1986-04-25

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Recently, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) and Spadina (Mr. Heap) travelled to Guatemala with me to attend a conference of Latin American countries on peace and democracy in that part of the world.
I would like to thank Guatamalan authorities for their warm welcome and extend our best wishes to their newborn democracy.
Eighteen countries were represented. We were the only foreign observers in attendance, and I am convinced that we entertained at least one thought upon our return from this momentous one-week conference held during the Easter break: democratic process and patience alone will resolve the difficulties now facing Latin America, particularly the extremely delicate situation in Nicaragua. Neither aggressiveness nor the Contras will stem violence. Lasting peace in Nicaragua and Latin America can only come through the development of the Contadora process and of those four countries, with the co-operation of nations that support the Contadora.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the changes the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) is making in multicultural policy have aroused strong and appropriate opposition across the country. The Minister wants to bring the ethnic minorities out of the ethnocultural corners he thinks they live in now. He is convinced that the big majority of the ethnocultural community want to become another Stronach, achieving success like that of the chairman of Magna International Inc. The Minister appears to have
forgotten how few people will achieve such entrepreneurship in our society.
In the meantime he has raised questions about support for immigrant settlement, language instruction, and other programs which assist ordinary immigrants in obtaining work in Canada. He has done nothing to advance the certification in Canada of professionals trained in other countries. His narrow preoccupation with entrepreneurship and trade expansion was clearly expressed at the Multiculturalism Means Business conference. However, multiculturalism is not for sale. Enhancement of Canada's multiculturalism requires large efforts by a Department of Multiculturalism, not abandonment of initiatives before they have succeeded.


HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SMOKING
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, surely there can be no doubt about the harmful effects of smoking, both on the person smoking and on others due to second-hand smoke. Notwithstanding the commercial concerns of Imperial Tobacco and the giant conglomerate, Imasco, I applaud the recent decision of Air Canada to begin flights which will ban smoking entirely.
Actuarial studies prove that at every age smokers are three times as likely to die as nonsmokers. There is strong medical evidence now emerging of the dangers of second-hand smoke.
I have seen several of my friends die of lung cancer over the years, so I commend any voluntary or legislative action which will not only help nonsmokers but might also deter smokers and thereby lengthen their lives.


COMPETITION TRIBUNAL ACT
Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks the NDP has been raising questions about corporate concentration in Canada and the dangers this could pose to the Canadian economy. All Members of Parliament are aware of the dangers. That is why the Government has brought forward Bill C-91, the Competition Tribunal

April 25, 1986
Act. Today, in the absence of this Act, we have no effective competition legislation in Canada. After this Bill is passed we will have, for the first time, competition legislation which has teeth.
Both the Official Opposition and the Government favour speedy passage of this Bill in order to get some control over the situation. However, the NDP seems determined to delay passage of this Bill while still complaining of increased corporate concentration and decreased competition. It is time for the NDP to stop this charade and give Canadians a law which can offer them protection.


REQUEST FOR PREMIERS' CONFERENCE ON PARTICIPATION IN FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) yesterday, he did not want to say whether a federal-provincial conference of First Ministers would be convened to define the Premiers' role in free trade negotiations with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly suggest that such a conference has become imperative because several provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, have voiced serious reservations on these free trade negotiations. A survey has revealed that close to 100,000 jobs are on the line in Montreal alone.
1 urge the Prime Minister to honour his promise and allow the provinces to participate in the negotiations. That is why a federal-provincial conference should be held before Canadian negotiators are given a specific mandate.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) told a group of Armed Forces retirees outside the House of Commons that he and other Progressive Conservative Members oppose his Government's move to deny unemployed pensioners UIC benefits. If this is true, I challenge him and the Progressive Conservative back-benchers to have the Government bring this matter to a vote now. The House of Commons can then determine how many back-benchers are speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.


BALTIC EVENING
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, last night Canadians of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian origin gathered on Parliament Hill to commemorate the independence of the Baltic States which was lost after the occupation of their homelands by the Soviet Union. At this 14th annual Baltic Evening we were reminded of our good fortune as Canadians able to live and practise the tenets of democracy and social justice, and how valuable and fragile these rights are. The Baltic States are subjected to harsh policies of Russification and cultural genocide.
In Canada the cultures of the Balts flourish and there is the constant hope that their artistic and linguistic heritage will not be lost. As proud [DOT] Canadians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians contribute their strength and perseverance-ever mindful of and ever vigilant-in the cause of freedom.
Canada does not recognize the forcible occupation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union. Parliamentarians and diplomatic dignitaries joined with them to mark this special occasion. As Canadians from many backgrounds, we join with them in the continued effort to restore justice, freedom, and democracy in eastern Europe.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the recent agreement in principle to provide increased crop insurance coverage for farmers facing successive years of crop losses. Areas of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, where widespread losses occurred in 1984 and 1985, will be eligible. Under the new program, additional coverage equal to 10 per cent of average yield, to a total maximum of 80 per cent of average yield, will be tacked on to the 1986 crop insurance purchased by individual farmers. No additional premium will be charged for this enhanced protection. This all-risk benefit will be provided under the Crop Insurance Act, based on crop insurance principles. To be eligible a farmer must apply for insurance by April 30, 1986.
I commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and his three western provincial counterparts on this initiative, and note as well their continuing commitment to bring a long-term comprehensive crop disaster program into place for 1987.
April 25, 1986


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, increasingly, Canadians are wondering what kind of social justice inspired this Government to cut unemployment insurance benefits for 34,000 early retirees who, before January 5, had agreed to early retirement, and lost their jobs and were drawing unemployment insurance benefits. On January 5, the Government decided to cut them off, which meant a loss of $10,000 for these people. Why did the Government decide to penalize people who were getting pension benefits from their employer's pension plan after losing their jobs?
Members of the military, police forces and other groups of citizens who are obliged to take early retirement and who have paid their unemployment insurance premiums are no longer entitled to those benefits. Why? And what kind of social justice made the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) decide that a person drawing $300 from his employer's pension plan will lose $200 in unemployment insurance benefits, while those who are better off and get $300 a week from a private plan, an RRSP, are entitled to their unemployment insurance benefits?
I urge all Conservative Members to insist that the Prime Minister correct this unfair situation.


COMPETITION TRIBUNAL ACT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan) criticized the NDP, and myself, I suppose, for saying that we would not permit quick passage of the competition Bill. He should know that the independent operators in the oil industry appeared before the committee yesterday with amendments to the Bill. They said if they were not included, the Bill should not be passed. He should know that Professor Stanbury, one of the best experts in the field, has said there are important deficiencies in the Bill. Until those are dealt with we are certainly going to fight that Bill as hard as we can.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, Wednesday the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) announced that Quebec could expect to receive the same assistance for cleaning up the St. Lawrence as Ontario did for cleaning up the Great Lakes.
Under the previous Liberal Government, Quebec was unfairly excluded from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the United States in 1978. This decision was made despite the fact that the waters of the Great Lakes flow into the St. Lawrence River.
Our government, a Conservative Government that is well represented in Quebec, will soon be taking steps to remedy this situation, and, Mr. Speaker, people are talking about a grant of nearly $80 million to clean up the St. Lawrence River. I think that is good news.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, this week several Members of the House of Common's Standing Committee on Agriculture were in Washington to meet with the newly-appointed Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon. Richard Lyng, Under-Secretary Amstutz, and several congressional leaders. Unfortunately our talks confirmed some of our worst fears. While there is widespread awareness of the impact of the U. S. Farm Bill on Canada and other exporting nations, the United States is clearly determined to meet the EEC exporting nations head-on in what has become the war of the subsidies.
While the future for Canadian agricultural exports is clearly threatened by this all-out trade war, there is a glimmer of hope, Mr. Speaker.
American officials are aware of and applaud the efforts of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) to convene a meeting of the exporting nations. American officials also agree that it is extremely important that the "talking process" continue at all levels, including the upcoming round of GATT negotiations. In the meantime we, as a nation, will have to do whatever we can to be of financial assistance to Canadian farmers who will be the unfortunate victims of this trade war.
12640

April 25, 1986
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Conservative Government promised that federal-provincial relations would be harmonious. As far as equalization payments to the provinces are concerned, the Minister of Finance has refused to extend the transitional guarantee formula established in 1982, and on top of that, he seems unwilling to meet a commitment he made last April with respect to Quebec. My question to the Minister the Finance is as follows: When does he intend to correct this injustice and pay Quebec the $66 million to which it is entitled for the 198586 financial year?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no commitment to the Province of Quebec, and the Hon. Member knows that. In the legislation that was presented a year ago it was made very clear that these were ex gratia payments.
We used two guidelines to provide us with some direction as to what the amounts should be, but those guidelines were only guidelines. They were never part of any commitment.


INQUIRY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL KEEP PROMISE TO QUEBEC CONCERNING BILL C-39
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, unlike what the Minister of Finance has just said, in April 1985 the Minister and the Minister of State for Finance both promised that Quebec would not receive less than 95 per cent of the equalization payments it had received the previous year- this was a firm commitment-and I therefore want to ask the Minister of Finance when he intends to meet the commitment he and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance made in the House during consideration of Bill C-39.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no commitment. That is very, very clear. The legislation itself says that there would be a basis for arriving at that, but there is no commitment at all. The 95 per cent is not a 95 per cent commitment. The commitment on the floor level is 85 per cent for the Province of Quebec. That legislation was not touched.
[ Translation]


PROMISE MADE TO PROVINCES-QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, on April 18, 1985, the Minister of State for Finance said the following before the House:
The highest protection, the 95 per cent floor, is given to those provinces which are not as strong fiscally as others and ensures their payments will decline by no more than 5 per cent from one year to the next.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec is losing $66 million in 1985-86, and again I want to ask the Minister of Finance when he intends to meet the commitment made in the House by the Minister of State for Finance, a commitment he himself mentioned in answer to a question from my colleague from Montreal

Sainte-Marie a few days ago.


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is trying to stir up differences that are not there. We have made it very clear that the $110 million that we provided to the Province of Quebec was over and above what was required by law. It was a total voluntary payment on the part of this Government to assist the Province of Quebec in a difficult period. That $110 million was totally in excess of what was required by the law.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Equalization is not the only area in which Quebec is treated unfairly. Agriculture is another example, now that potato producers are in a very tight financial situation and the federal Government is doing nothing to help them. I therefore want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to immediately respond to a request from representatives for the Quebec Federation of Potato Producers who are asking him to intervene through the Farm Price Stabilization Board and pay farmers about $1.84 per hundredweight. Otherwise, hundreds of Quebec producers will be in dire financial straits. Could the Minister give the House the assurance he will take immediate action?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know better. If he refers to the record he will recognize that we have dealt fairly and squarely, and equitably, with the Province of Quebec in relation to any other province.
April 25, 1986


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DO MORE FOR QUEBEC
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Minister dares to tell us he acted fairly. Perhaps he could explain to the House why he got a letter-why all federal Members are getting letters from the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Page, who starts by criticizing the lack of action on the part of the federal Government and the discriminatory nature of the measures taken by the Minister.
Why did the Minister pay nearly $10 million to provinces like Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, which in itself is quite laudable, but do nothing for Quebec?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that when they were in office they did not pay their bills with the Province of Quebec. We paid those outstanding expenditures when we came to office. For instance, the bill for crop insurance alone amounted to $25 million or $30 million. Indeed, we paid that bill.
The Hon. Member does not know the difference between stabilization and diversion. We did not pay stabilization in Prince Edward Island or the Province of New Brunswick. Rather, we participated in a federal-provincial program of diversion. There is a difference.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday in the House, in response to my colleague from Ottawa Centre who asked about releasing or making available to Members of Parliament the impact studies on free trade, the Minister for International Trade said, as reported at page 12608 of Hansard:
Representatives of all sectors of our economy, including the manufacturing, labour, and farming sectors, will be involved in the elaborate advisory system which we have set up.
Why is that not also afforded to Members of Parliament who represent the country as a whole in a variety of ways? Why will Members of the House of Commons not be invited to take part in a discussion of what is going on as well as participating in the monitoring, making judgments, and giving advice with regard to the free trade talks that are about to be undertaken?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, for some time both sides of the House have expressed an interest in having a debate in the House of Commons with regard to the trade negotiations. Certainly the Government would welcome and encourage that kind of debate and, now that there has been an agreement reached by the
Oral Questions
U.S. Senate to authorize the President to negotiate, we would hope it might be possible for House Leaders to work out the details of that debate.
As far as other discussions are concerned, I think we would be quite prepared to make the maximum information available to Members of Parliament consistent with the necessary position that Canada would have to take at any bargaining table. No one in the House would want information here to prejudice the Canadian case that might be made in the privacy of negotiations.


REQUEST THAT IMPACT STUDIES BE MADE AVAILABLE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I interpret that to mean that the impact studies that have already been done and will be made available-if not in whole, at least in part-to the groups that were mentioned by the Minister for International Trade, will in fact be made available to Members of the House of Commons in advance of a debate taking place in the House so that the debate can focus on the role that both the Parliament of Canada and the Government will play in the determination of the free trade talks?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a very careful look at precisely what the Hon. Member is proposing, but I believe that we can agree to the request that he made.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, since the House of Commons may well be given the information that is necessary, will the Government, in advance of any negotiations taking place, make sure that at least the same degree of information that has been made available to the provinces so far is made available to Members of the House of Commons? The President of the United States has guaranteed that that kind of information will be made available to Senators in the United States which means that they would, in fact, have far greater knowledge of what is going on in the talks than we would have.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, information which is being exchanged between the federal Government and the provincial Governments is not all one way. They are providing information to us and we are working very closely together in the preparation of a common information base. There might be some reluctance about some details of that information being made available publicly, but my view is that we should make available to Members of Parliament as much information as we can. I will take a very careful look at the details of the Hon. Member's request and we will try to honour it as fully as we can.

April 25, 1986
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I would like to ascertain whether another Minister on the other side is looking after the interests of Quebecers. Hon. Members would know that answers are not forthcoming with respect to equalization payments and potatoes.
Concerning the Matane paper mill project, about which the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion made a commitment to his Quebec counterpart, I should like to know if a Minister might have an explanation for the fact that, in a prepared statement he read yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary said: "Before making any decision about such projects, we would have to take into consideration the possible impact our assistance might have on the current trade negotiations with the Americans." Is there any connection between the delay in granting financial assistance to the Matane paper mill and the free trade negotiations with the Americans, as implied in the statement?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member can see, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is absent from the House today on Government business. I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and ensure that it is brought to the Minister's attention immediately upon his return for his disposition.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RESPECT ITS PROMISES AND WORD
Jean-Claude Malépart: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In the discussions and agreements between the Governments of Quebec and Canada there was no mention of taking into consideration the fact that the pulp and paper industry might object to the Matane paper mill grant.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister make sure that Quebecers and Conservative Members will live up to their promise to Matane residents and honour their commitment to the Quebec Minister?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly make the representations of the hon. gentleman known to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion immediately upon his return.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this Friday morning conciliation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs is much appreciated.


Mr. Crosbie:: Question.


Steven W. Langdon: Given that Simon Reisman has refused to rule out bargaining with respect to the Auto Pact, and given the damage the Government's secret study on it has suggested supposedly could take place-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: -will the Minister specifically authorize today the release of that study which has already reached the public, according to the Toronto Star, through leaks to the newspaper?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What paper was that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member would not expect me to trust the word of the Toronto Star. I believe in reciprocity. I will take a look at the possibility of acceding to the Hon. Member's request, and respond.


John Carnell Crosbie: He has stars in his eyes.


