1986-06-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in August of 1984, the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), made a promise to the residents of Wesleyville, Ontario, that a Tory Government "will work most actively toward the safe, acceptable and permanent storage arrangement" for low-level nuclear wastes. He also said, "All such waste should be removed from major population areas and kept well away from any major water resource such as Lake Ontario". In June of 1986 the Government is not honouring the commitment of the Prime Minister. Eldorado has chosen one site within two miles of Lake Ontario and is looking for a second nearby.
While the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) refuses to meet with the Citizens for Responsible Nuclear Waste Disposal to discuss the issue, it seems to me that it is incumbent on the Prime Minister to live up to his commitment that he made in August of 1984 when he said that while this would involve greater expense, the federal Government, as owner of Eldorado Nuclear Limitedopposition to these shipments, and our world must recognize that the danger posed by nuclear waste is one more reason the entire nuclear industry is both uneconomic and unacceptable.


FORESTS-SITUATION IN QUEBEC
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the extremely serious situation in the Province of Quebec and the Abitibi region where forest fires like those which occurred recently in New Brunswick and Newfoundland have caused extensive damage.
So far, Mr. Speaker, some 412,000 acres of Quebec prime forest land have been destroyed by flames. The fire is now under control, but the most deplorable incident was the five persons who died fighting the flames.
Once again I should like to emphasize that it is very difficult to appreciate the seriousness of such a situation. I would be remiss if I did not mention the concerted efforts deployed by northwestern conservationists, firefighters, aircraft and helicopter pilots, police officers and volunteers who fought the flames.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.
* *
*


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government must oppose American plans to ship highly radioactive wastes from Taiwan to the United States for reprocessing. These shipments will go through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, a very busy shipping channel, separating Vancouver Island from the State of Washington. An accident resulting in fire for one of these shipments would be catastrophic for large areas of British Columbia and the United States. So far, the federal and provincial Governments have not voiced concern.
As the result of a court challenge, the plan is now on hold until August. Canada must use this time to register its
OS)


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I have previously stood in this House to present a Member's statement and, as well, I have presented petitions on 21 occasions in an effort to save the CN Main Shops in Moncton. It appears those efforts have not been totally successful. Today we face the loss of 437 CN jobs in my community.
This is a severe blow to the workers, to the economy of Moncton, and to the Province of New Brunswick. It is incumbent upon the Government to take steps immediately to provide programs and assistance to the CN workers in Moncton in order to minimize the impact of the CN decision

June 25, 1986
to down-size the Moncton shops and to attract full-time employment which will ensure the future economic growth of the area.
I believe that Moncton and the Province of New Brunswick have been short-changed. Our Government must immediately reaffirm its commitment to the people of my constituency and my province. I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Cabinet to consider Moncton a priority, and to work with me and the members of my community to ensure that the CN workers affected will secure comparable employment in the area.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CO-OPERATIVES BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' INVESTMENT AND HOUSING COOPERATIVE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, last November the provincially incorporated British Columbia Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-operative went into voluntary receivership. All assets were frozen and the life savings of thousands of active and retired teachers in western Canada were placed in limbo, as the co-op was uniquely structured and deposits were not insured. A restructuring plan has now been approved, according to which members may receive up to 74 per cent of their original deposits. For many this shortfall means a dramatic difference in retirement plans.
Co-op members are asking why Revenue Canada is ignoring the facts and demanding taxes on deposits to which members do not have access. Co-op members are also asking why they can no longer declare capital losses when more affluent Canadians are exempted from taxes on capital gains. Therefore I call upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to bring some fairness into the Income Tax Act. Surely its provisions were never meant to have the effect of depriving retired teachers of their life savings.


ABORTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, many of us in this House are against abortion, but we believe in the education of the public on the various means of preventing conception. Proper education solves many problems, especially when that education gives complete understanding of birth control methods and a thorough understanding of the value of human life.
One of the problems for those fighting abortion and the destruction of innocent life is that, while there is proof that life
begins in the initial or very early stages of pregnancy, people are willing to destroy that life to make the social and economic status of the mother more important than the right to life of those who cannot speak for themselves.
To place a utilitarian value on human life and to see each person only in terms of his economic worth can, and will, lead to the destruction of human life and to the murder of those already born who, through mental or physical incapacity, are not able to contribute to society what may be demanded of them by extremists. These and other attempts to negate life, to state that it has no value in itself, must never be tolerated.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, last December the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) promised, with the greatest urgency, to identify the source of the Sarnia blob, which he said was "disfiguring the St. Clair River and causing concern about the quality of the drinking water of thousands of Canadians".
His team of high-powered scientists reported on the situation at the end of January, but failed to identify its source. Meanwhile, new blobs are appearing on the river bottom. It is now the end of June. Divers continue to vacuum up growing amounts of the tarry substance. This month they picked up twice as much material as last month.
Dow does not know where the blob is coming from. Ministry officials do not know where the blob is coming from. Six months have passed and we still do not have the answers. What is going on? What happened to the promised urgency? Why has the Minister not lived up to his commitment to get to the root of this serious environmental problem? If it is more difficult than he thought it was, why does he not level with this House and tell us just what a serious environmental problem we have on our hands there?


FUNDING OF CANADIAN FRIENDS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA
Mr. Peter Peterson (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, 11 months ago a young man described as a chronic paranoid schizophrenic was ordered by a Scarborough judge to seek hospitalization. When the man went to the hospital he was refused admission on what was later described as a technicality. Some two weeks after the incident he bludgeoned his mother to death with a hammer. I bring this to the attention of the House to drive home how little even our own medical
June 25, 1986

people know about schizophrenia and how important research can be in preventing such gross mishaps.
In Canada we are fortunate to have an organization that addresses this problem, the Canadian Friends of Schizophrenia. This organization, with over 60 chapters across Canada, is devoted to assisting families and promoting general public awareness of this little known and misunderstood disease.
In my view, Friends of Schizophrenia is a classic example of the type of organization that deserves more government funding, and I encourage the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to consider this seriously so that last year's ugly incident remains just that.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: On June 22, 1986, Mr. Speaker, close to 700 Versatile Davie workers-95 per cent of those in attendance-accepted company management offers which paved the way for the signature of a new collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Versatile Davie workers, the union executives, and the company negotiators. The agreement means that the Lauzon shipyards workers will be busy until 1992.
Mr. Speaker, this is an outstanding example of co-operation by the company, the workers, the union and the Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the economic development groups, the media, the municipal councils and the people of my region have all contributed to this significant achievement, and they deserve our congratulations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Embassy in Washington publishes on a regular basis a booklet known as Canada Today. It usually talks about the resources of our country. Let me read from this month's version:
The Reagans, the Mulroneys and Mr. Peyton all seemed to be having a wonderful time-
They sat at small tables adorned with pink tulips, ate Angel Hair Pasta with Seafood and Romano Cheese Sauce, Supreme of Chicken Vol-au-Vent and Pistachio Marquise, and drank Sonoma-Cutrer Chardonnay, Leardini Pino Noir
and Schramsberg Cremant Demi-Sec. Later on, pianist Rosalyn Tureck played Capriccio "On the Departure of a Beloved Brother" in B Major and two other pieces by Bach ...
At 7.30 a.m. the Prime Minister arrived at the handsome official home of Vice President Bush, high on a hill on the grounds of the Naval Observatory.
The feeding schedules of participants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, sixty seconds.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, on June 24, 1497, Europeans officially discovered Canada. The leader of the expedition that took possession for England of the entire eastern coast of Canada was Giovanni Caboto, known to us as John Cabot. The entire recorded history of Canada begins from this date.
When we look today at the great contributions the Italian community has made toward Canada's development, it comes as no surprise that the first European to set foot on our land was indeed an Italian. This event adds a perspective of continuity to Canada's multicultural mosaic and points out that Canada's heritage belongs to us all.
We have all benefited from the hard work that Canadians of Italian origin have invested in this land. They have come here like their ancestor, Giovanni Caboto; unlike him, they have stayed to make Canada more prosperous and more versatile. I call on all Canadians to remember and celebrate this important day in Canada's history.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, today I am releasing a catalogue of current Canadian Government chemical and biological warfare contracts. These contracts amount to over $5 million and have gone to major universities, private research laboratories and, yes, even the Ontario Ministry of Health.
The federal Conservative Government is studying the effects of poisons and nerve gas on rabbits, mice, and humans. Both Liberals and Conservatives argue that these initiatives are solely defensive in nature. This is nonsense. Biological and chemical weapons cannot be used unless troops can be protected against their effects. When it comes to this particular type of warfare, there is no distinction between offence and defence.
Furthermore, under a quadripartite agreement which the Conservative Government has refused to release to me,

June 25, 1986
The Late David Currie, V.C.
Canada is obliged to share its research with Britain, Australia, and the United States. The Conservatives have successfully encouraged the U.S. to resume offensive chemical weapons production after a 17-year ban. I call upon the Government to halt work immediately in the field of chemical and biological warfare and to strike an initiative within NATO to halt development of these weapons while a global treaty is sought.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the House is aware of a special moment the House wishes to observe at this time.


THE LATE LT. COL. DAVID CURRIE, V.C.
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the death of Lieutenant-Colonel David Vivian Currie, Canada loses one of her authentic heroes. Parliament mourns the loss of a faithful servant of the House where he served valiantly as Sergeant-at-Arms for 17 years.
His sympathy and consideration were experienced over the years by scores of Members of Parliament, both old and new. He had a special place in his heart for new Members, and he went out of his way to initiate them discreetly in the mysterious and sometimes obscure rituals of the House of Commons.
He was an outstanding soldier in the very best sense of the word. Dedication, loyalty, and integrity were his watchwords. Following the war, Colonel Currie moved to Baie Comeau in the pulp and paper business where he remained until 1953, before returning to Montreal. He maintained his interest in military affairs to the end of his life, and was Chairman of the Victoria Cross and George Cross Association headquartered in London, England.
In May, Colonel Currie had an audience with Her Majesty and the Queen Mother at Buckingham Palace. He was accompanied by his wife, Isabel, and 15-year old grandson.
He was of that authentic band of heroes which included Billy Bishop, Barker, and Collishaw in World War I, and Cecil Merritt, Paul Triquet, John Foote, Smokey Smith, Fred Tilston, and John Mahony in World War II. Hon. Members will have noticed that those Canadian names were all holders of the highest award for gallantry-the Victoria Cross. These were in addition to countless others, many of them unhonoured and unsung. His courage and gallantry were of the rare kind which places country above self.
Our hearts go out to his widow and family.
[ Translation]
As a person and in his career, Colonel Currie showed all the qualities of a Canadian dedicated to his country. In wartime and in peace, he understood the vital importance of individual freedom.
To the Parliament of Canada, he added his integrity and dignity as the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House. As a man and as a soldier, he won the respect of his colleagues and fellow citizens. He lived in Baie Comeau for several years after the war and later on in Montreal.
On behalf of the Government and all our colleagues in the House, I wish to extend our sincere condolences to his family.


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to echo what the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) has said so well about the passing of Lieutenant-Colonel D. V. Currie, holder of the Victoria Cross. Indeed, Canada has lost an authentic hero.
Those of us who remember him here remember that he was not only a real hero; he looked like a hero. The House of Commons has lost a legendary figure. For 17 or 18 years, Colonel Currie was familiar to the public as the gentleman who carried the Mace and participated on behalf of the House, under the Speaker's guidance, in ceremonial functions of Parliament.
Of course he was much better known to us as Members and to employees of the House as the officer in charge of security, accommodation, furniture, catering-all those details which make this place work.
I suppose those were simpler times, because it always seemed to me that whenever I put a question to him in his capacity as Sergeant-at-Arms, he already had the answer. He never had to look into any file or any book; all those details were at his fingertips. As a stalwart defender of the public purse, his answer to most of the questions we put to him was no.
Under the most vicious enemy fire in war, the Colonel's courage won him the highest military award of what was once the Empire and then the Commonwealth. In peacetime that courage, steadfastness, and aplomb never failed him under the most emphatic demands that this House and Your Honour's predecessors put upon him.

In his dealings with others, Colonel Currie always treated everyone with the utmost respect, from maintenance worker to Prime Minister. He was as available to the average person as he was to the great and the mighty of this country. He was an eminently reasonable and profoundly human man, who under a severe demeanour hid a delightful sense of humour.

He was a devoted servant of this Parliament, putting in long hours, never failing to maintain, in his person and in the office he filled, the dignity and probity of the institution.
June 25, 1986

Canada has indeed lost a great hero. Parliament has lost a loyal servant. Our sympathies go to Mrs. Currie, to his children and to his grandchildren.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) in offering the condolences of all members of my Party to the family of Lieutenant-Colonel Currie.
As has already been said, Colonel Currie was among that small band of human beings who demonstrated in the course of their lives truly exceptional courage in fighting not for themselves but for those around them. During the Second World War he led a particular band of Canadians in the course of an action which resulted in the saving of several thousands of Canadian lives in terms of its final consequence. His courage was of that kind of magnitude.
Following that very distinguished service to our country, Lieutenant-Colonel Currie became, as many Members of Parliament will know, a distinguished Sergeant-at-Arms here in the House, a position he always held with great capability and with great distinction. For many of us in the House during the period he was here, we have lost a friend and an acquaintance. Canada has lost a truly distinguished citizen.


Mr. Speaker:: As the House would expect, I have already communicated to the family the sympathies of the House. 1 suspect, given the nature of the importance of this gentleman and his office, well known to all of us, the House would like to show its respect to Lieutenant-Colonel Currie and his family in the usual way.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute].


Mr. Speaker:: Question Period will be extended by 10 minutes.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a publication produced by our embassy in Washington of which there are 105,000 copies. It says "Available free upon request in the U.S. only". There are 16 pages, and 17 photographs in this particular issue on our Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Who cares?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: It is two days in the life of our Prime Minister.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows the rules about displays. I must, therefore, ask him to put his question.


John Napier Turner: The relevance of my-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman can see exactly what is being caused by the raising of this. Could the right hon. gentleman please ask his question?


John Napier Turner: I am quoting from an official document of our Government in Washington available to Americans only. It refers to acid rain. In the words of the Prime Minister the document says:
We've obtained a full endorsement by the President of the report of our two personal envoys ... This represents a real commitment-
Is the Prime Minister aware that on Friday John Herrington, the Secretary of Energy of the United States, was testifying against a Congressional Bill to control acid rain and said:
"Based on present information, there is no indication of a near term urgency."
Is that the type of commitment the Prime Minister obtained from the President and the President's Secretary of Energy?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if there was a document put out by the Embassy in Washington with only 17 pictures of me, I am going to have to talk to somebody and Fire them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: I wouldn't be surprised at all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is not enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Benjamin:: Be a Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Obviously the Public Affairs Department of the Embassy is doing its job extremely well.


John Napier Turner: Trying to keep its job.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would like to give a little more guidance if I could, but I will listen to my right hon. friend complain.
With regard to the question he raised about acid rain, we have a commitment from the President of the United States speaking on behalf of his administration which, in our judgment, is satisfactory. We believe the administration is working toward those objectives. We will have an opportunity to judge for ourselves, as we all ought to, at an appropriate time.

June 25, 1986
Oral Questions


ACID RAIN-ALLEGED POSITION OF U.S. SECRETARY OF ENERGY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Secretary of Energy has stated that acid rain is not a near term emergency. Those were his very words. In case the Prime Minister did not know, the Secretary was referring to a Bill sponsored by 163 Members of the U.S. Congress and now before Congress. Could the Prime Minister explain why the follow-up to the Washington Summit is so deplorable that the U.S. Secretary of Energy is now denying that acid rain is a serious problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States said personally that the acid rain issue was a major priority for him and his administration. Agreeements were concluded in this respect. Funds have been earmarked. It is up to the Americans to see to it that their commitments with respect to acid rain are fully met. As far as we are concerned, this Government is the first national Government to conclude such agreements. We have concluded agreements with the provinces, and for the first time, as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history, there has been tangible progress in the very important and vital area of acid rain. There will be a clean-up in Canada.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I refer again to the sparse text of this official document which is 75 per cent photographs. The document says that the House of Representatives is considering a control Bill that has, for the first time, broad support. That is the very Bill being opposed by the Secretary of Energy of the United States. Can the Prime Minister explain why the White House, through the Secretary of Energy, is now opposing the Bill which the document indicates has wide support from the White House?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have a complete and formal undertaking from the Government of the United States of America, executed by the President of the United States, in favour of the position which was set forward in March.


Mr. Tobin:: Is that the same one we had on cedar shakes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is an important position. It recognizes the transboundary nature of the problem for the first time. It commits substantial funds to working in harmony with Canada in the progress that we have made in eliminating once and for all, albeit not overnight, the debilitating problem of acid rain which has caused so much damage, not only to our environment but to our economy. This Government took the matter seriously. We have persuaded the U.S. administration of the seriousness of the problem, and together we are going to solve it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns government waste and abuse of power by the Prime Minister and his Government. The latest issue of the magazine Canada Today includes such fine words as "the feeding schedules of participants in international meetings are as rigid as those of babies of up-to-date mothers in 1935." Can the Prime Minister tell us why Canadian taxpayers should be paying for 17 photos of him in a 16-page magazine? Why is he wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to publish this kind of nonsense? Does he feel that taxpayers in these difficult economic times should be paying for this kind of extravagance?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the only unanswered question there is what is the feeding schedule of the Hon. Member? That is an important question. I have not seen this document. We have a hundred-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How is your smell today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Smell? My smell is pretty good. I can smell a rat and I'm looking right at one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my feeding schedule is probably a lot cheaper for the taxpayers than the Prime Minister's.


Mr. McDermid:: Show us your Householder.


Don Boudria: I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member should put his question, please.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, how can a Government call on the nation to restrain itself and be more realistic in its collective demands upon the economy when its own record is an unbroken string of fiscal excesses?


Mr. Marchi:: Where he stood.


Don Boudria: Where I Stand, it says.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the book Where I Stand was a best seller in 1983. It probably will be a best seller forever; it is a great book and I urge you to go out and get it. Send copies to everyone, particularly the Liberal Party, because discretionary public expenditures in Canada, when the Right Hon. Leader of the
June 25, 1986

Opposition was Minister of Finance, rose dramatically. They rose 12.9 per cent for a decade under the Liberals, but we have held them to 0.2 per cent, almost zero growth for two years running, and this is dramatically good news.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to protect jobs in the textile and clothing industry. Domtex is going to close another plant next Monday in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield. What does the Prime Minister intend to do for the 800 workers affected by this decision?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the Hon. Member that we are very concerned about and very aware of the problems in Canada's clothing and textile industry. Some of their representatives were here on the Hill today and I was pleased to be able to meet with them to hear firsthand about their problems.
I assured them that when we announce our new clothing and textile policy in the very near future, they will indeed see that we care about them and are going to stand by the Sherbrooke statement.


IMPACT OF TRADE DISCUSSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister said that because I have a question for the Prime Minister who made the Sherbrooke statement. The Progressive Conservative Party promised: "We promise fair trade but not free trade." Since the Prime Minister promised that in Sherbrooke in the middle of the election, could he tell us why the Government has not lived up to that promise, including the enforcement of quotas? Is it because he has abandoned fair trade to get involved in highly dangerous, for these workers, free trade discussions with the U.S?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, not at all. We sought a formula which we think will enable us to explore, as a mature and reasonable nation, the possible benefits which can accrue to Canada from enhancing in a more liberalized way our commerce with the United States. We think it can secure access to markets, create jobs, enhance our competitiveness, and give us a better kick at the 21st century.
It is a serious question my friend raises, and we have acknowledged that in this process, if it is successful, some industries will be less able than others to deal with enhanced
Oral Questions
competition. As a result, there would be a 10 or 15-year phase-in period. There would be special aid for workers, retraining possibilities, aid for regions, and so on. That is if the entire project is successful. However, as I indicated to my hon. friend and the country, we shall only conclude such an agreement if it is in the interests and to the benefit of Canada and Canadian workers.


IMPORT QUOTAS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised fair trade but not free trade. As well, point two of his program refers to the enforcement of international agreements, including quotas, to protect jobs. Therefore, will he tell us why his Government has not enforced existing quotas since he became Prime Minister two years ago, and will he give us his assurance before the House adjourns this week that a new system of quotas will be put in place which will enable him to live up to the promise he made to workers in our textile sector?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to answer that question because I would like to inform the Hon. Member that indeed we have lived up to our commitments. In the last 18 months we negotiated 25 bilateral agreements with 13 different countries. That is twice the number achieved by the former Government in the previous three years. We are protecting our industry. Last year low cost imports to Canada were down to 2 per cent, a dramatic drop from 26 per cent in 1983 and 16 per cent in 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
A few weeks ago, we found out that the Prime Minister spent over $800,000 on three trips, and that furthermore, the Government had paid $34,000 so the Prime Minister could appear on television. Today we learn that 105,000 copies of a brochure were distributed in the United States, just to introduce him to Americans.
At the same time, this Government is cutting unemployment insurance benefits for early retirees-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Order!

June 25, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Malepart:: -Considering this shameless extravagance, is the Prime Minister willing to give early retirees the $20,000 they need to defend their case before the courts?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously, this question contains a great many falsehoods. I will not answer the question, but meanwhile, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that as far as spending is concerned, and this is very important, in every Government there are discretionary and non-discretionary expenditures. When the Leader of the Liberal Party was Minister of Finance, the federal Government's spending increased quite spectacularly. While the Liberals were in power, spending increased by 12.9 per cent every year, for ten years. Since we came to power, and for the first time since the Korean War, discretionary spending has been maintained at zero. Now that is good management!


DEMAND THAT PRIME MINISTER ACT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question so the Prime Minister will understand. What the early retirees want to know is: Are you willing to save $20,000 on your next trip to give them the money they need to defend their rights before the courts? After all, you cut off their unemployment insurance benefits. Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is a stupid question that misrepresents the facts. The fact is that as far as early retirees and the unemployed are concerned, what the Government has done is bring down interest rates dramatically and create nearly 600,000 new jobs since we came to power, more than in all Western European countries combined over the same period of time. That is how the economy has progressed across the country.


COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and has to do with job losses in the textile and clothing industry.
Can the Prime Minister explain why no action has been taken even after a year since the Textile and Clothing Board recommended over-all quotas to protect jobs in this basic Quebec and Canadian industry? When will the Government do something, and how many months will go by before somebody decides to defend the interests of these workers?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, if one carefully reads the reports of the Textile board one will note that there were two reports. There was an interim report, which did recommend some form of global quotas. When one reads the final report of the Textile Board it acknowledges that that would not be a long-term solution for this industry, and that is what we want. We do not want stopgap measures here, we want to see the survival of this industry in Canada. That is what we are pledged to do, and our policy will certainly direct itself to that end.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to which perhaps the Prime Minister would respond. The Textile and Clothing Board in its final report warned that 40,000 to 60,000 jobs were at stake and would be lost if-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that preambles are not supposed to be put before a supplementary question. Question, please, right away.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Will the Prime Minister ensure that the policy on textiles is introduced this week so it can be discussed in Parliament, rather than trying to slip it by during the summer months when workers' jobs are on the line?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I just want the Hon. Member to be aware that we have nothing to be ashamed of with respect to the policy that we are going to be announcing with regard to our clothing and textile industry. We are going to be addressing the problem and solving it, not like the inaction of the previous Government.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I may have his attention. The Prime Minister on August 21, 1984, as Leader of the Opposition, made a statement in a letter addressed to citizens of Port Hope in Ontario that low-level radioactive waste should be removed from major population areas and kept well away from any major water resource, such as Lake Ontario.
Why is it that two years later his Government is accepting Eldorado Nuclear's selection of two potential dump sites within two miles of Lake Ontario near Port Hope, despite the protest of local citizens?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, that question can, of course, be directed to a number of Ministers, but principally the Minister of the Environment. I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that the federal Government is investigating this situation and will take those precautionary measures that are incumbent upon it and relative to the situation that the Member has described.
June 25, 1986

Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY	REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL GUARANTEE


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, are we in the Opposition to understand that a promise made by the Prime Minister became the responsibility of another Minister under whose jurisdiction this matter is not included?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. The Prime Minister has not at all reneged on the promise he made, no. There is such a thing, in case the Member has forgotten, as collective responsibility in a Cabinet. There are specific responsibilities that come to various Departments and to various Ministers. That being the case, the Prime Minister's promises that he has made are obviously delegated to members of the Cabinet to fulfil those specific requirements, and that is being done.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Transport if he would set out a policy guaranteeing successor rights, including seniority and pension, for employees of the Moncton shops who may be transferred to Canadian General Electric or some other company. He showed little or no interest in these important issues and said it was a part of collective bargaining.
Now we have a problem with CN Route. We have learned that the collective agreement between CN and their employees will not apply to the new owner, Fingold Brothers, whoever the hell they are.
Will the Minister now agree that he has to exercise some leadership and provide a policy direction to Canadian National in the case of Moncton shops and CN Route that will guarantee pension seniority and other successor rights to the employees no matter whom they are working for?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the collective agreement to which the Hon. Member has referred has been the topic of negotiations which have been going on for over a year now. The pension issue was an outstanding issue while CN Route was still a part of the Crown Corporation, and it is still an issue that is being discussed.
My understanding is that the CN negotiators are going to be meeting with the perspective new owners tomorrow, and that there will be a meeting arranged with the representatives of the CBRT for June 30, at which time these issues can be resolved. I think the most important way to resolve this is through the negotiating process.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the new purchaser says he will not live up to that.
I would like to ask the Minister if he will guarantee, by a policy directive, that agreements in place, such as pension, seniority, or other provisions, at the time of the sale will continue with the new employer as a condition of sale?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the undertakings that has been made by both the CN and the prospective new owner is that there would be fair and equitable treatment of all the employees and those who may be retiring. I thought I was answering the Hon. Member from Regina West's question. If the Hon. Member wants a supplementary I will be prepared to answer that too.
I think the most important thing to remember here is the fact that these negotiations will be submitted back to Cabinet for approval before a final decision is made.


