationals. Will the Minister do something to help Canadian companies participate in the off-shore, or is Canada going to be the only country to give its complete off-shore future to the multinational oil companies?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I have already told the House that 65 per cent of the exploration occurring in the frontiers is being carried out by tax-paying Canadian companies. I do not know why the Hon. Member keeps trying to portray the Canadian sector of the industry as a bunch of small "gyro" operators who cannot compete. The regime which we have put in place is internationally competitive. In his own area, where the geology has been disappointing to date, he can look forward to between six and eight new wells next year.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the reason that 65 per cent of the participants are tax-paying Canadian companies is because of the Petroleum Incentive Program which exists now and is being taken away by the Government.


TAX CREDITS INQUIRY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My
supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister may or may not have heard that the Canadian oil companies will be coming to Ottawa looking for the ability to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Supplementary questions should not have long preambles at all.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Will the Minister allow Canadian oil companies to transfer their tax credits or to pass them on to consumers? Is he going to give them the benefit of that consideration?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Is that question addressed to me?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Yes.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said he was addressing his question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is why I was not sure to whom he was addressing it to. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated quite clearly what the tax regime is. I think it is a generous regime and, as she
8262

November 1, 1985
Oral Questions
has indicated, it is internationally competitive and it stands in the form that has been presented.

That is the intention, and if the Hon. Member reads the documents he will see that we have balanced both the economic and the social in this announcement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Immigration. Canadians who, for several years, have been frustrated in trying to bring their relatives to Canada under the Family Reunification Program were glad to hear the Minister of State say yesterday that he will now allow some independent immigrants to enter without a validated job offer in advance. Will the Minister assure us that all assisted relative applicants will be considered without the validated job offer? Will he lower the high level of income that is presently required of the sponsors of these relatives?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question and tell him that we are opening the doors and sending out a signal that immigration is welcome.
We are seeking Canadians with skills to come not only in the context of family but to establish a wider family contact. This provision for minimum wage is not something established by myself, but is from Statistics Canada. It is seen to be the minimum needed for a family base.


ADMISSION ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS
[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Last July in the clothing industry, over 28 million units of clothes were imported in Canada, which represents an increase of 4.4 million units or 19 per cent over the same month the previous year and means lost jobs for Canadian textile and clothing workers. Does the Minister intend to take action to correct this situation since the domestic market has only absorbed an increase of 1.5 per cent a year in the last five years?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Hon. Member that we, too, are very concerned about the textile industry and wish it to remain a healthy and a viable one.
This summer we began negotiations, in full co-operation with the industry, for the multifibre agreement in Geneva. Just this past month we concluded agreements with Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia for the restraint of low cost imports into this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I will ask the Minister further, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the response of the Canadian Labour Congress's warning about sudden increases of immigration but asking for humanitarian increases, how does the Minister justify that he is nearly doubling the intake of people who each own at least half a million dollars, while he gives no increase to family class, and he reduces by 1,000 the number of people being brought in under humanitarian programs and special measures?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, in response to my hon. colleague, he quite misses the point. In fact the family class is merely a level and is very responsive. If more come, it is a category to which we can be responsive.
As to the question of humanitarian level, the Hon. Member will notice that the Government has increased that by 1,000. It is subsidized by the Government. In the other areas, we cannot predict where there will be an earthquake or a tragedy. Canada has a tradition of responding. We want to have the mechanisms in place so that we can give leadership and invite the non-governmental sector and others to join with us.


LOBBYING
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday Canadians were made aware that Canada's second most controversial lobbyist, right after Richard Hatfield-I am speaking of Frank Moores-was lobbying in favour of a foreign takeover of Prentice-Hall.
In view of the fact that it has been almost two months since the Prime Minister presented this House with his blue ribbon document concerning public sector ethics, can he now inform the House if and when there will be a Bill concerning lobbying activities?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It will be brougt in, I expect, very shortly, Mr. Speaker.
The record will show, I believe, that about 98 per cent or 99 per cent of the lobbyists in this town are Liberals.
November 1, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOBBYISTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I am happy to know that 98 per cent of the lobbyists in the National Capital still are Liberals. Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who will introduce the Bill in this House according to what the Prime Minister told us the other day, guarantee that this legislation will include not only the names of parliamentary lobbyists, but even more important, the name of their clients, the purpose of their lobby and the fees paid to those who do this type of work?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Is that the Taiwan model?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out that we are now considering the recommendations which will be submitted to Cabinet about this Bill. Of course, we are examining all options to prepare a Bill which will meet the needs of the business sector.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. His colleague, the Minister, said in this House that the Government had set a target of 120 days in order to give a comprehensive response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger, especially those dealing with search and rescue.
That time period has now passed, and I ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to indicate to the House how it intends to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, especially those dealing with search and rescue, as we approach winter drilling?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister made the mistake of assuming this report on the Ocean Ranger was in the same category as a parliamentary report required by the rules of the House to be responded to within 120 days. It was an honest error.
Oral Questions
I can say to the Hon. Member that a submission to Cabinet is in its final stages. As soon as my colleague gets back from Brussels early next week, we will be discussing it and making a submission to Cabinet. I feel certain the recommendations will meet with the Hon. Member's approval.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this Royal Commission has cost the people of Canada $14 million. It has been the subject of an inquiry of the U.S. Congress, but it has not come before this House as yet.
Will the Government refer the report, in view of the fact that it touches on a number of Departments, to a committee of this House?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): That, of course, is not my responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is that of the Government House Leader. I will certainly take the Member's representation to the House Leader and discuss it with him.


AUDITOR GENERAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that the Federal Court has announced its decision in favour of the Auditor General. The Auditor General is now going to have access to certain cabinet documents that pertain to the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: -which the Government of Canada was refusing to turn over. All Canadians who believe in freedom of information will truly welcome this decision.
Having that decision now before us, will the Prime Minister assure the House that all those documents will be made available on a priority basis to the Auditor General?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the decision, which 1 understand the Associate Chief Justice was to deliver at about eleven o'clock. I will take cognizance of it immediately after Question Period and respond to my hon. friend and to the House at the earliest possible moment.
We are very much in favour, as my hon. friend knows, of the fullest access to information on the Government side. We have complied in all circumstances with that. We will examine the decision carefully and respond as quickly as we can.


John Edward Broadbent: I am pleased to hear that from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.

November 1, 1985
Oral Questions GULF TAKEOVER DOCUMENTS


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that a section of the Income Tax Act that was used in the Petro-Canada takeover of Petrofina is precisely the same that was used in the Olympia & York-Gulf takeover transaction, and considering I have discussed this with the Auditor General this morning, will the Government be in agreement to turn over to the Auditor General this morning, will the Government be in agreement to turn over to the Auditor General all the pertinent documents relevant to that takeover?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, 1 think prudence would require that we read carefully such an important decision and see exactly the wording and the thrust of the decision, which is what we will do immediately after Question Period. As I say, we will give a response not only to my hon. friend but to the House and the country just as quickly as we possibly can.


AIR TRANSPORT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the Prime Minister's professed personal interest in the question of Arctic sovereignty, and given the fine work that was done by the Council of Canadians last summer when it brought to the attention of the Canadian public the Polar Sea voyage, would the Prime Minister tell us whether he agrees with the position taken by the Minister of Transport, who is now choosing to charge the pilot involved in the action taken by the Council of Canadians? Or, does he agree with the position taken in a letter two weeks ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he indicated that the Government had no such intention and stated: "I have been advised that there are no plans to take this matter before the courts"? Does he support the position of the Minister of Transport, or does he support the position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on this matter?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House the other day, the matter is being investigated. It would appear that there was a contravention of the air regulations, specifically air regulation No. 508. For the information of the Hon. Member, I might just quote it to her.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have it here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It indicates: "No persons shall create a hazard to persons or property on land or water by dropping anything from an aircraft in flight". I think it is incumbent upon the Minister of Transport to ensure that the regulations are enforced and carried out, and that is what the Department is doing.


CONSEQUENCES FOR AIR PILOT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that a violation of regulation No. 508 could mean, for the pilot, a loss of his job, or a possible fine of up to $5,000, or one year in prison. Does the Prime Minister believe that this should be the fate of the pilot who, with the Council of Canadians, brought this very serious issue to the attention of the Canadian public? And that is directed to the Prime Minister, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is simply drawing conclusions before the investigation is completed.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, October 31, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the Fitness and Amateur Sport annual report for 1984-85.


WAYS AND MEANS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have two sets of documents to table. Pursuant to Standing Order 65(1), 1 wish to table, in both official languages, copies of Ways and Means motions pertaining to the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax and, pursuant to Standing Order 65(2), 1 ask that an Order of the Day be designated for their consideration.
November 1, 1985


TAXATION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Section 32, Chapter 44 of the Statutes of Canada, and pursuant to Standing Order 47(2), I should like to table, also in both official languages, two copies of an Order in Council respecting a protocol between the Government of Great Britain and North Ireland, amending the convention for the avoidance of double taxation.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of five individuals from the City of Vancouver.


Mr. Dick:: How many hundreds?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How many thousands?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Just five, Mr. Speaker. They are concerned about the deindexation of the family allowance and ask the Government to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present from the following ridings: Montreal-Sainte-Marie, Richmond, Lac-Saint-Jean, Rimouski and Rosemont. In these petitions the petitioners are asking the Government to turn back its regressive decision to deindex family allowances to the tune of some $55 million.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I wish to present to the House of Commons a petition which was given to me last week by grade school children between six and twelve years old who send us a message of peace. These children are worried and saddened by the present situation and ask the honourable House of Commons to continue to promote all efforts made in pursuit of this ideal. This petition has been put together to mark the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations and was presented in a very unusual form by young students-boys and girls alike-from the Treffle-Gauthier Primary School in Jonquiere.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions to present from my own riding of Broadview-Greenwood and from other Toronto ridings. The petitioners indicate that the family allowance deindexation will not be offset by the temporary increases to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be
Government Notices of Motions
worse off as a result. Accordingly, they request Parliament to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance.
Similarly, I have another large number of petitions from various places in Canada. The petitioners indicate that the accelerating cut-backs in child benefits, on top of sales tax increases, excise tax increases and stiff income tax increases, are unfair and place an extraordinary burden upon middle and low-income households.
These petitioners call on the House of Commons to reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance and to rescind unfair tax increases.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Winnipeg. They indicate that the cut-backs in family allowances and the tax increases for ordinary Canadians are unbearable in face of budget hand-outs such as the tax-free capital gains provision, the billions of hand-outs to oil companies and the billion dollar bail-out of banks. They call upon the Government to withdraw its legislation to deindex family allowances.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present another petition from people in Toronto, Canadian residents in Toronto, who are protesting against the Government's Bill that would reduce the buying power of poor people by cutting into the family allowance, at the same time as it gives more money to those who have the most, such as the banks.
Therefore, the petitioners ask the House of Commons to make sure that we reinstate full indexation of the universal family allowance, and that we block or rescind the unfair tax changes.



EXCISE TAX ACT AND RELATED ACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
October 30, 1985-The President of the Privy Council:
That, in relation to Bill C-80, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill;
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT



NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-62

['Agreed.']
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 82 or Standing Order 83 with regard to the allocation of time on the second reading stage of Bill C-62, an Act respecting employment equity. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House, it is my intention to propose the following motion, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 84:

That, in relation to Bill C-62, An Act respecting employment equity, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and

That 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of Government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.



Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to begin the second reading debate of Bill C-45. This Bill is a progressive step towards reforming the labour relations process on Parliament Hill. It is based on legislation which was first proposed by the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services and which was unanimously supported by all three political Parties. It is a major step along the road to parliamentary reform and creates for the first time a modern and responsible statutory framework within which a positive approach to labour management relations can be achieved.
Given the subject matter of the Bill, I think it only appropriate that I begin my remarks by acknowledging the tremendous contribution of all parliamentary employees. It is their professionalism and dedication that makes this institution function. Each employee, whether he or she is employed in the House of Commons, the Senate or the Library of Parliament plays a unique and vital role in the effective operation of our institution.

Too often, Mr. Speaker, we forget how lucky we are to be able to rely on such qualified and professional staff to help us in our work. On behalf of Hon. Members on both sides of the House I want to assure parliamentary employees that their efforts do not go unnoticed and are greatly appreciated by all Members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons has grown rapidly in the past several years. It is now a large and complex organization which employs over 3,000 persons. Unfortunately the evolution and growth of this institution has not been paralleled by the creation of a modern system of labour relations. As a result parliamentary employees do not enjoy the benefits of a contemporary labour relations regime tailored to the special circumstances of Parliament. This Bill will resolve that problem in a progressive and comprehensive fashion.
Because there appears to be some genuine confusion and misunderstanding about the nature of rights presently enjoyed by parliamentary employees, it may be useful to review the history of the collective bargaining debate on the Hill. It is that history which provides the context for the action which we are embarking on today.
The subject of collective bargaining rights for the employees of Parliament has been under discussion for some considerable period of time. In the formal sense the subject was first considered in 1967 by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Employer and Employee Relations in the Public Service during that committee's deliberations on Bill C-170, namely the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
In its report of February 3, 1967 the committee stated, and I quote:
Your Committee recommends that consideration be given to the introduction of legislation to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Library
November 1, 1985

of Parliament Act to extend to the employees thereunder advantages and rights similar to those provided public servants under Bill C-170.
Unfortunately, no further action was taken with respect to this recommendation.
On a number of occasions since 1967 private Members have tabled Bills which would have provided a legislative framework for collective bargaining by parliamentary employees and questions have also been raised on the floor of the House of Commons. One such question prompted the undertaking of a study on this matter in 1982. This report, known as the Weir Report, after its author Mr. Robert Weir, was tabled in the House in February of 1983. The report analysed the issue and outlined a number of options but made no recommendations. The Weir Report was referred to the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services for further study on February of the same year and, in late 1983, this committee, with the assistance of the Privy Council Office, developed draft legislation on this subject. Events leading up to the election in 1984, and the change of Government which resulted, precluded immediate action on this Bill.
1 must indicate at this time that the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who was my predecessor in this particular capacity, during the summer of 1984 issued a press release in which he indicated the intention of the Liberal Government of the day to proceed with legislation with respect to allowing parliamentary employees the right of collective bargaining, which was in a similar vein to the recommendations which were made to that committee.
The Bill before the House today closely reflects the all-Party consensus which was reflected in the draft legislation that I referred to in 1983. Beginning in the fall of 1983 unions seeking certification as bargaining agents for parliamentary employees filed a series of applications pursuant to the Canada Labour Code. The Canada Labour Code governs labour relations in those areas of the commercial and business world which are subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament, but it does not apply to the Public Service.
There are clearly differences of opinion as to the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Relations Board in this dispute. The legality of the question has not yet been determined to the satisfaction of all concerned and, because of the way in which legal proceedings have a way of carrying on, it could take months indeed, if not many years, for the element of uncertainty which surrounds this question to be cleared up through the judicial process.