Mr. Nystrom:: Generous Joe.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: May I ask the
Minister if he now recognizes that the lack of trust which a good many Canadians, not just the Toronto Star, have exhibited with respect-


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: -to the Government's handling of the free trade issue has come directly out of the secretive closed basis upon which it has proceeded to take these policies forward? Why has the Minister not-


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: -brought the Canadian people more into this process?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not agree with the suggestion that the people of Canada suffer from the same disease as the editors of the Toronto Star.

April 25, 1986


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Conservative Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants said what we in opposition have been saying for months, that is, the recent cuts in unemployment insurance are wrong, unfair, unjust, bad, and have to be changed. He said that if there were a vote in the Conservative caucus they would be changed. If the Minister will not listen to veterans and pensioners, will she at least listen to members of her own caucus and the Conservative women of Oromocto, and withdraw this cruel measure while the Forget Commission is sitting?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this issue has been raised on a number of occasions in the House of Commons. I have made responses at those times. The Government has made a response as well. The question was debated at length this morning in the Standing Committee. As for comments with regard to the caucus, I would say that what goes on in caucus is a matter for members of caucus.


David Orlikow: It's what he said in public, not what he said in caucus.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member must be somewhat concerned about caucus when he listens to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


CONSERVATIVE CAUCUS INQUIRY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that this large Conservative caucus of 211 Members not only has no impact on bad legislation in the House of Commons but that it has no impact behind the closed doors of caucus? Is that what she is saying about this large caucus?
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I consider-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must rule the question out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has the responsibility of trying to protect the
Oral Questions
consumers of Canada. The Executive Vice-President of Shell Canada confirmed Wednesday that his company is padding profit margins by 2 cents to 3 cents per litre of gasoline. Yet the Government is asking the oil companies to pass on the savings from reduced crude oil costs. How is this voluntary policy effective when the Shell Canada slogan "Shell helps" really means "Shell helps itself'?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, our Government's energy policy has already paid handsome dividends, and consumers are now benefitting from lower market prices. Hopefully the situation will continue to be favourable to consumers, and I can assure my colleague that we will monitor developments very closely.


PETRO-CANADA-INCREASE IN TORONTO GASOLINE PRICE
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if the Government is monitoring the situation can the Minister explain why the Government owned oil company, Petro-Canada, is now following the Shell pricing policy by raising its price today in Toronto to more than 40 cents per litre when it should be 38 cents per litre? Will the Government direct, or at least urge, Petro-Canada to pass on the full 12 cent per litre saving to the consumer?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear such comments, if only because last year the Hon. Member's Party urged the Government to adopt a hands-off policy and let the marketplace set prices; yet now that prices are falling they want us to set a floor price.
The only thing we have to be concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that consumers should reap the full benefits of declining oil prices, and that is what the Government is monitoring on a regular basis.


RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBLE LAY-OFF OF CN WORKERS AT JONQUlfiRE, P.Q.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackbrun (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Minister of Transport.
Within the next few weeks, 15 CN workers in Jonquiere could be laid off following the manpower rationalization announced by the CN. The loss of 15 jobs in remote areas is equivalent to a loss of 200 jobs in Montreal.
Can the Minister give me the assurance that the meeting which I have requested between officials from his Department, the CN authorities and representatives of the 15 employees in Jonquiere who could lose their job will be held as soon as

April 25, 1986
Oral Questions
possible and that the options proposed by the union will be examined seriously? ,


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his representation. I know it is of concern to him. I can confirm that a meeting is being set up in early May, thanks to the Hon. Member's representations. This meeting will involve members of CN, members of the union, and members of my office, who will examine this situation to see whether, in fact, any alternative proposals might be advanced.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Will the President of the Treasury Board explain why, on the one hand, the Government is turning its back on the pensioned workers of the country while, on the other hand, it has approved six ministerial offices across the country? According to our information the B.C. office space alone will cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $87,000. Does he not think this is a little expensive for a regional powder-room?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member opposite well knows, it has been a long-standing practice that Ministers have been entitled to an office outside the national capital region when business warrants. That was a practice of the former Government and it is a practice of this one. In the major centres we have consolidated some of these offices.


COST OF OFFICES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I know that the B.C. plans, for example, include office space for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resouces, as well as offices for two other Ministers. Is the Minister not a little bit embarrassed about the fact that the interest on the Vancouver office alone, which we conservatively estimate will cost $250,000 a year, could permit the rental of a $100-a-night hotel room for 250 nights out of the 365 in the year? Does he really think he needs these regional powder-rooms for Ministers from which they can expand their own political bases and their political propaganda machines, in the same way they did with the B.C. Expo tickets?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report to the House that through this measure no additional office space will be required. Because of this measure expenditures for the total cost of ministerial offices outside the national capital region will
actually decrease. This fits very well with our concern for better management of public funds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. We were all shocked this week to hear that the Americans are planning to use their massive subsidies to undercut a traditional Canadian wheat market in Syria. I find that it has already done the same thing in Algeria. Is the Minister aware that in the last six months the Americans have signed 11 separate agreements for the sale of one million tons of wheat to Algeria? In one case it sold wheat at $103 per ton with a subsidy-if Hon. Members can believe this-of $54.38 per ton. Is the Minister aware of this? What does he plan to do about it?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture is aware of this. I would say that the question should more properly be addressed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is not here.


John Wise: Absolutely. He is on his way to Toronto to meet with the agriculture committee of the Canadian Bankers' Association concerning the interests of Canadian farmers. I discussed the matter with the Minister earlier this morning. Preliminary information is that that market is primarily interested in receiving Durum wheat from Canada. The program of the U.S. Government is not designated or oriented in that direction. The latest information is that we are maintaining our historic sales levels in that country.


UNITED STATES SUBSIDIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since these massive subsidies have only started in the last few months does the Minister not agree that, according to the Wheat Board, they will undercut some of our traditional markets and they are a violation of the International Wheat Agreement? If he agrees, does he intend to lodge a complaint with the International Wheat Council in London?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we do not have to speculate on this. The results and the impact are already there. That is recognized. It has been recognized by the Government. In fact it has been recognized in the House in questions posed earlier this week and responded to by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance indicated the very leading role that he took on behalf of our country at the OECD meeting. I am sure the Hon.
April 25, 1986

Oral Questions
Member in the next short while will see leading roles taken in ensure that we have a proper and humanitarian refugee the interests of Canadian agriculture by the Minister of determination system, certain options are being considered. I Finance, the Prime Minister, and other cabinet Ministers.	can tell the Hon. Member that when these options have been
finalized and the decisions are taken, they will be announced.


REFUGEE DETERMINATION POLICY
[Stage Direction]
MO)

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board's finding that inadequate facilities are compromising air safety in northern Canada, will the Minister now reinstate the Arctic Airports Program cancelled by the previous Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that my official response to the Canadian Aviation Safety Board is being drafted and it will be submitted before the deadline of May 19.
With respect to the program to which the Hon. Member referred, it is something that is being discussed with my cabinet colleagues, but I should remind him that some $4.5 million has been spent on the Arctic Class "B" airports in the North since September, 1985. We will continue to use resources that are available to us to improve air safety in the North, as well as the infrastructure.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question. I would like to pose the following question. Does she think it is fair to impose these sanctions on Portugal as a response to the refugee dilemma when she and the Government have failed miserably to bring in a refugee determination process that would address the 21,000 claimant backlog? Is she using Portugal and the Portuguese as a scapegoat for her own shortcomings?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this Government and this Party have no excuses to make. This Government stands second to none in its approach to refugees being accepted into this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We will continue that approach. As I told the Hon. Member, we are at the present time considering options which will ensure that our refugee determination policy is just, humane and fair. I also want to assure him that the Minister of State for Immigration will be addressing this issue shortly and at the same time addressing the issue of the backlog.
* *
*
*
* *


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns today's media reports suggesting that the Government is considering slapping visa requirements on all visitors from Portugal. I said in the House on April 11 that that action would be unwarranted and unfair and asked the Minister to abandon the proposal. Is the Minister prepared to confirm that officials have recommended such action and, if so, is she prepared to assure the House that she will reject it and thus avoid needlessly penalizing the Canadian Portuguese community and a European friend and ally?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that Canada has a well-known generous humanitarian attitude toward people coming to this country, whether as refugees or as immigrants. We want to ensure that that continues without fraudulent activity or abuse. In order to


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville to the Minister of Agriculture. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville mentioned the export enhancement program the U.S. is using on the sale of 100 million tons of wheat to Algeria, which has been our market, at export subsidies up to $54-American per ton. Can the Minister tell us if the United States complied with the article of the International Wheat Agreement which provides that, when a country engages in concessional export transactions, it shall consult with the exporting members whose commercial sales might be affected by such transactions to the maximum possible extent? Did these consultations take place? Did the U.S. initiate these consultations with us? When were they, and what was the nature of them?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question in the absence of the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Again, though I was recalling from memory, I said that we were still maintaining

April 25, 1986
Oral Questions
our historic grain sale volumes to Algeria. In 1984-85 the Canadian sale of Durum to Algeria was 473,000 metric tons. This year, 1985-86, to date we have sold 430,000 metric tons to Algeria. The answer is clear.


PRICE PAID FOR CANADIAN WHEAT
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us what sort of concessions we had to make in price in order to meet the export subsidy of up to $54-American per ton?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I had the opportunity to report on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board but I think I am recalling accurately that it is not the policy of the board to disclose price.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to an item which appeared in the Toronto Express this week, a departmental official has decided to eliminate all French accents from the names of Frenchspeaking people in the new Canadian passports. My question is this: Is Canada truly a bilingual country or not?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, Canada is truly a bilingual country. I am not yet a member of the French Academy, but I do not think that it is the practice to use accents for capital letters, which are those used in passports. However, I shall consider the representation made by the Hon. Member seriously and examine the whole matter.


REFUGEES
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will the Minister confirm that the number of people awaiting refugee determination is now some 21,000, 1,500 of whom are Portuguese nationals?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm those numbers exactly. I will be glad to get the information from the Minister
of State for Immigration and see that it is passed on to the Hon. Member.


SPEED OF APPLICATION PROCESSING
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the figures are not exact, they are approximate. In view of that proportion, would the Minister agree that the first priority now has to be shortening the refugee process and that any special measures for Portuguese visa are really a long way down the line?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with the Hon. Member that in the review of and revisions to the refugee determination policy, speed of processing must be one of the key criteria. We are looking at a refugee determination policy that will be more effective and more efficient but will retain its fairness and its humanitarian concepts.


LOBBYING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the-


John Carnell Crosbie: Behave yourself today, John.


John R. Rodriguez: Always do, brother.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is it the intention of the Government that full disclosure with regard to lobbying should be made public and, if so, will he instruct his friend, Mr. Frank Moores, to disclose the information which we have been attempting to obtain from his corporation in committee?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we tabled a document back in December and we created a committee to have hearings on this matter. It is for the Chairman of the committee to call on the Members or any individual who would like to appear.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, we are unable to get information from the witnesses, the friends of the Conservative Party, in committee. Is the Minister going to allow firms such as the Moores company, the Bill Neville company, and other Tory companies that are in the business of arm twisting, to continue pulling down a veil of secrecy around their operations when they approach the Government and Members of Parliament?
April 25, 1986


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I think the Government has already shown its intention by tabling a document and dealing with the issue of integrity.


An Hon. Member:: You did nothing.


Michel Côté: We have already had much discussion on the subject and we hope the committee will bring forward recommendations to give us good legislation.


John R. Rodriguez: Horsefeathers.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ESTABLISHMENT OF FRENCH EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION NETWORK IN ONTARIO
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On December 4, 1984, the federal Minister of Communications, accompanied by the Minister responsible for TV Ontario at the time, announced an agreement to create a French-language educational television network in Ontario. The federal-provincial agreement signed on June 18, 1985 and worth $30 million is a five-year agreement. The province is still waiting for the federal Government's financial contribution. Since June 18, the Minister of Communications has been silent, and it has been impossible to get to him. According to the provincial authorities, the federal Cabinet and the Minister are trying to get out of meeting their commitments. Why is the Government so reluctant? Why has it failed to keep its word?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice and discuss the matter with the Minister responsible. I will make sure that my hon. friend gets the correct explanation for the delay, if any, in implementing the agreement.


INQUIRY WHEN FUNDING WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, according to the agreement, the federal Government owes $350,000 to the Province of Ontario now, and will owe $2,350,000 next year. Getting a French-language educational television network in Ontario is important. The agreement was signed. Are we going to know when the money is going to be paid or do we have to send a collection agency?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I am going to take these concerns as notice. I can inform the House that I agree this is an important matter, and I can assure my hon. colleague that he will get a
Oral Questions
reply, and that he need not go to the expense of hiring a collection agency at this time.


SHIPBUILDING
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister is undoubtedly aware that most of the work being done in Canadian shipyards is Government work for the Coast Guard and the Navy and that commercial work is almost ended, leaving yards like the ones in Collingwood and Thunder Bay likely soon to be without work. Will the Minister give us his assurance that the Government will impose a moratorium on any imported vessels that may be required in the next year or two by Canadian shipping interests?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, is currently seized with the issue of the shipbuilding industry and is examining policy options to provide some stability and some security for the shipbuilding industry. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representation and refer it to the Minister. I think that it would be fair to say a policy will be forthcoming in the very near future.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCE POLICY
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has been seized with this question for a long, long time. I have heard that sort of promise time after time, as have people in the industry, and the workers continue to wait. When will the Government state a policy and end the agonizing state for the owners and workers in these yards across the country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, it is a situation that has been with us for quite some time, Mr. Speaker. It is a very serious situation, but instead of the Hon. Member simply pointing the finger at my hon. colleague, who is attempting to resolve the issue, if the Hon. Member could sit down with the Minister and provide some of his advice and wisdom, perhaps we might take that into consideration.
This issue has been going on for years and the Government is taking action.-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What is it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the meantime, contracts have been awarded recently that are going to serve the long-term interests of the shipbuilding industry. The rationalization

April 25, 1986
Oral Questions
process that will take place I am sure will be such that it will provide a long-term future for the shipbuilding industry.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This Government's strong initiative to open our doors to immigrants to help make this country grow and prosper was warmly welcomed by Canadians of ethnocultural backgrounds. How does the Minister plan to change the sometimes arrogant attitude of foreign visa officers who, for many years, have continued to block people from simply visiting Canada through a negative "screen and restrict mentality"?


Mr. Ouellet:: That is a good question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a little surprised by that question because Members of this House representing opinion on both sides have come to me in very recent days to express their appreciation of the attitude that has been shown by Canadian officers serving abroad. Nonetheless, if there are particular instances where a Member of Parliament has evidence that the kind of high standard of service that is traditionally associated with the Department of External Affairs is not being delivered, I would like to receive that specific information, and I will follow the matter.

[Translation)


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Concerning pensioners and early retirees, can the Minister tell us why her Government passed regulations which undermine the vested rights of workers, when we know full well that Canadians want to do everything to improve the economic situation of women, who happen to be a significant contingent among pensioners and early retirees? Why such unfair regulations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would explain what rules she is referring to.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CORRECT SITUATION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the new unemployment insurance regulations governing pensioners and early retirees, and I am referring to a letter the Minister received from the Hon. Member for the constituency of Champlain.
I would like to know why the Minister does not want to correct this injustice, and do so now that most pensioners have not received their cheque since last January.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions this issue has been raised in the House of Commons by Members.


An Hon. Member:: And there has never been any answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I think this is the first time the Hon. Member has addressed the issue.