CO-OPERATIVES BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS' INVESTMENT AND HOUSING COOPERATIVE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, and it concerns the restructuring of the B.C. Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-Op, which she approved last Friday. This was an arrangement under which thousands of retired teachers stand to lose amounts that make the difference between comfortable retirement and a difficult one.
Will the Minister confirm that before the capital gains tax exemption was introduced those teachers could have deducted a proportion of their losses, but now that capital losses can only be declared to offset capital gains the tax system gives those retired teachers no relief?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have worked quite hard early on in this process with the Teachers' Co-Op. I had great concern for them because they do not come under our legislation, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I was quite pleased that they were able to come to an agreement whereby, hopefully, they will get 75 cents on the dollar through this arrangement with Discovery Trust and Canwest. I am looking into that matter now and I believe that understanding is correct. I reserve the right to change that because we are looking at it at the moment.


PAYMENT OF TAX ON FROZEN ASSETS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I wrote six weeks ago. Is it the Minister's

June 25, 1986
Oral Questions
position that members of this co-op should be required to pay tax on the interest earned on 100 per cent of their deposits when these assets were frozen without warning seven months ago, members have not had access to them, and the restructuring proposal only guarantees them 51 per cent of their assets?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that some of this income which they have not received, while it may be considered as deemed income at this time, can be adjusted and compensated for in the next taxation year. At the present time I think that is the only way we can handle it.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it has to do with the Gainers strike in Edmonton. In light of his close relationship with Peter Pocklington, the owner of the plant, and in light of his experience as a labour lawyer for Iron Ore Co. of Canada, I want to ask the Prime Minister, and I wish he would not try to brush it off to somebody else-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Does the Prime Minister believe it is appropriate that his Government should be forcing the meat inspectors to cross the picket line and, if they do not do so, they should be disciplined? Does he think that appropriate?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Let him answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He is a big boy.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You would rather have the Deputy Prime Minister? Go ahead.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was going to take the question for the Minister of Agriculture who is now in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the House for the delay. I was working out what I hope to be the final details of the Farm Debt Review legislation with my two counterparts across the way. I did not have the benefit of hearing the Hon. Member's entire
question. However, we have been monitoring the very difficult situation there on an hourly basis. The last opportunity I had to check with the progress was yesterday. The fact that there is a labour safety officer on the scene-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He was talking about meat inspectors.


John Wise: -and we are consulting regularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the Minister will have an opportunity to continue that on the supplementary.


ROLE OF MEAT INSPECTORS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he stop kowtowing to his Tory friend, Peter Pocklington, and declare the Gainers plant off limits to inspectors?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that question is so inaccurate and off base that it does not even deserve a reasonable answer.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. A senior RCMP officer stated recently that for several months he has known the names of the alleged terrorists who planted a bomb aboard Air- India Flight 182 over a year ago.
Can the Minister tell the House whether he has sufficient evidence and, if so, whether he will take court action?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation by the RCMP is continuing, with assistance from CSIS. Because it is under way at the present time, no further comment would be appropriate.


WORLD OIL PRICES-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the political reality is that the energy sector will have to wait for assistance from the Government. Even then, the energy industry should not expect too much help. The
June 25, 1986

Minister's promise was to create jobs in the energy sector, not reduce them. What will the Government do to help the industry at this time of declining world oil prices?
Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the Government has already taken some positive steps in that regard, by recently doubling the small producers' credit. Let me add that my honourable critic has already indicated what he would do. He indicated on the way into the House that he would consider a stabilization plan, except that his Party has not figured out how to pay for it. At the same time he believes that consumers are paying too much at the pump. That is not a policy, that is a statement of desperation politics.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That Government is pathetic.


JOB LOSSES IN ALBERTA
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, 200 jobs are being lost every day in Alberta. How many jobs must be lost before the Government does something?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, nobody is more aware of the effect of dropping oil prices on the producing provinces than I. Nobody knows better than I and the Government that you cannot resolve the problems of downturns in oil prices by throwing money at them through government programs. That was attempted under the National Energy Program and it did not work. We are meeting with the provinces to deal with constructive issues and constructive solutions to this problem.


WESTERN ACCORD-REQUEST FOR RENEGOTIATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is quite clear that the Minister's much ballyhooed Western Accord is really now a failure. Even Premier Getty of Alberta wants a new oil deal with Ottawa.
Is the Minister prepared to deal with the results of times and events and renegotiate the Western Accord with western producing provinces, as Premier Getty wants?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Western Accord led to record drilling, a 20 per cent increase in capital spending, and increased employment. The tragedy was that the industry was unable to recoup the money it lost under the Liberal program before the oil prices dropped. I will be meeting with the new Energy Minister of Alberta in Vancouver at the end of the week to continue our ongoing discussions in this area.
Oral Questions


SENATE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION ON PRICE STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared to renegotiate the Western Accord as Premier Getty wants, or is she prepared to consider the Senate committee's recommendation that a price stabilization program be put in place to protect the small Canadian producers who are being killed with this failure of the Western Accord? Is she prepared to renegotiate with Premier Getty? Is she prepared to help the small Canadian producers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, as you know, those are two questions in the supplementary. However, let me first advise the Hon. Member that I have not been asked by Premier Getty or any other Premier to renegotiate the Western Accord. There are provisions for that in the Accord.
In terms of the small producers, we have already removed the PGRT for all but the biggest companies which are continuing to pay it on a phase-down basis. We have already given relief to the small producers. We cannot protect them from a 50 per cent drop in world oil prices.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Questions have been raised in the House concerning the award of small contracts by the Department of Public Works. The Minister replied that a report would be tabled concerning allegations to the effect that these contracts have been awarded without tender calls. Can the Minister tell us when the report will be tabled and whether he now has more information on this matter?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to confirm to the House that indeed I made a commitment concerning the obviously false allegations of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that 90 per cent of contracts under $30,000 were awarded without tenders. Mr. Speaker, you know very well that Treasury Board requirements do not specify tenders in the case of contracts under $30,000. Despite this leeway given to us by Treasury Board, I am pleased to shed light on this report which I will be tabling later today and according to which 78 per cent of all contracts under $30,000 have been awarded on the basis of tender calls. I do hope the media will take this opportunity to dispel any uncertainty created by these false allegations.

June 25, 1986
Oral Questions


RAILWAYS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister announced a decision on behalf of the federal Government that will ensure that Newfoundland will continue to have a dilapitated railway system and a second-class highway system. Despite earlier assurances to resolve the matter one way or the other, why has the Minister taken a decision regarding this Newfoundland railway which leaves both the railway system and the highway system, and more important, the employees of the railway system, in a continued state of limbo?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know yesterday's announcement came as a disappointment to the Hon. Member who wanted the railway abandoned. We chose not to go that route. Instead, we chose to provide up to $26 million for improving the railway infrastructure, providing equipment, and continuing the containerization program. I believe the Hon. Member would agree, as does the President of Terra, that these steps will go a long way to improving the service and making it more efficient and reliable.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is reasonably intelligent. He knows that $20 million over five years is substantially less than previous expenditures. Is the Minister not really saying to the people of Newfoundland, with that paltry sum of money which is a substantial reduction from previous expenditures, that the Government of Canada has no long-term commitment to the Newfoundland Railway or, for that matter, to Newfoundland's highway system? How long will the railway last, with that expenditure of money? Give us a time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the highway system in the Province of Newfoundland, there is in existence a $180 million joint federal-provincial highways agreement, under which the federal Government picks up $112 million.


Mr. Crosbie:: Signed by me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In this particular case, the Hon. Member-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How many Xs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member was a member of a Government that chose not to put any money into the Newfoundland railway system. We are putting $26 million into upgrading that system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The trouble is Newfoundland lost with both of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Liberal or Tory, Newfoundland loses.


NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, who, at the Native Business Summit on the weekend, urged native people to be greedy by stating, "There is one underlying motive in business shared by all. It is greed. There is nothing wrong with it. We support it wherever it happens". My question is simply this: Was the Minister of State for Finance simply reflecting her personal opinions or was she really stating the party line?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have given up hope that The Toronto Star will ever develop a sense of humour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: If the Hon. Member reads either the transcript or the rest of the article, he will see that I was speaking of the importance of native participation in our business structure. It was a good speech. It was a little ponderous. I thought it needed a little levity, and anyone who heard the speech understood the context of the remark.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, some people may think that this is funny, but when there is a Minister of the Crown urging native leaders to be greedy by suggesting-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: -Oh, I'll quote-by suggesting that there is one underlying motive in business, and it is greed, and she says that there is nothing wrong with it, and then she goes on to say-


John Carnell Crosbie: Your greedy howls are heard every day.
June 25, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that this is a supplementary question, please, not a preamble.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question, Mr. Speaker, is this-


John Carnell Crosbie: You're the epitome of greed, yourself.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Be quiet, John. Why would the Minister of State for Finance urge native business leaders to be greedy? Why would she do that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already explained the remark. I think that the conversation I had with native leaders yesterday was very positive, that I had both during the speech and after the speech, and I think this is a silly question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board has recently returned from a trip to China with representatives of agricultural organizations from eastern and western Canada. Could the Minister tell the House what results we can expect to see from his discussions with Chinese officials, in terms of increased Canadian sales of wheat and feed grains to China?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that China has been a long and valued customer of Candian grain and oilseed products, so I was very pleased to be able to accept an invitation from China's Minister of Commerce, Mr. Liu Yi, to visit China with a delegation of agri-business people. We went there, not only trying to sell to them, but also emphasizing the fact that we understand two-way trade. I might say that the visit to China by the Prime Minister was also very useful in terms of Canada's ability to maintain and expand grain exports to China. There is no question but that as a result of our visit and that of the Prime Minister, China will be looking to Canada for its grain supplies in the future.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Oral Questions
Since introduction of the pornography Bill, there have been protests from various interest groups, churches and religious organizations. The definition of pornography is very vague and the normal sexual act is viewed in exactly the same way as bestiality and sexual violence.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the Government intents to amend the definition of pornography?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 20 years this country has a Government not afraid to deal with the question of pornography. We have not appointed some commission or committee on to which we may slough off our responsibility. I can assure the House that I have received hundreds of letters indicating support for our legislation, in the last couple of weeks. The Hon. Member can be impressed by those who write for the media. We all know their tendencies, in any event.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You're going to regret that, fellow.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am prepared to listen to the ordinary people of Canada who do not want this kind of visual material made available to children and others across the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It's not going to wash.


CLASSIFICATION OF BREAST-FEEDING OF BABIES
Lucie Pépin: I do not think that we are dealing with the same category of people.
I would like the Minister of Justice to explain to us why breast-feeding is classified as pornography and as degrading and why it is punishable by five years in prison if depicted in a movie or in a show.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there will obviously be a parliamentary committee which will consider this legislation. The reason we have parliamentary committees is to consider whether or not any changes in the legislation are needed. The actual subjects of the question of the hon. lady, as to whether they are pornographic or not, we all know that in and of themselves they are not pornographic. However, when we are dealing with other areas, such as oral or anal copulation and the like, then most of us happen to think that these are pornographic if they are delivered for no other purpose than to try to titillate the people who buy such material.
14818_________________________________
Tabling of Documents SHIPBUILDING


SITUATION OF INDUSTRY IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In view of the very critical situation in the British Columbia shipbuilding industry, will the Minister inform the House when the decision will be made to build the Polar 8 icebreaker? And will it be built in B.C. shipyards?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that issue is currently under active consideration, and I would expect a decision to be made quite soon.


REQUEST THAT ICE-BREAKER BE BUILT IN B.C. SHIPYARDS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, since the revised proposals to build the ice-breaker in B.C. have considerable advantages and shipyards in eastern Canada already have received federal contracts, does the Minister agree that B.C. shipyards should build the Polar 8 icebreaker?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of these matters will be taken into consideration; and obviously I will take the representations of the Hon. Member into account as well.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister knows that he is forcing veterinarians in the Gainers strike in Edmonton to take on the duties of regular inspectors because of the threat of violence, and he is threatening these professionals with disciplinary action in refusing to answer their phone calls. I wonder if the Minister will withdraw that threat of disciplinary action against the professional veterinarians in that Gainers strike.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a member of the veterinary profession. He should recognize that, indeed, we do have some legal obligations under the Meat Inspection Act, particularly upon the observation and the assessment, the decision, of a labour or safety officer. If he deems the workplace to be safe, the picket line to be safe, then we have a legal obligation to have
June 25, 1986
inspectors in the plant. We are simply fulfilling our legal obligations as indicated to us by the Department of Justice.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Maurice Brydon Foster: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would take the time to call his friend, Peter Pockling-ton, and ask him to bring his industrial relations into the 20th Century.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I think it is rather a silly question. I am sure that if we checked the record we would find that there has been no change in the legal obligation that directs our meat inspectors at the moment, from the same legal obligations under which they found themselves during the previous Government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is now 3.10 p.m.
[DOT] (UlO)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to lay upon the Table a draft Bill dealing with proposed amendments to the Criminal Code in the area of mental disorder.


PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ARRANGEMENTS
Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased today to table, in both official languages, my report to this House on my consultations and review of proposals to reform Public Service pension arrangements.


TABLING OF REPORTS OF ACTUARIAL CONSULTING FIRMS
Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as well to table in both official languages two reports and documents from an independent private sector actuarial consulting firm on the current financial state of the Public Service plan and on other reform issues.

June 25, 1986



PUBLIC WORKS


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), it is my pleasure to table today in both official languages the report on contracts for public works under $30,000, which report naturally gives a true and honest picture for all regions and provinces as well as the national average.



PETITIONS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the response of the Government to the 11 petitions, as follows: 331-531, 331-532, 331-533, 331-536, 331-537, 331-538, 331539, 331-545, 331-555, 331-580 and 331-581.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture seeking permission for the subcommittee on the tobacco growing industry to travel to the principal tobacco growing regions of the country. The subcommittee is planning to travel in the fall. We would hope to visit various growing, manufacturing and sales facilities in Ontario, Quebec and on the East Coast. We anticipate receiving many submissions to our committee when we visit each area.




Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the Ravenscrag district in southwestern Saskatchewan protesting the closure of their post office. Having recently lost a school and a grain elevator, this closure represents the final nail in the coffin to the community. The
Introduction of Bills
people of Ravenscrag request that Canada Post reconsider this hasty decision.


NON-TRADITIONAL JOBS-ABOLITION OF PREFERENTIAL TILT
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of several dozen women in Toronto who are attending a training course right now for women in non-traditional jobs. The purpose of their petition is to protest the fact that the federal Government has cut back on the 30 per cent preferential tilt for women entering non-traditional jobs in this country.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY-ACTIVITIES ON WESTBANK INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Lorne Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of people of Westbank and Kelowna, British Columbia, I would like to table six petitions. They call upon the Government to appoint a commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the well-documented dubious activities which have taken place on the Westbank Indian Reserve with the compliance of the B.C. Region of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I might add that there would be many, many more signatures on these peitions but many people were afraid to sign.


REQUEST FOR COMMEMORATIVE STAMP-CANADIAN FIREFIGHTERS
Mr. Allan Pietz (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today on behalf of the fire departments of Welland, Thorold and St. Catharines. The petition has been certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 106.
It calls for the creation of a commemorative stamp as a tribute to the brave and invaluable service provided by Canadian fire-fighters, a tribute which over 21 other countries have already awarded their fire-fighters.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY-ACTIVITIES ON WESTBANK INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I too present a petition signed by 153 persons in the area of Okanagan-Similkameen which calls upon the Government to seek a full and impartial inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act to investigate fully all matters involving the Westbank Indian Band, most particularly its Chief and Council, and officials of the B.C. Regional Office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-291, an Act to regulate smoking in

June 25, 1986
Order Paper Questions
the federal work-place and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce for first reading a Bill to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and in transportation at the federal level and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising.
The Bill would make it a responsibility of employers under federal jurisdiction to provide a smoke-free working environment. The Bill is different from other legislation before the House in that it would introduce an objective criterion for the establishment of what is a smoke-free environment. It would provide protection to the public in places under federal jurisdiction and in transportation.
The second part of the Bill deals with the inclusion of cigarettes and cigarette products in the Hazardous Products Act so that there could be a complete ban on cigarette advertising and promotion of all kinds.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member 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.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['We will consider the matter stood until an appropriate time later when the Hon. Member returns.']
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 512 and 580.



Mr. de Jong: 1.	On Thursday, December 12, 1985 at 11 o'clock a.m., did a Department of National Defence Hercules aircraft leave Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, on a long-range navigational exercise which would land in five Latin and South American cities and, if so (a) did the flight depart at the time specified (A) how many crew were aboard (c) were there any other passengers aboard and if so (/') who were they (It) what was their function (d) how long will the entire journey take and at what cost?
2.	What was on the aircraft's manifest including cargo?
3.	What was to be dropped at each of the following locations (a) Guatamala City (A) Brasilia, Brazil (c) Georgetown, Guyana (d) Bogata, Columbia and Quinto, Ecuador?
4.	What is the maximum cargo capacity of the aircraft involved?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes. (a) Yes. (6) 20 crew members, (c) No. (d) Twelve days long and consisted of 60.1 flying hours. The incremental costs were estimated at $134,018.
2.	Twenty crew members and 376 cubic feet of freight weighing 2,660 pounds, an official External Affairs vehicle and 500 cubic feet of relief supplies weighing 3,000 pounds.
3.	(a) An official External Affairs vehicle. (b) There was no stop over in Brasilia, Brazil, (c) 150 cubic feet of freight weighing 1,500 pounds. (d) 226 dubic feet of freight weighing 1,160 pounds and 500 cubic feet of relief supplies weighing 3,000 pounds.
4.	45,000 pounds or 35,000 cubic feet.


WILDLIFE TOXICOLOGY FUND
Mr. Caccia: In establishing the Wildlife Toxicology Fund, were funds transferred from any program, budget or existing fund under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment and (a) if so (i) which program and/or service or operation was affected (ii) on what dates did the transfers take place (A) if not, in what way is the fund presently funded?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: 1.
Yes. (a) (i) Environmental Protection and Environmental Conservation Services (discretionary travel funds for the fiscal year 1985-86); (ii) May 22, 1985. (b) N/A.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 10 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is acceptable to the Government and the documents will be tabled immediately.
GARLON HERBICIDE RESEARCH TRIALS Motion No. 10-Mr. Fulton:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, reports, documents and other correspondence within the federal Government and its agencies with respect to Garlon herbicide research trials in the Skeena River watershed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 6, in the name of the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano); No. 9 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena; No. 18 in the name of the Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell
June 25, 1986

(Mr. Boudria); and No. 26 in the name of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). If Your Honour would do that I have replies to deal with on all four.


FINDINGS OF STUDY TEAM ON SERVICES AND SUBSIDIES TO BUSINESS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Gagliano:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House the initial findings of the mixed study team on Services and Subsidies to Business to the Ministerial Task Force.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Study Team Report on Services and Subsidies to Business, along with all other study team reports, was laid before the House on March 11, 1986. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
TASK FORCE ON PROGRAM REVIEW Motion No. 26-Mr. Caccia:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all follow-up studies to the Task Force on Program Review.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) indicated in the House on June 6, 1986, that the follow-up study on the environment will be tabled in the House on the same basis as the original reports as soon as translation and printing are completed. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw my motion in view of the fact that weeks have gone by since that statement was made and the report is causing anxiety and uncertainty. The report should be tabled now.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 73, the question is transferred for debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call Motion No. P-9 now.
DATA RESPECTING GARLON HERBICIDE RESEARCH TRIALS Motion No. 9-Mr. Fulton:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, reports, documents and other communications between the government, the Forest Pest Management Institute and Dow Chemical with respect to Garlon herbicide research trials in the Skeena River watershed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Departments of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of State (Forestry) have informed us that the documents requested cannot be released pursuant to Section 20(l)(b) of the Access to Information Act. I therefore ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to look at the precise nature of those documents listed in Motion No. 9 but I cannot imagine that they all fall under that Section of the Freedom of Information Act. I would ask that this motion as well be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 73, the matter is transferred for debate.
What is the wish of the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to Motion No. P-18?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do have an answer which would result in my requesting the Hon. Member to withdraw his motion, but in view of the fact that he is not here I do not wish to proceed along those lines.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has two options. It can stand the motion and wait a while, in which case we could return to it, or else it could simply order it transferred for debate.


Charles L. Caccia: Stand.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a member of the Hon. Member's Party has indicated that he feels it is a appropriate that it stand and I would agree with that contention.


Mr. Speaker:: We will consider the matter stood until an appropriate time later when the Hon. Member returns.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are thirteen report stage motions on today's Order Paper in amendment to Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill and, pursuant to Citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, I would propose to rule these motions out of order.
Motion No. 3 will be the object of a separate debate and a separate vote.
Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were all moved and negatived in Committee and will not be selected for debate and will therefore be dropped from the Notice Paper.

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act [English]
Motion No. 10 attempts to give rights to a group of employees specifically excluded in Clause 4(2) and is contrary to the principle of the Bill adopted at second reading stage. I would refer the Hon. Member to Citation 773(2) of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition. Motion No. 11 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 12 gives the Chair some procedural difficulty in that it contravenes the basic principle of the Bill as adopted at the second reading stage and I would refer the Hon. Member to Citation 764(1).
Motion No. 13 will be debated and voted on separately. [English]
To recap, the Chair has procedural difficulty with Motions Nos. 1, 2, 10 and 12. Motions Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, having all been moved in committee, are not selected.
If Hon. Members wish to make procedural representations to the Chair, I am disposed to hear them now. If more time is required, I would be prepared to hear arguments at the conclusion of the debate on the motions that are now in order, if that is the choice, and we could begin with Motion No. 3.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would wish to hear procedural argument on Motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying to indicate that it is now ready to hear procedural arguments on the ruling or to hear them at the end and begin with Motion No. 3, whichever is the wish of the House. If Hon. Members wish to make procedural arguments now, that is fine.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would rather proceed seriatim if you do not mind, and then we could deal with the others as they come before us.