In the end, after lengthy and costly legal proceedings, it is conceivable that, owing to the particular situation of Parliament, parliamentary employes be considered as having no rights, that is without the right to join a union, establish a certified association, or bargain collectively.
In the Government's view, Mr. Speaker, such a situation would be unsatisfactory. Parliamentary employees ought to have the right to bargain collectively and be able to resort to a progressive labour relations system.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act [English]
Bill C-45 clears away all the jurisdictional doubts which presently exist with respect to the matter by proceeding quickly with a reasoned and reasonable approach to labour relations. It states clearly and unequivocally that parliamentary employees do have the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Bill introduces a comprehensive modern structure for the resolution of labour-management relations on Parliament Hill.
Bill C-45 has three principal aspects. First, it provides a collective bargaining framework for parliamentary employees which is similar to that contained in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Second, it makes Part III of the Canada Labour Code applicable to parliamentary employees whether or not they are organized. Part III regulates labour standards, including such items as vacations and hours of work. Finally, the Bill makes Part IV of the Canada Labour Code applicable to all employees. Part IV regulates such items as occupational and safety standards.
As indicated, the Bill itself is based very closely on the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The logic of this parallelism is readily apparent. Notwithstanding the special place that Parliament occupies in our governmental system, the role of parliamentary employees is very similar to that of public servants generally.
It is our view that the labour relations framework which governs the Public Service commends itself very strongly to the parliamentary scene because of this fact. The Bill provides that, with specific exceptions, parliamentary employees are entitled to organize and bargain collectively. Exceptions are provided with respect to persons in a managerial or confidential capacity. Persons employed in the offices of Members of Parliament and caucus research groups will not have access to the bargaining provisions provided for in Part I.
These exceptions are in line with the all-Party recommendations of the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services based on its assessment that such persons occupy positions of particular trust and sensitivity. However, I wish to emphasize that in an effort to protect employees excluded from the collective bargaining process, we have included additional provisions to those which were included in the original all-Party recommendations to which 1 have just referred. I reiterate the fact that this legislation is a matter of some substantial accomplishment in making progress from the original proposal. Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code will be made applicable to all parliamentary employees regardless of whether or not they are organized. In this way, minimum protection with respect to working conditions and labour standards will be available to all who work on our behalf in this place and on the precincts of Parliament Hill.
Part I of the Bill closely resembles the Public Service Staff Relations Act which at present governs labour relations in the Public Service. The Public Service Staff Relations Board is established as the advisory board to administer this legislation.

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Parliamentary employees will now have the right to present a grievance concerning various matters relating to the terms and condition of their employment. Part I provides that certain of these grievances may be pursued through to adjudication.
The certification process under Bill C-45 which is also located in Part 1 will be very similar to that which exists under any modern labour relations statute. Certification applications will be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the PSSRB will conduct hearings and have the power to determine the appropriateness of the bargaining units and the certification of bargaining agents.
[Translation
In the interest of parliamentary employees, it is imperative that we adopt a legislative measure which will dispel this uncertainty once and for all. I hope and believe that, by eliminating disputes before the courts with respect to the jurisdiction of the CLRB, the ultimate effect of this measure will be to speed up the efforts of the employees concerned to form a union.

The last two Parts of this Bill are those which incorporate Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code. These provisions go beyond the proposed legislation, which was agreed to by the Management and Members' Services Committee. I think it reflects the Government's continued commitment to fairness and progressive reform. As a result, Hill employees will have such benefits and protections as minimum standards respecting hours of work, overtime, holidays and vacation, entitlements to maternity leave, family bereavement leave and sick leave and they will also have the right of access to adjudication for wrongful dismisssal and the right to a hazard-free workplace.

Mr. Speaker, should the employees fear that this is the end of it, 1 want to assure them that, in my judgment, these measures are in fact only the beginning. In introducing this Bill, the Government wants to bring the working conditions of parliamentary employees to the same level as those of their counterparts in the Public Service.

I am confident that this legislation does strike a careful balance between the legitimate expectations and aspirations of parliamentary employees and the public expectation that the central institution of Government be able to function without disruption. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), is at present involved in negotiations to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Without prejudging the outcome of these negotiations, it would be my hope that any amendments that would be brought forward to the Public Service Staff Relations Act would also be brought forward as amendments to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act so that we and the employees on Parliament Hill will keep pace with the Public Service and
never again allow a situation to arise in which employees on Parliament Hill are so far behind in terms of labour relations.
The Government considers the question of parliamentary labour relations to be a high priority. We believe that parliamentary employees deserve and have the right to a modern labour-management relationship and that the people of Canada have a right to a parliamentary institution which is responsive and humane in its dealings with its employees.
This legislation has been promised many times and parliamentary employees have been, in my humble estimation, more than patient. Now is the time to bring forward true reform with respect to labour relations on Parliament Hill. In this sense and spirit, I urge all Members to join with me in supporting this legislation to ensure that we can embark on a new era of labour-management relations on Parliament Hill, a place that we all love so deally and respect so highly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said in his comments that this Bill has a very high priority. We hope he will keep his word and see to it that the Bill is expedited through this House, so as to correct a somewhat unusual situation that has existed here for many years.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of bargaining rights for parliamentary employees working for the House, the Senate and the Library of Parliament has been debated for quite some long time. In fact, the debate has been going on since 1967 at least, and I am happy to see the House of Commons considering Bill C-45 today.
Mr. Speaker, in 1967, the Parliament of Canada granted public servants collective bargaining rights. In 1967, the House adopted the Bill on Public Service Staff Relations.
This legislation was introduced to replace a unilateral consulting process for determining most of the working conditions of Public Service employees, by a bilateral process, under which employees were to play an active and important role in determining their working conditions.
At the time, Mr. Speaker, parliamentary employees were not considered to be employed by the Public Service, and were therefore excluded from the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 has had a considerable impact on this question. The House will recall that in the Charter of Rights we adopted, it says in Section 2,
Fundamental freedoms
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: d) freedom of association.
November 1, 1985

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this right to freedom of association is often legislated in order to establish clearly the rights involved.
I heard the Minister saying earlier that he was happy to set a high priority on a Bill he considered to be complex, but also progressive and modern, and that it would have a major impact on labour management relations.
Mr. Speaker, although I do not begrudge the Minister the credit he is due, I may remind him that in 1983, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, with the consent of many groups of employees here on the Hill, started organizing and explaining the concept of collective bargaining, so that parliamentary employees working for the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament could belong to a union.
The Canada Labour Relations Board examined the question and announced it was in a position to consider these applications, but up to now, the Board has not issued any orders for certification. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I received a copy of a press release from the Public Service Alliance, dated October 28, which reads as follows:
The Canada Labour Relations Board is today reconsidering its deliberate inaction in deciding on an application by parliamentary employees for bargaining rights.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that confirms ... in fact that the Canada Labour Relations Board "is reconsidering"-I have had no answer from the Board-but if that is the reason, 1 can understand why today, we should want to consider Bill C-45 in order to put on the table and put before the public and before this House a Bill whose time has come and which should be passed.
Mr. Speaker, why did we go the route of extraordinary legislation? Why could we not simply let our employees come under the Canada Labour Code? Why bother introducing extraordinary legislation that is largely inspired by the Public Service Staff Relations Act and which contains, as the Minister said, two parts, namely Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code? Mr. Speaker, all this is the reason why I am taking part in the debate today. I shall try and explain to the House, with the little expertise I have on the subject, how we on this side see this legislation and how we perceive the importance of Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 replaces a unilateral system for the termination of most terms and conditions of employment for employees in the Parliament of Canada. It replaces the unilateral approach with a bilateral system. It ensures that a certain measure of participation will be provided for employees in the determination of these terms and conditions.
To establish this bilateral relationship an appropriate bargaining until will be determined and a representative bargaining agent will have to be certified. The employer will be
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act defined as coming from the House of Commons, the Senate or the Library of Parliament. We find that the definition is under interpretation. It will be determined at some time who the employer will be.
The Public Service Staff Relations Board is charged with a large part of the general administration of Bill C-45. 1 think that is good. My experience with that board over the 13 years that I have been here has been constructive. 1 can tell the House that I have a great deal of respect for the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the challenging and complex issues with which it deals.
One cannot help but notice the similarities which exist between the Public Service Staff Relations Act and Bill C-45. Some of the strong points of the PSSRA have been noted by the Minister. Equally, many of the traditional weaknesses and shortcomings of that Act, unfortunately, are incorporated in Bill C-45.
It is rather frustrating for me to note that in 1975-76 the House was asked to establish a joint committee with the Senate to look into possible amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act following a thorough and interesting study conducted by Mr. Jacob Finkelman, Q.C., who is a past Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board. Mr. Finkelman conducted a thorough study of the Act at the request of the Government a few years after it was enacted and he made some far-reaching recommendations. 1 still hide my copy of the report because some people always seem to want it. In fact, I have hidden it so well that I cannot find it now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It's over here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Anyway, it is a black-covered report which recommended a number of amendments.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: It's in the garbage.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the contrary, it is a constructive document. I invite the Hon. Member who just said that it is in the garbage to read it because it was at the origin of that report that the D'Avignon Committee on the merit principle was established. We also proceeded with a thorough review of management practices in the Public Service and in Government. This report contained some 72 recommendations for amendments. Some of them were interesting to us because they represented about a year and a half of intensive work. Justifiably, I think, all members of the committee from all Parties voted unanimously for its adoption. As I have said, there are some unfortunate weaknesses and serious shortcomings in Bill C-45 which we addressed in 1975-76 and upon which we reported at the time.
I commend the Government's reading of this report. If possible, it may inspire members of the Government to come forth with the much needed amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which I am sure was the Government's intention when it made its promises in last year's election campaign. It said to us that it would come forth with amend-

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
ments. I hope the Government will follow through with its promise and come forth soon with the required amendments.
We are told that Bill C-45 is a sincere effort, and I noted some of the other adjectives which the Minister used. I agree that there is a sincere effort here to bring forth a new era in employee-employer relations in Parliament to try to bring employees on the Hill up to par with the Public Service employees of Canada.
I noted a statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to this effect, and 1 quote: "The Government desires to create a modern and progressive system of labour relations for the employees of Parliament". We find nothing very modern in the Public Service Staff Relations Act which, as 1 have said previously, is 18 years old and badly in need of progressive changes. In my view the Government has missed a good occasion to bring forth leading, modern and progressive legislation which could lead the way in putting forward urgently needed amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. What we have before us today in Bill C-45 is not a very inspiring document in terms of leadership for improved public employer-employee relations. With the information available to this Government-and 1 refer to the Finkelman Report, to the report of the joint committee and to several studies made over the years-I would have thought the Government could have brought forth a model document which would give us the benefit of the evidence which was given over the last seven or eight years.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Why didn't your Government do it?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) asks me why my Government did not do it. Well, we worked on this document for many years. I take it that Bill C-45 is an inspirational legislation, in that it was taken from the previous Government's draft of the Bill. So the Hon. Member should perhaps refer to the present Government. I was not as close to the order of business at that time, but I did take an interest in this matter, although I was not a member of the joint committee or the Committee on Management and Members' Services, which drafted the first Bill on this matter, as was, I understand, my friend.
Although I can see that Bill C-45 is a start, it surely requires, in my view, a step which we must take unanimously. This legislation will mean the end to an era of unilateral decisions in matters of employee-employer relations for most employees of Parliament. It establishes a system whereby Parliament and its employees will jointly determine the terms and conditions of employment in collective bargaining. We have in Canada a good log-book of experience in employee-employer relations. At the federal level we have, as I said, accumulated 20 years of experience with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We should be able to build upon this strong background. Both parties, in my view, the employee and the employer, should adapt quickly to their new relationship. We should not have to go through the growing pains we did in
1967. I am sure that with good will and patience, numerous benefits will come to both sides.
One can justifiably ask why we do not make the Canada Labour Code applicable to employees of Parliament rather than an Act which draws inspiration itself from the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code. While substantial differences exist between the two labour relations statutes, it is believed by some-and I take it this is going to be debated in committee-that there is good and sufficient reason to adopt special legislation with particular characteristics to accommodate Parliament with its complexities and necessities such as the maintenance of essential services. Of course, some people would wonder how one could say that Parliament is an essential service. I would take it that some people at some time would rather not have us here debating and would say that we are not that essential. However, I still believe that Parliament is an essential service to Canadians and I believe we need to have special legislation which covers it.
1 would like to address a few problems pertaining to this Bill which I feel needs discussion and change.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is the Public Service Employment Act which governs hiring practices and methods based on the merit system, that is, any nomination must be based on merit. More specifically, Section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act states:
Appointments to or from within the Public Service shall be based on selection according to merit, as determined by the Commission-
Although I have read this Bill from cover to cover, Mr. Speaker, I have not seen anywhere that appointments would be made on the basis of the merit system. 1 think that when the time comes for us to deal with this Bill in committee, we would be well advised to consider devising a system with a view to eliminate all possibility of interference or patronage on the part of the Government and to provide a better exposure of our hiring practices. 1 think also that we would have to be very explicit and include in the Bill provisions for the hiring of Parliamentary employees of all categories.
Mr. Speaker, another weakness of this document is the issue of job classification and job classification standards.
In a report to Parliament by the Special Joint Committee on Employer-Employee Relations, we examined the entire subject of classification. I would ask Hon. Members to refer to the document on page 4720 for the explanatory text on classification, which reads, for instance, and I quote:
Your Committee is of the opinion that the law should provide for some extension of the scope of bargaining so as to include classification standards, and recommends as follows:
There are seven or eight recommendations. The first one is interesting, because it says:
That, having regard to the established jurisdiction of bargaining agents in the Public Service, bargaining classification standards be interpreted to mean the determination of the relative worth of jobs within an occupational group.
November 1, 1985

That is the definition of classification. It is the "relative value of jobs within an occupational group".
In Bill C-45, job classifications and classification standards are not negotiable. That is a function of the employer, and personally, I think it is high time we amended the legislation in order to include the possibility that either party be able to negotiate classification standards.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise this point in committee, and I may remind the Government that the Opposition Leader at the time, the Hon. Brian Mulroney, signed a letter dated August 14, 1984 to Mr. Jack Donegani, President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which reads as follows:

The PC Government will negotiate directly with Public Service unions and associations toward the establishment of an improved collective bargaining system based on the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.

And my quote goes on:

Staffing procedures, classification, technological change, designations and other issues will become negotiable.