Ian Deans: So?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you a teacher?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I may say to the House that this announcement was made in November, 1984.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you very much.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It was given a year's lead time for implementation before it came into effect on January 1, 1986.


John Carnell Crosbie: Wake up, Lucie.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is an issue which has been raised on a number of occasions, and as I have said on many of those occasions the over-all assessment of the Unemployment Insurance Program-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Order.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and its ineffectiveness and inefficiencies, and the complaints that have been raised about it, are now under review by the Forget Commission, and its recommendations will be forthcoming in a short period of time.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Minister explain whether the Government is living up to the law when the Minister of Labour says he will not do so?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this particular issue has never come to me before. I am sure the Minister of Labour is complying fully with the law in every way the law requires. I would say he is one of the best Ministers of Labour, certainly since 1979 when we had the present Lieutenant Governor of Ontario as the Minister of Labour-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister is an outstanding Minister of Labour and complies with the law in every respect. If he doesn't, I will certainly see that he does.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CHALLENGE '86 EXPENDITURES IN WINNIPEG NORTH CENTRE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment. Is she aware of what is going on with regard to spending under Challenge '86? In Winnipeg North Centre I have information that indicates the Government is spending one half of the amount of money this year, namely, $600,000, as compared to last year when the Government spent $1.2 million. Is the Minister aware of that and, if she is, how can she be satisfied with such a dismal performance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware of what is going on with Challenge '86 and the results which are pouring in from across the country. As I mentioned the other day, some 58,000 applications have resulted from the Challenge '86 program. That means that, in addition to the money allocated to it by the federal Government, there is now an indication that the private sector would be willing to contribute an extra $150 million if all of those projects are approved. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the program is working well in Manitoba as well as elsewhere in the country.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau.
_________________________________12649
Introduction of Bills TERRORISM


REPORTED PRESENCE OF TERRORISTS IN CANADA
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and is with regard to the alarming revelation that 14 international terrorists from the Baader Meinhof gang are apparently hiding in Canada. What is the Government doing with regard to these terrorists? Is the Government not ready to apprehend them and bring them to justice, or to kick them out of Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: They're hiding in your caucus.


Mr. Boudria:: Erik would know about that.


Erik Nielsen: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the reports to which the hon. gentleman refers have yet to be confirmed. In the second place, this would be the last place that I think he would want that sort of matter to be discussed.


André Ouellet: What are you doing?


Cyril Keeper: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, sit down!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government's response to the nine following petitions: Nos. 331-400 to 331-406 inclusive, and 331-411 to 331-416.



SUPREME COURT ACT


John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-105, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act and to amend various other acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1986
Questions on the Order Paper

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 541 and 542.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	With respect to the 1984-85 Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account how much was paid (a) into it by members of the Canadian Armed Forces (6) into it by public servants (c) into it by the Government (d) into it as interest (e) out of it to retired members of the Armed Forces or their beneficiaries?
2.	What was the balance in the account at year end?


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account 1984-1985
	(in	millions of dollars)				
	PSSA	CFSA	RCMPSA		Other	Total
Balance March 31,						
1984	1,440.2	399.2	100.9	7.1	1,947.4Receipts Employee contributions Employer contribu-	93.3	22.5	6.1	0.7	122.6tions	93.7	22.5	6.1	0.6	122.9Interest	192.8	53.2	13.4	0.8	260.2Transfers	0.1	0.1379.9	98.2	25.6	2.1	505.8Disbursements	Annuities* Gratuities, Residu-	19.7	4.4	0.3	24.4als	0.4	0.4Withdrawals	7.9	2.0	0.3	0.2	10.4Transfers	0.5	0.1	0.628.5	6.5	0.6	0.2	35.8Balance March 31,	1985	1,791.6	490.9	125.9	9.0	2,417.4CRF Charges*	421.4	236.0	18.2	7.9	683.5
* Benefits paid in respect of a former contributor are charged to the Account only until their accumulated total equals the aggregate of all amounts credited to that Account in respect of that person. Supplementary benefits paid in excess of that aggregate are then charged to the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF).


Mr. McKinnon: With respect to the 1984-85 Superannuation Accounts for the (a) Canadian Forces (b) Public Service how much was paid (i) into it by members (ii) into it by the Government (iii) into it as interest (iv) out of it to retired personnel or their beneficiaries (v) what was the balance in the account at year end?


Paul Wyatt Dick: (a) Canadian Forces Superannuation Account: 1984-1985
(i)	Member contributions
(ii)	Government contributions
(iii)	Interest*
(iv)	Annuities
(v)	Account balance March 31, 1985
(b) Public Service Superannuation Account: 1984-1985
(i)	Member Contributions
(ii)	Employer Contributions:
Government
Crown Corporations Total
(iii)	Interest*
(iv)	Annuities
(v)	Closing Balance March 31, 1985
$	119,846,665
$	212,109,856
$ 1,125,115,220 $	362,822,818


[Stage Direction]
$	516,903,178
$	372,905,203
$	121,979,063
$	494,884,266
$ 1,615,140,017 $	637,363,120
[Stage Direction]
*The accounts earn interest quarterly at a rate determined as if the excess of receipts over disbursements each quarter since the accounts were established had been invested in Government of Canada 20-year bonds. In effect, the quarterly rate is based on the weighted average yield of all investments over the previous 20-year period.
Some interest earnings in excess of the rate used in the most recent actuarial reports on the accounts (6.5 per cent per annum) have not been credited to the accounts, but rather have been used to offset the cost of amortizing actuarial deficiencies that arise mainly as a result of annual salary increases. These amounts are as follows for 1984-85:
Canadian Forces Superannuation Account	-$202 million
Public Service Superannuation Account	-$356 million
Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 24, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Ms. Copps (p. 833).
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by my colleague, the Member for Hamilton East (Ms.

April 25, 1986

Copps), to have this piece of legislation delayed for 30 days in order to give the unions involved a respite in order to try to come to some reasonable agreement with the Government.
The Bill we have before us now is clearly unreasonable. It is not good legislation. It is unfair and discriminatory. It takes from employees of Parliament Hill rights and privileges which they should have which other workers across the country enjoy.
The main argument was set out in a letter of October, 1985, from Jacques Audette, the President of PSAC Local 70390 here on Parliament Hill in which he said the following:
Over one year ago, the Canada Labour Relations Board ruled that parliamentary employees come under the jurisdiction of the Canada Labour Code. This legislation provides the tools with which to deal with the problems we face as workers on the Hill. In forming a union, our intention was to join together and elect representatives who, in negotiating with management, could find solutions to these problems.
The issues of greatest concern were, and continue to be, classification, job descriptions, competitions, promotions, transfers and fear of lay-off or dismissal. These have always been totally up to the discretion of management and there have been serious abuses such as the recent problems with the pension plan, forced overtime hours, and the payment of overtime on a bi-annual basis. Many of us are improperly classified and often do not have any job descriptions. Many of us have applied for promotions and transfers only to have the rules governing competitions changed arbitrarily.
Technological change is occurring on the Hill as elsewhere and even employees with many years experience fear that they will be laid off.
Rather than allay these fears, management has fueled them with major reorganizations and cut-backs in several areas.
Bill C-45 is opposed by both the PSAC and NABET. Their concerns centre on the point that Bill C-45 enshrines in law an employee-employer relationship which does not meet with the employees' approval. The employees want to be governed by the Canada Labour Code, as has been ruled by the Canada Labour Relations Board. I understand that the courts have ruled against that, but courts are appealable. Today we are asking for time so that a fair and equitable agreement can be reached with these employees. They are clearly against this legislation and want to be governed by the Canada Labour Code and to negotiate as do all employees elsewhere in Canada. They see Bill C-45 as a step backward.
The main clauses to which they object are Clause 5(3) and Clause 55(2). These two clauses prohibit unions from referring to arbitration the important matters of job classification, appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, and lay-off or release of employees. These are legitimate concerns and areas for discussion, bargaining, and arbitration which should be available to employees of Parliament Hill as they are available to other employees within the Public Service across Canada, to employees of Crown corporations, and to many other workers across the country. That is the main concern of the employees. We on this side of the House support them and that is why this particular amendment has been put forward.
It is not as though there are not adequately documented areas of abuse. There are many and various examples. Some time ago a senior position became vacant in a technical service. Several employees inquired about a competition, but none was
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
held. The husband of a manager in another department of the same service was brought in to fill the position on a temporary basis. Several months later a competition was announced. The then experienced husband was hired permanently. The appeal of employees in the service was denied.
There are other examples of abuse and discrimination which have been adequately documented which need redress. Strong legislation is necessary to prevent them from happening again. For example, there was an older female employee with close to 20 years seniority who injured her back and was off on longterm disability for a couple of months. On returning to work she was assigned duties which include heavy lifting and carrying, although her old position still exists. She was told she should apply for early retirement if she was not pleased. Her internal grievance was denied.
Employees of the Library of Parliament were denied maternity benefits for a full year after such benefits were finally extended to House of Commons' employees. The library administration states that an administrative error was made.
I could go on and on documenting instances of abuse, discrimination and inequity in dealing with employees of Parliament. In the cafeteria service all job classifications have been revoked. All employees have been informed that they can be assigned any duties, although many of them held specialized positions for a number of years. For example, two butchers were assigned to drive food delivery trucks. A pastry chef was assigned to washing and cutting vegetables.
The level of frustration and employee harassment in this service is very high. Those of us who have been here for some time are aware that nowhere do we get the kind of faithful, competent, loyal and efficient service that we get here on the Hill. It is incumbent upon us to stand behind these workers. All they are really asking for, indeed all this amendment asks for, is time to come to an equitable agreement.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has stated previously that he is willing to give parliamentary employees the same rights enjoyed by federal public servants. Clearly, though, Bill C-45 does not do that. I refer again to the clauses which prohibit the referral to arbitration of important matters such as job classification, appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off and release of employees. How can the Minister say he is willing to give these employees the same rights enjoyed by federal public servants and at the same time bring in a Bill which prohibits them from dealing with these very important issues? It seems to me the Minister is not prepared to go so far as to give them equal rights with other workers. The Government could agree to at least a 30-day delay so that some work can be done to arrive at a reasonable compromise. That is the only way to do it, and it is incumbent upon the Government to do it.
What is involved here is not simply a matter of the rights of employees of Parliament, important as that may be. The issue

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
is what sort of accommodation are we going to come to with labour in this country in the future. Everyone in this country feels threatened at present. There is opportunity ahead. We are presently coming to grips with such things as trade, economic development, restructuring, retooling and refinancing of industry. However, we can only come to a reasonable accommodation if we have some sort of pact with labour from now on. That has to happen. I believe the Government should lead the way in making agreements with its own employees.
In my own Province of Newfoundland we are still going through a very disruptive strike with provincial government employees. Those employees brought the province to a virtual standstill because of inequities in their contract with the provincial Government. Some workers were not making the same rate of pay as others in equal positions. The other issue was the ability of the Government to designate those employees who would not be allowed to strike. The support of the people of that province was, by and large, behind the union. The Government had to make important concessions and negotiations are still going on.
I raise that to illustrate the need for Governments, provincial and federal, to show the way to an accommodation with the working people of this country. If that does not happen, I do not believe we can have a sound economy or build a sound economic base. We can do all we like about financing. We can get our economic house in order. Yet if we are not prepared to come to a reasonable agreement with the workers of this country, then I do not believe Canada can look forward to a healthy economy in the future.
In this present instance there is an opportunity for the Government to show the way by agreeing to this very reasonable amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. In that way, some accommodation can be arrived at. The workers on the Hill have asked us to do this. They do not want this legislation to go forward. They want some time to either appeal the judgment or deal with Treasury Board to try and come up with a fair and equitable working agreement.
This has been a long battle for them. On November 4, 1985, the Canada Labour Relations Board certified four bargaining units of employees of the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. Since that time an additional bargaining unit has been certified. Over 1,000 House of Commons and Library of Parliament employees are certified and have entered into negotiations with their employer. Indeed, a conciliator was appointed. Now the courts have made a decision and that process is in jeopardy. That is exactly why we need the time. The House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament have fought the recognition of collective bargaining rights every step of the way. They have used every means of delay, including court action. Now we have Bill C-45. It is regressive legislation, and the alternative is simply to allow those workers to bargain in a just and fair manner with Treasury Board to try and come up with some fair and just conclusions. Because of the efforts those workers have put into
this, and because of the wider issue concerning coming to accommodation with labour all across this country, I hope this House will accede to the amendment of my colleague from Hamilton East and agree to the 30-day period in which some reasonable and just accommodation can be worked out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey).
The Hon. Member has had a unique experience in the Province of Newfoundland regarding the labour dispute that is going on there at the moment. The court has just come down with a decision on the application of the Canada Labour Code as it relates to the certification of employees on the Hill. Does the Hon. Member think that in the interests of making a decision and undertaking some negotiations in good faith it might not be best simply to delay the whole process approximately 30 days, which would give us a chance to see what the impact of the court judgment is, whether it is going to be appealed or whether the Government is going to modify its position? We have seen what the hardening of positions has done, for example, in Newfoundland in certain circumstances. It seems to me a delay at this time would be effective in potentially diffusing any problems that might result if the legislation we put forth does not take into consideration all of the elements of the court judgment as well as the potential for appeal.


Bill Rompkey: I think the key phrase is the "hardening of positions"; that is exactly what happened in the province. As a matter of fact the situation in Newfoundland threatened to become very, very ugly, indeed. I think we were on the brink of not only a disruptive strike but a very serious situation in our province. Public opinion was on the side of the workers. The two sides were very strongly entrenched, and the situation only began to be resolved when the head of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees and the Premier happened, as a matter of chance, to be on a radio open line program, and through their statements on that program they were able to bring the two sides together.
That strike is still not settled, and that threat is still there. At least there is time and they are at the table and talking. What threatened to become a very ugly situation has been diffused, and that is exactly what is being asked for here. We are asking for time so that people can sit down together and attempt to come to a compromise, a framework for working out the rights we all enjoy across this country. All of us enjoy certain rights and privileges. All workers across Canada, those in the Public Service, those in Crown corporations have certain privileges, and what this amendment asks for is simply time to work out a framework whereby those employees can start to enjoy the same kind of benefits that most of us do, and most of us want for the workers all across this country.
April 25, 1986

I do not think that that is such an unreasonable request. It is not as if we were asking for a monstrous pay increase. It is not as if we were asking for all sorts of outrageous concessions. What we are asking for is time, which does not cost anybody anything; all it costs is some goodwill. If we do not have that goodwill with our own employees how are we ever going to send a message to the workers of Canada that we are going to have it with any of them across this country. That is the important issue. There is a wider issue than simply the rights of the employees on the Hill, as important as they are. There are messages going out every day from Governments to workers across this country, and I think the message that this Parliament should send is that we want to give time so that people can sit down at the table and work out a reasonable arrangement.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member's colleague from Papineau yesterday make a fine speech about the rights of workers on the Hill to have collective bargaining. I heard a fine speech from the Hon. Member today. Both of these Members have been in the previous Government Cabinet. From 1968 they had some 16-odd years to express this great concern which they now express in Opposition about being sensitive to the rights and the needs of our employees on the Hill. Mr. Lloyd Francis revealed that conditions on the Hill, according to him, were replete with nepotism and sexual harassment. The question I want to ask this Hon. Member is what is on his mind, is it because he is now in the Opposition or is it really a conversion on the way to Damascus that suddenly made him realize what he could not do in the Government he is now trying to get from the Opposition benches?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that I do not think he serves the union well by repeating history. The enemy is over there. The NDP wants to take unto itself the mantle of self-righteousness in which it girds itself historically over the years to show that only they care and those of us who accept responsibility in Government are somehow less righteous, less caring, less sensitive to the needs of workers across this country. That is the historical position of the NDP. The people we are talking about today are going to dismiss that as trite and irrelevant. If the Hon. Member wanted to be helpful to the people that he purports to support he would stop debating history, he would stop fighting the Opposition, and he would start attacking the people who are actually dealing with this legislation. That is my answer to him.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador. This week there were revelations about one of his colleagues, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and his allegations against his own Government that it was unfair and unjust and, in fact, discriminatory in its hiring policies
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
with respect to regional wage rates across Canada. He stated this in a letter to a constituent. These regional wage rates do not reflect equality across Canada. We see great difficulties in areas like Newfoundland where wage rates have been negotiated with the existence of collective bargaining. How much worse must it be for people currently working on the Hill in the House of Commons who do not even have the instrument or the tool of collective bargaining with which to redress these types of injustices? If the Government's own Minister of Justice has stated that it is unjust and discriminatory to impose the kind of wage rates that his Government has imposed upon the people of Newfoundland, woe betide those on the Hill who have no rights to collective bargaining and are at the mercy of the Government and the mercy of the Ministers with respect to wage rates. I would like to ask him about that. I would also like to ask him whether he feels the Government's refusal to accept the hoist amendment, which just calls for a 30-day delay, is indicative of their willingness or their desire to press forward with legislation which does not give the employees the protection they should be getting. Does the Hon. Member feel that it indicates a belief on the part of the Government that they want to get the most spineless and least effective legislation through as quickly as possible so they will not be put in a position where they have to give employee rights? This was clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Government of Canada took the Canadian Labour Relations Board to court on their own decision. The CLRB ruled in favour of the workers. The Government could have allowed that decision to stand, but they chose to appeal it and will probably continue to appeal it to the highest courts of the land. It does not seem to me that this is a Government interested in the rights of the workers on the Hill. It seems to me that it is a Government interested in introducing the weakest possible piece of legislation so they can continue to run things in the kind of atmosphere of nepotism and fear which the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) cited in his previous question.