The matter of the admissibility of Motions Nos. 1 and 2, in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), is a rather complicated one.
The Chair will recall that the whole issue of whether employees of the House of Commons were subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act or came under the authority of the Canada Labour Relations Board was challenged in the courts. The Federal Court handed down a ruling that was disappointing for the employees, who nevertheless persevered and took their case to the Supreme Court. On Monday, June 23, the day before yesterday, the Supreme Court received a request to appeal in connection with the matter now before the House.
Since the Supreme Court has not ruled whether the appeal is admissible, and since the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East says specifically that we should, and I will read the motion:
That Bill C-45, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 17 at page 1 the following:
"(c) any Supreme Court of Canada decision on certification which shall
take supremacy over this Act."
Since the Supreme Court's decision might be affirmative, that is, favourable to the employees, I think we could argue that the motion is admissible in that it anticipates the possibility that the courts might rule that House of Commons employees are subject to the Canada Labour Code.
That is my only argument, and that is all I wanted to say.
As for Motion No. 2, also in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), this amendment proposes to include the legislation now in effect for federal public servants, that is, the Public Service Employment Act and, of course, the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This is mainly an attempt to include in the Bill the various appeal procedures for appointments and everything that implies.
Here again, there is a good point that can be made, and I did so on second reading, Mr. Speaker, namely that the Public Service Employment Act should apply to House of Commons employees, so that people will know there is a staffing system that is fair and equitable for everyone.
Now I fail to understand why the Chair has grouped 1 and 2, when one motion appeals to the Supreme Court and the other asks for inclusion of an existing Act, an Act of Parliament, an Act concerning staff relations and an Act concerning employment. I do not see why the Chair-perhaps it would care to explain why-I fail to see how one can make a connection between 1 and 2. My point is that No. 2 in particular should be seen as distinct from No. 1, since it has no connection at all with the Supreme Court's decision. In any case, I think the Public Service Employment Act should be included as an amendment to Bill C-45.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to make procedural arguments at any great length. I would like to, but time is short as we are near the end of the session. We face a problem choosing between the need to consider an inadequate law and the prospect of no law at all. Under the circumstances I do not propose to challenge or to take issue with Your Honour's ruling, although I might do so at another time.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for his procedural non-intervention.
The Hon. Member is asking the Chair why Motions Nos. 1 and 2 are grouped in the ruling. They are only grouped from the point of view of the Chair that they are both out of order. That is the only way in which they connect in the ruling.
In the case of Motion No. 1, as the Hon. Member clearly indicates and knows, it introduces a concept beyond the concepts adopted at second reading, as does Motion No. 1, which introduces or attempts to introduce into the Bill matters
June 25, 1986

which go beyond what was originally adopted by the House in principle at second reading.
Clearly, the Hon. Member is making an argument as to the advisability of changing the law, not as to the procedural admissibility of the two motions. I think he will know that the Chair has no option but to find that the amendments cannot be accepted when there is procedural inadmissibility. On that basis we will call Motion No. 3.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-45, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 11 to 42 at page 6 and lines 1 to 5 at page 7.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that this law, which provides collective bargaining and certain other rights to employees of the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, and the Senate, will also apply to the staff of Members. We are talking about some 1,000 or more employees, since each Member generally has about three employees. The parts which would be diluted according to the amendment are the parts in subclause 4(2) which exclude application of the vast bulk of the Bill to anyone who works for a Member, a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Senate, a Leader, a Whip, or research services connected to any particular caucus.
Throughout debate in committee on Bill C-45, and prior thereto, I did not hear any particularly good reason put forward as to why the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada should in fact exclude totally or almost totally from any kind of employee rights people who work for Members and people who work in the other capacities defined in subclause 4(2). Nor have I heard an explanation of why it is that Members' staff are treated as particularly crucial and yet, for instance, large portions of Ministers' staff are already unionized because they are departmental staff seconded to Ministers' offices. They are doing many of the same jobs which are done by the staff in my office or in the offices of other Hon. Members. Despite the fact that those staff even have the right to strike under certain circumstances, Ministers seem to get by with unionism in their midst in terms of their particular staff.
During the course of the discussion we heard representations based upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was pointed out that very few workers in the entire country were totally excluded from collective bargaining rights. Farm workers and domestic workers in Ontario, or certain categories like those, perhaps hearken back to the days of the domestic servitude. However, in general, working people in every jurisdiction have the acknowledged right to form themselves into unions, to bargain collectively, or to seek to bargain collectively with their employers.
As we have seen in the case of the Gainers strike in Alberta, those rights can be truncated. They can be inadequate, and workers who seek to exercise those rights can be cruelly
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
victimized or very cruelly treated. Nonetheless, in general our Parliaments across Canada have granted those rights.
Employees in positions with the Legislature of Ontario were pointed out as an example. One assumes that those positions are just as crucial as the positions of employees of Members of the House of Commons and the other designated positions excluded in subclause 4(2). Those Ontario employees have the right to form a union and have formed a union. In the case of the employees of the Ontario NDP caucus in the Ontario Legislature, they have in fact had and exercised collective bargaining rights on an amicable basis for some 18 years or 20 years and now have a mature bargaining relationship. Somehow the NDP caucus has been able to continue to move on from one year to the next and has been able to do its job. Occasionally there have been some angry bargaining sessions and some dispute, as there will be between any group of employees and employers. At the same time, difficult situations have very often been resolved in a more equitable and fairer way because of the existence of the union.
For example, after the 1981 provincial election in Ontario, the NDP suffered a set-back and had to cut staff in its bargaining unit. The NDP was able to reach a much more amicable solution to a very difficult situation because it could deal with the staff on a collective basis rather than staff who happened to work for a defeated Member and found themselves out on the street, while other people with perhaps far less seniority and far less experience were able to keep their jobs.
Since Your Honour has ruled other motions out of order, I think 1 can comment generally without straying from the purpose of the motion before us now. When we looked at the question of the status of Members' staff, it was clear that that status was somewhat different from the status of some other employees in the House of Commons. The reason was that Members of Parliament-and I will speak to them, as the largest group-direct, supervise, hire, can fire, and certainly discipline any employees in their offices. The House of Commons pays the cheques, does the administrative work and that kind of thing, but that is all. Therefore, the situation is rather different from that of a supervisor, a foreman or forewoman in a plant or office. They direct, hire, and fire people working for them in a particular section of the plant or in a typing pool or something of that nature. The difference is that in a plant or an office the supervisor, foreman, or forewoman is an employee himself or herself. Members are not employees; they owe their employment to election by their electorate in their individual ridings. They may be accountable within their caucus or under certain rules to you, Mr. Speaker, but basically Members of Parliament are not employees of the House of Commons and are not exercising delegated authority. Even when we admit that, however, it does not stop the fact that as far as the employees are concerned, they tend to be linked not only to the Member but to the caucus to which the Member belongs.

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
To a greater or lesser extent the employees of different caucuses work as a unit. For example, training is provided in the three caucuses to employees if there is some caucus priority or campaign on; let us say, the task force on taxation which the current Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) led effectively when his Party was in opposition two years or three years ago. When some priority like that comes into force, Members' staff are pressed into service, working toward some common goals.
It is also the case that the job is stressful and high pressured. People tend to burn out. The present situation is an extremely difficult one for employees if they are given no rights at all. This situation will prevail if the presently proposed form of Bill C-45 goes forward and no change is made. There is still time to make that change.
The only protection provided-and it is an unusual one-is under the unjust dismissal provisions of Part III or Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. That is the only protection being given to Members' staff and to other designated staff in subclause 4(2), the clause which we are discussing right now. Therefore, those employees are supposedly guaranteed a 40-hour week with no more than eight hours of overtime. They are also guaranteed a certain number of holidays and that they will at least be paid the federal minimum wage. They are not paid adequately in most cases for the work they do. Nonetheless, their pay tends to exceed by a significant margin the federal minimum wage, so it is not an issue.
In terms of working hours, there may be certain cases where a Member's employee might decide to seek the protection of the Canada Labour Relations Board, through the Ministry of Labour's inspectors or however, because the individual is being asked to work 50, 55 or 60 hours a week, not just for one or two emergency weeks but on a continuous basis. I think we better be realistic about what that recourse really means for a Member's employee.
Suppose the employee feels that he or she is not being adequately paid for over-time or not being paid at all for overtime, yet is expected to work eight or ten hours extra a week on a continual basis? Suppose that person complains, what happens then? Does someone from the federal Department of Labour or the Canada Labour Relations Board come in to find the Member saying: "You have no right to come in to find out what is happening because this is Parliament and my privileges are being interfered with". That could well occur.
Second, what happens to the employee if an inspector comes in, reads the riot act to the Member, gets the Member to agree that he or she has been working the Member too hard and in future will only work that employee for 40 or 48 hours a week? What happens then, Mr. Speaker? In the first place the Member is free to do it all over again. Second, the Member is also free to take action which will make it extremely difficult for the employee to want to continue. For example, the Member could discipline the employee; suspend the employee
without pay or could demote the employee and give that employee the most menial job of the three or four jobs in the Member's office. The Member could possibly demote the employee in terms of pay as well. While case law would indicate that that amounts to constructive dismissal, and is something that could be debated or disputed in the courts, nonetheless the employee is in a situation where if that employee really wants to fight he or she has to keep on complaining until the Member decides to fire the individual. If an employee is fired, then he or she has the right to go to the Canada Labour Relations Board under the jurisdiction of the unjust dismissal clauses. I am not sure how effective those clauses have been, but it is certainly very flimsy protection for Members staff.
I suggested during the course of the committee hearings that if the Government was not prepared to give collective bargaining rights to employees, at the very least the Government should allow grievances to go to arbitration in the event of discipline, demotion or dismissal. That seems to me to be the very least protection we should give employees who do a vital job on behalf of Members and on behalf of others in other defined areas. I regret very much there was no give at all as far as government Members were concerned on that particular front and that we could take no action there.
I plead with Members opposite in this instance to agree to this amendment which will have the effect, as far as collective bargaining rights are concerned, of bringing into the Bill staff of Members and other staff in the designated areas who are now excluded. The Government pretends it is giving collective bargaining rights to all House of Commons employees but, in fact, the Government is excluding something like one-third of them because of this section, unless it is removed.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to speak on this item. My colleague has outlined many of the difficulties that can be experienced by employees in the House of Commons. We are all aware of a litany of problems over the years that have come up because those employees have not had the protection of bargaining rights and the protection of a collective agreement.
I would urge the House to consider strongly and seriously the resolutions put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.
June 25, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will 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 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next motion to be debated will be Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), I should like to move the motion in her name.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) to move the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-45, be amended in Clause 69 by striking out lines 36 to 46 at page 38 and lines 1 to 27 at page 39 and substituting the following therefor:
"69. Where expenses are incurred in the adjudication of any dispute,
provisions similar to those in the Public Service Staff Relations Act apply."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the amendment which proposes that adjudication expenses be equitably distributed. The way the Bill is now drafted, if there is a dispute with respect to an appointment, a position or a demotion, in other words if an individual learns all of a sudden that he no longer holds his position because he has been demoted, if for one reason or another the individual is the object of an appointment other than the one he holds, Bill C-45 provides that the adjudication expenses are to be shared by the parties involved, namely the employer and the employee.
The amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, as I said, seeks to restore a certain degree of fairness. It is mainly based on the Public Service Employment Act, which now applies to some 275,000 public servants and under which unfair or improper appointments may be appealed.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Whenever the Public Service Commission is called upon to appoint an appeal panel, of course the Commission pays the costs; it pays for the services provided in connection with that appeal. Being different, the Labour Code allows employees, through their labour unions, to negotiate matters that are nonnegotiable in the public sector; there is a difference there, and I would like to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal.

We are dealing here with a system that borrows from two pieces of legislation. Under the Canada Labour Code we know that the employees through their unions can negotiate classification standards and procedures. They can also negotiate appointments and promotions, all that affects one's standing in his or her job.
Under the Public Service Employment Act that is not the way it operates. Under the Public Service Employment Act, as I said before, which prevails for approximately 275,000 public servants, the process is different. There is no negotiating of the classification standards between the union and the employer, although the Government promised to bring that in some day. We have not seen any of that yet. You cannot negotiate classification standards and you cannot negotiate nominations or appointments. You cannot make a deal with the employer as to process with regard to such important things as where you stand in the organization, what kind of work you will be doing and what remuneration you will get. It stands as a system by itself distinct from the Canada Labour Code.
Clause 69 of Bill C-45 is the same as Section 97 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, except for one paragraph which I would like to draw to the attention of the House. Paragraph (4), which was an amendment brought in through committee, says:
Where a grievance respecting a matter referred to in paragraph 63(1 )(d), (e) or (f) is referred to adjudication, the adjudicator's remuneration and expenses shall be borne equally by the parties.
Let us take an example of subsection (f) where an employee finds himself retrograded, that is-

He is being demoted in his own job. The employee could be told by his or her employer, supervisor or office manager; "I am sorry, but you no longer hold the position of a security corporal. You are now holding the position of a junior officer or a simple security guard". The supervisor does not have to provide any reason or any explanation-that is that.
The employee feels hurt and shocked and wants to fight his or her employer's decision, and the only way to do so under Bill C-45 is to ask that the grievance be submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator's expenses and salary will all be payed for by both the employee and the employer. And only when the arbitrator has been appointed is the employee entitled to know

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
the reasons for his or her demotion, and this, Mr. Speaker, I find unfair.
I want it to be on record that this clause of Bill C-45 seems unfair to me. It is not a clause that we are ready to support. We firmly believe that if our employees are to have a positive, modern, and progressive system, it must be recognized that they have a right to be heard, that they are entitled to a certain degree of job security, that they are also entitled to know beforehand why they are demoted or appointed to a less favourable position.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good amendment and I support the arguments made by my hon. friend, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The concept of this amendment was discussed in committee. The amendment was not put forward in these particular terms, but I hope it is acceptable to and accepted by the Government.
On a number of occasions opposition Members in the committee, which was a constructive committee, sought to make improvements to the Bill and to be helpful. However, this is not now a Bill which we feel comfortable supporting because of the problems which I will talk about at third reading stage. I think that this idea which came from our side of the House should have been seriously considered by the Government. I hope this amendment will be accepted.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain briefly the Government's position on this. The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and others in the House who served on the committee will know that as a result of representations by employees the Government did move on amendments to allow for the adjudication of classification issues. The Government provided for an adjudicator to be selected from outside the Public Service Staff Relations Board. For that reason, it is necessary for the costs to be picked up by both parties. The Public Service Staff Relations Board does not presently deal with the adjudication of classification matters. It does not have any experts on staff who could do the job. Therefore, we must go outside the Board, as stipulated in the Bill, and the cost will have to be picked up by the employer and employee.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 11. Mr. Gauthier (for Ms. Copps), seconded by Mr. Frith, moves:
That Bill C-45, be amended in Clause 69 by striking out lines 36 to 46 at page 38 and lines 1 to 27 at page 39.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division stands deferred.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-45, be amended in Clause 73 by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 41.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the section of the Bill put forward by the Government which we thought was the most effective to raise the issue of the denial of the right to strike to people working on Parliament Hill. Clause 73 is a short clause which quite specifically prohibits the right to strike.
During committee stage of the Bill I sought to put forward a number of amendments which essentially would have paralleled the situation that prevails in the Public Service of Canada. It is not a perfect arrangement but it is the provision by which the people in the Public Service have the right to either seek conciliation on the right to strike or, in the event of negotiation breakdown, have their dispute sent to an arbitrator.
There are also provisions within the Public Service which allow for the designation of certain employees as being so essential that they do not enjoy the right to strike. While I regret that those are defined in far too broad a manner, the protection to allow Parliament to continue its work is in that pattern of amendments. For the purposes of this debate, and since the Government has made its position very clear, we have simply asked that Clause 73 of the Bill be deleted. Clause 73 states:
No employee shall participate in a strike.
I presume that means a strike here on Parliament Hill. I suppose they can strike on their part-time job if they must have a part-time job in order to make ends meet.
If the House accepts this amendment, as I hope it will, 1 hope it will also very quickly agree to put in the other necessary pieces of legislation which can be borrowed from the Public Service Staff Relations Act in order to ensure that members of the staff of the House of Commons and Parliament in general will have the same collective bargaining rights as those which exist right now for people working elsewhere in the Public Service of Canada. Obviously, the first step is a step of principle, whether we agree on this issue.
June 25, 1986

We are asked why employees on Parliament Hill should have the right to strike. The answer is, "Why not?". This is a free society. It has always been accepted that in a free society employees should have the right to withdraw their labour in order to arrive at a better version of equality between employers and employees. A strike is a highly orchestrated form of job action. Except in Alberta, employees who strike have their old employment guaranteed for a certain period of time. They do not lose touch completely with their job as they would in an organized workplace if they decided to collectively get together and hand in their resignations. A strike is a way of putting pressure on the employer and dramatizing a situation which has become so crucial that the employees have no other way of getting reasonable consideration of the problem troubling them.
I think Members know that the problem on Parliament Hill is not essentially one of wages or the number of hours per year people are asked to work. It is a matter of job rules, staff classification, and alleged nepotism in appointments to certain positions. If collective bargaining for a couple of years does not start to sort these problems out, then what will happen where employees are tol'd they cannot bargain over classification and staffing because it has been excluded in the Bill? The answer is: I do not know.
Members know that in other jurisdictions, where employees are so incensed at their treatment by employers, the sole effect of a law which says strikes are illegal is that illegal strikes take place. I do not anticipate that that will be the situation here, at least in the near future. Nonetheless, it has been known to occur elsewhere. The Gainers strike in Alberta is perhaps a case in point. If the employees strike for more than 24 hours they effectively lose their jobs. The employer has the right to hire scab workers and is not required to take the employees back and kick the scab workers out when the strike is settled. In the circumstances that is almost a recipe for what is happening out there where the employees feel they have no other recourse.
On Parliament Hill one has to ask whether the people who fix the furniture are essential to the day-to-day operations of Parliament. That is true also of the people who prepare the coffee on the fourth floor of the Wellington Building where almost no Members are located. If there were only two buses running instead of six, would that impede in a material way the work of Parliament for a brief period of time? The record of committee hearings are already several weeks in arrears. If they were to be delayed for a further week or so I would regret it, but if we are not getting them in 24 hours right now and we are still doing our job, then is a strike which delayed them a little longer going to materially affect our ability to do our jobs?
In other words, even on Parliament Hill it should be possible for working people to have the same kind of collective bargaining rights which exist elsewhere. The same kind of disciplines
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
as well. Arbitration is not a particularly good response. Among other things, any arbitrator who comes to resolve a problem here is going to have great difficulty understanding the very unusual environment. It is a very unusual workplace. The people who know best are those who work here all the time, the employees and management.
If a strike is the ultimate recourse, then it very much concentrates the mind when people get down to the nitty-gritty of negotiations. We have seen too many examples in the Public Service of Canada where the employer simply drags his feet, and will not bargain in a meaningful way and in good faith. The attitude is that if they tough it out then it will go to the arbitrator and they will get what they want. They may or may not get what they want, but certainly as far as employees are concerned it is extremely frustrating because they have to leave these issues, on which they are looking for a constructive compromise, in the hands of an arbitrator. On the other side, the employer runs the risk of decisions such as that in Toronto some years ago involving the Metropolitan Toronto Police where it was decided they always had to have two constables in a patrol car. That was something which surely should have been settled by negotiation and not by arbitration.
My time is running short so I hope a few other Members of my caucus will contribute to this debate as well. I do not see why we have to put a glass cage around the Houses of Parliament. We should be an example of progressive, not regressive legislation. Unfortunately, Bill C-45 is the latter. I am quite prepared to admit that it is better than having no Bill at all, but it could have shown quite concretely what the Government meant when it said it wanted to have progressive labour relations across Canada. Clearly that is not the intention of the Government. By denying the right to strike and the other restrictions in this Bill, the Government has created a situation where the employees are getting some bargaining rights but will basically be 20, 30 or 40 years behind where they should be.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Hon. Member because this is one of the issues where the Government did not move. As I said earlier, there was considerable movement at committee stage with respect to independent arbitration. I think I speak for all Members when I say we feel we improved the Bill that way. However, there is no question in our minds that the unfettered ability of Parliament to function is too important to put at risk through the possibility of a strike. Whether it be a strike by any one particular section of the employees on the Hill, the problem remains the same. The Parliament of Canada cannot be put at risk. We do not feel it would be correct for us to put in place a law which may put at risk a Member trying to serve his constituents on the one hand, fulfil his or her oath of office, and at the same time have to decide whether or not to cross a picket line. For that reason there was no movement whatsoever on this particular issue. I would also point out that the Hon. Member made no stipulations with respect to essential
14828

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
services. For that reason as well we are not prepared to support this amendment.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a few comments because the position of our spokesperson, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, and of our Party generally has been that indeed the last words of the Parliamentary Secretary are the key to the argument, namely that no service has been designated as being essential. Perhaps this is where we would have liked the Government to accept amendments to clear up the situation.
In our view it is neither essential nor necessary to eliminate or take away the right to strike of employees who are not essential to the operations of Parliament. In this respect we also acknowledge the existence of the major academic question of parliamentary privilege: where does it begin and where does it end? We also know full well that this is not an easy question-it is a very complex question-and that many people who are much more intelligent and much more conversant with the matter than we are have been giving serious consideration to it for a number of years.
I remember a citation from Beauchesne's which I looked up and which in my opinion very neatly defines the position of many Members on the right-to-strike provision, and I would like to read it, Mr. Speaker, because I think this puts it very clearly-it is a quote from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms-and it reads as follows:
The control and management of the officers of the Houses are as completely within the privilege of the Houses as any regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls. These officers are under the guidance of certain rules and orders of the House which are among the regulation of its proceedings and as essentially matters of privilege as the appointment of committees, the conduct of public business and the procedure of the Houses, generally, including the acts of the Speaker himself in the Chair. Neither the Government nor any other authority has the power to deal with the staff of the House of Commons unless specially authorized to do so by statute or resolution of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I think Beauchesne comes fairly close to a definition of parliamentary privilege, that employees of the House of Commons are with us in these Parliament buildings and that it is difficult to take a group and say: these people are not essential and those are. This has always been a very difficult matter. We cannot agree entirely with the Government's decision to drop the right to strike from this Bill and decide against giving certain individuals the right to withdraw their services. Considering the wisdom of the people who sat on this committee, I would have thought, and I said so at second reading, that it would be possible to find a definition of what constitutes an essential service: one whose withdrawal jeopardizes either the safety or the well-being of the organization. And that is how it is defined in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It is also pretty clearly defined in the legislation covering public servants in general, the employees of the Public Service of Canada, which says that a person in a given position is essential and thus excluded from the collective bargaining process and therefore does not have the right to strike, and that others do have the right to strike.
So I would have thought we could have been flexible about this, and I think the employees themselves would also have liked a distinction made between what is essential and what is not. My point is, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to have to admit that with all the assistance we got, we were unable to convince the Government that it was possible to make a distinction between essential and non-essential. We lost on that score, and I must admit that I find this amendment a step backward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of Mr. Cassidy.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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 114(11) the recorded division stands deferred.
The House will deal now with the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the Bill which is now before the House.
Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 3. Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Mr. Skelly, moved:
That Bill C-45 be amended in clause 4 by striking out lines 11 to 42 at page 6 and lines 1 to 5 at page 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
June 25, 1986


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). All those in favour please rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
++NAYS
Members

The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Mr. Rossi:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the vote of the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) was recorded. He voted and left the House immediately after.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa is right. The Hon. Member's name will be striken off the record.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if you were to check, I believe there might be disposition to allow the vote just taken, whatever it was, to be applied-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What do you mean? It was on my amendment.


Ian Deans: It was a good amendment; it is just that I did not know what the vote was. In any event, I think Your Honour might find disposition to apply the vote just taken to Motion No. 13.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken to Motion No. 13?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Thacker
June 25, 1986

Towers
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbintere)
Tupper
Members
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vezina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Winegard Wise
Witer-138.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
on that committee. There was no time wasted. There was a concern exhibited by all Members for the employees on the Hill. Also there was a concerted effort by all Members to improve the Bill and to respond to employee concerns.
The members of the committee listened, as did the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). We achieved considerable progress and responded on the part of the Government with a package of concrete amendments. It is fair to say that the progress made was due to the representations by committee members as a result of some very helpful testimony from organizations such as NABET, PSAC, the security service, and parliamentary employee groups. In fact, the committee heard from individual employees on the Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties and if Your Honour were to seek unanimous consent to proceed immediately to third reading I think it would be agreed to by all Parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to third reading of the Bill at this time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert René de Cotret: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in this third reading debate of Bill C-45 there are a couple of matters I should like to put on record. We think this is an important occasion, one for which parliamentary employees have waited with utmost patience. Perhaps I will exhibit a little patience and let the House clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we have order, please, so that we can listen to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. I ask those Members who wish to continue conversations to do so outside the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, this is the first time in history that parliamentary employees will be able to enjoy the benefits of contemporary and progressive labour relations legislation which we have tailored to the special circumstances of Parliament. We have given them the ability to enter into collective bargaining. They will also be protected, for the first time ever, under Part III and Part IV of the Canada Labour Code.
I should also like to say that this was my first experience with the legislative committee system. I must say that it is a very satisfactory method by which the House can consider legislation. Our committee operated in the exact way which the McGrath committee planned. There was no partisanship
There was one message which came through loud and clear, and that was a crucial need on the Hill for the provision of a route of redress on staffing matters and on the question of employee classification. The Government brought forward amendments to address those problems. Matters such as the termination of employment of the employee, the demotion of the employee, and the employer's evaluation of an employee's skill, fitness and ability where an employee has been denied an appointment, will now become adjudicable.
These amendments allow for the representatives of both parties, that is the employer and the employee, to select the adjudicator in the case of staffing and classification grievances. In instances where the two parties are unable to agree on the selection of the adjudicator, the amendment would provide for the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board to select an independent third party adjudicator to resolve the grievance.
The amendments also provide for independent third party adjudication of classification matters, subject to a provision that there would be a one-year grace period provided in which the administration of the House of Commons, the Library of Parliament, and the Senate will be expected to establish classification standards and procedures and to deal with classification grievances. If the circumstances surrounding the original grievance are still in existence one year after the Bill comes into force, then the employee will have access to adjudication.
Another matter raised in committee was the question of the recognition of cards already signed by employees which must be resubmitted to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. After considering the very reasonable suggestions put forward by the employees, the Government brought forward an amendment which allows the Public Service Staff Relations Board to recognize the union membership cards which were signed by various employee groups on the Hill. This will save the employees a great deal of time in that they will not be forced to obtain new evidence. This will also allow them to embark upon the collective bargaining process that much sooner.