Therefore I take it for granted that the Government will keep its word and that the committee will be able to amend the Bill so that classification standards will be included as negotiable items in collective bargaining agreements.
Mr. Speaker, I beg Hon. Members' indulgence if I should take a somewhat technical approach to this Bill, but I made a few notes on it as it is rather complicated and difficult to follow. I simply want to refer to two or three points raised by critics of the Bill.
One of the criticisms is that we will have to go back to square one concerning the question of certification of the group which until now, for instance, was dealing with the board. The Canada Labour Relations Board will have to start from scratch because a new board, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, will be empowered to hear and accept or, if you will, certify the bargaining agents.
Mr. Speaker, I would think that Clause 26 of the Bill can be interpreted in such a way as to answer that criticism in part, in the sense that Clause 26 might be deemed to be permissive and allow the Public Service Staff Relations Board not to insist on beginning anew the whole certification process and agree that the elements of proof submitted to the PSSRB will be sufficient to establish the bargaining unit.
Once in committee, Mr. Speaker, I will elaborate on this point of view and, if need be, introduce appropriate amendments to clear up this question.
There is also the question of classification to which I referred a moment ago. According to the Alliance, job security
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act is another point. There is the matter of arbitration as well. We will certainly comment on all those points and we hope our contribution will bring the required clarifications to the Bill.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that special legislation be adopted to govern labour relations in Parliament is a compromise between two extreme positions, namely that it is a question of parliamentary privilege. It is the kind of argument which has often been used here. We used to be told: Of course, parliamentary privilege eliminates any possibility for Parliament Hill employees to become unionized. There has been a certain evolution over the past few years, so that thanks to the Constitution and the unions' persistence before the Staff Relations Board, Parliament is finally starting to move and doing something which I feel is both constructive and necessary.
Designated employees of Parliament will be divided into three categories: House of Commons, Senate, Library of Parliament.
The employees hired by Hon. Members and working for them in their offices will not be subject to collective bargaining, although they will be covered, as all parliamentary employees, by Parts III and IV of the Canada Lobour Code which govern their terms and conditions of employment. There are also provisions governing occupational safety and health which apply to all employees working on Parliament Hill.
Bill C-45 will determine every aspect of the staff relations system which will apply only to employees working on Parliament Hill for the Senate, the House of Commons, and the Library of Parliament. As stated in this legislation, some of these employees will be designated employees.
According to the General Provisions of the Canada Labour Code, the right to collective bargaining stems only from legislation. Until now, no collective bargaining legislation had applied to Parliament. Parliament employees could not benefit from the Public Service Staff Relations Act because they did not belong to the Public Service and were not subject to the Canada Labour Code because of the privilege of Parliament to which I referred earlier.
Part I of Bill C-45 indicates that certain categories of parliamentary employees could join a union to protect their rights and set up a legal structure for collective bargaining and grievance procedure.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-45 is to create a framework very similar to that applicable to all Public Service employees, with a number of restrictions in line with those currently in force in the private sector.
The Canada Labour Code generally recognizes the right of workers to organize for the purpose of bargaining collectively their working conditions. The law creates a structure within which this agreement is made and which is administered by a labour relations board. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the fact that you have a constitutional right does not necessarily make

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act the issue any clearer. The constitutional right is there, but in most jurisdictions, there is a law to define it.
The law creates a structure within which this agreement takes place and which is administered by a board. Employees in the groups judged apt to collective bargaining, or bargaining units, then choose their union representatives.
Generally, the union must have the support of the majority of the group involved to be certified by the Commission as exclusive representative of the group. Once certification is granted, negotiations can begin. The union, on behalf of the employees of the bargaining unit, can require the employer to negotiate in good faith to conclude a collective agreement, which is a document stating the terms and conditions of work as well as the rights and duties of the employer. In the private sector, Mr. Speaker, if it is impossible to come to an agreement after following all these steps and after a certain period determined by law, the employees can exert pressure by initiating a strike and the employer can do the same with a lockout. As soon as the collective agreement is signed, it is binding on each party; there can no longer be a strike during the term of the agreement, and any dispute as to the interpretation and application of the agreement must be settled by submitting the matter to an independent third party, known, as we are all aware, as the arbitrator for grievances.
Bill C-45 follows the restrictive model of the public sector, Mr. Speaker. Strikes are forbidden, disputes in bargaining are settled by arbitration; negotiable issues are restricted; any partisan political activity is forbidden for employee organizations or unions; and in addition, of the great number of people working on Parliament Hill, many are excluded from the collective bargaining system by being designated.
The Bill as a whole applies to people employed by or engaged in work in or for the Senate, the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, Members of Parliament, and members of the research staff of parliamentary groups, but a number of these people are excluded from the application of Part I whose purpose "is to provide to certain persons employed in parliamentary service, collective bargaining and other rights in respect of their employment". A number of additional restrictions are contained in the preliminary clauses, such as the provision that nothing in Part I shall be construed so as to affect the right or authority of an employer to determine the organization of the employer and to assign duties and classify positions of employment. All this is stated in Bill C-45, but as I said earlier, I shall try, and I hope that the Committee will do the same, to make classification standards negotiable. Persons excluded from Part I are those on the staff of Cabinet Ministers, Senators and Members (employees of the Whip, the Leader of the Opposition or any person in an official position and all those who work for a Member of Parliament). Researchers for parliamentary groups, and persons in temporary employment with a parliamentary committee are also excluded, because they do not come under the definition of "employee", as given in the Bill. Persons appointed by the Governor in Council, part-time, that is working one-third of the normal work period, and casual, working less than six months, and also people in a managerial or confidential position.
After having provided for exceptions, there remains a core of people employed by the House, the Senate and the Library who can enter into collective bargaining. Those persons may be members of an employee organization and participate in the latter's lawful activities. Those activities are protected against any intervention or discrimination by the employer, but they may not take place on the employer's premises during working hours.
Mr. Speaker, the administration of the labour relations system as provided for in Part 1 is the responsibility of the Public Service Labour Relations Board, the tribunal established to administer and adjudicate any matter subject to collective bargaining within the Federal Public Service-that is the body I mentioned earlier-which was established in 1967. The Board has the power to decide over the certification of labour groups, the extent of bargaining units, the hearing of complaints-it establishes rules of procedure both for the adjudication and the settlement of grievances. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note-
You indicate there is one minute left, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes, one minute.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with another matter, but if you wish I can call it one o'clock. I can wait and resume after two, but I will not be very long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Shall we call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will point out to the
Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that he has approximately seven minutes remaining in his speech. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When the House rose at one o'clock the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauth-
November 1, 1985

ier) had the floor. At that time 1 believe I mentioned he had approximately seven minutes left.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, 1 realize there are Hon. Members who want to speak on the Bill, 1 will not use all of my allotted time.
Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the legal process, saying that under this Bill the Public Service Staff Relations Board would be the authority for the settlement of disputes, and that the Courts would not be empowered to rule on disputes. It is interesting to note that the Public Service Staff Relations Board is empowered under this Bill to enforce all orders issued. In general, the decisions made by the Staff Board are enforced as we know by the courts, and this is not possible where Parliament is concerned.
In order to preserve, and I would like to return to this, the principle of the separation of judiciary and legislative powers, Bill C-45 sets up a mechanism for enforcing the Board's decisions, under which there will be tabled before each House of Parliament one copy of its order, a detailed report and all documents pertaining or relevant thereto.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I think we will be discussing that in committee and we will know how to proceed to table those reports.
As we know, there usually is in the House of Commons a Minister responsible for liaison between the House and the agency or organization concerned. As a matter of course, when an organization such as the Public Service Commission, for instance, wants to table its annual report, it usually asks the Secretary of State to do it on its behalf.
In this case, the Bill does not state clearly who will be accountable for the employer in the House. I think that during its consideration in committee, we will have to deal with the matter to elucidate the following phrase: "The employer represented by a Minister responsible to the House." A nameless employer hard to get in touch with and not accountable to the House would seem inadequate to me.
The Bill should specify who will table the report, whether a Minister or the Speaker. Once again I would find it difficult because the Speaker is not accountable to the House for the activities of the commission. Perhaps the commission itself will be empowered to table it in the House as happens with the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General, and a committee of the House would look after the accountability and the administration of the law.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, the matter dealt with in Clause 84 of the Bill is not clear enough.
Mr. Speaker, in short, Bill C-45 creates a system of rights and duties which regulates staff relations. I have tried to examine during the few minutes allotted to me the more important aspects of the legal system proposed in Bill C-45. A mere reminder though: Any person working on Parliament Hill will be subjected to the provisions of Parts III and IV of the Labour Code with respect to the minimum standards of
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
health, employment and security at work. Previously, as we know, none of those sections of the legislation applied to the House of Commons, to the Senate and still less to the Library.
Mr. Speaker, some people will be able to organize and form a union to negotiate working conditions through the collective bargaining process. I think it is a step in the right direction. For me, it is clearly something we have all been seeking and which, I hope, will be constructive.
There are problems, of course, that will have to be discussed.
I know, for instance, that the New Democratic Party is going to support the right to strike. Mr. Speaker, my Party and 1, have made it pretty clear that, as far as essential services are concerned, we do not favour amending the general legislation. There are designated jobs. Staff that is essential to the administration and proper functioning of Parliament should be excluded from the right to strike. I am open and my Party is open to negotiating or discussing the following: Whether drivers, messengers and general support staff may have the right to strike. I think it would be an interesting subject for debate in committee, and I will reserve my comments until then.
We must not forget the prerogatives of Parliament. We must remember our parliamentary privilege and preserve it.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to say that Bill C-45 means the end of a unilateral decision taken by the employer.
We are putting in place a bilateral system which I hope will work to the benefit of all Parties. I know it will be taken seriously by the employees. I understand that they are willing and quite anxious to get this legislation passed. I give the House the assurance that my Party will not prevent or unduly delay passage of this Bill.
In general, the principle is good. We approve it. As far as the details are concerned, I think discussions are required. Therefore, we hope that in committee we will be able to improve upon Bill C-45 and make it a better piece of legislation than it is now.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have looked forward to having some legislation before this House of Commons for many years to provide rights for workers on the Hill.
Members of Parliament have been embarrassed because of incidents that have occurred in these buildings over the years. I have only to refer to the unexpected announcements made by former Speaker Francis when he talked about incidents on the Hill as a result of not having labour protection for people here. This litany of horror stories no other institution would accept, and if they had there would have been prosecutions for unfair labour practices, sexual harassment and so on.

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
We have had a rotten borough as far as the rights of workers are concerned. We have one of the last bastions in Canada that has no worker protection.
This legislation moves us a bit along the road to what happens in most workplaces. What annoys me the most, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not setting forward model legislation for our own employees. We are not saying that this is what should be the case in Canada. Parliament Hill, of all places, should be looking after the interests of workers in a fair and equitable manner, but that is not the case in this legislation.
In introducing the legislation, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) admitted that he was taking some parts from the Public Staff Relations Act but not going quite as far as that present Act allows. He was not going to the Canada Labour Code except for Parts III and IV. He is taking a few pieces from each of those major pieces of legislation and putting them together so we can have something for the people on the Hill.
If you look at the abuses mentioned by former Speaker Francis and if you look at what has happened to people working on the Hill, working for us, for the people of Canada, I would say that there is a strong case to be made for a good piece of legislation instead of that which we have before us today. Even now, we are not moving forward on this legislation because of willingness of Members of the House and we are not doing it because we think it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, the Government is bringing forward this legislation only because there are cases in front of the Canada Labour Relations Board and our courts which are forcing us to move.
Without any legislative protection whatever, over 1,000 people working on the Hill have joined the Public Service Alliance of Canada. They have done so because of what has happened here. Appointments have been made on the basis of patronage. They have seen nepotism and people getting promoted for granting various favours to their employers. People have seen that happen and they know it is happening. They know also that transfers take place without consultation and reductions in the number of workers take place without any input employees. They know they can be fired or transferred without any grievance procedure. Because of that, they have gone to the Canadian Labour Relations Board and said: "We believe we are Canadian citizens and that we should come under the Canada Labour Code".
The Canada Labour Relations Board listened to the complaints and made a decision that because the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, was a federal institution, people on the Hill should have the protection of the Labour Code, and it was in the process of granting a number of groups on the Hill the right to join a union under the protection of the Canada Labour Code. Parliament sat-and may I say it sat on its ass-for years.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Sat on its seat, Mr. Speaker. We are known for sitting, and how we sit is also very well known. It is not something new, the Government House Leader in his introduction pointed out how long it has taken for Parliament to act. He did a very good job of explaining how little action has taken place. We are now forced to act because there is an application before the Canada Labour Relations Board and an indication from the Federal Court of Appeal that the matter is probably something which can be decided by the Canada Labour Relations Act.
We have people in the restaurants and cafeterias, people working as messengers and in the distribution service, people working in the broadcast service, committee reporting service, maintenance, the Library of Parliament, the Senate maintenance and messenger service, the French and English indexes, the staff of Members of Parliament, mainly the New Democratic Party staff, the printing staff, the nurses, the constables and security and the committee clerks all asking to be certified under the Canada Labour Relations Code.
The Government's reaction, and I admit it was supported by all three Parties a year and a half ago, was to bring forward a piece of legislation. We do not believe that the legislation is strong enough. We do not believe the legislation is providing the protection necessary for workers. This legislation is quite weak. This legislation has six major weaknesses.
First, the classification of position in the assignment of duties cannot be dealt with in negotiations. Second, staffing, job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers and lay-offs cannot be dealt with under this legislation. Third, grievance procedures are limited. Grievances cannot go to third party arbitration except in certain circumstances. Fourth, union grievances are not allowed in many areas. Fifth, Members of Parliament staff are excluded from the right of collective bargaining. Sixth, the right to strike is prohibited.
At the present time, certification procedures will require that the thousand or more people who have signed union cards will have to start again from scrath. The people who have had the nerve in this House over the last three years who are working for us with no protection and who have signed union cards in order to take cases forward to the courts about the House of Commons are now having to start all over again. That is plainly unjust. If the Canada Labour Relations Board is right, they have the right to go forward right now with the union cards they have presently. The Government by this piece of legislation will be taking away what they have fought to obtain over the last three years.
I have given notice to the Government House Leader that when we go forward in committee, I would like some indication from him as to whether or not he will act on this very unjust matter. Despite many things which I have said about him in the past, I believe he may act quite favourably in response to this reasonable recommendation. Certainly it would undo an injustice in the legislation.
November 1, 1985

There are many things I could say and will say about the legislation before my time is up. However, one of the most ironic things about it is that a worker in a support role for the Privy Council, in other words for the Prime Minister's Office, would have more rights under legislation than one working for the Parliament of Canada. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that legally people working in the Privy Council Office have the right to strike? Do you know that they are covered by all aspects of the Public Service Staff Relations Act? Do you recognize that in many parts of Canada we have given people who work for the Government of Canada, for the Supreme Court, for the Governor General and for various Crown corporations, rights which we are denying our own people under this legislation? That is a very serious problem.
Why are we doing it? Are we saying that the Privy Council Office is not an essential service? Some may say that after the last month or two, it might be a good idea if it closed down for a while. Certain Tory back-benchers would probably be quite grateful if it closed down for a while. We are saying that that is not an essential service, but people here are providing essential services. I am not sure whether the messenger service is essential in the way this legislation means it. Certainly it is an essential service to us. However, if they wanted to go out on strike to protect their rights, and if it were the only way in which they could solve a problem, I think we should allow that. If that is the only way in which they can resolve the difference with us, I believe they should have that right.
Before talking about the people covered by the legislation, I should like to spend a few minutes talking about those who will not be covered. Earlier I mentioned that among the groups which applied for certification under the Canada Labour Code were the people who worked for the NDP caucus, the members of our staff on the Hill. The working relationship which we have had with the New Democratic Party caucus staff over the years indicates how things could work for Members. This legislation runs the danger of even taking away the rights which our employees have, the employees of Members of Parliament, at the present time. Right now they have an application before the Canada Labour Relations Board to allow them to have full certification as opposed to the voluntary certification which they have with us. This will be taken away by this legislation.
We have had a collective agreement with our staff since 1977. This agreement has been renegotiated three times. It sets out working conditions for the employees hired by caucus and by individual caucus members. It provides for the resolution of staffing problems through a grievance procedure. It includes the appeal of difficult problems through third party arbitration. I have sat on those appeals, and 1 know they can work. Our collective agreement also provides for agreed procedures for staffing of vacant positions, for technological change, respect for overtime, standards for vacations, education and travel. Our employees understand that they can meet with our caucus and talk about their rights. We think that is something with which we have survived quite well, not without some
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
difficulties, since 1977. There have been over eight years of success through negotiating.
Why is it being said that that cannot happen any more? Why is the Government saying that Liberal and Conservative staff members cannot join a union? The legislation says that they cannot. The Government is taking away an existing right, and I do not think that is fair. I am not sure how the staff of Members of Parliament of the Conservative and Liberal Parties feel about that. It is a problem for us because we have recognized the rights of our employees. We want to ensure that this legislation recognizes their rights as well.
Speaking about the rights of Members of Parliament and explaining why there needs to be some protection, I should like to take a look at what happens in Ministers' offices and in the Privy Council Office, compared with what happens to us as Members of Parliament. At this time we are being asked to do more as Members of Parliament. The Auditor General is saying that we have to do a much better job of keeping Ministers on track in terms of Government spending. Also, reform of Parliament is taking place, indicating that we should be doing more on committees and doing a much more careful job not only of amending legislation but perhaps of introducing our own legislation through the committee system. At the same time the budgets of Members of Parliament are not being increased. 1 see other members of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services in the Chamber this afternoon. We have been fighting for over a year to obtain an increase in the budget for the staff of Members of Parliament. We have had no success. However, at the same time, the Prime Minister's Office has been increased by a third in terms of numbers of people and its budget has gone up by over 50 per cent. Members of Cabinet have increased their staff allocation tremendously, again by over 50 per cent, and have increased the number of people working for them, yet the same has not been done for Members of Parliament. One of the reasons for this happening is that our staff do not have any negotiating power with the administration of the House of Commons. They do not have the right to say: "Look at what is happening, look at the expectations you are putting on us, look at the expectations you are putting on Members of Parliament, look at the new role which is being set out for Members of Parliament. Yet you are not giving us any more money for it". I think that is also a problem.
We also suffer with regard to how Members' staff is treated in comparison with Ministers' staff in the long run. At the present time there is a system in place, whereby people working in Ministers' offices, after a number of years, are able to be integrated into the Public Service, that they will be given preferential hiring for various posistions within the Public Service of Canada.
That is a form of favouritism which can be justified. It is a recognition that someone who has worked in a Minister's office for a number of years has a certain skill, ability and knowledge, and obviously has spent a fair amount of time working for the people of Canada. However, we do not do the same thing when it comes to people who have worked for