Bill Rompkey: I am glad my colleague has brought up that issue, as I think it is apropos. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is a very straightforward man, which sometimes gets one in trouble when one is a politician. However, he says what he thinks and what he believes. He is right when he says that there is discrimination in pay rates. He is only saying what the people who elected him want him to say in the House. People in certain areas of the country make less than people in other areas of the country, which is clearly discrimination in terms of wage rates. That situation must be addressed. The Hon. Member for St. John's West supports that view and I agree with him. He is right to support it because he is pointing to an inequity and saying what should be changed. At least the people he is talking about have the right to negotiate because they are in a union that has some bargaining rights and can raise that particular issue. We are asking that employees on the Hill be given those same rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Resuming debate.

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today has a long history. The background to this Bill should persuade Members of the House to reject it and request the Government to consult fully with the employees on the Hill to work out a more satisfactory agreement between the Government and those who serve us on Parliament Hill. After all, it is here in Ottawa, in our relations with the staff who serve us in the House of Commons, that we should have model legislation that reflects a clear-cut, open agreement so that the employees do not feel they have been tricked, treated unfairly or left out of the consultation process.
I believe it is a sad day when the Government introduces a Bill which a majority of the employees of this Parliament have clearly rejected. It indicates that the Government has not fulfilled its commitment to make consultation honest and meaningful to people. I have seen the Government's failure to consult in many areas, since its 211 members came to power. I saw it in the case of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when the effort to consult with business, labour and other groups did not lead to some kind of new initiative or agreement that was a step forward for the Government, but to a sense of betrayal on the part of those who felt that they had entered into the consultation process honestly. Ultimately, they felt they had not been listened to honestly. They found that consultation did not mean having a real input. They did not necessarily want to directly or comprehensively shape policy, but at least have some influence on policy.
The Government, in the middle of its mandate, faces questions about what it will do in the future. Its inability to meet the expectations of Canadians throughout the country with respect to consultation and the real meaning of consultation will be its greatest failure and will cost it dearly. This Bill demonstrates that failure. The employees who serve Members of Parliament and the Senate have jobs in which they serve the country. These jobs are often interesting but very demanding and often force them to work long hours under difficult conditions. The relations between us, as employers and those people who work here should be a model of decent, civilized employer-employee relations.
Workers on the Hill have been engaged in a long-term effort to organize themselves collectively. This led to a majority of Hill employees being able to go before the Canada Labour Relations Board in 1983 with a request to become regular unionized employees under the Canada Labour Code itself. Personally, I believe that the right to collective bargaining is fundamental in this country. As the employers of these Parliament Hill employees, we should have celebrated the fact that these workers sought to exercise that right. We should respond by trying to work out an agreement under the Canada Labour Code.
The Government saw it otherwise. It decided that this represented some kind of threat to established practices. Perhaps it was a threat to a system of internal patronage that had ruled for many years. Perhaps it was a threat to the ongoing work of Parliament during a time when the country
needed it to function. Therefore, instead of accepting that request for certification, the Government introduced Bill C-45 which attempts to provide a supposed form of bargaining rights for employees. In practice, however, it creates a situation so restricted and distorted that these workers will not really have the basic rights to which any employee in the country should be entitled.
Let me give some examples of the kinds of rights which any employee should have and which employees under this Bill will not have. First, they should have the right to negotiate with respect to classification of positions and assignment of duties. In Windsor, where I come from, to even think that a contract negotiation could somehow have validity without the workers being able to discuss classification of positions and assignment of duties is laughable. There is not a union member in all of my community who would see this as a valid piece of labour legislation if that basic right is left out. The same is true with respect to negotiation over staffing. If it is not possible for workers to at least negotiate potential arrangements which have to do with job appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions and transfers, and if they cannot even negotiate about provisions for lay-offs, what kind of legislation is that? It is a lot closer to sham than it is to real bargaining legislation.
Perhaps most crucial, as I look at this Bill, is that there is not even provision for workers to put into their negotiation process the question of grievance procedures. They cannot even negotiate over what the grievance procedures are to be. Of all the basic rights which any worker should expect, regardless of whether they are in the private or public sector, their right to negotiate over grievance procedures is crucial.
No one is arguing that workers themselves should unilaterally have the right to set what those grievance procedures should be, but what this Bill does in effect is give the employer the right to unilaterally set down those grievance procedures. We cannot expect workers to accept that as somehow logical, fair and equitable. We are talking about a new House of Commons, about a context in which it is possible for us as Members of Parliament to change items in Bills in such a way that they are not matters of confidence. I very much hope when this Bill is looked at item by item that that particular obnoxious clause in the Bill will be one all of us on all sides of the House will agree has to be changed.
The kinds of very basic rights which any worker must be able to negotiate are with respect to classification of positions, staffing and, above all, with respect to the grievance procedures which are going to exist. We on all sides of the House must surely come to an agreement to change those clauses in this Bill so that our employees on the Hill will know that this is a serious piece of legislation in which they can have some faith. At this stage it is quite clear they do not have faith in this legislation.
April 25, 1986

I would like to quote from the President of the PSAC local on Parliament Hill. Jacques Audette stated quite clearly, and I quote:
The issues of greatest concern were, and continue to be, classification, job descriptions, competitions, promotions, transfers and fear of lay-off or dismissal. These have always been totally up to the discretion of management and there have been serious abuses such as the recent problems with the pension plan, forced overtime hours and the payment of overtime on a bi-annual basis. Many of us are improperly classified and often do not have any job descriptions. Many of us have applied for promotions and transfers only to have the rules governing competitions change arbitrarily.
There has to be a wholesale housecleaning of staff relations here on Parliament Hill. It has to start with agreement between the employers and employees with respect to the legislation which will dominate their lives. To demonstrate I will cite some of the cases before us which cry out for this kind of agreed legislation to exist instead of this imposed legislation represented by Bill C-45.
There is the case of an older female employee with close to 20 years seniority who injured her back. She was off on longterm disability for a couple of months. Upon returning she was assigned duties which include heavy lifting and carrying although her old position still exists. She is told she should apply for early retirement if she is not pleased. Her internal grievance is denied. That is not the way we should treat older workers in our service.
There is the case of employees in a technical service here on the Hill who are required to attend training courses on their days off and on weekends, without pay. When these employees protested they were told it was mandatory and they had no choice. That is something they must be able to bargain about. We have to set up legislation which permits that, which does not rule it out of court.
I will relate the last case of many which I could present. In the cafeteria service an employee cut his hand on the job. He was told to visit the nurse. The nurse told him it was not safe to work and that he should go home. However, the manager informed the employee that he should go back to work or face discipline.
We cannot live in the feudal ages in the Houses of Parliament which are supposed to lead the country. We must have legislation which escapes the Dark Ages. Bill C-45 does not do that. It does not give workers the rights they deserve. For that reason the House must either massively, and in detail, amend the legislation, or we must reject it when it comes to a final vote. At second reading stage, since the choice of amendment is not availabe to us, we say it has to be rejected in order to take us out of the feudal age. This must be done to give fairness to employees in this, the key institution in our country, which should be a model employer instead of one which reeks of the Dark Ages still.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act Mr. Murphy: Ask a decent question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to ask a decent question. I want to tell the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) that I hope I always ask decent questions. This is a decent question. Given that we have been debating the 30-day hoist amendment and the main motion for a couple of days now since the court judgment was handed down, does the Hon. Member not find it passing strange that we have not heard from any Government Members with respect to their position on this issue?


Mrs. Mailly:: That is not true.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) says that is not true. She obviously did not listen to my question. I asked why members of the Government have remained strangely silent with respect to my amendment for a 30-day hoist. This amendment simply asks for 30 days in which to look at the results of the court judgment. Since the court judgment was rendered, not one single Conservative in the House has opened his or her mouth. That is true. I find it somewhat strange.
By way of question to the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), perhaps we could smoke out some of the silent members of the Government who have sat on the sidelines and who are prepared to allow the Government to take the employees to court as a result of the Canada Labour Relations Board decision. The Government is not prepared to waive the right to go to court. It took the employees to court and now that the decision has been rendered against the employees not one member of the Government has opened his or her mouth.


Mr. Oostrom:: And they should not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member says that they should not. What are we here for if they should not?


John Martin Oostrom: You do not comment on something which is before the courts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member obviously does not understand the principle of sub judice which applies to criminal and civil proceedings of which this is neither. First, the court judgment has already been rendered. Second, all we are asking for is a 30-day delay so that we can have a chance to consider the court decision as it relates to Government employees. The Hon. Member for Gatineau-in fact, all members of the Government who represent the Ottawa area-have sat on their hands and have said absolutely nothing with respect to this matter. Does the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor feel that that is the normal course of events for Conservative backbenchers to follow?


Claudy Mailly: This Bill will do more for employees than all your rhetoric.

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) for this chance to comment on how passing strange many things are in the House of Commons. I must say it has been a passing strange week in the House of Commons.


Claudy Mailly: We got some work done for a change! We passed Bill C-62.


Steven W. Langdon: The notion that we might actually smoke out some Conservatives to speak on this matter is one which I find delightful.


Mr. Thacker:: There's no smoking in this place.


Steven W. Langdon: With all due respect to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), the idea of smoking out Conservative Members to speak on an issue as important as this is a serious matter.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You can flush them out.


Steven W. Langdon: If they are not prepared to be smoked out then perhaps, as my colleague suggests, they can be flushed out.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just pull the chain!


Steven W. Langdon: Flushing them out is likely to lead to commentary which will at least be as interesting as that usually heard from Conservative back-benchers.
To be absolutely serious, we are talking about an important principle. I put it to every Conservative back-bencher who is here that we should not impose on our employees-and they are our employees-a piece of legislation with which they so fundamentally disagree.


Claudy Mailly: That's not what they tell me.


Steven W. Langdon: If we do that then we will create for ourselves, for the House and, therefore, for the country, tremendous problems in the future. We do not have to do that. We can accept the motion with respect to a 30-day hoist. We can send the Bill back for consideration to see what discussions can take place with respect to it, just as they should have taken place, on an equitable basis, between the Government and the employees who have expressed their desire to become unionized. We could see brought back to this House a piece of legislation which represents agreement instead of disagreement. I put it to Conservative back-benchers, many of whom have been involved in business dealings, that the basis upon which one must act with one's employees, certainly the basis I learned in any organizations which I helped run, has to be one of agreement. I agree with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. Let us try to smoke out Conservative back-benchers. Let us try to get this Bill hoisted and ultimately changed so that it meets the needs of our employees.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Hon. Member's responsibilities to his constituents and his oath as a Member of
Parliament, is he prepared to cross a picket line in order to come to Parliament?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's my question.


Steven W. Langdon: The question which has been asked is a very serious one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I will answer it. Let us recognize that the right to strike is not-


Mr. Andre:: Who's being flushed out now?


Steven W. Langdon: -at the heart of the Opposition which has expressed it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: My answer to the question is quite clear.


Harvie Andre: Who do you think you are, Brian Orser?


Steven W. Langdon: As Simon Reisman said the other day: "Who's Brian Orser?"


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who's Brian Muldoon?


Steven W. Langdon: They still have not discovered who he is.
The question I have been asked is would I be prepared to work if Parliament were faced with a strike. We have faced the question in the past when the translators went on strike. Our caucus answered by agreeing to sit in the Chamber but refusing to work in committees. I expect the same thing would take place with respect to any strike which might occur. But to trivialize this crucial issue of agreement in this way is to make a serious mistake, as the Government so often makes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock today.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before I turn to the substance of the motion, I wish to reflect on something of which all Members are aware. Yesterday, a very important decision came from the courts on the subject of the legality of the unionization of parliamentary employees. Although, as I understand it, it came from the court of first instance, the decision was that unionization is not lawful under the Canada Labour Code.
We are actually debating a motion for a 30-day hoist of this Bill. I would ask Hon. Members opposite to take account of the decision that was made yesterday. It does change a great
April 25, 1986

many of the considerations that have animated the debate on this motion and have been reflected in the many briefs and petitions we have received, as well as many of the discussions we have had on Parliament Hill about where the public servants who work here stand so far as the Canada Labour Code is concerned.
I would have expected that some Government Members might have risen today to respond to the situation and to give us the Government's position in light of the important decision that was reached yesterday. So far, as I understand it, no Government Members have spoken since the-