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you were to examine the Committee's deliberations and the points put forward by various witnesses, six concerns were raised. Two, namely, third party adjudication on staffing and classification issues and the question of recognizing the union membership cards, were addressed by the Government in committee. Three others, the question of making classification issues and staffing issues negotiable; technological changes and the allowing of union grievances to be presented were considered by the Government. There was a commitment given that if these were to form any part of the forthcoming amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act these amendments would be brought forward simultaneously to the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
The last item, the right to strike, was rejected by the Government as it was considered inappropriate to our parliamentary concept.
It is the Government's belief that these amendments go a long way toward giving parliamentary employees a right of redress for staffing and classification issues. It has taken a long time, but parliamentary employees will finally begin to have a say in the determination of their working conditions. We feel this Bill is an important and an historic starting point in this process. I urge the Members to give speedy passage to this Bill at third reading so that our employees on the Hill can begin to enjoy the modern labour management relationship on Parliament Hill which they so richly deserve.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: As I rise on third reading, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to emphasize that the debate on Bill C-45 has been both constructive and non-partisan. I suggest it is to the credit of all Hon. Members of the House to stress that it was a substantive debate, and at no time did I hear partisan remarks about this Bill, and I am pleased about that.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-45 is Parliament's response to the need of its employees to form unions to defend their rights as workers. This is not a new issue by any means. I have been in the House for 14 years and practically every year, or every second or third year, the question of a Bill came up. Since the adoption of the Charter in 1982-as Hon. Members are aware, it acknowledges the right of Canadians to form associations-this question has become more urgent and the employees of the House of Commons saw fit to take action.
When we consider the Government's decision to introduce Bill C-45, a piece of legislation that is both complex and important, "An Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament", I think the subject of this legislation and the way it was dealt with is first of all, to the credit of the employees themselves, who, as we know, promoted the concept of organizing and obtained the support of their colleagues at work. Mr. Speaker, today it is recognized that
the cards signed by the employees before the Bill was tabled had the effect of advancing and promoting the concept of union organizing on Parliament Hill.
Mr. Speaker, it is also a fact that these cards and this initiative were the result of work done by people at all levels, people who were concerned about employee-employer relations and about instances of unfairness to employees which were sometimes impossible to remedy.
We were unable to include the right to strike in the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and as I said earlier when we were considering the amendments, I would have preferred to see employees designated or identified according to whether they were essential or non-essential to parliamentary operations. I quoted Beauchesne because, whether we like it or not, parliamentary privilege prevails, and I am convinced that all employees are part of the parliamentary unit and as such, we are all dependent on and bound to one another by the concept of parliamentary privilege. The majority won. Perhaps one day, we might be able to do something else.
The major provisions of the Bill, as the Parliamentary Secretary said a while ago, deal mostly with the right of appeal to a third party about matters as serious as dismissal, demotion, refusal of a promotion or misapplication of norms of classification. We must clearly understand, Mr. Speaker, that, in Bill C-45, the Government is not agreeing to the negotiation of norms of classification, because there will be no negotiation about what people will do, only about application of the norms to determine whether the work done by the employee corresponds with the classification level, which will naturally have been determined by the employer.
There is a difference and I hope that it is clear. The norms of classification will not be negotiable; what will be negotiable will be their application. Staffing will be negotiable, but I imagine that the job description will be determined by the employer and it is how the position will be filled that will be negotiable, which I believe to be a good thing. In any case, it was because of these two problems, staffing and classification, that the employees worked persistently for many years to obtain the right to unionize so that there would be some fairness in the system, so that their rights as employees would be guaranteed, and so that, if they deem it appropriate, they would be able to obtain redress in case of an injustice or an unfair treatment.
Mr. Speaker, amendments to certain terms in the French text were put forward in committee, as well as a number of minor technical amendments which I shall not be dealing with.
But I would like to return to the matter I consider important, important enough to warrant an amendment-arbitration to resolve grievances.
It is quite clear to me that all that was sought was a requirement for the employer to pay for the expenses incurred with respect to appeals or grievances that might be lodged by employees. The Government has deemed fit not to support that amendment, and it will be saying in Bill C-45 that the
June 25, 1986

expenses relating to grievances shall be borne by both employer and employee. The people in charge, that is the third parties, incur expenses of course, and this will be borne by both the employer and the employee. In other terms, where there is a conflict or grievance concerning a staffing decision, promotion or demotion, dismissal or lay-off, such matters will henceforth be referred to a third party, but the employee shall bear half of the expenses, his share of the expenses incurred by the arbitrator, the conciliator or the person who will be in charge of resolving the grievance.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe that such a practice is not what we are accustomed to. At the federal level we operate differently with our 250,000-odd federal civil servants. What we have there is an appeal procedure that is identical to the grievance procedure put forward in C-45, except that under the appeal procedure, which is administered by the Public Service Commission of Canada, expenses are entirely paid for by the general public, the public Treasury through the Commission. This means that employees can appeal without having to spend money.
This is why we introduced the amendment. It was turned down, which admittedly is a defeat, but the idea was good. It was worthwhile in my view.
I do not want to speak too long on this Bill but I would like to state clearly that I believe Bill C-45 provides the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament with a framework of representation which is, I hope, in the interests of all employees. Issues of concern included provision in the Bill for grievance procedure, job classification, staffing, appointments, appraisals, promotions, demotions, transfers and lay-offs which could not be subject to an arbitral award. The exclusion of political staff and the denial to employees of the right to strike has been addressed by everyone in the House, and the conclusions are quite evident.
During committee hearings a number of amendments were proposed by the Government which have, at least in part, met the concerns of employees. The stronger grievance procedure which I just described will come into force after one year. This can be dealt with positively and will be a step in the right direction. With the introduction and acceptance of some amendments the legislation is better. It improves the process with regard to justice and equity. Bill C-45 does not allow for the transfer of certification orders without a vote of the members of the union. NABET believes that this will add to the delay for the union.
I would like to put some of the concerns of the Public Service Alliance on the record. PSAC believes that the grievance procedure is an improvement but does not go far enough. It will act as a basis for future negotiations but does not meet with PSAC approval. PSAC would like the union to be able to take policy issues to grievance. This is not allowed under the amended legislation. PSAC is concerned about the
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
one year the employer has been granted to reorganize classifications. Until the one year is up, the unions cannot grieve anything regarding classification.
In conclusion, I would like to say that my colleague, the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), has participated in debate on this issue, was in committee, and did her utmost to improve this Bill. Speaking in her name and the name of my colleagues I would like to join with all other parliamentarians in hoping that Bill C-45, an Act respecting unionization on the Hill, will meet the hopes and expectations of our employees. Anything can be improved, as I am sure this Bill can be.
I believe we are today taking a historic step in the right direction. I know that the employees are anxious to operate effectively under this legislation. I know there will be some wrinkles to be ironed out. We have taken a non-partisan approach on this Bill. Canadians have a commitment to giving employees' organizations the right to get the best deal possible with the employer. I join all of my colleagues in telling the employees that we are happy and proud that they pushed us into doing this. We are very happy and proud that they have succeeded in getting something which they have wanted to obtain for a long time. We wish them the best.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, we are all pleased that the process on Bill C-45 is coming to an end because it has been long and time consuming. I am not sure what position the Liberal Party is taking on third reading of the Bill, but although we have acted this afternoon to expedite the Bill in order to ensure that it will receive approval by the Senate before the end of this week, we will oppose the Bill at third reading because my Party feels that, although it is a step forward to have some form of labour relations legislation for employees on Parliament Hill 120 years or so after Confederation, it is bad to have a Bill as flawed as this one. We regret that some fundamental changes have not been made in the Bill in order to recognize that Members' staffs should have the same bargaining rights as employees in the private sector and elsewhere in the Government of Canada.
When this process began we were told that the aim was to give employees on Parliament Hill the same bargaining rights which they would enjoy if they worked for the Public Service of Canada. There is a bit of a con game being played because what is provided in Bill C-45 is considerably less than that. One reason is that the Public Service of Canada has a long history of labour relations behind it now. There is a very intricate and elaborate network of consultation on many subjects which cannot be bargained under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. There is the Public Service Commission, nominally responsible to Parliament, which is in place to ensure that the merit principle is respected. There is a well-established process under which employees who feel they have been badly treated in staffing actions can appeal to the PSC. There is a similar process by which classification decisions can be subject to a review outside of an employee's particular department, although still granted by management. What that

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
means is that the negotiated portion of what goes on in the Public Service of Canada is part of a complex of labour relations mechanisms and institutions, and simply to take a stripped down version of the negotiation part and say that the employees on the Hill are getting it all is to seriously mislead those who look to see what is happening.
The Government erred fundamentally in not understanding that, because of the independence of Parliament from the Government of Canada, it was not possible to put the House of Commons under the Public Service Staff Relations Act or something close to it. It was not possible to give the PSC direct oversight on actions taken by the administration of the House of Commons on behalf of MPs and senators. Therefore, it seems more creativity was needed in coming up with an acceptable Bill to give our employees what they do not have. Of course, I do not comment on the fact that the Government has quite specifically refused to grant the right to strike even though it has been available to people in the Public Service for 20 years.
I would remind the House that in 1966 the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, which was then studying Bill C-170, which ultimately became the Public Service Staff Relations Act, stated that consideration should be given to introduction of legislation to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act and the Library of Parliament Act to extend to the employees the advantages and rights similar to those of public servants under Bill C-170. It is now 18 years later and we are just about to conclude debate on Bill C-45, yet we still have not gone as far as what was proposed by that committee then. I think it was understood at that time that there would be early action, but unfortunately it has been deferred. One has to blame the Liberal Government because it could have done this but did not. For all its faults one has to recognize, and I do, that the Conservatives have gone forward with a Bill which gives a form of bargaining, not to all but to many employees on Parliament Hill. Even if it has defects, it will at least ensure that employees will be able to talk over issues, be consulted and make representations to the administration, something they have not been able to do before.
That said, I would point out that while certain changes were made during the committee process, a process which was relatively positive, nonetheless, when it came to looking at solutions to problems, the Government cracked the whip and undue restrictions were put on a number of amendments which we were able to make to the Bill, even though those that were made were welcome. One unchanged area was the scope of arbitration. As people who have studied these matters are aware, that effectively governs the scope of bargaining. If you do not have the right to strike and only have recourse to arbitration to resolve disputes, then those matters which go to arbitration are the only ones on which you can have meaningful negotiations. The other matters will not be capable of adequate negotiation because the employer will say that there is no requirement on him to discuss them. They can simply be
allowed to sit on the table without response and the union will not be abled to get any satisfaction through arbitration because the arbitrator will note be able to touch it. For example, Clause 55(2) says:
No arbitral award shall deal with the standards, procedures or processes governing the appointment, appraisal, promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off or release of employees, or with any term or condition of employment of employees that was not a subject of negotiation between the parties during the period before arbitration was requested in respect thereof.
Clause 55(3) says:
An arbitral award shall deal only with terms and conditions of employment of employees in the bargaining unit in respect of which the request for arbitration was made.
In other words, very little can be bargained. As well, Clause 5 limits that even further. That clause is a management's rights clause which is much stronger than you find in the private sector. Clause 5(3) says:
Nothing in this Part shall be construed so as to affect the right or authority of an employer to determine the organization of the employer and to assign duties and classify positions of employment.
In other words, there is no way employees can directly get at many of the problems which provoked them into all the effort which has preceded the introduction of this Bill.
This Bill is technically not an expansion of rights, it is a diminution of rights. For a period of six months the Canada Labour Relations Board had certified some 1,000 employees on Parliament Hill. Those employees therefore enjoyed the full collective bargaining rights available under the Canada Labour Relations Code which is as ample a code as exists in Canada. That has now been taken away. On the pretext that the Government's rules for its employees shall be followed, the Government has gone forward with a set of rules which take away the certifications granted by the Board. That fails to recognize the efforts the unions put into getting that certification. The Government then applies a number of other restrictions.
It should be clear that there were other reasons for which the workers formed unions than that of wages and benefits. They were concerned because their dignity as workers was being threatened. They were concerned because they felt there were a lot of injustices in things such as classification and staffing. They were concerned that there was no meaningful grievance process on Parliament Hill. Grievances could be lodged but the final stage was with management and there was no outside arbitration. When that is the case, of course, a grievance process can never work particularly effectively. They were concerned about arbitrary management action. They were concerned about what they felt was evidence of nepotism in various places. They were concerned about documented instances of sexual harassment. They were concerned about the fact that there were substantially different salaries being paid to workers who were doing essentially the same job. They were concerned that health and safety was not being respected for employees on Parliament Hill. They were concerned that, almost alone among employees under federal jurisdiction, or what they thought was federal jurisdiction, they did not have
June 25, 1986

the fundamental right to form a union, freely associate, bargain collectively, and enforce collective bargaining by recourse to a strike.
What has come down the pipe? Bill C-45. It does not grant the right to strike. It restricts collective bargaining. It totally excludes Members' staff, apart from the question of their being able to seek adjudication on unjust dismissal. If they do so, they will have no union representative at their side in order to help them fight that particular case. They will either have to get grace and favour assistance from the union, which is doing it because it believes that the Members' staff should be represented, or they will have to hire a lawyer at great expense in order to fight that particular case.
I am sure you know that the staff of the Members of the House of Commons are not that well paid, and for many of them that will be a further hardship and sacrifice if they have to use legal counsel in order to take a case before an outside arbitrator in the event of unjust dismissal. If they complain in public, they will be liable to dismissal.
I was disappointed that the Liberals, when we came to the vote just a few minutes ago on my amendment, which would have extended collective bargaining rights to Members' staff, were no more progressive on this issue than the Progressive Conservatives. They agreed with the Government's stand that next to no rights should be given to Members' staff.
What progress was there during the course of the committee hearings? Well, three things occurred. We broadened the title of the Bill to include the Library of Parliament. I think that was my contribution as the Librarian of Parliament is a constituent and I was simply acting on behalf of an elector in my riding.
The Government brought forward amendments, which were accepted, to extend grievance rights to allow grievances to go to arbitration respecting discipline, demotion and dismissal, and respecting the questions of classification and staffing. The Parliamentary Secretary in committee indicated publicly-and I have just checked this with him and confirmed it-that although the Government has not been prepared to agree to the negotiation of issues of staffing or classification for parliamentary staff, the Government is prepared to use its good offices, through the Board of Internal Economy, to ensure that the administration of the House of Commons will consult with the staff through the unions which have been formed on issues of classification and staffing. I will be watching, as one Member who, among other things, has many of the affected employees in my riding, to ensure that that particular commitment is respected.
During the hearings, there was real concern, which I think was felt by Members on all sides, including my friend for Nepean-Carleton, the Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) and the Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney), Conservative Members who took part in the hearings, and I think we all
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
felt real misgivings about the quality of the labour relations administration at the House of Commons. It was symbolized by the fact that the House was extremely reluctant to agree to any participation on paid time by the presidents of the three unions, who got certification so they could see what was going on and as well help Members in the work. At the same time, the House saw nothing at all wrong with having as many as 15 or 20 management staff from the House of Commons sit in on many of our hearings. That kind of inequity spoke to us about an attitude within the House of Commons which helps to account for the fact that the workers have unionized. They have been very unhappy about what has been going on, and the House of Commons does not yet appear to have learned very much.
I have already commented on whether or not the rights that have been granted are the same as those that Public Service workers have. I would comment on the fact that the concession with respect to certification is a very minor one. These three unions were already recognized. It would have been perfectly easy for the Bill to have extended the CLRB recognition to those three unions, the Alliance, NABET and the security staff, without the people having to go and get certification again.
In passing I want to say a very sincere thank you for the very constructive and helpful participation from the Alliance, from the Parliament Hill local of the Alliance, and also to Mr. Jacques Audette and Allan Piche, who were particularly helpful to me, and to all of the other people from the other unions who took part, gave us information and were extremely helpful. I am afraid that their help was not repaid in this particular area because the concession on certification is a very minor one. For reasons of certainty I have been advising the unions that it may make sense for them to get new cards, because they can get automatic certification, we were told, if they get 51 per cent of their bargaining unit with new cards.
I regret the fact that, given the peculiar circumstances in the House of Commons, the Government was not prepared to grant policy grievances to the unions on Parliament Hill. This is a different place from the Public Service. In the Public Service there is a network of consultation mechanisms, which I mentioned before, which has taken 40 years to build up. We have not got the time to do all of that catching up. Allowing what are called policy grievances or union grievances to be taken collectively would have anticipated problems and helped to sort things out much more quickly, and I think would have been an appropriate way of dealing with some of the special conditions that are here, particularly since most workers across the country have it.
I welcome-even if I am dismayed at the delay-the assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the issues of technological change and negotiation of staffing will be incorporated in this Bill if they become part of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I believe they should have been included now, but it is better to have them later than not to have them at all. I have already stated my disagreement with

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
the Government in terms of its antediluvian view on the question of the right to strike.
I have two final comments to make on this particular Bill, which, as I said before, we are opposing. We are opposing it on principle because it still is inadequate labour legislation. What has been done during the course of the hearings-and everyone did contribute positively to them-is to turn a Bill, which was totally unacceptable to the workers involved, into a Bill which they perforce feel they have no choice but to accept. It is the only game in town. Nonetheless, the amendments put forward by the Government that allow grievances through arbitration by individuals on matters of classification and staffing and that kind of thing are the barest minimum to make the Bill barely tolerable to the unions. While we do not have to go along with that, I understand the desire to get the Bill through.
I feel very strongly personally about the total exclusion of Members' staff from this Bill. I think that is wrong and I think we are going to discover it is wrong when sometime in the next year or two we get some staff members from different Members' offices-hopefully not the New Democratic Party- who feel compelled to go to the public and make a public issue of some complaint or some problem because they have no redress and no recourse, having been left out of Bill C-45.
I feel particularly strongly over the fundamental denial of collective bargaining rights because of the denial of the right to strike. I feel that the limitations on bargaining are such that it makes this a very bad Bill. I would say in conclusion that good labour relations are very important. I hope that the Speaker, the acting Administrator of the House of Commons, and the Board of Internal Economy members who are not listening will see these comments in Hansard.
The House of Commons is back in the dark ages in terms of its labour relations. It must take Bill C-45, inadequate as it may be, seriously. It must seek harmony in labour relations, accepting fully that workers who have chosen to form trade unions are exercising a right available to all Canadians, and not a begrudging kind of attitude that has gone on until now when the House is trying to take those rights away.
If that were to be the spirit in which Bill C-45 is administered by the House of Commons, then it has some prospects of working. If the current attitude persists, it has no opportunity to work at all. I hope it will work for the sake of the employees affected. I am sorry the Bill could not have been a better one.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: It goes on to note that this relates to grievance and eventual adjudication if necessary. This merit principle is a very important addition to the legislation.
The second principle that I find important is the third party adjudication. During the legislative hearing process we heard about many cases where the existing grievance and adjudication process in the internal adjudication system has not worked. It is vitally important to establish a procedure whereby our employees can go through a third party grievance and adjudication process for an independent review of matters of concern to them. I am delighted that this is included in the legislation.
It is important for us to understand that the Government House Leader has given his strong assurances that as bargaining rights and privileges are extended to members of the public service in the future, they will also be extended to employees here on the Hill. That is a very important principle for us all to understand because it sets the tone for what will happen to our employees in the future.
This is good and progressive legislation, and gives our employees an array of rights and privileges which they so richly deserve. I hope all Members will support this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on this Bill and recall that this is a historic piece of legislation.
In fact, Parliament is at last responding to the wishes of its employees to organize for the purpose of defending their rights.
I remember, in the last months of the last Parliament, that a parliamentary committee consisting of representatives of all three political groups, had been trying to reach agreement on a Bill that would get unanimous consent before the last election, a Bill that would have given our employees on the Hill the right to organize a union and defend their interests in a more direct and orderly fashion from then on.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes the right of any group of workers to organize in order to defend themselves against any abuse of authority by the employer, and since we in Parliament adopt legislation to set certain standards for Canadian companies in their relations with their employees, the fact that Parliament had yet to give its employees the right to organize was becoming an altogether embarrassing and anachronistic situation.
I think the Government's Bill is a step in the right direction. Of course, it does not go as far as I personally would have liked, but I must admit the Government has made some progress. I understand that I am to continue my speech after Private Members' Business, at seven o'clock.
Bell Canada Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Papineau.


BELL CANADA ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage motions on Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.
Call in the Members.
And the division bells having rung:


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on Bill C-19. The first question is on Motion No. 3A. Mr. Masse moved:
Motion No. 3A
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 3 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) if the Commission has not otherwise specified, the Company has not received therefor".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you would inquire of the House, there might well be a disposition to have the remaining votes dealt with by applying this vote in reverse to the following motions: Nos. 5, 8A, 9, 10 and 12.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House consent to that suggestion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the next vote is on Motion No. 5 standing in the name of Mr. Orlikow. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Attewell
Bclsher
Bertrand
Binns
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot)
Chartrand
Clark
Greenwood)
++NAYS
Members
Domm
Dorin
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Gass
Gerin
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
Ladouceur
Landry
Lawrence
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick
Lewis
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Malone
Mantha
Marin
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCrossan
McDermid
McDougall

(Brandon-Souris)	(Drummond)	McKenzie	Clinch	Gustafson	McKinnon	Cochrane	Halliday	Merrithew	Comeau	Hamilton	Minaker	*0;Cook	Hardey	Moore	Cooper	Hawkes	Nicholson	*Cossitt	Hicks	(Niagara Falls)	ACote	Hockin	Nickerson	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Holtmann	Nielsen	Crofton	Horner	Nowlan	Crosbie	Howie	Oostrom	V(St. John's West)	Hudon	Paproski	Crosby	Jacques	Peterson	(Halifax West)	Jardine	Pietz	Darling	Jeiinek	Plourde	Daubney	Jepson	Porter	de Cotret	Jourdenais	Ravis	Della Noce	Kempling	Redway	1Desjardins	Kilgour	Reimer	Dick	King	Ricard	31
June 25, 1986

Members
Bell Canada Act
Members
St. Germain Schellenberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Schellenberger
(Wetaskiwin)
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scowen
Siddon
Speyer
Stackhouse
Stewart

Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Qu6bec-Est)
Tremblay
(Lotbiniire)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton)
Vankoughnet
Vfczina
Vincent
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Wise
Witer-136.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 8A standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Mrs. Finestone moved:
Motion No. 8A
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 11
(a)	by adding immediately after line 9 at page 4 the following
"(2). 1 No person shall directly or indirectly acquire control of the Company without the prior approval of the Commission."
(b)	by striking out line 18 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor: "(1),(2). 1 or (3) may be specific or general and".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Members
Allmand	Gray	MitchellAlthouse	(Windsor West)	NunziataBaker	Guilbault	NystromBenjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	OrlikowBerger	Heap	OuelletBlaikie	Hopkins	ParryCaccia	Hovdebo	PipinCassidy	Isabelle	Prud'hommeDeans	Jewett	Riisde Corneille	Keeper	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	RodriguezFinestone	MacLellan	TardifFoster	Malepart	(Richmond-Frith	Manly	TobinFulton	McCurdy	WaddellGagliano	McDonald	Young-46.Gauthier	(Broadview-	
Greenwood)
The next vote is on Motion No. 9 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Mrs. Finestone moved:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 11 by striking out line 27 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"of not less than ninety per cent of the total".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of Mrs. Finestone. Mrs. Finestone moved:
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clause 12 by adding immediately after line 39 at page 4 the following:
"(2) The CRTC may, of its own motion or on any matter before the Commission, examine the dividends paid, or proposed to be paid, by Bell Canada to Bell Canada Enterprises, as well as any loans, royalties, contracts, management fees, or other inter-corporate transactions and, if the Commission finds that any of these has resulted in, or is likely to result in, rates to customers of Bell Canada which are not reasonable and just, the Commission may set aside such transaction in whole or in part and may make such other order as it deems necessary to compensate or protect customers of Bell Canada."