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Members of Parliament. For example, someone who has worked in the office of the NDP immigration critic could have spent five years working on immigration problems, and I suspect that one could have spent five years in the last ten months working on those problems. However, if that person wanted to apply for a job in the Department of Employment and Immigration, he or she would not receive any recognition whatsoever. That is an injustice, and it is an injustice that our own employees do not have any particular rights under present legislation and that what they do have will be taken away by the Government.
I do not want to be the only Member who has a chance to speak on the legislation this afternoon, but I have a few other points to make. It is important to realize that we are not setting forth on a new path. What we are doing here is accepting that we are being forced to move along that path. I think that is regrettable. In his presentation the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) indicated that the Government might be willing to make some changes to this legislation, if some negotiations take place successfully between the Treasury Board and the Public Service of Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When, not if.


Rodney Edward Murphy: However, what I would like to hear-and I am sure the Minister responsible will tell us about it in committee-is when that will happen. What will happen if there are successful negotiations between the Public Service Alliance of Canada and Treasury Board? If we move away from some of the restrictive provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and guarantee the workers of the Government of Canada some of the protections that are there under the Canada Labour Code, if that happened-and it is certainly something that I fought for for many years-then I want to make sure that this House provides the same protection for the people who work here. I do not want that to happen 15 or 20 years down the road or when there is some other court action being contemplated. I would like to be guaranteed by the Minister responsible for this legislation that the Government will move at the same time for the people who work on the Hill as it moves for the other people who work for the Government of Canada right across this land. In other words, what I am saying is that if there is legislation moving people who are presently under the Public Service Staff Relations Act under the new provisions of the Canada Labour Code, or changing the Public Service Staff Relations Act to include some of the same guarantees as are in the Canada Labour Code, at the same time this Act should be amended so that our people on the Hill will receive those same types of guarantees. I think that is the crux of the matter.
One of the reasons that there has been a fight against this legislation, even before it came before us, is that there is a recognition that, for the people who work on the Hill especially, the Public Service Staff Relations Act is not adequate legislation that will really protect their rights. Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act there are many things that
cannot be negotiated which are the very crux of the problems that people who work on the Hill face. They want to be able to discuss, at a negotiation table, classification of jobs and assignment of duties. They want to able to talk about staffing decisions. They want to be able to grieve staffing decisions to an outside body. That is not possible under this legislation. Some of that is possible under the Public Service Staff Relations Act and some of it is not, but what we are setting up here is that we are accepting the Public Service Staff Relations Act and then we are watering it down.
I want from the Minister, in committee-and I have explained it to him already so it is not a surprise-some guarantee that we are going to move away from this system. I think we have to expect that the Government has a good chance of passing this legislation sometime in the future. The last time I counted Government Members outnumbered us slightly in this House of Commons, 27 to one, so they have a chance-not a good chance but they have a chance-of passing this legislation. But I want guarantees from the Government that when improvements take place for the Public Service of Canada, they should also take place for the people on the Hill, and that it is not just another watered down version of improvements but a real improvement, so that we are protecting the people who work for us and work for the people of Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the adoption of Bill C-45 will prove to be a significant milestone in Canadian parliamentary history.
For the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, the relations between Members, senators, senior parliamentary officials and their staff will be subject to a whole series of rights, obligations and restraints. In addition, a new element-the union movement- will play a leading and legitimate role in these relations.
Whatever the outcome may be, chances are indeed that parliamentary activities will never be the same, and we rejoice for Canadians because extending the rights of our own employees can only enhance this institution.

I would like to reassure the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that in committee or perhaps even sooner, as the House Leader of the Government said in his speech, we will be considering matters which are concern to him, such as the efforts which have been made up to date by employees to get themselves organized and so on. We will do our utmost so that their good efforts are not wasted. At the same time, we want to protect the rights of all employees, those who up until now have not been interested in the word that was being done to organize them in the existing unions, as well as those who had already accepted that situation.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to make working conditions of parliamentary employees similar to those of their counterparts in the Public Service. It will also give collective
November 1, 1985

bargaining rights to parliamentary employees. For the first time therefore they will enjoy certain rights and some protection.
The Bill is divided in three parts and goes a long way towards improving the labour relations climate on Parliament hill. Part I is similar to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It designates the Public Service Staff Relations Board as administrator of the act and defines the collective bargaining process, whereas Part II applies Canada Labour Code Part III to parliamentary employees. That part therefore will determine terms and conditions of jobs, including annual leave and working hours. The last part stipulates that Part IV of the Canada Labour Code applies to Parliament employees and determines occupational safety and health standards.
The purpose of Bill C-45 is therefore to create a structure for collective bargaining between the House and its employees. If and when adopted, it will grant Parliament employees the collective bargaining rights normally prescribed in this kind of legislation, including the right to join a union without any fear of reprisals from their employer. Moreover, it will provide all employees with the wide range of rights and guarantees listed in Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code, including the right to refuse to do hazardous work, and minimal guarantees concerning vacation leave, maternity leave, working hours, etc. The legislation will provide workers on Parliament Hill with a wide range of rights and regulations, giving them a protection to which they had no access until now. Moreover, Bill C-45 will provide them with more rights than those contemplated in the draft bill which our Committee on Management and Members' Service had supported in 1984.
In two areas, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 incorporates through reference Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code, extending to Parliament employees the rights granted to all employees under Federal jurisdiction. If we consider, for instance, some of the rules which forbid discrimination for workers under federal jurisdiction, for instance in Crown Corporations, as well as the new Canadian Government contract compliance policy, we can see that making Parts III and IV of the Canadian Labour Code apply to Parliamentary Hill employees, we are certainly giving them more rights than they had before.
The other aspect of Bill C-45 which goes further than the recommendation of the Committee on Management and Members' Services concerns the fact that Parliamentary Hill employees will be covered by the provisions of Parts III and IV of the Code, even though the staff of Members of Parliament, Senators, research services and caucuses will not be covered by the other parts of this Bill. However, they will be subject to Parts III and IV, which means that they will have extended rights and a better protection than the Committee on Manage-
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act ment and Members' Services had recommended in 1984. It is therefore better than what the Committee had recommended.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, some might say, like the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) did earlier, that the Bill does not go far enough. But still upon looking at the history of the protection of the rights of Parliamentary employees, we must realize that indeed this legislation is bringing something very important into the life of those employees, and it will have a rather massive impact on working conditions and environment in Members' offices.
The impact on Members and Senators of the implementation of Parts III and IV of the Code to their staff will be extensive. For instance, if a Member wishes his or her employees to work after the so-called standard hours provided for in Part III of the Code, meaning an average eight hours a day or 48 hours in any week, he or she will need permission from the Minister of Labour. Further, a Member's employee with more than one year of service who is being fired may ask the Minister of Labour to have his dismissal reviewed by a third party. In my view, that is quite a protection. Many of my constituents are civil servants, in the neighbourhood of 17,000, and I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many representations have been made to me concerning employees that were fired somewhat high-handedly. So this is a protection employees were impatiently waiting for.
Besides, where a Member's employee ... where the dispute cannot be settled through informal mediation, the Minister may submit the matter to a referee who has much more extensive powers, including that of ordering the reinstatement of the employee involved, and this order can even be supported by a Federal Court judgment.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this is something very significant, and very deserving to be noted. It is true that job classification, staffing, and all that, are not covered by this legislation. But when you consider the somewhat unusual relationships that exist between MPs and their staffs and the emergency work that can come up, the very rapidly changing situations, and also sometimes the very special projects that must be dealt with, if Members of Parliament were to be deprived of their freedom to manage their own offices, to allocate tasks to persons who are capable and qualified to deal with them, or, in cases of absence, to be able to transfer people between jobs in order to fill any gap created by reason of illness or whatever, they would be unable to fulfill their duty and would not at that point provide their constituents with the quality of services they promised to deliver when elected, with the commitment to adequately represent their constituents.
Therefore, as Lloyd Francis aptly said, labour relations between Members of Parliament and parliamentary staff must retain some sort of specificity, a character that do not apply, for instance, to other occupations under Federal jurisdiction that are related to transportation, maintenance, or whatever.

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
There is something very special about parliamentary work and we must preserve that specific character.
We also recall that conditions altogether different existed between 1908, when the Public Service was established, and 1961, when the permanent staff of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament came under the Public Service Employment Act as far as appointments, classification, salaries and promotions were concerned. However, Parliament kept its control over the duration of employment, the provisions regulating annual leave, standards for work performed outside, etc.
Mr. Speaker, in other words, the employee in those days was not protected as he will be under Bill C-45. Now why should the employees of the Members of Parliament be excluded? In Part I, it is stated that they are excluded from collective bargaining; on the other hand, in Parts II and III of the Bill they are included as I said previously, as parliamentary employees to whom Parts III and IV of the Canadian Labour Code apply.
Therefore, the employees of Members of Parliament will be far better off because they will benefit from improved labour conditions as provided to all employees while enjoying that very special relationship with their bosses which is necessary in parliamentary work.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, the President of the Treasury Board is now undertaking negotiations with unions to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Government hopes that the amendments to that legislation will also be included in Bill C-45.
The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to bring the working conditions of parliamentary employees up to a level comparable with that of their counterparts in the Public Service. This is another example of the Government's commitment to parliamentary reform, and the emphasis is on fairness in relations between the Government and its employees.
Unfortunately, Bill C-45 does not enshrine all the principles of personnel administration, such as merit, and does not deal with staffing, promotions, transfers, competition, and so forth. Many of my constituents come to my office to complain that they have been treated unfairly in a competition or did not get the promotion they deserved. Their files often contain numerous recommendations attesting that their work is superior and even excellent. However, when it is time for them to move on in their career, their advancement or promotion is stalled as a result of habits that have developed in the last twenty years. Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that demoralizes our public servants, it is that. Corrective action must be taken.
It is clear, therefore, that the principles governing these matters should be dealt with at another level, as recommended by the Auditor General in his 1983 report. We must give careful and speedy consideration, as was said several times in the House, on both sides of the House in fact, to the merit
principle in the Public Service. It is to be hoped that negotiations between the President of Treasury Board and the unions will result in something positive that will truly improve the working conditions of our public servants. And it is also to be hoped that we will be able to reach an amical agreement with the unions so that parliamentary employees, as a result of Bill C-45, will get better working conditions, will feel that their work counts, and that as a result, productivity, which may be slack sometimes in certain areas, will improve. Because you know, Mr. Speaker, that the days when we had an inexhaustible pool of resources that could be used in emergencies when it was necessary to set up special teams to cope with a given situation, those days will soon be over if they are not already.
Mr. Speaker, cutbacks in the Public Service for budgetary reasons must not be made in a cavalier fashion and without consideration for the individual. We must ensure that the staff we have on Parliament Hill is working under conditions that will promote better productivity, high moral and quality service to the public, through its Members.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention and, in concluding my remarks, I want to reassure my Opposition colleagues by saying that this Bill is considered as a major piece of legislation by the Government and the Member for Gatineau, indeed by every Member whose riding is home to a great many public and Parliament Hill employees, not simply because those people are electors who will vote in the next elections, but because we know very well that our work as Members is not quite up to par if our employees are demoralized or lack the necessary facilities or assistance, or the favourable environment and surroundings to give the best of themselves.
I therefore hope the Bill will be quickly referred to the legislative committee for closer scrutiny and improvements, as the Government House Leader has already suggested, and that it will be adopted without delay so that our employees may benefit from it and that all of us may be better parliamentary representatives of our electors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Questions.
Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) has indicated a desire in committee, or a willingness in committee, to resolve some of the matters with which some of us may be dissatisfied or which, perhaps, some of our employees may be dissatisfied. I am wondering if she would care to indicate her view on Clause 4 of the Bill- perhaps I should not speak so specifically about a clause. But the Bill does exclude all Members' of Parliament staff. They exclude my staff, her staff, the staff of all of the Members of Parliament. I am wondering whether the Hon. Member is of
November 1, 1985

the opinion that our staff should all be excluded from union rights.
I wish to specify the question a little more precisely as well. In many jurisdictions there is unionized staff and there are people specifically excluded by individual designation. You know, the manager of an office and that sort of thing. In this case it is a rather blanket exclusion. It is unlike the practice in the Ontario Legislature, the practice in many other legislatures in Canada and abroad in excluding all-everyone-who might be employed, even perhaps just a typist, by a Member of Parliament. I would ask the Hon. Member if she cares to indicate whether she thinks it is just to deprive, in the year 1985, in a country such as Canada, all our parliamentary assistants of the right to choose a union.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague. As I said in my remarks, the specific nature of the work done by parliamentary assistants prevents us from considering them as we do all other employees on Parliament Hill. As former House Speaker Francis said when he was faced with the same decision, he had considered, and I will say this in English-

However, Speaker Francis considered the application of the Code to House employees as inappropriate and potentially disastrous for several reasons. For example, the Canada Labour Code does not provide for the continuation of essential services in the event of a strike nor does it in other ways recognize the unique functions and responsibilities of parliamentary institutions. Accordingly, the Speaker responded by seeking from the Federal Court (Trial Division) an order prohibiting the Canada Labour Relations Board from continuing to take jurisdiction.
He said:
"It is evident that Parliament, as an employer, is not like any trucking, rail, shipping, bank, or radio and television company that comes under the Canada Labour Code. The uniqueness of Parliament suggests the need to define a suitable legal framework for granting its employees the right to bargain collectively."