Claudy Mailly: To support Ms. Copps?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member oppposite says that she does not want to support the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), but I would urge her to put her own personal antipathy to my colleague to one side and to face the issues. There is more at stake here than whether or not the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) gets along with the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. As much as all of us would want the two of them to get along, I think it is more important that we deal with the issues raised by this legislation and by yesterday's decision.
At times, we have moved reasoned amendments at second-reading stage for six-month hoists or three-month hoists. Under the rules of the House, that is one of the ways the Opposition may show its protest about the legislative menu that the Government has put before us. In this case, the motion moved by my colleague is for a simple 30-day hoist. I would have thought that, with yesterday's decision, it would not be unreasonable to delay the Bill for 30 days. Indeed, the Government itself should initiate some type of respite so that we may take a look at the legislation, and so that the parties who work on Parliament Hill and are bargaining for their rights will be able to take account of the change represented by yesterday's decision.
I do not even know if there is to be an appeal of that decision. If it is appealed, I would have no hesitation in expressing my own hope that the appeal succeeds. I would very much welcome a situation in which the staff on Parliament Hill have the same kinds of collective bargaining rights as other public servants, for reasons to which I will turn in a moment.
Having entered this place in 1968, I can recall the early developments in collective bargaining rights for public servants. The British tradition which we inherited has always put the Crown and anything associated with the Crown in a very special position. The Crown could not be prosecuted and employees of the Crown did not have the right to strike, nor did they have many of the rights that employees of ordinary citizens in society had. There has been a movement, which I suppose is at least 70 or 80 years old, toward narrowing the prerogatives of the Crown, trying to address them by legislation, and also trying to remove the privileges of the Crown.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
I had some involvement with the development of a responsible Crown as a party in lawsuits. When I was a law student it was a convention that the Crown could not be prosecuted. Then there developed a situation where the Crown could be prosecuted, but the Crown's permission was required to issue a writ in Her Majesty's Court and, in fact, against Her Majesty. The same or similar constraints applied in the rights of public servants who faced the Crown in the way ordinary citizens did, although they were employees of the Crown.
I think we live in a day and age where a lot of arguments should be required to justify giving emanations of the Crown or giving the Crown itself any special privileges at all in the law. The presumption should be the other way. The presumption should be that the Crown, when it is operating a business or running an institution, even an essential institution such as the Parliament of Canada, should be seen in no more privileged position than circumstances require. I am glad to see that the tradition which gives an automatic and special privileged position to the Crown is being eroded. I think even with the very conservative nature of some members of the Government Party opposite, they are seeing the wisdom of that.
One needs only to examine the case of an ordinary citizen crossing the street-this is one of the teaching cases I remember from my days in law school-being hit by a truck owned by the Eaton's company compared to a citizen crossing the street being hit by a truck from the Post Office. You can ask why it should make any difference whether the victim is a victim of a commercial operation or a victim of the Post Office. Just to ask the question in the modern environment illustrates that there should be no difference, and that, as far as the victim is concerned, the victim is just as entitled to compensation if the postal official driving is at fault as he or she is if the individual driving the Eaton's truck is at fault. It is hard to believe, when you are talking to people who are not familiar with the legal history, for how many centuries a special privilege has existed in that area.
The Crown has taken, and in the present Government the Crown still takes the same attitude toward employees who work on Parliament Hill. There is no doubt that the tradition entitles the Crown to view the employees on the Hill as having less rights than employees of the private sector. That is the point of the decision reached in the court case and released yesterday, that for traditional reasons based on historical precedent people who work on the Hill, even if they are doing exactly the same types of jobs as people who work off the Hill in the private sector, are not entitled to the same legal rights as are enjoyed by the private sector.
Let us ask the question I asked in connection with the truck driver and the traffic accident situation. What is the justification for any difference at all? I am not denying that there is some justification for a difference, and I hope I will have time to deal with that, but I want to make the point that in modern times that is the way to approach the question. The right way to do it is to say that a person who works on Parliament Hill,

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
prima facie, or from the outset, should have at least the same rights as people who work elsewhere in society. We should challenge those who want to deprive people on the Hill of equal rights. We should challenge them to give their reasons. What possible public interest is served by a member of the staff of this place, a member of the staff of a Member of Parliament or someone who works in the cafeteria, not having the same bargaining privileges and the same fundamental employment rights as Canadians who work in cafeterias away from here, as Canadians who work in other institutions or work for other executives or individuals than Members of Parliament? Yet when we look at Bill C-45, which has been brought forward by the Government, it tends in an unanalytical way to assert that those who work in this place should not be given the kinds of rights that other Canadians enjoy.
I want to refer to a precedent brought to my attention. One of the most fundamental rights in the private workforce is the right to strike. Even so far as the right to strike is concerned, in the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and Australia employees have the full right to strike the same as the rest of the people in society. You can imagine all kinds of horrible scenarios in which one would want Parliament to be able to function in circumstances when a strike might be wanted by some or even a large number of the employees here. But such hypothetical circumstances have not occurred and have not materialized either in the United Kingdom or in Australia. In those two countries, where I am told the right to strike is available to public servants, there has been no difficulty resulting or impeding the proper functioning of society.
Surely it is possible to devise a set of rules, and there are precedents even within the area of the Public Service itself, for essential jobs on Parliament Hill, the job for example, of calling us together. I see people sitting at the Table who I know would be quite sympathetic if they had no right to strike because of the very essential nature of the work that they do compared, let us say, to employees who work in the cafeteria or employees who work in Members' offices. But no effort has been made to approach the problem from that point of view, to try to find the mininum restriction to put on the free market rights, the free employment rights of the people covered by this legislation. The approach has been totally the other way.
While I think it is possible to draw a list, and the list would be a very short one, of employees within this place who ought not to have the right to strike, which would enable the right to strike to be broadly available to everyone else, and while one hopes that strikes would not result, that arbitration would be resorted to as it is in most cases where there is a breakdown in negotiations within the Public Service, there is no need to provide for compulsory arbitration or to eliminate the right to strike. In fact, reflecting on it, even compulsory arbitration would be better than the system which I understand applies under Bill C-45, where very little effort is made to approach the question in an open way to try to make employment on Parliament Hill as normal as general employment in the
Public Service or as general employment in the Canadian market-place.
I can remember the period in the 1960s when it was generally held that public servants should not have the right to strike at all. That was the situation in which the Pearson Government, I believe it was, introduced the first legislation recognizing and permitting a right to strike and a right to collective bargaining within the Public Service. I do not think anyone would want to look back and see that right removed, because there will be hundreds of thousands of people affected by it if one looks at just the machinery of Government. But looking at the larger Canadian national scene, looking at Crown corporations, one adds immediately hundreds of thousands more people who would be excluded completely from having the normal rights enjoyed by Canadians generally in the workplace and which one has a good argument for constraining in their case.
Earlier in the debate the issue was raised of the decision of the court yesterday which held that the Canadian Labour Code did not apply to the public servants covered by this Bill. The argument was made that that case should not be referred to because of the sub judice rule. The sub judice rule is getting a new life in this Parliament. Ministers opposite do not have to answer questions if they do not want. They can give any answer they like, if they choose to give any answer at all, to questions asked. As an excuse for unsatisfactory and incomplete answers they are saying that a matter is sub judice.
The other day the rule of sub judice was invoked in a case before any charges had been laid. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) invoked the rule in a matter in which there was no litigation under way. Members on this side of the House, and hopefully even some on the other side of the House, will take a very strong opposing position on attempts to use that rule too broadly.
Two very important conflicting interests are at issue when the sub judice rule is invoked. On the one hand, we want courts to be able to proceed without undue influence from debate in the Parliament of Canada characterizing witnesses or commenting on the guilt or innocence of the accused, the situation of the victim, or the dastardly nature of the alleged crime. That is a very important consideration. The right to a trial in which the evidence is presented before the presiding authority without pressure and influence from outside is a very important consideration.
On the other hand stands the importance of debate in this place. It is important that the Government be fully accountable to the Canadian people for Government activities and matters for which Ministers are responsible. It is totally unsatisfactory for Ministers to invoke the sub judice rule in order to avoid their responsibilities for answering questions about ongoing police investigations or other areas such as this in which the Government is responsible for bringing forward
April 25, 1986

and defending legislation dealing with the unionization of an important category of public servants.
I do not want to reflect upon the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that the Chair will take the unprecedented initiative of calling it to the attention of a Minister when the sub judice rule is wrongly invoked. Regardless of how many excuses the Government seeks for not giving forthcoming and complete answers, at least it will not be able to find refuge in abuse of the sub judice rule.
I hope the Government will delay pressing ahead with this legislation until the full implications of yesterday's court decision are known. I hope also that it will allow the amendments which will bring employment in this place into line with employment elsewhere in the Public Service and the entire country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) for his excellent speech in the House this afternoon. I am sure all Hon. Members on both sides now more clearly understand the application of the sub judice rule and how it has been too frequently invoked and abused by the Tories.
I believe it was the Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) who said earlier that we should not be discussing this issue because of the sub judice rule. He said something to the effect of this precluding members of the Government from speaking on this issue. This begs a very interesting question. Could my hon. colleague, who is learned in the law, inform us whether the sub judice rule applies differently to Government Members than to Opposition Members? I, frankly, would doubt that very much.
If the sub judice rule applies at all, which most of us question very seriously, why on earth are we discussing the Bill at this time? In order to avoid all doubt, why do we not withdraw the item from the Order Paper and wait until the court process is complete before putting it back on the Order Paper. I think that would be very wise in order to allay any fears of breaking the rule of sub judice. Would my learned colleague share with us his thoughts on the suggestion I have just made?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for the kind words he said about me, and also for the interesting question which he asked. I have difficulty thinking of any civil litigation to which the sub judice rule should apply. It may apply under combines legislation where the plaintiff is a private party who represents a Department of the Government, but that is not normal private civil litigation. However, the sub judice rule should certainly not be dragged into every civil case, and that is what we are talking about here. It is a simple civil case which involves no criminal jurisdiction at all.
With regard to whether sub judice applies to Government Members any differently than it does to Opposition Members, as I understand it, the rule applies to all equally and to whatever any Member might otherwise feel free to say in this
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
place. In a sense it is a voluntary constraint because, to my knowledge, the Speaker has never risen to prevent a Member from violating the sub judice rule. If a Member chooses to do so, he takes the responsibility. The result might be that a case will be dismissed.
I recall a very recent situation in Quebec where a criminal case was proceeding and a witness was called for the Crown. Premier Levesque of Quebec did not think much of that witness and attacked the credibility of the witness from the legislature. The case was dismissed. It will never be satisfactorily determined whether the accused was guilty or innocent. That case demonstrates the importance of the sub judice rule being respected, and also the absence of any recourse against a Member who chooses to violate the rule.
It is a different situation to plead the rule. With regard to this the responsibilities of Members are the same, but a Member who is asked a question or is called upon to comment on a matter and chooses not to do so because of the sub judice rule should think very carefully before invoking it. I invite the Chair, in future cases, to contribute to the deliberations of an individual about whether he should invoke this rule.
While I would not want to tell my friend that any one Member here has a greater responsibility to respect the rule than any other, I would hope that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, above all, would make his use of the rule a model for all Members of Parliament. It should not be used unless it is precisely justified by the question he is asked and the circumstances he wants to address in giving his answer.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member. Government Members seem to be invoking these rather bizarre and inapplicable rules in order to remain silent. This is particularly true of those Government Members who represent areas in the Ottawa-Hull region. Does he feel those members on the Government side are shirking their responsibility to their constituents? At the moment all we are discussing is simply an amendment which would bring about a 30-day delay while the implications of the court judgment can be reviewed and discussed with respect to what new decisions the Government is prepared to take to possibly change this legislation. We do not know whether this particular decision is going to be appealed. If it is, there will no doubt be a lengthy process before the resolution of the appeal. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any comment as to why Government Members have been strangely silent, have in fact abdicated their responsibility to their constituents on this issue?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am as surprised about that as my colleague indicated she is in the way she phrased her question. After all, when one looks at the distribution of public servants in this country, a lot of them are represented here by Conservative Members. They are close to the Government and should be

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
conveying the concerns of their constituents who happen to be public servants. I do not want to suggest that a Member representing a strongly public servant riding should think only of their side. There no doubt are issues on which one has to decide whether to support something the public servants want or look at the other side and the way the country in general feels about it. However, that has nothing to do with the responsibility to be aware of what is happening and be prepared to come forward and express your constituent's point of view.
Each of us is called on to represent a diverse riding. As issues arise which affect one group more particularly than others, that group is definitely entitled to look to their Member of Parliament. Therefore, I am not going to comment on their absence from the House. It is Friday afternoon and that is not something to be commented on. However, it is important to note that they have done nothing at all to give us that extra time. The amendment calls for a month, but it could be just as easily six weeks. Whatever it is, some period of time is needed in which to get the reasons for judgment, review them, decide whether there is going to be an appeal, and permit the groups concerned to reformulate the briefs they have submitted to us in light of this important decision yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment calling for a 30-day hoist of Bill C-45. This Bill is an attempt to place the employees on Parliament Hill under the ageis of collective bargaining. The workers on Parliament Hill serve Members of Parliament. They work in the restaurants and cafeterias. They bring us back and forth in those little green buses. They answer to our beck and call and take messages between offices. We send them to get our laundry, take our suits to be pressed and our shoes to be shined. I want to tell you that the Members of Parliament are a pampered lot. They are served and ministered to around here in a sort of master/slave relationship.


Mr. Kempling:: Oh, that's sick.


John R. Rodriguez: We have touched a very sensitive nerve over on the Government side. I would hope they would be so touched that they would get up and participate in this debate, because I want to hear the Government rationale for this garbage called Bill C-45. It is supposed to protect workers and allow them to bargain collectively on the Hill.
One of the things we hear a lot about in Parliament is its historical privilege. You cannot do anything to infringe on the privileges of a Member of Parliament. Creeping into Bill C-45 is the suggestion that somehow or other the privileges of Parliament must be continued. We must not allow the workers on the Hill to not take our shoes to be shined. We must have the bus go directly from the Confederation Building to the Centre Block without stopping at the West Block if there is an underling on the bus. Do you know that if a Member of Parliament is on the bus coming from the Confederation
Building to the Centre Block and there is a lowly messenger on the bus who has to get off at the West Block, that driver is going to bring the Hon. Member of Parliament all the way to Centre Block without stopping at the West Block. That is because he says the Members have privilege! Privilege! The Government wants to ensconce in Bill C-45 a master/slave relationship.
Do the workers on Parliament Hill deserve collective bargaining rights? The answer is an unequivocal yes, they deserve it. They do not deserve it in half measures. They do not deserve it with this built-in protection for what is called, in parliamentary language, privilege. One of the things the Government is concerned about is that these people will go on strike. I know a lot of the Conservatives come from the ivory towers of the corporate world and they have a certain bias against collective bargaining in the first place. They say we cannot have these workers going on strike. If they go on strike, somehow or other that interferes with the so-called sacred privilege which Members of Parliament enjoy when they do the work of the nation. Some out there might argue that if a Parliament did not sit and closed down for a couple of weeks maybe the taxpayers would save a pile of money!
It is funny that this whole question of privilege that Members of Parliament are supposed to have comes from the mother of Parliaments at Westminster. We always go back, as some sort of touchstone, and say, "This is the way it was at Westminster, the mother of Parliaments. That is where our system comes from." At Westminster the employees in the Parliament are unionized; they have full collective bargaining rights with the right to strike. What has the Government done here?
You think I was kidding when I talked about the master-slave relationship. Well, there are such relationships. Mr. Lloyd Francis pointed out in his interviews, which are on tape in the Library of Parliament, some of the things that took place on the Hill. He was the Speaker of this Chamber and he pointed out that there was sexual harassment. Unless a woman was prepared to take her clothes off she could not get a job or she could not get a promotion. He pointed out clearly that nepotism was rampant on the Hill. This place has been like an enclave disconnected from the realities of what is happening in the private sector and the public sector off the Hill. Are the workers on this Hill not entitled to the same sort of collective rights as the workers at Inco or Ford Motor Company, or workers anywhere else in this country? Are they not entitled to bargain collectively to protect their rights on the job? The answer is yes.
We know, for example, there is an abuse on the Hill because there is no protection of a collective agreement. I had workers from the restaurant in the Cafeteria of the Parliament coming to me last summer because they were working overtime and they were not getting paid for the overtime they worked in the subsequent pay, but were getting it six months later. If they
April 25, 1986