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next vote is on Motion No. 12 standing in the name of Mr. Orlikow. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-19, be amended in Clauses 13 by striking out lines 25 to 43 at page
5.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications),
seconded by Mr. Nielsen, moved that Bill C-19 as amended be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? With leave of the House, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: At the next sitting of the House.


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


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


Marcel Prud'homme: I would like to ask whether the House would agree, in view of the importance of the Bill which we shall be considering in a few moments and which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle)- It is now 6:28 p.m.. In its generosity, maybe the House-

June 25, 1986
Ottawa International Airport

maybe the House in its generosity will accept going on until 7.26 so that the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), who has been waiting quite a long time to debate this very important Bill, may be given permission to do so. It is simply a question of being generous to the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.28 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer) moved: that Bill C-208, an Act respecting the international airport at Ottawa, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-208 whose purpose is to change the name of Ottawa Airport to National Capital Airport, for we can say that the airport serves the region of the capital of Canada which is located in the Province of Ontario and the Province of Quebec.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government might clear up an anomaly which now exists in the air transport sector in the National Capital Region. As I said a moment ago, this anomaly is that the airport is located in the National Capital Region and this is why the purpose if this Bill is to change the name to National Capital International Airport.
If we go back in history, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to prolong the debate on this question, we have to remember that symbols should be displayed so that Canada's capital may become the National Capital Region of Canada, not located only in Ottawa which, for all practical purposes, is an Ontario city. Local residents must identify with the national capital of Canada, and this kind of symbol is the only way to make it into a real capital for all Canadians. It has to be the soul of the Canadian nation. Canadians must develop this kind of nationalist spirit which is so sorely lacking. For all practical purposes we are a new country, hardly a few hundred years old.
For merely 20 years or so, we have had a flag which is a national symbol and a source of pride for many Canadians, but I suggest we should do something to enhance this pride by making our national capital the true heart and soul of the Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, we would be well-advised to remember that in Book V of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism entitled "The Federal Capital", on page 88, the commissioners wrote, and I quote:
-we recommend that the question of convenient access to transportation and communication services for the various parts of the capital area be given greater consideration in the future by the federal government and provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Only in this way can certain disparities between the two sectors be overcome-
-the two sectors of the national capital region which, for all practical purposes, as was indicated by the Premiers in Toronto in 1969, is the national capital of Canada-
-and real freedom of choice of residence made meaningful in the capital area.
We should emphasize the benefits both from a symbolic and practical point of view of changing the designation from Ottawa International Airport to National Capital Airport.
Mr. Speaker, I need not add anything. I am aware that the Ottawa Airport do not service only Ottawa residents, but also the residents of the whole national capital region, both on the Ontario and Quebec sides. For this reason, I ask, hopefully with the support of the House, that the name Ottawa International Airport be changed into National Capital Airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in the debate on Bill C-208 which is sponsored by my colleague from the riding of Hull-Aylmer and whose purpose is to change the name Ottawa International Airport to Ottawa-Hull International Airport.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill cannot be considered as being very important since it involves a minor name change for the airport which serves us all in the national capital. But still it is a name change which is rather symbolic, and we ought to know that symbols are really important, and perhaps they have more significance when they have to do with the very nature of our country. This is why I support the Bill of my colleague from Hull-Aylmer.
We recently had an example of what can happen when the symbolism goes wrong in terms of the relationship between the two major municipalities in the national capital. Regardless of the growing size of Gatineau or of the importance of the cities of Nepean and Gloucester in terms of population, it is still the case that the two major municipalities in the National Capital Region are the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
One very refreshing and encouraging development of the last six years while Marion Dewar was Mayor of Ottawa was the rapprochement between the City of Ottawa and the City of Hull. There were meetings between municipal councillors Mayor Dewar was on very good personal terms with Michel Legere, who has now been the Mayor of Hull for three years
June 25, 1986

or four years. They communicated on upcoming issues and sought to come up with a common position.
One fine symbolic example of the friendshp which exists between the City of Ottawa and its sister city on the other side of the river was that on Canada Day the Mayor of Ottawa led a group of citizens and councillors across the Interprovincial Bridge where they met in the middle with the Mayor of Hull and a group of his councillors and citizens.
Just a few weeks ago the Canada's Capital Visitors and Convention Bureau voted that in future the tourist publicity for Ottawa-Hull, which has used the proposed name for the airport in the Bill of my hon. colleague, should in fact only use the name of Ottawa. It said that in marketing terms this might make some sense. The move was supported by the new Mayor of Ottawa, Mr. James Durrell.
I am afraid that single gesture did terrible damage in terms of harming the constructive and mature relationship which has developed between Ottawa and Hull and between Ottawa area municipalities and those of the Outaouais. It is clear that personal relationships between the two mayors have been deteriorating, I suspect largely because of actions by the Mayor of Ottawa. Shortly thereafter the Mayor of Ottawa announced that rather than take the citizens of this community across the river to meet with their counterparts in Hull on Canada Day, he would have brunch with senior citizens at Lansdowne Park. No one objects to him having brunch with senior citizens; it is a good thing to do. However, there is no reason that he could not have brunch with them at ten o'clock and then meet with the Mayor of Hull and the citizens of Hull at twelve o'clock or something like that. Once again it looked like and it was a slap in the face, not only to the Mayor of Hull but to all citizens on the Quebec side.
We have a community in the National Capital Region which is heavily bilingual. If we look at the proportions of the population in the National Capital Region on both sides of the Ottawa River, we are just about a microcosm of the country. Some 25 per cent are French-speaking in the National Capital Region. Obviously it is a higher proportion in Hull than it is in Ottawa. Nonetheless, this city more than any other city in Canada, with perhaps the exception of Moncton, is a city in which one grows accustomed to the fact that one hears French and English side by side, wholly accepted and used commonly by people on the buses, people in the stores, people in offices and everywhere else.
In marketing terms it might be difficult for people to think of Ottawa-Hull rather than only Ottawa. Yet, the reason for doing it is that this is an awkward country and we should somehow make it survive. We are French and we are English. We are stretched right across 4,000 miles. We should have a name which reflects in tourist literature the bicultural identity which we have here.
The Mayor of Ottawa said that Hull does not reflect the ethnic composition of the people who live on that side. Well, Ottawa does not do so either. If it did, we would all be native
Ottawa International Airport
peoples; we would be from Canada's first peoples, not from second or third generations by way of immigration in the last 200 years or 300 years.
In supporting this particular Bill, I think it is a symbolic way of indicating the nature of the national capital. If one wanted to find a name upon which people could agree, we could use as an example the name of the airport at Toronto. It might be a good idea too. However, if we are to call it by the name of the city or cities served, I suggest that the House of Commons should in fact take the lead, particularly after the slights by a politician at another level of government who does not seem to understand the symbolic importance of ensuring that our duality-our dual cultures and our dual languages-is reflected in all things we do in the nation's capital. Of course, this is not just in Ottawa nor just in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The nation's capital includes as large an area on the Hull side as it does in Ottawa, and certainly Hull is very much an integral part of the national capital. Thanks to developments of the last few years, it has a substantial proportion of the public servants who work in the national capital.
I hope Hon. Members will join with the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) and myself in supporting the measure and ensuring that it is adopted today.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak in the debate on Bill C-208. As the only member on the Government side whose riding and boundaries are entirely within the City of Ottawa, I feel obliged to do so, just as I did when the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) introduced his perennial Bill to rename the national capital as Ottawa-Hull. The Bills are similar in purpose, Mr. Speaker. I realize we are on shortened hours because of the nature of today's business, so I will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible in order to give my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) an opportunity to speak as well.
I think the interaction between people in the City of Ottawa, people in the City of Hull, people in the adjoining municipalities of Quebec and in other municipalities on the Ontario side of the river is an integral and vital part of our life here in the nation's capital. But the interactions which form our characters, as individuals, as groups, as cities has no limit. If we are to follow the logic behind this Bill, which is to rename the airport the Ottawa-Hull International Airport, we recognize only the additional importance of the City of Hull.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you mean, "only"?


David Bruce Daubney: Were we to accept the Hon. Member's Bill today and rename the airport the Ottawa-Hull International Airport, what about the day after? Where do we stop? It might be and logically should be the Ottawa-Hull-Nepean-Gloucester-Vanier-Aylmer-Gatineau Airport.

June 25, 1986
Ottawa International Airport


An Hon. Member:: And what about Cumberland?


David Bruce Daubney: And Cumberland. I shudder to think what the luggage tags would look like.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Come up with a better argument.


David Bruce Daubney: I want to touch briefly as someone interested in the history of aviation and this region on the rather colourful history of the airport in Ottawa. The site of the airport is linked with the history of early aviation in Canada which I believe is much overlooked. I am delighted our Government is recognizing that with the construction of a brand new Museum of Aviation History, which I visited recently, and which is located in the riding of my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton. It will be a first-class showcase for Canadian aviation.
The site of the present airport was first established in the 1920s when a number of aircraft were operated from what was then known as the Hunt Club Field. These operations were random and were conducted solely for pleasure. It was not until Colonel Charles Lindbergh's visit to Ottawa in 1927 that the majority of the people of Ottawa became aware of the location of the landing field. In commemoration of his visit, the site was named Lindbergh Field. My father told me when he was a young boy that he was at the airport that day along with my grandfather, who worked in the City of Ottawa at that time. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, there was a terrible crash, and one of the visiting American aviators was killed in a tragic accident that day.
Regular flying activity at the site began with the incorporation of the Ottawa Flying Club on January 14, 1928. The landing field was leased from Uplands Realty and the club began operations with two Moth airplanes, one of which I understand is presently in the collection of the National Aviation Museum. There were no runways and operations were carried out from the natural sod and sand dune surface of the field.
In 1935 the airport, then known as Uplands Field, was operated by the Ottawa Flying Club with refueling by Imperial Oil. Facilities included a clubhouse, an office and three small hangars. In 1935, an official of what was then the civil aviation branch, part of National Defence, expressed some concern about the condition of the airport. In 1937 that branch, which had then been incorporated by the new Department of Transport, reported the field was still rough but that it would be easy to improve it, that two 5,000 foot landing strips could be constructed if necessary. The Department built three runways of approximately 900 metres in length and two of
1,000	metres in length by approximately 60 metres in width. The airport was formally opened on August 20, 1938.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am enjoying the history of the airport in Ottawa going back to 1937. The Bill in front of us has to do with the name of the airport and nothing else, not whether people flew in Tiger Moths or mothballs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it isn't. It has to do with the name of the airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that Hon. Members would try to allow other Members to speak during Private Members' hour. We have only 15 minutes. If I take up any more time, there will be less than that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is faking it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you think of the name of the airport? Call it Tiger Moth Airport.


David Bruce Daubney: In December, 1939 the airport was designated to be used for military purposes and a service flying training school was established by the RCAF. This was the first such school in Canada. When airport lighting was installed in 1940, a permanent airport licence was issued.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Were they gas lights or candles?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Bruce Daubney: In addition to training pilots for military service, Ottawa Airport was used extensively at the beginning of the war for testing aircraft manufactured by Ottawa Car and Aircraft Ltd., located in my riding of Ottawa West. That factory produced a lot of war armaments.
In 1944, the Department of Transport had made numerous improvements and extensions to the land area. In July 1954 the airport was designated as an international alternate for North Atlantic operations.
In 1959 the new terminal was scheduled to open. An unfortunate collision of a U.S. airforce jet, however, postponed it. The official opening by the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, did not take place.
It was not until August, 1964 that the designation of the airport was changed to its present name, the Ottawa International Airport, the subject matter of this Bill. That was done on August 24, 1964 by the then Minister of Transport, who I believe was the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, a government headed by the Hon. Lester Pearson.
It is an interesting history and I wish I had more time to enlighten the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) about it. If we are going to consider a name change, because Ottawa-Hull leaves out so many important municipalities in this area, why do we not consider renaming it something easier to say, easier to remember and perhaps more significant in our parliamentary history. We already have a precedent for this in the naming of the Toronto Airport after one of the two great Canadian political figures of the 1950s and 1960s, namely, Pearson International Airport. I think the job is just half done
June 25, 1986

because there were two great Canadians who engaged in national debate and in the direction of our country during that time. Just as it was appropriate that Mr. Pearson should be remembered in this fashion, so too should we name the airport that served Canada's capital after a great Canadian who served and cherished our parliamentary institutions, another great Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John George Diefen-baker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He already has a bridge, a dam and a highway named after him.


David Bruce Daubney: Rather than begin the hyphenation of our airport's name, we should do something useful and remember a man who meant so much to Canada, to Parliament and to millions of individual Canadians. I invite the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer to join with me in an effort to rename the Ottawa International Airport the John Diefenbaker International Airport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We have 12 minutes left. I hope the Hon. Member will judge himself accordingly. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor for debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say. First, the airlines themselves already recognize Ottawa-Hull in their schedules. The Hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) wishes to change the official name to Ottawa-Hull. That is all.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Wrong.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who said wrong?


John Barry Turner: I did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You are wrong and you have a right to be.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I may just clarify for the record the initial Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) last year indicated that he wanted to rename the airport Ottawa-Hull. That is not correct, at this point in the debate. He wishes to rename-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate and it is not a point of order.


John Barry Turner: The House is wrong, Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some confusion in the House. I am pretty sure an error has been made by the Table.
Ottawa International Airport


John Barry Turner: Agreed.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Last year, when I thoroughly discussed this Bill, I asked permission of the House to make a very simple change. I wanted to change the name of the Ottawa International Airport to the Ottawa-Hull International Airport. However, with unanimous consent of the House, I would change that to be the National Capital Airport. That is the object of today's discussion. The purpose of the Bill is simply to change it to the National Capital Airport, which is a much more logical approach. However, I believe the House made a mistake in reprinting. I have a photocopy of what I wanted and what I approved, and what was printed is not completely the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If that has happened it is unfortunate, but the Hon. Member will probably have another opportunity to submit the same Bill later.


Mr. Forrestall:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought I had the floor.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not sure how my hon. friend from Regina had the floor, but the point being made by the distinguished gentleman from Hull is quite correct. The Bill was not presented in its proper form. Because the debate remains the same, we did not at any time file an objection, preferring to hear the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had the floor in debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I call them as I see them. I think each Party should have the opportunity to speak during Private Members' hour. I am sorry we only have a few more minutes left in this debate and the way we are carrying on we are not even going to have that. If the Hon. Member for Regina West is finished, I would like to call on the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). Since the airport is in his riding, I think it is only fair that we listen to him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is he on a point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thought the Hon. Member was finished.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thought I had the floor and I was interrupted on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Regina West would like to debate?

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Gray).


Darryl L. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I regret the fact that we have to take time from the debate for this. However, I believe it is only right that everyone concerned have the right to stand in debate on a Private Members' Bill. We are talking about the Ottawa-Hull Airport and we all have the right to talk about it, regardless of what part of the country we are from. Coming from Quebec, Sir, I will never tell you that I will not defend the Province of Quebec-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. That is not a point of order, it is debate. I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor in debate and I know he will allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) to say a few words before we close off the debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, all the Hon. Member wants to do is change the name of the airport. We now have it before us as the National Capital Airport, or words to that effect. The airlines already recognize it as Ottawa-Hull. The Hon. Member has agreed to amend his Bill. It is already in front of us. What the hell are we wasting time for? I will sit down and shut up and so should everybody else and let's pass it.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am almost embarrassed at this point in this so-called Private Members' hour to talk briefly about this proposal. I think we have it straight now that we are talking about changing what is currently known as the Ottawa International Airport to the National Capital Airport. There is not much time left and I had prepared a number of comments on this issue.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mail them.


John Barry Turner: My colleague from Regina West has talked about it being so simple. It is not that simple. I wish I could unfold this map-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No displays, just unfold your thoughts.


John Barry Turner: Ottawa-Vanier, just keep cool. I have a map here of the National Capital Region which has been magnificently put together by the National Capital Commission.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A friend of yours?


John Barry Turner: Sometimes.
[ Translation]
It depends-

Let me underline that in this National Capital Region we have 26 municipalities, two regions and two provinces. Never has any piece of real estate been managed by so many. I would love to unfold this map and show it because Ottawa International Airport is situated for the most part in the great City of Gloucester. Gloucester has about 90,000 residents, all of whom live in my great riding of Ottawa-Carleton. I would love to see the airport called the Ottawa-Gloucester International Airport. That is where it is located. It is in my riding.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not the issue.


John Barry Turner: Of course it is the issue. Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I tried to get a simple little project at the Ottawa Airport going. They wanted to call it Delta Park. I said no, let's call it Gloucester-Delta Park because it's in Gloucester. This involves the tremendous work going on at the airport right now. What did we settle on? Gloucester Industrial Park Ottawa International Airport. That is what the Department of Transport wants to call it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) this item will be dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, be read the third time and do pass.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock when I stopped to let the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) discuss his Private Member's Bill, I was saying that Bill C-45 was a historic piece of legislation and that by introducing this Bill, the Government had taken a step in the right direction, although I thought it had not fully met the expectations of the employees of the House of Commons.
June 25, 1986

In fact, for many months, our House of Commons employees have been demanding not only the right of association but also all the rights of employees covered by the Canada Labour Code. That is why they went before the Canada Labour Relations Board to apply for certification.
The entire process before the courts, and especially before the Federal Court, to try and prevent parliamentary employees from obtaining their union certification and the right to be covered by the Canada Labour Code instead of the Public Service Employment Act was most regrettable, in my opinion.
1 say this because the courts are not the best way to settle labour disputes. I think that negotiations and the process of free discussion between parties are the best way to achieve mutual respect between employees and the employer and to set up the ideal labour relations system.
I am sorry the present Conservative Government did not see fit to desist from its proceedings before the courts and that it even appealed a decision that initially seemed to favour parliamentary employees, in order to have the decision quashed before the Federal Appeal Court, so that it could introduce the kind of collective bargaining the Progressive Conservative Party wanted to force on parliamentary employees.
Some of the amendments proposed by my hon. colleagues from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) should have been accepted by the Government. I think it is really too bad the Progressive Conservative Party did not deal more generously with our parliamentary employees, because this group of men and women who work for the Parliament of Canada have always shown great respect for the institution in the past and have always shown a special concern for a job well done, and I would even say a great respect for authority.
I therefore fail to understand why the amendment giving them the right to strike like any other employee in Canada who obtains the right to strike through a collective bargaining agreement, why that amendment could not have been accepted for our employees.
I know the Government is hiding behind the absolute concept of Parliament, the argument that Parliament, whatever happens, must continue to operate, and that a strike, either by employees attached to the political Cabinet or by support staff of the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament, could obstruct the normal course of our proceedings. 1 find this argument rather farfetched, because both at Westminster and in the U.S. Congress, a certain number of employees who are not judged to be essential to the operations of the U.S. Congress or the Mother of Parliaments do have the right to strike.
My colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had introduced an amendment which should have been adopted, for the Government would have had to designate a certain number of employees as being people whose work is considered to be essential and who therefore would not have the right to
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
strike. As to the others, however, be they elevator operators, messengers, parliamentary cafeteria employees or even our staff in the library, I do not think that these people, who might on some occasions but not necessarily all the time exercise their right to strike, would in fact have paralysed the Parliament of Canada.
I would suggest that the Conservative Government has taken an overly paternalistic and defensive approach to this issue. I think it should have had more faith in the sound judgment of Parliament Hill employees. Giving them the right to strike would not have been tantamount to a crime of lese-majesty. I do not think that giving them the right to strike would have led to a total paralysis of the Canadian Parliament, quite the contrary. Most of these employees have been here for years, they have given us outstanding service for a long time, we know most of them by their first name, and I think they would have shown judgment and discretion in the use of this useful and ultimate mechanism which is the right to strike of any Canadian worker.
Needless to say, the Official Opposition greatly deplores the Government's decision to turn down the amendment which we had moved precisely to make Bill C-45 a little more acceptable to Parliament Hill employees.
I must say that our Party had moved another amendment which has also been turned down by the Government, something for which I am very sorry. I refer to motion No. 11 which had been moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and which would have made it possible, where expenses are incurred in the adjudication of any dispute, to apply provisions similar to those in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
If this amendment had been adopted, the expenses incurred in the adjudication of any dispute would have been paid by the employer, as is the case now for employees governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. When an employee of the Department of Labour, the Secretary of State or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is involved in a dispute, the union representative will take up the case of the employee who, in its opinion, has been unfairly laid off, and when this case is submitted for adjudication, the expenses are fully paid by the employer who has laid off this Government employee.
Since the Government is willing to accept this provision in the case of a federal civil servant, why does it want to implement a special scheme for Parliament Hill employees?
Because the Government has rejected our amendment, the employee himself or his union will have to pay all the costs incurred in the adjudication of a dispute.
I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) as he stood up for a few seconds to reply to my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on this amendment. He said that it would be necessary to choose outside adjudicators who are not normally acting as adjudicators under the Public

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
Service Staff Relations Act and who therefore would have to be paid, and that it would only be fair for these adjudicators to be paid by the Government and the employee. As though the Government did not pay the salary of the adjudicator who is called upon to adjudicate in a dispute between a Department and one of its employees.
In my view, the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is very moot indeed, and I am concerned that the amendment was not accepted, all the more so because we are still in the dark as to the number of emloyees who will be excluded from the collective agreement process, that is the number of management staff who cannot join an employee organization and are excluded from the collective bargaining process. This means there may be a significant number, several hundred employees who will not get union protection and probably will not have their grievances upheld by the union because they will not be unionized and who, if ever they are unfairly dismissed or unfairly treated by their House of Commons employer, will have to pay their own share of the expenses if they refer their grievances to arbitration.
A hypothetical case could involve a member of the Table staff because, unless I am greatly mistaken, these people will not be joining the union. We are one of them to be unfairly dismissed, he or she would have to assume his or her defence and pay for his or her share of the cost of compensating the arbitrator who will have to determine who is right, the employer or the employee. This is a status without any counterpart in any other government employee group, and I find that absolutely unfair. I feel the Government erred when it turned our amendment down. I believe the Government should pick up the tab, as it does with all Government employees-there should be one standard for disputes sent to arbitration, all expenses should be paid by the Government, as is now the case with the public servants.
Finally, I would like to suggest in the few remaining minutes that this legislation that will be passed by Parliament is a historic one. For the first time, employees on Parliament Hill will have their employee organization. Many of them have worked very actively and very strenuously to have that organization finally recognized on Parliament Hill. I do hope no resentment will be felt either on the part of the Government or on the part of the House of Commons management against those who led that union movement.
I think that Jacques Audette was one of the very first to defend the rights of employees on Parliament Hill, along with Andree St-Jean, Rene Saumure, Debbie Brown, Francine Gauthier, Jeannine Perras and many others that I forget, and I am sorry if I cannot name all of those who have been the true champions of unionization to defend and protect the interests of the men and women who work on Parliament Hill.
In closing, I would like to salute and congragulate them for what they have accomplished because, while this Bill might not be perfect, it is nevertheless a first step forward. It will always be possible to improve this piece of legislation in the future.
Finally, I would like to say that these people should not be the victims of persecution. I can assure them that we, of the Official Opposition, will be vigilant and that we will keep an eye on things to ensure that this process of unionizing workers on Parliament Hill will take place in as orderly a manner and with as much co-operation and mutual understanding as possible.
I hope that, with time, the Government will come to understand that this first timid gesture can be followed by something more generous, more liberal and more acceptable for all the employees of the Canadian Parliament.
I shall close by saying that this represents half a success for us. We Liberals would have preferred a stronger Bill. The Government did not want to go any further. That is its position and we have to accept it because of its overwhelming majority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker).