Therefore, that is not quite the case put forward by my hon. friend, but it shows the sort of context in which Parliament employees' rights, privileges and protections were discussed. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if my hon. friend thought about it seriously, he would realize that there is a big difference between the job of a Paliamentary assistant who must deal sometimes with urgent situation and show initiative, and that of an employee who must perform day in day out the same routine tasks which are assigned to him or her. He is perfectly aware that our employees on Parliament Hill are faced with constantly changing situations. There are really no standard formulas or patterns to define the jobs of our Parliamentary assistants.
He has to reinvent his routine each day because new situations are always coming up. Some constituents might need a certain thing, and he has to reorganize his priorities as well as those of his boss. Because of this, if he were constrained in an
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act administrative straightjacket which did not provide the flexibility he needs to do his job, he could not serve his Member of Parliament as well as he should, and I believe that this would make the employees themselves quite unhappy.
1 discussed this with employees before speaking about this Bill in the House, and they told me that, as long as their working conditions are protected, as long as their work is safe, free of any danger for their health, and so on, as long as there are rules to determine their hours of work, the length of their working day, their holidays, and so on, they are very happy to have different labour relations and conditions than those applying to the maintenance, library or services employees, who wait for people to ask them questions or to request something from them, while our own employees must very often be creative in order to help us, and they would not have the freedom of action necessary if the framework of their job was too restrictive. This is why there are differences between our own employees and other workers on the Hill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for a supplementary. There are only two minutes left.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker I agree with the Hon. Member. She mostly avoided answering the question even though she talked for eight minutes. Since employees of the Supreme Court, the Privy Council, The Prime Minister's Office, the Governor General and the legislators of Ontario, Quebec, Australia and Westminster are covered by union agreements, those have not broken down and their obligations are as difficult as ours, how can she justify her ridiculous claim that it is impossible to do the work here with unionized employees?


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, I shall let the offending comment made by the Hon. Member pass. I thought that we were having a serious debate, but he obviously wants to play politics.
To reply to his question, what is going on in Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories concerns only those jurisdictions. We are in the Federal Parliament and the situation is different because we have to serve an entire country and we often have to set some priorities. It is essential to have an environment which fits our pourposes and we should not try to imitate what others have done just because they found it convenient themselves.
Beside, we saw it in one of the cases where collective bargaining rights were involved in the Yukon, I believe. It was said that there might be areas where it did not prevent a municipality from doing this or that but that in a provincial context, at that point where the comparison was made, it could prove to be prejudicial at the provincial level. It is therefore

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act obvious that there must be a work environment compatible with the institution involved. The federal level is not the provincial level nor the municipal level. We need our own Bill, our own regulations to govern and protect our employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is over. We will now resume debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), unless the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on October 25, 1966, I walked into this building for the first time in my life. On that day I walked up to the sixth floor of this building and asked the maitre d' of the Parliamentary Restaurant for a job. He said: "Yes, we have openings. We have them frequently", and the next day, October 26, I started here as a busboy. That was the first job I had in my life.
1 worked in this building from 1966 until I left to become a Member of the Ontario Legislature in 1981. Of course, for that period of time I had two jobs. I was an employee of this House as well as being in a municipal office in the Township of Cumberland prior to my election in 1981.
The job I did in the beginning as a busboy was not as glamorous or as highly paid as other jobs. The job of busboy at that time paid $2,368 per year. I still have the stub of my first pay cheque and last night when I was reviewing my notes to speak today 1 examined it very closely. Needless to say, with that kind of salary it was difficult to keep busboys and other employees here for any more than a few weeks. There was a very high rate of turnover among the employees of the restaurant and certain other departments.
When I came back here in the fall of 1984, I noticed that there had been considerable change in the three and a half years I had been absent from Parliament Hill. Notwithstanding the fact that the salaries were not all that great when I was an employee here, there was, nevertheless, a good feeling among staff members on the Hill, whether they were blue-collar or white-collar workers. The staff, regardless of where they worked, felt good about working here because this was and, of course, still is, a very special and unique place to work. It was a privilege to be able to work here, at least that was the feeling felt by the employees when they worked here. They felt they were working in a very special place although, yes, one had to work hard and, yes, the benefits were dispensed in unusual ways. One never knew when a benefit was a benefit and when it would be taken away. Employees worked here at the so-called pleasure of the Speaker. In other words, there really was not such a thing on Parliament Hill, and still is not, as security.
By and large, the staff of this palce accepted that because it was an interesting and challenging place to work. I would love to say to you today, Mr. Speaker, that this is still the case but for the people who work for us on Parliament Hill, this is no longer the situation.

Unfortunately now, the congenial spirit, the good relations that prevailed between parliamentary staff and managers are for the most part things of the past. What has happened, Mr. Speaker? We pointed out earlier today in this House that, formerly, there were often occasions where a certain amount of patronage was the rule. There have been cases of nepotism, of favouritism even on Parliament Hill, where people were promoted or tried to go up the ladder in order to earn salaries, a better standard of living. Often that was unfair. Still there was in that structure an informal grievance procedure because we knew that there were 265 members in the House and if an employee thought he was ill-treated, he could at least go and see his Member of Parliament and state his grievance and the Member could raise the matter with the Speaker. It was not a very good nor a very efficient procedure, but at least there was something. What do we have today?


An Hon. Member:: The same thing!


Don Boudria: No, not the same thing. And if the Hon. Member opposite would listen, he would understand. Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest that I have great expertise on many issues but I have worked in this House for 14 years and perhaps if the Hon. Member would take a few minutes to talk to the employees on Parliament Hill, whose services are so useful to us, he would also understand a little better.
What is happening today is something different. On the one hand, the administrative structure now existing is supposed to be better than in the past. On the other hand, the necessary counterbalance to enable the employees to be heard is not there. The Hon. Member opposite knows as well as I do that if a Parliamentary employee has a grievance and goes to his office-and many of them come to mine every day-we cannot do a thing for him. We can write a letter to the Speaker or to someone else, such as a senior official of the House, but the result is always the same. Nothing happens because there is no official structure for employee grievances. That is the difference. I would invite the Hon. Member to look into the matter and consult other people if he wants to understand the difference.
I shall give you an example of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. [English]
In 1982 there were 50 cleaning people cleaning the Centre Block on Parliament Hill. It is a very large structure and most Canadians listening to this broadcast will know that. There are three managers or persons in a supervisory capacity here in the Centre Block. Some people said this was too much. They said: "There is not enough for them to do, so we will restructure it". Now there are 20 people who clean this building. There are still three managers. If a manager, or supervisor, is off work for one day, they take one of the cleaning people and make him a manager for that day. While they replace the managers when one of them is away, on a day like today when there are three or four cleaners away, nobody replaces them. Why is
November 1, 1985

that? Why do we replace the manager but do not replace the worker?
The room in this building for the messenger staff is about 15 feet by 23 feet. There are 25 people who work in that room. If this occurred anywhere else the health inspectors would be sent in to tell them that this is a ridiculous situation in which to make people work.
On the sixth floor of this building, the women's change room is behind the men's washroom. The women who work here cleaning our offices must walk through the men's washroom in front of the Parliamentary Restaurant, out the back door to go into their dressing room. That is the way we treat the women who are working here in 1985. Is that the way to treat our workers?
We should be an example for the rest of the country. We should be demonstrating how well people are treated. If we cannot care for 3,000 people who work for us, then why are we so qualified to take care of the 25 million whom we represent in the Parliament of our country? I invite you to think about that, Mr. Speaker, and I invite all Members of the House to think about what we do.
Not only are we here to represent the people in our constituencies, we are here to represent the country, which means every voter. Yes, it means the officials of the House but it also means the people cleaning the floors in this building, cleaning our offices and doing those other jobs in the building which too many of us forget about too often.
The Parliamentary Restaurant closed the pastry shop. Not long before, it had just hired a pastry chef from a restaurant in Ottawa. What happened to him? He was sent to drive the delivery truck. Where will that person find another job? He has no choice: he has to take the job.
As a result of new directives the staff of the Parliamentary Restaurant are on duty just about all the time. They can be called at home with little notice. The managers of the restaurant did not make the rules-they came from higher up-but they are doing their best to give as much notice as possible. The butcher shop in this building was moved to the basement of the Confederation Building for some time while the place was under construction. The butcher who was working there cut his hand on an electric saw which was not even equipped with a guard. Would we allow anyone else to do that in private business? Surely not. We would not put up with that and would not allow anyone else to permit it. We stand here, telling the country how things are supposed to be done but we do not do it ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that our effectiveness as Members of this House can be measured at least partially by the way we treat our employees and the staff of the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as the other employees who are here to assist us in our work.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that when we watch the debates of the House on television, we do not see all the people who cleaned up the House before we got here, the people who work behind the cameras, the people who work for Hansard, the translators, and so on. These people are often forgotten. In my opinion, it is wrong for us as Members of Parliament collectively not to be more aware of those who work for us, Mr. Speaker.

The staff here attempted to organize into a union. They have been given as much hindrance that could possibly be mustered against them from almost everyone. The people who attempt to organize unions here have told me that people were accidentally opening the door when they were trying to have a meeting about organizing into a union. They believe that there has been snooping at their meetings. They believe there has been intimidation because threats were made against a number of them who attempted to have leave in order to circulate throughout the buildings to obtain signatures on documents in preparation for organizing a union. Is that the way for us, as Members of Parliament, to treat our people in this building? Surely not.
When the issue of certification of the union was before the courts, boxes and boxes of documents were presented to the courts as evidence. I suggest that providing so many boxes of documents is not evidence but can be seen as a process of intimidation. It will take six months to a year to review all of that documentation. During that time, nothing is being done. Why do we do such things?
Not long ago, employees of the cleaning staff and the Parliamentary Restaurant and others were told that they had to give thousands of dollars back to the Government of Canada.


Mr. Thacker:: That is what you Liberals did. The Conservatives-


Don Boudria: I invite the Member opposite to stop his partisan nonsense for a minute. We are talking about the employees of all of us, collectively and individually, in this House. Maybe he can learn something. If not, perhaps he can talk to the workers downstairs for a few minutes and they will tell him.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why don't you sit down, then, and let somebody who knows what he is talking about say something?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will not pretend to know many things, but having worked here for fourteen and a half years with those people, as one of them, I think I know a lot more than he will ever know. I have probably forgotten more than he will ever know.
Let me talk about superannuation for our employees. Until approximately 1970 there were essentially two categories of employees of the House of Commons. They were sessional employees and permanent employees. The sessional employees

November I, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act of the Elouse of Commons were those who worked here every year, but only for the duration of the session. The permanent employees worked here all of the time. The sessional employees could not contribute toward superannuation. Of course, this was unfair, particularly in view of the fact that starting in the late 1960s sessions became longer and sessional employees in fact became year-round sessional employees.
Around 1975 it was decided that these sessional employees, because they were in fact permanent, should be contributing to superannuation. However, it would be a matter of choice on the part of the employees about whether or not they wanted to contribute. While some of these employees began to contribute to the superannuation plan of the House, others could not because of their low salary. I can understand that somebody who worked for $13,000 or $14,000 a year could not afford to have some $50 deducted from their cheque, no matter how beneficial in the future. Therefore, some of them contributed and some did not. A few months ago they all received a notice which indicated that in 1975 the Government made a mistake, that they should have all contributed to superannuation and, therefore, the employee who works for $14,000 a year owes the Government $8,000 or a similar amount. We told people earning $14,000 and $15,000 that they had to pay back $8,000 to the Treasury of Canada because we forgot to tell them 10 years ago that they were supposed to pay.
Finally, 1 want to bring to your attention something which 1 raised with you in the past, Mr. Speaker. As you know, outside the door of this Chamber there is a plaque which says that a Member of Parliament died in the great fire in the Parliament Buildings in 1916. When I first came to this building after the election last year the security guard giving me a tour of the building showed me the plaque and told me that six employees also died in the fire. I asked him the names of the six employees and he told me he did not know them and that they were not recorded. That day I asked you, Mr. Speaker, and all our colleagues to join me in asking that a plaque be erected in the name of those workers who died in the fire. A year later that has not been done. That tells me that we do not care enough to have done the job. If it is otherwise, I would like to have that done as a small gesture to prove to the people who work for us that we do care.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) a question similar to the question I put previously, but I want to vary it. He explained to me privately that the staff of Liberal and Conservative Members of the Ontario Legislature are not members of a union, however, I think he knows that staff of NDP Members there are members of the OPSEU Local 593. Since he has had experience there, I would be interested to know whether he thinks it would be appropriate for some or all of the staff of Members of the Ontario Legislature to be given the right to form a union. Perhaps they have that right now and have not exercised it, which is their choice, but I am not sure whether they have the right. If they have the right, does
he believe it is a good thing for them to have it? If they do not have the right, does he believe they should have it? Does he, as a Member of Parliament, think that his employees should have the right to form or join a union?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. As he correctly states, when I was a Member at Queen's Park the staff working for the caucus members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties did not have a union. He is also correct in saying that the staffs of NDP members were unionized. As far as I know, there were no problems associated with the fact that there was a union for the staff of the NDP caucus. I cannot think of one instance when that led to anything that others in other Parties would have become aware of. Whenever people group together it provides for some form of discussion, but that does not mean it is good or bad, it just means that it's there. With regard to whether the other two caucuses had the right to form a union, I believe that they did. However, to my knowledge, it was never exercised. At least the staffs of the Party that I belonged to were not unionized when I was there.
The Member is asking for my personal feelings with regard to unionizing the staffs of Members of Parliament. My answer to that is that I personally do not have much difficulty with that proposition. I can think of only one possible difficulty that could arise. The Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) explained to us that the staff of his office are in a union involving the NDP caucus.


Mr. Benjamin:: All our staff.


Don Boudria: Another Member refers to the fact that it includes all their staffs. I take the view that the staff that work for me do not work for the Liberal caucus or the Liberal Party. They work, through me, for the voters of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and nothing else. I suppose that this depends in part on the way in which the different caucuses are structured. The difficulty I see is that you would almost have to have a local in every office because of the way in which my Party works. If there are other alternatives, I have no personal objections to them.
I asked the staff of my office how they felt about that and the three of them did not view it as something they wanted. However, as I say, I have no personal difficulty with the proposition other than to wonder how it could possibly be structured given that other Party caucuses do not work in the same way as that of the NDP. That would be the only difficulty that I can see.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response of the Hon. Member. We will be happy to send him a copy of the collective agreement.


Don Boudria: I have it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He has it and he, therefore, knows that the members of our caucus signed a collective agreement along with the representatives of the members of all of our staffs, including research staff, individual Member's staff, and the
November 1, 1985

Leader's staff. As the hon. Member said, we have no control over the amount of wages paid to our staff as that is under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons. However, we do have jurisdiction in terms of working conditions, hours of work, and how we run our own offices.
Through my readings of Hansard I have seen that since 1935 people in my Party have proposed that employees of the national Government and the blouse of Commons should have the right to bargain collectively. On every occasion for the past 50 years when that subject came up, whether through debate or questions in the House, it was refused or talked out by the Party of the Hon. Member. Can I take from his speech today that he and his Party have changed their minds-I will not ask him to admit that they were wrong-and are now prepared to give the employees of this Chamber the same rights as those enjoyed by other employees of the Government of Canada and Crown corporations under the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last part of the Hon. Member's question first, he knows that all public servants do not enjoy the same rights now. Some are under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code and some are under the jurisdiction of other pieces of legislation. They do not enjoy identical rights at the present time so one cannot ask whether they will be the same as everyone else since everyone else is not the same.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 have a point of order.