had expenses to put out such as child care, travel costs, they had to put all that out to come back here to work overtime. They did not get their overtime pay in the subsequent paycheck and they had to wait six months to get the overtime. If it were a tradesman on the Hill he got his overtime pay in the next check.
I had to write a letter to the head of the administration over in Vatican II across the road, they call it South Block. I had to write to the head honcho and say, "Look, why do these people have to wait six months to get what is theirs, what they have worked for?" Suddenly after a week they got their overtime pay. There is no reason at all for that.
There are other examples. Employees of the Library of Parliament were denied maternity benefits for a full year after such benefits were finally extended to House of Commons employees. The Library administration said it was an administrative error. We had the case of Library employees who worked side by side in the same office, doing the same job, with the same responsibilities, yet classified differently and at significantly different salary levels. Indexers in the Library of Parliament earn an average of $6,000 a year less than people doing the same job for the House of Commons.
In the Cafeteria service an employee cut his hand on the job and was told to visit the nurse. The nurse told him it was not safe to work and he should go home. The manager told the employee he either got his butt back on the job or he would face discipline. There is no system, there is no method. You cannot impose it from the top, the worker has to sit across from the employer and they have to negotiate.
When you look at Bill C-45 you ask yourself where are the shortcomings? Why is the New Democratic Party opposed to Bill C-45? Because, in fact, Bill C-45 is almost the son of the PSSRA, the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We know from experience that the PSSRA caused enough problems with the workers in the Post Office. That is why they fought so hard and so long to be taken out from under the PSSRA and put under the Canada Labour Code. We were all part of that fight, because the Public Service Staff Relations Act limits what things can be negotiated. For example, under the PSSRA you cannot negotiate technological change, and under the Canada Labour Code you can. There is the whole question of staffing, grievances, the right to strike, and the question of classification; there are limitations in the Public Service Staff Relations Act that are not in the best interests of workers.
This Government has chosen to introduce Bill C-45 with all of its shortcomings and it is asking this Parliament to accept them. It is asking this Party, which is a labour party, to accept Bill C-45 as adequate. As a matter of fact the workers themselves do not want Bill C-45. There are far too many limitations in Bill C-45. Any collective bargaining act must have important factors such as classification. They ought to be able to negotiate job descriptions, the assignments of pay levels, and the evaluation of duties. Presently, as I have pointed out, job descriptions are changed arbitrarily by the powers that be over at Vatican II. All that does is result in frustration, poor
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
morale and ultimately second class service to the honchos in the House of Commons.
Bill C-45 excludes classification from negotiations so the employees on the Hill would not be able to negotiate job classification, that area where some of the greatest injustices take place on the Hill at the present time. Under the PSSRA you cannot negotiate job classification. The Bill does not allow the employees to negotiate staffing. Unfair job appointments, promotions, demotions, transfers, etc., cannot be grieved to third party arbitration. There is no conciliation process in Bill C-45 on these matters.
We have a history of nepotism on the Hill. There was a time when, if an M. P. had a third cousin from a sixth uncle, fifth removed, he could get a job on the Hill. There are some people on the Hill who somehow or other ended up working in the Cafeteria of the House of Commons because they knew a friend of a friend who knew an M. P.


An Hon. Member:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, yes, absolutely. It has been known to happen. "You have to have connections" as it said in Death of a Salesman. This Bill does not-


Don Boudria: Say that outside the House.


John R. Rodriguez: Why is the Hon. Member so sensitive? Did I mention a name?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am listening with great interest to the Hon. Member, but with reference to his comments on that restaurant employee who could have become a Member of Parliament, I do not think he has to give his name in order for us to know very well who that person is. I would hope the Hon. Member who is well known for his oratory would stick to the legislation. We are listening carefully, but I do not see why he should attack one of our colleagues. We know very well who is involved and I find that really unfair, as we say in English!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has the floor on debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where all this sensitivity comes from. I pointed out that nepotism on the Hill has been historical. The fact that this Bill does not allow one to negotiate staffing means that we can very well end up continuing the same process. I did not name any names, but if there

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
are insensitivities in this chamber, so be it. I say, if the hat fits, wear it.
Let me deal with grievances. Any collective bargaining must permit the employees to negotiate grievances. Bill C-45 does not allow workplace problems to be addressed by union grievances. For example, health and safety problems in the print shop and cafeteria, or air quality environmental problems in the Wellington building cannot be subject to a union grievance. Technological change cannot be grieved under Bill C-45. All of these remain management rights, but do not just touch the rights of management, they affect the workers. Technology on the Hill has moved ahead rapidly. Yet, Bill C-45 does not allow workers to grieve technological change. Can you imagine that occupational health and safety infractions cannot be grieved.
What is the purpose of Bill C-45 if there is no right to strike? The workers retain the right to remove their services if an impasse comes. I do not believe that the employees on the Hill are any different from others in the workforce. They do not go out on strike every year. Statistics show that 93.7 per cent of all contracts in this country up for negotiation are settled without a strike. We cannot take seriously any suggestion that in 1986 the whole operation of Parliament would grind to a halt and somehow our ancient privileges would be breached if the workers on Parliament Hill go on strike. Bill C-45 would give limited bargaining rights to workers on the Hill, because it does not cover all the employees on the Hill. The workers in the cafeteria, the restaurant, and the Library, and the bus drivers and messengers are covered by Bill C-45. However, the employees who work for MPs, Senators and the Speaker are not covered by Bill C-45. The fact is that we are eliminating about 1,200 employees from any coverage whatsoever.
We in the New Democratic Party entered into an agreement with our employees. We have a parliamentary association of support staff which is called PASS. We negotiate within the limitations of what the House allows and we have put in place a grievance procedure. We have established a technological change clause. We have tried to implement with our employees an agreement about all of those items under our direct control and which we can negotiate. I believe we have given an example of a process that other political parties in this chamber ought to consider with their staffs as an interim measure, but interim measure only.
Any collective bargaining process must have certification. It must allow the employees to have a process to apply for certification. Bill C-45 states that applications for certification must be made to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. If normal Public Service Staff Relations Board procedures were followed, existing cards would be void, due to being untimely. All these cards that the workers have signed in their application to the Canadian Labour Relations Board and subsequently through their appeal board would be wiped out. They would be starting from scratch. It seems to me that this whole process
in Bill C-45 is a thinly veiled attempt at union busting. That is what it is.
In conclusion, this Parliament of Canada ought to be an example of how we treat employees. It should be a shining example and a beacon to the private sector throughout the land, that this is how the Members of Parliament deal with their staff, the people who serve them and help them perform their duties to the best of their ability. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to make some comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I listened to him very attentively because I do have considerable interest in the fate of the employees of the House of Commons. As the House knows, I am the only former employee of this institution to have been fortunate enough to be elected to represent a constituency. During his remarks, the Hon. Member alluded to a certain Member who had been previously on staff. Of course, there is only one, as you know very well. I will come back to that in a moment.
The Member stated that he believed that a number of Canadians would think we would perhaps be better off sometimes if this Parliament was shut down for a period of time. I really take offence to that remark, because I think it is the greatest honour and privilege of all of us, to serve our constituents in the House of Commons. To suggest that the role is worth anything less than that does no service, not only for the employees of this House we are defending, or pretending to defend, when speaking on this Bill, but it does no service for the constituents we represent here in Parliament.
Let me deal with the Hon. Member's remarks concerning past harrassment of employees, nepotism and so on. There are employees in the House who have been working on Parliament Hill for many years. Yes, the practices that were in place perhaps did not have all the redeeming qualities they might have had, and it is quite true that perhaps all the formal structures to ensure that there never was favouritism were not there. However, to claim that throughout the years the employees who have been working here for all these years are somewhat less than qualified does no service to them.


John R. Rodriguez: Put your question.


Cyril Keeper: Let us hear the question.


Don Boudria: My final comment concerns the remark that was made in regard to myself and how I got my job on Parliament Hill. I am not ashamed of my humble beginnings. I started here on October 25, 1966, as a bus boy for the parliamentary restaurant making $44 a week in salary. When I walked to Parliament Hill to ask the manager of the parliamentary restaurant for a job on that day-


Édouard Desrosiers: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
April 25, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers), on a point of order.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I think we are here to discuss Bill C-45. Some sort of trial is being staged in this House. In my view, he does not have to defend himself on account of what the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) said earlier. No one in particular was attacked, no name was mentioned. So he is bringing him up for trial, and I for one am asking to return to the matter of Bill C-45, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: Of course, I will continue my comments in this period for questions or comments regarding the Hon. Member's speech. I am almost finished, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) will take all the time he requires.
I want to repeat to the Hon. Member that I am not ashamed of those humble beginnings. It is a feature which I think assists me in representing my constituents in the House of Commons. It is a feature not often found in silk stocking socialists and one perhaps which would be required by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to start comparing my humble beginnings with the Hon. Member's humble beginnings. I do not want to get into a spitting match. First, I alluded to people who may have come into the House of Commons. I did not name anyone.


Don Boudria: There is only one.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not know what particular Members of Parliament have paraded through this House of Commons over the last 15, 20 or 25 years. Furthermore, I do not back away from my comment about possibly closing the House. There was a whole lot of bell ringings which closed down the House of Commons for two weeks, three weeks or whatever. Members of Parliament did not concern themselves about the importance of Parliament then. The Liberals in this session have tried to pattern themselves after the Tories when during the last Parliament they closed the place down. I did not hear any great concern about the importance of this place making laws. The Hon. Member knows this is a political arena and I wish he would stop this nonsense.


Claudy Mailly: Maybe to you it is.


John R. Rodriguez: Second, the Hon. Member is the last one to cast aspersions on me. Every single day he casts aspersions on government Members in the House. He throws mud all the time across the Chamber. Now some of it gets stuck on him and he does not like it. I am sorry. I have been noted to call a spade a spade and I will repeat that people got their positions working on this Hill because of whom they knew, not because of what they knew. There were no competitions on the Hill. I do not back away from that.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
I am saying that the Hon. Member had ample opportunity, if he knew all of those things were wrong, to convince the Liberal administration, of which he was a member, and he could have perhaps forced the Liberal Government to bring in some legislation to give protection to workers on the Hill. At least the Conservative Party had enough courage to bring Bill C-45 forward. At least that is something, as bad as it is. It shows a lot more courage than the Liberals showed when they were the Government for 16 years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) for a question or comment.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) refer to the cafeteria service earlier in his remarks. I would like to know whether under Bill C-45 this Government could not have done something else concerning the cafeteria service. We know this is a major problem. Nobody is happy. Given this Bill, would the Hon. Member allow the Government to decide for instance to privatize everything in the way of restaurants, cafeterias, and so on? Would the Hon. Member allow that?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, first let me say I welcome at least the attempts by the Hon. Member to try to resolve some of the problems. I would suggest that rather than privatizing the cafeterias and the restaurant, we sit down at committee stage to beef up and tighten up Bill C-45. If we can get that commitment, we can give the workers the opportunity to negotiate some of the injustices in the Bill. I would not want to privatize the cafeterias and the restaurant because I know that turning them over to the "whirly whips", or whatever the fast-food outlet is called, would be worse. We have an opportunity to correct the injustices in Bill C-45. I take the Hon. Member's question as a serious commitment to resolving some of the inconsistencies and injustices in the Bill.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we would recommend to the Hon. Members opposite. We would like the Bill to be referred to committee, as required, where it could be improved upon specifically in the direction suggested by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and in other directions also because there are other aspects of the Bill we would like to have improved. So that is the suggestion. I am going to ask him a question.

The purpose of this part of the Bill-

We are talking about one aspect of the Bill, in Clause 5. [English]
The purpose of this Part is to provide to certain persons employed in Parliamentary service collective bargaining and other rights in respect of their employment.

April 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act [Translation]
I would like to ask him this: Those people who are covered by this legislation, what are their rights now? Do they have the right to collective bargaining? Are they allowed to join an employee organization? Or will the Bill give them for the first time a chance to join an employee organization?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member prefaced her question with some remarks, but we are debating principle here. In all honesty, we have been trying to put forward the kinds of principles we stand for as a Party and we are trying to exchange ideas about where the Bill is lacking. I hope to hear from members of the Conservative Party as to whether they agree that some of these things can be improved so that we can, in debate on principle, at least go into committee knowing that there is a meeting of minds. At the present time the cafeteria and restaurant employees, the messengers and bus drivers, are not covered by any collective agreement. In fact this Bill would give them collective bargaining rights but because it is based on the Public Service Staff Relations Act there are shortcomings which have created a great deal of hardship where it applies at the present moment. Bill C-45, because it incorporates that Act, would in fact create the same problems for employees on the Hill. How can we say to workers: "You cannot grieve occupational health and safety complaints"? That is their main-


Claudy Mailly: It's covered under the Canada Labour Code.


John R. Rodriguez: When Bill C-45 comes into effect, they are covered-


Claudy Mailly: Part 4 puts it under the Labour Code.


John R. Rodriguez: But the grievance procedures are under Bill C-45. What the employees can grieve is outlined in-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, could I ask the Hon. Member to conclude as we have passed his allotted time?


John R. Rodriguez: I will conclude by saying the same thing about other issues. I invite Hon. Members to participate in debate. I would like to go into committee with a meeting of minds in terms of broad principles.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak for a few minutes in the debate on Bill C-45, especially since the amendment we are discussing now was presented by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), an amendment aimed at obtaining a 30-day postponement, which makes perfect sense. In fact, my hon. friend from Hamilton East has a long record of protecting unionized employees, who represent a substantial part of the workers in the steel town she represents so well in Parliament. In fact, she presented this amendment so that there would be time to examine the Court ruling we have just received today.
The Canada Labour Relations Board had decided that employees of the House of Commons had the right to organize for the purpose of setting up a union. It had recognized that right, and in fact, certain steps had been taken.
Strangely enough, the Government appealed this decision before the court. Actually, the Government should be asked to clarify its attitude, because by tabling Bill C-45, it seems to want to allow the employees to organize. So why appeal the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board, which had granted the employees this right or rather, recognized their right to do so, since I believe the employees have had this right for a long time but never used it.
Mr. Speaker, I think I can say why the Government acted this way. It is because if the employees had availed themselves of the right given them by the Canada Labour Relations Board, they would have organized in their own way and would have tried to negotiate with the Government on the basis of what they believed to be reasonable. But that is not what the Government wanted. The Government preferred to have the employees organize according to the formula defined in Bill C-45, and that is the crux of the problem. Because I think that Bill C-45, and I am not alone in this, will not give House employees sufficient protection nor sufficient means to get their point of view across when they face the employer at the bargaining table.
This is why I would suggest that the amendment of my colleague for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) is quite justified. Negotiations were already under way when the Canada Labour Relations Board made its ruling-I respect the judgment of the court, it was made by a court because Canadian legislation is interpreted by the courts. I respect the ruling, but I must emphasize it came after negotiations had begun, and in a way it throws a monkey wrench into the works.
Therefore I think it would be useful if we were to defer debate on this Bill for a few days-my colleague from Hamilton East recommends two months-so as to consider the full impact of the court ruling and analyze its consequences. We would then be in a much better position to hold a meaningful debate on Bill C-45.
Strangely enough, most back-benchers on the Government side appear unwilling to take part in the debate on this measure. Earlier this morning, I am told, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) resorted to the sub judice argument to explain why very few of his Progressive Conservative Party colleagues would join today's debate on Bill C-45. Ridiculous, the court ruling is out and the issue is no longer before the courts. In fact, any Member who feels that the question of labour relations on Parliament Hill is important ought to seek the floor and speak out. Besides, Bill C-45 has a number of shortcomings and could stand some improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention and that of the House to some of the deficiencies in this Bill. For instance, Clause 5(3), which deals with classification would prevent any
April 25, 1986