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this Bill which we will be passing tonight by agreement of all Parties in the House. As other Members have mentioned, this perhaps could be considered an historic moment as far as the House of Commons and Senate are concerned because the House of Commons will be passing a Bill for which the employees on the Hill have been asking. As the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) pointed out, while the Bill is not perfect and does not go as far as the employees would like, at least everyone agrees that it is a step in the right direction.
I want to point out to the House during my remarks that the Government of Canada is not being consistent with its legislation and the representations made by the Government as far as the effects of this Bill on the employees are concerned. One need only to recall the Bill on Employment Equity that went through this chamber to see the exceptions that were granted under Clause 3 or Clause 4 of that Bill which excluded the House of Commons and Senate from the provisions of that Employment Equity legislation. On the one hand, the Government agrees with this step in the right direction while, on the other hand, the Government takes a major initiative in legislation as far as employees and employers are concerned in this country but excludes from the Bill the very employees we are concerned with in this legislation.
It is not really a matter that the Government of Canada has really thought out. As I mentioned, it is not a perfect Bill. People in the Public Service Alliance of Canada speak of the Canada Labour Code, which is not perfect, either. Yes, it would be a good thing to have as many employees as possible under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, whether in direct employment or through another federal agency, like the House of Commons or through a private employer on federal
June 25, 1986

property. Yes, it is fine to say that they would be covered under the Canada Labour Code, but then, as many Hon. Members of the House know, that, in itself, is a very confusing matter.
The Government of Canada, in considering this new measure, should really rethink its entire policy of the past two years concerning all employees, whether employed directly by a federal Government Department or agency or by private employers. There is a tremendous amount of confusion as to the classification of work and the wages to be paid. We need only look at the Bill before this Chamber to see that it raises the very interesting question in the employees' minds as to where one would be classified in the workforce; in other words, concerning the description of the employment. Then the question arises as to the wages that would be paid to these particular employees.
We have seen the policy of the Government of Canada evolve over the past two years, relating to payments to employees of the federal Government or to those employed by an agency under its control, whether or not they are employees that are contracted to a federal Government Department. There has been an awful lot of confusion. We have seen the Charter of Rights brought in. The equality provision came into effect last year, 1985. We have seen the equality of employment legislation introduced into the House and passed through this Chamber; yet one sees an attitude on the part of the Government that it is somehow still legal and possible for the Government of Canada to pay differing wages to people in exactly the same job classifications.
One need only look at the City of Ottawa compared to an area just outside of the city. Look at the federal Treasury Board today and what has been approved, mostly with regard to designated employees. One sees wage differences. One might be a messenger, a carpenter or a tradesman with the federal Government. One is doing exactly the same job; one has the same classification. Here lies the problem in this particular Bill as to how the classifications will be determined. Employees could have the same classification but be paid different wages by the same employer.
Employees' unions, branches of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, look at a new measure like this coming into this Chamber, and these kinds of questions come to mind: How will the employees be classified? On what basis will they be treated for wage increases or for work performance and work duties? We know they are excluded from the only Bill that passed in this Chamber relating to equity in employment. We know that. However, we do not know anything else. We do not know if they will be treated and classified in the same manner as a person in similar employment in the private sector or in another branch or Department of the federal Government. We do not know if the Treasury Board guidelines would apply in the classification stage for those particular employees.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
While the Bill is in its final stages, I would strongly recommend to the Government of Canada, as would, I am sure, all of the unions interested in this Bill, that the Government take a very serious look at the implications with regard to classification of the federal Government, the Treasury Board, or an agency of the federal Government, of people employed directly or indirectly by the federal Government, relating to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to the section that came into effect on equality of employment.
The Human Rights Commission sets forth what we all agree, that there should be no discrimination involving people who perform work of equal value, not even in wages. The legislation should at least state that someone placed in a certain classification should receive wages equal to those received by someone in the same classification but in another branch of the federal Government. Unfortunately, then the problem is compounded because the federal Treasury Board and the Government of Canada state it is perfectly legitimate to pay differing wages although the classification is exactly the same. Therefore, it does not only affect those who are employed directly by the federal Government, but also those employed indirectly through the federal Government, through its agency or Department. That appears in the Estimates under which the federal Budget is allocated. There is contained the amount of money set aside for that particular Department or agency. In other words, it goes even further than classifications of federal employees, as we understand them. It has even reached, in recent months, into the area of what actually governs the wages, classifications and labour laws of people who work on what is known as federal property.
There is a very serious problem in this country today. We look at the Canada Labour Code that the unions and employees were discussing with regard to this legislation. There is a very serious problem that is arising; that is, concerning the definition of what law applies to a particular worker who is on federal property and comes within federal jurisdiction. In other words, if one considers federal property close by, for instance, Montreal airport or Mirabel airport, federal property, then-


Mr. Bouchard:: St. John's.


George Baker: Well, yes, the Hon. Minister is very interested in Mirabel, very interested in Dorval, so his ears perked up. I think he knows, in the back of his mind, what I am about to say relating to classifications by the federal Government and how determination is made under the Canada Labour Code. I am simply referring to the matter of a 67 per cent wage decrease for certain workers on federal property. Both Hon. Members opposite know the subject very well.
Let us say that this is a group of employees who work on federal property and who perform jobs on behalf of a private individual, for example, an airline. The Minister knows about what I am talking. These employees who come under federal

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
labour jurisdiction are suddenly told that their wages will drop by 67 per cent. That is what happened.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Impossible.


George Baker: That is what happened.


Maurice Brydon Foster: A Tory Government!


George Baker: Yes. That is what happened to all the refuellers of aircraft. The problem is who will protect these people.
First, there is the fact that they are working on federal property. Second, the provincial Governments will say that these workers cannot be classified and paid according to provincial laws because they work on federal property. They will say: "If you have a problem, go to the Canada Labour Code. Go to the federal Department of Labour. Go to the Minister who is so interested in Mirabel and Dorval",


Benoît Bouchard: And St. John's.


George Baker: The Minister says: "and St. John's". They have gone to this particular Minister, which raises an interesting question as it relates to this Bill. How can we classify and protect workers and the wages they receive if they are not direct employees of the federal Government? That is to say how can we protect them if they are employed by an agency of the federal Government as opposed to being employed by the federal Government? Therein lies the problem. The Government will have to address it, and address it very quickly.
As I said earlier, there is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which does not allow a distinction to be made on the basis of where one lives. The present situation today is that if one is a Newfoundlander and works for the federal Government on a federal boat and when one crosses the 102 longitude, one's wages increase by $300 a month. That is the present policy of Treasury Board. As I also mentioned before, if one lives in Ottawa and is a carpenter, a messenger or a federal employee under General Trades and Labour, then one receives a different salary from someone working in Toronto doing exactly the same job. The fact of the matter is that for the first time the legislation which is before the House would give employees the right to say: "All right, we are represented by a bargaining unit". I think the federal Government has a duty to examine just where it is going and just what the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is or should be.
The Human Rights Commission and the Bill which passed the House recently on employment equity should also be considered in this context. I am afraid that is something that is not being done by the Government. However, members of the Official Opposition will hound the Government until these wrongs are corrected. We will hound the Government until the present legislation is brought up to par, in other words, until the employees of the House of Commons and the Senate receive what they so rightfully deserve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to sit and listen to the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). In addition to being one of the most articulate Members of this House and one of the most entertaining speakers in this House, he is also one of the most knowledgeable whenever he addresses the House on any particular Bill.
I think that Members of Parliament would sit in anger in their seats after being informed, as we just were by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, that there are people who are working indirectly under contract for the federal Government who have experienced a 67 per cent reduction in their salaries. As the Hon. Member indicated, that type of action is being allowed to take place under the nose of the Government and on federal property. As it relates to this Bill, it does not provide for employees to grieve in a substantial way under the normal collective bargaining process classification.
This is a 67 per cent reduction in an individual's salary-a 67 per cent chop, a chunk, a piece taken out of his ability to provide for himself and his family. It represents 67 per cent of his shelter and his food, 67 per cent of his ability to clothe and school his children and 67 per cent of his recreation moneys. In relation to this type of brutal and Draconian measure occuring under the nose of the federal Government on federal property and the type of problem we now see in Alberta with the Gainers strike, does the Hon. Member believe that the private sector is looking to the federal Government in the final analysis for leadership when it sees this type of activity occuring with the silent consent of the federal Government on federal property? In the final analysis, does the private sector seek to emulate that type of practice which causes ugly and trying situations such as the one we see as a result of the Gainers strike in Alberta?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, without referring to any particular strike that is happening, let me answer the Hon. Member's question in a general way as it relates to the responsibilities of the federal Government. With regard to the 67 per cent wage decrease, I was referring to a whole group of people who work on federal property in this country. This is a situation which started at Dorval and Mirabel, as the Minister knows. However, the decision to pay 67 per cent less-to reduce salaries from $15 per hour to $8 per hour-was made because of a contract with Air Canada. Not only was it with Air Canada, it was with all our major airlines-those great corporate citizens of Canada. These are the people who put out flyers which state that they are great Canadian citizens. They carry the Canadian flag.
All the airlines which operate in Canada used the device of employing an agency in order to get a job done on federal property at those kind of prices. However, they made one mistake. The companies they asked to tender on the contracts were all companies in the United States. I tell that to the
June 25, 1986

Minister as a fact. Yet when the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) was in the House he said that it was a matter of contracts open to public tender. What he did not say, and probably what he did not know, was that those invited to tender were all American companies. Here we have people who were indirectly employed through a Crown corporation working on federal property who are at the whim of the invitation to tender of four American companies out of New York. When the company about which I am speaking which employs these people on federal property turned around and said: "We will have to reduce your wages by 67 per cent," there was nothing the federal Government could do about it, as far as the Minister of Labour mentioned in this House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Or would do.


George Baker: Or would do. However, the Minister who is in the House is now attentively listening to my remarks. I wish to assure the Minister that my interest in this particular subject is because of the fear I have that what happened at Dorval and Mirabel will spread to Gander, Stephenville and St. John's, Newfoundland. That is what I was concerned about. I would not like to see employees working on federal property and coming under federal law in terms of wages and hours of work have their wages reduced by 67 per cent. Because the company in Dorval and Mirabel is owned by the same people who have the same contracts in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and right across this country, I was afraid that it might catch on. The company would say: "Well, you know, we asked for invitations to bid without telling anyone but those in the United States of America and then we reduced everyone's salary by 67 per cent". An employee comes to me and says: "Well, look, the labour laws of Newfoundland or Quebec do not apply to us because we are on federal property". There are federal laws governing the way these employees are treated, not directly by the federal Government but indirectly by an agency of the federal Government. They are governed by federal law because they are on federal property.
It appears that this is a spreading phenomenon. It has got down to the work sheet. Let us take a look at the bottom line, everyone. Crown corporations and the Government of Canada treat their employees by looking at the bottom line and erasing deficits. They lay people off or reduce their wages arbitrarily. They take away their benefits and they do whatever they can to keep the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) happy until he brings down his next Budget so he will tell the business world and the so-called good corporate citizens like the ones I just mentioned a few moments ago that he will keep them happy and content.


Nelson Andrew Riis: But at what price?


George Baker: The hon. gentleman asks at what price. We can see that price being paid today from Newfoundland to British Columbia. We can see the unfairness of the Treasury Board in every single contract it negotiates or refuses to negotiate or
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
when it designates employees and tells them to take it or leave it. It tells employees that they do not have the right to strike or to walk out. It tells the ship workers in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia that they are going to receive $400 a month less than those who work west of 102 degrees longitude. The federal Government can get away with that, and that is what is really disturbing.
In its responsibilities to Canadians for federal property and indirect federal employees, the Government is being absolutely outrageous. Yesterday the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) said that he could not help the deficit of the Newfoundland Railway, that Newfoundland should solve its own deficit problem but keep on with the railway. In other words, there will be lay-offs, reductions in benefits and more costs to the consumers. That is the attitude of the Government.
We are saying that the Bill before the House is a good Bill, a great Bill. It takes at least one step, but it does not go all the way. When the Government is in the process of classifying these people and allocating their wages, which is the first job it will have to do, it should, for goodness' sake, look at what it is doing to other federal employees or, more correctly, to employees who are indirectly employed by the federal Government, either on federal property or by Crown corporations. This is the sector for which the Canada Labour Code is supposed to function in an honourable way.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Hon. Member. All Hon. Members are suffering from a collective mania. We are suffering because of a misunderstanding. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) rose in his place and told Hon. Members that Air Canada, which flies airplanes displaying Canadian flags, has tendered to American companies but not to Canadian companies to do refuelling for Air Canada. We also misunderstood and obviously misheard the Hon. Member when he said that the contract went to an American company which is servicing in Canada a Crown corporation and paying Canadian workers 67 per cent less.
Would the Hon. Member tell us that we are all having a bad dream? Would he pinch us and wake us up?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely incorrect. He did not misunderstand me at all. He heard me absolutely correctly, and I defy anyone to tell me that I am wrong because I have gone into this matter. Not only that but I have gone to the registry of companies to find out just who is involved both in the United States and in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but questions and comments are now terminated.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to rise in my place to take part in debate on Bill C-45. However, the spindles in my brain were well greased as I listened to the eloquent plea of the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on behalf of

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
federal civil servants directly affected by Bill C-45 and civil servants elsewhere in Canada who suffer from the kind of federal discrimination which has become institutionalized since the election of this Government some 18 months ago.
A moment ago, I rose to ask the Hon. Member if he could assure me of the accuracy of the report he made to Parliament indicating that an extremely visible and perhaps the most visible Crown corporation actually offered a tender opportunity to four American companies to do the refuelling of Air Canada jets and did not offer that opportunity to Canadian companies. He said it did this in order to reduce the costs of refuelling services because it knows American companies pay vastly lower salaries than Canadian companies. When the Hon. Member said that and when he reconfirmed that the Crown corporation that carries the flag of Canada would engage in such an activity, the spindles in my brain became lubricated and I decided I had to rise to my feet.
That kind of preying on Canadian workers, that kind of manipulation of Canadian labour law, that kind of exploitation of federal property and federal labour jurisdiction which could otherwise not occur if a worker were to be classified under provincial labour laws has to come to an end. The whistle has to be blown on that kind of abuse of our citizens.
When Members of Parliament from all three Parties make comments about what is happening in Alberta with the Gainers strike, when Hon. Members shake their heads and wonder if that kind of confrontation is really necessary, when Hon. Members collectively recognize that the seeds of that confrontation arose out of a basic perception that workers are nothing more than company assets, and when Hon. Members regret that kind of development, they ought to remind themselves that the example followed by the Peter Pockling-tons of the world is not found in the shadows of their minds but in pieces of legislation like Bill C-45.
Bill C-45 denies the employees of Parliament Hill normal collective bargaining rights and federal labour law classification codes. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate has pointed out, this is the kind of legislation that allows an employee on a federal ship in Newfoundland to be paid $400 per month or up to $6,000 per year less than someone in British Columbia with exactly the same classification working on exactly the same kind of ship and doing exactly the same kind of job. That is possible under federal legislation and it has happened.
Hon. Members opposite who are looking at me and saying to themselves that this simply cannot be true will have either received a visit from the union representing these employees in the last few weeks or will receive one. The action taken by a union recently on Parliament Hill was unique and almost unprecedented. Representatives of that union, including those who come from the privileged area of British Columbia and those who come from the underprivileged area of Atlantic Canada, the area of disparity in respect of wages, came to Parliament Hill. For example, a representative from British Columbia told Members of Parliament that he was here to
fight for his colleagues in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. He said that he was paid $400 more for the same job as his colleagues in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland. He thought that was wrong. That case is being made today to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and to the President of the Teasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). Thus far institutionalized discrimination has not been addressed.
Why am I concerned about Bill C-45? I agree with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate that it is a step in the right direction. It begins to take Hill employees down the road toward the ability to represent themselves and to negotiate on their own behalf. It is not collective bargaining, and it does not go far enough. I am not only talking about the right to strike which is the final weapon in any collective negotiation, a weapon which most other Canadians have. The Bill was improved because it was amended to provide for a grievance procedure. As I said, it does not go far enough; it does not include the right to strike for non-essential employees, those people who are not deemed essential for the operation of these premises.
The Bill would prevent the PSAC from taking policy issues to grievance. The Government has been granted a one-year period to reorganize classifications. During that period, PSAC cannot file any grievances whatsoever. The Bill should set an example for the private sector, for the country in general. It purports to allow employees of the Hill to organize and to represent themselves. It is shameful, not because it is a total failure, but because it should be setting an example for the people of Canada. It is Hon. Members, who have been elected to fill these seats, who should be setting an example of the kind of society we can create and build. When we as Members of Parliament, who hold positions of responsibility, cannot organize ourselves to set up an arrangement with our own employees which allows them the dignity of collective bargaining and the normal rights afforded to other federal employees, we are like all those people who say: "Yes, but not in my back yard".
As we forsake the employees of Parliament Hill, as we deny employees of Parliament Hill normal collective bargaining rights which accrue to any other worker in the country, so too do we forsake and deny our right to speak with a conscience and with effect about the kind of labour abuse we see going on today in respect of the Gainers strike in Alberta. This kind of legislation gives comfort to the Peter Pocklingtons. This kind of legislation draws a map for the Peter Pocklingtons. This kind of legislation flowing from this Chamber wipes out whatever moral authority parliamentarians have to make a positive contribution in a world too often filled with labour strife.
I urge the Government to consider withdrawing the Bill- not to have it defeated forever-for two reasons. The first reason is that Hill employees have launched an appeal of the
June 25, 1986

court decision which refused to acknowledge their right to be recognized under the Canada Labour Code. The court stood by the federal Government, but the employees have now served notice of an appeal of that judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada. Passage of this legislation will automatically annul the appeal action which has been launched; the court will not hear the case. In a preliminary decision the court set aside and reserved judgment on hearing that appeal. If this legislation is approved in the House, we will have denied Hill employees the most basic right of any Canadian citizen-the right to take his or her case to the highest court in the land. Surely that is no example for the Government of Canada to set. Even if the Government is convinced it is right, in the final analysis due process must be followed, and due process is not followed when an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is ignored by Parliament in passing legislation in advance of the court's decision on the appeal which has been launched.
The second reason the piece of legislation should be set aside, even though it is a step in the right direction, is the implications, the Government of Canada will see when it has examined the situation. For example, what about the implications of Air Canada going to an American contractor rather than a Canadian contractor because it knows that Americans pay 67 per cent less and therefore it can get its service cheaper? What are the implications of that kind of activity increasing? What are the implications of the situation like the Gainers strike in Alberta? It is not a dispute between Peter Pocklington and a group of employees in that particular plant. It has become a symbol. If it is not resolved in a civilized and responsible manner, where both sides compromise, as should always occur in any negotiation, that strike will mark the beginning of terrible labour strife in Canada.
In that environment the federal Government should make a statement which sets a responsible example and shows the importance it places upon the value of its employees. Let the federal Government make a statement which recognizes that its employees are more than just widgets in the inventory of the federal Government's resources. Let it show that they are more than just part of the equipment around here. Let it make a statement which recognizes that its employees are Canadian men and women who deserve the dignity of a collective bargaining process similar to that being offered to employees elsewhere in the country.
I pray Hon. Members opposite will heed these words of brilliant wisdom which I have uttered on behalf of employees who have quietly and unashamedly asked that they be treated no better or no worse than any other citizen of Canada.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member a question. It concerns people who come under the Public Service Alliance of Canada and have contracts with the federal Government. If they are covered by a union, one would expect that employees of the federal Government, either directly or indirectly, would have some rights. However, in the case of Cyril Pynn in Grand Falls who had a federal contract and came under PSAC, he was laid off with two weeks' notice.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
I realize the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) represents Corner Brook. The name I just mentioned was that of a gentleman in my riding who had an agreement with the Government under the Public Service Alliance of Canada. It is what the Government calls a term employee contract. Such contracts are always renewed after six months under the PSAC. I just tossed out that name. I should like to ask the Hon. Member if he has received any such telephone calls. I have not alerted him to the fact that I would ask this question, but I would bet my bottom dollar that he knows what I am talking about. Has he received any such notification from a constituent working for the federal Government in Corner Brook, coming under the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and being heaved out the door with two weeks' notice because of a slippery little clause in the contract?
I should like to ask him whether he has any such people in his riding. If so, will he inform the House under what branch of the federal Government was this PSAC employee employed?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it appears the Member when he was speaking earlier said that this mentality of the federal Government of treating people like widgets is spreading at an alarming rate. Not only has the Member heard from Cyril Pinn in the community of Grand Falls but I have heard from several individuals in the community of Cornerbrook who have been treated in a similar fashion. I have heard from one individual who had been employed in a term position with the federal Government for the better part of two decades who was summarily dismissed by the Government of Canada from his job as a cleaner, cleaning federal buildings, because the Government decided that, under the same escape clause, it could get under contract an employee for slave wages to do the same job as did this gentleman, who had a family and a household to support. The Government summarily dismissed him and tendered the cleaning job out to contractors who hire people at a salary of about 40 per cent less. They were kind enough to tell the gentleman as he was on the way out of the door that he could always apply for the job at 40 per cent less wages.
The other case I have heard about is that of someone who was summarily dismissed, effective on July 1, the day we celebrate Canada Day, the day we take pause from our work and labours to contemplate the riches, the generosity and the values of this country, that day that has been set aside as appreciation day for all that this country has offered us. On that day, Mr. Speaker, an employee of Employment and Immigration, the job creation branch in my riding-think about it and imagine the irony-told an employee that effective the day on which he would normally celebrate, normally ponder, normally give thanks for all this country has given him, he is summarily, on a few weeks' notice, picked up and, as we say in Newfoundland, by the scruff of his neck and the slack of his pants flung out the door-a unionized employee. The Member asks whether the problem is spreading. The answer is yes.

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
I must admit that I brought to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) this particular case, not because I was concerned that the employee was being picked up by the scruff of his neck and slack of his pants and flung out the door effective July 1, Canada Day, not because I was concerned with him as an individual-and I am concerned with him as an individual-but because this particular employee was responsible for administering 70 federal job creation projects. He is one of only three or four in the Corner Brook office who manage an area 500 miles long with about 70,000 people and 300 projects. When he goes, effective July 1, by the scruff of his neck and the slack of his pants out the door there will be only three people left, which means that each of them will be responsible for administering 90 programs over an area 500 miles long. I was protesting his dismissal not only and not even because it was a terrible treatment to a human being but because in the process of doing it the federal Government was destroying its own job-creation program.
I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister, not on behalf of the employee but on behalf of the proper and rational expenditure of federal job creation programs and because by getting rid of this employee in Newfoundland the federal Government was making it impossible for the employment development branch to do its work. I still have not heard from the Minister, but I am patiently and hopefully, let me say, waiting.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I want to say, because the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is in the House-I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is aware of this, but I believe he is-that yesterday the Minister said that she was going to re-examine what was happening. In fact, she extended the time of the employees for two weeks. In this case I have to take my hat off to the Minister of Employment and Immigration for intervening-


Brian Vincent Tobin: For two weeks.


George Baker: -for that two week period. I have to do that. The Minister is going to deny that she intervened. She is going to deny and say: "No, I let my Department do what it had to do". I have the official record. I even know when the phone call was made. The Minister personally intervened.
However, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a simple question. What would he like this Minister to do now, now that she has extended the employment time of these people for two weeks? Would he like the Minister to have additional information? Perhaps people work harder in Newfoundland than in a lot of other areas of Canada, the United States and around the world.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that was both an informative and extremely thought-provoking question. I will attempt to answer it in the short time the Speaker will allot me.
First, I also take off my hat to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It points out that Members of Parliament who do their jobs sincerely, honestly, with a good heart, a good mind and a good soul can make a difference. The Minister listened to Members over here. Our hat is off for two weeks, Mr. Speaker. In two weeks if you see me with my hat back on, that is fair warning to the Minister.
What would I like the Minister to do? I have told the Minister privately that administering 70 projects over 20,000 or 30,000 square miles of territory is not like administering projects in downtown Toronto. The Minister knows that. She knows the difference. I would like to see those people reinstated but, more important, I would like to see them made permanent employees of the federal Government. This overuse of term employees is wrong. We have had employees in Newfoundland who have been term employees for 10 years. That is an abuse of the individual and it is time the overextended, overused term employee concept is picked up by the scruff of the neck, the slack of the pants and flung out the window.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with some patience, not a lot I must admit, to speeches in the last little while. I must confess to some confusion.
I took the opportunity to talk with those who are employed on Parliament Hill and who will be affected by this legislation. I spoke at some length over a number of months to a variety of individuals who represent what I would consider to be a good cross-section of the employment opportunities and the employment that would generally be affected by this legislation. They told me two things, and I think I owe it to the House to relay what I consider to be an important message.
They said that they felt the legislation as it was proposed was unsatisfactory. They said that it did not adequately reflect either the scope necessary to deal with the problems that they themselves believe they faced on an ongoing basis, and neither did it represent a sufficiently broad cross-section of the total occupational population of Parliament Hill. I will come back to that in a moment because the second thing they told me is of some importance when juxtaposed against the most recent two or three speeches. These people told me that the legislation goes much further than the Liberals ever went, but the one thing that disappointed them was that, after years and years and years of a Liberal Government, they had been unable to get that Government and that Party to move toward the recognition of the need for collective bargaining as a right for public servants who worked on Parliament Hill. I find it passing strange, in fact somewhat aggravating, that after years of forming the Government members of the now Official Opposition have the unmitigated gall to rise in this House of Commons and attempt to appear to defend the rights of the people who work for Parliament.
June 25, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I can well understand the political requirements.
I can well appreciate the need to suck up long after the date for atonement has passed. I can well appreciate the desire on the part of the Official Opposition to make it appear that somehow or other, by virtue of some massive transformation, they now represent the best interests of the people who work for the Parliament of Canada. However, I find it unbelievable.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of people who asked the Liberal Government over the years for the right to organize, who for years sought from the Liberal Government a nod or even a wink which would have indicated some desire of some kind to allow them the right to bargain collectively, feel the same way.
It is not often that I find myself at odds with my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). However, I must confess that this evening he has taken me beyond the pale. He has driven me to my feet, which as you can understand, Mr. Speaker, is no easy task. It is rare that I rise in the House of Commons. However, on this rare occasion I want to say that I find his arguments to be absolute and utter nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Not the content, let me say, concerning the way his constituents are treated. I say to him that his constituents have been badly treated by Government for as long as they have been his constituents.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Even before?