Don Boudria: Notwithstanding that-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to in-scope employees, not Order in Council employees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That is not a point of order, sorry.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that, but even they are not all the same as the Hon. Member will know.
To answer the Hon. Member's question why legislation was not introduced in the past, the Hon. Member will know that it was under the previous Government that the Finkelman Report and other reports were done. The legislation was largely prepared under the previous administration and has now been introduced by this Government. It is not to say that nothing has been done.
Has enough been done, Mr. Speaker? No, I just spent half an hour saying that not enough has been done. I agree with that proposition. It is inherent on us now to give our employees their rights.
The Member is asking me whether the employees of the House of Commons should have the right to strike. My view is that quite possibly a number of them could. However, should we give that right to everyone? With that I have some difficulty. The Parliament of Canada is in charge of this
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act country and nobody else can be in charge of the Parliament of Canada. Providing that certain positions are exempt to ensure the full and proper functioning of Parliament is the important issue, that Parliament be sovereign. The supremacy of Parliament has to be guaranteed. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, obviously we could give better rights to our public servants and to House of Commons employees. Much of what 1 am saying, I remind the Member, was promised during the 1984 election campaign in terms of employees of the Public Service by the Government, the then Opposition.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to say a few words about this Bill because I was a plant worker and a union member for eighteen years. In fact, 1 was secretary of my union for two years and this subject has a special interest for me.

The arguments we have heard against allowing full union rights to the majority of employees of Parliament are very old arguments that have been disproved time and time again. A hundred and fifty to 200 years ago we heard the same sort of argument essentially from the industrial employers of Great Britain.
The same people who argued that they would go broke if 10 year old children were not allowed to work in the mines also argued they would go broke if their employees were allowed to have unions. It is less than two centuries since membership in any union in any industry was a crime. There was the famous case of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, agricultural workers. People in every country have to eat. I guess the argument was that those six or seven agricultural workers who committed the crime according to the statutes of the day of paying a shilling or two apiece membership dues in a union were threatening to starve all the people of England. In fact, the people of England decided that that was not so. Eventually the Government had to allow them to come home again, except one of them decided he had had enough of England and he came and settled in London, Ontario. In fact, at every stage, workers have been told: "We can't let you form a union because it would be disastrous to our industry", or in this case, disastrous to the Government of the country.
The attitude, of course, is that workers are a foolish, wicked, irresponsible lot who cannot be trusted to do an honest job. If they got a little power through being able to join together, the same power that the owners of capital exercise all the time, to counterbalance that power, then it would bring the country to ruin.
By the end of the last century, most workers in Britain were organized into unions and Britain reached the peak of its well-being in many respects according to most historians at that time. The workers of most of the western countries who have organized unions, often at the cost of martyrdom, death, imprisonment, harassment, are in countries now considered to be leading in prosperity and leading in good order. It is not only a matter of whether union members are satisfied enough

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
to work, it is also a matter of whether a person has the recognized dignity to speak in terms of moral equality with his or her employer.
In my 18 years as a factory labourer it was very important, not just to me, but to all others in the factory that a worker knew that his or her right to speak as an independent human being was protected by the union which was founded on law, the laws of Ontario. It did not mean that a worker did not have to work. The union could not protect a worker who was slacking. It did not mean that a union member could violate the ordinary relationship, insult the foreman or something like that. It did mean that the foreman could not insult the worker. It did mean that the foreman could not drive the worker mercilessly. It did mean that there were rules applicable to both sides, that both sides had to observe.
The rules were broken on both sides from time to time. From time to time management and supervisors did what was wrong. From time to time union members did what was wrong. There was a system for adjudicating those. There were disciplinary procedures jointly recognized. There were grievance procedures jointly recognized. We had recourse to arbitration. We did not do it very often but once in a year or two the union might take a case to arbitration. We might win it or we might lose it. It was healthy because it kept the company on its toes and it kept the union on its toes.
We had to be serious about our grievances to make sure that we had what we thought was a reasonable case. The company had to be serious about its answers because it knew if it simply ignored an honest case, the company could get smacked down in arbitration. There are millions of workers in Canada who enjoy that kind of protection today. It is one of the things that makes Canada a healthy, prosperous and peaceful country.
Forty years ago that was not the case. Forty years ago during the latter part of the Depression when the unions were organizing, there was the potential for utter chaos. We had the then Premier of Ontario bringing mounted troups in to smash up the union organizing in the City of Oshawa of General Motors and so on. He got tossed out in the next election of course. He was wrong, and the voters said he was wrong.
What was established then in North America generally as the pattern of labour law was the concept of the contract. It is not necessarily the same in Britain or in Europe but in the United States and Canada for forty years, on the pattern of the Wagner Act, we have had a deal. The deal is for the life of a contract, let us say for a year, the company agrees that it will pay certain wages, maintain certain conditions and will not change them except by mutual agreement with the union. In return, the union agrees that it will not strike. It will not indirectly strike through an organized slow-down or disruption. For one year, or it can be for longer, there is labour peace. That was the basic pattern worked out. It has worked very, very well. Far more than 90 per cent of union negotiations are carried on within that general concept to a conclusion without a strike, certainly without the bitterness of violence on the picket line-carried out to a conclusion that is never perfect but is normally found to be workable. I mean, at the end of
contract negotiations between the executive of my local in which I sat and the management, the general feeling was: Well, it was not all we wanted, but we can live with it, and we did. It saved a great deal of heartache, and it meant that employees and managers or supervisors could talk to each other with mutual respect. I did not have to be afraid that the manager or the supervisor could trample on my rights. I did not have to be so defensive, and he knew that I could go so far within my rights as a human being but no farther, that we would not try to wreck the place economically. We recognized that we wanted jobs there next year too. There was an atmosphere of peace and stability created by the assistance of the union and the contract arrived at. That method of arriving at it included not only recourse to arbitration; it included even the right to strike. There were times when we took a strike vote. While I was there, we never in fact did go on strike, but we had that possibility and we could contemplate whether or not we thought it was in our interests to do it. In fact, when we took strike votes, and the strike vote gave the executive a mandate, we never chose to go out on strike and the company never chose to exercise its corresponding right of lock-out. The system works, not perfectly, but far better than anything that went before it.
The trouble with this Parliament is that it is living in the beginning of the 19th century in which it is afraid of its own employees. This Parliament, collectively speaking, fears truck drivers, bus drivers, waitresses, cleaners, security men, constables and clerks. It fears those people. It says that if they are allowed to have the same freedom as is enjoyed by law by all other workers in Canada or practically-let us say more than 90 per cent of other workers in Canada-if we allow our employees to have the human rights that the huge majority of Canadians enjoy, well, we could not do our job as a Parliament; we could not run the country, supposing that it is Parliament that runs this country. There is some ground for questioning that when we see how impossible t is for us to get information about how the country is being run. That is another problem. Supposing this Parliament does run this country, what we are being told on the opposite side is that that would be impossible, if we allowed truck drivers and bus drivers and people like that on the Hill the right to strike. It is a ridiculous proposition which goes against all the experience in Canada, the United States, Britain and most western countries.
Because public opinion and the courts and boards like labour relations boards are crowding us, the Government has decided it has to do something. It is doing it as slowly as possible. It has sabotaged the original organizing effort by our employees by introducing a Bill to block it and to give decidedly less rights than our employees were entitled to under the Canada Labour Code. It has sabotaged any possibility of the employees of this Parliament doing what the employees of the Ontario Legislature are able to do, and some of them are doing, namely, create a union as free people. It has ruled that that is impossible.
November 1, 1985

Considering the poor wages, the unjust working conditions, the patronage and so on, which has been much better explained by my colleague from Churchill and by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), whom I respect highly for his authority in his knowledge as a worker on this subject, in spite of the known, rotten conditions and rotten relationships at work, we still refuse to allow-that is, this Government and, therefore, the Parliament it controls- our employees to have the rights that practically all other Canadians enjoy. I agree with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that we do not necessary have to say that it is all or nothing. Every management jurisdiction that uses the labour relations system established throughout North America has the right to claim certain exclusions. There are certain employees or certain positions within which the employees may not come within the jurisdiction of the union.
The president of a company has to have a secretary who can type a letter from him to the union if the union is on strike- that is the ultimate example-since the president of the company, of course, would not demean himself by typing his own letter, if he could. That is not a problem. If the issue here were which of the positions should be excluded, a minority of management-type positions being excluded, we could discuss that and, I believe, arrive at a reasonable agreement. There would be some borderline cases, and we might go this way this year and that way next year on some of them, according to experience. That principle is well established, and everybody here who has worked anywhere else knows that that principle is well established. The principle of job classification is well established. It is not a disruption of management's rights.
The company I worked for, Continental Can, which insisted on bringing in a much more sophisticated job classification system and job evaluation system. It wanted it. The union resisted it for a while, and then we finally accepted a system in a modified form. The company felt it was better off. Instead or arguing with each individual about whether he should get a nickel more or a dime more in his job, the company wanted it done by a recognized set of criteria.
I want to say a little bit now about our experience in the NDP caucus. As a trade unionist, I and some others have found it embarrassing to say that sometimes we have engaged in an activity, perhaps thoughtlessly, which we would not tolerate and did not tolerate when we were on the other side of the table in our bargaining as union members or representatives. We got brought up short by our union, the Parliamentary Association of Support Staff. It was embarrassing, but in fact the relationships have been improved since then and there was an equality established, a moral equality. I am still the employer in my office, but I am not an absolute monarch, and I do not want to be. I could not handle it. I believe the same would apply to all other Members of this Parliament. Having a union to represent the employees, even though each Member is the employer under the present rules, is not uncommon. That happens in the fur industry, in the boot and shoe industry, in many industries and small factories-one union and one employer's association, and that is the model we are using in
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act our caucus. We might find better models, but it would in fact not only bring justice to a thousand employees on the Hill, but it would bring a much more stable working relationship to the employers on the Hill and Members of Parliament, and we would then be able to hold up our heads instead of being ashamed of being one of the worst employers in Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on this Bill because I and many of my predecessors in my Party in this House of Commons have been proposing this matter for a lot of years. The rights of employees of legislatures, city councils or the Parliament of Canada to bargain collectively for their wages and their working conditions and whatnot has been established for a number of years in many places. I am very proud of the fact that in 1947, almost 40 years ago, the Government of that day in my province, under the respected and lauded person of one Tommy Douglas, granted collective bargaining rights to all the employees of Crown corporations, the Public Service and the legislature employees of the Province of Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Except Crown Corporations.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It does not matter whether it is cafeteria workers, security guards, messengers, cleaning staff or whatever, the people employed in the legislature of the Province of Saskatchewan have had those rights for almost 40 years.
Since 1935, this matter has been raised in Parliament, as I said earlier to my colleague from the Liberal caucus when I was asking a question. In fact there were even some members from the Progressive Party in the 1920s, whom I know my honourable friend from Bow River (Mr. Taylor) will recall, even though he is younger than I am, who raised the same matter back then, but especially since 1935, and the Government of the day gave the darndest variety of reasons and excuses and protests that you could imagine. There were probably only seven or eight years out of those 50 years when it was not a Liberal government. Quite often, and I have even had this experience in this House since 1968, when the matter was raised my colleagues from the Conservative Party agreed with us and supported us because of those darn, mean, miserable old Liberals sitting on the other side of the Chamber. There was more than one occasion when we had unanimity between the Conservatives, the NDP and the Social Credit Party in this House, in Private Members' Hour, in Question Period, in committees on this right of the employees of the Parliament of Canada to belong to a union and bargain collectively.
Now I ask the question rhetorically, where are all of those Conservatives now that they are the Government? 1 hope that they will show up to persuade the Minister in charge of this Bill of the inadequacies in it, which would certainly remarkably speed its passage. I accept the word of the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party who said that the members of his Party have had a change of heart; they have changed their minds; so that is one third of the battle won.

November 1, 1985
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
I say to any colleagues in the Conservative Party that I hope that they will leap to the occasion as they did in previous times when the Liberals formed the Government to fight on behalf of the rights of the employees of this place.
In the case of employees of Members of the Legislature in Saskatchewan, and I suspect this is similar in at lease some other provinces, the staff of the Leader of the Opposition, the research staff of the political parties, any individual staff member of individual MLAs in my province do not have a union. They are Order-in-Council appointments. Therefore they are sort of what is called out of scope.
However, in the Province of Saskatchewan those direct employees of the Speaker and of all Members of the House including the Leaders of the Parties and their research staffs never at any time receive anything less than, and at most times more than, other employees of the Legislature or the Public Service of Saskatchewan.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Parts III and IV of the Canada Labour Code.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to tell the Government House Leader there are members of MPs staff in this House who receive less money than people holding an equivalent position anywhere else in the Public Service.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This Bill will give minimum standards of employment and full rights.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All I am telling the honourable gentleman is that this has been the practice in Saskatchewan since 1947 and I am confident that there have been a few other provinces that have done the same thing. If there has not been, that is to their disgrace. People who work in this building, whether in the cafeteria, the Parliamentary Restaurant, as a messenger or a guard or whatever are subject to the whim, in terms of a layoff, a firing, a hiring on whether or not they happen to be a relative of somebody or other or whether or not they happen to have some pull or influence. They are subject to those kinds of vagaries. We are at least 50 years out of date around here. These people really do not have any rights when it comes to their income and their security of employment. I think this is a reprehensible situation, assuming that they do a conscientious reasonably competent job, and as far as I am concerned the employees of this place do exactly that. There will always be the odd exception but I think the same would apply to maybe a very small minority of honourable Members of this place. If you put 100 people together on a job there is bound to be one or two of them who do not do the job but you do not condemn all the rest because of the one or two who might be goof-offs. That applies to us as well as it does to our employees in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I know it is Friday and it is getting on to 4 o'clock and 1 presume 1 will still have the floor at 11 o'clock on Monday. We will adjourn the transport committee hearings on railway pensions so I can resume my speech at that time.
May I close, sir, by saying to the Government House Leader that if he does not see to it that his people organize the holding of committees and subcommittees and legislative committees around here better than they have been, he is going to have a lot of trouble over the coming weeks.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to resume my remarks on Monday at 11 o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member will resume on Monday at 11 o'clock if this matter is on the Order Paper again, of course, which is not necessarily the case. [Translation]
Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   WAYS AND MEANS MOTIONS LANGUAGE USED IN DRAFTING
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, Notices of Ways and Means Motions should be drafted in plain language and that the practice of incorporating complicated draft tax bills into the text of such notices be discontinued.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Explain!


Dave Nickerson: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has just requested that I explain. That is precisely what I intend to do over the next 20 minutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In plain language.