negotiation for classification problems, such as those related to job descriptions, the level of pay and job evaluations.
How could we imagine that employees who work for us on Parliament Hill would be satisfied with a collective bargaining system which does not allow for the negotiation of classification matters? This would mean that the classification level of an employee could be changed arbitrarily by management without the employee or his representatives being able to negotiate this matter with the employer. It is unthinkable. This would mean a bargaining system much weaker that those which exist in the private sector. Yet, Mr. Speaker, if there is one place in Canada which should serve as a model for collective bargaining and employee protection systems, it is certainly the House of Commons.
If those who work for the Ministers and the Members of Parliament, and thus for the Canadian public, are not well protected and do not have a satisfactory system or collective agreement, how can this be held up as an example for the private sector, where workers are often prevented from organizing and are given as few benefits as possible?
As concerns the classification system, I would like to quote some of the views expressed by the Public Service Alliance of Canada: "The present classification system has evolved throughout the years in the very special environment of Parliament Hill. People there say: 'This is the source of a lot of employee discontent. Many employees have no job description. Those who have feel that they are outdated, frequently and arbitrarily amended in an environment which recently witnessed major technological changes. This situation-"
I am quoting the Public Service Alliance.
"-is a source of frustration, insecurity and a very low morale among employees."
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that merely by this text which I have just quoted from, it becomes abundantly clear that clause 5(3) of Bill C-45 is not good enough. We want employees who are happy, who have a part to play in the determination of their salary levels and who have a say in the assessment of their performance.
We do not want the arbitrary which has reigned for so many years over employer-employees relations on the Hill to continue. If we have to deal with a bill such as Bill C-45 to set the bargaining rules between employer and employees, we want to start on the right foot. There has never been a global protection scheme for Parliament employees on the Hill.
Therefore, on this side of the House, we are saying that if we are to start on the right foot, we should not accept this Bill which, in the opinion of several House Members and employees-you have heard the objections put forward by House Members, Mr. Speaker, and I support them-is not satisfactory.
I feel, therefore, that it would be reasonable to have the amendment moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) be put and that Hon. Members
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
should support it, especially those on the Governement's side: those who have taken part in this debate so far have been few and far between. That would provide them with the opportunity to think this over for a few days and take part in the debate some 30 days hence, when the period suggested by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is expired.
I do not want to speak any longer, Mr. Speaker. I think we should vote immediately on my colleague's amendment, because I feel it is a major one which should logically allow us to study with a clear mind the consequences of the Court's ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. The problems which led employees on the Hill to organize and seek collective bargaining rights had to do with classification, promotion and staffing decisions. However, questions with respect to these areas are not dealt with in the legislation which is before us. How is it that the Government can possibly think that Bill C-45 will resolve the labour-management difficulties on Parliament Hill when the Bill does not deal at all with the root causes of the discontent? The legislation fails to deal with these areas which led to organizing in the first place. Could the Hon. Member please comment on my remarks?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is entirely right. What he has just said is a summary of my speech. When some of the main elements normally found in a collectively-bargained contract are not found in this legislation then I say that it is faulty. The Government should go back to the drawing-board. This is exactly what I have been saying. In fact, there is little more I can say. The items outlined by the Hon. Member should be subject to negotiation. The employees should have a say in how they are classified, paid and so on. It was the purpose of my speech to point that out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-45, and Act respecting employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time one month hence."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 25, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the recorded division stands deferred until 6 p.m. on Monday, April 28, 1986.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1977 MEASURE TO AMEND
Harvie Andre: that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it were 10 minutes to four, I would have more luck, but I wonder if the House Leader would consider calling it four o'clock so that we may call the Private Member's Bill, because those who would like to participate-I see that there is no cooperation.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move the second reading of Bill C-96 which amends Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1977. Let me begin with the purpose of the Bill.
This Bill involves the implementation of a key element of the Government's over-all Fiscal plan. It follows a long process of consultation with the provinces over the past year or more which has involved both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). This process began following the Government's November 1984 Economic Statement which laid out the basic parameters of the strategy for reducing the federal deficit and securing national economic renewal. The May 1985 Budget subsequently confirmed that the financial transfer that the federal Government provides to the provinces would be included in deficit reduction so as to spread expenditure restraint as broadly and as fairly as possible.
Specifically, this Bill determines the future growth of the transfers that the federal Government provides to the provinces for health and post-secondary education under what is known as established programs Financing or EPF. In essence, this Bill does two things. First, it moderates the growth of EPF transfers as part of a general effort to restore stability to federal finances. By slowing the annual growth of these transfers by two percentage points, the deficit will be lower in 1990 and 1991 by $2 billion. Second, it provides continued strong support for provincial health and post-secondary education programs.
Under the provisions of this Bill, EPF transfers will be large and they will grow substantially in the years ahead. The average growth over the next five years is expected to be about 5 per cent on the basis of current economic projections. In total, the federal Government expects to provide over $90 billion during this period or about $25 billion more than was provided over the last five years.
The reasons for moderating the growth of EPF transfers together with the growth of the federal program expenditures generally are well known. As the Minister of Finance reported in his recent Budget, the Government is faced with a debt problem of massive proportions. For years, more and more spending has been financed by borrowing more and more money and for years the Government has had to borrow billions of dollars just to pay the interest on past loans. As a country, we have been mortgaging our future year by year and paying the interest by taking out a new loan. That is the reality with which the Government has had to deal, the reality that threatened rising debt, falling confidence, a falling dollar, rising interest rates, slower growth and even higher deficits.
It is inevitable that transfers to the provinces be included in the broad effort to deal with this problem. These transfers now represent a major proportion of total federal budgetary expenditures. Cash transfers alone now amount to about $20 billion or about 20 per cent of federal budgetary expenditures. There is also a further $7 billion in revenue forgone by the federal Government through the provision of tax transfers.

However, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the economic renewal plan of this Government is not simply to reduce the federal deficit. Essentially, its purpose is to allow the Federal Government to continue to finance important public services in coming years.

It is a matter of basic arithmetic. The more the federal Government has to pay spiralling service charges on a mounting national debt, the less it will have available to fund important programs like health and post-secondary education. In effect, our ability to meet the needs of Canadians in the years ahead will simply be eaten away by our debt problem. That is not an eventuality which any responsible Government wishes to contemplate.
April 25, 1986



These are the reasons why the Federal Government is acting and acting now to put an end to this vicious circle and to put the federal finances on a solid base.

I would like to explain now how this Bill fits into the over-all fiscal plan of the Government. I should emphasize First of all that the burden of federal deficit reduction is not being borne by transfers to the provinces. It is being borne by other federal program expenditures. As I indicated earlier, the growth of the cash and tax transfers which together make up the federal EPF contribution is expected to average about 5 per cent over the next five years. Federal program expenditures generally will be growing much more slowly.
As indicated in the February 26 Budget, federal program spending this year will actually decline. For the remainder of the decade, federal program expenditures are expected to grow by an average of about 3.2 per cent. Total federal budgetary expenditures which include public debt charges is expected to grow by about 4 per cent.
Let us look at federal support for health and post-secondary education. In short, provincial health care and post-secondary education programs will be receiving more federal support than almost any other area. This is in keeping with the high priority the Government attaches to health care and postsecondary education. Nor are transfers to the provinces the only support the federal Government is providing for health care and post-secondary education.

As the provinces are mainly responsible for the provision of these services, the major part of the federal assistance is naturally assured under the transfer system. In 1985-86, these transfers amounted to nearly $15 billion.

However, there is also a substantial direct federal contribution to these areas. In the health area, an additional $1.5 billion is provided in the various health service programs carried out by National Health and Welfare and other Departments including Labour, Indian and Northern Affairs, National Defence, Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Solicitor General.
On the post-secondary education side, there is a further $1,100 million in funding of provincial bilingualism in education programs, support for university research through the granting councils, the Canada Student Loan Program and other support. The tax system also provides support in the form of various tax deductions and exemptions for medical and education expenses and for certain goods used in the health and education fields.
[ Translation]
In addition to these contributions, the Federal Government helps lower income provinces through equalization payments which now amount to $5 million more each year and which
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
can be used to support important public services, such as health care and post-secondary education.
Let us look at consultation with the provinces to assure the House that the maximum possible consultation has taken place with those who are most directly affected by EPF.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, EPF's transfers are authorized under federal legislation. This is not subject to any particular time frame and it can be amended by Parliament at any time. Nonetheless, we have consulted extensively with provinces in keeping with our desire to work as closely as possible with them. We have discussed the over-all fiscal plan and the need to restore federal fiscal responsibility. We have also tried, where possible, to accommodate provincial concerns regarding the future growth of EPF transfers.
Ministers of Finance met immediately following the November, 1984 Economic Statement. Provincial Ministers subsequently sought and obtained an assurance that no changes would be made in EPF transfers in 1985-86.
The May 1985 Budget confirmed the Government's intention to provide substantial growth in transfers, while at the same time moderating that growth by some $2 billion annually by the end of the decade. There followed an extensive series of consultations on implementation of the measure beginning in 1986-87.

In the context of this consultation process, the Ministers of Finance met immediately after the May Budget, at the end of September, in early November and in late December.
The matter was also discussed at the First Ministers' meeting in Halifax last November.

These discussions proved helpful in coming to a specific decision on how the future growth of EPF transfers should be determined.
As Hon. Members are aware, the EPF arrangements replaced cost-sharing in 1977 with the mutual consent of the federal Government and the provinces. Federal support for provincial health care and post-secondary education programs is now based on an equal per-capita federal contribution, whose growth is linked to the growth of the economy as a whole and the population in each province. These contributions take the form of cash and tax transfers under the EPF "block fund", which provinces allocate to specific programs according to their demands and priorities.
The discussions with the provinces suggested that an EPF growth formula linked to Gross National Product and population remains the fairest way of supporting provincial health and post-secondary education programs.

April 25, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Now we come to the amendments. You can see, therefore, that the main provision of this Bill does not make any changes in the basic way in which the growth of EPF cash and tax transfers is now determined, Mr. Speaker. This will continue to be linked to the growth of the economy generally and to population increase in each province, as it is now. EPF transfers will also continue to be based on the fundamental principle that they represent an equal per capita contribution for every Canadian. The only difference is that from 1986-87, the per capita amount will grow by 0.02 per cent less. This means that each province can expect to receive approximately 105 per cent of the previous year's contribution under current economic projections. The figure is approximate because the precise year-to-year increases will continue, as now, to depend on the actual rate of growth of GNP and population.
A secondary, but nonetheless important, part of the Bill is a provision for possible special adjustment payments. Under current economic projections, the EPF transfer as a whole is expected to grow faster than the rate of growth of inflation. However, in the event it does not, the Minister of Finance will be able to make special payments. Any such payments will take the form of equal per capita payments in any given year to all provinces. With the special payment, the rate of growth of the total transfer to all provinces will be equal to the rate of inflation. Such payments would be limited, in the event of extreme inflation, by what the Government would have provided under EPF had the legislation not been changed. Everybody has that straight!
I should emphasize, however, that this provision is not one which we expect will be needed. It has been included as a further measure of protection for the provinces.

To summarize, Mr. Speaker, this Bill shows the determination of this Governement to act in an enlightened, reasonable and fair manner in spite of our present difficult financial position.

The Bill is responsible because it will, along with more stringent measures being undertaken to control federal expenditures, make a significant contribution to ensuring a strong and lasting period of economic renewal in Canada. It will also help to safeguard the federal Government's ability to continue providing vital services like health care and postsecondary education to Canadians in the many years ahead. The Bill is reasonable because it provides increases in federal contributions to provincial health and post-secondary education programs which are large, and it is the best we can afford. Over $90 billion in support over the next five years and average annual gross of about 5 per cent are figures of which we can be proud. The Bill is fair because all provinces are treated equally. Total EPF transfers to all provinces will grow in the years ahead. No province will be affected any more or any less than any other province through this Bill.

Throughout the long period of consultation with the provinces, we have done everything possible to give them the opportunity to adjust to the budgetary imperatives of the Federal Government and to take their concerns into consideration.

I said at the outset of my remarks that this Bill originated with the comprehensive strategy for economic renewal laid out in the agenda which the Government presented in November, 1984 and reinforced in the recent February Budget.
Through this Bill we are implementing an important part of that strategy. We are providing a financial contribution to provinces which is sustainable in current financial terms. It is also an increase which reflects the strong importance the Government attaches to providing health care and postsecondary education services. Together with direct federal funding of these areas, it provides ample evidence of this Government's desire to help provide Canadians with the services they want and need.
However, there is also another part of the over-all strategy. This will take a little more time. In November, 1984, we pointed out that the need to contain costs and reduce deficits is a concern shared by both the federal and provincial Governments. The pressures on scarce financial resources are strong at both levels. We are each constrained in our ability to devote large amounts of new money to programs, even important ones like health care and post-secondary education.

More co-operation is needed between the Federal Government and the provinces. We must determine how to use existing financial resources as efficiently as possible and find new ways to finance these sectors while taking into account our present budgetary position.

These are important considerations, especially in the vital areas of health and post-secondary education. I am pleased to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has begun such discussions with his provincial colleagues. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is also looking forward to discussing co-operation in the post-secondary education area with his counterparts.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there is a need to explore further how the federal and provincial Governments can work more effectively and efficiently together. We want to get on with this once the basic parameters of our financial contribution to provincial programs are in place. I, therefore, hope that all Members of the House will give this Bill their careful consideration and support.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased
April 25, 1986

to be able to take part in the debate on this Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot say that I am pleased to speak on this particular Bill because I think this is one of the most serious actions to be taken against young people in Canada in a long time. We have just gone through the episode of Senator Hebert's fast on behalf of Katimavik. He was on a specialized mission, but the wider issue touched a nerve in Canada, an untapped reservoir of support. The wider issue is the problem of young people in Canada.
Having gone through that experience, the Government now introduces a Bill which will reduce the expected educational funding in the country this year. The provinces expected to receive an increase of 8 per cent in funding from the Government of Canada in cash and tax points. They will now receive an increase of only 6 per cent. The provinces will receive less than they had anticipated. That is the reality. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that there will be an over-all percentage increase from last year's funding. The point is that the increase is less than the provinces expected and counted on getting for the financing of health and post-secondary education.
In my own Province of Newfoundland there will be a reduction of $7 million in 1986-87. Newfoundland will get $7 million less than it had expected. It will have to find that money within its own economy. Over a five-year period the province will receive $48 million less than it expected. That is in the province which has the highest unemployment rate in the country and an economy which is very, very vulnerable, and which has already experienced cut-backs in Government programs. It has seen the lay-off of public servants. It has seen the world oil price plummet, which has put in jeopardy the one great hope which the province had; that is, the development of Hibernia. Newfoundland and other provinces like it will be forced to look to their already weakened economies to make up the disparity in funding. In his attempt to come to grips with inflation at the federal level and to lower the federal deficit, the Minister is passing the problem on to the provincial economies. I am not alone in taking this position. It has been echoed by the Premier of Newfoundland.
There has been a break with tradition with regard to consultation with the provinces and the new stability and harmony in federal-provincial relations. Over the years the federal Government and the provincial Governments negotiated new fiscal arrangements. That did not happen on this occasion. There is a new regime to take over at the end of the present five-year period.
My friend has said that there has been consultation with the provinces. I would like to read to him the reaction of some provincial premiers and ministers. Mr. Peterson from Ontario said: "You don't call it a cut. You could call it a breach of faith. You could call it breaking a promise". In the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of December 4, 1985, Mr. Nixon said: "There was uniform opposition to the Ottawa plan. Nobody thought it was a good idea". In the Gazette of December 13, 1985, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque of Quebec said: "It is unfair to
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the provinces because they have been counting on the amounts agreed to in the accords". In Le Devoir of November 29, 1985, Mr. Hatfield said:

I shall have no other choice but to increase user charges for health services.