Ian Deans: Even before. When we represented them it was bad even, let me tell you. However, for him to attempt to leave the impression here tonight that somehow or other, by virtue of the result of the September, 1984 election those constituents now within the Public Service, who were there before, are worse off than they were under the Liberal Government is total nonsense if one considers it in the collective bargaining context. I know he is a fair and honourable soul and will want to correct the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I know he will because I can see in his eyes that sense of shame he feels having made these extravagant statements which, no doubt, under normal circumstances he would never have made. He was driven to it. By what I am not sure but he was driven to it nevertheless.
What is contained in this legislation is unsatisfactory. On that count my friend from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe is absolutely correct, as was his colleague.


Philip Derek Lewis: You are starting to lose me now.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


Ian Deans: The legislation is not nearly adequate. He is absolutely correct when he says that many of the problems confronted by people who work in the Public Service, particularly on Parliament Hill, and who up until this point in time, notwithstanding many years of Liberal Government, have not been given the opportunity to bargain collectively, are not dealt with within this legislation. It does not afford those people the opportunity to correct the ills perpetrated on them over many, many years by a regime, Liberal though it may have been, with minor interruptions by the Conservative Party, which did not recognize their rights or the obligation of Government to its employees. I can understand that. He is right in that regard. He is also right in saying that it may well be that the vast majority of those covered by this legislation could, under normal circumstances, be given that the right to withdraw their services, given from time to time that may be deemed necessary.
Maybe we should have spent more time or should now spend more time trying to determine if there are classifications of employees that fall within the general definition of essential services. We could do that. We should. I have said so before and I say it again. However, frankly, I find that when the now Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, represented by 39 or 40 people at the moment, barely more, I must admit, than us, when they sit there and pontificate on how, if they were only the Government, things would be different, I cannot believe it. My colleague from Beaches looks at me and, in his normal earnest Scottish way, says "Not true". You know something? He is right. If I were to ask my other colleagues, or my friend from the Conservative Party who is sitting here giving us advice on pensions, they and he would tell us, I am sure, that had he the opportunity he would alter the legislation to conform with what we believe is necessary. I can see it in his eyes.
What I am trying to get at is that enough is enough. We have the legislation before us. It is all we are going to get. We think it to be inadequate. We consider that it could be altered somewhat marginally to reflect the realities. I do not understand why both the Liberal and Conservative Members want to deny their staffs the right to belong to a bargaining unit. If the Liberal Party is so determined that more rights should be extended to those who work on Parliament Hill, I do not understand why they do not voluntarily extend that right, as we have, to their staff. Give them the right to bargain collectively now rather than say they cannot do so because it is not in the Bill.
We in this Party recognized many years ago the right of individuals to come together in a collective bargaining unit, whether by law or by choice. We recognized that you could sign a collective agreement with your employees and that collective agreement would afford them certain protections and benefits. We did it. We did not wait for the law to change. We did not sit back and say that the law does not permit it so we cannot do it. We did it voluntarily. I challenge the Liberal caucus to sign up their staffs in a collective agreement

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
structure. Let them sign a voluntary collective agreement such as we have for years accepted as the right of our employees in the NDP. Put your money where your mouth is. Well, maybe you do not have that much but do the best you can.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Money, that is.


Ian Deans: Try to show by example, not by rhetoric. Idle rhetoric is available here on a daily basis from every side of the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We can hear it now.


Ian Deans: Put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate by example that the Liberal caucus believes in the collective bargaining process. Invite representatives of the group who represents our employees to come in and sign up your employees, organize them into a unit and bargain on their behalf. Provide them with benefits, and let us together prove to the Government, albeit with difficulty, I do not deny, that collective bargaining can work for employees of Members of Parliament. Demonstrate by example that it can be done, notwithstanding the classification or category that an employee falls into.
There is the challenge. I say to my friend from Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe, if his colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie or his colleague from Gander-Twillingate do not want to join with him, that is a different matter altogether. I suppose they will have to answer to their own constituents for that. Here we have the three of them, a wonderful group no doubt. Let me ask them a question: are you individually prepared to allow your staff to join in a collective bargaining arrangement? Will you allow them to join with our staff and become part of a union and bargain collectively with you? Are you prepared to do that? Are you prepared to stand up and say tonight that your staff is free to join a collective bargaining arrangement with an agent on your behalf? If so, I will make sure that the union representative is in your office in the morning.
Beyond that I want them to explain to me why it was that over all these years, this good labour-type group, so-called, the Liberal Party, did not bring forward any legislation like this, or even, let me say, legislation that would have allowed members of that caucus and all of the employees on Parliament Hill to have a collective bargaining agreement. I would like to hear the answers to those questions. I have taken enough time other than to say I very much appreciate the opportunity, as you know, and since I rise infrequently I thought it a good idea that I should put on the record my frustration with some of the members of the caucus from the Liberal Party who have just spoken.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) who has just spoken that I have enjoyed his comments tremendously, not because they were necessarily accurate or particularly informative, but they
were entertaining in the normal course of events as they are whenever the Member gets to his feet.
Let us examine what he said. What the Member said in addressing his remarks to the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, who so humbly stands upon his feet in this House, is that the legislation is not adequate. He said the Member is absolutely correct when he points out the inadequacies in the legislation. He said the Member is absolutely correct in pointing out some of the problems from which his constituents are suffering. That is what the Member said.
That is the substance of his remarks. All the rest of his remarks were remarks that were borne out of frustration that I, as the Member from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe, stood behind the Member for Gander-Twillingate, who is a Liberal Member, and when I saw that no other Member would stand to defend the interests of Hill employees, because no NDP Member was going to stand, because no Conservative Member was going to stand, I stood.
In examining what the Member said I find that it was not that he disagreed with my analysis of the Bill, in fact he said it was absolutely correct. What he was saying was that he was unhappy that two Liberals in a row rose to speak, because no other Member stood, and that was more than he could bear. Two Liberals stood to defend the basic and fundamental collective bargaining rights of any employee and, more particularly, those employees who serve Members of Parliament.
What the Member was really venting was not disagreement with my analysis but,rather some discomfort that the Liberal Party has had to fill here tonight the role of defender of those employees who could find no other voice in Parliament because no other Member but myself would stand behind the Member for Gander-Twillingate to contribute to this debate.
Having said that, let me say to the Member that my employees are free in my office, because I do not regard them as my employees. I regard them as employees who serve the people of Canada, primarily my constituency, but all the people of Canada are free to associate with whom they want. That is understood in the office that I work in.
The second thing I want to say to the Member is that as a Member of Parliament who takes seriously this reform that is supposed to imbue this place, let us find our conscience and our tongue to speak our minds. I have never failed to stand and to speak my mind notwithstanding history, the present or the future. If the Member finds that offensive, then offend I shall on many occasions.


Ian Deans: It will be interesting to see my colleagues speak of history as it affects the future, I am not sure how he does that. My upset was not with the fact that he said things that might make sense, he always says things that make sense, I never denied it. What I find strange is that after half a century of Liberal Government the Liberal Members rise and expect us to believe that somehow or other they do not like the legislation because it does not go far enough, when after all the
June 25, 1986

opportunities they have had over years and years of government they never once brought forward a piece of legislation themselves. Never once. The Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe was here for the four years when the Liberals were in office from 1980 to 1984. I do not remember him once rising to defend the rights of Parliament Hill employees to organize as a union, to bargain collectively. I do not remember it. I ask him if he can find it in the record, to put it back on the record now. When, between 1980 and 1984, did he ever rise in his place and demand of the Government that it afford to the employees of Parliament Hill the right to collective bargaining? I say frankly to my other colleague who is desperately bobbing up and down hoping to get the floor, that I do not remember his doing it either.
It is not whether individually the Liberal Members might say that if the Hill were organized their staff could join. What I want to know is this: is the Liberal caucus committed to collective bargaining for its employees? Is the Liberal caucus prepared to say to its employees without hesitation, without equivocation, that the Liberal Members would be very pleased if the staff were to join with other people on Parliament Hill and form a union to bargain collectively with us? Let me help you out, lest you cannot find the words, I know what they are, the word is no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I always thought that questions and comments were for Members to ask of the person who was speaking, and not for the person who is speaking to be asking the questions. Maybe I am wrong. I am pretty sure that this is the way it was structured. Nevertheless, we will let it go.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Member that my employees are free to do as they wish. When he asks me whether I would let them know that it would please me greatly if they would all do a certain thing, I want to ask him, where does he find that model of democracy that says to employees, that I would be pleased if you would do a certain thing, therefore, I would be displeased if you do not do what I want you to do? That is the politburo, commissar type of relationship that one has with one's employees. I do not ever threaten my employees. I do not tell them I am pleased or displeased about decisions they take about their personal life. There are intelligent employees in my office, freely able to express themselves and to think for themselves.


Ian Deans: I am certainly pleased to hear that. I can, therefore, assume that the answer to my question is no. On the one hand the Member is not prepared to indicate that he would be not displeased if his staff were to join a union, that he would be happy to deal with them. More important, since obviously a one-on-one thing is not going to be terribly satisfactory, is he prepared to tell me that the Liberal caucus meeting one Wednesday morning made a decision that it would find it acceptable if the workers decided to become part of a union?
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can put it into context. This Bill will pass soon and no one need worry about that.
When the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) asks a question about unionized employees, he is putting it to the wrong people when he asks the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) or myself, the Member for Gander-Twillingate. Let me explain why. The employees in my colleague's office and my office would break every union agreement every day because they do not work eight hours a day, they work 12 and 14 hours, of their own volition. They do that because we deal with welfare cases, unemployment insurance cases and Canada Pension cases. The phone bills will prove that the member from the New Democratic Party is speaking to the wrong people when he asks: "Will you allow your employees-", of course we will allow our employees. Perhaps I should not say this, but I think we have the best employees on Parliament Hill.
The other point concerns criticizing a government Member. Today, a Progessive Conservative Member does his job in his caucus. That is why some people who occasionally watch the House of Commons unfairly judge a Conservative Member today when they ask that Member why he did not speak when a very topical subject came before the House. The chances are that nine times out of ten that Member was speaking in his caucus, or speaking behind the scenes to his Minister.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is living in the past. It is like back to the future, he believes that the Government is behaving the same as the Liberals behaved-those free-wheeling spenders who created all those Crown corporations, threw money at problems, would not lay anyone off, and created employment. That is the difference. The Government is obsessed with the deficit. When the Member for Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe and myself see lay-offs, we talk about them because we are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a short rebuttal. I hope that people are watching this performance this evening so they can see how Parliament really lives and how it really works.


Ian Deans: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not often make gratuitous comments about the Chair. However, let me make two comments in answer to my colleague. I do not know why he is now sucking up to the Conservatives. Second, is he suggesting that because people work on welfare cases and unemployment insurance cases and work 12 hours a day, that they somehow ought not to belong to a union?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am simply suggesting that I am sure there is not one Member of Parliament who would refuse any such request from their employees. I am suggesting to the Hon. Member that one is not a very good union employee if one agrees to work an extra four hours a day for nothing.


Ian Deans: Well, pay them overtime like I do.

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act


George Baker: They would soon be booted out of that union. But they do this because they want to. They are under no obligation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have now terminated. Debate.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, after listening to what was said by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I have to conclude that this House has nothing to learn from the Hon. Member and certainly not from the New Democratic Party.
The Hon. Member's speech reminded me of the time when I was a Member of the Quebec National Assembly, when the Opposition Members, at the time it was the Parti Quebecois, the great defenders of the unions, would rise and condemn the Government. But as soon as the Parti Quebecois came to power, they were the people who kept passing repressive legislation and breaking collective agreements. Mr. Speaker, I find that the New Democratic Party has much in common with those Parti Quebecois Members. When they are in the Opposition, they make a lot of speeches, but as soon as they come to power, they do the exact opposite.
I remember the people in the New Democratic Party when they had the balance of power. And I never heard a Member of the New Democratic Party demand that the then Liberal Government, as a condition for staying in power, allow employees of the House of Commons to organize. As usual, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) just gave us one of his marvelous performances that go over so well on the TV screen, while the Hon. Member disappears as soon as he has finished his show.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather get back to Bill C-45. I think all Members of this House should rejoice today because it is a step forward towards union organizing. Not so long ago, Members of all political parties could say and hide behind these words: the Queen does not negotiate with her subjects. All these people used a lot of high-sounding phrases and dragged the Queen into their eloquent speeches to stop employees on Parliament Hill from getting the right to organize and defend their rights and have a collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, these employees, including messengers and the people who make the transcripts and operate the television cameras and drive our mini-buses, these people, when they work outside normal working hours, have no arrangement for time and a half or double time. They are literally at the mercy of our parliamentarians, and let's face it, we are not easy to get along with. It isn't easy to work for Members because they are busy working for the well-being of their fellow citizens. I am convinced that most Members of Parliament are anxious to respond as efficiently and as quickly as possible to the requests they receive from their constituents, be they about unemployment insurance problems, employment problems, problems related to old age security pensions, every
time Members want to respond quickly so they want answers from the library staff, from messengers, from ministerial office personnel, Members want quick and efficient responses to be able to serve their constituents intelligently.
Mr. Speaker, it stands to reason that because they want to give good service to all Canadians Hon. Members always expect a little more from Parliament Hill employees. Mr. Speaker, it is important and I think it would have been better had most Members agreed to give those people the right to strike after negotiating a collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, police officers do not have the right to go on strike. There are many places where people do not have the right to strike, but they do go on illegal strikes. Provocation is as bad and as serious as allowing somebody to exercise a right in self-defence, but it makes it possible for both parties to show maturity and negotiate in good faith. Mr. Speaker, we could have allowed that, in adjudication cases, the expenses incurred by the union be paid by the employer. We have to keep in mind that these people are newly unionized, roughly 2,000 of them. There again I think it would have been better for the Government to accept these amendments concerning employee collective bargaining and unionization.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain earlier, and I must say that I have no lesson to learn from him. As I have already mentioned, at the age of 12, I organized a strike of choir boys, and I must say that, contrary to the kind of union work carried out by the New Democratic Party, I had not asked for one cent in union dues since we were getting five cents, and we immediately got 30 cents.
Mr. Speaker, I can show you evidence that I still pay my union dues. I am affiliated with the Quebec Federation of Labour. I am still a member of my union and I have no lesson to receive from any NDP Member. I may not be a trade unionist, but I am a union member. A permanent trade unionist is paid from union dues while a union member relies on his union leader and his boss. He is caught between the two and he is always the one to pay. I think that we have different views of what makes a trade unionist.
I shall now come back to Bill C-45.
As I have already mentioned, it is a step forward in the process to democratize and unionize our system. The example given by Parliament employees will perhaps appease the fears of businessmen who think that unionization is dangerous and harmful. If they have a good employer, the employess will not try to unionize, they will not try to revolt, and if there is negotiation and agreement between the two parties, there will necessarily be harmony, a good plan of work and improved conditions for working men and women.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government never goes as far as it could in what it offers, whether in social programs, as we saw in the case of pension reform, or in collective agreements, as in the case of this Bill, or in the case of security measures at the airports. There had to be a disaster, a strike of
June 25, 1986

security employees in Dorval and Mirabel, and a reporter who clearly showed that the safety of the public was in jeopardy because of an unclear situation respecting wages, collective agreements, the way the employees were treated and fairness of the system. As we know, at the Dorval and Mirabel airports, certain security officers in charge of supervising the parking lots were getting $6.45, while those in charge of passenger safety being were paid much less. Mr. Speaker, I must say that last Friday, there was a meeting in the basement of the Saint-Pierre-Apotre Church of the members of the Quebec Labour Federation, and I imagine that the Hon. Member for Argen-teuil was invited to attend because of the victory won by that union. Mr. Speaker, this shows once again that unions are not always negative. These organized steelworkers paid only minimum wages have demonstrated that the lives of the passengers leaving Mirabel and Dorval were endangered because of the absence of equal treatment and justice for all. If organized labour and unions have negative sides, they can have positive sides too, Mr. Speaker. Like the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), I feel that Parliament Hill employees should have been given the right to strike. As mentioned by the Hon. Member for Papineau, everybody knows most of these employees: they are here to serve the Canadian public. For instance, there are the messengers who respond quickly and efficiently to the requests made by Hon. Members; there are the many minibus drivers; there are the people responsible for recording the official proceedings of the House for Debates; there are the television employees; all of them are serious people who are never absent, who never refuse to work and never do their jobs improperly. Granting these people the right to strike, a right which other civil servants enjoy, would have shown that we recognize their sense of responsibility.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, these people, in spite of their irregular hours, are paid straight time. Are there many employees across the country who, because of a change of schedule, are forced to work beyond a certain number of hours, will accept to be paid straight time? I do not think there are very many. I suggest we should have recognized the services these people have provided for so many years by granting them the right to strike or, at least, by ensuring that any legal expenses incurred in the adjudication of a dispute were paid by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), a person who at the time she was sitting on opposition benches had demonstrated a rather strong moral conscience, to exert pressures on her Cabinet colleagues, especially those with rightist tendencies-we know some of them-to accept at least the amendment as moved, so that the legal expenses incurred in the adjudication of a dispute can be paid for by the employer.
Mr. Speaker, there are not millions of dollars involved. We have heard about expenses in the order of $800 000 for three
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
trips made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). But that was for just one or two persons. We know about $35,000 spent on selling his image in the United States. We saw today a magazine with a circulation of over 100,000 in which there were 17 pictures of him-and this morning he suggested that was still not enough-but as yet we do not know how much that has cost!
Mr. Speaker, there is not that much money involved where these employees are concerned. Employees of the House of Commons do not ask for that much. They only ask that the Government accept to cover their legal expenses, when they need to have lawyers to defend their cases in the arbitration process. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is simple, logical and sensible.
As suggested by my colleague for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), certainly no one here feels this is an irresponsible request made by the employees. As suggested by my colleague for Saint-Denis, I say this is not unreasonable. If as individuals they find that request to be most reasonable, most responsible, why then do they, as the Conservative Party, turn it down as unacceptable?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has promised changes. Members of Parliament would have more power, they would have more freedom! We realize this is not the case, nothing has changed! There is increasing doubt as to who is leading that party. All we know is the Government is a huge voting machine. Conservative Members are a bunch of men and women who are playing musical chairs. But when the time comes to defend substantial issues, issues in which they believe, and certainly those people do defend that in their caucus, but it would seem there is an extraneous force that is not part of the Government but that makes those decisions, and those decisions fly in the face of what I believe is the philosophy of some of the Members. I am convinced that as private Members they would accept that. They all told me; Yes, really this is acceptable, it is reasonable, those are not outlandish costs, this is what is being done within the Public Service Commission.
Why discriminate against employees of the House of Commons? They are not any worse than employees of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Speaker. But not to know who among them made that decision, that is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker, on that issue you have the Opposition Members, whether in the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party, and certainly some Conservative Members-not the true Tories, because for them we know that only the law of the jungle prevails, the survival of the fittest. But I am convinced that a minority of Conservative Members, along with New Democratic Party Members and Liberal Members, did all they could to give the best to our employees in the House of Commons.
In conclusion, I would like to commend my colleague for Hamilton East (M. Copps) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for having fought vigourously
14860

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
and doggedly over this Bill. I know the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier is here not just to defend the interests of employees on Parliament Hill, not all of them, but a good many are constituents of his, and it is for a good reason that during the last election, people trusted the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, Mr. Speaker. They knew from experience that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, whether in Government or in Opposition, is someone on whom they can rely to defend them.
Unfortunately-Mr. Speaker, I see that my time has almost expired-unfortunately in 1988 we will not be in a position to say the same thing about a very large majority of Conservative Members, because people will not know whether or not they defended their interests as the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier did.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope in conclusion that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will show her concern for human values and urge her cabinet colleagues not only to allow employees of the House of Commons to enjoy the right to strike but to pay for their litigation expenses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions, comments?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak in this debate. We are in the last week of the session before the summer recess. I understand that there have been discussions among House Leaders and some agreements, at least informal ones, have been arrived at in order that a certain number of Bills which are still before the House can be dealt with before we adjourn on Friday. We have been told that to accomplish that end we should show some restraint in debate.
Since we made our position clear with respect to this Bill during the debate at second reading stage, and since members of our Party who sat on the committee which dealt with this Bill clause by clause explained our views and proposed amendments which were debated at report stage, I did not think it was necessary to speak. However, I have to say that there is one thing which has been made very clear to me again tonight; that is the tremendous difference between members of the Liberal Party when they form the Government and members of the Liberal Party when they sit in opposition.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You'll never know because you'll never be a Liberal.


David Orlikow: I know exactly what I am saying. A few years after I first came to this place I remember a Liberal Member of Parliament from Ottawa who had about a dozen or 15 chairs sitting outside his office at all times. Since I was curious about this I asked one day what the chairs were doing there. It was explained to me that if any person wanted a job on Parliament Hill, they had to approach this Liberal Member of
Parliament. He saw that they either got a job or did not get a job. He had the power and the influence.
Between four and five years ago when a few employees on Parliament Hill decided that enough was enough, that conditions were such that they needed to belong to a union, my assistant, Alain Piche, spoke to me. He told me that he had been approached by these people. He asked me if I would mind if, in the evenings, he helped those people who wished to belong to a union. I told him that of course I would not mind. I believe that every Canadian who wants to belong to a union should have the right to belong to one.
I wish to say to Liberal Members of Parliament that those people who first took the lead with respect to organizing workers on Parliament Hill, the people who work in the cafeterias, the restaurants, the messengers, the people in the post office, security staff and bus-drivers, did it very quietly. They did it almost surreptitiously because they knew that they would not receive much sympathy. In fact, there was no sympathy on the part of Liberal cabinet Ministers. They knew that there was real opposition on the part of senior administrators in this place to their desire to belong to unions. I was quite happy to allow my assistant do that work for them.
After about two years he came to me and asked if he could have a leave of absence without pay in order to work full-time at this job. I remind Hon. Members that during these years that this was happening there was a Liberal Government in place. Where were the Liberal Members of Parliament then? Where were those who made these great speeches tonight about this Bill which we are to pass not being good enough? Where were they then? They were conspicuous by their absence. There was not the slightest indication given, certainly not publicly, that any Liberal Member, and certainly no Liberal cabinet Minister, really believed that the people who work on Parliament Hill should have the right to belong to a union, any union.


Charles L. Caccia: How do you know? Why do you make such a silly statement?


David Orlikow: On the basis of the record.


Charles L. Caccia: That is absolute nonsense. There is no record that you can quote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please.


Charles L. Caccia: You are pulling it out of thin air. That is irresponsible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There will be an opportunity for questions and comments after the Hon. Member terminates his speech. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has the floor.