M. Nickerson:: In plain language. 1 know no other, Sir.
What brought about my putting of this motion on the Notice Paper was the receipt on my desk on September 9, not too long ago, of a Notice of Ways and Means Motion dealing with proposed changes to the Income Tax Act. This Notice of Ways and Means Motion reads as follows: "That it is expedient to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act as follows," and what follows, Sir, is a draft Bill of some 240 pages in length consisting of complext gobbledegook, for want of a more parliamentary word.
The Income Tax Act is the most complex, complicated and technical statute we have on the books. If we wanted to find out what this Notice of Ways and Means Motion was about, we would have to put the draft Bill side by side with an
November 1, 1985

existing compilation of the Income Tax Act and compare the two. It would probably take a week to find out what it was all about. This should not be necessary and I will try to show in my argument that it runs contrary to the spirit of the rules of the House and contrary to the procedure which is very often correctly adopted by the Government to bring down Ways and Means Motions in such a way that people can read them find out what changes are proposed to these very complicated tax statutes.
Although my motion is pretty specific and deals only with the drafting of Ways and Means Motions, it is part of a greater whole, the whole question of simplicity and comprehensibility in legislation. It should be that any person of reasonable intelligence and comprehension of either the English or French languages ought to be able to read a statute and know what the law is and what penalties are imposed for any infraction of that law. One should not have to have experts like accountants or lawyers to interpret a law. Any citizen should be able to read through a statute book and know what the law means.
Just this morning as an exercise I went through the Criminal Code. Statutes that were drafted many years ago were drafted in simple language and made sense. We can understand what they say. I looked at Section 72 of the Criminal Code dealing with duelling. Everything I could want to know about the legality or illegality of duelling and the penalties imposed for it takes eight lines-and some of those lines are only one word long-in my copy of Martin's Criminal Code.
The Section of the Criminal Code dealing with the unlawful movement of monuments and survey boundary lines takes 23 lines. In the Good Book, I think it takes one line and says something like: "Thou shalt not move the monuments of thy forefathers". The Criminal Code can say the same thing in 23 lines and that ain't bad. Turning to recent legislation, the statutes and commentaries that deal with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol take something like 30 pages of Martin's. It ought not to be that way.
The people who are drafting statutes these days do so in the most esoteric manner possible. They aim for such a degree of precision that it does not make sense any more. They try to contemplate in the law every possible conceivable technical eventuality. This leads to all kinds of technical defences in courts of law that need further expounding by the courts themselves. We do not solve any problems by going into great detail in the statute itself. All we do is make it worse and create the need for yet more interpretations by the courts.
There are frequent complaints about the complexities of legal drafting. These complaints usually come from the Opposition. It does not matter which Party is Opposition, these complaints come from the Opposition. When members of the Opposition get to this side of the House, they tend to forget about these complaints, that being human nature, I suppose. However, in certain jurisdictions these complaints have become organized. There is a movement toward plain language legislation. I understand that this movement is quite active in the United States of America and Australia. I understand that
Ways and Means Motions
in certain states of Australia, when a law is brought in there must also be a plain-language explanation of what that law is all about. Where the request for plain language legislation is becoming more organized, the chances of having plain-language legislation are much greater than they appear to be in Canada at this time.
I would hope that soon it will be taught by the law schools to those who would become drafters of laws that the best way of doing something is usually the simplest way of doing it. When people who are taught that way are hired by the Department of Justice, they will then have that in mind when drafting Bills. They will win points for shortening a proposed law rather than lengthening it.
I return to the issue at hand, the question of the drafting of Ways and Means Motions. The rules as they exist in the House of Commons about the Business of Supply and the Business of Ways and Means make very little sense. They would never have been put together the way they are if they were done as a result of rational thought on this subject. They are like Alice in Wonderland or Topsy, they just growed.
I suppose we would have to go back in history to find out what the Business of Supply and the Business of Ways and Means was all about in the past. We can do that by taking as an example a Parliament of some European country several hundred years ago. The monarch would approach Parliament and say: "I have a new venture in mind. It is an expensive venture. Perhaps we will invade the next country and it will require more money than that which normally accrues to the Crown by the existing taxes". The monarch would make his pitch to Parliament and say that he has had the matter looked at by the Lord Chief Justice and has been assured of its legality and that he has had the matter looked at by a Conference of Bishops and has been assured that it is a just and holy cause. Of course, there will be certain spoils of victory to be divided by those who support this venture. The legislature of the day would resolve itself into a committee of supply and debate the requested amount of money. They might increase it or decrease it a bit and perhaps even vote for it. The next stage would be to find out how the money would be forthcoming. They would again resolve themselves into a committee of Ways and Means and debate the best method of raising the money. It might be necessary to put an extra tax on the peasants or an extra tax on imports such as tobacco or ardent spirits. They would decide among themselves the best way of raising these revenues. Out of that committee of Ways and Means would come a resolution suggesting that taxes be increased on tobacco products, or whatever it might be. A Bill would be drafted after that dealing with the wishes of the resolution which would then go through the legislature in the same fashion as any other Bill.
This type of system was incorporated into early Canadian practice. It involved the principles of free debate upon matters relating to the collection of revenue from the citizens of the

November 1, 1985
Ways and Means Motions
country. There is an interesting quotation from Bourinot which states:
The cardinal principle, which underlies all parliamentary rules and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants and public taxes is this-when burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion, so that parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.
In these days of executive constraint we have changed over a period of time. The idea of a free and independent committee of Ways and Means no longer exists. Not long after the establishment of a Canadian Parliament it was held that only a Minister of Finance could, for example, bring in Ways and Means resolutions. Despite this type of encroachment, at least until 1968 when the great changes were made in parliamentary procedure, the concept was always that tax Bills should be based on Ways and Means resolutions. Again, I would like to quote from Bourinot, page 439 of the Fourth Edition:
When the resolutions amending the tariff, or imposing any changes upon the people, have been agreed to, they are embodied in one or more bills which should pass through the same stages as other bills-
If we look to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, in particular Standing Order 65(11), we will see that it reads:
The adoption of any Ways and Means motion shall be an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of any such motion.
Thus, the concept is there. There is a resolution which came out of the Ways and Means Committee and the Bill was to be based on that resolution. However, matters have changed, perhaps for the worst in 1968, to which I have previously referred.
I would now like to quote from the recently published House of Commons Precis of Procedure which was put out by the Table Research Branch of the House of Commons. I think this publication will quoted many times in the House, just as we often refer to Bourinot, Erskine May, or any of the established reference works. It is a very useful document which the Table Research Branch has put forward. With respect to the 1968 changes the document reads as follows:
With the changes to the Standing Orders in 1968, Ways and Means motions replaced the traditional resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means.
Further down on the page, page 95, we will see another change which was snuck in which reads as follows:
Notices of Ways and Means motions are sometimes tabled in the form of draft bills.
That is what I am trying to get at today. I do not think this practice should take place except perhaps when the Bill is extremely simple. We can see the way the executive part of Government has encroached upon the previous powers which were held by Parliament and that there has been a change in concept. Today we wonder what the point is of the Ways and Means motions which are now put before the House. There does not seem to be any real reason for them. In fact, certain jurisdictions do not use that system at all. The tax Bill just comes in straight to the first reading stage and is not dealt with any differently from any other type of legislation. The Northwest Territories from whence I hail uses that system.
There is no such thing as a Ways and Means motion in the legislature of the Northwest Territories.
If we are to have it, then we must ask ourselves what useful function a Ways and Means motion serves. The answer has to be that it puts down in an understandable form, at least to tax practitioners if not the public or Members of Parliament in general, what it is that the Government wishes to accomplish by the Bill which will be brought in later. We can see that when the Government uses that type of procedure things work out pretty well. When the Budget of last May 23 was brought down, regardless of whether or not one agrees with the specific contents of it, the notice of Ways and Means that was tabled on that day was an excellent piece of work. One can read through the document, which is just a few pages, and find out precisely and exactly what it was the Government wished to accomplish with the legislation it would bring in later. Obviously, there was a good deal of thought which went into the drafting of this notice of Ways and Means. In fact, I would like to compliment the people who put it together.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was in the House not too long ago and I would have liked to have been able to bring that matter to his attention. That is the way we ought to go. That is the way which is the historically right way. It is in keeping with the traditions of the House. It is in keeping with the concepts which have developed over the years. It makes sense. It is a useful procedure for Members of Parliament and for those in the tax community, which includes just about everyone in the country. One can tell from the notice of Ways and Means motion of May 23 exactly what will happen whether one likes it or not. However, that is not the case all the time. The Government sometimes tends to be somewhat lazy. I am sure that is the real reason for it. Perhaps those drafting the legislation feel rushed. One can see that when they come in with a notice of^Ways and Means such as they did on September 9, to which I referred in the initial part of my presentation, it is absolute gobbledegook. It is impossible to understand what they are up to and what they are trying to hide. It makes no sense whatsoever.
The purpose of my motion which is before the House today is to encourage the Government to do it the way it did on May 23 when it brought down the Budget. Some attention should be given to these matters, the intent of what must necessarily be very complex tax legislation should be written down in a way which all of us can understand with just a little bit of effort. Were the Government to do that the House of Commons and the country at large would be well served. We would at least know what the intent of the Government is with respect to tax Bills brought before the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened with interest for the past 20 minutes to my hon. friend from Western Arctic. I have been listening to my hon. friend for many years and I think, honestly, that this is the first time I have agreed with his position. Perhaps this is the beginning of a breakthrough in the House of Commons. I must say I have listened to his comments and found myself in agreement with almost everything he said. I compliment the
November 1, 1985

Hon. Member for bringing forward Motion No. 234. This is a step toward clarification and a step towards democracy. It will institute real democracy in this House of Commons.
I would like to begin by reading from a recent notice of Ways and Means. 1 would like to read it for those Hon. Members, because of their special interests in various aspects of work being done by Members of the House of Commons. Perhaps Hon. Members do not have the opportunity to read carefully through the notices of Ways and Means motions but just as a sample, Mr. Speaker, and I know how interested you are in this topic, I will share with you how we spend our evenings. 1 will quote a short paragraph of explanation as to what the Government plans to do with taxation:
That the rate per litre specified in any enactment founded on paragraph 11 of this motion for the goods listed in subparagraph (d) of that paragraph be adjusted quarterly on the first day of January, April, July and October of each year, commencing on October 1, 1985, so that the rate applicable during the quarter commencing on any such adjustment day is equal to the rounded product of the rate that would have been applicable if no adjustment had been made pursuant to any enactment founded on this paragraph and the ratio, adjusted or altered in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and rounded, that the Industry Selling Price Index for Diesel Fuel for the twelve month period ending on the last day prior to the immediately preceding quarter bears to the Industry Selling Price Index for Diesel Fuel for the twelve month period ending on March 31, 1985.
I know it is perfectly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Hon. Membres of the House of Commons, but for a lot of folks it would be difficult to understand just exactly what the Government was planning to do.


Mr. Orlikow:: Would you explain it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asks me to explain it. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I would have a great deal of difficulty doing so. I believe it simply emphasizes the point made by the Hon. Member that if this is a notice of what the Government intends to do, what on earth is the Government intending to do? I must admit that I, and my staff who are extremely knowledgeable in tax matters, have sat down and poured over this paragraph trying to determine what it means, with no success. I know there must be someone in the rabbit-warrens of the tax Department who understands this, but 1 have yet to find out who that person is.
In a democracy, the assumption is that the electorate will be well informed, and, therefore, make a wise and intelligent decision. That same attitude is transferred to the House of Commons after elections take place so that those people who represent the people of Canada, the duly-elected individuals, can make decisions in the House of Commons based on a thorough understanding of all of the facts and information available. When a Government introduces the Ways and Means motions, it is to alert Members of Parliament and the people of Canada to legislation which will flow out of the Ways and Means motion-it sort of serves notice that this is what it plans to do-and it is not very helpful at all. In fact, what it does is leave the impression that there is almost a
Ways and Means Motions
cover-up being attempted here on the theory that if one uses enough bafflegab and mumbo-jumbo-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am not suggesting that there is some evil intent. But you have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that if the citizenry is to be alerted to tax changes using this kind of language, no one is going to be alerted. If the intentions is honourable and the intent is to inform people of the intentions of the Government, surely, there are not two people in the world who would suggest that this is the way to do it, with the exception of a couple of folks ferreted away down in the catacombs of the Finance Department or the Department of Revenue.


David Orlikow: It's great for the tax lawyers and accountants.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is a good make-work initiative for tax accountants.
Basically, we have seen some breakthroughs. 1 want to give credit where credit is due. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did introduce a tax expenditure plan which was an effort, and I believe an honest effort, to identify the major tax expenditures, particularly in the corporate sector, so that Members of Parliament could evaluate each and every one in order to determine if there was any benefit at all accruing to the people of Canada as a result of this tax expenditure. It becomes woefully obvious when we look at many of these phrases that we really have to struggle to make a case that this is actually benefiting Canada as opposed to benefiting a few corporate planners in terms of financial planning. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction and I applaud the Minister for that step. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) indicated that there has been on the odd occasion an explanation of the Ways and Means motions which have been proposed so that rather then having to try to get through this gobbledegook, there was some effort to explain what a particular section was trying to say. The explanation used a similar language, unfortunately, but there was still a recognition that there was a problem. 1 think what the motion before us indicates clearly is that we are trying to say to the Government, and to those people who provide us with these motions, that they can be and ought to be written differently and in a fashion so that ordinary Canadians and Members of Parliament who are examining these Ways and Means motions can understand precisely what they are all about.
I would like to conclude my comments today by saying that I believe the intent of this motion is extremely critical. It comes at a very important time. It is both appropriate and timely. It is timely in that we are being asked to debate and to examine so many tax proposals. I suspect that in the weeks and months ahead we will be seeing notice of Ways and Means motions coming before the House on a regular basis as the Government attempts to shift and change the tax system, in a

November 1, 1985
Ways and Means Motions
sense making it more complex at a time when we all would like to see a movement toward a more simplistic tax system.
It is also very appropriate in that there is a sense in the country now that the tax system is unfair, that people do not understand the tax system. I suppose one could say that there is probably not a single Canadian who could honestly say that he or she understand the Tax Act in totality. It is an impossibility. All one could hope for is that the entire Tax Act could be programmed so the computer could access the portions of the Tax Act which would be applicable to an individual or a corporate circumstances. However, at the moment it is so complex there is a feeling it is very biased. Consequently, much of our economy is moving underground because people are avoiding tax. Ordinary Canadians, recognizing that it is an unfair system, and that they are being asked to pay an unfair burden of the tax payments, indulge in many more transactions on an ongoing basis which are unreported. They are almost operating on a barter system or the transaction is completed with cash so there are no records of it. I suspect that most Members of Parliament have encountered people who are in fact continuing this practice as almost a way of life.
What that tells us, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a limit when the system breaks down, that as more and more people take steps, in a sense, to avoid paying tax, those few people who cannot take those steps have to pay more and more and assume an unfair burden in taxes and eventually the system breaks down. I believe we are seeing the beginning of that process now in the country of Italy where so much of the economy is underground and every single citizen is involved in tax finagling, and that is something to behold.
At the time when this mood, this mind-set, is developing in the country, which is extremely destructive in terms of the long-term effective functioning of Parliament, this motion is indeed timely. It is an attempt to make public the Government's intentions so that we can determine in a serious way whether it is appropriate, for example, to increase taxes on, for instance, alcohol. Or is it appropriate to increase the taxes on gasoline? Is it appropriate to lift the sales tax another percentage point? We should explain it in such a way that you can have a sense of national discussion over coffee in the kitchens of Canada so that the word can get back to Members of Parliament for intelligent and informed discussions in the appropriate committees and in the House of Commons. If no one knows what the Government is going to do until the actual Bill arrives in the House, and we are restricted to a half a dozen witnesses before a legislative committee, the purpose then becomes a mockery. It becomes a farcical, nonsensical exercise and it builds on the attitude of the people of Canada that there is something going on here that is not quite right, that there is something inappropriate going on in terms of how the tax system is being developed. I applaud the Hon. Member who introduced Motion 234. As one of the spokespersons on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I say that we will certainly endorse this motion and would like to see an early change in Government policy as a result of it.
Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate.
The Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-1 have been told there is no French translation-deals in his motion with matters that are of considerable importance, both to the House of Commons and to the Canadian public in general.
I believe it is a generally accepted fact that our tax laws are not necessarily clearly understood by all Members of this House, and that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the general public in Canada does not directly grasp all the implications of the complex provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Not long ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said quite seriously, when he brought down the last Budget, that one of his most, I would almost say human objectives in the Budget was to make his Budget understandable, and to make all previous Budgets or previous legislation, especially that concerned with income tax, understandable for the general public.
I remember when I was teaching at the University of Montreal, we had an old professor who was giving us a course in didactics before we were to go off and teach our various disciplines. For instance, I was teaching engineering to architects, and it was pretty difficult, and he had explained the difference between complicated and complex.
We were told that something was complex when it was complicated but understandable, while complicated meant something complex that we failed to understand. And I think that reflects the essence of this debate.