Mr. John Baxter, the Finance Minister for New Brunswick, said: "It is unreasonable for a federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level". Mr. Keer from Nova Scotia said: "Every province in there made it clear that there's probably nothing more important to deliver to Canadians than health and education". That is the reaction from the provinces, and I think we must put it on the record. The fact is that the action was taken unilaterally and the provinces do not like this measure. I do not think we should attempt to tell people that they do.
I do not know where the money went, but the first indication we received was that these cut-backs would come only in 1987. We have now been told that the cut-backs will come in 1986. There has obviously been a reorganization of money and that money has gone elsewhere. We know that it is not being spent on health or post-secondary education. We heard some views from the post-secondary education community on this issue as well. Mr. Roger Hamel of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urged the federal Government to spend more on universities. He said that the business community is increasingly concerned that the squeeze on post-secondary education funding will make it impossible for universities to meet the demand for research and development.
Mr. Ed Anderson, the President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said: "Proposed federal cuts to post-secondary education could place a university education beyond the reach of many students". That brings me back to the first point I made, Mr. Speaker. The crisis is in postsecondary education. In this country we now have a generation which the Senate report recently descibed as in danger of becoming a "a lost generation". That is the issue I want to address more than any other.
In my own province, close to 50 per cent of eligible young people are unemployed and have dim prospects. This Bill is one of the most important to come before the Chamber because it touches upon the essence of what kind of country we will have in the future. Young people in the country are concerned about their future. They have dismal hopes and dim prospects for the future. They want, need, and deserve all the help, encouragement, and support that they can get. The Government is now cutting back on the funds which could help them to get their place in the sun, to play the role that only they can play in Canada. We should be making education the number one priority of the country. I do not think we can talk about a trade strategy or an industrial strategy without considering

April 25, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
education. My own opinion is that, rather than cutting back its transfers to education, the Government of Canada should increase them. It should become actively involved with the provinces in devising a national strategy on education. The Johnson report also addressed this issue. He made some recommendations. He said:
It is recommended that the rates of growth of EPF/PSE Fiscal transfers, and of provincial grants to universities and colleges, be harmonized. This would be achieved by:
The affirmation by the Government of Canada of its willingness to escalate its PSE transfers at the rate of increase in GNP and population (the present "escalator"), and an invitation to the provinces to follow the same course in their grants to universities and colleges.
The affirmation by the Government of Canada that, within this context, it would nonetheless respect the priorities adopted by individual provinces for PSE, by escalating its PSE transfers to them at the rates they themselves chose for increasing their grants to universities and colleages-up to the GNP rate.
I do not necessarily agree with that either because I think it simply perpetuates inequality. If you match the provinces dollar for dollar, you will simply be making the rich richer and the poor poorer. There are provinces which cannot keep up with others in the amount they contribute to education. I made the point earlier on that if you pass on the federal deficit to the provinces, then already weak economies have to struggle to make up the difference. I think we have to keep on funding post-secondary education on a per capita basis and I hope to see it at the level it was. I also hope to see some built-in mechanism for ensuring that the money is spent on postsecondary education. There is some fault here on the part of the provincial Governments in how the money is spent. All of the money given to the provinces for post-secondary education and health is not spent on post-secondary education and health. There are no safeguards to ensure that it is. The Government of Canada should build those safeguards in. There should be penalties which would take effect if the money allocated for education and health are not spent in those two areas.
Let me get back to the point I was making that not only should the Government of Canada be spending more money on post-secondary education, it should go farther than that. It should become actively involved in a national strategy for postsecondary education. The health of our economy and society is tied in no small way to the health of post-secondary education. We are going to need liberally-educated men and women who are at the leading edge of their discipline. In an age when one of the few constants is changed, those nations which grow and prosper are the ones that emphasize research and development and have a workforce prepared to meet rapid changes in the market-place.
We have to look at our educational systems across this country in the way the OECD did in 1976. The examiners from that organization came to the following conclusions about the state of Canadian educational policy-making:
The lack of educational policies for the future is striking.
The problem of defining goals for education that fit a vision of national interest is desirable.
There is an array of exceptionally active programs derived from no explicitly-stated overall national conception of the country's interest.
Decisions now have to be taken concerning the destination of the Canadian school system within an ordered view of the Canadian nation.
That is relevant here because we are talking about the financing of a system which needs to be redefined and reorganized. The OECD examiners also said this:
Politicians, parties and governments will not be able to avoid much longer taking some political stands, and that means also nation-wide, and not simply province-oriented positions. They need to give Canadian answers to Canadian problems. Without political leadership and responsibility-and after all neither of these is forbidden under the BNA Act-a severe backlash against future educational development in Canada may be unavoidable.
Right now we are getting into a national debate on free trade. We have tried to come to grips with an industrial strategy. We have just come out of a recession and we know the need to compete in a more integrated world. Yet in spite of this, and while education and the educational system is going to be so fundamental to the future of Canada, there is no national debate, emphasis, forum or strategy for education. No other federal state in the world is in that position and no self-respecting state should be. We purport to have a national financial strategy, trade strategy, defence strategy, transportation and immigration strategy, but we do not have a national education strategy. Surely the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Surely we cannot simply depend on provincial education strategies in this day and age.
The fact is that higher education is financed to the extent of more than 50 per cent from money provided by the Parliament of Canada. Yet the idea still persists that post-secondary education is a purely provincial matter. There is a massive and pervasive federal presence in higher education; in basic funding, research funding, professional and training programs, scholarship bursaries, student assistance programs, northern studies, native studies, multicultural and Canadian studies, as well as international relations and military studies. All of this is education and all of it is being financed through funds voted by the Parliament of Canada.
There are legitimate and unavoidable federal interests in higher education. This covers such things as an adequate supply of highly-qualified personnel, equality of opportunity for young Canadians regardless of where they live, and the development of the knowledge base required for economic growth and national sovereignty. Instead of debating a Bill which will mean cut-backs to the provinces for post-secondary education, we should be talking about how we are going to use that money in a new national strategy. There is a need now as never before. We are on the threshold of a smaller, interdependent world involving tough competition. Values and beliefs are constantly being challenged. Therefore, there is a need for greater co-ordination of Canadian education.
A number of organizations in Canada have stressed this point. The Social Science Federation of Canada stressed this in 1982 in its reaction to the conclusions of the parliamentary
April 25, 1986

task force on fiscal arrangements. In 1984, the third volume of the report of the commission on Canadian studies of the AUCC made similar recommendations. It referred to a crazy quilt pattern of post-secondnry education policy. It called again for a national strategy for higher education and research, with the universities and colleges and the federal and provincial Governments playing appropriate roles in a cooperative fashion.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if you are agreeable could we call it 4 o'clock at this point?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is four o'clock.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed with consideration of Private Member's Business.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) on a point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: Before the Bill is called I would like to put a couple of points on the record as a result of a discussion yesterday. There are two things to which I would like to address myself. One is what might be taken into consideration in the event that a Member is not available to debate his or her Bill when it comes up in the order of precedence. The other is what would happen if that Member were not here. In other words, what happens to the Member's Bill, in the order of precedence, and what happens to the House time. I want to address first the question of the order of precedence.
What the House tried to do was to get away from the practice where the Table Officers arranged the order of precedence in accordance with a lot of unknown, but I am sure very valid, principles. We now have a situation where there is an order of 20 items drawn and everybody has some knowledge as to where they are in the pecking order. There is an attempt in the Votes and Proceedings to spell out the day upon which a Members' Bill might come up for debate. We want to see that that order of precedence, which has been created, is maintained.
We cannot believe that the House would want a practice to begin which would subvert that order of precedence which the draw took care of, regardless of the Party or circumstances. If a Member is unable to be in the House when his or her item is called, we think that Standing Order 23 could be invoked and the item could, at the request of the Government, be stood over without losing its order of precedence. I think that is a remedy which I am sure all Members would want to agree to in order to maintain the order of precedence.
I do have some questions I would like to raise as to the reasons a Member might give, to the Table or to yourself, in
Private Members' Business
the event that he or she cannot be here to proceed with his or her Bill. In the event that a Member is not here to proceed with his or her Bill I might have some personal difficulty in granting the right for somebody else to move the motion for debate for fear that that might be done for the wrong reasons. That is a personal view that I would like to put on the record.
Having raised the question of the order of precedence I would like to go on to what happens if you were to invoke Standing Order 23, and what would happen to the remainder of the time. I think that everybody realizes we now have a standard calendar for the year, we have standard hours for each day and the taxpayers expect us to use the debating time in this House to the best advantage of the country. I suggest that if you invoke Standing Order 23(2) and stand the matter over to the next day, that would be Monday, you might consider, under Section 39(2), reverting back to Government Orders, since it is not now possible to give 24 hours notice of any other item of Private Members' Business.
We would contend that you should look at the provisions of Standing Order 39(2), and we would suggest that if the Chair interprets this Standing Order to mean that only in the event that there is no notice on the Notice Paper for a given day would the provisions of the Standing Order apply, then we would suggest to you that there is never going to be any time when Standing Order 39(2) could be used. It could never be used since the order of precedence provides for that notice which is in the Order Paper.
We think the House must have intended that the Standing Order be used, and we think it is intended for a situation where a private Member cannot proceed with his or her business, and that in order to use the time of the House effectively we should revert back to Government Orders.
We would suggest that if you do not take that approach, we would be in a bit of a conundrum. You have the authority to adjourn the House under Standing Order 9(1) or Standing Order 6(2), and we do not think that either situation applies in this case.
I should just like to go back to the question of Private Members' Business. You will appreciate that the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons gave its reasons for highlighting Private Members' Business, and that the reforms that were brought in give much more importance to Private Members' Business in that up to six Bills can be proceeded with to a vote, and that process has recently been proceeded with through the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling).
In closing, there are two things that we want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker. Number one, you have the decision as to what happens if somebody does not appear. But what do we do to be fair to the Member, and what do we do to be fair to the Members who follow him or her in precedence? The second question is, what happens to the balance of the time between the commencement of Private Members' Business and five o'clock? I would suggest to you that if someone else asked to
12672

April 25, 1986
Private Members' Business
move a Member's motion privately, there should be something in writing to give proof positive that the Member realized he or she would not be here, intended the debate to go ahead, and gave that permission. Those are two things I would like to see considered in view of the fact that the Member who has moved this Private Members' Bill is not here today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Thank you.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a few minutes to speak to the point of order raised by my hon. colleague, the Deputy Government House Leader.
1 agree that considering the way the order of precedence is determined now, a Bill that cannot be considered at the given time should, to a certain extent, retain its place in the order of precedence, because unlike the previous system, the order of precedence concerns not only the Members of this House but the public as well, since it is established in such a way that everyone may know the order of business in advance.
I may add that when a Member knows he cannot be in the House to debate a motion or a Bill in his name as scheduled, there must be have some kind of procedure for the Member to give official notice-and not at the last minute-in writing. I do not mean this notice should include all the reasons why he cannot be here, because I don't believe in going back to when we had to bring the teacher a note if we had not done our homework the night before. I think Hon. Members should be considered as such, and if a Member knows he cannot be in the House on the agreed date, he can simply give notice, in writing, that he will not be present.
Regarding the other point raised by my hon. friend, I do not agree, and in this particular case when we cannot debate the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) because he is not here, I don't think we could revert to Government Orders as the Hon. Member's interpretation of Standing Order 39(2) seems to indicate, because, Mr. Speaker, here in the House, our system is based on providing sufficient notice for Members to prepare themselves for debate.
Now if I may get back to the Government's suggestion, namely that we continue the debate on the measure which was under consideration, Bill C-196, the fact is that some of my colleagues who left the House a moment ago, just before Private Members' Business, and who wanted to take part in this debate are now on their way to their ridings and would learn on Monday that we continued the debate on this Bill.
It would be unfair, in my opinion, because they did not look at the document before us, and they thought that one hour would be set aside tonight for Private Members' Business. I should imagine they would expect Mr. Speaker to say that, if we cannot proceed with the Bill slated for debate at 4 o'clock today, the House should simply adjourn. Otherwise we would be abusing the goodwill of my colleagues who left a moment
ago, because today's Order Paper clearly indicates that we would have one hour for Private Members' Business.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 39(2) clearly states that it can be done only when it is impossible to provide the twenty-four hour notice, and such is not the case since there was a twenty-four hour notice. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since there is nothing before the House at this time, I would urge you to adjourn the House, quite simply.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) was saying that we should revert to Government Orders rather than adjourn. As I listened to some of his colleagues to my left and on his side of the House, I am sure I heard that there was no agreement with his position.
However, there are some serious problems with the rules as they deal with Private Members' Business. There have been occasions in the past when allocated Opposition Days have resulted in a Member losing his or her day to debate his or her Bill. There are times when days originally planned for Budget debate, Throne Speech debate or Opposition Day debate are changed at the last moment and we revert to Government Orders. I believe that Standing Order 39(2) was meant for those occurrences. It was not meant for the Government to have an extra hour on short notice or any notice at all on some occasions, just because a Member could not be here.
The purpose of that Standing Order is that we should not be surprised if, for some reason, we reverted to regular Government Orders on a day when we were not expecting to have a Private Members' Hour, and a Private Members' Bill could sneak in at the last moment.
I suggest that the Government would be speaking against the whole idea of parliamentary reform if it were to suggest that we should revert to Government Orders. We knew that this was a Private Members' Hour. This is Friday and a number of Members, especially those from the East or West Coast, had to go back to their ridings. If they had believed there would be another hour of debate on Government Orders many of them would have changed their travel plans and stayed here.
There is some need, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, to deal with some of the problems concerning Private Members' Business. That does not mean we should automatically revert to Government Orders.


Édouard Desrosiers: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) on a point of order.


Édouard Desrosiers: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the adjournment of the House.
April 25, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-208, An Act respecting the International Airport at Ottawa.
Yesterday, the House embarked upon its first hour of Private Members' Business since the new provisional Standing Orders came into effect. At that time, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised a point of order regarding the practice which should be followed in the event of an Hon. Member being unable to be present to move his motion on the day fixed according to the order of precedence.
I have listened with care to the comments of Hon. Members, both yesterday and today, and I am aware that there will be difficulties such as this to be resolved during the experimental period from now until the end of December.
Pursuant to Standing Order 39(1) the Speaker has arranged for notice of the 20 items of Private Members' Business, as established in the order of precedence, to be published in the Notice Paper. It is noted at the time that Private Members' Hour may be suspended by the application of other Standing Orders. Therefore, as the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) correctly pointed out, when such debates as that on the Speech from the Throne, an emergency debate, allotted days or Budget debates take place, the schedule for Private Members' Business will be adjusted so that no Member loses his place in the order of precedence.
Private Members' Business
In the case before us, notice has been given of the motion for second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-208, An Act respecting the International Airport at Ottawa. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), in whose name this motion stands, is unable to be present.
I am grateful for the interventions by Hon. Members and intend to reserve my decision. Meanwhile, since the Table Officers require instructions by which to prepare the Order Paper and Notices, I am prepared in the interim to rule as follows without prejudice to any other ruling that might be made later: First, since the Standing Orders are not clear as to the disposition of private Members' items not taken up, I am ordering that this item of business in the name of the Member for Hull-Aylmer drop to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Second, Standing Order 39(2) provides for continuing with or reverting to the business before the House prior to Private Members' Hour: "In the event of it not being possible to provide the 24 hours' notice... ". Since notice had been published, it is the view of the Chair that Standing Order 39(2) does not apply in this case.
Third, as there is no business before the House at this moment, it is the view of the Chair that the House should adjourn.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.18 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 28, 1986