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has the same right as I have to speak. If he wants to disagree with me, or if he wants to give evidence to say that what I am saying is not correct, then he can do that.
June 25, 1986

What I am saying is that until 1984 there were Liberal Governments for almost all of the time that I have been in this place, except for the short period of time when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister. The Liberal Government could have indicated at any time to people who work on the Hill that if they wanted to join a union then they could do so and that legislation would be enacted giving them the right which other workers have to bargain collectively, if they could sign up the members. There was never any indication that members of Liberal Governments approved of that measure.
I say to the Hon. Member that there were plenty of indications. He does not have to take my word for it. He can talk to the people who now lead the union which has applied for certification and which will receive recognition once this Bill is passed. The fact is that there was never any indication that the Liberals supported such a move. In fact, there was every indication that the Liberals looked on that type of idea and opposed it.
We have very clearly indicated that there are substantial portions of this Bill which are not satisfactory. This Bill does not give employees the rights which they would have if they worked in the private sector. Nor does it give them all the rights which they would have if they fell under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. We have indicated our opposition to those failures. We brought forward a number of amendments which would have given them the rights which other workers enjoy. Those amendments were turned down by the Government.
We are dissatisfied; and we have said that again and again. We know that in the future there will be changes. We hope, and we know, that there will be changes for the better to the legislation. The employees on the Hill need this legislation. They need the right to bargain collectively today more than ever because, added to all the difficulties which they have had up until now, including the absolute ability of the administration to change the rules, working conditions and job classifications, there is the determination of this Government to cut back on the Public Service.
We know that there have been discussions about privatizing the cafeteria and the Parliamentary Restaurant. We know that a substantial number of permanent employees who operate the consoles at committee meetings which record the proceedings have been let go or have been retired and are being replaced by part-time contract employees. We know that the numbers of people involved in language training for Members of Parliament and others are being reduced. More than ever the employees need the right to bargain collectively. We have been saying that for years. We know that this Bill lacks a great deal but it will pass. With all its imperfections, it is the most to which the Government would agree. We regret that and oppose the refusal of the Government to pass the kind of legislation to which we believe employees are entitled, the same kind of legislation that other employees in both the private and public sector enjoy.
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
We know that this Bill will pass tonight. I would simply say that I find it to be strange, to say the least, to hear long and laudatory speeches made by Liberal Members urging that this Bill not only pass but that it be improved upon. They are calling for all those things which they failed to do or would not do when they were in Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to speak on Bill C-45. As I have indicated to all Hon. Members, I had the privilege at one time of being an employee of the House of Commons. The working conditions that have been described by various Hon. Members are, by and large, accurate. I know this because I was there and had the personal opportunity to see just what kind of benefits were afforded, just what kind of benefits were denied and most of all, just what kind of benefits were available at one time but were later denied to employees. It is that particular area about which I wish to speak.
I should not let the remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) go by. He asked where Liberal Members of Parliament were during the last Government and why they did not bring these issues to the forefront of the House of Commons at that time. I know where I was at that time. I was one of those employees myself so that takes care of this particular Member of Parliament.
The Hon. Member asked what the Liberals did for the collective rights of public servants. I would like to remind him that the collective bargaining rights public servants now enjoy were, in very large part, passed by Liberal administrations. I am sure he knows that and it was merely an oversight on his part that he did not mention it before.
I recognize that the Bill before us today is not as complete as I would like it to be. However, a draft of the present Bill or a similar Bill was prepared by the previous Government before the unfortunate event of September 4, 1984, an event which will soon be rectified. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North asked what evidence existed that the Liberal Party wanted to enhance the collective bargaining rights of public servants. I have given him some examples of such evidence.
I should also remind all Hon. Members who were here before of how we got into the situation that exists at the House of Commons in which employees increasingly need a mechanism to air grievances and correct the unfair treatment to which they have been subjected. In order to discuss that issue, we should recall that the staff of the House of Commons has increased in rather great measure over recent years. This is not something that existed 30 years ago or even 20 years ago. This is something that grew out of the expansion of Parliament.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, as you have been here for a number of years although you are still a very young man, and as I recall because I was a staff member, during your first

June 25, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
years here, all the services Members enjoy today did not exist. Members did not have large offices with research and support staff. The place did not work that way. There were no word processors or other sophisticated equipment.
I recall when a Member of Parliament had in his or her office-mostly his because there were very few women Members at the time-only one secretary in one small room. That had only occurred shortly before I came to Parliament Hill as an employee. I am told that before that, there were two Members and two secretaries to one room and before that, I understand that there were two Members and only one secretary and that the one secretary worked for the two Members simultaneously.
All of this is to say that the size of the staff on the Hill has increased. In the 1970s, because there had been this massive increase in staff, there was a restructuring of the administration here on the Hill. This restructuring was supposed to make the place better. Of course, if one were to ask the opinion of most people who work here, one would find that their opinion is slightly different. The word "better" is not the one that most employees would use to describe working conditions and how this place has operated since the restructuring of the administration of the House of Commons.
Perhaps some restructuring was necessary. There is no such thing as an administration that does not need to be improved upon just like there is no such thing as collective bargaining rights that do not need to be enhanced. Everything should be better than it is and it is our role as Members of Parliament to make sure that general conditions for everyone improve.
At the time we sought to improve the administrative structure of the House of Commons, it is my view that there should have been a parallel movement to improve the methods by which the staff could collectively air grievances with the new bureaucracy created at the top level here at the House of Commons.

And the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was saying earlier that under the Liberal administration, perhaps 10, 15, 20 years ago, jobless people were seen to turn to their Members of Parliament to try and get a job on Parliament Hill.
I am considering this, Mr. Speaker, and I still wonder what can be wrong with that. Is there anything wrong about contacting one's Member of Parliament and trying to find a job here, either on Parliament Hill or elsewhere?
It is a fact that on Parliament Hill in those days before the new management was set up, there was indeed very little structure. How was the staff hired? I remember, Mr. Speaker, that it was not unusual in some services, especially two of them, for the managers to seek the advice of Members about suitable people to fill some positions. Then there was no process. And the local Members from all political parties, I think were doing what they could to find jobs for their constituents. It may not have been the best procedure, but it
was the only structure in place and Members were trying to find jobs for their constituents.
However, today, Mr. Speaker, we have the management structures to which I referred earlier. But I feel that a serious mistake was made when no process was provided to allow the employees to state their grievances to the new parliamentary management.
In short, I wanted to say that it would have been essential beginning in the mid-seventies, about 1975-76, to consider implementing some legislation allowing the staff of the House to become unionized. The previous Government made such an attempt. However, Mr. Speaker, we are sitting in this House during this Parliament and not in the previous one.
We are not here only to reminisce about things which some of us think some of us should have done some time ago. Our task as Members of Parliament is to attempt to improve the rights and privileges of all Canadians, to try to make a better life for all. The ideal place to show an example for the entire country is right here in this place. It is here that we should demonstrate to all Canadians that we are able to improve their collective lot. We should demonstrate that by showing good faith. In any case, the people of Canada should be able to measure how well we do by the way in which we treat employees on Parliament Hill.
If we in the House are unable to improve the working conditions of 3,000 or so employees who work within the precincts of Parliament Hill, what qualifies us to pretend that we are able to improve the collective life of everyone else in Canada? Surely this place should be a model for all employers. Surely employers should be able to look at this place to see an example of where employees are treated in a just, fair, and equitable way. That is not the case today. However, it is my hope that this legislation, as incomplete as it is, will at least be a start toward improving the rights of employees of the House of Commons.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why did you oppose me when I did it 15
years ago?


Don Boudria: I hear the very interesting remarks of the Hon. Member across the way. I remember well his remarks some 15 years ago, from my working station in the House of Commons.
I forget just what I was doing in 1971, but I think I was a pack boy in the stationery store in the West Block. I used every influence I had as a pack boy to change the legislation and to get improvements! That duty should rest on Members of the House, not on people who were not here at any given time in the past. Our duty is to improve those rights here, now, and today.
I call upon all Members of Parliament to do their best, not just in passing this Bill because it is not complete enough, but in starting to think about more complete legislation to give full
June 25, 1986

and better bargaining rights to the employees of the House of Commons.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member told us that before the 1984 election the Liberal Government had ready legislation dealing with this question. I remind him that the Liberals were in government from 1963 to 1984, with the exception of nine months. They were in Government for 20 years. What the Hon. Member is saying is that in the twentieth year they finally got around to drafting legislation. That proves precisely the point which I made, that is, the Liberals take these kinds of questions very seriously only when they are in the Opposition.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to those remarks. The Hon. Member who just posed the question should know that he was talking about 1962 and 1963. I ask him what were the collective bargaining rights of all public servants at that time. Who initiated the process of collective rights for public servants across Canada? It was the Liberal Government. I am glad the Hon. Member raised that subject. It gave me an occasion to correct the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) rising on debate or to ask a question?


Marcel Prud'homme: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I ask Hon. Members opposite to be cool. I know there is a gentleman's agreement to pass the Bill quickly. If my colleagues opposite are quiet, I will co-operate, but if they want to debate, of course we will not finish tonight. I just wanted to put some comments on record.


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh! oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: A third interruption, and I will speak for all the time allotted. I just wanted to be on record as saying that I regret-


J. Michael Forrestall: You have no intention of doing anything other than that.


An Hon. Member:: Listen to what he has to say.


Marcel Prud'homme: I am used to my very good colleague from Nova Scotia.
I regret that we could not vote on Motion No. 11 which reads in part as follows:
69. Where expenses are incurred in the adjudication of any dispute,
provisions similar to those in the Public Service Staff Relations Act apply.

I simply want to say that, given the spirit of co-operation, despite the fact that I like and understand all House of Commons employees who all have a personal history, I must
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
remember that before I became a Member I was a student and I filled most parliamentary jobs, not here in Parliament but elsewhere in the private sector. So I am aware of the kind of respect we owe our employees be they in kitchens or in offices. I had an amendment ready, I will not move it but I simply want to say that I had drafted this amendment: That Bill C-45 be not now read for the third time but that it be referred to a Legislative Committee for reconsideration of Clause 69.
This would mean we would pay the expenses incurred in adjudication cases rather than force the employees to pay them. The more Members say so, the more numerous opportunities we will have to get back to this question. If ever the occasion were to arise we might say: Listen, the spirit which prevailed the evening of June 25 when we agreed to pass this Bill, the spirit was that there would be no abuse. I certainly would not want the House of Commons to behave like a private sector company, use strong tactics, turn down certain requests and say: If you are not happy, try arbitration. Then we know full well that the House of Commons which represents all Canadians has unlimited resources, unlimited resources to fight, so it would be very unfair to pit our House of Commons employees against Parliament which obviously has unlimited financial resources and might tell them: Well, we will call in an arbitrator, we will pay our expenses, but pay your own.
I simply want to be sure that such abuses will not occur, and as I said at the beginning, the best way would have been to pass this amendment earlier this evening, but it was defeated. We could move a motion asking that this Bill be not now read and be referred back to the Legislative Committee for review of this clause. However, this seems impossible. The result of the vote would be the same as a few hours ago. I prefer cooperation, and as a Member who likes to co-operate, since the Government wants to pass this Bill as quickly as possible, I and my colleagues have decided that it is useless to fight as the results will be the same. I will therefore not move this amendment to refer the Bill to the Legislative Committee to consider what we believe to be an important amendment.
I shall therefore conclude by saying that we still hope that what the Government is offering will represent a beginning for Parliament employees, but as I have already mentioned, I would have preferred, that several of the amendments moved by my colleague be accepted in a spirit of co-operation. I consider it my duty to speak as Chairman of the Committee on Members's Services. Who provides these services to Members? The employees of the House of Commons. I felt that I should at least say that I regret that we could not-
As they say in English, we would not have gone all the way. I regret it, but I see there is no use insisting, so I will not insist.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

June 25, 1986
Customs Tariff


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has within it three quite distinct parts. The third part I will not deal with very much at all. It extends a commitment which we feel should not have been extended as far as it has been with respect to pornography under the Customs Act.
The first two parts of the Bill are interesting. The first part deals with the intent to establish a relationship between Canada and the Caribbean countries called CARIBCAN. It is an attempt to work out a trading relationship which will permit the Caribbean countries to enter their goods into Canada with a few exceptions at tariff free rates.
We have examined this Bill in committee and continue to have some concerns about the shortcomings that exist. These are two major gaps. First, there is a signficant set of products left out of the trade relationship to be established. Any Members of Parliament who know the Caribbean economies at all will recognize that the specific goods which are exempted- textiles, garments, footwear and leather products-are very much the products prevalent in many of the manufacturing economies of the Caribbean Islands. To leave them out is to block off the potential for manufacturing growth in some of those Caribbean islands.
Second, there is a 60 per cent value added criterion which is set up in this Bill, that is to say, you have to produce 60 per cent of the value added of any item which is to benefit under this Bill within the Caribbean economy itself. For a developing country that is usually quite difficult. In this case it compares very poorly and very unfairly with the 35 per cent value added provision which exists under the U.S. arrangement with the Caribbean countries called the Caribbean Basin Initiative. We
could have been a good deal more generous with respect to these arrangements.
Our discussions with Jamaican representatives, just to take that country as an example, suggests to us that they continue to feel quite unhappy with the restrictions placed in the context of this Bill. We had hoped to have some witnesses before the legislative committee to reflect some of the unhappiness, but there was a push on the part of the Conservative majority in the legislative committee to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. For that reason we did not find it possible to invite witnesses to speak to these areas.
I want to turn from that part of the Bill, which is interesting but as I have suggested hardly earth-shaking, to the second part of the Bill which I think might be called by the Conservative Members of the House the "mouse that roared" section of the Bill while we might consider it as "the mouse that cut off its own foot" section of the Bill. What the second section of the Bill, deals with is the bizarre attempt on the part of the Government to rebate against the United States for its shake and shingle tariff by raising a tariff on our computer and business machines produced here in Canada.
I think it is remarkable that we should first attempt to put into place a system of retaliation which does absolutely nothing for the shake and shingle producers in British Columbia either directly or indirectly. It is even more remarkable that this effort at retaliation should be so misguided, so distorted, so wrong-headed in the area in which retaliation is taken. We did manage to have the representatives of two of the important computer manufacturing and business manufacturing sectors come before our committee. They presented, I must say, a sorry tale of exactly how the Government had behaved in this misguided mixed up effort at trade retaliation.
I have to quote, for the benefit of some Members in the House who have not had the chance yet to work their way through the legislative committee minutes, some of the very harsh comments made by business representatives who we managed to get invited to come before the committee. I note first the comments of Mr. Gordon Gow of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association. He is also President of Gandalf Systems Group. He said quite bluntly that he did not see how Bill C-111 does us any good. He went on to say that it is entirely a "lose, lose, lose" situation; the Government loses, the consumer loses and the industry loses.
In the Budget of last February the Government first attempted to reduce all tariffs affecting this industry after telling the industry to make adjustments to work its way through this difficult period of having to live without tariffs. The industry welcomed that because it gave it a chance to compete in the U.S. and Japan. What was exciting about this approach to freer trade was that it was sectoral, it had been discussed with the industry and they felt good about it, and, unlike the thrust by the Government to set up a free trade deal with the U.S., it did not lock us exclusively to the U.S.
June 25, 1986

In short, it was a quite admirable effort at sectoral free trade which gave Canadians a chance to penetrate both the U.S. and Japanese markets and at the same time import dutyfree from both those countries the computer parts and semiconductors we need to build business machines to sell competitively throughout the world. From our point of view, it was exactly the kind of free trade arrangement that we should be attempting to establish. Yet it was wiped out by this misguided attempt to retaliate against the U.S. by raising tariffs on products produced by these very industries which had just gone through the process of adjusting to a new low tariff world.
In the face of that, representatives of small and mediumsized firms were absolutely scathing. Mr. Gow went on to say:
The other important part I would like to bring to your attention is the paperwork that is going to be caused by this Bill-
Here we have a Government which, when it came into power, said it would attempt to cut down paperwork for Canadian businesses. In this Bill, as amended, it is increasing that paperwork. A Government which says it is committed to freer trade is increasing tariffs and trade restrictions, not just against the U.S. but against Japan. In some cases, as Mr. Gow put it, this Bill could go as far as to be a back-breaker for these small companies. Yet that is the Bill which this Conservative Government pushed through committee without accepting amendments. Mr. Gow also said:
So we feel we have been betrayed-in that back in February this same government took all of these tariffs off to make us more competitive for all the reasons that we wanted to be in a position where we could be in the export market.
That was done without any consultation whatsoever with the Association or any company in the computer or semiconductor sector.
We were also fortunate to have the testimony of Mr. Allan Aiken of the Canadian Semiconductor Design Association. He gave us estimates which indicated that the cut-back in profitability as a result of these so-called retaliatory tariffs could end up putting some of these important semiconductor producers out of business.
Mr. George Best, President of the Canadian Business Equipment Manufacturers Association said that the tripartite agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Japan to eliminate duties on parts and semiconductors was an important step toward full duty elimination. CBEMA members strongly support that agreement. Therefore, they were even more dismayed at the reimposition of Canadian tariffs on computer parts and semiconductors. This Government claimed to be trying to do something to show how tough it was with the U.S. Government, yet all it did was damage our own industry. This damage was documented by these key spokesmen from business centres which represent every aspect of the industry.
CBEMA represents the producers of business machines. The Canadian Advanced Technology Association represents the
Customs Tariff
producers of computers and computer parts in this country. These were the very people who wanted this tripartite sector based freer trade arrangement with Japan and the United States, and which still find it completely impossible to understand the logic of what is taking place in trying to put this measure into effect now, calling it retaliation, and yet the only people who are hurt are Canadian consumers, the Canadian Government and Canadian producers.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I asked members of the Legislative committee how it could possibly make sense to do what this Bill is doing. I ask how it could conceivably be of any benefit to this country to hurt these small firms as this Bill is hurting them. I ask how it could possibly be in any sense consistent with what this Government is trying to do in other areas, to take this example of freer trade in a sector where the industry wants it, where workers want it, where consumers want it, and to turn that free trade arrangement into something which, instead of giving us a freer trade arrangement, does devastating damage to our industry.
How can this possibly make sense? How can a Government continue to put a Bill like this forward when the victims of the Bill are going to be small firms and Canadian consumers across this country? It is going to be small computer-based companies in the high tech sector, which are precisely the firms we should be giving encouragement to at this stage in 1986.
I cannot see any sense to it at all. I have yet to see any Conservative at the legislative committee at second reading or at this stage of debate who has been able to demonstrate any sense that lies in this particular section of the Bill. There is absolutely no logic to it. It makes no sense, and a Government which was either being consistent or being logical would go back to the Bill as it originally stood instead of going with it as amended at this particular stage.
I finish once more with a plea to the House on this occasion, at least, to recognize the nonsense which is being undertaken in the name of logic. It cannot possibly make sense to anybody on the government side to put this Bill through as it is attempting to do.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the third reading stage of Bill C- 111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. I realize the Government is in a hurry to adopt a number of Bills this evening, but I would still like to touch on one of the aspects I did not have a chance to mention at second reading.
Early this year, Canada signed an agreement with Japan and the United States under which all three countries would be able to exchange computer parts without paying duty. On May 26, 1986, the House accepted first reading of Bill C- 111, which included this measure that would allow parts from the

June 25, 1986
Customs Tariff
United States, Japan or Canada to enter these countries dutyfree.
And now, Mr. Speaker, on June 6, the Government decided to impose duty on those very same parts of data processing equipment and office equipment which at the beginning of the year had been the subject of an agreement with the United States and Japan.
On second reading, we said we agreed with the principle of the Bill, but we had some doubts as to the manner in which the Government would administer the legislation. Today, we can truly say that the Government said one thing when it signed an agreement at the beginning of 1986 and when it introduced a Bill on May 26, 1986, enacting this agreement, and another thing altogether on June 6.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you what was said by the President of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association:
I just do not see what good Bill C-lll will do. It creates a situation where everybody-the Government, the Canadian consumer, the industry-will lose. The Government will lose because it will not achieve the objectives of its Bill; the industry will lose because it will be prevented from being competitive, and the Canadian consumer will lose because it will have to pay more.
The other factor I should like to bring to your attention-
-continued Mr. Gordon W. Gow, the President of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association-
-is the administrative burden which will result from this bill in terms of the very high cost for small businesses, this could even bring some of them to the brink of bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, it is only recently that the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette) was worrying that only 20 per cent of new small businesses prospered after five years of operation, while 80 per cent of them failed.
Because of the action taken by this Government on June 6, this Bill will cause many small businesses to go bankrupt.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support this bill in principle, but realizing all the events which have occurred since this Bill was introduced for first reading on May 26, we must accept it, that is to say, adopt it on division, because we have today the proof that the Government will not keep the promises it made when it introduced this bill.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, before I make my comments perhaps it would be advisable to entertain a suggestion on a point of order.


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I am not mistaken, we made an agreement between the three Parties in the House to put forward Bill C-116, dealing with the Canada Pension Plan. That is my understanding of the agreement.
I would ask my colleague if he might end his remarks on Bill C-lll shortly, perhaps in two or three minutes, which is what
your colleague from Montreal agreed to. If that could be done, we could introduce Bill C-116.
I do not know what the mix-up was and I am sure it is not the fault of my colleague. However, I would ask him to do so.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I may be able to add to what my colleague said. I have with me a draft House Order which is the result of negotiations among the House Leaders and the critics who are interested in Bill C-116.
You may find a disposition to agree that immediately after the remarks of the Hon. Member who is speaking, the order of business would be Bill C-116; and that debate at report stage and third reading will take no longer than 30 minutes, 10 minutes maximum debate for each of the three Parties; and at the end of the 10 minute limit among the Parties, participation in the debate by that Party is to be terminated by the Chair; and that 30 minutes after the debate commences all votes necessary to dispose of report stage and third reading would be put.
This would have the effect of allowing our colleague to complete his remarks and allowing for Bill C-116 to be passed in all stages this evening.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we are always trying to accommodate the business, but I would like to know just how long the Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) intends to speak. We are now sitting extended hours. At the time that I entered into the agreement, I anticipated that an extension would take us until 10:10 p.m., which was a 10 minute extension.
If the Member wishes to spend a lot of time and make many comments, then, quite frankly we will be here tomorrow and we are perfectly willing to deal with this legislation tomorrow. However, if the Hon. Member is finished, as he may well be, then we would be willing to sit the extra five minutes to accommodate this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is now in some small difficulty. The proposal which the House has heard is that the conclusion of this speech would presumably lead to a vote prior to moving to Bill C-116.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, we would then move to Bill C-116, 30 minutes to be allocated, 10 minutes per Party. The Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger), on the same point of order.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the various discussions that have taken place between members of my Party and the other Parties on this particular point. All I know is that I have a deep interest in the subject matter of Bill C-111 which deals with the re-imposition of a tax on computer parts, which is very detrimental to the computer industry in Canada.
Unfortunately, there are many other decisions of the Government that have adversely affected the computer
June 25, 1986

industry in Canada and are preoccupying a lot of the time of Members of the House. I would like to address those points in the course of my remarks.
I do not set the agenda. If there was any disposition to deal with Bill C-l 16, I do not see why the Government cannot call Bill C-l 16 and we will take up the debate on Bill C-l 11 tomorrow or whenever it chooses to bring it back again.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to attempt to interfere with any Member's right to speak at whatever length he or she wishes within the rules. If it is the wish of the Member who has just spoken to continue to debate the Bill that is before us, notwithstanding the fact that we attempted to work out some kind of understanding to accommodate not only the Government but his own colleague, then, quite frankly, obviously the proposed House Order will not stand.
I want to make it clear that we are prepared to deal expeditiously tomorrow with the Canada Pension Bill that affords considerable benefit to a large number of people.


Royce Herbert Frith: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you would ask the House, there would be an agreement to let Bill C-l 11 stand and have 30 minutes of debate to get Bill C-l 16 out of the way. We have agreed that there would be one speaker from each Party and the Canada Pension Plan legislation could pass this evening. I would ask that all Members of the House respect that suggestion.


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I am asked to seek consent of the House that debate on Bill C-l 11 be adjourned now.


Ian Deans: No.


An Hon. Member:: Why, Ian?


Ian Deans: I will tell you why, if you want to know.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) refuses consent.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that consent. We have devoted a great deal of time this evening to debate. Through no fault of our own, members of his Party took inordinately long periods of time to speak about matters not related to the legislation that was here before us. They used the time; not us. I can only assume that they are not willing to attempt to live up to an informal understanding worked out on the floor of the House. I cannot be party to that.
Customs Tariff
We will pass both Bill C-l 11 and Bill C-l 16 before the House rises. We will do it in the normal time.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The whole premise has been that the Chair has been asked to seek consent. There being no consent-


Marcel Prud'homme: You may find consent.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very clear to the Chair that there is no consent.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, if there is no consent, I want to make a point of order. I take exception to the remarks of the NDP House Leader because I was in the House tonight. While the Hon. Member was out of the House, one of his colleagues from Winnipeg took 20 minutes to speak on a Bill and he was not supposed to speak on the Bill. If you want to be fair, be fair to everyone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the appropriate course of action at this point is to resume debate. The Hon. Member for Laurier.


David Berger: As I was saying a while ago, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to deal with these duties which the Government has imposed on computer parts and some microprocessors. It is clear, from everything that has been said by Canadian industry representatives, that Canada is punishing itself.

The reaction of the Canadian Advanced Technology Association, as expressed by its President, Mr. Woodbridge, in front of a committee of this House, was clear and unequivocal. No one in the industry was consulted by the Government prior to the imposition of this tariff which was supposed to have been a retaliatory measure by the Government to strike back at the Americans following their imposition of a tariff on shakes and shingles.
However, when striking back at another country, it would be helpful to aim the gun first. If the Government would follow that simple rule-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 26, 1986