I should state right now, of course, that I do not support the direct proposal of this resolution. Although I respect the motives of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), my conclusion after studying this resolution is that his proposal would not have positive results. It would run counter to some of the advances that have been achieved recently in terms of dealing with tax legislation. I am afraid that it would hinder rather than help the goal of legislating better tax laws and it would make things more difficult for taxpayers. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when our Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs met recently, I had the opportunity for the first time in my life to study thoroughly a proposal to amend a number of regulations, even legislation dealing with extremely complex matters such as financial institutions. Because several of us were new members, expert witnesses and former members in the area had to explain to us the gist of the legislation and procedure.
November 1, 1985

It is clear that it would be impossible to define all the reasons behind a difficult legislation such as the Income Tax Act in one single statement, it is necessary to define them further by associating them with considerations about the lives of the Canadian people which are becoming increasingly more complex in the various regions.

The resolution advocates that plain language should be used in drafting the Ways and Means motions that are introduced and on which the Bill incorporating the precise Income Tax Act amendments is based.
I am sure that no Member of the House would argue against the use of plain language, so long as this language gets the message across clearly and completely. As Members know, when a Budget is presented, the notices of Ways and Means motions that are tabled at the time outlining tax changes in the Budget are in the so-called short form. These notices of motions must include all the essential elements of tax proposals that will be later included in a more detailed Bill, but they are generally in ordinary language rather than the more complex legal language that is used in writing the precise amendments to the Income Tax Act.

I would like to recall what happened in the House this week. It was alleged that some people had taken advantage of every kind of so-called legislative loopholes or dodging mechanisms, and that certain corporations employing crafty lawyers- experts as well, we have to admit-had been able to milk the legislation dry, so to speak, for everything it was worth in their particular sphere of activities.
You can imagine how the legislation could be interpreted if we had to stick to questions of principle only! Everything would then become a contentious issue and the courts would have to rule on every single piece of legislation, never mind the fact that they are overburdened as it is and the source of two-or three-year delays, sometimes even four, five or six years.
I think we would be ill advised to use the kind of language commonly heard on the street-rather vague and replete with generalities-to draft Bills related to highly specialized subjects.

I am not sure whether the language of these notices of motions is plain enough to suit all Members. It could be said that the notice of motion must serve two goals. It has to be clearly understood and it must be adequate in legal terms to serve as the basis for a subsequent Bill. It is not always easy to meet the latter goal while still using simple and clear language. However, that is what the legal drafting people strive for.
I should add, as is generally known, that the supplementary information which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) normally tables with his Budget provides further explanations, in clear language, of the tax changes proposed in the Budget.
Obviously, it is of great importance that tax changes proposed in a Budget be understood clearly, quickly, completely
Ways and Means Motions
and fully. Individuals and businesses need to know where they stand in relation to the new proposals. Often, business decisions, investments and other expenditures hinge on them. The language in both the Ways and Means motions and in the supplementary information must be as clear as possible. Of course, some tax measures are inevitably complex and do not lend themselves easily to simple explanations.
Up to this point in the process, however, there is no disagreement with the principle of the resolution we are debating now. The language must be as clear and plain as possible. What the resolution appears to object to is the further step in the process, which has developed in recent years, of replacing the short form of a Ways and Means motion with a detailed Ways and Means motion. This so-called detailed Ways and Means motion in fact is written in the precise legal terminology that is later used for the Bill itself. Quite obviously, it is not the plain and simple language, as shown in the example given to us by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), which is advocated in the resolution we are debating now. It is written in a manner which attempts to define, very precisely, what is the taxpayer's liability.
Let me remind Hon. Members that the Minister of Finance has said on many occasions that he strongly advocates the simplification of the tax laws as an important goal. That, of course includes simpler language whenever possible, but we should not delude ourselves that achieving this is an easy matter. In our legal tradition an individual's tax liability is determined by the strict letter of the law rather than by the general spirit and broad purpose of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain to you, and it must be explained to everyone, I think, that the House of Commons here, as I found out, must state basic principles, and we must fight for basic principles, but we must also rely on people from all professions to explain the major purposes of a legislation. Sometimes they are doctors, sometimes they are engineers, but most of the time they are lawyers. But we must not rely on the advice of lawyers only, we also have tax experts who may have an accounting, a business and indeed a legal background. We have engineers involved in some public work Bills that I had an opportunity to examine. In some Bills dealing with health and welfare, we have had descriptions that would look horrible to us, certain medical descriptions written in terms which the average person and even some medical doctors in this House do not understand.
All this is to suggest that our tax system must be comprehensive, it must be specialized in order that it may be used as an unequivocal basis by those who have to enforce it.

The alternative leads to uncertainty and the possibility of arbitrary rulings by tax assessors, so I think we have to accept a certain degree of complexity and rather difficult language in our tax statutes.

November 1, 1985
Ways and Means Motions
The resolution before us apparently complains of the introduction of this precise legal language in the detailed Ways and Means motions which are sometimes placed before the House. There are some very valid and important reasons for doing it in that way. One important factor, which I alluded to earlier, is the importance of enabling taxpayers to know, as early as possible, in a very precise way, what their tax liability would be as the result of a proposed budgetary tax change. Often the taxpayer or his technical adviser can only calculate the tax liability once he has seen the exact language of the proposed amendment to the Income Tax Act. The general language of the short form Ways and Means motion is not always adequate for this purpose. If the taxpayer is not given this certainty, this precision of language, the result can be uncertainty about whether to take certain investment or other economic decisions. When this uncertainty affects many taxpayers, the result can be seen in terms of a slowdown in business, a fall off in investment spending, and other negative effects in the economy. Therefore, it can be important for economic reasons to place detailed Ways and Means motions before Parliament as quickly as possible.
Another reason can be found in the approach that the Government is following of basing policies and actions on the broadest possible consultation with Canadians. This consultation process has been developed in relation with the development of major economic strategies and programs. The National Economic Conference of last spring is an obvious example as is the round of pre-Budget consultations which the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) have again launched. Members will be aware of the two consultation documents presented early yesterday by the Minister which provide a progress report on the Government's strategy for securing economic renewal and a new study of the factors underlying the approach to deficit reduction and control of the national debt. That process of consultation is important, too, in the process of taxing draft legislation. The Minister of Finance has made it clear that he welcomes the advice and counsel of tax experts in the private sector so that our tax amendments are well and soundly written.
A year ago in a speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation the Minister of Finance encouraged tax specialists and practioners to help the Government in simplifying and improving our tax legislation. When it comes to legislating budgetary tax changes, that process of consultation is made much easier by the practice of placing detailed Ways and Means motions before Parliament. This allows private sector tax experts to see the exact language which the Government is contemplating for the subsequent Bill to amend the Income Tax Act. This private sector assistance can be most valuable in achieving sound, practical, well-drafted tax legislation. The tax consultation process would be much more difficult if we did not put the draft legislation forward in this way.
Before concluding this speech, I would like to remind the House of a number of other measures which the Government and the Minister of Finance in particular have taken to improve our tax legislation and the legislative process. I have
referred to the importance placed on the consultation process and also on the goal of tax simplification, one of our ongoing objectives. For example, in his Budget speech last May the Minister of Finance put forward important proposals to restructure the corporate tax system. He invited comments and suggestions from the private sector as part of the ongoing process of public consultation. It is also important to note that the proposals to change the corporate tax system were motivated in part by the desire to simplify the tax system which we admitted was complicated.
The way to tax simplification is not just a matter of simpler language. The way in which our tax is structured inevitably has a bearing on how complex or simple the tax law must be. At the same time we must recognize that, if we want to achieve certain policy goals in taxation, sometimes the inevitable result is some increased complexity in the tax law. For example, the Minister has announced his intention to introduce a minimum tax effective next year. The goal of this initiative has received widespread support. One result would be to make the tax system somewhat more involved. It will mean an addition to individual tax returns. That will be one cost of achieving an important step toward greater equity in our tax system. I think the extra effort will be worth it.

However, Mr. Speaker, this principle being put forward, this idea of a minimum tax, requires a package of very specific measures which would change the existing Income Tax Act which, God knows, already is complex enough. Before introducing this new measure haphazardly, it is very important that we give a general idea of what it is, based on the principles, to the entire community by way of a proposal tabled in Parliament, in order that we may benefit from all Canadian expertise, all the expertise in those special areas.

There have been two other recent developments that have improved our process of legislating tax changes. One is the practice begun by the Department of Finance of issuing technical notes to help explain how individual clauses in tax Bills before the House will work and how they fit into the Income Tax Act. Those notes are of great value, both to Members of this House and to taxpayers and their technical advisers who must work with the new laws which are constantly in evolution.
The other innovation begun this year involves income tax amendments that are of a technical nature not involving any new policy. By putting these together in a separate Bill, apart from the Budget measures, they can be brought forward for consideration quite apart from the Budget measures. This process helps to liberate the Budget from a welter of technical matters and improves the over-all Budget process.

It is true that formerly, having tried to read through the previous budget, it was quite a nuisance to have a collection of technical notes obscure our view of the basic principles that
November 1, 1985

were dictated in the previous budgets. In the last budget we wanted to set out principles first while encouraging people to be careful in their interpretation and to consult what was to follow-

In conclusion, I submit that the Government has taken a number of important steps toward improving our tax laws and the manner in which tax changes are legislated by this House. Further reforms are proposed in the Budget discussion paper of last May dealing with the budgetary process.
Further, I can assure the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that the Government is prepared to consider any more suggestions for improving that process.

Mr. Speaker, of course the House of Commons and the Canadian people should not be asked to trust their Government without question and to depend solely on the administration and interpretation of complex legislation by experts.
However, I think that we should all understand that the law is a complex thing which requires specialized interpretations that cannot be made only through policy statements.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Government Members are not supporting this motion by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). I have just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier). I felt like saying after he concluded his speech that he could make it again, but in plain language as the motion says.
I notice you, Mr. Speaker, even had difficulty at times understanding the technical remarks. I noticed that you were very deep in thought trying to understand completely what was being said.


Mr. Prud'homme:: And he is a good lawyer.


George Baker: Yes, he is a very good lawyer. The Speaker had extreme difficulty at times following the hon. gentleman's remarks.
The motion presented by the Member for Western Arctic is very well taken. If at all possible, the Government should aim at simplifying its laws and the way it carries out its regulations.
Because the statutes at times are rather complicated and complex in their wording, you have the communications that arise from that law to the people of Canada also complex and complicated in the written word. In other words, in most instances where a person has been found to be included or excluded from a particular program of the Government you see a constituent, a person, receiving a letter saying something like: "You are not eligible for this program because you contravened section such and such of such and such an Act". That is all the explanation given. I am thinking particularly
Ways and Means Motions
about the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain other matters that arise out of taxation legislation.
The point is well taken by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. One need only look at the legislation presented in this Chamber recently by the Government to see exactly why the point being made by the gentleman from Western Arctic is well taken. A lot of definitions especially in recent legislation, especially since the Tory Government took over, are somewhat hazy, general and certainly not specific and certainly not in plain language as they should be.
We have been debating for the last few days in this House terms like workforce, designated groups and aboriginal peoples that are contained in legislation but certainly not described to people. We have listened to the Government of Canada announce programs that say: "We are going to try to assist those who are unemployed". We know that the definition of unemployed by the Government of Canada these days is quite different from the definition the ordinary person would assume would be attached to that word, that is, the dictionary explanation. We look back to what is "unemployed" under such and such an Act or the definition of a fisherman or a farmer under such and such an Act or statute. As the Hon. Member for Western Arctic has put it, it makes much more sense to introduce legislation to have statutes on the books that are in plain English so people can understand.
We all recognize that we would perhaps be putting some lawyers out of business and perhaps even some juges. Unfortunately a lot of the cases before the appeal courts today having to do with the Tax Court of Canada and about which we are talking indirectly here today are there because it is unclear to the Canadian involved just what the law is.
I support the hon. gentleman's resolution before the Chamber and I hope that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. Scott) will also be very brief so we can get on with this resolution.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that I will have to be brief since we have about four and one-half minutes left.
As my brief form of introduction, it is all very well to suggest that we should draft our income tax Bills and propose changes in plain simple unpretentious English and French in contrast to the unintelligible gobbledegook that has been devised under many years of Liberal rule, but the problem is that simple language or lack of precision means tax lawyers and other experts could drive trucks through the income tax system. While I know it is raw heresy to suggest that many wealthy tax lawyers probably earn their hefty remuneration by finding loopholes in the existing tax system by performing the most ingenious end runs around the laws as they stand now, surely the Government's task is to make the language in the tax system more easily understood to the average taxpayer. The hilarious example referred to by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) indicates the urgent need for that.
8294

November !, 1985
Ways and Means Motions
With all due respect to my colleague from Western Arctic, we cannot and we must not hinder rather than help the goal of legislating better tax laws. Talking the language of Sesame Street might make the tax system a little more entertaining, if anything about taxes can be called entertaining, but Big Bird would only make things more confusing for Canadian taxpayers. I happen to prefer the language of "Big Mike", the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). In the Canadian Budgetary Process Proposals for Improvement, on page 13, there is a whole list of technical matters and proposals for improvement. That document was released May, 1985. It clearly indicates that the Government is moving toward the initiative, the very worth-while and laudable suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), to simplify the language to make it plain. As I said, plain language while a laudable objective, is not the only answer to simplifying our tax system. Millions of Canadians and thousands of Canadian businesses depend on the precision of proposed tax laws in order to assess changes to their tax liability. A lack of precision, Mr. Speaker, creates greater uncertainty and that is not in my view in the interests of Canadian taxpayers. The inclusion of detailed Ways and Means motions promotes the consultation process between private Canadians and the Canadian Government. Detailed motions will allow specialists outside the Government to comment on the specific language that the Government intends to use.
Should the language prove not to accomplish the policy objectives of the Government, the language can now be changed. I certainly hope that one paragraph quoted by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap is put up as a prime example of some language that needs to be changed.
I suggest that it is the Hon. Member's intention to promote the importance of tax simplification, and for that reason it is a worth-while proposition, but his ways and means of doing it are not quite acceptable to the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Since it is five o'clock, the time allotted to consideration of Members' Business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 4, 1985